Category: Grave

Slated to appear on the New York Times’ Corrections page, October 12, 2004:

Because of an editing error, an article in yesterday’s International News section by Terence Neilan about the release of Yaser E. Hamdi, an American citizen who had been held in U.S. prisons for three years without having charges filed against him (until a Supreme Court ruling in June found the detention to be unlawful), “U.S. Returns Detainee to Saudi Arabia After 3 Years“, was both erroneously titled and published too early. The corrected article was slated to run in late January 2005, and should have been titled “U.S. Returns President to Texas After 4 Years”. The Times regrets the error.

We loves us some nuance when it comes to saying whether or not invading Iraq was a good idea. Or maybe just endorsing the resolution approving the matter. Or whatever. We hate nuance.
George W. Bush, October 9, 2004:

“Knowing what I know today, I would have made the same decision. The world is safer with Saddam in a prison cell.”

Dick Cheney, October 7, 2004:

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted in Miami Thursday that the report justifies rather than invalidates Bush’s decision to go to war. It shows that “delay, defer, wasn’t an option,” Cheney told a town-hall style meeting.

John Kerry, August, 2004:

Asked by a reporter, he said he would have voted for the resolution – even in the absence of evidence of weapons of mass destruction – before adding his usual explanation that he would have subsequently handled everything leading up to the war differently.

John Edwards, October 8, 2004:

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said last week’s Central Intelligence Agency report confirming the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq hasn’t convinced him it was a mistake to authorize President George W. Bush to take military action.
“The vote on the resolution was the right vote, even in hindsight,” Edwards, a first-term U.S. senator from North Carolina, said in an interview aboard his campaign plane on Oct. 8. “It was the right vote to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein,” he said. “That’s what would have given the president the power that would have allowed the weapons inspectors back into Iraq.”

RELATED: Cobb/LaMarche 2004, “Vote Green for Peace”

President Bush bestowing kisses upon a baby in Chanhassen, MN, Oct. 9, 2004. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Hannah Palcic, 5, inadvertently being forced to re-enact a Vietnam P.O.W. ritual at a Kerry rally in Albuquerque, NM, Oct. 10, 2004. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

(Anja Niedringhaus/Associated Press)
O, what beauty has been sown from destruction! As with Picasso’s famed “Guernica,” art aficionados once again have the opportunity to witness anew the innermost depths of visual purity that have arisen from the turmoil and despair of some mysterious “other.”
Ostensibly having undertaken a photographic portrait of today’s rocket strike upon a hotel in central Baghdad, the artist, Anja Niedringhaus, has done an exceptional job of framing the composition in such a manner that the merits of using the classical painterly technique known as chiaroscuro become, well, painfully obvious. Notice the interplay between light and dark in Niedringhaus’ image, the way in which the otherwise abstract notion of “Iraqi rage” billows outward and takes on a life of its own amidst the spiritual and political darkness of the Western world – here represented by the image’s being set at nighttime.
Furthermore, be sure not to disregard the inherent conflict between “nature” and “mankind” as it is displayed herein; take note of the image’s striking left-and-right contrast between the fluidly burning palm trees and the sharp, jarring architecture of the civilized world. Or the usage of the color yellow as the portrait’s focal point; one is literally drawn into this veritable heart of fiery Baghdad, where, hopefully, the viewer will be able to partake of the wonderfully restored social services (e.g. the reconstruction of fire stations and water pipes) that have been restored by Halliburton and Bechtel. What? Am I missing something?

NEWS FLASH FOR GOD-FEARING MIDDLE AMERICANS WHO DON’T FOLLOW THE NEWS VERY CLOSELY (by way of John Edwards’ deft placement of this small nugget of information within the context of last night’s vice presidential debate): Vice President Dick Cheney has a homosexual daughter.

EDWARDS: …Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can’t have anything but respect for the fact that they’re willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It’s a wonderful thing.

Yes, Senator Edwards, and it’s also a wonderful thing that you were able to remind the Republican Party’s conservative base that Cheney, their chief standard-bearer in oppressing the oppressed, was clearly a very bad parent by right-wing Christian fundamentalist standards, in that he raised a daughter who is now a homosexual. In addition to being a homosexual, Mary Cheney is also purportedly a lesbian or dyke, or whatever labels or epithets conservatives would like to use as they harass and/or beat up gay people in cities and towns across America.
Oh, Dick, Dick, Dick…where did you go so wrong? And what else have you not been forthright about in terms of a possible penchant for supporting and encouraging sinful acts? We’ll never know, as the Vice President was able to skillfully conclude this line of uncomfortable (and far too revealing) questioning rather abruptly:

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter.
I appreciate that very much.
IFILL: That’s it?
CHENEY: That’s it.
IFILL: OK, then we’ll move on to the next question.

From the transcript of last night’s sole vice-presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio:

“What the vice president has just said is just a complete distortion. The American people saw John Kerry on Thursday night. They don’t need the vice president or the president to tell them what they saw.”
“The AIDS epidemic in Africa, which is killing millions and millions of people and is a frightening thing not just for the people of Africa but also for the rest of the world, that, combined with the genocide that we’re now seeing in Sudan, are two huge moral issues for the United States of America, which John Kerry spoke about eloquently last Thursday night.”
“I agree with John Kerry from Thursday night, that the danger of nuclear weapons getting in the hands of terrorists is one of the greatest threats that America faces.”
“And the American people saw for themselves on Thursday night the strength, resolve, and backbone that I, myself, have seen in John Kerry.”
“John Kerry made clear on Thursday night that — I’m sorry, I broke the rules. We made clear — we made clear on Thursday night that we will do that, and we will do it aggressively.”

Wait, I get it. John Kerry won that debate quite decisively, and you’re reminding the public of that fact. Nicely done, and none-too-subtle!

It’s often observed of George W. Bush that, per the old saw, he was born on third base but he thinks he hit a triple. On the other hand, like him or loathe him, Dick Cheney came from humbler circumstances, and must be given some credit for the sharp elbows and all-American ambition that led him to success. But don’t let’s get too misty-eyed prasing Dick for his enterprise, because he’s not all that different from Dubya when it comes to admitting that he may not have done it all by himself.
As we await the vice-presidential debate, this exchange from the 2000 VP debate comes to mind:

LIEBERMAN: I think if you asked most people in America today that famous question that Ronald Reagan asked, “Are you better off today than you were eight years ago?” Most people would say yes. I’m pleased to see, Dick, from the newspapers that you’re better off than you were eight years ago, too.
CHENEY: I can tell you, Joe, the government had absolutely nothing to do with it. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)[emphasis added]

Oh really? This lone-wolfish insouciance comes from a guy who has been working in government since the late 60’s and whose father and father-in-law were both federal civil servants. He seems more than happy to accept the largesse that comes with being a public servant, including free, world-class health care, a government pension, and free trips in a Gulfstream jet to go duck-hunting with pals. Now, all of these goodies probably don’t mean much to a man with a net worth of $50 million, but as far as we know, he hasn’t forsworn any of these perks, nor has he offered to pay for them himself. Guess big government isn’t always so reprehensible. (But maybe he can’t help it — it’s just that pernicious “culture of dependency“…)
Most of Cheney’s fortune, of course, comes from his tenure at Halliburton, and while we must all tip our hats to the chutzpah of a man who appointed himself to the positions of CEO and running mate, could Halliburton’s abrupt decision to hire Cheney — who had no prior experience in business management — have had anything to do with the Cheney’s work in government, or, specifically, the fact that, as Secretary of Defense, he’d awarded lucrative contracts to Halliburton as part of a program to outsource military functions to private contractors?
Nah.

From the New York Times:

But in a sign that the Bush campaign suddenly found itself on the defensive, the president’s chief political adviser, Karl Rove, who is normally elusive to the press, sought out reporters to push the campaign’s argument that Mr. Kerry was a walking contradiction on Thursday night and that Mr. Bush was focused and pensive during the encounter, not peevish.

Rove: You don’t need to see Bush’s qualifications.
Press Corps: We don’t need to see Bush’s qualifications.
Rove: Bush was focused and pensive.
Press Corps: Bush was focused and pensive.
Rove: Kerry is most likely a pedophile.
Press Corps: Kerry is most likely a pedophile.