Think, dammit.

President Bush made two stunning admissions yesterday in a half-hour interview with the New York Times. First, he hung the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth" out to dry, saying that he does not believe John Kerry lied about his war record. Eat that, SBV"T"ers. (He goes on to castigate all 527 groups in general, still refusing to condemn the attack ads.)

He also, incredibly, admitted for the first time that he had made a "miscalculation" about what postwar Iraq would turn out to be, winning him the prestigious "No Shit, Sherlock" award. However, the honeymoon of truth and clarity was, of course, over all too soon. Check out this all-too-familiar Bush logic, according to the article:

"Bush insisted that the 17-month-long insurgency that has upended the administration's plans for the country was the unintended by-product of a 'swift victory' against Saddam Hussein's military, which fled and then disappeared into the cities, enabling them to mount a rebellion against the American forces far faster than Mr. Bush and his aides had anticipated."

In other words, the reason we haven't won yet is because we've already won.


This moment of Bush Logic™ has been brought to you by the letters FL, and the number 537.

This is a picture of college-age George W. Bush, sucker-punching a rugby opponent. Apparently it comes from one of the Yale yearbooks; I don't know, I just lifted the pic from Tom Tomorrow's fantastic site. The caption reads: "George Bush delivers illegal, but gratifying right hook to opposing ball player."

Now I don't wanna bag on any Yale yearbook editor's skills, but while it gets the job done, as captions go, that one's a little boring. So I have opened the floor to your suggestions for a better caption...

Here's mine:

"George W. Bush valiently attacks a suicide bomber before he can detonate his rugby ball."

Your turn!

[Update: go here for a much more extensive, quality break-down of the same topic.]

Not that you asked, but here's a letter I just sent to my local papers, painfully limited to 200 words:

Some have claimed that John Kerry isn't a true Catholic simply for being pro-choice. I believe that Kerry's religious views should be left between him and God. Those who wish to make this a campaign issue would do well to consider George W. Bush's standing with his church too.

UMC leaders have attempted to discuss their concerns over the Iraq War with President Bush since before it began. Yet, he still refuses to meet with them. At the 2004 General Conference, Bishop Melvin Talbert, ecumenical officer for the United Methodist Council of Bishops, said "One of the pains on my heart has been his claim to be ultra religious, yet he has not found the time to receive a delegation of United Methodist bishops."

Paragraph 165C, in the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline, reads in part: "We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ...[we] insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among them..."

If John Kerry can't be both Catholic and pro-choice, how come George Bush gets to be Methodist and pro-war?

(Sources are here and here.)

This picture comes courtesy of the Portland Tribune, a free local paper, and was picked up in the blogosphere by Don Overwith at Daily Kos.

Overwith writes,

"This picture makes me furious. The smug and serene look on the face of that woman just perfectly exemplifies the arrogance of 'dissent is unpatriotic'."

Well said. Though to be fair, I'm not going to castigate all Republicans based on this one lunatic. Just the "dissent is unpatriotic" ones.

This is such a great article:

Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

By John Gray
Cincinnati, Ohio

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark.)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.) Joe agrees: "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Head on over to USA HEGEMONY for all your conservative bumper-sticker needs. Yes, the 'Halliburton flag' sticker is serious.

It's true. I wonder why they deemed it necessary...

The article, which at first glance appeared to have been written by our friendly neighborhood Bush-lickers, reads in part:

The [New Mexico Rally] tickets went to busloads of pre-screened party faithful -- who poured in hours in advance -- to be greeted and organized by Bush campaign staffers.

"We don't want anybody with a dry throat. We want you yelling for the president!" they were told.

<-----snip----->

As relaxed and affable as a talk show host, the president answers friendly questions -- which are often not questions at all.

"Mr. President, I don't have a question. I've got three thank-yous," said one supporter.

He also helps his handpicked guests to make a point.

"I don't know, Linda, if you're in a position to say this. But most people who go back to school with the new jobs end up making more money."

Linda: "Absolutely."

<-----snip----->

"I think it was more of a rally to get the supporters rallied up, so I think it served its purpose," said a guest.

But what about inviting some voters who haven't yet made up their minds?

"You mean the people who don't support Bush? They're only gonna sit and chat and you won't get to hear anything," said a backer.

It's all about getting out the message without any distractions, and making sure that there's no public argument to spoil the party.

----------------
God forbid. Can't have too many people speaking freely! They might say something we don't like! (See below.)

If you haven't, it takes place in DC, about 50 years down the line. The plot is based around this Orwellian premise that the police can determine in advance whenever a murder is about to be committed--"Precrime." At that point, they descend into the scene and arrest the would-be murderer before he/she can go through with it.

So what the hell does this have to do with politics? Glad you asked.

I just came across this article, which discusses how the FBI has been interrogating anti-war protesters in an effort to stem possible violence at anti-Bush rallies, etc. There's just one problem: nobody's done anything yet.

From the article:

F.B.I. officials are urging agents to canvass their communities for information about planned disruptions aimed at the convention and other coming political events, and they say they have developed a list of people who they think may have information about possible violence. They say the inquiries, which began last month before the Democratic convention in Boston, are focused solely on possible crimes, not on dissent, at major political events.

<-----snip----->

The unusual initiative comes after the Justice Department, in a previously undisclosed legal opinion, gave its blessing to controversial tactics used last year by the F.B.I in urging local police departments to report suspicious activity at political and antiwar demonstrations to counterterrorism squads. The F.B.I. bulletins that relayed the request for help detailed tactics used by demonstrators - everything from violent resistance to Internet fund-raising and recruitment.

In an internal complaint, an F.B.I. employee charged that the bulletins improperly blurred the line between lawfully protected speech and illegal activity. But the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, in a five-page internal analysis obtained by The New York Times, disagreed.

------------------
Actually, I may have been too hasty. I mean, if John Ashcroft says it's Constitutional, that's good enough for me.

You see this graph here? It comes from the "Delegate Diversity" section of the Republican National Convention's website. It bears the heading, "Percentage Increase Of Ethnically Diverse Delegates between the 2000-2004 National Conventions."

Note how in this graph, the Democrats appear to be woefully behind as far as their diverse delegates are concerned. They're sitting at a roughly 20% increase, compared with the unbelievable 70% increase of the Republicans. Worse still, this is all technically true! How could those Democrats have gotten so far behind the times?

Simple: this graph measures the increase, not the percentage of actual delegates. In other words, since the Democrats have actually invited people of color to the convention prior to 2004, their overall increase isn't that high--from about 33% to 40%. But according to the second graph on that same site, the Republicans have increased their minority delegates from 10% to a whopping 17%, also referred to as considerably less than the 40% of people of color present at the Democratic National Convention.

Knowing this, you really should go over and check out the RNC diversity site. It's seriously funny--and it's a wonderful example of how you can appear to prove anything with statistics, when you're really lying through your teeth.

Alan Keyes has announced that he will become the latest Illinois GOP contender for the Senate to get his ass kicked by Barack Obama. But you know what? More power to him. I'm actually glad that Obama doesn't have to run unopposed, and I imagine the debates will be pretty interesting.

Having said that, I have to question what, exactly, in hell the Illinois GOP leaders hope to accomplish. This cannot possibly have been well thought-out. ("Gentlemen, Barack Obama has totally humiliated us at every turn. He is intelligent, charismatic, well-spoken, and enormously popular. Therefore, we must run an opponent so extreme in contrast that everyone in the nation will assume that we're totally out of touch with any semblance of political reality." "An excellent idea!")

Actually, though I can't say very much in defense of his stances, I will say this: Keyes' uncompromising view of federalism is refreshing, and proves him to be a bold, decisive leader who stands by his beliefs. For example, four years ago, when so many others kept silent, Alan Keyes stood up and publically denounced Hillary Clinton, in the name of that principle he holds so dear:

"I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there, so I certainly wouldn't imitate it."

Of course not! That's right. Damn right.

(Thanks to the Bush-lickers at Lickin' Bush in '04 for bringing this to my attention.)

There are many pundits and others who are irate about the nature of "deception" in Fahrenheit 9/11. I say, enough! We know you're disappointed, shocked, and saddened by the bias. But really...isn't that a bit intellectually dishonest?

It's an opinion piece. Not objective journalism. (Unlike Fox News, Moore doesn't even have to pretend to be non-biased.)

I wonder how many other opinion-venders (i.e. columnists, commentators, etc.) have had their works picked through with as great a scrutiny as Michael Moore is undergoing. 59 deceits in F911? Give me a break--59 deceits is about average for any one Ann Coulter column.

Many of the "59 deceits" complain of Moore presenting an incomplete set of facts or using them in such a way that indicates one thing but could actually mean something different. Fine, but to me, that seems to be the nature of the beast: how many columnists/commentators can you think of who are guilty of this same criteria? Consider the treatment of facts by the likes of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Sowell, Thomas, Malkin, Franken, Dowd, Rove, etc. How many of these would stand up to an equally severe litmus test by Kopel?

It's funny to me that so many people are getting all bent out of shape that F911 is liberally biased and skewed in his particular partisan direction. It's nothing more than what any of the aforementioned would do as well if they had the skill Michael Moore possesses with a camara.

[Update: go here for the origin of this post and a continuing discussion.]