Wednesday, December 01, 2004

Laura Rozen reports that the Pentagon Disinformation office, supposedly disbanded, lives on:

Here is my favorite part:

According to several Pentagon officials, the strategic communications programs at the Defense Department are being coordinated by the office of the undersecretary of Defense for policy, Douglas J. Feith.
Sweet. Give the worst screwups in the Government another important task, and drive Colin Powell out on a rail. Of course, today we recieved the news that Feith and his cracker jack team will be reupped for the new term. Mmmmm.....

"Mr. President, this is Alice, she's visiting from the other side of the looking-glass. She's intrigued by our strange upside down world. What's that? Off with her head? Right away sir!"

Insert the vengeful, apocalyptic wrath of the space-God Jehovah-1 here. Please.

Monday, November 22, 2004

Fun in Florida...

So Kevin Drum discusses some recent voter fraud studies:

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you were going to commit Fraud and then try to keep it under the radar, would you not focus on GOP leaning counties where a rise in the vote count would look more plausible?

Just asking....

Insert the vengeful, apocalyptic wrath of the space-God Jehovah-1 here.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Is There Anyone Here Paying Attention?

Here's a gruesome story that appears to be a classic case of a badly-executed home-remedy abortion. From the original reporting done by a local television station in Michigan:

Two teens may face charges after they allegedly used a baseball bat in an attempt to abort a fetus, according to Local 4 reports.

Police said a 16-year-old girl became pregnant and had a miscarriage in October at her home in the northern Macomb County town of Armada.

After an investigation, Michigan State Police determined that prior to the miscarriage, the girl and a 16-year-old boy -- the father of the unborn child -- may have attempted to abort the fetus.

"Without getting graphic, it involved a baseball bat and at some point the child was miscarried and that brings us to where we're at now," said Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith.

Smith said the male youth would hit the pregnant teen in the abdomen with a decorative-type wooden baseball bat every other day for three weeks.

"The length at which these two 16-year-olds went to abort this unborn child is just disturbing," said Smith.

[and it just gets more disturbing from there...]

First some background data:

Now have a look at the discussion they're having about this story in this thread over at everyone's favorite proto-fascism transmitter site, FreeRepublic.Com. If you can't bear to click through— and hey, I can't blame you— then here are some of the more choice quotes (found between all the confusion about the punctuation in the headline and the rending of garments about how they are disgusted and horrified beyond the capacity for reasonable comment):

I thought that the argument for abortion and against parental notification was to prevent stuff like this? Dems will probably say the teens couldn't afford an abortion and this will be another argument for government funded abortion, (no mention of abstinence).

9 posted on 11/16/2004 8:10:45 PM PST by JanetteS (My heart is as light as a song!)

And you just KNOW the liberals will use this as evidence that these sickos didn't have enough access to abortion clinics!

13 posted on 11/16/2004 8:11:17 PM PST by smcmike

This is what democrat leadership defense and promotion of abortion on demand has come to. Lay the blame squarely where it belongs (with the youths) but reserve a portion of the outrage for the promoters who use this to empower their disgusting selves.

16 posted on 11/16/2004 8:11:41 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)

Disgusting. But how is it reasonable for the state to intervene in a woman's choice? Is it that she chose to murder her baby slowly rather than slicing it apart? Is it that the state failed to receive its share of tax money it might have otherwise received from an "authorized" abortion?

How is it there is such revulsion to what these kids did as opposed to the same procedure being performed by a "doctor' when he conducts the left's crucial sacrament?

17 posted on 11/16/2004 8:12:08 PM PST by Sgt_Schultze

She should have sat on a fire hydrant, perched her boyfriend on her lap,
had him reach down and turn the wrench, and they would have accomplished their goal...
AND launched themselves into space, ridding the rest of us of two sick people all in one stroke!

35 posted on 11/16/2004 8:18:24 PM PST by 45semi (Man has only those rights he can defend...)

Too bad abortion did not apply to these losers. I wish there was retroactive abortion for scum like them.

36 posted on 11/16/2004 8:18:43 PM PST by Ptarmigan (Proud rabbit hater and killer)

Both teens ought to be sterilized. They should never be given the chance to mistreat another child. We are raising animals, not human beings, and I shudder to think of growing old in such a godless society.

49 posted on 11/16/2004 8:26:58 PM PST by kittymyrib

Both teens ought to be sterilized.

The 16 year old male should at least be under some supervision for the rest of his life. If he's so willing to go after his girlfriend with bat...honestly the whole thing is just too appalling and complicated to think about.

The thought that these two people will someday be parents is horrifying.

59 posted on 11/16/2004 8:33:00 PM PST by JanetteS (My heart is as light as a song!)

Abortions are free and easy to get. What were these two thinking?

64 posted on 11/16/2004 8:37:06 PM PST by ladyinred (Congratulations President Bush! Four more years!)

"Both teens ought to be sterilized."

That's just another form of birth control, it's all evil, whether you get yourself 'fixed' like a cat or pay for the 'family planning' pills and devices.

68 posted on 11/16/2004 8:42:06 PM PST by TheCrusader ("the frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" - Pope Urban II, 1097 A.D.)

Are you beginning to understand just how long a row we have to hoe here?

I mentioned to someone in my family the other night that this whole episode about not confirming Arlen Specter to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee is basically a fight over whether and how soon to get a change in the U.S. Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade, the decision that found a constitutional right to abortion.

She looked at me like I was joking. She's known for some time that the Republicans favor a lot of policies she doesn't like, but it was not easy convincing her that they really, really DO want to make abortions illegal everywhere in the United States, and the reëlection of George W Bush has pretty much sealed the deal on that issue.

It was clear she didn't believe me that such a change in the court would also result in the eventual revisitation of Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision that struck down laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception. After reading the discussion above, I'm thinking: maybe I didn't go far enough— because it sure seems to me that our neighbors in RedState™ America are pretty enthusiastic about the idea of overturning Skinner v. Oklahoma, the decision that outlawed compulsory sterilization as a punishment for a crime.

Nobody wants to believe the Radical Right is really ready to do what they say they want to do. But, as you can see from the background information I provided above, we've already made abortion in much of the country more unsafe, more common, more difficult to obtain, and more difficult to afford than any time since Roe v. Wade. It's such a small step from here to a Supreme Court reversal and an outright Federal law against it. It'll happen. It's only a matter of time, ladies— time to get your War on and stand up for your rights— because it ought to be obvious by now that they won't stop with just banning abortion.

When you wake up a few years from now and you or your daughter have been sterilized because the government doesn't think you or she will ever make a good parent, I don't want to hear any whining from anybody that Nobody Told You It Could Happen. This is how it happens. Stop living in denial.

Sunday, November 14, 2004

When Computer Security Experts Attack...

One of my heroes, Bruce Schneier, a computer security expert and CTO of Counterpane Systems, and the editor of the excellent Crypto-Gram Newsletter, has lobbed another grenade downrange on the subject of The Problem With Electronic Voting Systems.

It should not surprise you that his recommendations are basically the same ones I've been blasting out for the last two years. Quoting from his concluding paragraphs (emphasis mine):

1. DRE [direct record electronic, e.g. touch-screen] machines must have a voter-verifiable paper audit trail (sometimes called a voter-verified paper ballot). This is a paper ballot printed out by the voting machine, which the voter is allowed to look at and verify. He doesn’t take it home with him. Either he looks at it on the machine behind a glass screen, or he takes the paper and puts it into a ballot box. The point of this is twofold. One, it allows the voter to confirm that his vote was recorded in the manner he intended. And two, it provides the mechanism for a recount if there are problems with the machine.

2. Software used on DRE machines must be open to public scrutiny. This also has two functions. One, it allows any interested party to examine the software and find bugs, which can then be corrected. This public analysis improves security. And two, it increases public confidence in the voting process. If the software is public, no one can insinuate that the voting system has unfairness built into the code. (Companies that make these machines regularly argue that they need to keep their software secret for security reasons. Don’t believe them. In this instance, secrecy has nothing to do with security.)

Lost in much of the ongoing kerfuffle about voting irregularities and exit poll discrepancies is that second point above. Schneier does a pretty good job of explaining in short easy words why people like me keep hammering on the fact that all these election computers are running proprietary trade-secret code. A lot of my liberal friends don't get why this is so important, and it drives me into shrill, unholy madness when they respond to this concern with a sense of total ambivalence about it.

The fact is the second requirement is even more important than the first. Without public analysis of the source code, any public confidence placed in the integrity of the voting process is completely and utterly false confidence. Why, oh why, is this such a hard concept for my liberal friends to comprehend? If liberals were in control of all three branches of federal government and a majority of the state governments as well, you better believe the conservatives would be shouting about this from the rooftops. It wouldn't be just a few lone computer security experts.

UPDATE 2004-11-17: I have still not heard a word of comment from any of my liberal friends about why they are not very exercised about the proprietary trade-secret source code problem. Some of them are starting to get it about the voter-verified paper ballots— but the source code thing is going completely over their heads.

I am now in the depths of another bout of shrill, unholy madness.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Well, that didn't take long did it...

It would appear that this chase is hotly followed, friends!

It would appear that the Conservative hivebrain has finally decided to peel off the thin human veneer and finally make common cause with the wingnut faction of the movement!

This from Human Events:

For many decades, conservative citizens and like-minded political leaders (starting with President Calvin Coolidge) have been denigrated by the vilest of lies and characterizations from hordes of liberals who now won't even admit that they are liberals--because the word connotes such moral stink and political silliness. As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization's core decency and traditions.

Defamation, never envisioned by our Founding Fathers as being protected by the First Amendment, flourishes and passes today for acceptable political discourse. Movies, magazines, newspapers, radio/TV programs, plays, concerts, public schools, colleges, and most other public vehicles openly traffic in slander and libel. Hollywood salivated over the idea of placing another golden Oscar into Michael Moore'sfat hands, for his Fahrenheit 9/11 jeremiad, the most bogus, deceitful film documentary since Herr Hitler and Herr Goebbels gave propaganda a bad name.

When they tire of showering conservative victims with ideological mud, liberals promote the only other subjects with which they feel conversationally comfortable: Obscenity and sexual perversion. It's as if the genes of liberals have rendered them immune to all forms of filth.

As a final insult, liberal lawyers and judges have become locusts of the Left, conspiring to destroy democracy itself by excreting statutes and courtroom tactics that fertilize electoral fraud and sprout fields of vandals who will cast undeserved and copious ballots on Election Day.

The truth is, America is not just broken--it is becoming irreparable. If you believe that recent years of uncivil behavior are burdensome, imagine the likelihood of a future in which all bizarre acts are the norm, and a government-booted foot stands permanently on your face.

That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart--not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter. Here is how to do it.

Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added at the republic's inception, the U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree. Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell.

The thing is... I would not normally glitch at something like this if I had seen it on Liitle Green Shitheads or one of the other neo-facist blogs spewing electrons over the bandwidth...

But coming from Human Events, (even half joking, as they claim to be) this represents a shift in the overall approach of the conservatives in power. They are in essence starting a drumbeat for the disenfranchisement and expatriation of those who are not on board with our Glorious Maximum Leader.

Human Events is one of those publications that delineate propaganda from policy and is one of the semi-official house organs of the conservative hive brain. That is why seeing something like this article in the pages of that rag make me more than a little concerned.

We have been living with the eliminationist rhetoric for four years, and we have been pondering the powers given to the administration in declaring people enemies of the state! And now, the intellectual elite -- or what passes for an intellectual elite in conservative circles these days -- have started the official push to purge the undesirables from their midst, even as their rhetoric accuses their enemies of the same thing...

The point of this distended diatribe, is that even as recriminations are starting, and are even possibly appropriate, there is something to be said for the fact that we will only be doing their job for them, or at least making it easier, if we eat ourselves in a fit of pique! I am reminded of the words of Ben Franklin, who told his feuding colleagues "we must all hang together, or we will all surely hang apart!"

mojo sends

Paging the Anti-War Voter...

The Doctor in his post below attempts to determine the impact of the voter whose primary motivation was the war in Iraq. I remain, so far, unconvinced of his conclusion that failure to motivate the antiwar voter specifically cost him the election, if I am paraphrasing his view correctly. Here are my doubts for consideration:

  • Suppose Kerry adopts an "Anti-war" stance, which presumably would mean that he states unequivacally the war is wrong and some kind of withdrawal timetable will be a priority. Does he lose any other voter? The answer is likely yes. It seems to me in order to argue that his alleged failure to motivate the antiwar vote by taking a position that would energize them more cost him the election, you must assume all other things being equal. But they are not. As strictly a matter of political calculus, every position you take firmly alienates a bloc of voters of various sizes. I think you can credibly argue that an antiwar stance could have cost him more votes than he would have gained. That is not a value judgement of whether the stance is right or wrong, but it certainly could have, and likely would have cost him votes, particularly in the BG states where perhaps the antiwar vote was not nearly as strong as Ca.

  • If I understand the major premiss here, turnout of potential Kerry voters was depressed by his stance on the war. Yet voter turnout was the highest in 36 years. Since, well, the height of the Vietnam War. You are analyzing voter data of people who actually voted. How do we know who stayed home based on data of who actually voted? I would argue that to make this argument more credible, we need to build a more complete profile of this voter, based on gender, income level and what they consider their values (I'm really trying not to abuse this word, I'm open to suggestions.) And then determine if that voter failed to show up. In light of the high voter turnout, I am sceptical

I think the Doctor is right on the money though, that Kerry's better manager argument, and the general incoherence on the war on Iraq and incoherence on his candidacy in general cost him the election. The Kerry campaign seemed to regard the war in Iraq as wrong, but was afraid to admit it in fear of alienating the more conservative (seemingly) voters in the BG states. I don't believe the data makes the case that a bloc of dispirited anti-war voters were the culprits. Rather, I think the crucial blocs were married women, voters in the middle of the income range, and voters whose economic interests are clearly threatened by the gruesome policies of the GOP. I doubt that those are antiwar voters, in the way I think you mean them. Rather, they are voters who had doubts about the President in general, but lacked a convincing reason to vote for John Kerry, or Democrats in general. Those convincing reasons exist, but they have been exiled to the lands of Academia and lefty policy wonkage because hyper-cyncial consultants and party bag men beholden to big money donors have exiled them there, and condemned the rest of us to perdition.

I have not seen really any fingers pointed at antiwar voters or hardcore liberals as the cause of Kerry's defeat. Rather, I am getting the sense that DNC leadership instead is being handed the bag. Hopefully they are a mere few months away from the guilliotine.

It is my contention that we got the turnout we needed. We had enough "energy". The Democratic base, and the most liberal section of voters turned out for Kerry in an inspiring act of faith and unity. We failed on message, a coherent narrative that gives undecided and/or flexible voters a sense of what you believe and what you will do if you get their trust. I examined Senator Kerry's record, and was and still am convinced that he was a capable, decent and intelligent man who was likely to grasp the extent of the desperate failure Iraq is, the betrayal of American values it represents, and the grievous threat its continuing chaos poses to the nation. Yet he and the party failed to convince other voters of that , some of whom were disposed to give him the benefit of the doubt, and those voters were looking for a more general and comprehensive reason to vote for him, beyond policy proposals or arguments that he could run the trains on time.

Monday, November 08, 2004

Did The Antiwar Vote Matter?

In my first post after the early election results were mostly counted, I lashed out with this bit of poison:

[...] Still feeling happy about alienating the anti-war voter? I thought so. [...]

...and, ever the faithful Democratic partisan, our own Sean pushed back with this:

Anti-war voter showed up at the polls, James. At least as far as I can tell. [...]

Well, now there are more exit poll numbers, conveniently collected into readily analyzable form. And guess what? It looks to me like the antiwar voter was not very well energized this election. She probably voted for Kerry, if she bothered to vote. But there's little evidence that she worked very hard at all to get other people out to vote.

That's completely consistent with my observations: the antiwar voter was deeply turned off by Kerry's answer to the "if I had known then when I know now" question, and I think it mattered that a lot of them weren't talking his campaign up when they talked to their friends. Most of us held our nose and voted for him anyway, but a lot more of us would have been highly motivated to help get out the antiwar vote if there had been a real antiwar candidate.

What are the exit poll numbers that make me think this is true? Percentage of voters whose most important issue was Iraq: 15%. Of those, a quarter voted for Bush, and I suppose very few of them were "antiwar" voters. (Hard to imagine that many antiwar voters were willing to believe like I did that Bush might be quicker to make a unilateral withdrawal than Kerry.) The rest, I assume, are the serious antiwar voters, whom I said were alienated by the Kerry position on the IraqWar™. So, that means the antiwar vote was probably somewhere between 10 to 12 percent of the turnout.

That's just not very big. At the height of popularity for the IraqWar™, polls were showing antiwar sentiment running at about 15%. In this election campaign that number could not have fallen much, and I would have expected heavier turnout among antiwar voters, not lighter. I think a larger turnout for Kerry would have been possible his campaign had taken an objectively antiwar stance on Iraq. They didn't, and I think they paid for it at the polls. And yes, I think the antiwar voter is paying along with all the rest of us on the losing side— but the difference is: the antiwar voter had already resigned herself to being on the losing side of the argument, no matter who won the election.

Worse, let's look at how well the "I will be better at waging the war in Iraq" message actually played for Kerry. First off, about 45% of the turnout said they thought the IraqWar™ was going well for the U.S.— and these people voted Bush at like 9 to 1 ratios. This means the Kerry message was aimed at only 55% of the turnout. How well did he do with those people? Well, 33% thought the war was going very badly, and they voted like 9 to 1 for Kerry. I bet almost all of these people would have still voted for Kerry if he had embraced an antiwar position on Iraq. The other 20% who thought the war was only going "somewhat badly" went for Kerry by only a 2 to 1 margin— but 36% of them went for Bush. So that's like, if my arithmetic is good, about 7% of the turnout who said, "Yeah, the war is going badly, but I think Bush is the better choice overall." The remaining 13% of the turnout said, "Okay, the war isn't going so well," and "Yeah, Kerry is the man." Many of these people were not voting on Iraq as their primary issue— which you can tell because they only went Kerry by 2 to 1, where the Iraq issue voters went for Kerry by 3 to 1. Probably most of them were not Iraq issue voters. Kerry's pathetic attempt to reach these people by telling them that his Vietnam experience made him a better CIC was a doomed effort from the get-go if you ask me, and the exit polls confirm it.

So, yeah— I think the antiwar voter mostly showed up at the polls and voted Kerry. But the exit polls do not show the highly energized and motivated antiwar vote that it would be reasonable to expect. And they also do not show that Kerry shaved off any significant percentage with his "I'm a better manager" message. The Kerry campaign alienated the antiwar vote, and it cost them more than it bought them at the polls. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

(No, I don't expect the D's to learn a valuable lesson here. I expect them to seek out and destroy the antiwar faction within the party, and blame them for their loss in the 2004 elections.)

UPDATE: In a post above, Sean says...
... I remain, so far, unconvinced of his conclusion that failure to motivate the antiwar voter specifically cost him the election, if I am paraphrasing his view correctly. ...

My conclusion is actually a little bit more nuanced, and I'm sorry I didn't convey it more clearly.

I conclude that one of the factors that could have made the difference was the alienation of the antiwar voter. I contend that if Kerry had been a real antiwar candidate, then he would have won. That is not to say that he lost for no other reason than this.

Sean spends a few column-inches whacking on Kerry and the Democratic Party "bag men" for not producing a coherent message, but he isn't really saying how the CoherentMessage™ he would have preferred would have been more successful than the one that was actually sent.

He and I are probably not going to see eye-to-eye about what the exit poll numbers show about antiwar motivation at the polls this last election without me delving even further into numbers wonkery. I shall resist the temptation.

Well, you can just ROCK ME right to sleep!

Our favorite economist, Comrade Max Sawicky, has been watching zombie movies again. Why am I unnerved by an economist who likes zombie movies?

He throws this little grenade over the wall, just for grins.

The inevitable post-election analogy: we're trapped in a shopping mall, not starving. There is recreation but in a confined setting. Nobody can really relax. Can't stay and can't leave. Outside, they gather.

...and there isn't enough ammunition for all of them.
Want to know a key distinction between Blue and Red States? From Daniel Gross at Slate:

In decades past, increasing Republican dominance of the House and Senate would have meant more fiscal discipline. But Republicans increasingly dominate the states that are net drains on Federal taxes—the Southern and Great Plains states—while fading in the coastal states that produce a disproportionate share of federal revenue. (It's Republicans, not Democrats, who are sucking on the federal teat.) What Amity Shlaes quaintly identified in today's Financial Times as the "southern culture of tax cutting" has been married to the southern culture of failing to generate wealth and the southern culture of depending on federal largesse. The offspring is an unsightly deficit monster..
"Southern Culture of failing to generate wealth" can be translated as "Fiscal Morons fail to invest enough capital in Public Infrastructure to attract investment or educate enough of the locals to innovate". Mississipi is a classic example. Behind in almost every economic indicator? The worst schools in the nation? Don't raise taxes to invest. Just erode the public infrastructure by deferrment and keep the schools at the bottom. Now they've exported that can do spirit to Washington! Boo YA!

Think about this Red State. The President and his anti-abortion whack jobs have for all practical purposes ended Federal investment in stem cells. Normally, a promising technology in a growth sector like BioTech would end up largely in the districts of the majority, in this case, Red States. But since Uncle Sam has gone hillbilly, States have to put up the capital themselves. A Blue state like CA, or New Jersey, can do that. So when CA drops 3 billion on Stem Cell Research, that means it will have no competition with Federal Gov supported research in Austin, or N.C. ,or Atlanta. Ca will be able to brain drain the rest of the country of all the best and the brightest and if the gamble pays off, startups and venture capital follow. High paying jobs in the nations most promising growth sector. I hope that moraly purel low tax fiscal plan of the GOP pays off suckers. NOT! Thanks for the virtual Monopoly on a new technology.

Jeebus! Are you people even walking upright? If you don't invest, you don't stay productive against your competitors and you sink like a rock to the bottom of a very slimy pond. Racing to the bottom to try to compete with low wage labor in the Pacific Rim only means you will hit the bottom harder, chimps. You break the poverty cycle by improving productivity, Remember? Did that skip that in Bible Study at Oliver Cranks reformed church of the sexually repressive Armageddon Church? Yeah..thought so...

Red state pukes...
Insert the vengeful, apocalyptic wrath of the space-God Jehovah-1 here.

For the love of the Unnamed Mover...

To continue on with the theme of s9's previous post, does Kevin, (and Professor Kleiman, who I normally have enormous respect for) really believe this kakaa about liberal hectoring? Guys, it's a key ingredient of the right wing kool-aid. Creating a sense of victimization among fundi-christians is a core component of the movement. It is completely manufactured. Political constituencies "hector" fella's, it's how you get your point across.

Is the gay bashing and abortion rhetoric of the right NOT hectoring? They want to impose a multi-trillion dollar debt on me and my kid, do I get to "hector" about that? The Administration wants to poison my water and air, do I get to disturb the meth-amp bender of Mr. and Mrs. Red State about that? Cthulhu forbid I should disturb the reality show induced trance of flyover America while their cherished moral leadership in the White House puts me and the rest of Blue State America at risk because of their demented national security policies.

You know what, I'll stop being contemptuous of flyover America's religious and secular hillbillies when they stop acting like freakin hillbillies. I don't want their flippin vote. I want to frame our values to get the voters who are at least trying not to be shmucks, there really is enough of them to make a difference. The others won't EVER vote for a candidate you can stomach. Kevin is indulging in the classic liberal blame ourselves game. I don't blame liberals or liberalism, I blame the christian facism that has usurped the faith of my youth and replaced it with a theology of hatred and fear. I blame the intellectual elite on the right that colloborates with these assholes to pimp their 19th century capitalism of greed. And I blame ma and pa red state for eating it up. We're right, they are facist scum. It really is that easy. Kevin and Prof Kleiman, stop the mea culpas and pick back your rhetorical juevos. We need every bayonet.

Jesus! sack up!...

Insert the vengeful, apocalyptic wrath of the space-God Jehovah-1 here.

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Pin A Medal On That One

Adam Felber. He's our boy.


Healing? We, the people at risk from terrorists, the people who subsidize you, the people who speak in glowing and respectful terms about the heartland of America while that heartland insults and excoriates us... we wanted some healing. We spoke loud and clear. And you refused to give it to us, largely because of your high moral values. You knew better: America doesn't need its allies, doesn't need to share the burden, doesn't need to unite the world, doesn't need to provide for its future. Hell no. Not when it's got a human shield of pointy-headed, atheistic, unconfrontational breadwinners who are willing to pay the bills and play nice in the vain hope of winning a vote that we can never have. Because we're "morally inferior," I suppose, we are supposed to respect your values while you insult ours. And the big joke here is that for 20 years, we've done just that.


What he said. (The whole thing is pretty good, so click through the link and give him some love.)

Friday, November 05, 2004

Kevin Drum Is A Capitulationist Appeaser!

Here he goes explaining to us how RedStateAmerica™ needs to be coddled into thinking we liberals aren't so bad once you get to know us. We can be really quite friendly and sensible, if you give us a chance.

[...] And the best part is that it doesn't infringe on our core values at all. We don't all have to start quoting scripture, we just have to dial down the mockery a notch. Why give the Republicans bulletin board material, after all? [...]

"Oh please, Mr. RedState Honkey-Trek Torture-and-Atrocity-Apologist, PLEASE don't resent it when we here at MojoWire call you out for harboring, approving and probably engaging in the wretched, feculent rough-trade of pseudo-fascism. And we must absolutely dial back on the mockery setting, now mustn't we? Unilateral disarmament is such a winning strategy when the conflict is a political one."

Fsck you, Kevin— fsck you twice, and you're welcome to do it both times with the LandDominator™ you drive.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

How To Begin The Healing...

Over at RedState.Org, they're showing us all how the GOP plans to spend all that political capital they earned from that blowout landslide rallying-of-the-American-people behind le nouveau ancien régime.

For those of you who are outraged at Sen. Arlen Specter's latest outburst, which insults conservatives and questions the President's right to appoint Supreme Court justices as he sees fit, there is good news: the word on the hill is that there is a realistic possibility that Specter's presumed chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee could actually be stopped.

It can be done. But you must stab deep if you would kill a king...

The "stab deep" thing is a reference to an earlier related post with the delightful subject line Unsheathing The Long Knives.

PLUS: Here's the Policy Director of the Democratic Leadership Council explaining to the class that "It's time, finally, for Democrats to understand that we have to walk and chew gum at the same time." Would somebody PLEASE thank this guy for the help and cut him a severance check already?

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Clicks and hisses

Kos is heading in the direction I want us to go:

It wasn't the war or the economy that killed us. It was the notion of "values". Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, yet Kerry was bad because he had "Massachusetts values" or other such nonesense. We need to retake the language. We need to reframe the notion of "value". That's why Obama's speech below is so brilliant. He speaks of God in a way that not just fails to offend this atheist, but inspires me. It's faith used for the purpose of living a good life, rather than faith wielded as a weapon against a whole class of people. The wedges: gays, abortion, and guns. Democrats have abandoned guns as an issue, and over the next three or four cycles it will prove an increasingly ineffective wedge. The NRA won. Good for them. That leaves the two "faith based" wedges -- gays and abortion. And with great skill, the Republicans have equated those two issues with the word "value". That's going to have to change.

Insert the vengeful, apocalyptic wrath of the space-God Jehovah-1 here.

UPDATE from S9: I adjusted the formatting of this post. It sure would be nice if Sean learned to use the tools properly...
Anti-war voter showed up at the polls, James. At least as far as I can tell. And he contributed, and walked precints and called fat red state nascar assholes on the phone to get them to vote their own interests. C+ Augustus turned them out in droves. The Kerry campaingn did not suffer from lack of funding, manpower, or energy on the part of its supporters.
This was not about the antiwar voter. God knows that voter shouldn't get any of the blame.

A coherent message why the War a) is a failure b)why withdrawal sooner rather than later is a better choice to protect the nation c)The present residents in the monkey cage are dangerously stupid and incomptentent and cannot be trusted with anything, seemed to be made by a host of people and sources, at times by John Kerry. But neither you nor I speak redstate very well. Neither does John Kerry. Which is one of the things I liked about him.

What 50+% voters wanted was not reasons why the war sucked or why to leave it like a burned out Chevy by the side of the road. They wanted to hear something else. And that is the dilemna we need to solve.

Votes being sucked into the blackbox hole of Shub-Niggurth I can get my head around. I WANT to believe that is the reason I see the results I do. It's proof we need..and yeah, I will contribute to the folks at Blackbox .

Insert the vengeful, apocalyptic wrath of the space-God Jehovah-1 here.

The Fuses Have Been Lit

Alright people... This Is The Day... This Is The Hour... This Is This! And The Fuses Have Been Lit!

BREAKING NEWS: The nice people at Black Box Voting need real dollars if they want to make headway with their FOIA requests for the audit logs on the electronic voting counting systems. This isn't something else, this is this. Now is not the time to clutch your head like a stunned monkey and pray for divine intervention to stop the hurting. Now is the time to send lawyers, guns and money.

Let The Recriminations Begin!

Yeah, the Electoral College is technically still in play, but the popular vote looks pretty seriously in the tank for Maximum Leader. Longtime readers will recall that I have always been a fierce opponent of the Electoral College— so, as far as I'm concerned, the vote count that matters the most has already called a winner: George W Bush. If the upcoming festival of recounts and litigation manages to flip Bush out of the White House, then I will be 1) very surprised; 2) still a fierce opponent of the Electoral College; and 3) vastly amused by the sudden GOP concern about the meaning of the popular vote.

Say what you want about the Electoral College— the Democrats have lost the popular vote. Let the recriminations begin!

UPDATE: Okay, the wires are reporting Kerry has conceded. (And look— all those overseas military ballots are still uncounted! I wonder who would have had the edge there?) So. Now. Democrats: your bandwagon looks pretty damned busted. I won't say I told you so— even though, I fscking told you so— okay, forget that. I will say it. So. Democrats: what are you going to do now? Try to get the Senate back? The House? The White House in 2008? It must be a dark, dark day for you people. Still feeling happy about alienating the anti-war voter? I thought so. And yeah— save your cries of Greenshirt! because I voted your guy, even if I hated his war policy. But I could have worked harder for him, if you hadn't decided to spend all your money trying to swing the pinhead vote— voters who ultimately were swayed by the smear tactics of your opponents yesterday.

You people are such roobs. (And don't even get me started on the "black box voting" problem. I have given up hope trying to make that point clear to you.)

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Stand men of the west...

"Stand men of the west...stand, the hour of doom is at hand"
Gandalf the Gray/White

Now is the hour of our salvation? Possibly, the gang over at MyDD the scoop of the morning (pacific time, anyway) with the news that:

Kerry 45 48 42 60 52 51 51 50 58 52 49 57
Bush 55 51 57 40 48 48 47 48 40 43 49 41

And in case that doesn't come out right on the screen, suffice it to say that the normally Republican leaning early exit polling show Kerry wacking Maximum Leader in the BG states...

Keep up the fire, lads; make it hot, pour it into 'em...

mojo sends

Friday, October 22, 2004

John Dean Is One DEPRESSING Bastard

Insert the vengeful, apocalyptic wrath of the space-God Jehovah-1 here.

Good grief, y'all. This is going to be one depressing holiday season. "And the seven dwarves? Well, there's only four alive today. Cinderella— she's working for the CIA." -'Cinderella Undercover', Oingo Boingo

Thursday, October 21, 2004

If the Cardinals lose tonight, then... will be undeniable that God is punishing America for its sin.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Isn't The CIA Supposed To Be Accountable To Congress?

The Congress requested the inspector general of the CIA to investigate intelligence failures prior to September 11, 2001 and also into what has been done since then to remedy the system that produced those failures. Apparently, the Bush Administration is telling the CIA to withhold the IG's report until after the election, because it names names and calls out senior administration officials for responsibility.

Have there really not been any previous incidents when the Congress has asked the CIA to produce a report, the CIA has written the report, then refused to deliver it without having a "national security" explanation for its refusal?

Monday, October 18, 2004

Bush-Cheney 2004 Campaign Comes Out Against Protecting Civil Liberties

Via some threadjacker in an Atrios thread, we find an article in the Bend Bugle.
October 14 - MEDFORD – President Bush taught three Oregon schoolteachers a new lesson in irony – or tragedy – Thursday night when his campaign removed them from a Bush speech and threatened them with arrest simply for wearing t-shirts that said “Protect Our Civil Liberties,” the Democratic Party of Oregon reported.

Of course, the Democratic Party of Oregon might be lying about this incident, because— as we all know too well— the Democrats are a pack of filthy prevaricators. The truth is not in them, you know. So, of course, their press releases can be discounted without even reading them. Without even any supporting evidence, in fact.

(Relax, folks— I'm just practicing for life after Bush-Cheney wins the election, and all of us proud members of the "reality-based community" are either interned in concentration camps for questioning the authority of the ministry of state security, or we find a way to pass ourselves off as Patriotically Correct while we're secretly supporting La Resistance.)

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Predictable... So UTTERLY Predictable...

Right there in front of God and the Committee on Presidential Debates, George W Bush told his biggest whopper yet. With a straight face, he asserted he had never said he wasn't worried about Osama Bin Whatzhisname. "That's what you call an exaggeration," he wheedled.

By all rights, this should give the media all the excuse it needs to replay the clip from the President's press conference earlier this year when he said exactly the words John Kerry quoted him as saying. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over AGAIN!

From March 2003, when somebody asked him about Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda while troops were massed on the Kuwaiti frontier with Iraq poised for invasion:
Well, deep in my heart, I know the man is on the run if he's alive at all.... [H]e's a person who's now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.... So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. [...] I truly am not that concerned about him.

Is that the story today? No. The story is Lynne Cheney complaining about John Kerry answering a question about the issue of homosexuality by referencing Mary Cheney, the Vice President's openly gay daughter.

Fscking whorehoppers. Utterly predictable: fscking whorehoppers. Never forget this fact about the media.

Operation Truth

I just sent some money to the good and brave folks at Operation Truth. You should send money too. And if you have lawyers, they might be good too— because I suspect they're going to need them. They are going to piss off some seriously powerful GOP moneybags with their message.

And you definitely must hear the radio advertisement they did. Quite possibly the best thing ever recorded in any media by Jesse "The Mind" Ventura.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

W Disappears into Black Hole of Shrillness

From a dispatch I shot over to Shrillblog a little while ago...

Oh my God...

Did you see the debate? I believe the President's own treacherous and pathological inability to tell the truth has finally turned inwards and driven him permanently and irretrievably shrill... Like the dog catching its own tail, the President descended into an enternal and damned moebius feedback loop of hysterical lies and shrillness right before our eyes this evening... He positively attained a shrill-singularity, surrounded by an event horizon of mendacity; a point of no return from which not even truth, itself, can escape.

The President gazed into the other side of the void and summarily spun completely out of control in front of the entire nation on prime time TV.

I swear there were times I thought I could see the thought bubble above JK's head saying "do I really have to be here for this, he's doing pretty good all on his own..."

mojo sends

It was a site to see... and the call from the polls, across the board: it's a hat-trick for JK. Now let's just see if he can translate this into a stronger message and consistent campaign for the next couple of weeks... oh please, oh please, oh please...

Evidence of Things Not Seen...

So the latest burning through the blogosphere...with great thanks to Comrade Joshua about the latest outrage belching forth from the Mighty Wurlitzer and its hideous ringmasters Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove.

Instead of trying to steal the election at the 11th hour, they have apparently decided to get a jump on the theft this year with a fairly efficient machine. But apparently, it was too much for some of the pissant footsoldiers to deal with.

Fascinating. Employees of Voters Outreach of America, a GOP-funded voter registration outfit operating in Nevada, say they personally witnessed company employees shredding hundreds or even thousands of Democratic registrations. Now the same company (VOA) is being accused of destroying Democratic registration forms in Oregon.

The head of VOA is Nathan Sproul, a Republican political consultant who used to be the executive director of the Arizona state Republican party. Before that, he was the executive director of the Arizona Christian Coalition.

In gaining access to venues to register voters, he has apparently been claiming that his group is part of America Votes, a voter education and registration groups put together by a consortium of Democrat-leaning groups like the AFL-CIO, Emily's List, the Sierra Club and others.

A quick scan of Nexis shows Sproul's outfit is also operating in West Virginia (see Charleston Gazette, August 20th), where they've already raised some controversy for misleading tactics if not yet for destroying legally valid registrations.

Bottom line, the GOP has no intention of allowing a free and fair election this year. If George Bush wins, there is almost no chance of legitimacy of the vote. This is how things will be from now on.

Then even as the Sinclair family of Republi-vision television stations prepare to squid all over their audiences, Sinclair's CEO was doing a little squiddin' of his own last night. This from the dread pages of the dread Atrios Codex:

Haha. Check out what Sinclair CEO David Smith made his news anchors read after he got arrested.

Hilarious. Here's how news reports described it at the time:

The president of Baltimore-based Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., which owns the local Fox television affiliate, was arrested Tuesday night and charged with committing a perverted sex act in a company-owned Mercedes, city police said.

David Deniston Smith, 45, of the 800 block of Hillstead Drive in Timonium, who also is Sinclair's chief executive, was arrested in an undercover sting at Read and St. Paul streets, a downtown corner frequented by prostitutes, Baltimore police said yesterday.

Smith and Mary DiPaulo, 31, were charged with committing unnatural and perverted sex act. Smith was held overnight at the Central Booking and Intake Center and released on personal recognizance at 2 p.m. yesterday. DiPaulo's bail status was not available.
Officials at the time:

The president of Baltimore-based Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., which owns the local Fox television affiliate, was arrested Tuesday night and charged with committing a perverted sex act in a company-owned Mercedes, city police said.

David Deniston Smith, 45, of the 800 block of Hillstead Drive in Timonium, who also is Sinclair's chief executive, was arrested in an undercover sting at Read and St. Paul streets, a downtown corner frequented by prostitutes, Baltimore police said yesterday.

Smith and Mary DiPaulo, 31, were charged with committing unnatural and perverted sex act. Smith was held overnight at the Central Booking and Intake Center and released on personal recognizance at 2 p.m. yesterday. DiPaulo's bail status was not available.

Officials at WBFF-TV (Fox 45) and Sinclair, one of the fastest-growing broadcasting companies in the nation with 28 television and 34 radio stations, would not comment yesterday. The company had $126 million in sales in the first half of this year.

Police said undercover Officer Gary Bowman, on a prostitution detail, was talking to DiPaulo about 9: 15 p.m. in a car at St. Paul and Read streets. She left the undercover car after telling Bowman that ``she had just seen her regular date driving in the area,'' according to court documents.

Police said DiPaulo ran across the street to a 1992 Mercedes, registered to Sinclair, and got in on the passenger side. Police followed the car onto the Jones Falls Expressway, where they said they witnessed the two engage in oral sex while Smith drove north.

Police said they followed the car back to Read and St. Paul streets, where they arrested Smith and DiPaulo, who lives in the 700 block of Washington Blvd.

You can't make stuff like this up! These are the kind of scumbags we're dealing with. A guy with that much money has to cruise to Mt. Washington, pick up some skank and pay her for a rolling knob shine on the JFX, only to get nailed by Baltimore's finest.

How pathetic is that? Seriously, how weak? BTW... Read Street is more notorious for it's gay prostitutes and cross dressers... one would be more likely to find one of those than a straight female prostitute at the corner of St. Paul and Read... odd he should go there. Is there a little more Mr. Smith would like to tell his audience about his indiscretion?
James Surowiecki writes in The New Yorker about "one of the great rip-offs in American history"— the FCC licenses for local broadcast analog television.

Anybody who is outraged about the issue of Sinclair Broadcasting airing a one-hour propaganda video a week before the Presidential Election probably ought to consider directing some of their ire to the bigger picture.

In fact, the fight over spectrum has little to do with what people watch and a lot to do with what economists call “rent-seeking.” “Rents,” in econo-speak, are the excess profits that monopolists reap in the absence of competition. By endowing local broadcasters with free channels, the government effectively made them little spectrum monopolists, and the one thing we know about monopolies is that they do not disappear of their own volition. The broadcasters, thanks in large part to their monopolies, have enormous lobbying resources, and their control of the airwaves has made local television—and, in particular, local television news—a powerful weapon to wield against politicians who cross them. Politics drives the business, and the business shapes the politics. As for the public interest—does “Desperate Housewives” count?

The good news: we all get the government the majority deserve. The information: the majority deserve the government we're about to get.

Monday, October 11, 2004

"What Are They Going To Do? Send Us To Iraq?"

Yet another excellent find from MaxSpeak, You Listen!

Combs and another Marine boarded a small bus packed mostly with women and children. He walked up the center aisle carrying his M-16 assault rifle, then got off, disgusted.

"We just scared the living [expletive] out of a bunch of people," he said. "That's all we did."

When the Marines returned to their truck, Autin and Kelly began to debate the merits of the American presence in Iraq.

"And, by the way, why are we here?" Autin said.

"I'll tell you why we're here," Kelly replied. "We're here to help these people."

Autin agreed and said he supported the mission.

He added later that it was difficult to wage the battle when American commanders were holding them back.

"We feel they care more about Iraqi civilians than they do American soldiers," he said.

Asked if he was concerned that the Marines would be punished for speaking out, Autin responded: "We don't give a crap. What are they going to do, send us to Iraq?"

We're here to help these people by scaring the living expletive out of them. That's pretty much the best summation of American foreign policy I've seen in years. One day soon, the fatigue will set in, and America's haunted house ride will no longer scare the children like it used to do.

These fine young men are not going to like their country very much when they see what it turns into after that happens.

Saturday, October 09, 2004

There Are Just Too Many Precious Moments To Count Them All

My current favorite underplayed Presidential grammar flub from the 2nd Presidential Candidate Debate of 2004, from W's answer to the question about how he plans to fight the Global War On Terroiristes without resorting to military conscription, where he talks about why the all-volunteer Army is important to something he thinks is called "military transformation":

It also means that we can target things easier and move more quickly, which means we need to be lighter and quicker and more facile and highly trained.

He thinks we need to be "more facile" does he? I remember when I saw him use that word live on television. I remarked at the time to my friends, "I don't think he knows what that word really means."

Here's the definition from Dictionary.Com (emphasis added -ed):

fac·ile     P   Pronunciation Key  (fsl)
Done or achieved with little effort or difficulty; easy. See Synonyms at easy.

Working, acting, or speaking with effortless ease and fluency.

Arrived at without due care, effort, or examination; superficial: proposed a facile solution to a complex problem.

Readily manifested, together with an aura of insincerity and lack of depth: a facile slogan devised by politicians.

Archaic. Pleasingly mild, as in disposition or manner.

And he thinks the military needs to be "more facile"— I love that. That just cracks me up every time I hear it.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Outsourcing Torture

Just go read this article (and its predecessors if you have the time and inclination) at Obsidian Wings and do what must be done.

Insert the vengeful, apocalyptic wrath of the space-God Jehovah-1 here.

Sunday, September 19, 2004

Mojowire for 9.18

Mojowire for 09.18; vol. 2, no. 15

intro with hendrix star spangled banner

J. Good morning, and welcome to The Mojowire, Vol. 2, No.15... I'm Mojo...

S. And I'm Sean, it's Saturday, September 18, 2004, Day 1,251 of the Neocon Captivity, and here's the news for the week gone-by...

J. Brought to you by Mojohaus-fine journalism, afflicting the comfortable since 1988. Now headlines, from Mojohaus:

S. First this morning, we take a look at how horribly history can repeat iteslf, especially when you are lying through your teeth about an illegal and unwinnable war in a far away land, where young American men and women are dying for your delusions of grandeur and phat stax of mad bank.

J.Then this morning we get back a little in JK's record and look at a little heralded action he took for his country in the late '80s, namely exposing the hideous web of lies and deceit that was the bagman operation for international drugs, terror and intelligence operations known as BCCI, Banco Credito y Comercial Internacional.

S. Then Strychnnie is adjusting to life back in zero-g after a week down the well at a conference in Berlin, so in his place, we examine why the current state of polling in the election is not the end of the world for Presidential candidate JK. In fact, it is an object lesson in the old political saw that liars figure and figures lie, and that lie is a serious whopper when it comes to W's lead over JK in the polls.

J. ... So stand by to stand by while we get ready to pull the pin on this thing...

fade in more hendrix star spangled banner for five or six count then back out again

You know, if you had been listening to the President for the last two or three weeks, you would have the mental picture that Iraq is just a few brush strokes from being a Norman Rockwell still-life, kids and adults enjoying wholsesome pasttimes, secure in the place in the grand scheme of Americanism.

And you would also believe that the media that keeps harping on small stuff lie the fwe malcontents that like to play with things that catch fire and occasionally singe a person or two in downtown Bagdad...well, that's to be expected, given that they're savages and all; just takes a little time that's all.

I mean, the President has been saying for the last month: "Freedom is on the march," "we are bringing a new day to Iraq," and "conditions are improving."

Well, if you were to read or hear that our position in Iraq was: "exasperating for anybody looking at this from any vantage point." Or "It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous," who would you attribute it to? Us here at the Wire, other liberal malcontenst, bent on destroying the American way of life, Al Qaeda operatives seeking a propaganda victory, the French?

No... those comments were from senior Republicans in Congress, like Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar of Indiana and Nebraska's GOP apologist Chuck Hagel. They made these public comments last week, once they were in receipt of a classified national intelligence estimate that said the best we can hope for in Iraq is a continuation of the deteriorating security situation with anarchy and blood being the order of the day.

But take heart, the NIE also says that with just a small amont of effort, we can plunge the country into a full-fledged three way civil war with American troops caught in the middle. Yea us!

And here is the best part: this estimate, still considered valid by the intelligence community starting more than a year ago! That's right, in spite of the happy-meal rhetoric coming out of the West Wing about how we are winning the peace in Iraq, the people who are paid to look at these things and tell the President what they see have been telling him we are hosed, the Iraqis are hosed and the prospects for some Pan-Arab fast-food strip mall extending from Haifa to the Indian Ocean are the fevered dreams of delirious 16 year old gamers who mistook Tom Clancy novels for scholarly discourse on Middle Eastern relations.

So let's put it another way: The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Generals of Central Command and their deputies have been lying to us about the nature of the Iraq conflict.

That's right, everytime you see one of the letters to the editor from some "soldier in the field" talking about how the liberal media has been downplaying the success of Americanization of Iraq becuase their praise glands were poisoned as children, they are most likely Psychological Warfare operations aimed at Americans to keep them on board with this doomed enterprise.

You know... it continually sucks being right all the time.

For those old enough to remember, there was a similar thing about 30 some years ago, when then-President Nixon told us we could win the war in Southeast Asia, even though four years worth of intel and analysis, starting with his predecessor L.B.J., told us we were screwed in Vietnam.

That was called the Pentagon Papers; a heroic young DoD analyst named Daniel Ellsberg got a look behind the bright shining lie and decided in his conscience that he could live with himself as a man if he didn't help the truth come out.

The result were articles published by the Washington Post and New York Times detailing the Department of Defense discussion regarding how we couldn't win in Vietnam, but how poltiically important it was to not let the American people know that.

We are in luck. It didn't take years for that information to come out. We have it now, just a year or so after it was formulated. This is the bottom line: The Bush administration and their cronies have known for more than a year that the war was unwinnable, but they have been lying to the American people as the body count has ratched upward in concert with intel predictions.

Let me repeat that so you are sure you understand. A handful of companies are getting bank off of Iraqi oil, even at the cost of young American lives and the administration that put those brave young people in harms' way have known for a year now that the they were dying for an unwinnable cause.

Suffering wonder Bush would rather talk about ditching his Texas Air Naitonal Guard Drills. This makes him and his whole gang look a a gang of criminal war profiteers...which...well... we here at the Wire and loyal Wireheads have pretty much known all along.

But now JK and the untouchables are finally getting into the act on this one, and not a moment too soon, we might add. Seriously, JK, what have you been waiting for here, an engraved invite?

S. Kerry, speaking to thousands of National Guardsmen in Las Vegas two days after Bush addressed the same group, said: "The president stood right here where I am standing and did not even acknowledge that more than 1,000 men and women have lost their lives in Iraq,...He did not tell that you with each passing day, we're seeing more chaos, more violence, indiscriminate killing. He did not tell you that with each passing week, our enemies are getting bolder -- that Pentagon officials report that entire regions of Iraq are now in the hands of terrorists and extremists."

Our Maximum Leader, whom mos Americans for reaons that pass understanding, logic or reason, trust more than Kerry to handle Iraq, babbles incoherently of how the United States is "making progress" stabilizing the political fiction of Iraq and setting the stage for a democratic election in January that promises to be about as legitimate as the 2000 American Presidential Election.

Democrats point out that W rarely, if ever, talks about casualties, the spread of terrorism, kidnappings and beheadings, and the strength of anti-American insurgents in and around Baghdad. Instead, Bush focuses on steady resolve and the broader war on terrorism.

    From the Washington Post last week: "Bush did not mention the intelligence estimate -- first reported Wednesday by the New York Times -- as he made three campaign appearances in Minnesota yesterday. But W again emphasized progress. 'There's a lot of violence in Iraq -- I understand that,' he told a rally in Rochester. 'But Iraq now has a strong prime minister, national council, and national elections are scheduled in January. The world is becoming more free.' "

Let me repeat this if you are only now starting to fire enough synapses to pay attention. The President has been receiving intel for the last 18 months telling him that our occupation in its current incarnation is doomed, but has been selling you a a line of complete and utter radio edit wrapped in a shiny ribbon.

 Sen. Hagel, who could hardly be called a weak-kneed franco-phile appeasement monkey, joined a small, but growing, chorus of GOP voices sounding grave concerns about Iraq, comments that tend to support Kerry's view. "We've got to be honest with ourselves ...The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion we're winning. Right now, we are not winning. Things are getting worse."

Look, even if you agreed with the reasons for the war, the rationale that somehow taking our Saddam Hussein makes us safer from Al Qaeda or the threat of Iraqi Flying Saucer technology, this intelligence estimate tells you that you, and specifically you have been lied to.

Believe me, it's not like the Bush Administration was worried about bringing us on board. As far as they are concerned, we are just as bad as the terrorists themselves. They couldn't care less if a bunch of wild-eyed-long-haired-hippy-liberal-french-loving-appeasement-monkies thought things in Iraq were going okay or not. They knew there was little they were going to say that was going to convince us.

This was aimed at you. That's right, the generic, SUV owning, Republican voting, White-Christian, Suburban homeowner, who supports our President't war against the them-those-they evildoers and those who love them.

You have been lied to, deliberately. Sure, you're mad...that's right, deep clensing breaths, the acknowledgement is the first step in the healing. Believe me, we're Democrats, we know what this feels like. You're in good company. That's right, keep breathing...

Now for the next step... you know that election coming up in a a month and half? Well, I think if you can get your head past the various bits of hyper-partisan radicalness on both sides, the issue still becomes crystal clear, when you think of which one of these guys have been engaged in a massive campaign to decieve you.

You know what to do...

One of the primary issues in the campaign is: who can better prosecute the war against Al Queda and terrorism in general, and ultimately, who can partially or wholly restore that sense of security we enjoyed before 9/11.

The Bush campaign has laid much of its candidacy on making this the central issue of the campaign, avoiding running on their domestic policies and their Crusade in Iraq like the clap. The President enjoys a significant advantage among voters on this issue over Senator Kerry.

Naturally, even a cursory examination of the President's record before and after 9/11 should be advantageous to John Kerry. The 9/11 commission report, the failure to destroy Al Queda in Afghanistan, the ever elusive Osama Bin Laden, all stand as monuments to incompetence of this administration and it's war on terror.

Don't even get us started on the legal chaos that John Ashcroft has created domestically. So if this campaign really is going to revolve on whom is going to deal with the Terror threat, who is better qualified.

When you examine John Kerry's career as a Senator, you discover that he is uniquely qualified to deal with the unique threats posed in today's world, specifically Asymmetric threats like Al Queda and the Proliferation of Nuclear weapons.

Senator Kerry, in the late 80s, demonstrated that he recognized the threat of international terror long before it became vogue in the rubber rooms at AEI and the chickenhawk club of the Neo-Conservatives.

While Paul Wolfwoitz and Richard Perle were still fighting the Cold War, John Kerry picked a fight with the nastiest International criminal organization in the world, and demonstrated that he has the juevos and the game to fight this war and win it.

Let's kick this story of with some a summary from Washington Monthly:

Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.

All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.

By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing.

As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients -- it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.

BCCI was more than just a money-laundering scam for drug cartels. BCCI was the preferred bank and money launderer for dictators seeking to finance the sale and purchase of weapons, including the procurement of the technology and materials to construct nuclear weapons.

BCCI is the most likely suspect in the being the main agent by which Saddam Hussien procured and financed the advanced Nuclear program that was dismantled by UNSCOM inspectors in the early 90's. When Oliver North wanted to launder money from weapons sales to Iran to the Contras, he used BCCI.

In addition to its dangerous and sleazy clientele, BCCI employed a vast army of lobbyists and political figures to protect it from discovery and prosecution by regulatory agencies. Kerry endured an endless barrage of complaints and attacks from members of his own party like Clark Clifford, and sleazy jerks like Orrin Hatch, trying to short circuit his investigation into BCCI.

S. Even Jackie O'Nassis, a friend of Cliffords, called him to beat him about the head for his determination to find out the truth. The list of intelligence figures that did business with BCCI is a who's-who of criminal scum bags, Admiral Bobby Iman, CIA director William Casey, Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, the prime sponsors of the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan.

BCCI maintained a large private security force that has long been suspected in being involved in the deaths of Journalists who came too close BCCI, such as Financial times reporter Anson Ng, who was killed in his hotel room while investigating BCCI.

We could go on about BCCI, but you get the picture. John Kerry and his committee, spent two years against unrelenting pressure and attack to investigate BCCI, ultimately convoking US Attorney Robert Morganthu to investigate and empanel a Grand Jury, that resulted in the unraveling of BCCI's web of protectors in the US and other Western Governments,and resulted in its subsequent shutdown around the world.

By contrast, President Bush gets a briefing entitled "Osama Bin Laden going to attack the United States Domestically" directly from his CIA director, and fails to initiate and significant action to attempt to motivate his Iraq obsessed VP , Defense secretary and National Security Advisor into taking it seriously.

The parallels between BCCI and Al Queda are not by accident. Pieces of BCCI left from its demise were used by Bin Laden to form his network. John Kerry recognized that organizations like BCCI, that operate outside the normal boundaries of nation states, offer unique opportunities for terrorists like Bin Laden or rogue states like Iraq and Pakistan to pose dangerous threats.

John Kerry didn't need to get a memo from CIA to recognize this, he saw it clearly himself. His political courageous investigation into BCCI demonstrates he has the brains and the vision to combat these new threats. He didn't need to see the destruction of the World Trade Center to get it through his thick skull, nor would be rolled by dangerous cranks into attacking states like Iraq unrelated to Al Queda to serve their Metternech fantasies.

If this race is truly about the War on Terror, should we not place our trust on the guy who saw it coming long before it became obvious to everyone? John Kerry has proved he can recognize a threat to the country without the blood of Americans on his hands.

The President and his thugs could not. Not even when they were given a big piece of paper that said "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States" and a bunch of papers behind detailing exactly how they would do it. Not even when FBI agents were jumping up and down in fits of apoplexy over leads that lead them to beleive an imminent attack was in the works.

The choice is clear, so clear even a Right wing shcmuck should be able to see. ...Turn off the Fox News Red States and wake up, your President isn't making you any safer wealthier, or more secure, he is grifting you like a rube at craps table. Roll of the barca loungers and save your country before it's too late... .

In recent weeks, we've seen a dramatic change in the polls of the Presidential Election. From a race that JK was leading nationally by a few points, and leading in many of the Battleground states by a healthy spread, suddenly we see a jump by the President in several polls, particularly the Gallup poll to a nine point spread.

What happened? Did Zell on Earth and the Republican National Monster Movie actually convince undecideds that 4 more years of Darth Cheney was going to keep them safe from the Al Queda Devil Rain?

There are a few things at work here. First, the polling data has been conflicting. The Gallup/CNN/USA today poll, and in fact other News organization polls, have shown a fairly wide spread nationally between the canddiates.

Yet seveal other polling organizations, Zogby, Rasmussen, Arc, among others have the candidates neck and neck within a few percentage points. So what gives. Who are they talking to that the Gallup people are not? Are they making it up?

A few things are at work, but first, we need to have a heart to heart to all the Dems, Kerry supprorters, and those of you who just want George Bush out of the White House.
Don't Panic. Just put down that latte, douse that cigarette and listen up. The Polling data you are hearing is utterly bogus. The Kerry campaign may not be all you may have hoped..but the sky has not falled. Now listen up:

Let 's let the fine gentleman at the left Coaster sum this up for you all:

Why You Should Ignore The Gallup Poll Friday Morning - And Maybe All Of Theirs

This morning we awoke to the startling news that despite a flurry of different polls this week all showing a tied race, the venerable Gallup Poll, as reported widely in the media (USA Today and CNN) today, showed George W. Bush with a huge 55%-42% lead over John Kerry amongst likely voters.

The same Gallup Poll showed an 8-point lead for Bush amongst registered voters (52%-44%). Before you get discouraged by these results, you should be more upset that Gallup gets major media outlets to tout these polls and present a false, disappointing account of the actual state of the race. Why?

Because the Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat. That's right. The Gallup statistics pimps, who have been very courteous to requests, to send their sample breakdowns by party identification for both their likely and registered voter samples they use in these national and I suspect their state polls.

In both polls, Gallup oversamples greatly for the GOP, and undersamples for the Democrats. Worse yet, Gallup just confirmed for me that this is the same sampling methodology they have been using this whole election season, for all their national and state polls.

Gallup says that "This (the breakdown between Reeps and Dems) was not a constant. It can differ slightly between surveys" in response to my latest email. Slightly?

Does that mean that in all of these national and state polls we have seen from Gallup that they have "slightly" varied between 36%-40% GOP and 32%-36% Democrat? We already know from an email from Gallup reported earlier in the week that in their suspicious Wisconsin and Minnesota polls they seemingly oversampled for the GOP and undersampled for the Dems.

For example in Wisconsin, in which they show Bush now with a healthy lead, Gallup used a sample comprised of 38% GOP and 32% Democratic likely voters. In Minnesota where Gallup shows Bush gaining a small lead, their sample reflects a composition of 36% GOP and 34% Democrat likely voters. How realistic is either breakdown in those states on Election Day?

According to John Zogby himself:

"If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000."

So the Democrats have been 39% of the voting populace in both 1996 and 2000, and the GOP has not been higher than 35% in either of those elections. Yet Gallup trumpets a poll that used a sample that shows a GOP bias of 40% amongst likely voters and 38% amongst registered voters, with a Democratic portion of the sample down to levels they haven’t been at since a strong three-way race in 1992?

Folks, unless Karl Rove can discourage the Democratic base into staying home in droves and gets the GOP to come out of the woodwork, there is no way in hell that these or any other Gallup Poll is to be taken seriously.

How likely is it that the Democrats will suffer a seven-point difference against the GOP this November or that the GOP will ever hit 40%?

S. Not very likely.

In fact, considering the level of actualization on the part of Democrats, virtually impossible. And remember, this is a dead heat after John Kerry was savaged by Swift Boat liars for Satan, after a month of endless attack ads in swing states, and an unrelenting attack on him during the RNC where even the dead in the form of Zell MIller were summoned to afflict the living in order to attack John Kerry.

Maybe, just maybe, we have taken a solid shot from the Might Wurlitzer and instead of being on the mat, we are still standing,. If you still have doubts. let's also remembe that Gallup is a GOP donor. Yes that's right, you are sucking down polling data from a GOP supporter. Puts this in whole new light huh?

Look, we agree that the Kerry campaign needs to get of the dime and pick a message and then get a solid lick on the President. What we are suggesting is that the polling data showing the President pulling away is not credible, and that John Kerry has a solid fighting chance.

Don't let the Mighty Wurlitzer work is foul arcane magic on you. YOu can win this one. Just go out there and do it. And memo to JK, get John Edwards off the bench and into the game. Stop trying to fight these guys yourself. And for God's sake get your game face on....

This is a big part of the problem with polling. It is so easily skewed and the results treated like so much gospel, that it really becomes a suspect method for determining what is really go on in the electorate, other than the gauge of moods and a preview of the various marching orders given by the orcs in the West Wing.

There is an old political addage that we here at the Mojowire are often fond of beating each other with when we start looking at numbers too much: "Perception is reality." And at the end of the day, isn't that what polling is all about? The manufacure of consensus?

The Bush people understand this, and this accounts for their inability to open their mouths for the last 72 hours without reciting the Gallup numbers by rote. Then those with the version 1.2 upgrade have the full set of talking points that endlessly bloviate about how the "polls show the President pulling away in the polls as Kerry sinks into the mire."

Sure, if you only poll Republicans, I'm sure you will find a solid Bush lead over Kerry. I would be shocked if it were otherwise. In fact, given the Gallup predeliction for polling Repulicans as opposed to Democrats, I would almost expect a bigger lead than they are currently showing.

The reality of the situation is this: Republicans are going to support Bush and Democrats are going to support Kerry. The nation is so polarized right now that polls are completely inadequate to make anymore of a prediction than that.

Anything else, is simply voodoo. You might as well be reading entrails or the bumps on the head of the neighbor's cat for guidance on any real substantive idea of what the electorate is likely to do.

But that is the real value of polls for the candidates at this stage. Perception is reality and if the perception is that one candidate is starting to pull away from the other candidate, then people will look at that as some sort of reflection of an empirical reality. Beacuse, hey, after all, numbers don't lie, do they?

And the then the circle is complete, and the prophecy fullfills itself as more people rush to jump on the bandwagon. Because, let's face it, no one wants to be on the losers bus. The lonely sound of crickets squeaking away their contempt for a doomed campaign is something that no real politicos want to witness first hand.

Because if you are there when it happens, the *you* are the guy it is happening to...

So polls become a critical part of the industry. They tell people when it's time to bail out of a campaign or when it is time to jump on board. But their utility to the voters in general, no matter what partisan cool-aid you drink, is dubious at best, and downright misleading at worst.

And that's the real crime, because we are absolutely sure (based on our polling) that people stay at home and don't bother voting based on poll results that show their candidate is either a. so far out in front, that they don't have to worry about it or, b. that their candidate is so far behind that their one vote is not going to make a difference.

J. It's 45 days until the election and our patriotic thought for the week is: asking Democrats who they're going to vote for, means the terrorists win, or as John Ashcroft says... “what does the Eye command...”


S. And that's all for this week, tune in again soon for another exciting installment, until, of course, we are declared enemies of the state.

And remember, you can now email the Mojowire at, that's Email, us hippies!

J. And now you can check out the Mojowire online at; you can read the entire archive along with our general ramblings...

This has been the Mojowire, brought to you by Mojohaus...Mojohaus-fine journalism, afflicting the comfortable since 1988, and produced by our super funky fly producer Mike Payne and the Darkling Eclectica, here on KUCI, 88.9...

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Mojowire for 9.11 -- Part I

Mojowire for 09.11; vol. 2, no. 14

J. Good morning, and welcome to The Mojowire, Vol. 2, No.14... I'm Mojo...

S. And I'm Sean, it's Saturday, September 11, 2004, Day 1,247 of the Neocon Captivity, and here's the news for the week gone-by...

J. Brought to you by Mojohaus-fine journalism, afflicting the comfortable since 1988. Now headlines, from Mojohaus:

S. First this morning, we examine the implications of recent administration bloviating on the subject of Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iran and the news is not good, unless you own shares in Haliburton, that is.

J. Next, we take a look at the current whirlwind surrounding the President and his vaporware record of service in the National Guard. Look closely at the particles of political fallout. They may just have "Made in Texas" written on them.

S. Then Strychnine assumes the port of Mars and with fire and sword... oh who are we kidding, he is the economic girly man this morning. Yeah... the girly man with the tripod-mounted, belt-fed, water-cooled, .50 caliber machine gun of truth. Watch the hair, mack!

J. Then this morning we commemorate the 1,000th customer in Rummy's Mesopotamian Death-o-Rama sweepstake spectacular and ask, how in the name of the nine million hells did we get in this ridiculous position and how can we possibly get out again.

S. Finally this morning, we take a moment for a somber and sober reflection on the third anniversary of the start of the War for America, and want to make sure everyone knows what side we are on.

J. ...So stand by to stand by while we get ready to pull the pin on this thing...

In March of this year, our Maximum Leader took the little noticed action of declaring in executive order 12957 a National Emergency regarding the "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iran."

Not much to think about there, these things are generally pretty rote. For instance, an official "state of emergency" has existed with regards to Iran since 1979.

At first glance, the creepy thing about this order is the language that mirrors reasons for the Iraq emergency declration made July 2001, two full months before 9/11. But then you read further, and then something even creepier (at least in retrospect) appears: "the emergency declared by Executive Order 12957 constitutes an emergency separate from that declared on November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170."

This creepiness was injected directly into the brain stem last week when the Los Angeles Times and several other papers across the country carried the Max Boot piece about how the President needs to take off the kid gloves regarding Iran and get them to respect our authoritay! In a sparse 760-word essay, specific references to terrorism or terror groups: six. And he was very careful to evoke the 9/11 frame and tie Iran to that heinous crime.

At first, when I brought this to Mojowire Editorial Board, we generally agreed that this was just more of Max Boot's dark military fantasies, wet dreaming their ways onto the nation's op-ed pages, especially given that they want to change the conversation right now given that much of that hive brain is currently embroiled in an Italian-Iranian-Israeli-Neocon spy scandal.

We also thought that this was possibly something out of the West Wing; an attempt to stir the jingo pot given Dick Cheney's assertion that the next plane that flies into a building will be piloted by John Kerry.

Then I started to look around and I came up with a few more disquieting bits of deja vu. The President and his inner circle talking about "Iranian links to 9/11" -- which the CIA has already openly discredited, or at least cast serious doubt upon, and Iran's unremitting push to get the bomb, as well as other weapons of mass destruction, and of course casting a righteous light on Iran's deplorable Human Rights record.

This stuff is not coming from the Political Office, though, much less the hideous belching pipes of the Mighty Wurlitzer. This is coming out of Doug Feith's little kingdom in the Office of Special Plans. Literally, the first rock we looked under, and we find John Bolton sucking a smoldering chair leg and sounding off on the way of the world; action, now, against Iran. Interdiction, interruption and control.

But through it all the language of the administration has not necessarily been that of regime change. Yet that will apparently be the new policy of the Bush Administration if they manage to falsify another election. The same phrases appearing in speeches by Condi Rice, Bolton, W and in the op-ed pieces of the likes of Boot, the "grave and growing threat," "links to the 9/11 attacks," "can't afford appeasement."

From the Sunday Herald in Britain on July 18: "A US government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that military action would not be overt in changing Iran, but rather that the US would work to stir revolts in the country and hope to topple the current conservative religious leadership. The official said: 'If George Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran.' "

This langauge has been ratcheting up all summer, only now to come full circle. On Monday, the President is going to go the IAEA and ask for a declaration of non-compliance as a step on the way to the U.N. Security Council to get one of those resolutions that he can twist into military intervention.

S. You might be remembered, Wireheads, that about this time last year, the dread Doctor Strychnine dropped a beat down on us all, reminding us why such a war on a conventional scale, like we are fighting in Iraq, is going to be a doomed enterprise right out of the blocks in Iran.

Let's revisit the frightful Dr. momentarily... He pointed out that Iran's military is about 4 times the size of Iraq's, it’s a much larger, richer country that has not been suffering under sanctions and unlike the agreeably flat and mostly water rich Iraq, Iran is a a big giant mountain crag surrounded by a completly arid plane and 2.400 miles of coast.

Yeah... geographically, it's Mordor by the sea.

And as the good doctor also pointed out, it is highly likely that this was the "red team" that handed U.S. military geniuses a public beating out on the town square during the Millenium Challenge War games of 2002.

So why on Earth would these stupid gits pick a fight with these guys now?

Well, for one thing, that question assumes a certain amount of reality in the thinking of the people in OSP. But I think our experience with their strategerie in Iraq has been enough to cure of any delusions regarding Doug Feith's relationship to reality.

Then there's the Israel card. Israel is already conducting operations in Northern Iraq, and the Likudniks currently in power in Tel Aviv would love nothing better than a reason to take out Iran, which backs Hezbollah. We already have the troops ready to stage in theater, and the potential assitance of a newly frocked Iraqi army.

Between the American Israeli Committee for Public Affairs, evangelicals in Department of Defense and a Petroleum industry connected to the White House that would love to see $100 bucks a barrel, regardless of what it would do the economy... yeah, that's a recipe for disaster.

The talk of 9/11 connections to Iran will continue to increase as we get closer to the election, along with Iranian intransigence on nuclear inspection. This will help W get a better handle on the electorate by by scaring them with tales of Iranian death rays mounted on the heads of endangered sharks off the eastern sea board.

In the meantime, the Bolton doctrine being run out of the office of special plans and Doug Feith, the actors are being put in place right now to create an incident that might make military intervention plausible or necessary. At the same time, goading the hardliners to crack down on reformers by continually expressing our support, and making reformers distance themselves more and more from Western engagement.

Then after the election, we start the real march, but make no mistake. This war has already started.

Boy this story just won't die, will it. I mean, I can't remember a story that has continually turned up like this over time. Of course we are referring to the current dust-up over the President's dubious service in the Texas Air National Guard.

A quick primer for those of you who have been asleep at the wheel: In the late 60s, early 70s, Maximum Leader was allegedly a pilot in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron of the Texas Air National Guard. He was allegedly transferred to Alabama so he could work on some scumbag's race baiting campaign, then went to Harvard and was transferred to a unit in Colorado. He specfically unvolunteered himself for Vietnam in his papers and at some point in the 70s had his flight status yanked for not taking a physical.

For years, questions have surrounded whether the Bush family pulled strings to get W placed in a unit that was known as a hide-out/clubhouse for the sons of politically connected or wealthy Texans and if he actually completed or did his service and got a jimmy from the service by way of an honrable discharge.

And the stories circulate and the stories get non-response responses and the stories go away. Now, CBS has culminated four years of work and launched a scud last week during 60 minutes, lead by former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes who specifically and ashamedly said he pulled the strings to get W in the boys club.

And while we're at it, just personally, I think Barnes should be arrested and tossed in prison if he really did do those things. I will take his remorse as a mitigating factor, but I think he should burn just the same.

Then they went to the documentary evidence, a series of papers purporting to show that W's commanding officers were pressured to cut the young Caesar some slack on his lack of committment to make it to his unit's drills. Because, hey, hangovers are hell and besides, who the hell knows where you are going to be when you come out of a week long coke jag.

But this is where we start to get into a little bit of trouble here. You see, there are some fairly intrepid people on the right who almost immediately denounced the documents as forgeries and gave some fairly compelling evidence tied to typography. Evidence that might hold some serious water.

Oddly enough, as of this show, CBS stands by the story and the White House or the Mighty Wurlitzer actually has yet to deny the specific charges leveled by the story.

And the damned beast rolls on.

There are a couple of things in play here. Besides the standard bloviation about chickenhawks which you have heard us beat on like a rented mule, besides the hypocrisy of the Republicans in the character debate and its relation to national security.

These things are pretty well documented and we have gone to some pretty good lengths to castigate the various punks and dirtbags like the Dick Cheneys and Paul Wolfowitzs and Tom Delays who assiduously avoided service to their country, even while pimping immoral and wrongheaded military policies they don't have the spine to stand up and represent for themselves.

So like I said, we've covered that ground.

S. This leaves us with a couple of issues. First and foremost, it simply boggles the mind that the news cycle has been so utterly dominated by this when we have so many more important things we could be talking about.

And yeah, we get the point that the issues of JK's swift boat time and W's inability to show up on the flight line at assembly and the tales they tell 40 years later, are issues of character and that character is a critical issue in our leaders.

But it turns into this ridiculous circle jerk about who did what when and no matter who says what, the star belly sneetches are going to support the star belly sneetch protocol, while the plain belly sneetches are going to represent for the plain belly sneetches position.

So I guess it's a good thing that we don't have a war right now in our time to be talking about, that we don't have 8 million Americans looking for work or that our environment isn't deteriorating due to a lack of leadership and a wholesale auction to landrapists. Because we have so many more important things to talk about like whether CBS is using forged documents.

But that leads to a more fundamental question, raised last week by the Dread Doctor Strychnine. And it was one we asked ourselves as well. There is a distinct possibility that the whole thing was a plant on the part of the Mighty Wurlitzer to derail the national discourse.

Now before you wind up the whole "paranoid nutball" rant, just hear us out. To qualify this, we are not really sure this is the case, but there are some historical precedents, and no S9, not just the Karl Rove history of planting listening devices in his own office just so he could complain to FBI about being bugged.

(no kidding, gang, that really happened in the early 80s)

But consider a few disquieting things. First and foremost, Dan Rather is not a regular 60 minutes guy. How did he get this "exclusive?" Could it be the same way he got the exclusive in 1988 with W's pappy? You remember that, when everyone was bagging on then V.P. Bush about being a wimp and a limp-wristed eastern effete snob, he goes on with Dan Rather, who lobs a couple reasonably tough questions and Bush then takes him out for a walk. Poll numbers skyrocket, toughness confirmed and his political team all but take credit for setting up Rather.

And now we are learning that CBS never saw an "original" document, but probably first generation copies. Then combine this with the fact that that scumbag Kitty Kelly is coming out with her expose on the Bush family that comes largely from "anonymous" or that is to say, made up, sources. And those that were named are now disclaiming saying anything to Kitty.

So we have a story about the President's military record that is being slammed for the use of suspect documents and a book by Kitty Kelly that will be easily refuted and knocked into the cheap seats.

This is the strongest circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy, because this results in any, and I mean any criticism of the President along just about any lines now will be placed in the powerfully negative frames of "oh, like those CBS forgaries," or "oh, like stories like Kitty Kelly tells..."

And the part about this that really makes us want to gnaw our own limbs off is that the charges against Bush for being a coke-addled playboy and character-challenged no-show dilietente loser are all likely true. Too bad we can't say it public now because other morons screwed up the story.

There really is one born every minute isn’t there...

cue JAMES music
And now the music is telling me that we have an incoming transmission from the redoubtable Dr. S9...

J. That's right. It is time once again for our regular contributor Dr. Strychnine, reporting from his super-secret, ultra-dope, mega-cool, extra-jiggy, Mojohaus spy satellite of love high in geosynchronous orbit above Baghdad by the Bay ... take it away S9 ...