Monday grab-bag
* The New York Times has apparently just figured out what the British press knew last May: Bush had made up his mind to invade Iraq, and was willing to manufacture excuses to do so. This puts the lag-time between the NY Times and the British press at what, ten months? The scary part is, that's arguably an improvement. Somebody buy them a subscription to The Guardian. But the NY Times did print these gems:
The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
Can that idiotic meme about "but everybody thought they did have WMD" finally die now?
* In other simultaneously frustrating and happy-making news, ABC News has caught on to the global warming "controversy" scam. I saw this item on tv last night, and was just stunned. They plainly stated that the scientific community is overwhelmingly convinced global warming is real and caused by humans. And they pointed out that while most Americans have seen the evidence of climate change, most are also misled about how much disagreement there is in the scientific community. And they came right out and said that Americans who were correctly informed were more likely to support government action on climate change.
None of this is news to anyone who's been paying attention. The amazing part is that ABC reported it so frankly, not as just another "controversy" over whether the industry caused confusion on purpose. The web article is less straightforward about it, but still.
* In case you missed it, the Washington Post hired a conservative blogger, and liberal bloggers forced his resignation within days after proving he was a serial plagiarist. Ahahahahahah! Markos from DailyKos was interviewed about it on CNN. :hearts: And in a less notable but personally satisfying matter, I got a New Zealand paper to fix an online article where they said Tamiflu was a vaccine. :preens:
* Finally, D.C. Simpson obliterates one of my least favorite myths: that Bush was "heroic" after 9-11. (Scroll past the cartoon to the "I Think This" entry dated March 19th.)
Former Bush speechwriter David Frum, author of The Right Man and coiner of the first two words of the phrase "axis of evil," lauds Bush in his book for standing at the wreckage of the world Trade Center and looking very serious and somber. To Frum, this is proof that Bush came of age as president in the wake of the crisis, rose from being "Dubya" to being a serious and historic commander-in-chief. But ask yourself--if the sole qualification for the presidency is seeing something tragic and not laughing inappropriately, what reasonably bright ten-year-old child couldn't serve as president?
Personally, I think we have a rather not bright eight-year-old as president, but he's got a point.
What's more, Bush always gets credit for restoring the nation's confidence during this shaky period. But to the extent that he did this, he did it in the cheapest possible way--by making threats against people who not only hadn't done anything, but had in fact pledged already to support us. And in doing so, he squandered the event's only real silver lining, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cultivate international goodwill, even more vital in an era where the major enemies are lawless terrorists.
I mean, do you remember what it was like? As traumatized as we as a nation were, didn't it just make you cry when Chirac said "we are all Americans now," in a moving echo of "ich bin ein Berliner"? Not only did France pledge to support us--Iran did too. Everyone did. We had the whole world offering condolences and asking what help we needed....
But we had a president who was more interested in a short-term boost to his TV-based approval ratings, and damn the cost to international relations. So he thought he'd threaten everybody into doing what they'd already volunteered to do. "You're either with us or you're against us," he snarled, perhaps not realizing that Dirty Harry is not an international diplomacy guide. I think everyone was a bit taken aback by the truculence of Bush's tone. Instead of solidifying international alliances of goodwill, Bush set us firmly on the path to where we are now--isolation and hostility.
Iran. Iran offered to help us. Just think about that when the anti-Iran rhetoric gets hysterical running up to this year's elections.
The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
Can that idiotic meme about "but everybody thought they did have WMD" finally die now?
* In other simultaneously frustrating and happy-making news, ABC News has caught on to the global warming "controversy" scam. I saw this item on tv last night, and was just stunned. They plainly stated that the scientific community is overwhelmingly convinced global warming is real and caused by humans. And they pointed out that while most Americans have seen the evidence of climate change, most are also misled about how much disagreement there is in the scientific community. And they came right out and said that Americans who were correctly informed were more likely to support government action on climate change.
None of this is news to anyone who's been paying attention. The amazing part is that ABC reported it so frankly, not as just another "controversy" over whether the industry caused confusion on purpose. The web article is less straightforward about it, but still.
* In case you missed it, the Washington Post hired a conservative blogger, and liberal bloggers forced his resignation within days after proving he was a serial plagiarist. Ahahahahahah! Markos from DailyKos was interviewed about it on CNN. :hearts: And in a less notable but personally satisfying matter, I got a New Zealand paper to fix an online article where they said Tamiflu was a vaccine. :preens:
* Finally, D.C. Simpson obliterates one of my least favorite myths: that Bush was "heroic" after 9-11. (Scroll past the cartoon to the "I Think This" entry dated March 19th.)
Former Bush speechwriter David Frum, author of The Right Man and coiner of the first two words of the phrase "axis of evil," lauds Bush in his book for standing at the wreckage of the world Trade Center and looking very serious and somber. To Frum, this is proof that Bush came of age as president in the wake of the crisis, rose from being "Dubya" to being a serious and historic commander-in-chief. But ask yourself--if the sole qualification for the presidency is seeing something tragic and not laughing inappropriately, what reasonably bright ten-year-old child couldn't serve as president?
Personally, I think we have a rather not bright eight-year-old as president, but he's got a point.
What's more, Bush always gets credit for restoring the nation's confidence during this shaky period. But to the extent that he did this, he did it in the cheapest possible way--by making threats against people who not only hadn't done anything, but had in fact pledged already to support us. And in doing so, he squandered the event's only real silver lining, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cultivate international goodwill, even more vital in an era where the major enemies are lawless terrorists.
I mean, do you remember what it was like? As traumatized as we as a nation were, didn't it just make you cry when Chirac said "we are all Americans now," in a moving echo of "ich bin ein Berliner"? Not only did France pledge to support us--Iran did too. Everyone did. We had the whole world offering condolences and asking what help we needed....
But we had a president who was more interested in a short-term boost to his TV-based approval ratings, and damn the cost to international relations. So he thought he'd threaten everybody into doing what they'd already volunteered to do. "You're either with us or you're against us," he snarled, perhaps not realizing that Dirty Harry is not an international diplomacy guide. I think everyone was a bit taken aback by the truculence of Bush's tone. Instead of solidifying international alliances of goodwill, Bush set us firmly on the path to where we are now--isolation and hostility.
Iran. Iran offered to help us. Just think about that when the anti-Iran rhetoric gets hysterical running up to this year's elections.