U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq
Administration Is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official Says
Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page A01
News and Information for Democracy for America/Anne Arundel through it's Yahoo support group.
Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page A01
For years now, since Reagan got elected, we've been hearing rants from the Right on the evilness of Liberals. Listen to Limbaugh or his ilk, and you'll get the idea that Liberals are all a mixture of Jimmy Hoffa, Jessie Jackson, Noam Chomsky, and Hubert Humphrey. You'll note that these are completely incompatible. To the Right, "Liberal" is just a "hate word" — its only real meaning is "I don't like it". Just the thing for a two-minute hate, but no good for a real discussion.
So what are we really talking about here? Well, let's see what one of the more famous American Liberals had to say about it:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Last night Atrios linked to Henry's discussion of Volokh and the call for evidence against "Western commentators who defend the Iraqi insurgents, or at least justify their actions as being a supposed campaign for self-determination, allegedly justifiable rage at Western misbehavior, and so on." Henry comes back with:
In any event, in the spirit of Eugene's appeal, I'd like to put out one of my own. I'd like instances in which commentators make egregious claims that a substantial section of those who opposed the war are, in fact, rooting for the other side.Among the examples appearing in the comments was this one from Neil quoting Kurt Anderson:
Each of us has a Hobbesian choice concerning Iraq; either we hope for the vindication of Bush's risky, very possibly reckless policy, or we are in de facto alliance with the killers of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.Note that the alternative possibility that Bush will somehow think better of his reckless policy and do something that might work (or even that Divine Providence will intervene), isn't in this equation - you must either believe in the impossible or you support the enemy.
Most interestingly, your "good" option isn't defined as peace or even as just "the good guys win", it's defined as Bush's vindication. It's all about him, as usual.
Now, we know that Bush always talks that way, but these guys aren't Bush, and seeing them take this tack really does make me wonder how they can fail to be embarrassed to spew this crap. I think they really do imagine themselves to be some kind of intellectuals, and yet they can't seem to absorb the possibility that people just plain think the policy itself is not workable.
So they evade the serious debate over the efficacy of the policy by dragging us all into the path of a speeding train and claiming that those who warn that we need to get off the tracks are actually cheering for the train to crush us. Bush says we will defeat the train, and the only reason we might think otherwise is that we have a pathological hatred of Bush, which means we must actually hope that the train will prove him wrong - even if it kills us.
US attack on Mosque?
SHRUM AND OATES! Democrats should be more like Rush Limbaugh, a famous Born Loser advised us: // link // print // previous // next //
GIBSON (8/11/05): I can't help but notice that Cindy Sheehan is from Vacaville, California, very close to U.C. Davis, very close to U.C. Berkeley, reasonably close to U.C. Santa Cruz, where I believe that a lot of those WTO protesters came from. What do the university anti-war protesters have to do with her?Poor Stoll! Confronted with the world’s stupidest question from the world’s biggest fraud, he found a way to continue without taking notice. “Well, in some ways, she's a more appealing face for the anti-war movement than some eighth year PhD student in a nose-ring and pony-tail,” he told his inane host. “She's a mom. And so that's why all these groups would prefer to have her out there than their real face.”
August 13th, 2005
Iran Watch continues:
US President George W Bush refused to rule out the use of force against Iran over the Islamic republic’s resumption of nuclear activities, in an interview with Israeli television.When asked if the use of force was an alternative to faltering diplomatic efforts, Bush said: “All options are on the table.”
“The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country,” he said in a clear reference to Iraq.
“I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies,” he added.
Bush was speaking from his ranch in Crawford, Texas to a reporter from Israeli public television.
August 13th, 2005
Well, I said that I didn’t want to get into the personal attacks on Cindy Sheehan. I still won’t—but I want to make a few points about the controversy that has erupted here, in response to this.
Very briefly, here is the background that a lot of people seem to be unwilling to acknowledge. For the last several years, the national discussion about Iraq has been almost entirely dominated by the administration and its supporters. Beginning almost immediately after 9/11, anyone who dared to disagree with or even question Bush’s foreign policy decisions has been labeled as being “on the other side,” as being “objectively pro-terrorist,” and the like. In short: anyone who disagreed, no matter how well-grounded his objections and no matter how completely his objections have been vindicated by events of the last two years, was called a traitor. This is not a minor matter, and this is the cultural swamp in which we now live.
I've been wondering what it is about Cindy Sheehan that's gotten under people's skin. Her loss is horrible and everyone can see that she is deeply pained.(Only the lowest, cretinous gasbags are crude enough to attack her in her grief.) She's a very articulate person and she's incredibly sincere. But she's touched a deeper nerve than just the personal one.
...the Downing Street Memo gives the press the chance to ask, finally, why we really invaded Iraq.
Have any of you been at a social gathering in which this question comes up? Have you felt the palpable discomfort? Nobody really knows. Those that adhere to the "CIA fucked up" rationale can't explain Downing Street. Those who think you had to back the government in a time of war, are visibly discomfitted by the fact that we never found any WMD. Flypaper is crap...
An e-mail from Rick Perlstein and some of the comments from others to my post below, have made me realize that there is a corollary to The Question:
Amanda Marcotte and quite a few others are upset that NARAL pulled their ad. But I think the ad did what it was intended to do. They were only running it in a couple of states, remember. It was designed to cause controversy. And it succeeded. Yesterday the story was on the front page of the NY Times.
This cracks me up. In a story called "No Clear Finish Line" Peter Baker examines the fact that the administration is really becoming stuck in its Iraq policy as the country turns against the war.
Failure to meet the deadline, analysts say, would be a devastating setback to Bush and could accelerate the sense at home that the process is not going well. Alarmed by falling domestic support for the war, Bush aides resolved in June to rally the public by having the president take a more visible role explaining his strategy and predicting victory. Bush flew to Fort Bragg, N.C., to deliver a prime-time address pleading for patience, part of what aides said would be a sustained campaign.
But Bush then largely dropped the subject until yesterday's meeting at the ranch, addressing the war mainly in reaction to the latest grisly events on the ground. In the ensuing vacuum, Rumsfeld and the U.S. effort in Iraq have come under increasing fire even from Bush supporters, such as Fox News talk show host Bill O'Reilly, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and the American Spectator magazine.
"The Bush administration has lost control of its public affairs management of this issue," said Christopher F. Gelpi, a Duke University scholar whose analyses of wartime public opinion have been studied in the White House. "They were so focused on this through 2004. . . . I don't know why they've slipped."
I think we've found Kaye Grogan's day job:
President Bush is a Leader who has the courage to lead. It is political courage. It is not poll driven it is conviction driven. It is consistent and does not change because of pressure or threats of political survival. It is reconfirmed every day. It differs from combat courage in that it is thought oriented not reaction oriented. Combat courage does not necessarily translate into political courage. Combat courage is admirable and you only know if you have it when you are in combat. President Bush has demonstrated that he has political courage and this is why he was re-elected. By owning a bust of President Bush, Commander in Chief you will be making a statement and in a politically charged environment, it takes courage.Unless your decorating style is early meth lab, it takes courage in any environment. I think the eyes move and everything.
1.) In an interesting column on changing judicial interpretations of the commerce clause, John Dean discusses the so-called "Ginsburg rule," which right-wingers have recently invoked in arguing that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts should not be compelled to answer questions about specific issues. The only problem is, the Ginsburg rule has no basis in law or the code of judicial conduct. Joe Biden pulled it out of his ass:
in 1993, when Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware chaired confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Biden instructed his committee colleagues not to ask questions about "how [Judge Ginsburg] will decide any specific case that may come before her."
Judge Ginsburg - who was then on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, just as Judge Roberts is today -- refused to answer a number of questions about matters she believed would come before her as a Supreme Court Justice. She was confirmed by a vote of 93 to 3 . . . .
Senator Biden based his position on, and Judge Ginsburg found her shelter in, Canon 5 of the American Bar Association's Model Code For Judicial Conduct. Canon 5(d)(i) states: A candidate for a judicial office (a "Candidate" is defined as a person seeking selection for judicial appointment) shall not: with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the office.
<>Pundits right, left, and center have reached a rare unanimous verdict about one aspect of the grand jury investigation into the Valerie Plame leak: They've decided that no charges can be brought under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, because it imposes an impossibly high standard for proof of intent. Typically, writing for Slate on July 19th, Christopher Hitchens described the 1982 Act as a "silly law" that requires that "you knowingly wish to expose the cover of a CIA officer who you understand may be harmed as a result." Similarly, columnist Richard Cohen, in the July 14 Washington Post, said he thought Rove was a "political opportunist, not a traitor" and that he didn't think Rove "specifically intended to blow the cover of a CIA agent." Such examples could be multiplied many times over.
>
Shocking as it may seem, however, the pundits are wrong; and their casual summaries of the requirements of the 1982 statute betray a fundamental misunderstanding regarding proof of criminal intent.
"She feels strongly about her position and she has every right in the world to say what she believes," Mr. Bush told a news conference. "And I thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is: Get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so."You cannot appreciate the full extent of Ms. Sheehan's scariness until you understand that Mr. Bush takes his life in his hands every time he steps aboard the Presidential helicopter. As it turns out, the daredevil crew of Marine One is in the unfortunate habit of playing chicken with commercial aircraft:
Mr. Bush said he grieves for every death in Iraq. "It breaks my heart to think about a family weeping over the loss of a loved one. I understand the anguish that some feel about the death that takes place."
Yet there was no sign Mr. Bush intends to meet Ms. Sheehan. In fact, there were reports he is travelling solely by helicopter when he leaves the ranch in an effort to avoid racing past the protester in a limousine.
Two sources have confirmed there was a close call at O'Hare Airport involving President Bush and his helicopter flight party when they when they took off from O'Hare for Montgomery, Illinois earlier this week . . . .
Aircraft in the president's party are choreographed to fly under very strict rules. Wednesday morning his helicopters were all instructed to fly north of an active landing runway at O'Hare until further clearance.
But the two lead helicopters, believed to be carrying members of the press corps and presidential staff, elected to fly almost directly down the center line of that active runway.
An American Airlines MD-80 with passengers was approaching that runway in the opposite direction to land.
That's when the airline pilots saw the two helicopters at low altitude heading right toward them.
The MD-80 aborted the landing, making an abrupt left, climbing turn. The lead helicopter also turned left, avoiding a possible collision.
I haven't yet said anything about NARAL's infamous John Roberts "bombing" ad because I hadn't had time to check it out for myself. I knew the Right was worked up into a froth about it, but this means little. The Right works itself into a froth every time a liberal so much as clears his throat. The mere mention of the name "Hillary" sends them into violent paroxysms of indignation that are the chief cause of crop circles and may contribute to global warming. Rightie outrage is no measure of outrageousness.
Some loose ends to tie up before I leave tomorrow ... via Altercation, you've got to see this. It's a great Traitorgate info resource provided by Think Progress.
August 12th, 2005
Quietly, in their ones and twos, the professional classes of Baghdad are slipping out of the country to avoid becoming another fatal statistic.Iraq is losing the educated elite of doctors, lawyers, academics and businessmen who are vital to securing a stable future. There is also fear that their departure will leave a vacuum to be filled by religious extremists.
Outside the shelter of the Green Zone, home to the American and Iraqi political leadership, lawlessness has overtaken the capital.
August 12th, 2005
At the end of an entry you should read in its entirety, Digby says:
It is not an academic exercise for [Cindy Sheehan]. She lost her son—- and she’d like to know why. Nobody can explain to her—or to any of us—- why we invaded Iraq and why people are dying. They said it was to protect us—but it wasn’t a threat. Then they said it was to liberate the Iraqi people, but Saddam and his government are a memory and yet the Iraqi people are still fighting us and each other. Our invasion of iraq has inspired more terrorism, not less. Oil prices are higher than they’ve ever been. The country is swimming in debt. People are being killed and maimed with the regularity of the tides.
August 12th, 2005
August 12th, 2005
Touching on some of the themes I explored the other day, here is James Moore:
I met Cindy Sheehan this time last year when she was trying to decide what to do about the loss of her son. We were strangers when we spoke on the phone but she was as honest as she was angry. Before a news conference at the National Press Club, she stood in an anteroom holding a large color poster of her smiling boy and she ran her fingertips over his mouth as though he were alive and could feel this affection. In that moment, I hated my president. And I hate having to hate anyone or anything.
I used to live next door to a Russian émigré. One day he asked me to explain something that puzzled him about his new country. "This place seems very rich," he said, "but I never see anyone making anything. How does the country earn its money?"
By Kathleen M. Howley
08/11/2005 @ 1:40 pm
Larisa Alexandrovna
Why you picked the wrong mutual funds—again.
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Reuters
By Daniela Deane
Lobbyist, Associate Charged With Fraud
by ARI BERMAN
by SHARON LERNER
by GARY RUSKIN & JULIET SCHOR
[from the August 29, 2005 issue]
STOP US BEFORE WE INVADE THEIR LIVES MORE! If Hillary Clinton runs for prez, Richard Cohen knows where it will lead him: // link // print // previous // next //
Read it and weep--Dictynna
by Michael in New York - 8/10/2005 01:49:00 PM
Some election experts fear that paper backup records will add a layer of complexity to an already delicate system. That could lead to even worse problems in the 2006 elections, such as jammed printers and long voting lines, they say.
"The unintended consequence of a (paper trail) mandate could diminish, rather than enhance, voter confidence," says Conny McCormack, who runs elections in the nation's largest voting jurisdiction, Los Angeles County.
By SUZANNE GAMBOA
By DOUGLAS JEHL
The intelligence failure that won't stop failing.
GOP Paying Legal Bills of Bush Official
Aug. 11 (Bloomberg) -- The dollar fell against the yen and euro after a government report showed U.S. retail sales in July grew less than economists predicted.
By Brian Faler
White House Drops Effort to Rein In Hill
Military Official Says Withdrawal At Least a Year Off
By MAUREEN DOWD
Aug 10, 9:46 AM EDT
DENVER - Denver police say a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force has admitted to vandalizing cars bearing pro-President Bush bumper stickers at Denver International Airport.
MIKE ROBINSON
Strange.--Dictynna
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
By Harold Meyerson
By Dianne Twinam
By Dan Balz
Associated Press
Terry Rodgers Came Back From Iraq a Changed Man, and Not Just Because of the Bomb
Via Americablog, I read from CJR that Michael Wolff has an article in Vanity Fair that *gasp* questions the propriety of the major news organizations withholding important information from the public for their own purposes:
Michael Wolff deals with the Rove/Plame/Miller fracas in this month's Vanity Fair (the article isn't available online). Wolff manages to find a unique approach to the issue, positing the thesis that the New York Times and Time magazine are complicit in the cover-up of the fudging of intelligence in the prelude to war in Iraq -- in that they knew Rove was the source of the Plame leak intended to discredit Joe Wilson after he called the administration to account. "Not only did highly placed members of the media and the vaunted news organizations they worked for know it, not only did they sit on what will not improbably be among the biggest stories of the Bush years, they helped cover it up. You could even plausibly say that these organizations became part of a conspiracy -- they entered into an understanding that, as a quid pro quo for certain information, they would refuse to provide evidence about a crime possibly having been committed by the president's closest confidant."
The U.S. military has devised its first-ever war plans for guarding against and responding to terrorist attacks in the United States, envisioning 15 potential crisis scenarios and anticipating several simultaneous strikes around the country, according to officers who drafted the plans.
The classified plans, developed here at Northern Command headquarters, outline a variety of possible roles for quick-reaction forces estimated at as many as 3,000 ground troops per attack, a number that could easily grow depending on the extent of the damage and the abilities of civilian response teams.
The possible scenarios range from "low end," relatively modest crowd-control missions to "high-end," full-scale disaster management after catastrophic attacks such as the release of a deadly biological agent or the explosion of a radiological device, several officers said . . . .
U.S. law enforcement never received information on Sept. 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and his possible connections to Al Qaeda, even though that information was known more than a year before the attacks that left approximately 3,000 people dead, Rep. Curt Weldon said Tuesday.
Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican and vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said the hijackers were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as "Able Danger," which determined they could be members of an Al Qaeda cell. A military spokesman would not confirm or deny the unit's existence to FOX News . . . .
In September 2000, the unit recommended that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists," Weldon said in an interview with the Associated Press.
However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally.
"In fact, I'll tell you how stupid it was. They put stickies on the faces of Mohamed Atta on the chart that the military intelligence unit had completed and they said you can't talk to Atta because he's here on a green card," Weldon said . . . .
Weldon told FOX that the "Able Danger" unit told its bosses that the information should be shared with the FBI.
A spokesman for U.S. Special Operations Command said there is no knowledge of Able Danger within Special Operations command headquarters right now.
Weldon said the unit is now defunct.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Sept. 11 commission looked into the matter during its investigation into government missteps leading to the attacks and chose not to include it in the final report.
The principle being taught today in a relativistic environment is getting young people to believe that this is a noble act that he did. He could not have done the right thing. He broke his oath of office. He broke the law. He snuck off cloak-and-dagger style to convey privileged information.It is of course only fair that Mr. Colson should seize the opportunity to pass judgment on Mr. Felt's moral shortcomings, because Mr. Felt's revelations of "privileged information" put Colson in the slammer. Before his prison stretch (during which he wisely opted for a change of careers, entering the fast-growing and highly lucrative field of Christianity), Mr. Colson was chief counsel in the Nixon White House, where his resume included plotting acts -- noble acts, we're sure -- of domestic terrorism against American citizens:
In today's Boston Globe, Joan Vennochi reveals why President Bush enjoys his August vacations in Texas.
And I bet that spokesman delivered that line with a straight face. Where do the Republicans find these people?He is currently immersed in a five-week stay away from Washington, the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years, according to TheWashington Post .A presidential spokesman said the time in Crawford is a time for Bush to ''shed his coat and tie and meet with folks in the heartland and hear what's on their minds."
I don't usually pay attention to Christopher Hitchens, because I believe him to be brain damaged. I think Slate and other media outlets continue to publish him simply for the freak factor--look, ma, it's a three-headed toad!
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
New York Times columnist John Tierney made several questionable and inaccurate claims about Arctic climatic change and its effect on polar bear populations. In his August 7 Times op-ed, Tierney claimed that the Arctic was as warm in the 1930s as it is now. He also suggested that recent Arctic warming may benefit polar bears, noting that polar bear populations have increased as the Arctic has grown warmer. In fact, data show that current Arctic temperatures are higher than they were in the 1930s. Also, many scientists believe that Arctic warming, rather than benefiting polar bears, will actually destroy their habitats and reduce their food supply.
A journalist confronts the Secretary of Defense about his credibility, and the Bush administration responds with a show of force
August 09, 2005
By Francis Volpe, August 9, 2005
Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh responded to an item by "our poor old buddy, David Brock" and "his fledging little website" Media Matters for America documenting that Limbaugh aired a "commercial" parodying Democratic opposition to Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. without noting that the ad was fake. Yet Limbaugh refused to inform a confused caller that the ad was fake and later admitted that he had received emails and phone calls from listeners who "believe that these [the Roberts ad and another ad about White House senior adviser Karl Rove] are actual George Soros commercials." Limbaugh finally informed listeners that the ads were fake and opined that Media Matters "is upset" about them because they are "effective in identifying the absolute lunacy of the left in the current realm of American politics."
It's truly amazing what the human spirit can accomplish. From Gandhi's Salt March to Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail, a single person can fight a corrupt establishment and win -- when truth and justice is on his or her side.
A German aid group finds the first solid proof of the practice, thought to be prevalent in the Middle East.
August 9, 2005
by Martin Sieff, UPI Senior News Analyst
GreenBiz.com, 9 August 2005 - The massive conversion of the world's natural landscapes to agriculture and other human uses may soon begin to undermine the capacity of the planet's ecosystems to sustain a burgeoning human population.
By Jonathan Weisman
Brief Filed in N.H. Notification Case
Can somebody please explain to me why the Democrats should be blamed for every stupid utterance that emantes from some junior college instructor, while the Republicans dance free of any association with a preacher who says "God Hates Fags?" Is it just the fag word that allows them to escape? It must be because the sentiment is certainly mainstream GOP cant.
Carolyn Kay of Make Them Accountable reminds us how much President Bush enjoys his August vacations.
“[T]here's no need to learn what was in that top-secret briefing that the president received as he settled down for his monthlong vacation at his Texas ranch on Aug. 6 [2001]. Reports at the time show that Mr. Bush broke off from work early and spent most of that day fishing. [Emphasis added.] If he had received foreknowledge of an attack that morning, he would have acted upon it, and no Democratic leader has said otherwise (despite Dick Cheney's smears to the contrary).” [Frank Rich, “Thanks for the Heads-Up”, The New York Times, May 25, 2002]
As you probably know, right now Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, is camped out a few miles from President Bush's Crawford "ranch," determined to remain until she can speak to the President. Richard Stevenson writes more about Cindy Sheehan in today's New York Times.
Ms. Sheehan has vowed to camp out on the spot until Mr. Bush agrees to meet with her, even if it means spending all of August under a broiling sun by the dusty road. Early on Sunday afternoon, 25 hours after she was turned back as she approached Mr. Bush's ranch, Prairie Chapel, Ms. Sheehan stood red-faced from the heat at the makeshift campsite that she says will be her home until the president relents or leaves to go back to Washington. A reporter from The Associated Press had just finished interviewing her. CBS was taping a segment on her. She had already appeared on CNN, and was scheduled to appear live on ABC on Monday morning. Reporters from across the country were calling her cellphone. ...
Monday, August 08, 2005
August 8th, 2005
Following up on the Fat Clemenza news of last week, here’s part of a notable Richard Dawkins article I hadn’t seen before:
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.By far the largest of the four categories is “ignorant,” and ignorance is no crime (nor is it bliss—I forget who it was said, “If ignorance is bliss, how come there’s so much misery about?”). Anybody who thinks Joe DiMaggio was a cricketer has to be ignorant, stupid, or insane (probably ignorant), and you wouldn’t think me arrogant for saying so. It is not intolerant to remark that flat-earthers are ignorant, stupid, or (probably) insane. It’s just true. The difference is that not many people think Joe DiMaggio was a cricketer, or that the Earth is flat, so it isn’t worth calling attention to their ignorance. But, if polls are to be believed, 100 million U.S. citizens believe that humans and dinosaurs were created within the same week as each other, less than ten thousand years ago. This is more serious. People like this have the vote, and we have George W. Bush (with a little help from his friends in the Supreme Court) to prove it. They dominate school boards in some states. Their views flatly contradict the great corpus of the sciences, not just biology but physics, geology, astronomy, and many others. It is, of course, entirely legitimate to question conventional wisdom in fields that you have bothered to mug up first. That is what Einstein did, and Galileo, and Darwin. But our hundred million are another matter. They are contradicting—influentially and powerfully—vast fields of learning in which their own knowledge and reading is indistinguishable from zero. My “arrogant and intolerant” statement turns out to be nothing but simple truth.
Remember Rush Limbaugh's gaffe that caused him to be removed from sports broadcasting? This whole issue seems to be the same type of thing--a face-saving way to get rid of someone who is about to be indicted. Is the question of Novak not if, but when?--Dictynna
DCMediaGirl--a gal on the go, a gal in the know--posts about Robert Novak's senior moment. She wonders, as do we all, why his slimeball behavior was tolerated for so long. It wasn't as if his on-air cussword was out of character.
"The real issue, of course, is that Novak has a long history of bullying and abusing lower-level employees, whom he terrorizes with his angry outbursts over such vital areas of newsgathering as how to pop his popcorn just so, or like when he reduced a former colleague of mine to tears when he asked here how many Jews her family had transported to the death camps (this woman was of German ancestry)."
This to me is the psychological puzzler regarding Novak's personality and career--or rather, the coddling of that career by his colleagues. Amy Sullivan did an outstanding job describing in forensic detail the size and scope of Novak's bulletproof protective bubble for The Washington Monthly--how none of the laws that apply to others ever seem applied to him--but she didn't get to the "why" of it, and I can't either.
Citing a Newsweek poll where only 34 percent approve President Bush's handling of Iraq, AFP reports that "the bleeding seems especially acute in Ohio," while Newt Gingrich ditches the GOP talking points and a columnist says that 'new Democrats are being born on the front lines.'
By MICHAEL WINES
By ANTHONY DePALMA