Author: jp

Wielding what has to be one of the least coherent quips ever spoken by a member of the House, Democratic Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who at one time was thought to be the left’s saving grace when Dick Gephardt resigned as leader, tried her damnedest yesterday to encapsulate Democratic frustration with Bush’s willingness to spend $87 billion on nation-building (with a healthy $20 billion of that going to U.S. construction firms and part-time Republican party donors).
Her completely-not-soundbite-ready comment appears below:
The funding issue, like last year’s vote to go to war in Iraq, split Democrats. Many supported the funding despite reservations about Bush’s policy. But others joined with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who called the bill a “bailout for one-eighth Bush’s three-eighths failed policy.”
Good thing election year is approaching, because with clever and accessible retorts like that, every American voter can get on board with the Dems next fall.

Earlier this week, it was announced that President Bush had raised $49.5 million in just the last three months alone for next year’s campaign. At this rate, he is expected to surpass $200 million with which he can soundly trounce whichever mediocre candidate the Democratic Party nominates to run for president next fall.
We would like to take this opportunity to wish the President much success with his “fuzzy math” endeavors as he gleefully counts the 54 electoral votes handed to him by Governor Schwarzenegger (as well as some very shortsighted voters) in California, as well as the 25 “bonus brethren” points afforded him by Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
Incidentally, regarding his Iraqi victory of yesteryear, one of the choice quotes uttered by the President at his appearance in San Bernardino this afternoon included the liberal-angst-inducing line: “I acted because I am not about to leave the security of the American people in the hands of a madman.”

In other circumstances, the following legal case might have sent shivers of terror down the spines of American military leaders and their elected superiors. Alas, we live in an era where the nation with the world’s largest economy has forced its hand and more or less exempted itself from war-crimes prosecution. Through economic bribery, of course.
Yesterday, a court in Germany began arguments in a case seeking damages against the German government by Serbs whose relatives were killed in the 1999 NATO bombing campaign, when a handful of jets dropped bombs upon a bridge in a small village “far removed from the breakaway province of Kosovo where Slobodon Milosevic’s Serbian army was brutally suppressing ethnic Albanians and fighting off NATO air raids.”
The result of this particular bombing run? 10 civilians were killed on a quiet Sunday afternoon.
The families of the victims are seeking $4.1 million from the German government, though neither the pilots nor the jets themselves were German.
“They claim that Germany, although not directly involved in the attack, knew of and approved the bombing despite the bridge’s obvious civilian usage. Germany is in this case representative for all of NATO, explained the Hamburg lawyer Gul Pinar, who also criticized the government for sanctioning an attack without warning on a civilian target on a church holiday.
The lawyer for the relatives, Ulrich Dost, says the 35 Serbs are suing on the basis of a 1977 protocol added to the Geneva Convention which calls on signatories, including Germany, to distinguish between civilians and the military and “direct their operations only against military objectives.” The bridge in Varvarin, he added, had no military significance.”
10 people on a Sunday afternoon in a remote Serbian village? Why, that’s nothing! I mean, it’s not like the war crime that ensued when American bombers killed almost 30 Afghans, and wounded many more, at a wedding party in July 2002.
I’m sorry. Did I just say war crime? I meant “tactical error.” Good luck suing the U.S. for that, chumps! We’re immune from the impact of cases like your supposedly precedent-setting German lawsuit.

From the Washington Post‘s Battle Over Iraq Budget Begins by Jonathan Weisman and Dan Balz:
Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who said he probably would have voted for the war resolution and later said he would have opposed it, has joined other Democrats in criticizing the administration’s current course in Iraq. But spokeswoman Kym Spell said Clark had no position on the $87 billion request. “He’s not in Congress,” she said. “He’s running for president.”

The LA Weekly‘s Harold Meyerson, writing in today’s Washington Post, details a recent series of findings on the public’s perception of news, released by the “Program on International Policy Attitudes”, a presumably uber-wonkish collective of academic research centers and polling firms from Maryland and California.
Here’s the (sadly predictable) one-two punch, a veritable qualification of American egocentrism in statistical form, with relevant facts in bold:
In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three.
The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were “the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions.” Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three.
In other words, odds are that if you get your info from the television, you’re not quite getting reality. While the numbers make painfully obvious the extent to which Fox News viewers are a deluded mess of pre-packaged assumptions, what really stands out is the fact CBS News viewers (with Dan Rather et al hardly considered a mouthpiece of conservative propagation) were still 100 percent more likely than the average American, who may or may not get his or her news from television, newspapers, or water coolers, to be just as deluded about a realistic understanding of events.
True, the PBS viewers seemed to have a better grasp of things than “the average American,” but, well, you knew that already, didn’t you.
What pre-packaged assumptions does Sarah Vowell’s fan base bring to the table?

Please excuse the two geographic-pun-based grave headlines in a row. Won’t happen again, unless Bush decides to cower at the heels of Iraq’s neighbor to the east. In which case, get ready for something awful, along the lines of “And Iran, I ran so far away…”
So, getting serious: James Ridgeway at the Village Voice (whose weekly “Mondo Washington” column is an excellent, must-read synopsis of national events) details the apparently increasing consensus that, much like we rather flippantly made note of a few weeks back, Syria is next in line to bear the wrath of administration neocons.
This includes the possibility that, rather than engaging in yet another annual American attack on Muslim nations, the U.S. may indirectly sponsor Israel’s own efforts on this front:
Israel is becoming more and more active as a U.S. military surrogate in the Middle East. Last weekend Der Spiegel reported that Israel was ready to launch an attack against Iran’s nuclear sites to prevent them from becoming operational. And, basing its reports on U.S. government sources, the Los Angeles Times claimed that Israel could fire nuclear-modified U.S.-made Harpoon cruise missiles from its submarines. The Israeli nuclear arsenal is believed to include 100 to 200 warheads that can be delivered by missiles, planes, and submarines. The Israelis claim there are no restrictions on converting Harpoons so that they can deliver nuclear warheads.
Maybe it’s just a commonplace fear of annihilation, but…attacking nuclear sites that may or may not be operational, with nuclear weapons no less, seems, well…neither “neo” nor “conservative.” Just stupid.

Time for another round of “Who do you trust: your government, or your government?” After last week’s debacle concerning Donald Rumsfeld’s supposed cluelessness (wherein he challenged press reports from one day prior indicating that he’d been left out of the loop on a key Condoleeza Rice-led development in the occupation of Iraq), we’ve got yet another instance of government spokespeople contradicting one another a day after the fact. From within the same agency, no less.
The gist of this (admittedly, smaller-scale) story:
On Monday, there were several press reports detailing that a U.S. Army commander had received numerous intelligence reports indicating that Saddam Hussein was likely hiding in or around his hometown of Tikrit in northern Iraq.
Tuesday afternoon? Turns out that was “inaccurate”.
We do not have intelligence that he is and has been specifically in Tikrit,” said Maj. Josslyn Aberle, spokeswoman for the 4th Infantry Division, which controls a large swathe of the country’s north. “Because if we did, we would have the capability to act on it.”
Phew! If there’s one thing I’d hate to lose (including civil liberties and/or other constitutional rights), it’s my confidence in the U.S. government’s ability to locate tyrannical despots, and then obliterate them with cannons, tanks, and rockets.