Monthly Archives: September 2004

Bush “Finds” Another Military Record Saying He Quit The Reserves

WASHINGTON – The White House said seven months ago that it had released all the records on President Bush (news – web sites)’s stateside military service during the Vietnam War, yet new records are still dribbling out as Election Day approaches.

The White House on Wednesday night produced a November 1974 document bearing Bush’s signature from Cambridge, Mass., where he was attending Harvard Business School, saying he had decided not to continue as a member of the military reserve.

The document, signed a year after Bush left the Texas Air National Guard, said he was leaving the military because of "inadequate time to fulfill possible future commitments." White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the resignation was found in connection with a lawsuit brought by The Associated Press.

The White House said the document had been in Bush’s personnel file and that it had been found by the Pentagon.


How can the WH/Pentagon suddenly "find" a document in Bush’s personnel file? Didn’t they look before . . . like when they said that everything had been released??

Another Eisenhower Republican for Kerry

I’m not sure what an "Eisenhower Republican" is — I believe Clinton used the term to describe anyone who refused to go spend more federal money during a time of deficits (i.e., "Dubya is not an Eisenhower Republican — although Clinton ironically was one.").

Anyway, this guy, being Eisenhower’s son and a Republican, is truly an Eisenhower Republican . . . and he’s voting for Kerry. Read why.

Best quote: "I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits."

Good News for Supreme Court Watchers

As reported here, law geeks and Supreme Court fans will no longer have to play guessing games. Starting next week, transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments will give the actual name of the Justice asking the questions from the bench, rather than simply using the word “Question”.

Undercutting Allies?

JANESVILLE, Wis. – Democrat John Kerry wrongly questioned the credibility of the interim Iraqi leader [Ayad Allawi], and "you can’t lead this country" while undercutting an ally, President Bush said Friday.

From here.

President Bush then ate some "freedom fries", dissed "old Europe", and talked about how ineffective the U.N. is.

Seriously, this is the scariest thing about Bush, in my opinion. Every serious assessment of the situation on the ground — including statements made by Allawi himself — show that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. Kerry is speaking the truth about this, which is the FIRST STEP in turning the situation around (if it CAN be turned around at this point). Bush, on the other hand, is telling people everything is getting better in Iraq, and insinuating that Kerry’s truthful comments (rather than, I suppose, the insurgents) are undercutting peaceful progress in Iraq.

More and more, I hear the label "The Excuses President" being applied to Bush. I’m not much of one for perjorative monikers, but — boy — that one really sticks to him.

Has Rumsfeld Gone Insane?

"Let’s say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn’t because the violence was too great. Well, so be it. Nothing’s perfect in life, so you have an election that’s not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."

— Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, quoted by Reuters, on holding Iraqi elections in January.

First of all, let’s take a gander at how much of Iraq won’t be voting. Below, I have provided a map of the current situation of Iraq (courtesy of Juan Cole, who you should all be reading). The areas marked in red are areas which we have apparently given up on, and the purple areas represent areas which have seen heavy fighting recently, and which may be unsecurable come January (when Iraq hopes to have elections).

That said, does Rumsfeld really believe that an election that disenfranchizes so much of one country is better than no election at all? Isn’t that like saying that doing open heart surgery using spoons is better than no open-heart surgery at all? I mean, does anyone think that such an election could claim to produce a legitimate leader?

Or, to put it in another perspective, suppose the year is 1996 and Saddam Hussein is having an election where almost half of the country will not vote (for fear of getting shot or blown up if they go to the polls). In that scenario, would Rumsfeld be making the argument that the victor of that election (Saddam, presumably) is the legitimate President of Iraq? Would Rumsfeld be saying that the election was "better than not having an election"?

Knowingly electing an illegitimate leader is NOT better than have no election at all. It only fuels the fires of discontent. Rumsfeld is a total idiot.

Nice Find

Hard to know who to give credit to for this one (perhaps the Village Voice), but someone gets kudos for finding this State Department document entitled The Network of Terrorism. It was posted on the U.S. State Department website in November 2001.

Anyway, on page 12 of that document, we find a list of countries — and a map — of "Countries Where al Qaeda Has Operated"

Anyone notice what country isn’t on the list and map? Here’s the complete list: COUNTRIES WHERE AL QAEDA HAS OPERATED (according to the U.S. State Department – November 2001):

  • Albania
  • Algeria
  • Afghanistan
  • Azerbaijan
  • Australia
  • Austria
  • Bahrain
  • Bangladesh
  • Belgium
  • Bosnia
  • Egypt
  • Eritrea
  • France
  • Germany
  • India
  • Iran
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Jordan
  • Kenya
  • Kosovo
  • Lebanon
  • Libya
  • Malaysia
  • Mauritania
  • Netherlands
  • Pakistan
  • Philippines
  • Qatar
  • Russia
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Somalia
  • South Africa
  • Sudan
  • Switzerland
  • Tajikistan
  • Tanzania
  • Tunisia
  • Turkey
  • Uganda
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United Kingdom
  • United States
  • Uzbekistan
  • Yemen

Bush Campaign In Disarray Over Kerry Speech

In response to Kerry’s four-point plan on Iraq, Bush said: "Forty-three days before the election, my opponent has now suddenly settled on a proposal for what to do next, and it’s exactly what we’re currently doing." (Source)

In response to Kerry’s four-point plan on Iraq, Bush-Cheney campaign spokesmen Steve Schmidt said: "John Kerry’s latest position on Iraq is to advocate retreat and defeat in the face of terror" (Same Source)

So . . . does this mean that Bush’s plan is to retreat and defeat? I guess so. That’s what Novak says, too.

Selfish Pessimist Ruins Laura Bush Rally By Asking Questions

HAMILTON — The Pennington mother of a soldier killed in Iraq was arrested and charged with trespassing after she interrupted first lady Laura Bush’s speech yesterday.

Sue Niederer was arrested after she was escorted from the Colonial Fire Co. hall on Kuser Road where the Republican rally was being held yesterday morning, according to Hamilton police Lt. James Kostopolis.

Niederer was wearing a shirt that read, "You killed my son," at the time.

Niederer was one of 1,217 to receive a ticket for the rally and stood near the back of the hall as local Republican politicians thanked Bush for visiting Hamilton before introducing the first lady.

Bush was well-received by the crowd, many of whom waved pompoms and Bush-Cheney signs after giving the first lady a lengthy ovation when she arrived.

Bush was about 10 minutes into her speech on campaign issues, however, when she began speaking about U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was at this point that Niederer began yelling loudly toward Bush, but supporters at the rally realized Niederer was a detractor and began drowning out Niederer’s shouts with chants of "Four more years!"

The ruckus briefly rattled Bush, who halted her speech and turned toward local dignitaries, but she quickly resumed her comments on the war.


Niederer’s son, Army Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, was killed by a roadside bomb near Baghdad Feb. 3, while commanding an 18-man convoy. Dvorin was posthumously awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart and was credited with saving more than a dozen soldiers from being killed or injured.

"I said, ‘How come your daughters and children of congressmen and senators aren’t fighting in the war if it’s so positive?’" Niederer said last night of what she yelled to Bush.

Niederer is charged with defiant trespassing and was released on her own recognizance. She is scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 12.


Typical liberal pessimist. And notice how she didn’t even mention Dan Rather.

Welcome To America, Terrorists!

No kidding. These guys really are terrorists in every sense of the word — attempted assassination of a world leader, murder and conpiracy to murder consulates and other dignataries (including an American citizen), firing a bazooka at a U.N. building, . . . the list goes on and on.

They flew into Miami last month, and KNOWING WHO THEY WERE, we let them go. Bush didn’t want to offend a certain group, you see.

What’s the catch? Sadly, not much of one. You can read about it here (L.A. Times – registration required, but y’all should be using this place).

Is Bush serious about terrorism? Because terrorism is terrorism, right?


A Little Law


A person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial directs if the person:

(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up a weapon or offers any violence against him while in the execution of his office; or

(2) wilfully disobeys a lawful command of his commissioned officer.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. § 432.137.

FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION. A person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial directs if the person:

(1) violates or fails to obey a lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the state military forces that it is the person’s duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of the person’s duties.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

These are from the laws governing the Texas National Guard. They may have been different in 1972, but I doubt it.

Unbelievable Liars

How many times has the Bush White House said that all the documents pertaining to Bush’s military record have been released?

Seriously, how many times?

"The White House says, `We’ve released all of [the documents]. You should take our word for it and this is the evidence.’"


Really? So . . . how come THIS happened following last night’s "60 Minutes" expose?

After the broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his physical exam and the other suspending him from flight status.


You don’t even have to ultimately believe the AWOL accusations to see that the White House is playing games with the truth and the American people. And more importantly, what else are they hiding?

Updated: The copies relased by the White House are apparently the same as those released by CBS. In other words, CBS sent them to the White House, and the White House then released them.

But read on anyway . . .

Two Veterans Support Bush

In the latest meme polluting a site I often contribute to, we read this:

Veterans Like Bush

Or, well, at least he got two endorsements from major veterans groups, the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Except, well, that’s not true.

Instead, if you actually come across the news story (tellingly, the prior post has no link), it says this:

George W. Bush picked up the endorsement of two veterans’ group leaders Wednesday as questions about his service in the Texas Air National Guard resurfaced.

During a conference call sponsored by the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign, former American Legion National Commander John Brieden and the former national leader of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Ed Banas, gave Bush high marks for his commitment to veterans and to increasing U.S. national security.

(emphases mine)

So . . . here’s the story: the FORMER leader of the American Legion and the FORMER leader of the VFW — two guys total — endorsed Bush.

Not only did the VFW not endorse Bush, but the VFW can’t endorse Bush. Read this from the VFW’s own website:

VFW Doesn’t Endorse Presidential Candidates Washington, D.C., Aug. 27, 2004—Recent appearances in the news media by a number of members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States have given an impression that the organization endorses one presidential candidate over another.

"This is a false impression," said John Furgess, a Nashville native who was elected August 20 as the new commander-in-chief of the nation’s largest organization of combat veterans. "We are a 501(c)(19) nonprofit veterans’ service organization that is prohibited from endorsing political candidates," he said. "We do, however, encourage all 2.4 million members of the VFW and our Ladies Auxiliary to get involved in their communities and to vote for the candidates of choice. That involvement permits the wearing of VFW caps to remind America and all politicians that the freedoms we enjoy today were won by the blood, sweat and sacrifice of military veterans."

I don’t know if the American Legion is the same way, but I think the point is made, and the lie exposed. The VFW and the American Legion did not endorse Bush.

The RNC Damage Control Machine Loses a Gear

Despite the high and — in retrospect — undeserved praise here, the 60 Minutes bombshell wasn’t Ben Barnes (who repeated his allegation that he got Bush the cushy National Guard post).

This was the part of the story that hurts Bush (Click "New Bush Service Questions" for the video). It’s about how Bush’s commander was getting pressure to give Bush positive evaluations when he didn’t deserve them.

And this isn’t he said/she said stuff, 30 years after the fact. This is from documents WRITTEN AT THE TIME.

And the RNC’s "damage control" rapid response team? They . . . um . . . had no response, except to say that the new authentic documents from the early 1970’s are "partisan politics".

Pretty lame.

Bush Spat on Vietnam Vets

Not literally. He just suggested that they did a shitty job.

This is reportedly what George Bush said to Connie Chung in 1988 when he was interviewed at the RNC in New Orleans:

CONNIE CHUNG: The problem, though, would be is if, indeed, [Dan Quayle] made several phone calls or some people made phone calls on his behalf to get him into the National Guard. I mean, did that happen to you? Were you…

BUSH (interrupting): No. I don’t think so. But in those days, people were going into the service all different branches. And if you want to go into the National Guard, I guess sometimes people make calls. I don’t see anything wrong with, a matter of fact I’m glad he served his country. And serving in the National Guard is serving in the military. They probably should have called the National Guard up in those days. Maybe we’d have done better in Vietnam.


I haven’t seen the clip (yet), but ten bucks and my left testicle says that he smirked at the end of that quote.

And another thing . . .

IF they did call up the Guard, Bush probably wouldn’t have gone. Heck, as the newly-released Bush service records (released today) show, Bush’s Texas unit joined a "24-hour active alert mission to safeguard against surprise attack" in the southern United State beginning on Oct. 6, 1972. That didn’t include Bush though — he had not reported for duty.

So, Dubya. You couldn’t even defend the Southern United States back then. Duly noted.

Hat tip: Duncan

Zogby Battleground Poll

This can’t be good news for Bush supporters.

Bush’s bounce notwithstanding, the electoral college map still favors Kerry 307-231. Now, granted — that Kerry lead is ever so slight and the usual caveats about polls and margins of error (expressed in the WSJ link, so I won’t repeat them here) apply.

The Alcoholic Stoned Presidency

Digby is asking some pretty blunt questions about Bush’s drinking and cocaine problem.

Like . . . why is Bush, who supposedly kicked his alcohol problem in the 1980’s, drinking a beer here at the G-8 Summit? (Yes, it’s his glass. Count the participants and match them with the booze).

And why was Bush so drunk here (Quicktime video) in 1992?

And why does he keep getting all bruises on his face from falling down? Choking on pretzels?

All this, of course, while Kitty Kelly’s book comes out which alleges that Dubya was doing coke at Camp David during his father’s presidency. Don’t look now, but even the mainstream media is covering that one . . .

No, no. This is not a smear. You see, I’m just asking questions here. After all, Bush made his drinking and drug habit a campaign issue, since he is running on family values (he does, after all, mention "values" in every speech). And unless the President comes clean with the American people about these questions, I will be forced to declare his claims of alcohol and drug rehab as officially bogus.

And I haven’t even brought up Robin Garner (nee Lowman) and her abortion yet. Heh.

Not a Satire

The Texans For Truth group as a new ad out . . . .

Speaking of video, check out this news footage of the skirmish at the RNC, showing a Republican kicking a female protester when she was on the ground . . . and then lying about it to a reporter.

By the way, notice that that "oh, shit" look in that Republican’s eyes when the reporter informs him that they have footage. That "oh shit" look. Where have we seen that before? Oh, yeah . . . here . . .

Bush’s Missing Records

The Associated Press has conducted an analysis of Bush’s "military" records and identified "five categories of records that should have been generated after Bush skipped his pilot’s physical and missed five months of training."

For example, Air National Guard regulations at the time required commanders to write an investigative report for the Air Force when Bush missed his annual medical exam in 1972. The regulations also required commanders to confirm in writing that Bush received counseling after missing five months of drills.

No such records have been made public and the government told The Associated Press in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that it has released all records it can find.

Imagine my surprise.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said there were no other documents to explain discrepancies in Bush’s files.

No, of course not.

Never Mistake A Mirror For A Window

Via Kevin Drum, we hear from William Arkin, a military analyst with the L.A. Times, who opines about the military blunders of the Bush Adminstration. One of them, one still not learned, is:

Never mistake a mirror for a window.

With dismaying frequency, Bush, Rumsfeld and senior military leaders have made critical decisions on the basis of what they thought was a clear view of their adversaries — looking at the enemy through an open window, so to speak. In reality, they were looking at a mirror and seeing fuzzy images of themselves.

….Senior officials talk about Iraq as part of something fundamentally different from past military challenges. But they fight it like a conventional war: From the beginning, our strategy was to engage the enemy in battle, win a crushing victory and reap the fruits of unconditional success. Thus, field commanders have talked of "victories" in Najaf and "strategic progress" in Fallouja. Meantime, soldiers continue to die by the ones and twos on conventional infantry patrols.

Unfortunately, our adversaries are not interested in engaging us head-on. That’s why the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon happened in the first place.

….What is true militarily in Iraq is also true politically, there and in the rest of the Arab world: We keep thinking that, deep down, our adversaries are really just like us. In reality, for the present and for the foreseeable future, most of the Islamic world is not — and does not want to be — like us. It has profoundly different values and priorities. Thus our entire strategy is predicated on a mirror-picture that we will someday "defeat" the increasingly angry anti-American mob of Iraqi nationalists and Islamic fundamentalists, with democratic stability miraculously arising from the ashes.

Drum adds that:

strikes me as the critical point in the debate on terror. Bush has surrounded himself with people who fundamentally believe in the use of military power and flatly don’t understand that conventional assaults aren’t always the answer in a nonconventional war. To them, anything aside from a smashing military victory is simply a sign of weakness.

He is absolutely correct. And if people would only stop seeing this as a comic book/movie kind of conflict, we might actually be able to rid the world of terrorism.

February 19, 2002 and the Bush Cover-up

(1) February 19, 2002

Rewind to that date. This was only 5 months after 9/11/01. The United States had barely begun its invasion of Afghanistan. This was loooong before the Bush White House starting rolling out (and marketing) its new "product" — the Iraq War.

According to Bob Graham, he ran into a very dejected General Tommy Franks on that date. Sen. Graham asked Franks about Afghanistan. Franks responded:

"Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan.”

”Excuse me?” I asked.

”Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq,” he continued.

Not only that, but other resources — such as the Predator Drone (which was SUPPOSED to look for bin Laden) — was being diverted to Iraq.

Yeah, it was faulty intelligence that made Bush go into Iraq.

(2) Bush Cover-up

According to Graham, two of the 9/11 hijackers had a support network in the U.S. which included agents of the Saudi government. The details of this financial connection was within in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry’s final report that were heavily redacted by Bush (to the consternation of many). Some of it has been mentioned before, but perhaps Graham’s new book (written about here) might remind us just how much Bush is beholden to Saudi Arabia at the expense of national security.

Swift Boat War Criminals

Are the Swiftees pissed at Kerry because he supposedly lied in his Senate testimony, or are they pissed because he told the TRUTH (thus breaking the unspoken code of slience among brothers-in-arms)?

Well, it seems that at least ONE of the Swiftees — actually, one of the group’s organizers — had no problem ordering the execution of Vietnamese civilians.

Means, a 55-year-old investigator for several Bakersfield law firms, was particularly annoyed by the words of one retired admiral. Roy F. "Latch" Hoffman, one of the co-founders of the pro-George W. Bush group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, had publicly criticized Kerry, a former Swift boat commander, for having brought back stories about alleged war crimes by U.S. forces — often carried out, Kerry said in 1971, "with the full awareness of officers at all levels."

Seemed to him, Means said, his own Swift boat crew had come close to committing a war crime themselves one day. A senior officer, hitching a ride up the coast aboard their Swift boat, had ordered the crew to fire on a small group of unarmed Vietnamese fishermen working their nets in unrestricted waters, Means said. The boat’s commanding officer had refused to comply.

Was that the way the boat’s commander remembered the incident too, all these years later? Means had to know.

So he got on the Internet and hunted down Thomas W.L. "Tad" McCall, the retired Navy captain who’d commanded Means’ boat, PCF 88, as a newly minted ensign. Means called him.

Not only did McCall remember the day in question, and that confrontation off the coast of South Vietnam, he remembered the name of the officer who had given the command to shoot: "Latch" Hoffman himself, then a Navy captain in charge of the entire Swift boat task force in Vietnam.

(Source) (subscription required)

Yup. They don’t like Kerry . . . because Kerry spoke the truth to power.

Shhweet Home Abalama . . .

Never mind the fact the Dubya may or may not have actually attended training at the Alabama National Guard.

Let’s look at why he was in Alabama in the first place, and what he did while there. Here‘s a pretty revoltin’ development. Check out what George "Some may not like my stagger; in Texas, we call it walking" Bush was up to.

This is going to be the political story next week (spurred by the upcoming "60 Minutes" interview with Ben Barnes), although it may get overshadowed by Frances.

News Alert . . .

Clinton Has Heart Attack: Mean-spirited Republicans rejoice:

No doubt his arteries are clogged up with pounds of MacDonalds hamburgers and pizzas.

I at least hope he lives long enough to see JFK AND Hildabeast go down in flames. Then he can go down in flames, metaphorically speaking. I hope his big honkin’ bible is printed on asbestos so he can carry it with him.

Give him a enema and send him home. The widow Hillary will gather the sympathy vote in 08′

sorry, I cant muster any sympathy. I’d feel the same if they said Saddam was gettin bypass surgery. It’s a waste of time and money.

UPDATE: Appears to be chest pains, but still nothing to dismiss — quadruple heart surgery is required. Meanwhile, the we’ve-come-to-bury-you Republican machine rolls on. Today, when Bush said at a campaign rally that Clinton was "in our thoughts and prayers", the Republican audience (because you can’t into a Bush rally otherwise) . . . booed! Hat tap to my dear LQ.

Random Thoughts About the RNC

Let’s get a few preliminary obvious things out of the way first. The Republican National Convention wasn’t geared to people like me, and not being a Republican or a conservative, I’m not supposed to "get it". That said, here are some random chicken-scratchings, for what it is worth:

(1) I find it very telling that McCain and Giuliani were placed in the shitty slots (the first night, with the lowest viewership). If the Rove strategy was to speak to on-the-fence moderates and swing voters, both those men — the most "accessible" in the Republican Party — would have been in more prominent positions. Instead, the Republicans opted to give those prime slots to the flame-throwers. It seems clear that the Rove strategy is to energize the conservative base (hoping that more conservatives will be motivated to vote), rather than go for the swing/undecided vote. And who knows? It may work!

(2) Was it just me or did the "cutaways" seem less friendly to the RNC than they were with the DNC? I was surprised how often the Republicans delegates really looked bored or comatose.

(3) I understand that the Repubs want to project a positive image, but is "hopeful" the best word they could think of (as in, "a stronger, more hopeful, America")? "Hope" is an optimistic desire for something. "I hope to get a BMW." "I’m hoping to save enough money to pay off my student loans." And so on.

Now, although "hope" suggests a positive and upbeat feeling, it also implies a paucity. I mean . . . we don’t hope for things we already have, right? So what is the subtext behind a "hopeful America"? Doesn’t it imply that America is somehow lacking? That we must hope for (prosperity, peace, security, whatever) because we don’t have it? And isn’t that an odd slogan for an incumbant to be running on?

I just think they should have picked a better word. "Positive" or "optimistic" come to mind.

(4) Gotta talk about Jenna and NotJenna. Their speech, aside from being embarrassingly unfunny, made my head explode. At first I thought, well, they’re young, so what can you expect? But then I thought about the men — and women — in Iraq, and how some of them are as young or even younger than the Bush twins. And some of them are not coming home. And then I thought about John Kerry, also around that age, risking his life in the war of his generation. And then I thought about the Bushes — W and his daughters, specifically — all of them products of privilege — partying while others their age were facing death. Such serious times we live in and, like Vietnam 35 years ago, it is our youngest generation that makes the greatest sacrifice for our country. Then, as I reflected on the burdens of the generation before me and the generation after me, I heard one of the Buish twins say that their parents’ favorite term of endearment is "Bushie." [awkward laughs from the delegates]. And that’s when my head exploded.

(5) You know what? Having heard it over and over again a decade ago, and having heard it again only a month ago, the "girly men" reference STILL isn’t funny. By the way, I’m not one of them, but I think there are literally millions of people who ARE concerned about the economy. And legitimately so. Calling them "girly men" for the sake of an in-crowd punchline is not only unhelpful and nonresponsive, but it also isn’t, uh, compassionate.

(6) For an interesting exercise, I suggest you read the keynote speech of the DNC (Barack Obama) and the keynote speech of the RNC (Zell Miller). Or even better, watch the videos.

(7) Oh, yeah. About the distortions and deceptions . . . sweet wounded Jesus, so MANY of them! WAY too many to possibly reference them ALL. (But that was the idea, wasn’t it, Karl?). My favorite (so far) was the moving soldier’s letter referenced by Bush. You probably thought it was just an average soldier from middle America. Actually, no. It was from a guy named Joe Roche who, although being a soldier with the 16th Combat Engineer Battalion in Iraq, is ALSO an adjunct fellow with the conservative think-tank known as The National Center For Public Policy Research.

(8) Did I mention how mean-spirited the RNC was, in my view? It really was.

I have a few more thoughts, but that’s good for now.

Blogging Jumps The Shark

I’m not the first to say it, but it bears re-stating — blogging has officially jumped the shark.

The moment when the shark got hisself all jumped: 10:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, last night. That’s the moment when Larry King first blogged. Ugh! And this is what he blogged:

Posted: 10:00 p.m. ET From Larry King, host, "Larry King Live" It’s a new thrill to me to blog … and I may become a permanent blogger. In fact, blogging could become my life.

"Duluth, Minnesota! Welcome! You got a question for the blogosphere?" [A fellow blogger’s response to this subject can be found starting here.]