Saturday, January 03, 2004 The turkey's service to servicemen
Stars and Stripes, the Pentagon-authorized newspaper of the U.S. military, is bucking for a court-martial.
When last we checked in on Stripes, it was reporting on a survey it did of troops in Iraq, finding that half of those questioned described their units' moral as low and their training as insufficient and said they did not plan to reenlist.
With the Pentagon just recovering from that, Stars and Stripes is blowing the whistle on President Bush's Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad, saying the cheering soldiers who met him were pre-screened and others showing up for a turkey dinner were turned away.
The newspaper, quoting two officials with the Army's 1st Armored Division in an article last week, reported that "for security reasons, only those preselected got into the facility during Bush's visit. . . . The soldiers who dined while the president visited were selected by their chain of command, and were notified a short time before the visit."
The paper also published a letter to the editor from Sgt. Loren Russell, who wrote of the heroism of his soldiers and then added: "[I]magine their dismay when they walked 15 minutes to the Bob Hope Dining Facility, only to find that they were turned away from their evening meal because they were in the wrong unit. . . . They understand that President Bush ate there and that upgraded security was required. But why were only certain units turned away?"
Russell added that his soldiers "chose to complain amongst themselves and eat MREs, even after the chow hall was reopened for 'usual business' at 9 p.m. As a leader myself, I'd guess that other measures could have been taken to allow for proper security and still let the soldiers have their meal." (link)
Posted by Timothy,
8:10 PM
-
Bigots on the right? Townhall.com links to a column by Matt Grills, who says: "I have no doubt Howard Dean believes in Jesus. But whose Jesus?" Ok. But it seems Grills' Jesus is against intermarriage and in favor of forcing religion on other people.
His wife and children are Jewish. Cool. But I have to wonder: if Howie’s faith in Jesus Christ is so important to him, why didn’t he marry someone with the same faith? Why didn’t he insist on raising his children in that faith? Say it with me, on three: because what faith Howard Dean has in Jesus isn’t central to his life.
For those of you who don't know, Dean and his wife agreed that the children would choose their own faith. They chose Judaism. I'm sure Grills would prefer the old method whereby the husband dictates to the wife how the children are raised. I can see why Grills would want his kids raised Christian. But would Grills say that Dean should not fall in love with his wife because of her religion? A good Christian would never marry a Jew? Or that Jesus could not be important to his life if he married someone of a different religion? Or that once married, Dean as a man had to take charge and ensure his kids were raised Christian? I guess so.
I won’t vote for Howard Dean either. But I can tell already that if he does win the presidency I’ll spend a great deal of time defending him, too. I’ll even get pulled into his camp (happily, I might add) if he does a good job. Dean opens himself up to a great deal of criticism with his crazy pop-off remarks. His opponents don’t do themselves any favors, though, if they can’t figure out what his actual problems are.
Mr. Dean´s wife is Jewish and his two children are being raised Jewish, which is strange at best, considering the two faiths take a distinctly different view of Jesus.
What’s strange at best is that Cal Thomas even mentions this in the first place. I’d like to know what wouldn’t be “strange,” considering the makeup of Howard Dean’s family. Are Christians automatically entitled to come out ahead of Jews in religious disputes? Are part-Jewish children supposed to ignore half their heritage? I’ll be charitable and assume that’s what he’s getting at, although that in itself means he has some explaining to do. Christian supremacy isn’t the endearing quality that it used to be. The only other explanation is that Mr. Thomas thinks Howard Dean shouldn’t have married a Jew in the first place.
Posted by Timothy,
4:17 PM
-
Friday, January 02, 2004 "U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields In '73" Link via Altercation.
Posted by Timothy,
6:33 PM
-
The electability of Democrats Drudge has this poll saing 'In direct matchups today against President George W. Bush in 2004, likely voters would choose:'
Bush over Dean 51% to 46%, Bush over Lieberman 52% to 46%, Bush over Kerry 54% to 43%, Bush over Gephardt 53% to 44%, Bush over Clark 53% to 43%, Bush over Edwards 53% to 43%.
What does this say about Dean's electability? True, he seems to be doing best in this matchup against Bush. But the close numbers indicate people are thinking Bush versus generic democrat, and the specific democrat does not matter (yet) to many voters. What Democrat could make up the current gap with Bush?
P.S. Oh wait, we might have a more reliable source than polling. Pat Robertsons says: "I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004." One Robertson critic responded: "Maybe Pat got a message from Karl Rove and thought it was from God." (link)
Posted by Timothy,
5:44 PM
-
Judicial protection of rights during wartime Is that Legal has a good post criticizing a certain line of attack against the recent court decisions on Padilla and the Guantanamo detainees:
To my eye, it is evidence of a basic and dangerous misconception about the judicial role during times of war and crisis. Chief Justice Rehnquist published a book back in the late '90s called "All the Laws But One," the theme of which was that "in time of war the government's authority to restrict civil liberty is greater than in peacetime." (Those are the Chief Justice's words, on p. 224). In Rehnquist's view, it is "a desirable phenomenon" that federal judges are "reluctan(t) to decide a case against the government on an issue of national security during a war" (p.221). Rehnquist reached this conclusion after a highly selective review of American legal history from the Civil War through World War II – a review that omitted the many stories of federal judges who stood up to the Executive during times of war and crisis. And there are many.... Padilla and Gherebi fit squarely in that decision, and ought to be praised for their courage rather than derided as gasbaggery that is blind to the peril we face.
Posted by Timothy,
5:35 PM
-
Compare Dean and Clark on religion Amy Sullivan, a divinity student at Princieton, firmly believes Democrats need to understand religion to appeal to American voters. Check out this article in the Washington Monthly and her blog, political aims. She says:
This is a 48-48 country. The crucial votes needed to knock a candidate over the 50 percent line will come from swing voters -- and whether you like it or not, many of them are socially conservative and don't respond well to aggressive secularism. I will shout this from the rooftops if necessary: YOU DON'T NEED TO PANDER TO THEM. But don't, don't thumb your noses at them. There's no need. Really. Unless you are secretly looking forward to another four years of W.
"Let's get into a little religion here," Dean said at a morning meeting with voters in response to a question about his beliefs. "Don't you think Jerry Falwell reminds you a lot more of the Pharisees than he does of the teachings of Jesus? And don't you think this campaign ought to be about evicting the money changers from the temple?"... Yesterday, Dean said, "So we can talk a lot about religion, and you're going to find out that there are a lot of people who are religious in this country and not every one of us feels obligated to talk about it all the time."... At the Waterloo event, Dean seemed primed and ready to talk about religion when an audience member pressed him to elaborate on his views. But he seemed exercised by criticism he had encountered since unveiling his plans to share his religious beliefs with voters. Yesterday, Dean told voters in Waterloo, "I think religion is important and spiritual values are very important, which is what this election is really about," before looping back to a regular line in his stump speech lamenting the loss of jobs in America. The line that drew applause, though, was this: "I am pretty religious. I pray every day but I'm from New England, so I just keep it to myself."
That said, the meatier segments of Clark's "True Grits" kickoff speech weren't half bad. Instead of babbling about the joys of NASCAR, Clark waded in to talk about core Southern values like patriotism, family, and faith--areas where Democrats absolutely cannot cede the field to W. The general was particularly clever when tackling the God question, noting that faith isn't just about where or to whom you pray, "but the values your faith teaches you. Charity, integrity, kindness. Growing up in Arkansas, we always knew a few people who could preach a revival, but who didn't live it. And now we've got one in the White House. George W. Bush talks a lot about his faith, but he hasn't exactly backed up his words with deeds. In fact, the only charity he's given is to big business and the very rich." Clark then enumerated a few of the ways in which W.'s uncharitable policies have undercut American families.
Posted by Timothy,
5:19 PM
-
Thursday, January 01, 2004 Happy New Year Start your year with this list of 10 things that happened in 2003 that progressives can be thankful for.
Posted by Clint,
9:39 AM
-
Tuesday, December 30, 2003 The Guardian says the British (and Robin Cook) deserve credit for Libya
“If back-slapping is in order, congratulations should also go to Robin Cook, the man who relaunched British relations with Libya in 1999 and on whose policy of critical engagement this success is founded. Patient diplomacy, dialogue, negotiation, clearly enunciated principles and red lines, respect, mutual trust, and attractive incentives - these are the civil tools that helped bring, at the weekend, perhaps the most significant, tangible breakthrough in arms control since the strategic weapons pacts of the later cold war era. Libya has gone from 1986 target of Ronald Reagan's bombs, from "rogue" sponsor of non-state, anti-western terrorism and, as it now admits, from active pursuer of nuclear and chemical arms to, if all sides honour the bargain, a prospectively valuable friend and partner. This was not achieved by military power, by invasion, by shredding inter national law, by enforced regime change or by large-scale bloodshed. Nor, in fact, despite Mr Bush's eagerness for plaudits, was it primarily achieved by his administration at all. It was achieved by discussion - by endless talk, mostly in London, latterly in Libya, and finally in a London gentlemen's club. Boring perhaps, but effective; and here, with shock and awe, is a lesson for the Pentagon to absorb. Here is a measure of the true worth of the diplomacy espoused by Mr Cook and others. It bore fruit in Iran last week, another country which Britain refuses to join the US in ostracising. It could yet produce results in Syria, another low-grade WMD state, and in North Korea, if only senior US officials would stop threatening them.” (link via altercation)
Posted by Timothy,
5:24 PM
-
Don't say your best ally is a liar, and other lessons on Iraq P.R. Calpundit says:
Is it true that we have found "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories" in Iraq? Paul Bremer flatly rejects it:
Mr Bremer, interviewed on ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby Programme...ridiculed the comment. "I don't know where those words come from, but that is not what [ISG chief] David Kay has said," he told Dimbleby as the interviewer tried to interrupt to tell him the source. "I have read his reports so I don't know who said that. It sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. It sounds like someone who doesn't agree with the policy sets up a red herring then knocks it down."
Well said. And exactly who was it that was out to undermine the coalition with red herrings like this, anyway? Why, none other than Tony Blair himself. Oops.
If even Blair's credibility cannot be trusted.... Sigh. And here's Juan Cole on how Bremer tried to backtrack after he learned Blair was the one who said the comment:
Bremer later found out the statement he contradicted was Blair's, and he backtracked, saying "There is actually a lot of evidence that had been made public . . . clear evidence of biological and chemical programs." He added "Weapons of mass destruction or no weapons of mass destruction, it's important to step back a little bit here, to see what we have done historically."
It seems clear that Bremer knew no 'huge system of clandestine laboratories' had still been active in 2002, and he smelled a trap. If someone was saying such a thing, which was clearly false, then probably it was an enemy of the Bush administration trying to set up a trap that would be sprung later. He hadn't counted on Tony's earnest hyperbole (though the incident makes it clear that Tony is now doing Bush more harm than good by sticking with the cover story long after US officials had ceased trying to defend it.) When Bremer realized that he had been tricked by Fleet Street into calling Tony Blair a liar, he quickly backed down and tried to give the PM some cover. Well, there used to be laboratories back in the 1980s (we should know, we authorized US companies to supply them) . . .
Any conservatives care to put a good spin this ridiculousness? Meanwhile:
The former foreign secretary Robin Cook yesterday said it was time for Mr Blair to drop his claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "It really is time that the prime minister accepted that himself," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "It is undignified to continue to insist he was right when everyone can see he was wrong."
Posted by Timothy,
12:10 AM
-
Monday, December 29, 2003 Bring on the Good Cheer
In the warm, fuzzy spirit of the holidays, I just watched Bowling for Columbine yet again. And now I’m reading a wonderful, feel-good story about how fun it is to thwart the silly side of homeland security regulations. Marvelous! Read about it here.
I hope everyone else is enjoying their break, too, posting or not.
