Saturday, October 30, 2004

Light one candle for hope

I woke up at 2 am this morning and couldn't get back to sleep until after 4. I've read that some are calling this anxiety PEAD, or Pre-Election Anxiety Disorder. I can tell you that alcohol doesn't really help the condition long term. Maybe meditation might, or a good workout, or good Belgian chocolate in abundant quantities.

But what I am proposing is that Monday night, all of us who are in favor of regime change, light a candle against the darkness. And that we place these candles in our windows as signals to our neighbors that we will not allow the forces of darkness to overwhelm us. And that we will battle our enemies, both outside and within the US, until justice triumphs and freedom is ours once again.


p.s. Of course, make sure not to put your candle next to anything flammable such as draperies or left over Halloween candy. ;>)

Saturday, October 23, 2004

The Washington gubernatorial race tightens up

According to the NYT, linked above in the title, the race for Washington state governor has pulled to a virtual tie. They may be right, but I do think that Gregoire, the Democratic candidate known as COG, will probably eventually win as a result of Kerry's coattails. However, I don't think that the Times got the real reason for Dino Rossi's surprising showing in the state polls. The answer is actually: personality. In his ads and with voters, Dino comes across as a warm likeable fellow. Truly someone you could sit down and have dinner with, if not a beer. In contrast, COG is an ice queen. Any reference to family, or attempt to show emotion comes across in a very forced manner. She seems she would be much more comfortable cracking the whip, or screaming at flagging subordinates, as in fact has been the case, witness the Janet Capps fiasco as the tip of CoG's management temperament iceberg. Surprisingly, voters seem to get that and recoil from her presentation.

COG may have the better policies to provide the state, but she has forgotten that what Mary Poppins sang about was true: a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. Dino seemingly has that ability.

Bush's missing TANG time 'splained for us

It appears that the pResident's volunteer work at a Houston project for the disadvantaged in 1973, adroitly acronymed PULL, was: a) not volunteer; and b) not management experience. It also occurred during the time that the pResident was supposed to be reporting for his National Guard service in Alabama. Which he did not do. Now what would be so overwhelmingly important that the pResident would risk being found AWOL and sent to Vietnam? Hmm....could it have been a cocaine charge that was only going to be wiped out if said 'volunteer' service were performed?

If I were a betting man......

Saturday, October 16, 2004

Sexual Politics

When was it that the door was opened and the sexual pecadillos and orientations of our elected officials became a subject of public discourse? Certainly after LBJ and JFK had exited stage left. To my mind, the first ghost of it came with the interview of Jimmy Carter where he confessed that he had 'lust in his heart' for women other than his wife, Roslyn. Or maybe it showed up with Congressman Wilbur Mills who danced in the fountain with Fanne Fox, the young woman of questionable virtue. Such is the value of age, that these foibles fade from mind, though they were sharply incised once.

Then at some point the focus veered from hetero to homosexual philanderings. I remember when Bob Bauman, the very conservative congressman from Maryland was outed in 1981 for his taste in young boys. The jokes around D.C. were fast and furious: "born in Maryland but reared in D.C." was one of them. Eventually Barney Frank and others gave a sober face to gay politicians but the whinge factor is still there. As witnessed by the cringing when John Kerry uttered the "L" word in his third and last debate with President Bush, referring to Mary Cheney and her sexual orientation. What it seems to come down to is that the Republicans, though they refuse to say it, think that being gay or lesbian is a choice, like whether you have gas or oil heat in your house. The Democrats, by and large, believe that it is an innate preference, akin to being lefthanded or having brown eyes.

I have a brother who is gay. Back when we were closer than we are now, he asked me, "Do you think that, knowing all the trouble that this would cause me in life, I actually chose this oritentation?" I believed him. But my mother as late as 4 years ago still said daily rosaries for him to 'come to his senses,' and my sister gave him a pamphlet that indicated with enough prayer he could lead a happy hetero life. Obviously, they saw his homosexuality as a choice.

I think they fear that if it isn't a choice, there is no accountability, no responsibility for his actions. He is free to do as he pleases. Kind of like when W found 'god'--it absolved him from his responsibility for his 20 year drug and drinking binge and obtaining an abortion for his girlfriend. What they forget is that one always has accountability for one's actions regardless of sexual orientation. And if this sexual orientation 'thingy' as GHWB used to say is a matter of choice, then all it takes is an act of will for gays to come back to the fold. That is why Republicans can support a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. Because if they admitted that being gay is not a matter of choice, then they would have to admit that they are imposing second class citizenship on a group of US citizens that is simply akin to that done to African Americans in the Dred Scott decision. This is the real place for Dred Scott, not the abortion debates. But then that makes the Republicans no better than Justice Taney, which should be an anathema. Thus, they continue to perpetrate their illusions.

But in the end and at the core, this is all about sex, and American society has at least since Victorian times been schizophrenic when it comes to sex. Always a sunny, androgynous, face to present to the world, with the darker implications of one's sexuality left in dank, dark basements of our minds and sometimes even literally in our lives. Until we as a society can address this conflict that lies at the foundation of our weltanschaung, we will never be able to free ourselves from the chains that such an approach creates.

Lets start to clean out our basements and actually bring out sexuality in to the open for a good, thorough examination. Ironically, if we can do this, things might get healthier in our lives and in that of the body politic.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Want to make a difference?

Sinclair Broadcast Group has announced plans to air "Stolen Honor" a nasty smear job on John Kerry, in a thinly disguised attempt to win the election for W. Fight back. Attached is a list of those companies who advertise on Sinclair tv stations. Use the list to identify companies you have patronized then write to them and tell them that if they don't get off their butts and either yank their ads or pressure Sinclair to drop the hatchet job, you will take your bidness elsewhere.

And mean it. Vote with your wallet as well as your ballot. The link is in the title of this note. And btw, thanks. Every little bit helps.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

What a difference two years makes

Bush gave the following speech:

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
8:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:31 P.M. EDT

Purple Hearts

Very, very powerful. Worth recommending to all your friends

The view from the USAF jet in Iraq

Not for the fainthearted:

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Walk that way

Over the past few months I've read the opinion of a number of commentators that one of the Shrub traits that they find offensive all by itself is Bush's swagger. Now, I have never seen Bush walk on television, mainly because I tend to turn it off when he comes on. Extends the life of the television set.

But buried in a long kos thread a few days ago, a poster by the name of DCdrone or DCinsider (something that gives the impression of a well-placed federal govt worker in the Capital),said that the inside the beltway rumor was that Bush has genital herpes and when it flares up, he tends to 'walk that way.' Now I am sure a thorough physical would either confirm or disprove this rumor, but guess what? Bush is not going to take his 2004 physical. How convenient. How history repeats itself.

moe, feeling malicious today

edit: Like any good lawyer, I feel more comfortable when I have the citations to back up my statements. Here is the info on Bush shrugging off his 2004 physical.

Friday, October 01, 2004

Exhibit A in why the Dems need to get rid of Tom Daschle

Today Porter Goss, who was recntly confirmed as the uber head of the CIA, named 4 partisan politicos to positions of power and influence directly reporting to him in his new agency. Where the bipartisanship he claimed during his confirmation hearings? Geezum Peezum. We are left like Charlie Brown on the ground after Lucy has pulled back the football for the umpteenth time. And why exactly is that? Well, because Tom Daschle, the Minority Leader of the Dems is running for re-election in a tight race that has completely emasculated him. And frankly, given his locale, his seat will always be iffy. Undoubtedly he is constantly looking over his shoulder, thinking of the fate of House Speaker Tom Foley, whose Eastern Washington constituency is very similar to that of South Dakota.

The Democrats have to shake off their current system of governance and instead select a leader who can, well, to be frank, lead. Right now we've got Chester Milquetoast and his minions giving it all away to the Pubbies. This is ludicrous. Even if the Senate some how magically becomes Democratic after Nov. 3, Daschle will still be a frikkin wimp. He has to go. Sentiment has no place in the equation. We need someone who will force discipline on the rank and file (bet the Senators love to be called rank and file). Get the g*dd*mned whips out!!


moe, w/ patch on eye

Update 10/04/04

Well, Porter Goss seems to be on his way to setting a certain 'tone' at his uber agency per Tapped:

October 04, 2004
OH, PORTER. I misspoke last week when I strongly implied that Porter Goss just might reinforce the notion that he's a partisan hack by installing four partisan hacks in senior positions at the CIA. I want to apologize to Michael V. Kostiw, whom Goss has named to the number-three position in the agency, for implying that he’s a partisan hack. What I meant to call Kostiw was a petty thief:
Michael V. Kostiw, chosen by CIA Director Porter J. Goss to be the agency's new executive director, resigned under pressure from the CIA more than 20 years ago, according to past and current agency officials.
While Kostiw, a colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, longtime lobbyist for ChevronTexaco Corp. and more recently staff director of the terrorism subcommittee of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has been through the CIA security vetting procedure, final clearance to take the job has not been completed pending review of the allegations. The job is the third-ranking post at the CIA.

In late 1981, after he had been a case officer for 10 years, Kostiw was caught shoplifting in Langley, sources said. During a subsequent CIA polygraph test, Kostiw's responses to questions about the incident led agency officials to place him on administrative leave for several weeks, according to four sources who were familiar with the past events but who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the information.

Goss sure is showing spectacular, confidence-inspiring judgment in these early decisions. Just wait until he gets to make the really momentous decisions pertaining to the whole-scale restructuring of America’s intelligence community.
--Sam Rosenfeld

Final Debate I comments

This goes to some of the substantive misrepresentations made by Bush during the debate, that Kerry did not pick up on in rejoinder. I know how hard it is to keep track of all the spinning balls when you are in a debate situation, so I think it imperative that others point these critical lapses by our Commander in Thief, often and loudly:

BUSH: And that's what people are seeing now is happening in Afghanistan.
Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It's a phenomenal statistic. They're given a chance to be free, and they will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent of those 10 million are women.
[Moe: Current population of Iraq is 9.5 million including children who obviously cannot vote]

BUSH: That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place.
[Moe: pre-September 10th? What happened on that date?]

KERRY: The president -- 95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected.
Civilians get onto aircraft, and their luggage is X- rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed.
Does that make you feel safer in America?
This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren't my values. I believe in protecting America first.
BUSH: I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap.
[Moe: remind me how we got into this huge tax gap situation to begin with]

BUSH: Let me first tell you that the best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job.
BUSH: And that's what we're doing. We've got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, 200,000 by the end of next year
[Moe: Actually, we have less than 10,000 Iraqis fully trained to do the job at the present time]

more debate comments pt 2

Here are a couple more misspeaks from the Leader in Thief from last night's debate:

1. Dont' forget Poland? WTF? Poland has called Bush on the lack of WMDs as being a fraud perpetrated to get us into this war. And their troops (such as they are) will be gone from Iraq at the end of the year. So, tell me why it is so important to remember Poland when counting up our allies on the ground w/ us in Iraq?

2. vociferously when the word choice should have been viciously. Hmmm.....

3. "Of course we're after Saddam Hussein, uh, Osama bin Laden."

4. the grimaces, the lipsmackings, the eyerollings, the muggings. I guess Shrub thought split shots would not be allowed. Silly him. He behaved worse than Al Gore w/ his sighs in 2000. But of course, he will not get called for it. Geo. Bush was always the kid who sat in the back of class throwing spit wads and smiling beatifically while denying it to the teacher.

more debate comments

Geo W is famous for his wordsmithing. Hence the title of this blog. Last night, he made a couple that are worth mentioning because it shows something about the way his mind works. And in fact I would argue that deep down, his subconscious is warring with his conscious mind over all the lies and deceit he's engaged in over the years, and it's showing up in his speech. Not that his history of drinking and drug use would have anything to do with it either, but there you go.

The first one, is one that I cannot find in the transcripts and I think it's because someone's spell checker corrected it, but at some point Bush misspoke and said "mexed missages." Now when he mixes the words trying to convey that his opponent sends out mixed messages, somehow I think he's unconsciously saying that this is in fact a lie.

The other one is more fun, simply because this phrase came up over Labor Day weekend in a speech where he was talking about medical malpractice and how OB-Gyns could not find insurance (which is a debatable point in and of itself). At any rate here is the quote:

BUSH: You know, every life is precious. Every life matters. You know, my hardest -- the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loved ones who lost a son or a daughter or a husband or wife.
You know, I think about Missy Johnson. She's a fantastic lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina. She and her son Bryan, they came to see me. Her husband PJ got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq.
You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way.

Nice work George. Hope Missy wasn't wearing a blue dress.

Change is good

I changed the title of my blog this ayem. Decided that the Moe's misadventures was not as descriptive as Moe's misunderestimations. And as I generally post about political subjects, and enjoy alliteration, and detest the current occupant of the White House (OWH) who coined the word, it seemed appropriate. I await the verdict of my loyal readership. All 2 of you.


Putting his girls on leashes?

I only heard part of the debate last night as I was attending one child's tennis match and taking the other to a dr's appointment, so most of my knowledge comes from reading the transcript.

But count me amazed at the following exchange:

KERRY: You begin to get a sense of what [having your father be president] means to your families. And it's tough. And so I acknowledge that his daughters -- I've watched them. I've chuckled a few times at some of their comments.
BUSH: I'm trying to put a leash on them.
KERRY: Well, I know. I've learned not to do that.

As a parent and as a dog owner, I find that appalling. Without going into the weird Abu Ghraib associations it brings up (I understand Andrew Sullivan who I generally detest has already done so), there are a couple of points that need to be made.

1) Mr. Bush, your daughters are adults now. They get to do whatever they want to do and all you get to do is grin and bear it. They did not choose to have a father in the public eye, that was your decision.

2) If you want them to behave better, perhaps you should have set a better example for them when they were young. Most kids' behavior is modeled on their parents' behavior, either mimicking or rebelling against. I won't speculate as to which camp Jenna and Bar's party hearty behavior has its roots in.

3) Leashes are only for dogs and only in leash only areas.

I fear for your family dog. I hope that you didn't go home and kick it last night.

moe, just returned from taking Scooter the wonder weiner dog out to barf in the backyard.