Vice Presidential Debate Preview

As we noted yesterday, the 1992 version of Dick Cheney said that toppling Saddam would be a bad idea because we would get bogged down trying to occupy Iraq.

Senator Edwards, this is your cue to give him the shiv.

Watch our man in action:

"When he was asked why they didn't finish the job in Iraq . . . he talked about the enormous danger and risk of getting bogged down," Edwards said, "of having to govern the country. Of the casualties that would be incurred. To use some of the same language these people have used against John, he was against getting bogged down in Iraq before he was for it."

That's what I'm talking about, people.

See Dick Flip, See Dick Flop

Have a look at what Dick Cheney had to say about Iraq in 1992.

Asked about his extreme change in position, our Vice President said:

"Rrr. 9-11 changed everything. F*ck yourself."

Iraq Look Like A Mess to You?

Get yourself a pair of Bush Goggles...

The Facts Are On Our Side

Saletan keeps it real. It's a quick read. Check it out:

Bush's arguments made the wisdom of cutting taxes unfalsifiable. In good times, tax cuts were affordable. In bad times, they were necessary. Whatever happened proved that tax cuts were good policy. When Congress approved the tax cuts, Bush said they would revive the economy. You'd know that the tax cuts had worked, because more people would be working. Three years later, more people aren't working. But in Bush's view, that, too, proves he was right. If more people aren't working, we just need more tax cuts.

Now Bush is playing the same game in postwar Iraq. When violence there was subsiding, he said it proved he was on the right track. Now violence is increasing, and Bush says this, too, proves he's on the right track.

Expect to see more of this from Bush in the debate on Thursday. Watch him paint the Iraq quagmire in pastels and acknowledge increasing violence there only as proof that we're winning. Does he believe that the bloody death and dismemberment of thousands of our fine young men is good news? Is each gallon of spilled American blood further proof that the "War On Radical Islamic Terrorists" is right on track? When will we be over the hump? When will the mission actually be accomplished?

I'll tell you when.

November 2, when this miserable failure of a President heads back to Texas.

Or Maine.

Strange Labels

General Disclaimer: The shooting at the state capitol building in Springfield, IL, was horrible. A security guard perished when some deranged young man shot him in the chest while storming the capitol. Since then, it has been reported that the young suspect suffers from schizophrenia and other mental disorders.

With that as a preface, I have one question: Is it really necessary for the press to label this kid "the college dropout":

From the Tribune 9/24/04: "Local police on Thursday defended the actions of an officer who handcuffed but then released Derek Potts on a city street this week less than an hour after the 24-year-old college dropout allegedly shot and killed a security guard in the Illinois Capitol."

From Trib 9/23/04 (lead): "The college dropout charged with murdering a security guard in the Illinois Capitol this week has been in and out of mental institutions five times and has told family members that he sometimes hears voices, his mother said Wednesday."

Trib 9/22/04 (lead): "A college dropout arrested Tuesday in the shooting death of an unarmed guard in the Illinois Capitol has a history of mental illness and has not been taking medication, prosecutors said as Derek W. Potts, 24, was ordered held in lieu of $20 million bail."

Maybe I have too much time on my hands (which I don't). Maybe I'm just sensitive to the plight of collegiate dropouts across this great land. Or maybe I just find it strange that the suspect is labeled a "college dropout" rather than, say, a "high school dropout" or "junior high dropout." Last time I looked, college wasn't compulsory. Students take semesters off. Some are in and out of college for decades. A great number don't even attend.

So, for the love of Pete, Dear Tribune, Times-Picayune, Aberdeen Free Press, Baltimore Sun, Harpers, call him something else: murderer, assassin, butcher, criminal, cutthroat, gunman, hit man, killer, piece pan, slaughterer, slayer, trigger man....

Maybe I should get back work, singing Abe's new song.

Wild World

Even though we've lost the folk-singing you,
and you've changed into someone new,
when you fly you should go by "Cat Stevens",
or the plane isn't leavin'.

But if you call yourself Yusuf I don't care,

hell, use the last name "Islam," that's fair,

but just remember there's a no-fly list out there,

Oh baby baby it's a wild world,
It's hard to get by, when Bush has got your file.
Oh baby baby it's a wild world.
I'll always remember you with some style.

You know I've seen the silly things that you do,
and I've tried to stand up for you,
but when you called for the head of Salman Rushdie,
that even hushed me.

And if you wanna fly take good care,

Avoid the turban and facial hair,

that kind of freaks out Americans everywhere.

Al Gore I Salute You

Here is a good read from the New Yorker. It is rather lengthy, but really defines Al Gore the politician and man. Here is one good excerpt that will get you started, notice the prediction in the Al Gore Quote........

In the summer of 2001, Gore had ended his silence and launched a public
critique of the Bush Administration with a speech in Florida. However, after the
terror attacks, he declared Bush “my Commander-in-Chief,” a gesture meant to
promote unity and not offend the national mood. But by September, 2002, as the
Bush Administration started its march toward a war in Iraq, Gore ended his
discretion with a withering speech at the Commonwealth Club, in San Francisco,
aimed at the Administration’s foreign policy. Gore, who was one of the few
Democrats to vote in favor of the 1991 resolution in Congress endorsing the
first Gulf War, now said that an American-led invasion of Iraq would undermine
the attempt to dismantle Al Qaeda and damage the multilateral ties necessary to
combat terrorism:
If we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and
depleted fourth-rate military of Iraq, and then quickly abandon that nation, as President Bush has quickly abandoned almost all of Afghanistan after defeating a fifth-rate military power there, then the resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.
Gore’s challenge to the Bush
White House to present real evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11
was, in both tone and substance, more critical than any speech yet delivered by
the candidates in the Democratic field. Suddenly, the prospect of a Gore
candidacy hit the media in a wave.
“I wasn’t surprised by Bush’s economic
policies, but I was surprised by the foreign policy, and I think he was, too,”
Gore told me. “The real distinction of this Presidency is that, at its core, he
is a very weak man. He projects himself as incredibly strong, but behind closed
doors he is incapable of saying no to his biggest financial supporters and his
coalition in the Oval Office. He’s been shockingly malleable to Cheney and
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and the whole New American Century bunch. He was rolled
in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He was too weak to resist it.
“I’m not of
the school that questions his intelligence,” Gore went on. “There are different
kinds of intelligence, and it’s arrogant for a person with one kind of
intelligence to question someone with another kind. He certainly is a master at
some things, and he has a following. He seeks strength in simplicity. But, in
today’s world, that’s often a problem. I don’t think that he’s weak
intellectually. I think that he is incurious. It’s astonishing to me that he’d
spend an hour with his incoming Secretary of the Treasury and not ask him a
single question. But I think his weakness is a moral weakness. I think he is a
bully, and, like all bullies, he’s a coward when confronted with a force that
he’s fearful of. His reaction to the extravagant and unbelievably selfish wish
list of the wealthy interest groups that put him in the White House is
obsequious. The degree of obsequiousness that is involved in saying ‘yes, yes,
yes, yes, yes’ to whatever these people want, no matter the damage and harm done
to the nation as a whole—that can come only from genuine moral cowardice. I
don’t see any other explanation for it, because it’s not a question of
principle. The only common denominator is each of the groups has a lot of money
that they’re willing to put in service to his political fortunes and their
ferocious and unyielding pursuit of public policies that benefit them at the
expense of the nation.”

Hail Gore!

The Bush Family Two-Step

As we've discussed on 2GL before, Nader is the unlikely darling of the GOP this year. Nowhere could Nader be a greater potential asset to President Bush's re-election effort than in sunny Florida, the land of electoral mystery. There has been a fight down there between the two major parties about whether Nader will be on the ballot this November.

And the Democrats won ... at least temporarily. A Florida Circuit Court issued a temporary injunction last week preventing the state from putting Nader on the 2004 ballot, siding with a Democratic challenge.

But the administration of George Bush's little brother said not so fast. Yes, the state's courts have temporarily prohibited Florida from putting Nader on the ballot and yes, the state is required to obey the court's orders, but... Jeb Bush's folks have decided to go ahead and put Nader there on the ballot anyway. Why?

Hurricane Ivan changed (or has the remote possibility of changing) everything.

Jeb seems to have learned a valuable lesson from his big brother. It's the Bush Family Two-Step: (1) Do whatever you please - start elective wars without planning anything, laugh off judicial orders, etc.; (2) find a national tragedy to take the blame for it.

Keep dancin' boys. We're not buying it.

Abu Ghraib-ed once again

In case you missed it, NYT editorial from today:

No Accountability on Abu Ghraib

After months of Senate hearings and eight Pentagon investigations, it is obvious that the administration does not intend to hold any high-ranking official accountable for the nightmare at Abu Ghraib. It was pretty clear yesterday that Senator John Warner's well-intentioned hearings of the Armed Services Committee are not going to do it either.

James Schlesinger, who was picked by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to head a civilian investigation of Abu Ghraib and seems determined to repay the favor, gave unhelpful testimony that included an incredible statement that there was no policy "that encourages abuse." He told that to the same senators who had heard earlier from a panel of generals that the Central Intelligence Agency was still refusing to account for its practice of hiding dozens of prisoners from the Red Cross. Mr. Rumsfeld personally approved that violation of the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties on at least one occasion.

At the hearing, Mr. Warner asked Mr. Schlesinger and Harold Brown, another former secretary of defense, to be specific about their report's talk of "institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels." Neither man had any intention of doing that.

Senator John McCain, who was a prisoner of war in the Vietnam era, asked Mr. Schlesinger with evident exasperation: "Isn't there some accountability? Isn't there some responsibility?" Mr. Schlesinger managed to come up with the colonel who read the first Red Cross report on the abuse of prisoners in late 2003 and decided that it was not credible. As for high-ranking officers and civilians, he intoned, "careers will be negatively affected."

Senator Edward Kennedy tried again. He read a list of naval officers fired for minor infractions committed by those under their command and asked why the same high standards of responsibility should not apply to, say, Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. Schlesinger, who had earlier offered the bizarre theory that "what constitutes 'humane treatment' lies in the eye of the beholder," replied that "it's more complicated" when it came to holding a high-ranking politician accountable. He said a man like Mr. Rumsfeld must be judged on his "full performance."

We agree, enthusiastically. And with due respect to Mr. Warner - who has bravely continued his hearings and seems willing to keep going for months more - the answers are in.

Mr. Rumsfeld gave President Bush the legal advice that led to the president's famous memo declaring that the United States could, at his discretion, suspend the Geneva Conventions in the "global war on terror," and that prisoners with the newly minted designation of "unlawful combatants" were not entitled to the conventions' protections. Mr. Rumsfeld authorized the use of brutal interrogation techniques at the prison in Guantánamo Bay, some of which he later rescinded. His war plans left the Army without enough forces to face the uprising that followed Mr. Bush's ludicrously premature "mission accomplished" photo-op. Those policies - which commanders were afraid to challenge - left 97 untrained military police guarding some 7,000 Iraqis at Abu Ghraib who were not considered prisoners of war.

Mr. Rumsfeld's staff sent the chief Guantánamo Bay jailer to Iraq. There, he gave Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who was under immense pressure from Washington to get intelligence on the Iraqi insurgency, a rundown on how the military forced information out of prisoners at Guantánamo. General Sanchez used that briefing, and the logic of the president's memo on unlawful combatants, to authorize the use of dogs and other illegal interrogation methods. He later tried to rescind the order, but every investigation has shown that the notion that the rules had changed was already widespread in Iraq, as well as at American military prisons in Afghanistan.

Most broadly, Mr. Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General John Ashcroft, has led the administration's efforts to justify the use of brutal interrogation techniques in the name of fighting terrorism.

Late in the day of hearings, Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, offered a wry observation on how Mr. Rumsfeld's future had become wrapped up in Mr. Bush's campaign. "I guess we'll get the real answer to that after the election," he said.

Perhaps so, but that will be a year after the Red Cross first told the Army that prisoners were being brutalized at military detention centers all over Iraq, especially at Abu Ghraib. The American public, and the rest of the world, should not have to wait that long.

Amen.

The Whole World Is Wrong

I used to date a girl who had a great dad. He was a no bullcrap, half Chinese, half Irish, small business owning, fix anything kind of guy. It's hard to put your finger on exactly why, but when he said something, the combination of the grease on his hands and the twinkle in his eye made you listen to him -- and trust his quick wisdom.

He used to say: "If you take a look around you and think that damn near every single person is messed up, you'd better take a look at yourself."

Well folks, take a look around.

Cheney pushes GOP to all new lows

Never a man to mince words. VP Cheney now stating that a vote for Kerry = a vote for another terrorist attack:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," [Dick] Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

How can you argue with that

President Bush apparently mixed up his words Monday while delivering his usual campaign speech about the rising cost of health care.

"We need to do something about these frivolous lawsuits that are running up the cost of your health care and running good docs out of business," Bush said. "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

Res ipsa loquitur.

Now, that's the ticket...

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Monday called the invasion of Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in his first White House term.

[Reuters reports.]

Now, that's more like it: KISS (Keep it simple stupid).

...Mr. Nuance needs more time with Bill.

RNC Keynote Speaker an Inveterate Liar

Fred Kaplan debunks Zell Miller's tirade. As if that were hard to do. Demogogues tend to fudge the numbers, or at least in Miller's case, invent his own history.

Gosh, that's embarrassing...

Dildo causes panic at airport, the Norwegian press reports.

What a great time for a favorite Fight Club quote, esp. since it's Friday, (Jack stopped at airport security):

Jack: Was it ticking?

Airport Security Officer: Actually throwers don't worry about ticking, 'cause modern bombs don't tick.

Jack: I'm sorry, throwers?

Airport Security Officer: Baggage handlers. But, when a suitcase vibrates, then the throwers gotta call the police.

Jack: My suitcase was vibrating?

Airport Security Officer: Nine times out of ten it's an electric razor, but . . . every once in a while . . . it's a dildo. Of course, it's company policy never to imply ownership. In the even of a dildo, we have to use the indefinite article "a" dildo, never "your" dildo.

Jack: I don't own...

Thank Gloria Estefan that it's Friday, everyone, and a holiday weekend to boot. Drive safely and soberly and whatever you do, don't ever be responsible for something so atrocious as this, the ultimate "Don't Drink and Drive" commercial.

Hastert on hallucingens

Hey, good to see my concerns about Denny Hastert are finally getting some press. Two steps away from the presidency, my friends.

Now, any truth to my allegation that Hastert began cloning himself shortly after viewing the last Star Wars movie? Can you imagine legions and legions of this guy:

Zell Miller: Voice of Reason

Further proof that the good people of Georgia will elect just about anyone, short of Boss Hog and Roscoe Peco Train, to serve them. (Wait a minute, they did elect Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich. Who could forget that dynamic duo?)

Also, Zell Miller: additional proof that Republicans will hitch their caboose to absolutely any freight train coming through, even one that is hysterically out of control, rabid.

Without further adieu, I present to you snippets from Zell Miller, everyone:

Matthews started in on Miller by asking him if his dismissive caricature of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry as a coward who would approve military defensive measures only if the French gave their approval was a useful contribution to the debate:

MATTHEWS: When Democrats come out as they often do--liberal Democrats-- and attack conservatives and say, they want to starve little kids, they want to get rid of education, they want to kill the old people. That kind of rhetoric is not educational , is it?

MILLER: I'm not saying that. Wait a minute. This is your program and I'm a guest on your program, so I want to try to be as nice as I possibly can to you. I wish I was over there where I could get a little closer up into your face. But I'm not going to stand here and listen to that kind of stuff. I didn't say anything about not feeding poor kids. What are you doing?

MATTHEWS: No, I'm saying, that when you said tonight, I just want you to--

MILLER: You're saying a bunch of baloney that didn't have anything to do with what I said up there on the rostrum.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe, senator, truthfully, that John Kerry wants to defend the country with spitballs. Do you believe that?

MILLER: That was a metaphor, wasn't it? You know what a metaphor is.

MATTHEWS: Well what do you mean by that metaphor?

MILLER: He certainly doesn't want to defend the country with the B1 bomber or the B2 bomber or the Harrier jet or the Apache helicopter or all the other things that I mentioned. And there were even more of them than here. You've got to quit taking these Democratic talking points and using them –

MATTHEWS: No, I'm using your talking points and asking you if you really believe them.

MILLER: Well, let's use John Kerry's talking points from what he's had to say on the floor of the Senate where he's talked about them being occupiers; where he put out this whenever he was running for the U.S. Senate--about what he wanted to cancel. Cancel to me means do away with.

MATTHEWS: What did you mean by--?

MILLER: I think we ought to cancel this interview.

MATTHEWS: That would be my loss senator.

MILLER: You're hopeless. I wish I was over there. In fact, I wish that we lived in the day--

MATTHEWS: I gotta warn you, we're in a tough part of town over here. But I do recommend you come over, because I like you. If a Republican senator broke ranks and came over and spoke to the Democrats, would you respect him?

MILLER: Yes, Of course I would. I've seen that happen from time to time.

MATTHEWS: What did Jim Jeffords say to you? Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched parties after getting elected--

MILLER: If you're going to ask a question--

MATTHEWS: Well it's a tough question, it takes a few words.

MILLER: Get out of my face! If you're going to ask me a question, step back and let me answer. I wish we lived in the day when you could challenge a person to a duel .Now that would be pretty good. But don't pull that kind of stuff on me like you did that young lady when you had her there browbeating her to death.

MATTHEWS: (in cross talk) Let me tell you, she was suggesting that John Kerry purposely shot himself to win a medal, and I was trying to correct the record.

MILLER: I'm not her. you get in my face, and I'm going to get back in your face. And the only reason you're doing it is because you're standing way over there in Herald square.

Another one from CNN:

JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Senator Miller, the Democrats are pointing out that John Kerry voted for 16 of 19 defense budgets that came through Congress while he was in the Senate, and many of these votes that you cited (in criticizing John Kerry in your speech), Dick Cheney also voted against, that they were specific weapons systems.

MILLER: What I was talking about was a period of 19 years in the Senate. I've been in the Senate for four years. There's quite a few years' difference there. I have gotten documentation on every single one of those votes that I talked about here today. I've got more documentation here than the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library put together on that.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: You also were, I would say, almost indignant that anyone would possibly call America military occupiers, not liberators, on at least four occasions. President Bush has referred to the presence of American forces in Iraq as an occupation, and the question is: Are you not selectively choosing words to describe the same situation the president of the United States is describing?

MILLER: I don't know if the president of the United States uses those words, but I know Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry have used them on several occasions.

GREENFIELD: Yes. So has President Bush.

MILLER: Well, I don't know about that.

GREENFIELD: Well, we'll...

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: You know that when the secretary -- when the vice president was the secretary of defense he proposed cutting back on the B-2 Bomber, the F-14 Tomcat as well. I covered him at the Pentagon during those years when he was raising serious concerns about those two weapons systems.

MILLER: Look, the record is, as I stated, he voted against, he opposed all of those weapons systems. That, to me, I think shows the kind of priority he has as far as national defense. Look, John Kerry came back from Vietnam as a young man unsure of whether America was a force for good or evil in the world. He still has that uncertainty about him.

WOODRUFF: You praised him...

GREENFIELD: Then why did you say in 2001 that he strengthened the military? You said that three years ago.

MILLER: Because that was the biographical sketch that they gave me. This young senator -- not young senator, but new senator had come up there, and all I knew was that this man had won the Purple Heart three times and won the Silver Star and...

Look, I went back and researched the records, and I looked at these, and I -- when I was putting that speech together, I wanted to make sure, whenever I sat down with people like you who would take these talking points from the Democrats and who also have covered politics for years, that I would know exactly what I was talking about, and we don't have time to go through it on the air, but I can go through every one of those things that were mentioned about where he voted.

He voted against the B-1 Bomber...

BLITZER: A lot of--

MILLER:-- on October the 15th, '90, and on and on.

WOODRUFF: But do you simply reject the idea that Vice President Cheney, as Wolf said and as we know from the record, also voted against some of these systems?

MILLER: I don't think Cheney voted against these.

BLITZER: No, but he opposed some of them when he was the defense secretary, and sometimes he was overruled by the Congress because he was concerned, he was worried that the defense of the United States could be better served by some other weapons systems, not specifically those. I'm specifically referring to the B-2 and the F-14 Tomcat.

MILLER: I'm talking about John Kerry's record. I'll let Dick Cheney, the vice president, answer those charges. He knows what happened in the Department of Defense years ago. I don't know that.

But I do know, because I've looked it up and it's there for everyone to see, that he voted against those positions as far as those weapons were concerned. He voted against all the weapons that really won the war against Communism, the Cold War and that are now winning the war on terror.

BLITZER: I know you have to move on because you have other things to do, but when you were speaking tonight -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you seemed very angry.

MILLER: Me angry?

BLITZER: Yes, sir.

MILLER: No, no. I'm sorry if I gave that appearance.

Source: Zorn

Arnold, corny jokes from the Bush twins, the venerable throwback band Foghat, (not to mention the candidates themselves) and now zany Zell Miller. Notice that Colin Powell, Condileeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld are conspicuously absent.

The Republican National Convention---one big circus. Ladies and gentlemen...our current administration.

I'm laughing so hard that I'm crying....