Saturday, July 31, 2004
Flushed Out
201k received an email yesterday from the local PBS show "Greater Boston" soliciting guests for a show devoted to political blogs. It's to be shot on Monday.
After some internal debate we returned the call and agreed, but a confirmation call never came. This is for the best, as we were ambivalent about it from the beginning, for the same reasons we decided not to attend the DNC. The reasons themselves aren't important; suffice it to say the creators of 201k feel no need to wander far from home -- just the opposite, in fact.
Of course, it could be that after reading our post of July 29th, "Greater Boston" figured, "screw this guy". Wouldn't blame them.
In any event, it's possible that they'll call to invite us, though Monday would be short notice at this point, especially given how nice the weather has been. Meaning, we've done no preparation, and probably won't. There's a neighbor's birthday party this evening, dinner guests tomorrow, etc. We do have our priorities in order around here.
It boils down to this: if it gets to the point that we'd have to wash off the suntan oil to be a blogger, then what's the point?
After some internal debate we returned the call and agreed, but a confirmation call never came. This is for the best, as we were ambivalent about it from the beginning, for the same reasons we decided not to attend the DNC. The reasons themselves aren't important; suffice it to say the creators of 201k feel no need to wander far from home -- just the opposite, in fact.
Of course, it could be that after reading our post of July 29th, "Greater Boston" figured, "screw this guy". Wouldn't blame them.
In any event, it's possible that they'll call to invite us, though Monday would be short notice at this point, especially given how nice the weather has been. Meaning, we've done no preparation, and probably won't. There's a neighbor's birthday party this evening, dinner guests tomorrow, etc. We do have our priorities in order around here.
It boils down to this: if it gets to the point that we'd have to wash off the suntan oil to be a blogger, then what's the point?
Friday, July 30, 2004
So What's Wrong With Self-Interest?
Another super genius -- and this one, sadly, from the Commonwealth -- writes in to the New York Times:
Look, this isn't rocket science. Take the facts as presented by Mr. Godburn and ask yourself why, if France and Germany had "financial ties to Saddam Hussein" -- and what they had was contracts worth billions -- that George Bush couldn't have made a deal with them.
Yes, they acted in self-interest. They had deals. Worth billions. And they didn't want to lose them. And we wanted something. We wanted help in toppling Saddam so our soldiers wouldn't have to go it alone.
In other words, we each wanted something. With us so far?
They wanted some sort of guarantee that if they helped topple Hussein at least some of their contracts would be honored. Right? We know this because it came up repeatedly before the invasion, and no less an authority than Ahmed Chalabi, among others, told them to go jump in a lake.
George Bush wouldn't do it. He wouldn't make a deal. Let's repeat that so that even Mr. Godburn understands:
GEORGE BUSH DECIDED THAT OUR TROOPS SHOULD GO IT ALONE IN IRAQ RATHER THAN MAKE A DEAL WITH OUR ALLIES TO SHARE THE OIL CONTRACTS AFTER THE WAR.
Remember, we're talking about Allies who already had contracts worth billions.
Why shouldn't they want to protect those contracts? What's WRONG with them acting in self interest? If anything, the existence of those contracts should have made it easier for Bush to make a deal with them, because they had something to lose.
Why was it anathema to George Bush to come to some sort of deal? Make no mistake that he could have; France and Germany knew we were going to Iraq, and they knew we had the might to do it alone. They had every reason to make a deal to preserve what value they could from those contracts.
But no deal happened. And that's because what George Bush offered them was ZERO. It was "get on board and we'll see what happens with the contracts when it's over". That's what he offered. And of course they said no. Can you blame them?
What in the world was Bush thinking? He was planning to launch the first preemptive war in U.S. history. What was more important to him than doing it with a truly international coalition and the blessings of the U.N.? What was so important that he preferred to have our troops go it essentially alone in Iraq?
Why didn't he make a deal? What would be the problem with sharing the oil contracts, if that's what it took? Isn't that his job? Clearly he could have offered SOMETHING.
Was ANY OIL AT ALL too high a price for him to pay?
Look, we know who is suffering from this decision: our troops in Iraq.
But who benefited from it?
To the Editor:Is there no amount of silly these people can't regurgitate?
In "Meant Well, Messed Up" (Op-Ed, July 29), Theodore C. Sorensen echoes the Democrats' theme that we have isolated ourselves from old allies through the arrogance of the Bush administration. This belief presumes that France and Germany would have gone along with the liberation of Iraq if only we had approached them in the right way.
Why the presumption that the French and German position is correct? France had financial ties to Saddam Hussein and was in a power struggle with Britain over European political issues. In short, France failed to go along for selfish reasons, not because we were arrogant.
We took out a proven mass murderer because the whole world thought he still had weapons of mass destruction. If that is a cause for hatred of the United States, then those who hate this administration are not only wrong, but on the wrong side of history.
Mark R. Godburn
Great Barrington, Mass., July 29, 2004
Look, this isn't rocket science. Take the facts as presented by Mr. Godburn and ask yourself why, if France and Germany had "financial ties to Saddam Hussein" -- and what they had was contracts worth billions -- that George Bush couldn't have made a deal with them.
Yes, they acted in self-interest. They had deals. Worth billions. And they didn't want to lose them. And we wanted something. We wanted help in toppling Saddam so our soldiers wouldn't have to go it alone.
In other words, we each wanted something. With us so far?
They wanted some sort of guarantee that if they helped topple Hussein at least some of their contracts would be honored. Right? We know this because it came up repeatedly before the invasion, and no less an authority than Ahmed Chalabi, among others, told them to go jump in a lake.
George Bush wouldn't do it. He wouldn't make a deal. Let's repeat that so that even Mr. Godburn understands:
GEORGE BUSH DECIDED THAT OUR TROOPS SHOULD GO IT ALONE IN IRAQ RATHER THAN MAKE A DEAL WITH OUR ALLIES TO SHARE THE OIL CONTRACTS AFTER THE WAR.
Remember, we're talking about Allies who already had contracts worth billions.
Why shouldn't they want to protect those contracts? What's WRONG with them acting in self interest? If anything, the existence of those contracts should have made it easier for Bush to make a deal with them, because they had something to lose.
Why was it anathema to George Bush to come to some sort of deal? Make no mistake that he could have; France and Germany knew we were going to Iraq, and they knew we had the might to do it alone. They had every reason to make a deal to preserve what value they could from those contracts.
But no deal happened. And that's because what George Bush offered them was ZERO. It was "get on board and we'll see what happens with the contracts when it's over". That's what he offered. And of course they said no. Can you blame them?
What in the world was Bush thinking? He was planning to launch the first preemptive war in U.S. history. What was more important to him than doing it with a truly international coalition and the blessings of the U.N.? What was so important that he preferred to have our troops go it essentially alone in Iraq?
Why didn't he make a deal? What would be the problem with sharing the oil contracts, if that's what it took? Isn't that his job? Clearly he could have offered SOMETHING.
Was ANY OIL AT ALL too high a price for him to pay?
Look, we know who is suffering from this decision: our troops in Iraq.
But who benefited from it?
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Overmatched
201k watched the first two nights of the DNC here in Boston on C-Span -- which is broadcasting the entire convention without commentary -- and it was wonderful. Great speeches, great music, and a positive vibe that reached right through the television.
But last night we switched between C-Span, CNN and the local PBS affiliate, and frankly, our faith has been shaken.
And sadly, that's probably the point.
We have no doubt that John Kerry could beat George W. Bush hands-down. But we're not sure he can beat the combined weight of the media. We're not sure anyone could.
On PBS they took nothing any Democrat said at face value, opting instead to hammer relentlessly at GOP talking points. Kerry as "flip-flopper", Kerry as "liberal", Kerry's "use" of veterans (it's contrived -- get it?), whether the country will "buy" Kerry as commander-in-chief" (it's a "sell" -- get it?). They routinely let GOP partisans dominate the discussion, even when interrupting Dems. Local PBS commentator John Carroll's only response to Al Sharpton's stirring and brilliant speech -- in which Sharpton pointedly and personally rejected George Bush's overtures to black voters -- was that it was probably a good thing for Democrats Sharpton wasn't on in prime time.
Not once did they discuss the themes Democrats were laying out. No discussion of George's Bush's record, his credibility, or his plan for the future. No credit given to Kerry for keeping Dems positive despite the enormous antipathy most feel for Bush. Just nonstop, smirky incredulity.
And this was the Boston affiliate.
Meanwhile on CNN they wasted no time in following John Edward's excellent speech with an "opposing view" from former Christian-coalition honcho turned GOP lay activist Ralph Reed. After approximately 30 seconds of honest commentary from CNN's in-house analysts, Wolfe "the Mole" Blitzer turned the network over to Reed for what seemed like ten minutes. Reed used this very generous perch to take pre-existing GOP talking points and pretend that they were an analysis of the speech Edwards had just given.
You just can't buy that kind of exposure. Or maybe you can.
In fairness to CNN, John King, appearing later with Aaron Brown, did attribute those very same talking points to "a GOP email" as he read them (again) to viewers. We suppose that's something of an improvement over the usual modus operandi on cable.
We can only imagine what was going on over on Fox.
Look, it's possible the game here is to demoralize Democrats; perhaps those that would hate to see the country rescued from its current extremist handlers -- including, sadly, many who once formed the backbone of the Democratic party -- can so little bear the thought of the diverse crowd at the DNC -- you know, blacks, Latinos, women -- come into power that they're intent on sending the signal that they mean to gore Kerry as mercilessly as they did, well, Gore.
If that's what's going on, then it seems to us we have two choices: the first is to slink away cynical and defeated, sadly confident that the system is hopelessly gamed in favor of the powerful. The second is to go on the attack and fight this one to the very end, using email, faxes, and phone calls to call the media constantly on their sneaky attempts to bury the Democratic candidate in an avalanche of GOP talking points.
We're recommending option two.
Patriotic Americans who feel the next presidential election should be a fair comparison of the competence, courage, vision, and wisdom of John Kerry and George Bush, and not a pre-scripted event staged to draw the country to the conclusion favored by the multi-national corporations that control the American media, can do something about it even if they haven't got the means to donate directly to either campaign. They can try to keep the media honest.
This means you. It means getting up off the couch when you hear or see something outrageous, and getting a polite, cogent, but pointed email, fax, or phone call off to the offending media outlet. Every time.
201k has come to believe that this election, and perhaps our very democracy, depends on it.
But last night we switched between C-Span, CNN and the local PBS affiliate, and frankly, our faith has been shaken.
And sadly, that's probably the point.
We have no doubt that John Kerry could beat George W. Bush hands-down. But we're not sure he can beat the combined weight of the media. We're not sure anyone could.
On PBS they took nothing any Democrat said at face value, opting instead to hammer relentlessly at GOP talking points. Kerry as "flip-flopper", Kerry as "liberal", Kerry's "use" of veterans (it's contrived -- get it?), whether the country will "buy" Kerry as commander-in-chief" (it's a "sell" -- get it?). They routinely let GOP partisans dominate the discussion, even when interrupting Dems. Local PBS commentator John Carroll's only response to Al Sharpton's stirring and brilliant speech -- in which Sharpton pointedly and personally rejected George Bush's overtures to black voters -- was that it was probably a good thing for Democrats Sharpton wasn't on in prime time.
Not once did they discuss the themes Democrats were laying out. No discussion of George's Bush's record, his credibility, or his plan for the future. No credit given to Kerry for keeping Dems positive despite the enormous antipathy most feel for Bush. Just nonstop, smirky incredulity.
And this was the Boston affiliate.
Meanwhile on CNN they wasted no time in following John Edward's excellent speech with an "opposing view" from former Christian-coalition honcho turned GOP lay activist Ralph Reed. After approximately 30 seconds of honest commentary from CNN's in-house analysts, Wolfe "the Mole" Blitzer turned the network over to Reed for what seemed like ten minutes. Reed used this very generous perch to take pre-existing GOP talking points and pretend that they were an analysis of the speech Edwards had just given.
You just can't buy that kind of exposure. Or maybe you can.
In fairness to CNN, John King, appearing later with Aaron Brown, did attribute those very same talking points to "a GOP email" as he read them (again) to viewers. We suppose that's something of an improvement over the usual modus operandi on cable.
We can only imagine what was going on over on Fox.
Look, it's possible the game here is to demoralize Democrats; perhaps those that would hate to see the country rescued from its current extremist handlers -- including, sadly, many who once formed the backbone of the Democratic party -- can so little bear the thought of the diverse crowd at the DNC -- you know, blacks, Latinos, women -- come into power that they're intent on sending the signal that they mean to gore Kerry as mercilessly as they did, well, Gore.
If that's what's going on, then it seems to us we have two choices: the first is to slink away cynical and defeated, sadly confident that the system is hopelessly gamed in favor of the powerful. The second is to go on the attack and fight this one to the very end, using email, faxes, and phone calls to call the media constantly on their sneaky attempts to bury the Democratic candidate in an avalanche of GOP talking points.
We're recommending option two.
Patriotic Americans who feel the next presidential election should be a fair comparison of the competence, courage, vision, and wisdom of John Kerry and George Bush, and not a pre-scripted event staged to draw the country to the conclusion favored by the multi-national corporations that control the American media, can do something about it even if they haven't got the means to donate directly to either campaign. They can try to keep the media honest.
This means you. It means getting up off the couch when you hear or see something outrageous, and getting a polite, cogent, but pointed email, fax, or phone call off to the offending media outlet. Every time.
201k has come to believe that this election, and perhaps our very democracy, depends on it.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Why Are They Alone?
In our minds, the biggest question surrounding the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq is their decision to do so with minimal international assistance.
President Bush's "coalition of the willing" was the best he could do when a true international coalition couldn't be achieved. But it wasn't enough.
American troops are unfairly being asked to bear the burden of war in Iraq. With only a small British presence--and a token presence from the other "willing" nations--US forces are shouldering the danger almost single-handedly. Worse, 40% of those troops are National Guardsmen. This is unacceptable.
Why, if toppling Hussein was such an unqualified good, could George Bush not assemble a truly international coalition? Doing so would have been far better for US soldiers; it would have divided the danger our soldiers now face alone, avoided the current unprecedented stretching of the military, and removed the need for two unfair and foolish policies: using Guardsmen to fight overseas, and calling out of retirement soldiers who have fulfilled their obligations.
We believe the question of why George Bush couldn't--or wouldn't--build an international coalition is central to understanding why Americans should consider his entire Iraq policy a miserable failure.
While his apologists and spinners suggest that it is the fault of our European allies--mostly France, Germany, and Russia--for not "joining the cause", it is in fact President Bush himself who is to blame.
George Bush deliberately chose to go it alone in Iraq rather than get an international coalition from the U.N., because to get that coalition he would have had to share Iraq oil rights with other members of the Security Council--which he was unwilling to do.
European countries who had contracts to drill for oil in Iraq acted in predicatable self interest by not supporting Bush's bid to internationalize the Iraq war--because he would not recognize their contracts or negotiate to share Iraq oil rights with them.
By choosing to keep Iraq oil rights entirely to American companies, George Bush deliberately chose the best interests of America's oil extraction industries over the best interests of US soldiers.
Had he so desired, George Bush could have negotiated deals with France, Germany, and Russia, and brought them into the coalition to invade Iraq. And he could have got a UN resolution. He did neither because it would have required recognizing the rights to Iraq's oil that other Security council countries held.
Conspiracy theory? Left-wing propaganda? Anti-Americanism?
Consider this article from September 29, 2002.
Back then Chalabi and other administration surrogates were turning logic on its head, suggesting that the oil contracts would be taken away from countries that didn't jump into the coalition. But this was never anything more than deceptive rhetoric--and a cover for greed. The countries in question already had contracts--contracts that would still be valid following a UN sanctioned invasion.
Chalabi had it backwards--on purpose.
Of course the Bush administration could have made deals to get France and Russia on board in Iraq. They didn't want to. They felt they didn't have to. They could take Iraq alone, and cancel the contracts as an "occupying power".
Which is what they did, just as Chalabi had threatened.
The question is: who gained from this strategy? We know who lost--US soldiers; they're fighting a war in Iraq essentially alone. But who gained? And whose strategy was it?
Who, besides Ahmed Chalabi, decided that keeping all of Iraq's oil in the hands of US firms rather than sharing it with allies who stood to lose billions in prior contracts was more important than giving US troops all the help they could use?
Was it Dick Cheney, aka Captain Halliburton?
Was it Donald Rumsfeld, who insisted the US military could do it alone?
More importantly: why did George Bush go along with it? As president it was his responsibility to ensure that US soldiers going into harm's way have all the help and all the materials they need.
What was more important than that to him?
President Bush's "coalition of the willing" was the best he could do when a true international coalition couldn't be achieved. But it wasn't enough.
American troops are unfairly being asked to bear the burden of war in Iraq. With only a small British presence--and a token presence from the other "willing" nations--US forces are shouldering the danger almost single-handedly. Worse, 40% of those troops are National Guardsmen. This is unacceptable.
Why, if toppling Hussein was such an unqualified good, could George Bush not assemble a truly international coalition? Doing so would have been far better for US soldiers; it would have divided the danger our soldiers now face alone, avoided the current unprecedented stretching of the military, and removed the need for two unfair and foolish policies: using Guardsmen to fight overseas, and calling out of retirement soldiers who have fulfilled their obligations.
We believe the question of why George Bush couldn't--or wouldn't--build an international coalition is central to understanding why Americans should consider his entire Iraq policy a miserable failure.
While his apologists and spinners suggest that it is the fault of our European allies--mostly France, Germany, and Russia--for not "joining the cause", it is in fact President Bush himself who is to blame.
George Bush deliberately chose to go it alone in Iraq rather than get an international coalition from the U.N., because to get that coalition he would have had to share Iraq oil rights with other members of the Security Council--which he was unwilling to do.
European countries who had contracts to drill for oil in Iraq acted in predicatable self interest by not supporting Bush's bid to internationalize the Iraq war--because he would not recognize their contracts or negotiate to share Iraq oil rights with them.
By choosing to keep Iraq oil rights entirely to American companies, George Bush deliberately chose the best interests of America's oil extraction industries over the best interests of US soldiers.
Had he so desired, George Bush could have negotiated deals with France, Germany, and Russia, and brought them into the coalition to invade Iraq. And he could have got a UN resolution. He did neither because it would have required recognizing the rights to Iraq's oil that other Security council countries held.
Conspiracy theory? Left-wing propaganda? Anti-Americanism?
Consider this article from September 29, 2002.
American firms are barred by U.S. law from making contracts with Iraq and have had to watch as the rival firms of other nations sign contracts with the Iraqi dictator to pump oil after U.N. sanctions are lifted.Yes, that's the same Ahmed Chalabi. Now disgraced, and under suspicion of espionage, but in September of 2002, still a spokesman for the coming invasion of Iraq.
The oil card is clearly a factor in the current tug-of-war between Baghdad, Washington and key members of the U.N. Security Council that oppose the Bush administration's push for a military move on Iraq. In recent years, seeking to curry favor, Hussein has given huge contracts to oil firms from France, Russia and China, which all have veto power in the Security Council.
The French oil giant TotalFinaElf has the largest position in Iraq, with exclusive negotiating rights to develop Majnoon, a field near the Iranian border with estimated reserves of 10 billion barrels. Moscow has a $3.5 billion, 23-year agreement for several huge Iraqi fields that gives a lead position to a Russian oil consortium led by LukOil.
Iraqi opposition leaders suggest that unless France, Russia and China support the U.S. line in the Security Council, their oil companies may find themselves blacklisted.
"We will examine all the contracts that Saddam Hussein has made, and we will cancel all those that are not in the interest of the Iraqi people and will reopen bidding on them," said Faisal Qaragholi, operations officer of the Iraqi National Congress, the opposition coalition based in London that plays a central role in the American anti-Hussein strategy.
Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, has gone even further, proposing the creation of consortium of American companies to develop Iraq's oil fields.
Back then Chalabi and other administration surrogates were turning logic on its head, suggesting that the oil contracts would be taken away from countries that didn't jump into the coalition. But this was never anything more than deceptive rhetoric--and a cover for greed. The countries in question already had contracts--contracts that would still be valid following a UN sanctioned invasion.
Chalabi had it backwards--on purpose.
Of course the Bush administration could have made deals to get France and Russia on board in Iraq. They didn't want to. They felt they didn't have to. They could take Iraq alone, and cancel the contracts as an "occupying power".
Which is what they did, just as Chalabi had threatened.
The question is: who gained from this strategy? We know who lost--US soldiers; they're fighting a war in Iraq essentially alone. But who gained? And whose strategy was it?
Who, besides Ahmed Chalabi, decided that keeping all of Iraq's oil in the hands of US firms rather than sharing it with allies who stood to lose billions in prior contracts was more important than giving US troops all the help they could use?
Was it Dick Cheney, aka Captain Halliburton?
Was it Donald Rumsfeld, who insisted the US military could do it alone?
More importantly: why did George Bush go along with it? As president it was his responsibility to ensure that US soldiers going into harm's way have all the help and all the materials they need.
What was more important than that to him?
Idiot
Another genius writes in to the NY Times:
Hey, you have nothing to worry about as long as you stick to popular speech.
If, on the other hand, you decide to make some unpopular speech, well, you take your chances. That's just what happens in a "free society", according Mark Kellner.
It's not like the First Amendment EXISTS to protect unpopular speech, which -- what? It does?
You mean we don't have mob rule? Even in Las Vegas (or Maryland)?
Oh.
But, then, how are thugs supposed to shout down anyone they disagree with? I mean, it's not easy keeping the rabble in line. We can't put every single free thinker on Bill O'Reilly's show so he can tell them to "shut up"--we need a mechanism for shutting them up en masse. Maybe some kind of propaganda effort to scare them into it.
Speaking of which: as far as the Ronstadt story itself goes, 201k is dubious. The A.P. piece--from which all subsequent reporting on the matter stemmed--was a highly unprofessional and suspect work. The fact is that there is only one source for every quote: Aladdin President Bill Timmins, who was the one who made the decision to have Ronstadt ejected.
This is no small matter. Literally EVERY description of the event that has been reprinted and requoted across the media spectrum came from Timmons. That Ronstadt "spoiled a wonderful evening for our guests...", that ""It was a very ugly scene.." and that "She praised him and all of a sudden all bedlam broke loose."
All of this--which has become the public record of the event--came from one source: the partisan boss who ejected her.
Why did A.P. find this single-sourcing from a interested party sufficient?
Has anyone read a description of the event from anyone OTHER than Timmons?
To the Editor:Yeah, that's how Free Speech works: you exercise your First Amendment rights, and then "face the consequences". It's called the marketplace of ideas.
Linda Ronstadt did not threaten only to sing during her Aladdin Hotel concert (editorial, July 21). Instead, she issued partisan comments that many in her audience found upsetting and unrelated to her music. You suggested that Ms. Ronstadt, in her paean to Michael Moore, was exercising the same rights as everyone else. Yes, she had those rights. She exercised them. She then faced the consequences. That's what can happen in a free market, and in a free society.
Mark A. Kellner
Rockville, Md., July 21, 2004
Hey, you have nothing to worry about as long as you stick to popular speech.
If, on the other hand, you decide to make some unpopular speech, well, you take your chances. That's just what happens in a "free society", according Mark Kellner.
It's not like the First Amendment EXISTS to protect unpopular speech, which -- what? It does?
You mean we don't have mob rule? Even in Las Vegas (or Maryland)?
Oh.
But, then, how are thugs supposed to shout down anyone they disagree with? I mean, it's not easy keeping the rabble in line. We can't put every single free thinker on Bill O'Reilly's show so he can tell them to "shut up"--we need a mechanism for shutting them up en masse. Maybe some kind of propaganda effort to scare them into it.
Speaking of which: as far as the Ronstadt story itself goes, 201k is dubious. The A.P. piece--from which all subsequent reporting on the matter stemmed--was a highly unprofessional and suspect work. The fact is that there is only one source for every quote: Aladdin President Bill Timmins, who was the one who made the decision to have Ronstadt ejected.
This is no small matter. Literally EVERY description of the event that has been reprinted and requoted across the media spectrum came from Timmons. That Ronstadt "spoiled a wonderful evening for our guests...", that ""It was a very ugly scene.." and that "She praised him and all of a sudden all bedlam broke loose."
All of this--which has become the public record of the event--came from one source: the partisan boss who ejected her.
Why did A.P. find this single-sourcing from a interested party sufficient?
Has anyone read a description of the event from anyone OTHER than Timmons?
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
This Land is Your Land
Poor Reader Shelly sent us this. You've no doubt seen it by now, but in case you haven't:
This Land is Your Land
This Land is Your Land
Monday, July 19, 2004
Dispatch from Paradise
Obviously our vacation has gone on a little longer than expected.
That's a great thing for 201k, though we appreciate the many emails urging us to get back on the stick. Soon.
In the meantime here's something a Poor Reader plucked from the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of the liberal media:
Look, let's be frank here: it's time for knee-jerk supporters of the Bush administration to start to honest-up a bit, and consider the possibility -- believed here from the start -- that they took the U.S. to war in Iraq not because that country had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Queda but because they KNEW IT DID NOT.
Get it? They went to Iraq not because it was a threat but because it was the EASIEST TARGET IN THE REGION.
The question all Americans should be asking is why? What were the reasons for invading Iraq that they couldn't tell Americans?
Why didn't they trust the public?
That's a great thing for 201k, though we appreciate the many emails urging us to get back on the stick. Soon.
In the meantime here's something a Poor Reader plucked from the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of the liberal media:
"The anticipated disclosure by the 9/11 Commission of contacts between Iran and al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks could ratchet up pressure on the White House to explain its subsequent emphasis on a threat from Iraq despite apparently far greater evidence of Iran's terrorist dealings...Which, of course, is what a lot of people were saying before the invasion.
Disclosures on an Iranian link to al Qaeda have been expected. Chairman Thomas Kean, former Republican New Jersey governor, said in a June 20 television interview that "we believe in the commission that there were a lot more active contacts frankly with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq.""
Look, let's be frank here: it's time for knee-jerk supporters of the Bush administration to start to honest-up a bit, and consider the possibility -- believed here from the start -- that they took the U.S. to war in Iraq not because that country had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Queda but because they KNEW IT DID NOT.
Get it? They went to Iraq not because it was a threat but because it was the EASIEST TARGET IN THE REGION.
The question all Americans should be asking is why? What were the reasons for invading Iraq that they couldn't tell Americans?
Why didn't they trust the public?
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Compare and Contrast
Maureen Dowd notices that Theresa Heinz Kerry has a bad habit of distracting attention away from her husband on stage:
Long-faced guy, as some Bushies refer to him, finally found somebody to stand at the podium and give him an adoring look.201k February 11, 2004:
Heaven knows Teresa was never going to do it. Her attention rarely seems to light on her husband when she's at a microphone with him.
She's easily distracted, waving and mouthing ''Hello'' at the audience and languidly arranging her hair and the red-and-blue ''John Kerry for President'' scarves she designed.
She siphons attention from a husband who has a hard enough time getting it. Yesterday, she distracted the audience when she seemed to be trying to get young Jack Edwards to stop sucking his thumb. Sometimes she'll laugh and smile in inappropriate places -- she once chuckled while her husband talked about curbing tax breaks for the rich.
- 201k stands second to no one in our admiration for intelligent, independent, and even slightly eccentric women. In fact, we love them.
But someone needs to tell Theresa Heinz Kerry to stand still while Sen. Kerry is talking.
This is not a matter of anti-feminism, or any "stand by your man" stepford wife baloney. It's purely about theatrical body language. When someone fidgets next to a speaker it sends the visual message that what the speaker is saying is not compelling. It distracts the eye and the ear of viewers.
People listen with their eyes. This is stage technique 101, and if Ms. Heinz going to be on stage with Sen. Kerry she needs to learn the chops.
No matter how many times you've heard a speech, you have to remember that many people in the audience are hearing it for the first time. You have to sell it each time. That's the gig. It's what every actor, musician and yes, politician learns.
Every member of every performance of every kind has heard every line in it a hundred times. But when it comes time to deliver those lines to an audience they have to be as riveted by them as they want the audience to be -- otherwise they send the signal that what's being said isn't worth hearing.
