Friday, May 13, 2005

Go ahead, Jeff...Jim...whatever

Did they let Jeff Gannon back in the White House press room? From yesterday's briefing:

Q Scott, U.N. leaders have faced a number of scandals over the past year, from the Oil for Food scandal, the sex scandal in Africa, possible involvement by Kofi Annan, the Volcker possible whitewash of the investigation. Why is it that Republican leaders seems to be more upset about John Bolton's tough management style than they are with corruption at the U.N.? And where's the outrage regarding that instead of whether or not Bolton is, let's say, polished enough to handle the job as U.N. ambassador?
I like the "Volcker possible whitewash" bit. Why wait for the report when you can smear it ahead of time?

Get all your Bolton info at The Washington Note.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Letter to Howard Kurtz

Mr. Kurtz:

In your column today (Thursday, May 12), you mention that "Wisconsin voter fraud is a very hot online topic for those such as Powerline's John Hinderaker."

Have you also noted in your column that voter fraud is on the mind of other commentators, such as Jim Lampley on the Huffington blog and columnist Robert C. Koehler? Links below.

Thank you for your attention.

Lame Man

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Bush and foreign media

I think I'm just gonna link to Froomkin and leave it at that. I don't think I have the fortitude to follow some of his links. Stuff like this does that to me:

Q: Mr. President, you are a transformational, they call it, and promoting democracy in the world is a very ambitious goal; and achieve peace, changing the world, and it's also acknowledging Europe. But such a far-reaching idealism can also easily lead to moral inconsistencies that risk to undermine your credibility. For instance, how does the way detainees at Guantanamo Bay are being handled, how does that relate to your promotion of democracy and the rule of law?

"THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. That, and, for example, the pictures people saw about the prison -- prison abuse is different from the detainees in Guantanamo. We're working our way forward, so that they -- and our courts, by the way, are adjudicating this. It is a clear, transparent review of the decision I made by the courts, so everybody can see it. And they're being argued in the courts as we speak. People are being treated humanely. They were illegal non-combatants, however, and I made the decision they did not pertain to the Geneva Convention. They were not -- these were terrorists. Obviously, we've looked at Iraq differently.

Monday, May 09, 2005

Bush and the British memo

(Not the timeliest of posts, but here goes.)

Juan Cole discusses the British memo, in which the head of MI6 describes what Bush is thinking in July of 2002:

"C [Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Here are Bush's public comments on August 10, 2002, while golfing no less:

Q Do you think the American people are prepared for casualties in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that that presumes there's some kind of imminent war plan. As I said, I have no timetable. What I do believe the American people understand is that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of leaders such as Saddam Hussein are very dangerous for ourselves, our allies. They understand the concept of blackmail. They know that when we speak of making the world more safe, we do so not only in the context of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but nations that have proven themselves to be bad neighbors and bad actors.

Here he is on August 16, 2002:

But America needs to know, I'll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country plus our friends and allies.

Via, an article by a veteran CIA guy at