What can she be thinking? How is she thinking?

I wonder about Sarah Palin's though processes... Never mind the Couric interview (as telling as that might be); there's more pre-meditated problems:

There's her strange choice of quotation in her Republican Convention speech.

And there is her mis-quote of Madeleine Albright's "There's a place in hell reserved for women who don't help other women", from a Starbucks cup. Not only did it not occur to her that the quote was not applicable to the question of voting for a woman, but she did not seem to have the self-awareness to reflect that, perhaps, the quote was referring to women such as herself.

But why?

Can someone please ask Sarah Palin the follow-up question, of why it is "reckless" for Barak Obama to point out the problem of civilian casualties in Afghanistan?

Update: For more on this, see this post.

New update: The McCain-Palin campaign releases an ad on this: the accusation is based on a dishonest interpretation of Obama's comments. Kinda like the "lipstick on a pig."

Here is factcheck.org's debunking.

A little disturbing...

Consider this line from McCain's remarks, Sept. 30:

So, that's how we see this election: Country First or Obama First, and I have a feeling I know which side you're all on

This seems like dishonest rhetoric from the get-go. It would seem that a choice of "McCain First or Obama First" would be more fair and balanced.

Banana Republic update: The Economy

Krugman summarizes nicely.

Lies and the Lying Liars

If this is how they campaing, how would they govern?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html

Krugman left out one more outrage: the shameless mis-use of factcheck.org's fact checking.

It's as if McCain has decided that only a dishonorable campaign can win.

So now McCain says that Obama is the candidate that Hamas favors?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/obama-mccain-is-losing-his-bearings/

But wait a minute: Surely Hamas would know that whichever candidate they said they favored, would have *less* of a chance of winning. So, if indeed they "endorsed" Obama, wouldn't this mean that they really want McCain to win?

Not that farfetched a theory, I would say. But the real conclusion to be drawn is, that it is completely absurad and infantile to make statements such as McCain's, and let the U.S. Presidential Race be controlled by the ramblings of psychopaths half a world away. As with Osama bin Laden and the Bush-Kerry contest in 2004.

These guys sure knew how to run a war

General Ricardo Sanchez's account, including Rumsfeld's attempt to buy him off to rewrite history. Now it seems that no-one made the decision to draw down forces after the invasion; just like the decision to disband the Iraqui military. Sanchez concludes:

In my mind, this action by the Bush administration amounts to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.

Now imagine the reaction if a General were saying the same thing about a Democratic administration.

Shape of the Earth: Views Differ

Paul Krugan has remarked that this would be the headline in the "Liberal media" if George W. Bush came out and said that the earth was flat.

We now have a perfect example of how the Washington Post takes part in this kind of reporting, this time giving airtime to the "Obama is a muslim" lies, without ever saying that they are, in fact, lies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802757.html

Greenwald has a good analysis at Salon.

Kudos

A good, succinct editorial from Alabama, concerning the going-ons at the DOJ and the very suspicious prosecution of the former Governor, found via Scott Horton.

Sample quote:

Something smells bad here. It smells bad even when one discounts the shenanigans involving the firings of U.S. attorneys across the nation and the hiring of DOJ personnel based on their ideological beliefs.

It smells even worse when one considers that a man may sit in prison today because his political enemies may have arranged his prosecution for political reasons.

It is a sobering thought to consider, the kind of thing often associated with third-world dictatorial regimes and not with a free, democratic nation.

How the Bush adminisration thinks

A good summary on how the Bush administration operates, by someone who was very close to the action. See also the review of the book at the NYT.

Bush's Former Surgeon General

Not very surprising:

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Dr. Richard Carmona, who served as the nation's top doctor from 2002 until 2006, told a House of Representatives committee.

"The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds. The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party," Carmona added.

Probably explains why they want to replace him with someone with, um, rather odd ideas...

Another bogus "Clinton did it too" defense

President George W. Bush commuting Scooter Libby's sentence is not comparable to Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, however reprehsible that might have been. The main reason: Rich was not found guilty of obstructing justice in a case that might possibly invove the President who pardoned/commuted his sentence.

Libby was convicted of precisely this: perjury, to obstruct justice, in a case that should have led to Cheney and, possibly, Bush himself. And unlike Rich, who was safely enjoying his money in Switzerland, Libby was facing an imminent prison term either, one that might encourage him to talk.

As some have pointed out, Bush's action would have been more comparable to Clinton commuting Susan McDougal's sentence in the Whitewhater affair before she went to jail - something he never did. (He did pardon her at the end of his term.)

Finally, there's the discrepancy between this commutation, and Bush's previous record of denying such mercy, going back to his Texas days.

US justice?

More serious causes for concern, in the continuing Third-World-ization of US Justice.

Reported by Scoott Horton, federal prosecutorial abuse. And from the NYT editorial page, how the Supreme Court now prefers technicalities to basic fairness.

Not to say anything about Seymour Hersh's The New Yorker's article on General Taguba and his investigation of Abu Ghraib.

They used to call it a "filibuster"

That Liberal bias in the media. From Scott Horton's blog:

Today 53 members of the United States Senate, including seven Republicans, expressed their vote of no confidence in the service of Alberto Gonzales. The vote was procedural, as the Republicans used filibuster rules to block the actual vote–a step they have now invoked repeatedly to hamstring action by the majority in the Senate.

Isn’t this surprising when, only two years ago, when an effort was made to invoke the filibuster to block nominations, Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott and company thought it presented a threat to the Constitutional order of Government? Whereas now they trot it out themselves even on procedural and symbolic votes? To abet them in this remarkable act of hypocrisy, the media now routinely refer to the filibuster merely as a “procedural vote.” When the Democrats use it to block a judicial nomination, it’s called a “filibuster,” but if it’s ever invoked by the Republicans it’s just “procedure.” This is just more evidence of how the Republicans and Democrats interact–like velociraptors and bunny rabbits caged together–and the media lean whichever way the Republicans would have them lean in their characterizations.

I would just add that the front page story in today's New York Times did not mention the F-word either.

Thinking like a Third-World Dictator

From the horse's mouth:

As Army officers on duty in the war on terror, you will now face enemies who oppose and despise everything you know to be right, every notion of upright conduct and character, and every belief you consider worth fighting for and living for. Capture one of these killers, and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away.

This is Dick Cheney, at the West Point graduation ceremony.

How many times must it be said? Just because the enemy is inhuman, and abhorrent, does not mean that we should act in the same way.

Commentary at TPM.

Also see Andrew Sullivan's take.

p.s. It has struck me that this would actually be a powerful piece of oratory *if* (1) the US was actually granting these protections to all of its captives, which it is not, thanks to folks like Cheney, and (2) the snarky phrase, "delicate sensibilities," was cut...

Consider these two quotes from Bush's press conference today:

I'm credible because I read the intelligence, David, and make it abundantly clear in plain terms that if we let up, we'll be attacked. And I firmly believe that.

Followed, shortly afterwards, by:

It's better to fight them there than here. And this concept about, well, maybe let's just kind of just leave them alone and maybe they'll be all right is naive. These people attacked us before we were in Iraq. They viciously attacked us before we were in Iraq, and they've been attacking ever since.

So he's saying that 9/11 happened regardless of the Iraq invasion, and at the same time he's saying the Iraq invasion will prevent other attacks. Hmm...

As Juan Cole recently wrote:

And all along the Bushies have invoked al-Qaeda with regard to Iraq. It doesn't matter what the real situation in Iraq is. Is it ruled by secular Sunni Arab nationalist Baathists who are afraid of al-Qaeda according to documents Bush himself captured and released? Nevertheless, Bushies find al-Qaeda in Iraq. Is Iraq dominated by Shiites allied to Iran? Bushies find an alliance with al-Qaeda. Like tax cuts, it is the answer to every problem.

The Republican Debate

How depressing. Fox News feeds them the ticking time bomb scenario, and the Republican candidates, with the honorable exceptions of Paul and McCain, endorse torture. Sullivan's review here.

This is the terrorists' game, and these candidates are playing it.

They are putting the morality of the United States, and its foreign policy, in the hands of the terrorists.

All the talk about "enhanced interrogation techniques" is Orwellian.
Calling it a "moral freak show" seems accurate. How depressing to see the majority of the party in power in the US talking and thinking like two-bit dictators do all over the world.

Romney talks about making Guantanamo twice as big, without lawyers. Nice.
If a Democratic president were elected who would shut down Guantanamo, it wouldn't surprise me if Al-Qaeda staged another attack (even a smallish, cheap one) to reactivate hysteria and get it reopened. It is what they want.

And then, when Ron Paul (seemingly, the only rational candidate) talks about foreign policy blowback, the Fox News moderators put words in his mouth and accuse him of saying that the US deserved 9-11. Giuliani then gets a perfect chance to grandstand about it.

This use of 9-11 is very dangerous: since grievous harm and injustice has been done to us, we can retaliate in whichever way we see fit, even if it is immoral. Quiz: Who else thinks like that?

Update: From those who know more about these matters than I do: Retired generals.

Movie review: Spider-man III

Well, Spidey has jumped the shark. Not a hard thing for a superhero to do, really. I can even point to the exact moment when the jump was completed: the brief appearance of an American flag at the start of the final battle.

Not that I have anything against American flags; they're a fine, proud symbol. This Sunday afternoon, actually, the flag was a running theme. We saw many fluttering in downtown San Francisco, and I regularly enjoy taking pictures of them framed against a clear blue sky. And then at the SF moma we saw Jasper John's beautiful, intriguing, literalistic-but-not-quite-so painting, American Flag. So we had nothing against it.

But the context in which it was used suggests one of two things: a craven attempt to appeal to the patriotism of the US audience, or a weak and ineffective attempt at satire. I guess it's too much to expect of your multimillion-dollar summer flick to get these things right?

The special effects were quite good - kudos to them. But the script, and the pacing, and the directing, and some of the acting, were not quite up to par. The French maitre'd was the best thing in the movie!

The movie was too long, and had one villian too many. It is also presumably the most expensive movie ever made?

More on how the Banana Republic works

New disclosures: The White House and the Attorney General secretly set up things so that, basically, Karl Rove (an unelected, unconfirmed political operative) can hire and fire at the Justice Department at will, undetected.

Sticking someone else with the bill: Tenet and Politicians in Washington

Regarding George Tenet's upcoming book:

I find it fascinating that Cheney and Rumsfeld, in particular, managed to blame all the bad pre-invasion Iraq intelligence on the CIA, while it was their own cherry-picking, tailor-made, in-house "intelligence" operations that produced the most bogus intelligence to justify the invasion.

(Update: for more on this, see this Blumenthal article at Salon.)

Another example of this Administration's skill at projection, where your own weaknesses and flaws are pinned on someone else.

Take, too, President Bush's mantra about how he does not like "Washington politicians telling Generals how to do their jobs." Last time I checked, President Bush was a politician, in Washington, who's told Generals what to do many times, and who has fired a few who, based on sound military judgement, did not agree with him.