A couple good ones from Orcinus, via Atrios: first, an op-ed discussing the implications of George Bush Sr.’s decision to give the 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service to (drumroll please) Ted Kennedy.

Since the current President Bush veered away from the real war against terrorism in Afghanistan and went a'venturing in Iraq, much to his father's dismay, just about everybody close to Washington politics has known of the policy schism between father and son.

It was politically and philosophically obvious. But people around Father Bush, a coterie of traditional internationalist conservatives who protect him like a wolf mother does her cubs, would heatedly deny any family rift -- and nobody spoke publicly about it.

Now it's all out. Father Bush has done it in his own preferred nuanced way -- the way Establishment gentlemen operate -- but he has revealed the depth of his disagreement with his impetuously uninformed son.

And won't it be interesting to analyze the speeches citing Teddy, who is surely one of W's primary political nemeses, for his public service and principles at the Bush Library Center on the Texas A&M campus on Nov. 7? One can bet they will be subtle -- but also very clear.

The ideological rift between father and son has been growing ever since George W. began focusing on Iraq and, with that obsession, proposed "theories" of unilateralism (America needs room in the world) and preemption (kill even your perceived enemy before he kills you).

Second, the story of a terrorist discovered to have

a bunker containing a cache of weapons and explosives worthy of an army: an anti-aircraft gun capable of firing 550 rounds per minute up to four miles away, machine guns, explosives, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and booby traps. Investigators also find pictures of President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with scope cross-hairs drawn over them.

But not to worry: he’s a white guy terrorist. Which is probably why news of his arrest hasn’t made it much beyond the Grand Rapids Press.

My earlier post on SF bookstores inspired a couple of people to send in reports on how they're handling the book out there, and frankly, I'm appalled, at least at two stores in particular--one of which had a single copy hidden away under a table, the other of which had ordered (and sold) three copies and did not intend to order any more.

Jesus.

Not only have I spent a lot of my career trying to support indy bookstores, I've had several standing-room-only events at both of these specific indys. And this is my payback, this is my thanks.

Man, this pisses me off.

Afterthought: having had some time to go to my happy place, I'm reminded that I also received a report not long ago that the book was displayed prominently at the SF Airport bookstore. Which is totally bizarre, because I'm just not an airport bookstore kind of author, but hey, you take what you can get...

For those of you who care about such things, the late, lamented, and utterly brilliant live action Tick series is now available on DVD.

Harold Meyerson:

Ever worry that millions of your fellow Americans are walking around knowing things that you don't? That your prospects for advancement may depend on your mastery of such arcana as who won the Iraqi war or where exactly Europe is? Then don't watch Fox News. The more you watch, the more you'll get things wrong.

--snip--

The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three.

More.

They've produced an ad about the Plame scandal. Kos has the links.

You've probably seen this already, but it bears repeating. From the LA Times via not-the-evil Roger Ailes:

WASHINGTON — A suspicious sample of biological material recently found by U.S. weapons hunters in Iraq probably was purchased legally from a U.S. organization in the 1980s and is a substance that has never been successfully used to produce a weapon, experts said.

The discovery of the hidden vial of C. botulinum Okra B, which was revealed in an Oct. 2 interim report by chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay, was highlighted in speeches by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other senior administration officials as proof that President Saddam Hussein's government maintained an illicit bio-weapons program before the war.

--snip--

The single vial of botulinum B had been stored in an Iraqi scientist's kitchen refrigerator since 1993. It appears to have been produced by a nonprofit Virginia biological resource center, the American Type Culture Collection, which legally exported botulinum and other biological material to Iraq under a Commerce Department license in the late 1980s.

From the latest entry in their ongoing pathological obsession with Michael Moore:

Moore uses fake quotes as chapter headings, implying that Bush (or administration officials) said things they never said. The most problematic is "#3 Whopper with Bacon: 'Iraq has ties to Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda!'" (page 53) He quotes Bush repeatedly stating that "We know [Saddam] has ties to Al Qaeda" - but provides no source suggesting the administration tied Saddam to Bin Laden personally.

I assume this needs no elaboration. I assume readers of this site understand that in this universe, the Bush administration tried to tie Saddam to al Qaeda (and by excruciatingly obvious extension, to bin Laden) at every possible opportunity. I assume, in short, that you are not playing whatever childish game of schoolyard "gotcha" that they're playing over at Spinsanity (Ari Fleischer never said it so it's not true, nyah nyah nyah!), that you read the newspaper and watch the President on the news, and are aware that when he mentions 9/11 a dozen or so times in a speech about Iraq, it's not just because some proofreader screwed up somewhere--that he is in fact conveying a specific message, which is in turn fodder for commentators and critics.

I assume, in short, that you understand that it is not by accident that a majority of Americans recently polled believe that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Always remember that the self-appointed fact-checkers of the internet are themselves human, as was demonstrated with the Snopes brouhaha a couple of weeks back. "Non-partisan" or not, everybody's got a bias, everybody's got an angle, everybody's got a bug up their ass about something.

Afterthought: even by their own standards, I'm not really sure what the point of the last sentence in the paragraph above could possibly be. Bush tied Saddam to al Qaeda, but not to bin Laden personally, so Michael Moore is a liar? File under straws, clutching at.

Astonishing Hannity & Colmes transcript, via TBogg:

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: While inspectors in Iraq continue searching for weapons of mass destruction (search), some Americans are outraged at the president that so far no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Our next guest thinks that's grounds for impeachment.

We're joined by the publisher of Harper's magazine, John MacArthur, who's with us. And the author of the best selling book, Treason, Ann Coulter is with us.

It's not even really intellectually worth discussing. After reading your article, my first reaction is to bubble and fizz and get mad. My second reaction is this is beyond silly, you know, but you really believe this?

JOHN MACARTHUR, HARPER'S MAGAZINE: Why do you invite me to go on the show if you think it's beyond discussion?

HANNITY: Because Alan wanted you on. That's why.

MACARTHUR: OK. But clearly...

HANNITY: It wasn't my first choice.

MACARTHUR: Clearly, if the president of the United States has lied on a grand scale to Congress...

HANNITY: Name me one lie. Name me one lie.

MACARTHUR: Let me finish.

HANNITY: If you're going to call him a liar, back it up.

MACARTHUR: I will, yes. I'll talk about what he said to Bush…Blair at the press conference on September 7 at Camp David. He said…he cited a non-existent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (search), saying that Saddam was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon and infamously said, "What more evidence do we need?" And from there...

HANNITY: We don't have time for a speech.

MACARTHUR: ... we moved on to aluminum tubes. We moved on to connections with Al Qaeda.

HANNITY: Did you call...

MACARTHUR: We talked about an atomic bomb threat that did not exist. Sean, this didn't exist. This didn't exist.

HANNITY: This isn't a speech time.

MACARTHUR: You need me to give you the facts.

HANNITY: I've got to ask you, did you call for the impeachment of Bill Clinton?

MACARTHUR: I wasn't interested in the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

HANNITY: You weren't interested? So you're only interested in the impeachment of Republicans?

MACARTHUR: No, no, no, no. I mean, it's…Listen, I can't stand Bill Clinton.

HANNITY: Did Bill Clinton lie to the American people?

MACARTHUR: Yes.

HANNITY: Why do you have one standard for him and another standard for a Republican?

MACARTHUR: I have the same standard for both of them.

HANNITY: No, you don't. Because you didn't write an article asking for his impeachment.

MACARTHUR: Actually, what I'm trying to tell you is that if you, as Senator Graham (search) put it a few months ago very intelligently, if you apply the same standard to Bush that was applied to Clinton, then it's impeachable. He should be impeached. Absolutely.

HANNITY: Ann...

MACARTHUR: Because as Alexander Hamilton (search) said in The Federalist Papers, this has to do with the immediate consequences and harm done to society. What could be greater harm than the deaths of American soldiers...

HANNITY: Excuse me. The immediate consequences…Sir, you have yet to...

MACARTHUR: ... in Iraq, who have been sent to Iraq on a fraudulent pretext, utterly...

HANNITY: My patience is really running thin.

MACARTHUR: ... and they're dying.

HANNITY: Could you please be quiet, because there are other people on the panel?

MACARTHUR: OK. Sure.

HANNITY: The idea here, he cannot give a specific example.

MACARTHUR: I did give a specific example.

HANNITY: He's full of crap.

MACARTHUR: I did give an example.

HANNITY: And this is just, hatred of George W. Bush now has become a sport for these guys.

Ann Coulter?

ANN COULTER, TREASON AUTHOR: First of all, I agree with you. I hate to treat this seriously by responding, but the particular lie that he cited as his leading, case in chief of the president lying, yes, Bush cited something like the Atomic Energy Commission (search). He misspoke.

HANNITY: Right.

COULTER: It was the International Institute for Strategic Studies or something. He misspoke about the name of the institute.

MACARTHUR: No, he didn't. He didn't.

COULTER: It's my turn now. You stop that.

MACARTHUR: OK.

--snip--

COULTER: Point two, as you know, I'm something of an authority on the grounds for impeachment. And this is precisely the sort of thing that impeachment is not for. I mean, it's not for policy disagreements. It's certainly not for something that is in the president's prerogative, such as waging war, for example.

To take a decision that I think is appalling, but is not grounds for impeachment. Bill Clinton sending a small Cuban boy back to a Bolshevik monster in Cuba. That is not grounds for impeachment, because that is part of the president's authority.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Ann...

COULTER: You don't impeach for disagreements over policy. It is for misbehavior; that is what misdemeanor means. It's for bad decorum.

COLMES: Ann, we didn't let Rick make a speech. You can't make a speech, either.

COULTER: Well, actually, you did.

COLMES: I know it's hard, but if you look to your left, I know that's difficult.

Look, I don't think he should be impeached. I disagree with Rick about that.

COULTER: That's very big of you.

COLMES: Thank you. I think I'd rather put our time and effort toward 2004, and just like I don't think Bill Clinton should have been impeached, I don't.

But I understand Rick's point. There are many Americans who increasingly seem to feel that we were not leveled with, for whatever reason, whether it was Bush who did it or people in his administration who gave him false information.

He did say the IAEA reported that Iraq was six months away from a nuclear capability, which turned out not to be true. It's a scare tactic.

COULTER: He got the name of the institute wrong.

COLMES: Saying "I misspoke," and they said they misspoke about a number of things. Misspoke about uranium. They misspoke about tubes, misspoke about how many things.

MACARTHUR: Right.

COLMES: Misspoke lets him off the hook?

COULTER: No. Liberals don't want to fight terrorism. You want there to be lots of 9/11's.

posted by Tom Tomorrow at 10:54 AM | link

From PR Watch (click through for the links):

Expect lots of media hype soon over the first Jessica Lynch-related book by Iraqi Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief. According to some reports he told U.S. Marines the location of the captured Private Lynch. He and his family were then granted U.S. asylum. Along with the chance for U.S. citizenship, al-Rehaief received $300,000 from Rupert Murdoch's Harper Collins for his new book about the Lynch rescue. He also was given a job at the Livingston Group, a high-powered D.C. lobby firm. His book "Because Each Life Is Precious: Why an Iraqi Man Came to Risk Everything for Pvt. Jessica Lynch" is being promoted by his Livingston Group colleague Lauri Fitz-Pegado. She is infamous for her work at Hill & Knowlton PR in 1990 coaching the Kuwaiti girl called "Nayirah" in her shocking but phony testimony on Congressional hill that she'd seen Iraqi soldiers murdering Kuwaiti babies. That stunt helped propel the U.S. to war against Iraq in 1991. Fitz-Pegado's client was the ruling family of Kuwait and the baby-killing claims were later shown to be false. The new book is well timed since it will precede by a few weeks Jessica Lynch's own book, half-a-million copies of which will hit bookstores on Veterans Day, November 11th.

Hey you journalists who enjoy this site: I could use a hand here. Come on, you're reading my stuff, other people are probably interested too. Tell your editor the book is a career retrospective from a groundbreaking alternative cartoonist, or some damn thing like that. Just gimme some ink already!

A couple of years back, I spent an afternoon being interviewed and photographed for the back page of Time Out New York magazine (where they run a regular interview feature). It was only after I'd taken time away from my work and obligations and all this was over that they informed me that oh, by the way, we were only doing this as a standby, filler in case something else falls through at some point. Which, had it been explained to me beforehand, would have been reason enough for me to decline the whole thing--my time may not be valuable to magazines looking for filler, but it is extraordinarily precious to me.

It never ran, of course--an interview with me about current events has a limited shelf life, and 9/11 kind of knocked it right off the shelf entirely.

So, hey Time Out New York...you guys kind of owe me one. And I'm trying to promote a book here, and not just any damn book, a career-to-date retrospective. So whaddya say we settle the debt...?

The book's been hovering around #2000 on Amazon, but today it's climbing back up the chart--currently at 700 or so. Did I get some review somewhere or something that I don't know about, or did a number of you just slap your heads and say to yourselves, my gosh--I forgot to buy the Great Big Book of Tomorrow!

In any case, thank you, because it is increasingly apparent to me that I am simply not going to get much institutional support from the publisher. I am on my own; that I ever thought otherwise was just the triumph of hope over experience.

Update: speaking of the book, it's a premium over at BuzzFlash right now, which is to say, for a bit of a higher price than you'd pay in the bookstore you can get it signed and with a tiny drawing of a certain familiar penguin--and support an important source of news and information in the process. But don't wait too long, I believe they only have nine copies left.

Yesterday, we had the Staten Island Ferry crash into the dock and kill ten people. Today, right now, a huge chunk of Washington Heights in upper Manhattan is seriously underwater--streets like rivers, area evacuated--due to a water main break.

Oh, and this apparently takes one of the main access roads to Yankee Stadium out of commission. And I hear there's some sort of game there tonight.

Tom, I believe that you may be getting sucked into a semantic pissing contest with the argument over whether or not Iraq presented an 'imminent threat' or not. The bottom line is this: The administration attacked Iraq. It did so either believing (without justification) that there was an imminent threat or not believing that there was an imminent threat. The apologists' 'explanation' actually makes Bush look worse. If he attacked a nation that he felt did not present an imminent threat, then he is an acknowledged war criminal, is he not? David Y.

I think David Y. is right. Andrew Sullivan in particular is very good at whipping up these online hysterias. Those of you who follow the blogs may remember last summer, when Sullivan declared that All Must Blog About Iran on a Specific Day, and those who did not were freedom-hating miscreants who secretly support the mullahs, or some such nonsense. (How'd that ever turn out, anyway? Since the regime remains intact, I assume Andy's been on this on a daily basis, trying to change the world through blogging, yes? Certainly it wasn't just the cudgel of the moment with which to whack his perceived enemies, tossed aside like a child's plaything once he became bored?)

And yes--isn't the logical conclusion of the "imminent" argument the admission that Bush is a war criminal? Nice going, spinmeisters! Way to put the critics in their place!

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H . Rumsfeld and the chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff publicly defended a new deputy undersecretary of defense of intelligence with a reported penchant for publicly casting the war on terrorism in religious terms.

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, whose promotion and appointment was confirmed by the Senate in June, has said publicly that he sees the war on terrorism as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.

Appearing in dress uniform before a religious group in Oregon in June, Boykin said Islamic extremists hate the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christians. ... And the enemy is a guy named Satan."

As readers of this site are aware, I've had some problems with my publisher in terms of publicity and such. I'm trying to salvage things a bit, and one of my efforts involves setting up some events in San Francisco, in conjunction with Salon. I've got a commitment from the Cartoon Art Museum, but need to get something set up at a bookstore as well to help convince the publisher to cough up a plane ticket. It's kind of last minute, which is to say there's "only" a month's lead time, but I'm hoping somebody will squeeze me in, considering how many standing-room only events I've had at these stores over the years, and how many hundreds of copies of books I've sold. So far, no luck though. Hey Cody's, hey Clean Well Lighted, hey Booksmith...don't tell me you've forgotten? After everything we've been through--sniff--did it really mean so little?

From TPM:

After New Republic Editor Peter Beinart pointed out that the media might actually be understating the problems in the country by underreporting the number of wounded soldiers (as opposed to fatalities), Hemmer shot back with this gem …

I think there's to sides of that coin. … If you're saying it's actually worse than being reported, could it also be better than what's being reported also, if you consider that these reporters, many of them tell us they want to go cover the new school opening, but they can't because there's another bombing or shooting and that prevents them from sending that story?

I love this logic.

It’s not just the reporters who are keeping a lid on all the good things going on in Iraq. It’s the darned terrorists who are keeping everyone from hearing how good things are by constantly setting off bombs and shooting people.

From the Philly Inquirer, via the guy with a shiny new computer on the way:

Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.

As previously noted, a current talking point among the apologists is that no one ever claimed that Saddam actually posed an imminent threat—but rather, we had to invade because he might someday become a threat.

Well, it seems to be true that the Bush administration never used the word "imminent"--in much the same way they never claimed that Saddam Hussein was literally the mastermind behind 9/11--but in the latter case, they certainly linked the two together at every opportunity, and in the former, the administration and its various mouthpieces certainly did everything possible to indicate that time was of the essence and we had to act now and we simply couldn't wait blah blah blah.

Case in point: a speech by the President on October 8, 2002. First, let’s get a little 9/11 linkage in there:

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September 11, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Okay, now let’s make sure people understand that time is of the essence.

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

Okay, not imminent, exactly—but it sure doesn’t sound like we can afford to wait much longer! What kind of threat are we talking about, exactly?

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

--snip--

We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.

And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems are not required for a chemical or biological attack -- all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.

So there are various ways in which Saddam could attack us at any moment with his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, which we know he has! It’s no wonder our concern is "urgent!"

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Okay, we "cannot wait." We have a "gathering" threat. Our concern is "urgent." We are facing "clear evidence of peril." There's a consistent message here, and if you think it is, "there's no hurry, time is on our side," then you are, perhaps, not the sharpest knife in the proverbial drawer.

My point is, imminence as both a specific and general concept was undeniably in the air in the buildup to war. For instance, here's a Denver Post editorial from Sept. 26, 2002 (via Lexis, so I don't have a link for you):

Iraq's Saddam Hussein can unleash chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of his command, according to a 50-page dossier released by the British government.

The new information, released by Prime Minister Tony Blair, is precisely what we've been waiting to hear.

Iraq poses an imminent threat to world safety. Imminent being the key word.

Okay, you say, but the editorial writer only comes up with the word "imminent" in reference to the British government's 45-minute claim. Well, yes--but those of you with longer memories than, say, Andrew Sullivan, will recall that our President was not above mentioning that claim a time or two himself:

The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

That’s from the Washington Post, July 20, 2003. (The "Global Message" mentioned is still available on the White House website, as of this writing). As I say, the Bushies may never have specifically used the word "imminent"—but that’s just a matter of splitting hairs so fine, you’re almost working on a subatomic level. Because they sure as hell implied it at every possibility, and anyone who claims not to understand that is either an outright liar or simply so stupid it’s hard to imagine that they are able to get up in the morning and remember to put their socks on before their shoes.

One other point. People have been quoting this bit from the State of the Union address lately:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

Yes, it’s a denial--but it’s an after the fact denial. At the point in time when he says this, he’s already been using the 45-minute claim for months, as well as giving speeches like the one I quote above. This line is a response to critics, pure CYA. "Imminent? I never said ‘imminent’!" This has no more bearing on the discussion than any other Bush administration after-the-fact denial—what Josh Marshall frequently calls "up-is-downism." As simply as possible, for the comprehension-impaired amoung you: this one paragraph does not negate the fact that he spent the previous several months implying precisely the opposite.

Okay?

Well then. I’m certainly glad we had this little chat.

(Slight editing for even more cogency.)

These days you almost have to feel sorry for the Bush apologists. No sooner do they commit themselves to some spin or another than it's proven to be complete and total bullshit. Latest case in point, that identical letter that started showing up signed by different soldiers. The attempted spin was that they were all buddies, or in the same company, or something along those lines, and they all signed it. A sort of group effort, among a small handful of buddies trying to set the record straight about Iraq, and the darned liberal media blows the whole thing all out of proportion yadda yadda yadda you know the rest.

Well now it appears that 500 identical letters went out with different signatures. So I guess it's back to the drawing board for the spinmeisters...

(Story.)

* * *

Another busy week, as you've probably already surmised. And the blogging is always the first thing that gets thrown overboard...

He needs a new computer. And we need him to have one. (Update: looks like he's covered.)

Unless you are a dittohead or a masochist, chances are I've spent a lot more time listening to him than you have. I think he's an asshole and a hypocrite, and I think he's done immeasurable harm to political discourse in this country.

And now we learn, via his maid, that he's been popping thirty OxyContins a day--which means that his radio monologues sounded like the work of someone completely disconnected from reality because that's exactly what they've been, apparently for years.

Having said all that, this is almost enough to make you feel sorry for the guy. Almost.

Update: Uggabugga is profoundly unimpressed by Newsweek's spin.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know, I've played the Bob Hope three times and the AT&T twice. It wasn't bad. It's just the game is mental. Once you've mastered the physical aspect, not mastered, but 90 percent of the game, all of the other things being equal is mental, and for some reason, I just was not able to execute my swing today.

And I think it had nothing to do with physical characteristics. There's nothing wrong with me.

More.