Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

Salon, October 31, 2006

When we chose to invade Iraq, we made ourselves morally responsible for the consequences. This was not a debt we wanted to think about. And until the last few weeks, it was possible to repress it, by clinging to the hope that things would somehow turn out OK. That hope has now been dashed. Whether we stay or leave, Iraq is not going to be OK. And all we can do is watch as the deadly consequences of our folly, our rashness, our stupid self-righteousness, our inexcusable imperial hubris are visited on thousands of men, women and children -- only a minuscule fraction of them those "terrorists" we were supposedly attacking.

201k, January 31, 2004:

Many Americans believed the President when he said Iraq had WMD and ties to the 9/11 terrorists. Believing him, many supported the war.

But now we all know the weapons did not exist. The ties to Al-Qaida did not exist. And that changes everything.

We have killed thousands of Iraqis. We were told they had weapons which were an imminent threat to us, and it was strongly suggested they were in league with those who had viciously and mercilessly attacked us. That gave us the moral authority to strike.

But they weren't an imminent threat, and they didn't have ties to 9/11. To say now that they could have been a threat someday, or that Iraq was "a dangerous place", or that we're all better Saddam is gone is not the same.

If the American people choose to look the other way at being misled into bombing and invading Iraq--at the cost of hundreds of American and many thousands of Iraqi lives--then we can no longer claim innocence. We are no longer bystanders.

In our society--the world's oldest and most successful democracy--it is not only our right, but our responsibility to hold to the highest standard of American principles those we elect to wield the sword in our name. It is the moral duty of every individual American to insist that our country always acts as the world's greatest force for good, for justice, and for truth. Because the end, quite simply, does not justify the means--least of all when the means is the first preemptive war in our nation's history.

If we the people fail to do our duty then we the people must accept responsibility for the result. We will be innocent no more

...once again intrudes, putting 201k off schedule a bit. Sorry.

As always, all quality contributions appreciated.

We know, we know -- our debate wrap-up is late. We're working on it. Meanwhile...


...is it us, or does this A.P. headline say exactly the opposite of the story?

Our full debate coverage -- such as it is -- soon.

Meanwhile, here's some photos.

Moderator Jon "Go Back To Your Corners, Then Come Out Quibbling" Keller:


Photo © 2006 201k.com/Mike Barry

The Press Room. It's a shame to think these people had their fingers in that nice cheese plate.


Photo © 2006 201k.com/Mike Barry

The two guys in the foreground -- the back of the head on the left and the sideburns and ear on the right -- didn't know Christy Mihos had been on the Turnpike Authority, whereas Ally McBeal on the right knew that the Romney/Healey Administration had vetoed $8 million of the $250 million Healey claimed they'd spent on substance abuse programs.

Nothing like coming prepared, boys. Give it a shot next time.

Penn Gillette (front corner of the table, near the door) was on the phone half the night. Next time his paper should send Teller -- it'd be quieter.

On to the candidates:

Lt. Gov. Kerry "Vote For Me Or Black Men Will Stalk You in Parking Garages" Healey:


Photo © 2006 201k.com/Mike Barry

Deval "I'll Catch-up On the Details Later -- Did I Mention I Know Bill Clinton?" Patrick:


Photo © 2006 201k.com/Mike Barry

Christy "How Did I Get Pegged As the Whacko in This Race When Grace Ross is Running?" Mihos:


Photo © 2006 201k.com/Mike Barry

Grace "Onward To Glorious Revolution!" Ross:


Photo © 2006 201k.com/Mike Barry

Our complete synopsis soon...

201k.com, January, 21, 2004

Should [Democrats] be worried that, having lost the election, George Bush will not step down from the presidency?

Bush himself, in last night's State of the Union address, said this:

"...now we face a choice. We can go forward with confidence and resolve or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us."

Taken on its face it's a purely political statement, made to set the terms of debate on Iraq, and distinguish Bush from how he hopes to characterize his opponents. But it's not hard to see how such a position could be extended as a matter of "national security", particularly from the man who, in his previous speech to the nation, strongly suggested that Americans disagreeing with his policies were aiding terrorists.

Bush's refusing to step down may sound unthinkable, but it's certainly no stretch to imagine such an act well within the capabilities of Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney. Indeed, many of the steps these men have taken since Bush took office set the table very nicely for it.

It's also likely not beyond military minds like that of Generals G. Jerry "My God is Real and Yours Isn't" Boykin, and Tommy "One More Attack and the People will Support a Military Coup" Franks. How many more in uniform are there like Jerry and Tommy, we wonder?

The question remaining, we suppose, is: how many members of the media would have no problem with it either? They are, after all, the people's eyes and ears to power.

Perhaps the question to pose to our media gatekeepers is this: If George Bush lost the election but refused to step down citing national security concerns, would you support it?

Garrison Keillor, October 25, 2006:

Maybe we've been too lenient with enemies of the state. A period of stark repression might be a rich and rewarding experience for all of us. But when the Current Occupant signed the Act last week, the difference between freedom and terror did suddenly shrink somewhat. It makes you wonder: What if Mr. Cheney does not wish to give up power two years from now? Maybe he has other priorities. If an enemy of the United States -- a Democrat, for example -- appeared to be on the verge of election, perhaps Mr. Cheney, for the good of the country, will be forced to take the threat seriously and head for an undisclosed location and invoke his war powers and shovel a few thousand traitors into camps and call up his friends at Diebold and program the election results that are best for the country, or call the whole thing off.

OK by me if it's OK by you. I don't imagine that coffee sales will be affected or that Paris Hilton will be, like, "Whoa, this is so not cool," and, like, text-message her buds to join her on a hunger strike. The greeters at Wal-Mart will still smile and the football season will go on. They might flash a bulletin at halftime, "Terror Threat Forces Postponement of Election," and most people would be OK with that. If Mr. Cheney thinks it necessary to suspend the Constitution for a while, surely he has his reasons. The man inspires trust.

For reasons known only to CBS4, we've been invited to another debate.

Stay tuned.

Down in the polls and with nothing to recommend her to voters, Kerry Healey has boiled her campaign message down to one simple idea:

"Deval Patrick: He'll Rape Our White Women."

We'd respond but our stomachs couldn't take it. Besides, Mass Lawyer's Weekly has done a great job of it already.

Paul Krugman in the NY Times, October 9, 2006:

The current right-wing explanation for what went wrong in Iraq closely echoes Joseph McCarthy's explanation for the Communist victory in China, which he said was "the product of a great conspiracy" at home. According to the right, things didn't go wrong because the invasion was a mistake, or because Donald Rumsfeld didn't send enough troops, or because the occupation was riddled with cronyism and corruption. No, it's all because the good guys were stabbed in the back. Democrats, who undermined morale with their negative talk, and the liberal media, which refused to report the good news from Iraq, are responsible for the quagmire.

201k, October 29, 2003:

See, the problem isn't thousands of years of religious conflict, hundreds of years of colonial occupation, or even decades of brutal dictatorship and reactionary anti-western zealotry -- and it's certainly not the horrendously ignorant, ideologically-driven foreign policy of the neocons who hijacked George Bush's presidency.

No, the problem is anyone who criticizes the Bush administration or their policies. That's what's REALLY motivating the terrorists. If we'd all just get on board the terrorists would "have no reason to attack".

Because they don't think they're fighting a titanic religious struggle that goes back eons -- they're really just reacting to Paul Krugman.

Why do we just know there was some Russian hard-liner spewing this same nonsense while Russians soldiers were up to their armpits in blood in Afghanistan? Or in England, for that matter, while they were mired in this same Iraq.

The blame for this particularly stinky poop-throwing rests squarely on the head of the President himself, for it was he who first slung it, in his State of the Union address.

...our President could be so oblivious to reality, we remind you:

George Bush walked away from his military service and paid no price;
George Bush walked away from failed oil companies and paid no price;
George Bush sold stock under very suspicious circumstances and paid no price;
George Bush drove drunk and paid no price;
George Bush was a party monster who paid no price;
George Bush was given a huge uncollateralized loan from a bank and paid no price;
George Bush was used as the front man for the real owners of the Texas Rangers then was given a larger share of the team in exchange for who-knows-what and paid no price;
George Bush has been the political beneficiary of countless appalling smear campaigns and paid no price;
George Bush may well have used a wire in a presidential debate and paid no price;

See, while the rest of us pay for our mistakes -- and we all make mistakes -- George Bush never has. He has no idea what it's like to live with the consequences of his own actions.

So how could he possibly understand what it feels like for someone else to have their life ruined by his actions?

We could be wrong. If anyone knows of any price George W. Bush ever paid for a mistake -- the way anyone else would have paid -- please write and let us know.

Stop apologizing.

That Benjamin LaGuer turned out to be guilty does not change the fact that their are myriad legitimate issues concerning the use and availability of DNA evidence. We live in a acountry in which an entire state has suspended their capital punishment program owing to its Republican governor's concerns about the accuracy of the convictions.

And you should have the courage of yours.

Apologizing makes you look weak and ashamed of positions you have taken in the past. It also takes attention away from the real issues at stake in this election, which Kerry Healey is understandably eager to avoid. If you must respond to Healey's slimeball tactics, challenge her "tough on crime" stance as one that oversteps constitutional safeguards and the Bill of Rights. You should remind voters that being tough on crime does not mean that we should ignore the constitutional provisions of the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and speedy trial, or prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. Healey apparently has no problems violating the voters' rights to pursue a totalitarian "tough on crime" platform, and no doubt lauded the recent republican legislation that virtually eliminates habeus corpus, the backbone of our society of laws.

Hit her back.

When you've finished the counterattack, remind voters that this is all nothing but a way for Healey to avoid the real issues that voters in Commonwealth are concerned about - health care, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, assisting cash-strapped municipalities, and improving security for our ports, water supplies, mass transit systems, and so on.

And please, please, quit saying, "with all due respect to the Lt. Governor." Given her tactics, Healey is not due any respect from anyone, let alone the target of her smear campaign.

From Associated Press
Posted Tuesday, October 03, 2006

QUARRYVILLE, Pennsylvania -- A man who laid siege to a one-room Amish schoolhouse, killing five girls, told his wife by cell phone shortly before opening fire that he had molested two young relatives decades ago and was tormented by "dreams of molesting again," authorities said today.

Charles Carl Roberts IV, 32, had sexual lubricant with him, along with and flex-tie plastic handcuffs he had bought seven days earlier, but police have no evidence that he actually did molest the children at the small Amish school, said State Police Commissioner Jeffrey B. Miller.

Roberts had chained the girls together in a line at the blackboard and barricade the doors after sending the boys and adults away, Miller said. He also had weapons and supplies indicating he was prepared for a long stand-off, said the police commissioner.

Hmm.

Some have suggested the Foley scandal means that gays should not serve in government.

If that's the case then, clearly, straight men should not be allowed to have lubricant or guns.

A note to our Poor Readers: we've had trouble posting lately. This is why posts have been appearing two or three at a time. Not sure if the trouble is with Blogger or our server.

201k does not back-date or substantively alter previous posts, except to correct typos, grammatical errors, or formatting issues. The back-dated posts that have mysteriously appeared this week were written on the dates indicated; they wouldn't post at the time, and we've been publishing them all at once when the gremlins take a break.

201k, July 19, 2004:

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?

Maureen Dowd, October 4, 2006:

[Henry] Kissinger has been one of the few trusted outside advisers that W. has listened to on Iraq. The administration has shaped its policy to hew to the 83-year-old Unwise Man's belief that the only way to beat an insurgency is to stick it out, no matter how many American kids and foreign civilians die.

Mr. Kissinger's reasoning for favoring war in Iraq had none of the idealistic gloss about democracy that the president came up with later. Like Mr. Cheney, he thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq not because it was strong, but because it was weak. "We need to humiliate" radical Islam, he told Mr. Gerson, and send the message that "we're not going to live in this world that they want for us."

The Wall Street Journal plays twister with reality trying to turn the Foley scandal into an attack on "liberals":

...in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

Hilarious.

Ok, line by line we go:

...in today's politically correct culture

As opposed to back when it was ok for Congressman to sexually trawl for teenage pages...

it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails.

Right, that's what was going on; he was "gay" and "a little too friendly in emails." Right.

Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices

Um, yeah -- between consenting adults. Not between a Congressman and a teenage Congressional page.

This really isn't that hard to understand.

and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys.

Er...what? Who's leaping to anything, and what has gay got to do with it? We're talking about a person in a position of authority angling in on teenage interns. Anywhere else in America Foley's behavior would have set off alarm bells, whether he was zeroing in on boys or girls. His behavior -- even before his explicit IM messages became known -- was way out of line.

Only in the GOP-controlled Congress did his actions not bring censure.

Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

So...if we condemn a sexual predator we have to condemn all gay men? Is that it?

What a load of crap.

What we're wondering is how the Republican leadership can on the one hand smoothly explain away their not dropping the hammer on a Congressman with a long history of sexually prowling for teenagers, but on the other go apoplectic and grind the entire country to a halt over the consensual sex Bill Clinton had with an adult woman.

How is that?

October 2, 2006

Rice Dismisses Charge That She Ignored Qaeda Warning
By Philip Shenon

SHANNON, Ireland, Oct. 2 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said it was "incomprehensible" that she could have ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Really? We can comprehend it quite easily.

In her first direct comments about the book, Secretary Rice told reporters traveling with her to the Middle East on Sunday night that she did not believe there had ever been such an exchange with Mr. Tenet.

She did not believe...

Nor, she said, did she remember if she even met with Mr. Tenet in the White House on July 10, 2001, the date identified in Mr. Woodward's book, "State of Denial," which went on sale last weekend. Ms. Rice was President Bush's national security adviser at that time.

Nor did she remember...

"I don't recall a so-called emergency meeting," she continued, adding that "it was not unusual that George and I would meet, in a sense, unscheduled" in the White House, especially during such a tense period.

She doesn't recall...

Ms. Rice said she had no specific recollection of meeting with Mr. Tenet and Mr. Black on July 10, 2001.

No specific recollection...

"We'll have to go back to the records to see if there was a meeting" that day, Secretary Rice said.

We'll have to see...

"The idea that I would have somehow ignored that, I find incomprehensible -- especially given that in July, we're getting a steady stream of quite alarmist reports of potential attacks."

Incomprehensible...

My, what a lot of carefully worded non-denial denials! Why doesn't Rice just say, "This meeting and warning never happened"? After all, the Secretary of State of the United States of America should be able to find out pretty quickly if and why she met with the Director of the CIA on a certain day.

Perhaps this sentence is a clue to the problem:

"What I can be quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States," she said.

Really? She's quite certain she'd remember if she were told that?

Really?

Seems to us we recall her having trouble remembering that exact thing not very long ago. Oh yes -- here it is:

Rice, May 16, 2002:

"I don't think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an aeroplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon," she said.

But look -- how odd! It turns out someone had predicted that exact thing -- and told her all about it:

Rice, May 19, 2004:

BEN-VENISTE: I want to ask you some questions about the August 6, 2001, PDB. We had been advised in writing by CIA on March 19, 2004, that the August 6 PDB was prepared and self-generated by a CIA employee. Following Director Tenet's testimony on March 26 before us, the CIA clarified its version of events, saying that questions by the president prompted them to prepare the August 6 PDB.

Now, you have said to us in our meeting together earlier in February, that the president directed the CIA to prepare the August 6 PDB.

The extraordinary high terrorist attack threat level in the summer of 2001 is well-documented. And Richard Clarke's testimony about the possibility of an attack against the United States homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August within the intelligence community, and that is well-documented.

You acknowledged to us in your interview of February 7, 2004, that Richard Clarke told you that al Qaeda cells were in the United States.

Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6, of the existence of al Qaeda cells in the United States?

RICE: First, let me just make certain...

BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question, because I only have a very limited...

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but it's important...

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president...

RICE: ... that I also address...

It's also important that, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised. So I will do it quickly, but if you'll just give me a moment.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you...

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will...

BEN-VENISTE: ... told the president.

RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked.

First of all, yes, the August 6 PDB was in response to questions of the president -- and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of al Qaeda's operations.

Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum -- I remember it as being only a line or two -- that there were al Qaeda cells in the United States.

Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?

And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al Qaeda cells. I believe in the August 6 memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it. I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

Now, the...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

Gee whiz, Poor Readers, how could it be that Condoleezza Rice keeps being quite certain that she wasn't aware of things it later turns out she was completely aware of?

What possible explanation could there be?

201k has been on the Zogby "Online Poll" list for a while -- just doing our part for democracy -- but we were a little stumped by the choices given for a couple of questions in the latest poll. Here's the first:

If you knew that offshore oil rigs would be so far away they could not be seen by people standing along the shoreline, would that make you much more likely, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to support the drilling for oil off the American coastline?

• Much more likely
• Somewhat more likely
• Somewhat more likely
• Much more likely
• Not sure

Um...but...

Well, you can't say they didn't give us a choice. Or actually, you can.

On another, less typo-related, note, we were genuinely unsatisfied with the choices offered for this question:

Thinking about America's use of oil, which of the following statements best reflects your thinking on the subject - A, B, or C?

Statement A: America has the world's most important economy and it should use as much oil as it needs to keep it growing.

Statement B: America has one of the world's most important economies, and it should balance its oil consumption with that of other important economies to make sure that everyone has enough to meet their needs without shortages or price spikes.

Statement C: America has had its chance to build a strong economy, and it should now reduce its oil consumption to spare more for other nations who are trying to grow their economies and provide jobs for their citizens.

Apparently, when it comes to oil consumption, you're either with America or with "other nations".

Who picked those choices -- Karl Rove?

How about: Statement D: America's use of oil is a dangerous strategic liability that generates huge profits for some people while decreasing security for the vast majority of Americans. It should reduce oil consumption to reduce that liability, and put the safety and future of the whole country ahead of the short-term profits of a few of its citizens.

That's our choice.