Now the Democrats' battle plan is starting to take shape, with five main objectives. Neutralize Mr. Bush's national-security edge by fanning doubts about his Iraq policy. Craft economic attacks that can work even if the economy keeps improving. Dent the president's reputation for honesty and competence. Mobilize Democratic partisans in 17 states that Mr. Bush barely won or lost in 2000. And maneuver around the new campaign-finance law by redirecting now-banned big donations away from the Democratic Party to a new set of groups that will coordinate attacks on Mr. Bush.
The president clearly has some vulnerabilities. In a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll , 40% of Americans say they'd "probably" vote for the Democratic candidate in November 2004 vs. 43% who'd back Mr. Bush -- a statistical dead heat. His approval rating hovers at a tepid 51%, misgivings over the Iraq conflict are growing, and even favorable assessments of his personal qualities have slipped. Those are only slightly better than his weakest numbers yet.
I say, whatever works. I'd also point out that while Bush does have some formidable adantages -- incumbency, a huge war chest, and a near-total lack of scruples not the least among them -- he has one major disadvantage: Discounting the bumps in popularity he received after 9/11 and his invasion of Iraq, the trend of his approval rating is consistently -- one might even say inexorably -- downward.
Today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Before beginning his hiatus, Jaquandor posted a set of relevant links, including this somewhat spooky Web cam placed at the sniper's vantage point on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Repository, which is now a museum devoted to the event.
I've vacillated in my opinion as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald did indeed act alone in the assassination (I'm convinced he was not an innocent patsy). Perhaps surprisingly, Oliver Stone's film, with its wild, unsubstantiated and often conflicting conspiracy theories, did much to increase my skepticism that a conspiracy was involved. The film is superb at leaving an emotional impression that Kennedy was victim to a conspiracy, but doesn't even attempt to make a coherent argument. Too, I feel that Stone's obsession with Vietnam proves a blinder -- of all the conjecture in the film, the accusation that Kennedy was whacked because he wanted to pull out of 'Nam seems least convincing. In addition, my family hails from New Orleans, and I can't help but look askance at the film's casting of Jim Garrison as the hero -- he was regarded as something of a nut, and a consummate egotist, in his home city. As a work of art, JFK is superb; as a convincing historical document, it falls short.
However, I've made a minor hobby of collecting Kennedy conspiracy literature, both pro and con (I admit I haven't actually read the whole of my copy of the Warren Report). Of all the books, this concise guide to the major conspiracy theories makes a much better case that, while the details of various conspiracy theories conflict -- and some, like the notion that Kennedy was felled by dozens of shots from no less than five separate gunmen, are too wild to credit -- the preponderance of evidence suggests that there was much more than a lone nut involved on that fateful day.
Update: There's an interesting discussion thread on the assassination over at MetaFilter. It reminded me that the House Select Committee on Assassinations also concluded that more than one shooter was involved.
Happy Sabrina is a site devoted to cosplayers who wear full-body suits to resemble their favorite anime characters, such as Belldandy from Oh! My Goddess, shown here.
The Democratic Party's blog has the full text of an awesome speech by Louisiana Senator (Operation Icing on the What, Mr. President?) Mary Landrieu. Go read the whole thing.
The Bush Administration appears to be succeeding in its stonewalling of the Valerie Plame investigation -- aren't you proud, conservatives? -- so let's refresh our outrage with this post over at Billmon's Whiskey Bar.
Here's a great op-ed decrying Bush's cowardice in avoiding associating himself with the real costs of his war ambitions.
As the toll nears 400, the casualties remain largely invisible. Apart from a flurry of ceremonies on Veterans Day, this White House has done everything it can to keep Mr. Bush away from the families of the dead, at least when there might be a camera around.
The wounded, thousands of them, are even more carefully screened from the public. And the Pentagon has continued its ban on media coverage of the return of flag-draped coffins to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, denying the dead soldiers and their loved ones even that simple public recognition of sacrifice. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained rather lamely that the ban had been in place since 1991 — when another President Bush wanted to avoid the juxtaposition of his face and words with pictures of soldiers' coffins.
Some Republicans say it would take up too much of the president's time to attend military funerals or meet the coffins returning from Iraq. "They're coming back continually," the conservative commentator Bay Buchanan said on CNN on Tuesday. "The president cannot be flying up there every single week."
...Along with the coverage of these casualties, the coverage of combat in Iraq has virtually ceased. The "embedded" correspondents who reported on the stunningly swift march to Baghdad during the invasion are gone. The Pentagon has ended the program. The ever-upbeat Mr. Rumsfeld likes to say that the attacks on American soldiers are brief and relatively few in number, compared with the number of men in arms in the field in Iraq. But without real news coverage, it's hard to know the truth.
...The administration undoubtedly feels that showing coffins on television or having the president attend funerals would undermine public support for the war. (The ban on covering the arrival of coffins at Dover was in effect during the popular Afghanistan war, but was not enforced.) That seems like more of an acknowledgment of how fragile that support is than any poll yet taken.
The Bush administration hates comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, and many are a stretch. But there is a lesson that this president seems not to have learned from Vietnam. You cannot hide casualties. Indeed, trying to do so probably does more to undermine public confidence than any display of a flag-draped coffin. And there is at least one direct parallel. Thirty-five years ago, at the height of the Vietnam War, the Pentagon took to shipping bodies into the United States in the dead of night to avoid news coverage.
Yes, Bush didn't implement the policy of banning cameras from the return of American caskets. But it's within his power to rescind that shameful policy -- instead, he's demanded its enforcement. And of course, Bush is a busy man -- perish forbid he should miss out on one of his fundraisers to perform one of his duties as Commander in Chief. Genuinely reprehensible.
Speaking of the cowardice of eschewing responsibility for one's actions (and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't exactly that one of the conservatives' pet peeves?), Condi Rice examines the mess that's resulted from the Bush Administration foreign policy and declares, "It's all Clinton's fault!" She's too modest -- she neglects to mention her eager participation in the Bush Administration's Operation Ignore policy towards terrorism prior to 9/11.
Salon.com wonders if Bush is oiling up the draft machine. (For what it's worth, I don't think there's any way that Bush will impose a draft while he's still up for re-election. But, just as the inevitable long-term costs of his irresponsible fiscal policy makes a tax increase inevitable, we may need to resort to a draft to repair the damage Bush is doing to the military.)
Liberal Incompetent Media watch: A British newspaper presents one of the clearest articles yet on the black-box voting machine problem.
Republican analysts are clearly worried about Bush's slide in the polls, the foreboding situation in Iraq, and the evident resurgence of al Qaeda terrorists. Yet with it now painfully obvious that the Administration doesn't have proof of Iraq's weapons of mass production (and, it must be observed, obviously didn't have it before the war, when they claimed they did), with casualties of the Iraqi insurgency and international terrorism apparently on the rise, with a troublesome security situation persisiting in Iraq, and with relations among America's allies at a low ebb, Bush can hardly make an honest case supporting his performance in the war on terrorism. What to do?
After months of sustained attacks against President Bush in Democratic primary debates and commercials, the Republican Party is responding this week with its first advertisement of the presidential race, portraying Mr. Bush as fighting terrorism while his potential challengers try to undermine him with their sniping.
The new commercial gives the first hint of the themes Mr. Bush's campaign is likely to press in its early days. It shows Mr. Bush, during the last State of the Union address, warning of continued threats to the nation: "Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power," he says after the screen flashes the words, "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists."
Marvel, my friends, at the moustache-twirling prevarication of that last sentence. First, the vague "some are attacking" clause -- a clearer indication of a strawman argument is hardly possibile -- "for attacking the terrorists." Not for failing to nail bin Ladin at Tora Bora. Not for pulling resources away from the hunt for al Qaeda in order to attack Saddam. Not for the failure to provide security in Afghanistan that has led to both brutal warlordism and a resurgent Taliban. Not for saddling the United States with the bulk of the cost in lives and treasure of Bush's obsession with removing Saddam. Not for squandering the international goodwill following 9/11 (recent Republican denials that such goodwill ever existed are telling indeed). Not for tying up huge chunks of the American military in occupying hostile territory and creating a crisis in morale, troop strength and readiness.
Not, in short, for screwing up major aspects of the war on terror and leaving the United States in a present security position that a blind man could see is worse than when Bush took office. But "for attacking the terrorists."
No one criticizes Bush for attacking the terrorists. We criticize Bush for not doing so enough, and poorly at that. Clear enough for you, Mr. GOP?
By indirectly invoking the Sept. 11 attacks, the commercial plays to what White House officials have long contended is Mr. Bush's biggest political advantage: his initial handling of the aftermath of the attacks.
And once again this Administration caves to its addiction for linking its Iraqi adventure with 9/11. Bah.
Although it's truly mystifying how Bush's miserable failure to defend the nation on and before September 11, 2001, is perceived as an asset.
...The Bush campaign has sought to keep a low profile and put off overt electioneering for as long as possible. But some Republicans are worried about Mr. Bush's popularity, and, officials acknowledge, some Bush supporters have pressed for a response to the avalanche of Democratic critiques of his performance in office, which have been extensively covered on television.
Still, the White House has sought to keep distance from this first commercial. It is not a product of the president's campaign committee, but was paid for and produced by the Republican National Committee.
The party has acted as a proxy for Mr. Bush while he tries to maintain the appearance of being above the political fray.
...The 30-second advertisement gives the first sampling of the powerful array of images Mr. Bush's campaign team will have at its disposal when it begins what is expected to be a formidable advertising campaign.
With somber strings playing in the background, the commercial flashes the words "Strong and Principled Leadership" before cutting to Mr. Bush standing before members of Congress. Intended to call out the Democrats for their opposition to Mr. Bush's military strategy of pre-emptively striking those who pose threats to the nation, the screen flashes "Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others," then urges viewers to tell Congress "to support the president's policy of pre-emptive self defense."
The strawman "some" is once again cited for the calls to retreat. And the ad, of course, obscures the fact that while no one disputes the right to preemptive self defense, many regard the President's evident assertion of the right to engage in so-called "preemptive" war on a hunch as just short of insane.
So there it is in black and white: With little chance of defending himself against his opponents' legitimate criticism, Bush's campaign plans to embark on a veritable orgy of strawman destruction.
We should hardly be surprised. This is the same man, remember, who characterized anything short of enthusiastic support for his war ambitions as "doing nothing" about Iraq. We know that Bush won't hesitate to mislead America about the relative merits of his position and his opponents'. The Democratic Party should and must be prepared for this odious outcome right now.
By the way, notice how even Bush wants to portray himself as "above" this dishonest attack. What a coward.
Chuck Norris's stunt double saved the lives of his fellow passengers when their plane crashed on landing. Kinnie Gibson, 47, kicked open a stuck door, allowing the four aboard to escape the burning business jet. No one was hurt in the incident, except the recalcitrant door. Serves it right for messing with the guy who did stunts for Walker, Texas Ranger.
My friend Dodd's Web log, Ipse Dixit, is three years old today. To commemorate the occasion, he's listed his 20 favorite posts of the past year. Congratulations to Dodd for an always provocative and thought-provoking forum. It's a matter of record that he and I disagree on much, if only by slight degrees, but that fact hasn't lessened our friendship or respect. (Indeed, I daresay we're closer friends now than before we started our HTML-formatted debates.) His intelligence, fervor and ability to craft an argument has made him a worthy opponent in the many debates we've engaged in.
I learn from the Emperor's article that tentacle pr0n in anime is inspired not only by the resonance of the octopus as an erotic image in Japanese culture, but also from Japanese censorship laws that discourage depiction of genitalia (hence, the substitution of, er, other appendages).
The image above is included in this online gallery of the works of Hokusai Katsushita (1760-1849), but the link to that particular image behaves oddly. (I was, however, able to download it, so it's definitely there.)
Slacktivist has the essential rebuttal to the latest Administration attempt to convince us that there really, really was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. (Joshua Marshall provides the background here.)
Why has the White House steadfastly, defensively denied its own strongest case for the war?
The most obvious explanation, and the simplest, is that this is not its strongest case. The most probable explanation is that no such conclusive evidence of a link exists.
But the Standard and Safire reject this simple explanation, opting instead for a conspiracy theory that goes beyond anything Oliver Stone could have imagined. They would have us believe in a massive cover-up perpetrated by the Bush administration against itself.
As conspiracy theories go, this one takes the cake.
Joshua Marshall also points to this Newsweek article that also points out that the so-called "proof" is based on selectived and unferified intelligence. And we all know
