Proof that Bush personally set up the bogus Turkish uranium story:
Scientists at Turkey's Nuclear Research and Training Center on the outskirts of Istanbul said on Tuesday the substance was not uranium and was not radioactive.
"It is a powder of zinc, manganese, iron and zirconium," Guler Koksal, director of the research facility told Reuters. "It is not radioactive, it is not chemical and it is not explosive."
Suspicions had been aroused by the words "primarily youranuom" written on the outside of the metal tube in which the sandy powder was stored in a glass vial.
I rest my case.
Wednesday, October 02, 2002
Jeff Hauser's anonymous legal expert (well, I assume it's him or her anyway) has this to say in the comments:
The author of the legal analysis replies:
I don't think that it matters, for the legal analysis, that this is the end of Torricelli's term. Losing a senator for a few months, or even for a few votes, is a serious blow to a state's power to protect its interests. That fact is reflected in the founders' debates about Article I, Section 3, which provided for gubernatorial appointment of senate vacancies when the state legislature was out of session. William Randolph, for example, thought that the governor was not much to be trusted, but thought that losing a senator even for just the period in between legislative sessions was so serious that he was willing to take the risk.
So, I think you can't read the Constitution to say that states are barred from appointing senators even very close to the end of their terms. And, if it would be impractical to force the interim senator to stand for election immediately, I think it is unlikely a court would rule that you have to hold an impractical or pointless election. That was, actually, much the point of the Wofford case in the Third Circuit; that the exigencies of filling the seat took precedence over the state's primary requirements.
But, I think the posters have made a good point that whether or not the appointment would have the effect of extending a party's hold over a seat for a short period is a relevant question of policy. States will certainly consider that now, if they contemplate re-writing their senate appointment laws.
The author of the legal analysis replies:
I don't think that it matters, for the legal analysis, that this is the end of Torricelli's term. Losing a senator for a few months, or even for a few votes, is a serious blow to a state's power to protect its interests. That fact is reflected in the founders' debates about Article I, Section 3, which provided for gubernatorial appointment of senate vacancies when the state legislature was out of session. William Randolph, for example, thought that the governor was not much to be trusted, but thought that losing a senator even for just the period in between legislative sessions was so serious that he was willing to take the risk.
So, I think you can't read the Constitution to say that states are barred from appointing senators even very close to the end of their terms. And, if it would be impractical to force the interim senator to stand for election immediately, I think it is unlikely a court would rule that you have to hold an impractical or pointless election. That was, actually, much the point of the Wofford case in the Third Circuit; that the exigencies of filling the seat took precedence over the state's primary requirements.
But, I think the posters have made a good point that whether or not the appointment would have the effect of extending a party's hold over a seat for a short period is a relevant question of policy. States will certainly consider that now, if they contemplate re-writing their senate appointment laws.
I don't think there's been enough attention on the inappropriateness of an official Bush advisor saying this:
"It would be best if he (Schroeder) resigned. But he's obviously not going to do that," Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said in an interview with Wednesday's Handelsblatt daily, released ahead of publication.
UPDATE: Rittenhouse Review writes in to tell me about, and I notice Level Gaze has the second part of Perle's statement.
Perle, a leading voice in U.S. efforts to oust Saddam Hussein, told Handelsblatt that Schroeder's stance on Iraq would set back Berlin's desire to win a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council "for a generation".
There's also this:
"During the election campaign Schroeder tried to improve his party's position at any price and thereby ignored the roll of the U.S. in supporting freedom in post-Hitler Germany, such as America's contribution in the post-war reconstruction and during the reunification process." Pearle said: "The chancellor threw all of this out the window."
ah, diplomacy.
"It would be best if he (Schroeder) resigned. But he's obviously not going to do that," Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said in an interview with Wednesday's Handelsblatt daily, released ahead of publication.
UPDATE: Rittenhouse Review writes in to tell me about, and I notice Level Gaze has the second part of Perle's statement.
Perle, a leading voice in U.S. efforts to oust Saddam Hussein, told Handelsblatt that Schroeder's stance on Iraq would set back Berlin's desire to win a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council "for a generation".
There's also this:
"During the election campaign Schroeder tried to improve his party's position at any price and thereby ignored the roll of the U.S. in supporting freedom in post-Hitler Germany, such as America's contribution in the post-war reconstruction and during the reunification process." Pearle said: "The chancellor threw all of this out the window."
ah, diplomacy.
Forget Oil, let's talk water.
and Sisyphus Shrugged has a great transcript of Wolf "WAR NOW!" Blitzer and Mario Cuomo. It's amazing that Wolf seems to argue that Cuomo was being mean and unfair to the Bush administration because he was a signatory to a Common Cause ad that raised questions. Why is it unfair? Well, because the Bush administration says they will answer them! Even though they haven't yet. Or something...
Hey Wolf, maybe if you'd ask some goddamn questions for a change..
and Sisyphus Shrugged has a great transcript of Wolf "WAR NOW!" Blitzer and Mario Cuomo. It's amazing that Wolf seems to argue that Cuomo was being mean and unfair to the Bush administration because he was a signatory to a Common Cause ad that raised questions. Why is it unfair? Well, because the Bush administration says they will answer them! Even though they haven't yet. Or something...
Hey Wolf, maybe if you'd ask some goddamn questions for a change..
Tuesday, October 01, 2002
Burying your lead.
McBride spokesman Alan Stonecipher, who called Putney after getting a phone call from a viewer about the Fran-Sylvia connection, said his candidate did not recall seeing the queued-up names and faces, but he accepts the explanation.
"It's water under the bridge now," Stonecipher said.
They're gonna rig this puppy, McBride. I hope you realize that.
McBride spokesman Alan Stonecipher, who called Putney after getting a phone call from a viewer about the Fran-Sylvia connection, said his candidate did not recall seeing the queued-up names and faces, but he accepts the explanation.
"It's water under the bridge now," Stonecipher said.
They're gonna rig this puppy, McBride. I hope you realize that.
This Signorile column is important both for what it says about judicial nominee McDonnell and its implicit indictment of the liberal media:
But much less has been noted about McConnell’s vociferous antigay record. McConnell wrote a brief filed with the Supreme Court on behalf of the Boy Scouts of America in BSA v. Dale, arguing that it was perfectly reasonable for the Boy Scouts to ban gays as leaders because it was similar to the Scouts’ exclusion of alcohol or substance abuse. Yes, homosexuality, in his mind, is another vice we’ve got to fight against. Speaking at a colloquium on evangelical civic engagement in 2002, McConnell thundered that "the Scouts’ traditional ties with schools, national parks, and the military are in jeopardy. Scout supporters must go on the offensive, to highlight the intolerance of gay-rights activists."
Gee, why didn’t they just nominate Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?
McConnell’s urge to purge gays is far beyond the realm of the Boy Scouts too. He is against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the relatively tepid and narrow piece of legislation (it exempts religious organizations, for example), cosponsored by even quite a few Republicans in both the House and the Senate, that would prohibit employment discrimination against gays. Don’t expect him to vote to uphold such protections at that inevitable time when religious zealots challenge them in court (if the bill ever gets passed).
"This would be the only civil rights law which is preventing people from hiring or firing on the basis of a moral judgment," said McConnell in an interview on NPR.
But much less has been noted about McConnell’s vociferous antigay record. McConnell wrote a brief filed with the Supreme Court on behalf of the Boy Scouts of America in BSA v. Dale, arguing that it was perfectly reasonable for the Boy Scouts to ban gays as leaders because it was similar to the Scouts’ exclusion of alcohol or substance abuse. Yes, homosexuality, in his mind, is another vice we’ve got to fight against. Speaking at a colloquium on evangelical civic engagement in 2002, McConnell thundered that "the Scouts’ traditional ties with schools, national parks, and the military are in jeopardy. Scout supporters must go on the offensive, to highlight the intolerance of gay-rights activists."
Gee, why didn’t they just nominate Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?
McConnell’s urge to purge gays is far beyond the realm of the Boy Scouts too. He is against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the relatively tepid and narrow piece of legislation (it exempts religious organizations, for example), cosponsored by even quite a few Republicans in both the House and the Senate, that would prohibit employment discrimination against gays. Don’t expect him to vote to uphold such protections at that inevitable time when religious zealots challenge them in court (if the bill ever gets passed).
"This would be the only civil rights law which is preventing people from hiring or firing on the basis of a moral judgment," said McConnell in an interview on NPR.
I hope Keith Olbermann keeps writing this kind of stuff. (premium, sorry)
The AVOT story is neither new, nor tied to a political party or group. It's the first step of a well-worn path to American hell. The branding, the demonizing, the demand that we always speak with only one voice -- and its inevitable consequences -- should inspire Bill Bennett to make his list of "internal threats," check it twice, and add AVOT to it.
Salon also has this story on SaveKaryn
I say - screw Karyn! Save Atrios!
The AVOT story is neither new, nor tied to a political party or group. It's the first step of a well-worn path to American hell. The branding, the demonizing, the demand that we always speak with only one voice -- and its inevitable consequences -- should inspire Bill Bennett to make his list of "internal threats," check it twice, and add AVOT to it.
Salon also has this story on SaveKaryn
I say - screw Karyn! Save Atrios!
Patting myself on the back...
Well, with a little help from Dwight Meredith:
Hey Atrios:
I noticed that your counter went over 200,000 hits. Congratulations are in order!!! I hereby nominate you for the James Brown Award given annually to the "Hardest Working Man in the Blog Business."
Thanks much.
ps. post this if you like
Thanks Dwight!
Well, with a little help from Dwight Meredith:
Hey Atrios:
I noticed that your counter went over 200,000 hits. Congratulations are in order!!! I hereby nominate you for the James Brown Award given annually to the "Hardest Working Man in the Blog Business."
Thanks much.
ps. post this if you like
Thanks Dwight!
Daily Kos has the latest on Jersey, including Republican precedent for changing the name on the ballot.
Hesiod has more.
Hesiod has more.
Conason gets the debate moderator Putney to answer questions about the Florida Debate:
Michael Putney says that's just ridiculous. "Let me be absolutely clear about this: neither candidate had advance knowledge of either the questions or the names of the citizens asking them," he replied to my questions in an email this morning. And he has an alternatefront of the candidates, but not visible on any camera, the director would cue up the next questioner and freeze it--with the 'super' line with the questioner's name beneath it. My guess is that Gov. Bush looked up and saw the name 'Fran' and her face on the monitor and inadvertently used it rather than 'Sylvia.' Big deal, right? The McBride campaign is desperately trying to find a conspiracy where none exists."
Reasonable explanation, perhaps, though for the record I (nor Dedalus) have nothing to do with the McBride campaign. And, Putney's contempt for McBride comes out pretty clearly in that statement, unsurprisingly.
Michael Putney says that's just ridiculous. "Let me be absolutely clear about this: neither candidate had advance knowledge of either the questions or the names of the citizens asking them," he replied to my questions in an email this morning. And he has an alternatefront of the candidates, but not visible on any camera, the director would cue up the next questioner and freeze it--with the 'super' line with the questioner's name beneath it. My guess is that Gov. Bush looked up and saw the name 'Fran' and her face on the monitor and inadvertently used it rather than 'Sylvia.' Big deal, right? The McBride campaign is desperately trying to find a conspiracy where none exists."
Reasonable explanation, perhaps, though for the record I (nor Dedalus) have nothing to do with the McBride campaign. And, Putney's contempt for McBride comes out pretty clearly in that statement, unsurprisingly.
Bush signs bill forcing U.S. to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and then says he doesn't have to obey it.
"U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed," Bush wrote in a statement as he signed an $8.6 billion spending bill for State Department programs around the world.
He criticized the provision that recommended recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, saying it "impermissibly interferes with the president's constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs."
The measure would, "if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, impermissibly interfere with the president's constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United States, speak for the nation in international affairs and determine the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states."
I need constitutional scholar Ann Coulter to explain this one to me.
"U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed," Bush wrote in a statement as he signed an $8.6 billion spending bill for State Department programs around the world.
He criticized the provision that recommended recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, saying it "impermissibly interferes with the president's constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs."
The measure would, "if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, impermissibly interfere with the president's constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United States, speak for the nation in international affairs and determine the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states."
I need constitutional scholar Ann Coulter to explain this one to me.
I do wonder why the Bill Quicks of the world are so intent on bashing Daschle and Gephardt when their Iraq criticism has been almost 0 instead of the Lugars and Hagels of the world who are coming out strong on this issue.
Well, no I don't. Not really.
Well, no I don't. Not really.
Not from the Onion: GI Joe takes Barbie's Dream House as a Forward Command Post.
In the JC Penney's catalog.
Sure to be a favorite this holiday season for all the little Neo-Con children.
In the JC Penney's catalog.
Sure to be a favorite this holiday season for all the little Neo-Con children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)