Florida law implies that Harris should be disqualified from running for Congress. She won't be of course.
Florida's "resign to run" law requires that elected officials seeking another office submit a letter on the day of qualifying for the upcoming race stating when they intend to resign. If they do not, their resignation becomes effective immediately. Ms. Harris, whose office enforces state elections law, said she did not realize that the law applied to her because secretary of state becomes an appointed position next year.
Friday, August 02, 2002
FBI says no. CIA says no. White House says yes!
WASHINGTON — Despite deep doubts by the CIA and FBI, the White House is now backing claims that suspected Sept. 11 skyjacker Mohammed Atta secretly met five months earlier with an Iraqi agent in Prague, Czech Republic, a possible indication that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the terror attacks.
In an interview, a senior Bush administration official said that available evidence of the long-disputed meeting "holds up." The official added, "We're going to talk more about this case."
Convincing proof that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks would give strong ammunition to the administration in its efforts to build domestic and international support for a military campaign to topple the Iraqi leader.
But the CIA and FBI concluded months ago that they had no hard evidence to confirm claims that the Prague meeting took place.
A federal law-enforcement official said yesterday, however, that the FBI has been reviewing Atta's possible ties to Iraq, including travel and phone records, with "renewed vigor" in recent weeks. Until now, the administration has largely argued that military action against Iraq is justified because of the danger the regime is secretly building nuclear, chemical or biological weapons that could be used against the United States or its allies. On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a news conference that Iraq had "a relationship" with al-Qaida, but declined to be more specific.
What a load of horse hooey.
WASHINGTON — Despite deep doubts by the CIA and FBI, the White House is now backing claims that suspected Sept. 11 skyjacker Mohammed Atta secretly met five months earlier with an Iraqi agent in Prague, Czech Republic, a possible indication that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the terror attacks.
In an interview, a senior Bush administration official said that available evidence of the long-disputed meeting "holds up." The official added, "We're going to talk more about this case."
Convincing proof that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks would give strong ammunition to the administration in its efforts to build domestic and international support for a military campaign to topple the Iraqi leader.
But the CIA and FBI concluded months ago that they had no hard evidence to confirm claims that the Prague meeting took place.
A federal law-enforcement official said yesterday, however, that the FBI has been reviewing Atta's possible ties to Iraq, including travel and phone records, with "renewed vigor" in recent weeks. Until now, the administration has largely argued that military action against Iraq is justified because of the danger the regime is secretly building nuclear, chemical or biological weapons that could be used against the United States or its allies. On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a news conference that Iraq had "a relationship" with al-Qaida, but declined to be more specific.
What a load of horse hooey.
Thursday, August 01, 2002
Jonah Goldberg (I've just discovered the the Corner is kinda fun) obviously didn't get up very early this morning, unlike me. The U.N. report on the Jenin massacre was getting a lot of play on the news networks I was surfing through, contrary to what he says. I just think it was pushed aside for the various and many Breaking News stories of the day.
My guest conservative commentator Snotglass has this to say about Iraq:
Unpatriotic liberals in the Senate have been unconstitutionally obstructing our elected President's brave efforts to protect America by extending the War on Terror to its source in Iraq, and the liberal media has been whining about the potential costs of liberating Iraq.
While the sniveling left-wing crybabies in both the Senate and the liberal press fail to address the costs of allowing Saddam Hussein to continue his international scheme of mass terror, recent studies released by the Francesco Sforza Defense Policy Institute at the Heritage Foundation have concluded that vigorous prosecution of an active defense policy could provide a substantial economic stimulus to offset the failed fiscal policies of the Clinton administration.
Independent research conducted by noted military historian Jonah Goldberg reveals that operations conducted by great commanders such as Henry Morgan and Francis Drake made military campaigns both victorious and profitable. Coupled with targeted tax cuts, a war with Iraq can provide a much-needed boost to the government output sector of the Gross Domestic Product. Since this sector normally constitutes a negative impact on the economy, profitable military operations will have a drastic effect on both the market and on unemployment.
You liberals need to support our elected President.
Unpatriotic liberals in the Senate have been unconstitutionally obstructing our elected President's brave efforts to protect America by extending the War on Terror to its source in Iraq, and the liberal media has been whining about the potential costs of liberating Iraq.
While the sniveling left-wing crybabies in both the Senate and the liberal press fail to address the costs of allowing Saddam Hussein to continue his international scheme of mass terror, recent studies released by the Francesco Sforza Defense Policy Institute at the Heritage Foundation have concluded that vigorous prosecution of an active defense policy could provide a substantial economic stimulus to offset the failed fiscal policies of the Clinton administration.
Independent research conducted by noted military historian Jonah Goldberg reveals that operations conducted by great commanders such as Henry Morgan and Francis Drake made military campaigns both victorious and profitable. Coupled with targeted tax cuts, a war with Iraq can provide a much-needed boost to the government output sector of the Gross Domestic Product. Since this sector normally constitutes a negative impact on the economy, profitable military operations will have a drastic effect on both the market and on unemployment.
You liberals need to support our elected President.
A much repeated joke by Christopher Hitchens:
I attended Oxford with Bill Clinton (at one point sharing a girlfriend in common—she later became a radical lesbian), so I have a deep-rooted understanding of both the President and the President’s wife.
Which tells us just about everything we need to know about Hitch.
I attended Oxford with Bill Clinton (at one point sharing a girlfriend in common—she later became a radical lesbian), so I have a deep-rooted understanding of both the President and the President’s wife.
Which tells us just about everything we need to know about Hitch.
Joe Conason brings up the un-answered Halliburton-Dresser question:
Did the Bush family still possess any significant interest in Dresser at the time of the questionable merger? Many years ago, the president's grandfather sat on Dresser's board; later his father worked for the company, and named one of his sons (Neil) after its president. If the Bush interests no longer own any Dresser/Halliburton shares, when were they sold?
Did the Bush family still possess any significant interest in Dresser at the time of the questionable merger? Many years ago, the president's grandfather sat on Dresser's board; later his father worked for the company, and named one of his sons (Neil) after its president. If the Bush interests no longer own any Dresser/Halliburton shares, when were they sold?
Great Howler.
At any rate, don’t forget the two approved tales theWashington press has now told you. The two stories plainly self-contradict. But your press corps has sworn to each one:
OFFICIAL PRESS CORPS STORY #1: Al Gore will do and say anything to win.
OFFICIAL PRESS CORPS STORY #2:Al Gore refused to do the one thing which would have won the election. Neither story made much sense. Your press corps, of course, swore to both.
And a moment of truth from Bow-tie Boy Carlson:
TUCKER CARLSON (10/4/00): I mean, you know, and it’s interesting—I mean, there is this sense in which Bush is benefiting from something, and I’m not sure what it is. Maybe it’s the low expectations of the people covering him. You know, he didn’t drool or pass out on stage or anything, so he’s getting credit for that. But there is this kind of interesting reluctance on the part of the press to pass judgment on it. I think a lot of people—they don’t, necessarily, break down along ideological lines—believe that, you know, maybe Bush didn’t do as good a job as he might have. And yet, the coverage does not reflect that at all. It’s interesting.
At any rate, don’t forget the two approved tales theWashington press has now told you. The two stories plainly self-contradict. But your press corps has sworn to each one:
OFFICIAL PRESS CORPS STORY #1: Al Gore will do and say anything to win.
OFFICIAL PRESS CORPS STORY #2:Al Gore refused to do the one thing which would have won the election. Neither story made much sense. Your press corps, of course, swore to both.
And a moment of truth from Bow-tie Boy Carlson:
TUCKER CARLSON (10/4/00): I mean, you know, and it’s interesting—I mean, there is this sense in which Bush is benefiting from something, and I’m not sure what it is. Maybe it’s the low expectations of the people covering him. You know, he didn’t drool or pass out on stage or anything, so he’s getting credit for that. But there is this kind of interesting reluctance on the part of the press to pass judgment on it. I think a lot of people—they don’t, necessarily, break down along ideological lines—believe that, you know, maybe Bush didn’t do as good a job as he might have. And yet, the coverage does not reflect that at all. It’s interesting.
Said today during press conference with Prince Abdullah.
"And I just -- I cannot speak strongly enough about how we must collectively get after those who kill in the name of -- in the name of some kind of false religion. "
Stay tuned for entire fun-filled transcript which will include the observation that killing is negative.
UPDATE: Changed to reflect official version.
More brilliance:
"...because there's somenfanatic who believes that killing innocent life is positive. It's incredibly negative. "
"I do believe that we can get to a so-called conference within the three-year period of time."
3 years? Gee -2005. How Rovian. Success won't come until after the next election, you see.
"And I just -- I cannot speak strongly enough about how we must collectively get after those who kill in the name of -- in the name of some kind of false religion. "
Stay tuned for entire fun-filled transcript which will include the observation that killing is negative.
UPDATE: Changed to reflect official version.
More brilliance:
"...because there's somenfanatic who believes that killing innocent life is positive. It's incredibly negative. "
"I do believe that we can get to a so-called conference within the three-year period of time."
3 years? Gee -2005. How Rovian. Success won't come until after the next election, you see.
To comment a bit more on the Glassman+Hassett article -- they're emphasizing the "stock market good investment in long run" and "by and hold" aspects of their book. However, despite the spin they're putting on it now, their big point was that stocks were undervalued, and:
Stocks are now, we believe, in the midst of a one-time-only rise to much higher ground -- to the neighborhood of 36,000 for the Dow Jones Industrial Average. After they complete this historic ascent, owning them will still be profitable but the returns will decline. You won't be able to make as much money from them each year. We believe that in the meantime, however, astounding profits will be made.
In other words, we were previously stupid about the riskiness of a balanced stock portfolio, and now we are in the midst of waking up.
I'm not going to bother rehashing all the various complaints people had with their book -- I just think they're being very disingenuous about what they were claiming. Now they say "we warned that 'it is impossible to predict how long it will take.'"
Well, I predict barring planetary catastrophe the Dow will hit 36,000 one day too, but that's a far cry from claiming that we are "in the midst of a one-time-only rise to much higher ground."
On that prediction they were obviously wrong. Fess up, guys.
Tresy adds:
I don't know if others remember this, but Mr. Glassman, when not touting the arrival of Equities Nirvana, was equally outspoken about the bottomless criminality of the Clintons. Not only does this make him 0-for-about-200 in matters punditocratic, it also identifies him as a member of that subspecies mendax pathologicus, whose survivial mechanism, when confronted with evidence of past lying, is to reflexively spray new lies.
No surprises here, in other words.
UPDATE: Brad DeLong says basically the same thing only much better.
.
Stocks are now, we believe, in the midst of a one-time-only rise to much higher ground -- to the neighborhood of 36,000 for the Dow Jones Industrial Average. After they complete this historic ascent, owning them will still be profitable but the returns will decline. You won't be able to make as much money from them each year. We believe that in the meantime, however, astounding profits will be made.
In other words, we were previously stupid about the riskiness of a balanced stock portfolio, and now we are in the midst of waking up.
I'm not going to bother rehashing all the various complaints people had with their book -- I just think they're being very disingenuous about what they were claiming. Now they say "we warned that 'it is impossible to predict how long it will take.'"
Well, I predict barring planetary catastrophe the Dow will hit 36,000 one day too, but that's a far cry from claiming that we are "in the midst of a one-time-only rise to much higher ground."
On that prediction they were obviously wrong. Fess up, guys.
Tresy adds:
I don't know if others remember this, but Mr. Glassman, when not touting the arrival of Equities Nirvana, was equally outspoken about the bottomless criminality of the Clintons. Not only does this make him 0-for-about-200 in matters punditocratic, it also identifies him as a member of that subspecies mendax pathologicus, whose survivial mechanism, when confronted with evidence of past lying, is to reflexively spray new lies.
No surprises here, in other words.
UPDATE: Brad DeLong says basically the same thing only much better.
.
Bush admin screwing Vets.
A top official at the US Department of Veterans Affairs has ordered local VA administrators across the country to stop marketing their health care services and recruiting new veterans to use them because of tight finances and the risk of increasing already long waiting times for services.
''Even though some sites might have local capacity, as a national system, all facilities are expected to abide by this policy,'' wrote the official, Laura J. Miller, deputy undersecretary for health for operations and management, with the approval of the Veterans Affairs secretary.
Disclosure of the July 18 memorandum prompted Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, to send a letter yesterday to President Bush seeking a reversal of the policy, as well as Miller's resignation.
Kerry, a Navy veteran of Vietnam and possible 2004 presidential contender, complained on the floor of the US Senate: ''The resources don't have to be exceeded. That is a matter of budgeting priority of this administration. And there are many areas where it's obvious the administration has decided it's more important to put money than to put it into veterans in order to keep the promise to the veterans of the country.''
UPDATE: Josh Marshall also posts on this and has a copy of the memo.
A top official at the US Department of Veterans Affairs has ordered local VA administrators across the country to stop marketing their health care services and recruiting new veterans to use them because of tight finances and the risk of increasing already long waiting times for services.
''Even though some sites might have local capacity, as a national system, all facilities are expected to abide by this policy,'' wrote the official, Laura J. Miller, deputy undersecretary for health for operations and management, with the approval of the Veterans Affairs secretary.
Disclosure of the July 18 memorandum prompted Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, to send a letter yesterday to President Bush seeking a reversal of the policy, as well as Miller's resignation.
Kerry, a Navy veteran of Vietnam and possible 2004 presidential contender, complained on the floor of the US Senate: ''The resources don't have to be exceeded. That is a matter of budgeting priority of this administration. And there are many areas where it's obvious the administration has decided it's more important to put money than to put it into veterans in order to keep the promise to the veterans of the country.''
UPDATE: Josh Marshall also posts on this and has a copy of the memo.
Charles Kuffner points me to an interesting story about a reporter running a pseudononymous blog, getting caught, and being forced to take it down.
This touches on a whole variety of interesting issues. First, I don't see any problem with his doing this, at least until he got caught. Once it was discovered, given the current ridiculous adherence in American Journalism to this fake notion of "objectivity," I suppose it had to go. I also guess that expressing too many opinions might make it hard to do your job as a reporter by making some of the people you're supposed to report on a little unhappy.
I do think that a move to European-style journalism is preferable. We have been moving towards it - but we haven't yet been honest about it.
This touches on a whole variety of interesting issues. First, I don't see any problem with his doing this, at least until he got caught. Once it was discovered, given the current ridiculous adherence in American Journalism to this fake notion of "objectivity," I suppose it had to go. I also guess that expressing too many opinions might make it hard to do your job as a reporter by making some of the people you're supposed to report on a little unhappy.
I do think that a move to European-style journalism is preferable. We have been moving towards it - but we haven't yet been honest about it.
I find this post by Robert George rather revealing.
On the other hand, Rubin is also the living embodiment of the '90s Boom years. It might be fashionable now to try and suggest that that economic environment was ALL binge, but hardly anyone believes that. Certainly not Republicans and conservatives -- our argument was that the Reagan tax cuts were responsible for a lot of what occurred in the '90s (ONLY the "non-binge" stuff? a difficult argument to make).
On the other hand, Rubin is also the living embodiment of the '90s Boom years. It might be fashionable now to try and suggest that that economic environment was ALL binge, but hardly anyone believes that. Certainly not Republicans and conservatives -- our argument was that the Reagan tax cuts were responsible for a lot of what occurred in the '90s (ONLY the "non-binge" stuff? a difficult argument to make).
Completely indepdendent of what one thinks of Lieberman, it seems obvious to me that a primary campaign would be dead in the water. I think Josh Marshall's comparison of him to Phil Gramm is apt.
UPDATE: You know, Josh Marshall doesn't actually compare Lieberman to Gramm. *SOMEONE* did recently, or maybe I dreamt it, or maybe I had a bit too much to drink last night and then woke up too early this morning and...oh who the hell knows where I got that.
UPDATE 2: It was Gene Lyons.
UPDATE: You know, Josh Marshall doesn't actually compare Lieberman to Gramm. *SOMEONE* did recently, or maybe I dreamt it, or maybe I had a bit too much to drink last night and then woke up too early this morning and...oh who the hell knows where I got that.
UPDATE 2: It was Gene Lyons.
The Dow 36,000 folks are saying people have distorted their book.
Actually, they're desperately distorting it themselves. More on this later.
Actually, they're desperately distorting it themselves. More on this later.
Kaus is actually right about this Gerth story on Cheney. Nothing there. But, hey, is it now conventional wisdom that Gerth is a hack who specializes in making mountains out of molehills? I guess that memo came down January 2001, or so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)