Now That's Gangsta

This is fantastic. And I'm no Matthew Yglesias (Hell, I'm not even a Stephen Green...okay I am) but as long as we're talking gangasta rap, may I say that a certain Mr. Tupac Shakur made the defining political statement of 1993?

Dan Quayle, don't you know you need to get your ass kicked/Where was you when there was niggas in the caskets?

May he rest in peace.

Neocon VS. Decepticon

The following is an occasional feature which will pit the leaders of Washington's "new conservative" movement against Cybertron's most feared villians. Remember: Your vote matters!

NEOCON
.
Name: Paul Wolfowitz

Title: Deputy Defense Secretary

Ambition: Conquest of Iraq

Transforms Into A Cool Gun: No

Defining Moment: Asked how many American troops have died in Iraq, Wolfowitz estimated the total was about 500 - more than 200 soldiers short.

Famous Quote: Refering to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki's claim that the occupation of Iraq could require several hundred thousand troops, Wolfowitz said the estimate was "wildly off the mark."

DECEPTICON
.
Name: Megatron

Title: Decepticon Leader

Ambition: Conquest of Cybertron

Transforms Into A Cool Gun: Yes

Defining Moment: During fierce fighting at Autobot city, Megatron dealt a fatal blow to rival Optimus Prime, costing him his own life in the process.

Famous Quote: Standing over the fallen Optimus Prime, "I would have waited an eternity for this. It's over, Prime."

Local Dope Skews Facts

Count yourself among the fortunate if you are unfamiliar with Baltimore radio personality, and preening conservative hack, Rob Dougals.

Today, full of his usual hot air and bluster, Mr. Douglas declared himself disgusted by continuing media coverage of the Iraqi prisoner abuse. In fact, Mr. Douglas said, he turned on CNN yesterday at 2:00 expecting to hear about the brutal murder of Nicholas Berg and was instead shocked to discover Abu Ghraib was again leading the news. Blame for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the blame America first crowd, he assured listeners.

However, a brief look at the transcript from Thursday's "Live From," which occupies the 2:00 PM on CNN, shows otherwise. It reveals Douglas is being very selective with the information he provides listeners. For instance, Mr. Douglas failed to mention that a surprise visit to Abu Ghraib by Donald Rumsfeld was the reason for the prison leading the 2:00 hour at CNN.

KYRA PHILLIPS: We begin this hour with a day trip to Baghdad. With zero notice and almost as little fanfare, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chair Richard Myers hit the ground walking today at Baghdad International Airport. Rumsfeld denied they came, quote, "to throw water on a fire." But they did attempt to pump up the spirit of some potentially demoralized soldiers.

In addition, and truly making Douglas's claim look foolish, this is what led the prior hour on CNN.

KYRA PHILLIPS: Up first this hour, al-Zarqawi in action? The CIA now says the hooded figure seen beheading Nicholas Berg in that grainy Internet video, probably was the well known terror instigator, Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, that's not a unanimous conclusion. CNN's David Ensor weighs in on the state of that investigation -- David.

DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kyra, CIA officials say that having done a technical analysis of that tape, looking closely at it, listening to it, and comparing the tape with others, they now believe most likely that is the voice of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the well-known terrorist, head of a group that's been terrorizing Westerners in Iraq for some time now, wanted in more than a score of incidents and wanted in the murder of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan.

Being a right wing shill is so much easier when you don't let facts get in the way...

Outraged By The Outrage At The Outrage

By now several better and more intelligent bloggers than myself have articulated the reasons why James Inhofe is an idiot. However, I'd like to draw attention to one his less glaring misstatements.

From Gen. Taguba's Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

SEN. JAMES M. INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: But I'm also outraged by the press and the politicians and the political agendas that are being served by this, and I say political agendas because that's actually what is happening.

I would share with my colleagues a solicitation that was made. I'm going to read the first two sentences.

"Over the past week we've all been shocked by the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, but we have also been appalled at the slow and inept response by President Bush which has further undermined America's credibility."

And it goes on to demand for George Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld. And then it goes on to a time line, a chronology.

And at the very last -- and they say, "a solicitation for contributions."

I don't recall this ever having happened before in history.

Wittingly or not, Inhofe implies that the phrase "a solicitation for contributions" appears within the body of the Kerry e-mail he objects to. It does not. In fact, it appears no where at all in the document. What actually has the Inhofe so incensed is a tiny "donate now" link which appears at the bottom of every single Kerry, and also Bush, e-mail.

Additionally, no beneficiary of donations obtained by rewarding contributors with "Bush on 9-11" photographs, has any ground from which to lecture upon the scruples of fundraising.

Step Your Game Up

A brief recap:

This is what was posted by Steve Green at Vodkapundit:

Alan Dershowitz, the noted lefty attorney, has called for legalized torture, in "ticking time bomb" cases. Given the nature of the conflict in Iraq today, does he think that Americans are justified in using psychological torture to save lives?

If not, why not?

And why has he not spoken out publicly on the matter?

And this was an e-mail sent to Mr. Green early Wednesday morning by yours truly:

Dear Mr. Green:

Being a big-time blogger like yourself means running the occasionalLexis/Nexis search, "we clear?" I'm a dopey liberal shill with EBSCOHost(through my library card no less) and most of a college education and I had this on my blog within minutes of reading your post (via Pandagon.)

From Crossfire 05.04.04:

JAMES CARVILLE: Professor Dershowitz, you have in the past said that weshould legalize torture in certain instances. Am I correct about that?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR: No. What I said was we should never authorize any extraordinary methods of interrogation without getting some advanced authorization, and this proves my point. I predicted this was going to happen a long time ago.

When you say publicly that we'll never use any kind of extraordinary methods and then you suddenly send a message down to the troops on the ground, the police intelligence officers and the military police, look, do what you have to do, just don't tell us. Just give us plausible deniability -- this is inevitably going to happen.

People say you have to have some method of using extraordinary techniques in extreme situations. Well, if you do then you should have to go up to somebody at the very top -- the president, the secretary of defense, the chief justice of the United States -- get a warrant that specifies what you
have to do, why you have to do it and what limitations there are, and that will help reduce this kind of ad hoc on the ground doing it and then blaming it on the soldiers when clearly it is the responsibility of the higher ups.

CARVILLE: Well, counselor, you're starting to convince me. Give us an idea of some of the instances where you could obtain a warrant or permission or something like that to do this. Give us a circumstance that you think would be justified.

DERSHOWITZ: If you have a leading general in interrogation and we have information that there is about to be a bomb to explode and kill many American troops and somebody thinks that the only way of doing this and getting the information from him is by using extraordinary methods -- and I'm not supporting those methods. I'm saying if somebody thinks you have to do it, you have to do it openly, directly and from the top.

You can't say what our military now says: do what you have to do, just don't tell us. Give us deniability, but don't take pictures. That was the big problem. The big complaint is that pictures were being taken.

This -- the way we're doing it now encourages this kind of blame the lower ranking officers, let them do it, let them take the flack. We at the top will always have deniability.

Cheers,

Chris Taylor

Mr. Green was good enough to both blog a response and send an e-mail. Because the two were almost identical, I'll only include the blog entry here.

Mea Culpa

From reader Chris Taylor comes word that Alan Dershowitz has spoken out -- on Crossfire, of all places.

(Click "MORE" below for the transcript.)

Not that I'm going to watch the show again. Since Mike Kinsley left (no pun intended), the show hasn't been worth watching.

Now Mr. Green seems like an amiable enough chap, and I give him all the respect in the world for issuing a mea culpa. However, he avoids my basic question, "why didn't you run a search engine on Dershowitz before claiming he hadn't spoke out;" and instead chooses to focus on the merits of Crossfire.

The issue, Mr. Green, isn't whether or not Crossfire has gone downhill since Kinsley left for Slate; the issue is whether or not you did the necessary research before making a rather strong allegation. Surely a big time blogger like yourself can afford a Lexis/Nexis subscription.

In other words, step your game up.

And I'm not exactly a "reader," either. I found Vodkapundit via the always excellent Pandagon (where a much smarter Mr. Taylor was nice enough to link to us yesterday.)

Ignore Them And They'll Go Away

I know I shouldn't, but sometimes they make it so easy.

Via Jesse at Pandagon, Stephen Green (and possibly an author whom he quotes but never identifies) wants to know this:

Alan Dershowitz, the noted lefty attorney, has called for legalized torture, in "ticking time bomb" cases. Given the nature of the conflict in Iraq today, does he think that Americans are justified in using psychological torture to save lives?

If not, why not?

And why has he not spoken out publicly on the matter?

To which I can't help but reply:

JAMES CARVILLE: Professor Dershowitz, you have in the past said that we should legalize torture in certain instances. Am I correct about that?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR: No. What I said was we should never authorize any extraordinary methods of interrogation without getting some advanced authorization, and this proves my point. I predicted this was going to happen a long time ago.

When you say publicly that we'll never use any kind of extraordinary methods and then you suddenly send a message down to the troops on the ground, the police intelligence officers and the military police, look, do what you have to do, just don't tell us. Just give us plausible deniability -- this is inevitably going to happen.

People say you have to have some method of using extraordinary techniques in extreme situations. Well, if you do then you should have to go up to somebody at the very top -- the president, the secretary of defense, the chief justice of the United States -- get a warrant that specifies what you have to do, why you have to do it and what limitations there are, and that will help reduce this kind of ad hoc on the ground doing it and then blaming it on the soldiers when clearly it is the responsibility of the higher ups.

CARVILLE: Well, counselor, you're starting to convince me. Give us an idea of some of the instances where you could obtain a warrant or permission or something like that to do this. Give us a circumstance that you think would be justified.

DERSHOWITZ: If you have a leading general in interrogation and we have information that there is about to be a bomb to explode and kill many American troops and somebody thinks that the only way of doing this and getting the information from him is by using extraordinary methods -- and I'm not supporting those methods. I'm saying if somebody thinks you have to do it, you have to do it openly, directly and from the top.

You can't say what our military now says: do what you have to do, just don't tell us. Give us deniability, but don't take pictures. That was the big problem. The big complaint is that pictures were being taken.

This -- the way we're doing it now encourages this kind of blame the lower ranking officers, let them do it, let them take the flack. We at the top will always have deniability.

Crossfire, 05.04.2004

UPDATE: The A. Reynolds program is asking the same question.

Insert Coin(s) To Continue

The entire blogosphere seems to be having a good laugh over this, from Atrios

It was the lead item on the government's daily threat matrix one day last April. Don Emilio Fulci described by an FBI tipster as a reclusive but evil millionaire, had formed a terrorist group that was planning chemical attacks against London and Washington, D.C. That day even FBI director Robert Mueller was briefed on the Fulci matter. But as the day went on without incident, a White House staffer had a brainstorm: He Googled Fulci. His findings: Fulci is the crime boss in the popular video game Headhunter. "Stand down," came the order from embarrassed national security types.

John Heinke, at QandO, says:

This may not be a good time to mention my idea for a console based missile defense system. After all, we already have a whole generation of kids in training for it.

I agree. Hell, we've had the technology for years.

.

Screenshot from Missile Command, via the Atari Times.

In all seriousness though, where national missile defense is concerned, I think the country would be better served by letting technology catch up with our ambitions before attempting further progress. 49 retired US generals and admirals recently signed a letter urging President Bush to postpone building the proposed system; citing that, among other things, a) no one is certain whether or not it will work at night, and b) the requested funds ($10 billion) would be better spent protecting our ports and borders from terrorists. (Time, 4/5/2004, Vol. 163, Issue 14)

Promoting missile defense or combating terrorism, why does that sound familiar?

Government CustomWire, Apr 01, 2004

WASHINGTON, Apr 1, 2004 (Xinhua via COMTEX) -- The White House had promoted missile defense, instead of combating terrorism, as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, The Washington Post reported Thursday.

On Sept. 11, 2001, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to deliver a speech outlining a Bush administration policy that would address the threats the United States faces. But the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals, the Post said.

In my opinion, the most promising prospect for national missile defense isn't even missile-based. It's the ABL, (Airborne Laser) being developed by Boeing.

The Airborne Laser (ABL) is the first megawatt-class laser weapon system to be carried on a specially configured 747-400F aircraft, designed to autonomously detect, track and destroy hostile ballistic missiles. The Beam Control/Fire Control system will accurately point, focus and fire the laser to provide sufficient energy to destroy the missile while it is still in the highly vulnerable boost phase of flight – before separation of its warheads.

Did I Mention We're In Two Wars?

For those of you playing things fall apart at home, here's your latest RNC talking point.

Are you crazy? We can't afford to lose Rumsfeld now. We're in the middle of two wars damn it!

From Meet The Press:

SEN. JOHN WARNER (R-VA): I want to support our president. The president says he's going to stay and I join you, Lindsey, we're going to support our president and keep him there. But let me remind you, those who are calling for the resignation: We're in two wars (emphasis added)--Afghanistan and Iraq. To pull out the top man at this time and try and go through the complicated procedures of clearances, finding a new individual, bringing him in, bringing in that new individual staff in the few months before the election. Someone better weigh that carefully against these calls for his resignation.

And-

MS. MARY MATALIN: That would be extraordinarily irresponsible in the middle of two wars (emphasis added) to fire the secretary of defense, who has not only been an exceptional secretary of defense, but is a class act.

Update your scorecards...

One Fish, Two Fish, Red State, Blue State

Ah...Smell that fresh, gay-free air? That's Bush Country.

This from today's Washington Post editorial:

IN THE GATHERING debate over gay marriage, some state legislatures have moved to ban it, others to create civil unions or domestic partnerships. Then there's the Virginia General Assembly, which last month -- brushing aside proposed amendments from Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) -- passed with veto-proof majorities a jaw-dropping bill that bans not only civil unions but any "partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage." And it declares "void in all respects" and "unenforceable" in the commonwealth any such arrangement made in another state.

In other words, not only is any public affirmation of gay relationships banned but even private legal arrangements between two people who love each other are prohibited. The bill's broad language would preclude contracts to share assets or provide for medical powers of attorney, and though its sponsors deny they intend to do so, it would seem to ban even certain contractual business relationships undertaken by people who happen to be of the same gender.

I think it plays pretty well with this:

DAYTON, Tenn. - More than 400 people turned out Saturday for a Rhea County Gay Day celebration prompted by the county commission's vote to ban homosexuals and have them arrested for "crimes against nature."

It's worth noting that the commission reversed course two days after the vote. Still, this is proof that for a sizable portion of people on the right, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage means little or nothing; this group won't be happy until gays and lesbians either a) keep their sexuality strictly behind closed doors a la the 50's, or b) are limited solely to "blue" states.

I suspect most of them would prefer the latter.