Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor," according to Nielsen Media Research.
Jon Stewart did a bang up job on O'Reilly's rant fest, and that appearance continues to garner attention.
It's the Lovecraft Engine! Tell your friends about the unclean, hazy perversion. :)
In boasting that the Republicans alone are competent to fight terrorism, Cheney accused the Democrats of interpreting terrorism as a form of criminality. That is an unforgivable blunder, he went on to say, since we are actually engaged in a "war" where due process and other legal niceties must frequently be set aside. But the Bush administration's dismissive attitude toward "law," revealed in the infamous torture memos and elsewhere, is one of the major reasons why it has waged the war on terror with such stunning incompetence. "Law" is not simply an obstacle to executive-branch flexibility, as the Republicans claim. For one thing, a central purpose of law is to filter out disinformation, stemming from witness malice, and to ensure that decision making is based on double-checked facts. Cheney's and Bush's cavalier attitude toward law is based on their belief that, in the face of a potentially catastrophic terror attack, we need to unleash lethal force long before sketchy intelligence matures into trustworthy evidence.
Damn! This opinion piece by Stephen Holmes, a professor at the New York University School of Law, is some excellent reading! I'm filled with righteous indignation, and am afraid this article will be finding its way into the Inboxes of some conservatives I know...
Salon is SO worth it. Money (and time) well spent.
A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable."
Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the postwar. None of which I would have done.
Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.
Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to 40 countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?
Finally, at long last, John takes the gloves off. An excellent speech. Read it all (even if you have to get the free day pass on Salon).
Leading members of President Bush (news - web sites)'s Republican Party on Sunday criticized mistakes and "incompetence" in his Iraq (news - web sites) policy and called for an urgent ground offensive to retake insurgent sanctuaries.
In appearances on news talk shows, Republican senators also urged Bush to be more open with the American public after the disclosure of a classified CIA (news - web sites) report that gave a gloomy outlook for Iraq and raised the possibility of civil war.
"The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq ... and I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Could this be setting the stage for key Administration resignations prior to November? I'm still betting they find a way to rule Cheney too ill to remain on the ticket...
"Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours -- and then what?
"Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world?
"Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho?" he asked. "We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."
Hello? Kerry Campaign? That's President George Bush Senior, exercising far more wisdom than Junior will ever have. CAN YOU PLEASE PAY ATTENTION AND USE THIS??? Hopefully someone will find a recording or, better yet, video tape of this 1999 speech to Gulf War I veterans.
Courtesy of Rude Pundit.
We know the truth. George Bush's failed record is the result of George Bush's failed policies. And he chose time and again to do nothing to improve our economy or ease the burden on middle class families. In fact, nearly every choice has made it worse. You can even say that George Bush is proud of the fact that not even failure can cause him to change his mind.
Hearing Kerry using rhetoric like this makes me feel a bit more optimistic than I've been in recent weeks. I sense a general softening of lefties' resolve to fight to defeat the Monkey. Hopefully some strong leadership from our candidate can help us keep the faith.
Thanks to kos for the post.
Election 2004 suddenly is not just about whether John Kerry or George W. Bush will lead the United States the next four years. It's not even about which of the candidates has better policies or is more competent.
This election has become a test of whether reality still means anything to the American people, whether this country has moved to essentially a new form of government in which one side is free to lie about everything while a paid "amen corner" of ideological media drowns out any serious public debate. [...]
If that is indeed the case - and if these tactics succeed in politically destroying John Kerry this fall - the United States can be said to have succumbed to a new form of government that will be democratic in name only, with elections transformed into largely ceremonial affairs for affirming the Republican choice without meaningful consultation with the American people about the best policies to pursue. The nation is already dangerously far down that road.
Robert Perry, writing for Consortium News, pretty much lays it out. Serious stuff, folks. Thanks to Smirking Chimp for the link.
Come on, people! Doom and gloom, doom and gloom. The vox populi has an astoundingly short memory, so the post-RNC bounce likely has weak legs. Hey, I'm saying this as much to myself as to you all. The Evil Ones count on "weak kneed" liberals to give up with the fight gets tough. As Hal, the Great One, points out, they're standing on a pile of lies. Keep asking for truth and make them refuse to give it in front of the cameras.
Funny, yet wrenching. Love the Daily Show.
After gauging the harsh reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike to Sen. Zell Miller’s keynote address at the Republican National Convention, the Bush campaign — led by the first lady — backed away Thursday from Miller’s savage attack on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, insisting that the estranged Democrat was speaking only for himself.
Late Thursday, Miller and his wife were removed from the list of dignitaries who would be sitting in the first family’s box during the president’s acceptance speech later in the evening. Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said Miller was not in the box because the campaign had scheduled him to do too many television interviews.
If you didn't catch Jon Stewart's coverage of Zellzilla, pray they'll rebroadcast it. Hysterical!
Tip of the hat (as so often is the case) to Kos.
