url
stringlengths 36
564
| archive
stringlengths 78
537
| title
stringlengths 0
1.04k
| date
timestamp[ns] | text
stringlengths 0
629k
| summary
stringlengths 1
35.4k
| compression
float64 0
106k
| coverage
float64 0
1
| density
float64 0
1.14k
| compression_bin
stringclasses 3
values | coverage_bin
stringclasses 3
values | density_bin
stringclasses 3
values | __index_level_0__
int64 0
10k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062800689.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005063019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062800689.html | Court May Revise Death Row Appeal Rules | 2033-07-15T17:56:59 | The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will reconsider the rules for permitting appeals by death row inmates who claim they have been wrongly convicted, in the case of a death row inmate who says DNA evidence proves he did not commit the crime of which he was found guilty in 1985.
Separately, just a day after its split rulings on the public display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, the justices declined to hear four additional cases in which lower courts had struck down displays in public school classrooms, on school property and in an Ohio state judge's courtroom.
The death penalty case, House v. Bell , No. 04-8990, brings the court face to face with an issue that has shadowed the administration of capital punishment in recent years: the possibility that an innocent person could be executed.
Paul G. House is seeking release from Tennessee's death row because of what his appeal petition to the court calls "powerful new evidence of innocence."
He says that DNA tests show that the semen found on murder victim Carolyn Muncey's clothes belonged to her husband, Hubert Muncey, and not to House, as a jury in Union County, Tenn., found 20 years ago.
The issue before the Supreme Court, however, is not whether House is guilty, but how strong his case for innocence must be to win a new hearing in federal court.
The court has never quite said it is unconstitutional to execute an innocent person.
Instead, in a 1993 case, Herrera v. Collins , the court, in a 5 to 4 opinion written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said that Leonel Torres Herrera had no right to reopen his case 10 years after conviction, based solely on a claim of new proof of innocence. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy joined that opinion with the proviso that they saw little doubt of Herrera's guilt.
In 1995, however, the court ruled 6 to 3 in the case of Schlup v. Delo that a convicted murderer who had other constitutional claims in addition to an actual innocence claim could get a new hearing even after exhausting all otherwise permitted opportunities, if he could show new evidence that makes it probable "no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." O'Connor and Kennedy joined that ruling, which was written by Justice John Paul Stevens.
Last year, the full 14-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit voted 8 to 6 that House's evidence did not meet this standard.
Citing the 6th Circuit majority opinion, Tennessee said in its Supreme Court brief that the evidence presented by House, "far from demonstrating his actual innocence, was countered and undermined in virtually every respect by opposing evidence presented by the State" during his federal appeal.
The Ten Commandments cases turned down by the court yesterday had been held for consideration until the court finished weighing the display of the commandments in two different public settings -- framed copies on the wall of Kentucky courthouses and a six-foot granite monument on the Texas Capitol grounds in Austin.
The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the cases is not a ruling on their merits, but it strongly suggests that the court feels the lower court rulings were at least consistent with the court's decisions on Monday.
In all four cases the court refused to review the displays were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
Two cases, Johnson v. Baker , No. 03-1661 and Adams Cty./Ohio Valley School Bd. v. Baker , No. 04-65, involved the placing of Ten Commandments monuments on the front lawns of four new high schools in Adams County, Ohio. A third, Harlan County v. ACLU , No. 03-1698, involved the posting of a Ten Commandments-centered display in Harlan County, Ky., school classrooms.
The fourth, DeWeese v. ACLU of Ohio , No. 04-841, involved a poster of the Ten Commandments in the court of Judge James DeWeese. | The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will reconsider the rules for permitting appeals by death row inmates who claim they have been wrongly convicted, in the case of a death row inmate who says DNA evidence proves he did not commit the crime of which he was found guilty in 1985. | 14.277778 | 1 | 54 | low | high | extractive | 4,800 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062801274.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005063019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062801274.html | Trial of Egyptian Candidate Gets Off to Tumultuous Start | 2033-07-15T17:56:59 | CAIRO, June 28 -- The trial of maverick presidential candidate Ayman Nour opened chaotically in a small south Cairo courtroom Tuesday with the defendant pleading not guilty to charges of forging official documents, and supporters noisily declaring that the case is a sham.
"The goal of all this is to smear my campaign," Nour said as he sat in a metal mesh enclosure used in Egyptian courts to contain defendants. "I will carry on my campaign . . . even if it's from this cage."
Protesters rushed the courtroom and chanted inside. Hundreds of riot policemen stood guard at the courthouse entrance and dozens more took up positions inside. No one could remember such tumult at an Egyptian trial.
Nour is the only declared opposition candidate who has been actively campaigning to unseat President Hosni Mubarak in a vote this fall. Nour has been charged with forging hundreds of petitions that were filed to legalize his Tomorrow Party, which gained official status last fall.
The Bush administration has been pressing Mubarak to ensure a fair election and to permit freedom of assembly, association and access to the media for Egypt's myriad political factions. Mubarak has billed the balloting as Egypt's first ever multi-candidate presidential vote.
Opposition leaders regard the rules for who can run as restrictive and many of them say Mubarak should not be allowed to run.
Political protests have become common in Cairo during the past few months, with an increasing number of participants. Organizers include a variety of political and nongovernmental groups under the label Kifaya, or Enough. The Muslim Brotherhood, which Egyptians widely regard as the largest and best-organized opposition group, has also taken to the streets. On Tuesday, Brotherhood leaders called for joint demonstrations of all reform movements.
Police jailed Nour for six weeks last winter while the forgery case was under investigation. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice canceled a visit to Cairo in response, but came to the capital last week and met with democracy activists, including Nour, who is free and who has been stumping for president.
The morning hearing got underway in confusion and occasional jostling. When Nour arrived, he said he was being barred from the courtroom. Supporters and lawyers stormed the room and were pushed back by police. After some give-and-take, a court officer let Nour, some backers and some journalists into the steamy courtroom one by one. "This is a prison, not a courthouse," Nour said at one point.
He was joined in the courtroom cage by four other defendants who are, in effect, his accusers. Through a lawyer, they told the court that Nour ordered them to forge documents. Two other defendants were missing. Nour said he had never seen any of them before.
Attorneys for Nour -- several of them were present in the courtroom -- boisterously shouted objections. At one point, Judge Abdel Salam Gomaa stalked out of the room, saying, "Is it me who is running the session or is it you?" He returned 15 minutes later.
Chants of "Free Ayman Nour," "We Love You, Ayman" and "Scandal, scandal" filtered into the courtroom from the streets. Pro-Nour banners hung from nearby buildings and police barricades. One read, "A Million Ants Can Eat the Corpse of an Elephant," a reference to the belief of Tomorrow supporters that elections, if fair, would threaten Mubarak's 24-year rule.
One of Nour's attorneys, Amir Salem, said in an interview that the trial keeps Nour from campaigning effectively because he is subject to being called to attend hearings. If convicted, he would be barred not only from running for president, but from subsequent parliamentary elections, also scheduled for this autumn.
The next hearing is set for Thursday. Nour's attorneys are asking that several government ministers be called to testify, including officials who originally approved the legalization of the Tomorrow Party. | CAIRO, June 28 -- The trial of maverick presidential candidate Ayman Nour opened chaotically in a small south Cairo courtroom Tuesday with the defendant pleading not guilty to charges of forging official documents, and supporters noisily declaring that the case is a sham. | 16.456522 | 1 | 46 | medium | high | extractive | 4,801 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062801513.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005063019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062801513.html | Transit Plan for New Bridge Stuck in Official Gridlock | 2033-07-15T17:56:59 | Maryland and Virginia have not figured out what to do with two of the 12 lanes planned for the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge now rising in the Potomac River.
The lanes must be used for carpools, trains or another form of transit under the deal that launched the project to replace the aging span, but state leaders said they have not talked about which to choose.
"When the bridge opens, those lanes at that time will represent excess capacity," Maryland Transportation Secretary Robert L. Flanagan said.
The lanes will serve as shoulders until a use is designated.
In an indication of how little the two states have discussed the issue, Maryland leaders said they're not considering rail because Virginia opposes it, while Virginia's transportation secretary said the state is open to rail and other possibilities.
Planners said the situation will have little direct effect on drivers because the new, twin-span bridge scheduled to be completed in 2008 will have as many lanes as there are on the Capital Beltway segments it will link.
But the delay in deliberation has frustrated transit supporters, who fought to add the lanes and ensure that the bridge was strong enough to sustain trains, the type of transit they would like to see. Their hope is that a light-rail or Metro line will be extended across the bridge and will become part of a circular line that mirrors the Beltway.
They said they are not as concerned about whether transit is on the bridge the moment it opens as they are about regional priorities. While talk of transit has lagged, officials in Virginia have inked a deal to add toll lanes to a portion of the Beltway, and Maryland officials are proceeding with plans to widen their side of the road.
"It just seems like nobody's really been willing to be the champion for this," said Chris Carney, conservation organizer for the Sierra Club. "It just seems like a lot of inaction."
Dru Schmidt-Perkins, executive director of 1000 Friends of Maryland, an environmental group, said that "it's as important to get future light rail or heavy rail across the bridge as it is to get truck traffic through" and that priorities are limited to "a lot of roads and an awful lot of pavement . . . that's just going to be filled up with congestion."
Metro drew up plans for a line four years ago, but officials said work has been set aside in the absence of a decision on the bridge.
Transportation officials in both states said they've had only the most preliminary of discussions about what to do with the lanes because they have been focusing on other priorities, including building an east-west highway in the Maryland suburbs and toll lanes on the Beltway. They said they plan to get together this year to begin formal talks. | Maryland and Virginia have not figured out what to do with two of the 12 lanes planned for the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge now rising in the Potomac River. | 18.133333 | 1 | 30 | medium | high | extractive | 4,802 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062801511.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005063019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062801511.html | Taking Aim At Soros Is Hardly Politic | 2033-07-15T17:56:59 | Some Republican lawmakers don't think George Soros should be permitted to purchase a Major League Baseball team because he's too liberal and he has some wacky notions. I must have been napping, and that's why I missed the part where we became a country in which Democrats are no longer allowed to buy things.
If lawmakers start banning people from owning ballclubs just because of their politics or because they have a few woo-woo ideas, there are going to be a lot of shuttered ballparks. Anybody who tries to say that MLB owners should meet a certain standard of political correctness will get knocked back on their butts every time by two simple words: Marge Schott.
It was all right for Schott, the racist collector of Nazi memorabilia, to own a baseball team for years, but it's not for Soros, the billion-dollar philanthropist and Nobel Prize nominee?
That's exactly what some Republicans on Capitol Hill are suggesting, led by Tom Davis, the Republican from Virginia who is trying to steer the sale of the Nationals and who says Soros is just not the kind of person "we need or want in the nation's capital."
I don't much care about George Soros, and I don't care at all which rich guy gets the privilege of spending $400 million in heavy sugar on the Nats. But I do care when members of a ruling party start pushing people around, because next, it could be me. This is supposed to be the party that doesn't believe in government telling business or private citizens what to do. So here's what I have to say to Davis about that: Get your boot off my front porch, mister.
Davis, who first expressed his views in Roll Call, contends he is just speaking as a citizen -- "This is one fan's opinion." -- but he can't hide behind a hot dog, or a flag, on this one. Davis is chair of the House Committee on Government Reform, which has been investigating steroid usage in baseball. Therefore, it's not just unseemly for him to pressure MLB on the Nats sale. It's a bald abuse of power.
An even nastier abuse came from Rep. John Sweeney (R-N.Y.), who actually suggested baseball's antitrust exemption might be in trouble on the Hill if MLB let Soros have the Nats. It's one thing to threaten MLB for failing to govern drug usage -- Congress was quite right to do that. It's quite another to threaten it over one prospective owner's politics. In doing so, Davis and Sweeney just cost themselves all credibility.
You can't help wondering what's behind the outrageous attack on Soros, who isn't even a major partner in the bid for the Nats. (Local entrepreneur Jon Ledecky is the real bidder.) Isn't it strange that rival bidder Fred Malek, the head of the Washington Baseball club, just happens to be a very big GOP fundraiser? And isn't it strange that, in a telephone interview, Davis went out of his way to praise Malek's bid? And isn't it strange that these attacks on Soros from Republicans came on the very day that Ledecky and his partners were being interviewed by MLB?
Davis doesn't bother to hide his agenda. He says straight out that baseball needs to cultivate some good will on Capitol Hill at the moment, given the steroid investigations, and that selling the team to billionaire Soros, a critic of President Bush and a massive financial supporter of liberal causes, would anger him.
"They could use some friends on the Hill right now, and this is not the way to make them," Davis said yesterday.
Davis called Soros "a convicted felon" and "pro-marijuana." He was referring to Soros's conviction in France on insider trading charges, and to the fact that Soros favors the decriminalization of marijuana, and clean needle programs, as a way to combat drug use.
"You've got a league with a steroid problem, and you're going to sell the team to a guy who is pro marijuana? I just don't think we need or want that in the nation's capital. I just don't think you want such a polarizing figure." | Some Republican lawmakers are raising their voices in opposition to the possibility of billionaire George Soros owning the Nationals in an example of a bald abuse of power. | 27.633333 | 0.8 | 1.933333 | medium | medium | mixed | 4,803 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/22/DI2005062201315.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005063019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/22/DI2005062201315.html | Ask Tom | 2033-07-15T17:56:59 | In a city loaded with diverse restaurants, from New American chic and upscale Italian to sandwich shops and burritos on the run, finding the best places to eat can be a real puzzle. Where's the best restaurant for a first date or an anniversary? Father's Day? What's the best burger joint? Who has the best service?
Ask Tom. Tom Sietsema , The Washington Post's food critic, is on hand Wednesdays at 11 a.m. ET to answer your questions, listen to your suggestions and even entertain your complaints about Washington dining. Sietsema, a veteran food writer, has sampled the wares and worked as a critic in Washington, Seattle, San Francisco and Milwaukee, and can talk restaurants with the best of 'em. Tom's Sunday magazine reviews, as well as his "Ask Tom" column, are available early on the Web.
Re: Flying Fish : Hi Tom-
Didn't get a chance to submit last week, but I wanted to share my experience at the Flying Fish in Old Town. Boyfriend & I hit it with another couple about 6 weeks ago. The experience made us not want to go back. Appetizer (sushi) was so-so. I ordered the swordfish special & was told they were out of it- no problem. So I ordered tuna instead. Meal comes & I get the swordfish- great! I comment to the waitress that they must have found an extra, she insists that it is the tuna. Tuna vs. Swordfish?! (I'm not a fisherman, but even I can pick out the obvious!) After looking a bit closer, the waitress admitted that, oh yeah, it IS swordfish.
Problem was the swordfish was supposed to come w/ some kind of rice pancake & this dish was missing it- only had a few veggies aside it. So I asked for the rice pancake & after waiting about 10 minutes for the waitress to return, was finally told that it would take awhile for the kitchen to make it & would I just like a side of sushi rice? Oh, and also that these things were out of her control, they were the kitchen's problem. (!)
We finally spoke to the manager, who just kind of shrugged his shoulders, said they were a new restaurant, still working out the kinks, etc. He did comp dessert for us, but the whole experience & nonchalant attitude of the staff really closed the book on that place, at least for us.
Tom Sietsema: Guess I'll cross THAT one off my increasingly long list of places to try
Good morning, everyone. Tons of questions today.
But first: Is the tea drinker who had trouble ordering iced tea at 701 in the audience today? The manager of the restaurant would like to make amends. Call Matthew Doherty at 202-393-0701
Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom! Love your chats.
Wanted to know if our area's restaurants are posing a dilemma for diners: a relatively small number of good and excellent spots (sometimes "trendy" for lack of a better word) that are so popular they're hard to go to, compared to a huge number of places that are acceptable and decent, but not desirable.
Do you think we've reached this point, and if so, what do you think it would take to get the restaurants in the second tier to raise their game?
Tom Sietsema: Only when people stop patronizing mediocrity will restaurants snap to attention. If diners suddenly abandoned Lauriol Plaza, Annie's, Banana Cafe, Mie N Yu -- and a host of other sub-par establishments -- maybe those restaurants would shift gears. Maybe.
Burke, Va.: Hi Tom - Thanks for taking this question. In light of the recent discussion of waiters rounding the change that they give back, do people mind if the check is rounded down? I am a waitron at a place that does not deal in cash that often, so when someone does pay in cash and needs change back, I round the total down to the even dollar regardless of the amount. In other words, whether the check is $50.01 or $50.95, in my mind, it is $50 even and I give the change back in whole dollars. I'm curious as to whether this is upsetting to any of your readers on principle, or if this is acceptable. No one has ever complained to me about it. Your thoughts?
Tom Sietsema: Ah, but plenty of people have complained to ME about the practice! It's just easier, for everyone, if the server returns all the change that is owed the customer. When I was a waiter, we were expected to have a certain amount of change on us to handle cash transactions.
Arlington, Va.: Tom, is it possible to eat sushi on the cheap around here? I've developed quite the taste for it, but my bank account has other ideas. I'd love to find a place that might be short on atmosphere but does the basics well and does not cost a fortune.
Tom Sietsema: Head to Kotobuki on MacArthur Boulevard, where the sushi is a buck a piece and of fine quality. I last wrote about it in March 2004. A gem.
Tom Sietsema: The Kotobuki review
Washington, D.C.: If you had a choice for a first year anniversary dinner for a couple that loves well seasoned, good portioned food, would you chose The Prime Rib, The Chart House, or other? By the way, the wife is really into dessert!
Tom Sietsema: I wouldn't recommend either restaurant these days. Give me some more perimeters, and I'll try to help you out. There are lots and lots of places that fall into the Big Food Category.
San Francisco, Calif: Hi Tom, I just wanted to relate a good restaurant story. I was briefly up in Seattle this weekend on route to and from other points in northern Washington state (I flew in and out of Seattle). I knew that I needed to stop in Seattle for dinner when arriving and leaving, to experience a little of another good food city, and checked your Postcard for recommendations. I ended up at Crow, and the experience couldn't have been better. My flight was late, and I was therefore going to be late for my reservation, so I called them when my flight landed and asked if it would be okay if we were about 30 minutes late.
At this point, I was tired and was of half a mind to just get some drive through something and go, but they were SO nice on the phone that I told my traveling buddies that we had to go there. We ended up being more like an hour late for the reservation (with traffic and a little getting lost), and they still held it for us (we called another time on the way), were so nice when we got there, and the service and food was great. Thumbs up to Crow, and thanks for the recommendations, Tom! We ended up eating at Etta's before our flight out, and it was also good, but not great.
Tom Sietsema: Aren't Seattlites nice?
Thanks so much for your chats! I was lucky enough to win a $50 gift certificate to any of the Great American Restaurants at a raffle a couple weeks ago. Now I just have to decide which to go to! I have a car, so distance is not a problem. Which do you suggest? I've never been to any of them. Thanks!
Tom Sietsema: Carlyle in Shirlington (see today's Weekly Dish) and Artie's in Fairfax continue to be delicious destinations.
Alexandria: Tom - who has the best crab cake in the region?
Tom Sietsema: That's like asking me to name my favorite restaurant! There are many places that do good crab cakes. Give me 10 more years in the job and maybe I'll be able to pick a number one.
Haymarket, Va.: I'm looking for some classic Buffalo Chicken Wings...you know, deep fried smothered in a bunch of tangy hot sauce and served with some blue cheese. Do you or any of your readers have any suggestions as to where I can get some authentic wings in the DC area?
Tom Sietsema: I dig the wings (but not the mess) at Urban Barbecue in Rockville. If you like 'em meaty and tangy, these are for you.
Washington, D.C.: Hi, Tom-- Had a wonderful dinner at Citronelle the other night, but one issue arose that I was hoping you could weigh in on. We went because we received a gift certificate for our anniversary, and so since we had the certificate, we decided to splurge and do the tasting menu. The earliest reservation we could get was 9pm, which we were fine with, because the tasting menu is offered for seatings between 6pm and 9pm. We arrived a bit early for our reservation, but were informed our table was not ready, and invited to sit in the lounge. By the time we were seated, our waiter told us it was too late to order the tasting menu.
The dishes we ended up ordering did not disappoint in the least, but my question is, if we had a reservation that fell into their window for the tasting menu, and were seated later through no fault of out own, should the restaurant have allowed us to order it?
Tom Sietsema: In a word, oui. I mean, you showed up early and the restaurant wasn't prepared to seat you, correct? The burden is on them, then.
I took my Dallas based friends to Zaytinya this weekend. They wanted to go to a hip place in DC so I thought Zaytinya would be the best choice. I explained to them before we went there that the restaurant serves small plates. When the food came they were agast on how small the plates were. I guess I had not made it clear.
I totally loved the food. They were just counting how man plates they needed to order to fill up. Finally when the bill came they marvelled on how it was not as much as they expected. So I had the final laugh.
But seriously, is the small plates concept not in vogue in other cities? Should I refrain to take my friends from other cities to all these amazing DC restaurants that serve small plates? Thanks.
Tom Sietsema: Are your pals from Texas ranch hands or what?
Small plates are all the rage, just about everywhere, these days. Personally, I love the chance to graze through a menu without stuffing myself (unless I want to, of course).
Tysons Corner: Tom, how do you react when a bartender, host, or server refers to you as " Chief" or "Boss" or "My Man"? Meanwhile my wife is being refered to as " Sweetie" or " Darling". Now we are not the type of people who are full of ourselves but there does come a time where a simple sir or ma'am would do.
Tom Sietsema: If I'm in a scruffy bar or a diner in the South, no problem; in a "nice" establishment, it can be irritating if used more than once.
A co-worker wants to go to Bertucci's for lunch. Any way to order an extraordinary meal at this ordinary establishment?
Tom Sietsema: Only if you call in for delivery from another restaurant ...
Are you a big fan of Japanese cuisine?
Tom Sietsema: Well, thank you
Fairfax, Va.: Is it so that once restaurants receive a positive review from critics that they no longer feel the need to be hospitable? My friend and I recently went for dinner at the Thai restaurant "Sakoontra" in Fairfax. We have dined there prior to the review and found the service and food to be good. It was a busy Friday night and we didn't have reservations, we asked the manager/owner of the restaurant if we could wait at the bar for a table. He gruffly told us that the only table available was a two top that was squeezed in between two other tables that were occupied by large groups. We again politely told him that we would be happy to sit at the bar and have a drink and wait for a table. When we went to the bar, the wait staff was very cordial and greeted us warmly. This, however, seemed to annoy the manager/owner who stormed over to us and demanded what kind of table we wanted. My friend again explained that we knew we didn't have reservations, we didn't mind waiting for a table with a little more room. At this point he began yelling at us that the wait "for you will be 35-50 minutes!" When we asked him if he was upset because we were waiting at the bar, he told us to "Get out-I don't need 'your kind' of business!"
Needless to say, we were baffled. We didn't go in demanding a table, we knew the wait would be long and we were happy to sit at the bar and enjoy a drink. Of course we left the restaurant, but not before my friend told him that he was a pathetic little man with anger issues. We left the restaurant perplexed and embarassed. We truly had no idea what had set him off. It's too bad to because Sakoontra, while it isn't the best Thai restaurant, was a convenient place to get a fairly decent meal. Maybe the guy had a bad night or maybe he really doesn't care if he loses 'our kind' of business. After all we were only two people. I guess he felt the review would bring in people to replace us. I will tell you this, it felt horrible to be treated so small. I hope you take some time from your busy schedule to check this out. This guy needs to know that bad night or not, he can't/shouldn't treat anyone the way he treated us.
Tom Sietsema: Wow. Am I hearing the whole story here? This does not sound like the Sakoontra I've experienced half a dozen times before.
Sounds to me like Mr. Angry was having a bad night, as you suggest.
Chevy Chase, D.C.: Hi Tom - love the chats, thanks so much!
Here's the situation: My dad and his girlfriend will be visiting from L.A. this weekend.
Dad - will eat anything, but refuses to wait (not even at the Custard Hut on Long Beach Island in August!), so we need a place that takes reservations.
Dad's girlfriend - Pretty picky and likes to eat healthy, L.A. type food.
We - have a one year old. He is very easy going and loves restaurants, but is still one.
So, we need a place with somewhat healthy food, that takes reservations and is appropriate for a well behaved one year old. In the past, we did Chef Geoff's, which was perfect, but would like to try somewhere else. Cost is not really an issue. Please please please help!! Thanks.
Tom Sietsema: What about the outdoor terrace at the modern American-themed 15 ria in Logan Circle, the quick-to-serve-you Meiwah (with locations in both Friendship Heights and the West End) or the Austin Grill in either Penn Quarter or Bethesda?
Capitol Hill: Re: today's Weekly Dish...BRAVO!!! I am so tired of over-hyped new restaurants turning out bland food and, worse, lousy, unprofessional service. Good for you for telling it like it is, and for putting in a nice plug for Carlyle, a worthy old standby!
Tom Sietsema: You can't say I pull punches!
That was really an awful experience at Extra Virgin. And what I wrote was just the tip of the iceberg!
News flash: I understand that Cesare from Tosca is no longer consulting there, though his name appeared on the restaurant's web site as late as Monday afternoon.
D.C.: I love trying Indian buffets. Even when they are bad, I feel like I've gotten a food bargain. Any among the many around that you like?
Tom Sietsema: Ever been to the Sunday buffet at Bombay Club downtown? It's pretty regal, but priced for commoners.
Penn Quarter: I recently started a new job in Penn Quarter, and I want some advice on what you would consider the best places for lunch in the Penn Quarter/Chinatown area. What would be your five suggestions for my "weekly regulars" at under $15 per lunch, plus a couple of occasional lunch splurges in the $20-$25 range
Tom Sietsema: For cheap, try Kanlaya for Thai, Teaism for pan-Asian, Matchbox for its delicious mini-burgers.
For a bit more, try Jaleo for tapas, Poste for contemporary American, maybe Ginger Cove for Caribbean.
Capitol Hill: Tom--Sunday evening my partner and I had dinner at Sonoma near the Capitol. In general, I think it is a good addition to the Capitol Hill dining scene. However, I have to admit that the service, however pleasant, was rather amateurish for a restaurant of its sort. For instance, they offer about a dozen cheeses as an appetizer or dessert.
When we asked about the qualities of some of the cheeses, the server gave us a blank look, stumbled through a few general comments, then offered to bring over a more knowledgable manager. Same thing happened with the wide variety of wines by the glass--she tried, but really didn't know much about them. I saw other tables having similar issues with their servers, who weren't familiar with some of the dishes or their ingredients, or couldn't explain the meats in the charcuterie (another of their specialties).
I can tolerate ignorance at some restaurants, but a place like this, which specializes in wines, cheeses, and custom or local ingredients, it seems that they should do a better job of training their servers to speak with some confidence about what they're serving. I don't expect them to be experts in cheese or wine, but to show some semblance of knowledge or understanding makes for a much more pleasant dining experience.
Tom Sietsema: Sounds like the owners of Sonoma should call a staff meeting and require their staff to sip and sample the wares. How hard is that? It only benefits the restaurant, because INFORMED servers make GOOD salespeople.
Re: Bertucci's: I am a poor entry-level worker who does her best to save her dining-out dollars to go to locally owned, inventive restaurants instead of chains. However, when trying to catch dinner around the Kennedy Center, I really can't afford anything except Bertucci's. While I can't defend the food (although I like it OK), I must say something nice about the place: the Foggy Bottom location really has excellent service. I've been several times, and the maitre d's are friendly, the servers are knowledgeable and fast, and the manager checks in to see if everyone's enjoying their meal. Would that every restaurant were like that. I can't figure it out--I've been to other Bertucci's with mediocre service, so it's not the chain. Anyway, good on them, and I hope Foggy Bottom enjoys his lunch.
Tom Sietsema: In fairness to the fast food feeder, here's another take on the place.
NYC for the Summer!: RE: Bertucci's - after 2 years of searching I am convinced that, say what you will about the rest of their cuisine, Bertucci's is the ONLY place in D.C. to get a decent pizza.
Tom Sietsema: I beg to differ!
Clarendon: Tom, four of us went to Flying Fish last week, looking forward to dinner. The server was clearly under the influence. He brought the wrong drinks, twenty minutes after taking the order. He couldn't list the fresh fish they had that day. He served the wrong fish to the table next to us, then told the woman that the fish he had brought her was Mahi--it was a swordfish steak. We walked out, stopped to discuss with the management and their response was complete indifference. We won't be going back.
Restaurant week? : Hey Tom,
What's the deal with Restaurant week
The website listing all of the participants has reverted back to last year's dates and no one listed. Will the website be updated or has the week been postponed again? I'd like to start making reservations, but needed the website to tell me who's taking part.
Tom Sietsema: My producer informs me the site is now updated.
D.C. - Indian Buffet: For a decent, cheap Indian buffet ($8.95 all you can eat), the Ascot on 17th and L is not bad. They're the people behind the tasty carryout Naan and Beyond. It's not Bombay Club, but for the price its tasty enough.
Tom Sietsema: Thanks for the tip.
16th Street : For the poster looking for wings - while staffing a convention this week, I was completely addicted to the wings served at the Omni Shoreham's Marquee Bar during their Happy Hour. Not only were they plentiful and delicious, they were free!; OK, you might have to buy an overpriced drink or two..
Tom Sietsema: Don't everyone rush the bar at once tonight!
Leaving Change: I just want to make one remark about the change thing as a server. Say the bill is $20.60 and the person gives me $40. If I don't have coins, I will give $20 back (a 10, a 5, and five 1s). I have had real cheap-os take all $20. I know that the 40 cents is theirs, but 60 cents is mine (not mine, even, the restaurant's). I've politely stopped people when they leave and asked them for the 60 cents, and one person said to me that it was only a little change. If it's a little change, then why can't they leave 40 extra cents
The thing is, if you're not going to leave me a tip, can you at least pay your entire bill? If you don't pay it, I do.
And one more note on tipping (I thought of this just now), I don't get all the money you leave me. I give at least a third of it to the bar, busser, manager, etc., so even if I'm a bad server, if you don't leave me at least 6%, then I'm paying other people's wages out of my pocket. If you're going to bother to eat out, then why not make the full monetary committment.
Thanks for the rant. If people can complain about their dining experiences last night, then I'll complain about my serving experiences.
Tom Sietsema: Thanks for a peek behind the curtain there.
D.C.: My goodness, does anyone have anything GOOD to say about servers in DC; Or all we all a bunch of ignorant drunks? Seriously.
Tom Sietsema: Good service DOES exist!
The bar tenders at Buck's are first-rate: funny and good with the booze.
I've also had great (table) service at 21P, Grace Bamboo, Oyamel, Occidental and Komi lately.
Re: Charlie Palmer Steak: <br/>Tom:
I am writing in response to a posting last week from a customer at my restaurant, Charlie Palmer Steak. I had tried to reach this customer several times right after her experience. Since then, I have spoken with her and invited her back to the restaurant to give us another chance, which she seems amenable to doing.
When a guest is dissatisfied for any reason, we try to rectify any issues before the guest leaves. I would ask diners to please remember that restaurants at times do make mistakes, and we appreciate the opportunity to fix the problem at hand. I am glad we had the opportunity to try and make that guests evening better than it began. Yet, even though we tried to fix the issue with the steak, it seems we could not make the situation better to the customers' satisfaction. As a gesture of apology, we offered complimentary desserts. When offering complimentary dishes, we always recite ingredients that include common allergens to ensure that we do not subject our guests to any undo harm. We could have asked the guests in advance what they would like to have had, but sometimes it can be a nice gesture to not interrupt conversations and simply bring out desserts.
We do follow the old saying "the customer is always right." That is why we go to great lengths to make each dinning experience at the restaurant pleasurable. That evening, I am sorry to say we could not make that happen to our guests' satisfaction.
We at Charlie Palmer Steak take every comment and use them as a tool to constantly improve our service and product. I have addressed this with our managers. I also would like to thank the readers for all of the supportive comments last week, we appreciate your time.
Bryan VoltaggioExecutive Chef Charlie Palmer Steak DC
Tom Sietsema: Thanks for the update, chef.
Alexandria, Va.: Read your review of Del Merei Grille. Thanks for covering it, although now it might be harder to get a bar seat there!
You mentioned some of Mary's family connections in the local restaurant world. Why did you omit the fact that her parents own a great/reliable neighborhood place just down the road: Monroe's?
Was that intentional? Just curious.
Tom Sietsema: It was most definitely NOT intentional. But I needed to cut to the chase after several longish graphs about how tight the restaurant staff was, and why. It was for ease of reading more than anything else.
Alexandria, Va.: As a former L.A. diner I found their health code display very helpful. There each restaurant puts up their health grade "A", "B",... so you have an idea of how clean the place is. Any chance of that here and is there a way to look up the health code reports? We always seem to hear the closed reports whereas I would prefer to know about a C grade first.
Tom Sietsema: The grading system is news to me! Do tell.
Cleveland Park, D.C.: Have you ever (knowingly) gotten food poisoning from dining out? If so, were there any warning signs at the time of the meal?
Tom Sietsema: Bad oysters in Old Town. It happened 20 years ago, but I remember it as if it were yesterday.
First, I thought I was going to die. Then, I just WANTED to die!
Gaithersburg, Md.: "even if I'm a bad server, if you don't leave me at least 6%, then I'm paying other people's wages out of my pocket."
Um, if you give bad service, you should have to pay out of your pocket!
Wings: For Herndon, provided he's not interested in heading downtown or to Rockville for some wingage, King's Bite in Sully is a nice "crummy-but-good' spot that will satisfy the urge.
Tom Sietsema: Mmmmmm. Sounds tasty.
Washington, DC: Tom, I just had to share this bizzare brunch story.
Went with a group of seven people for brunch at Duke's City, on U Street. It was about 11 a.m., we were literally the only customers. Okay, no problem, we wanted a place where we could sit without a wait.
Service, less than stellar, it took about 40-45 minutes for our food to arrive (still the only customers). One of us spilled coffee, we cleaned it up by ourselves, including going to the bar, asking for more napkins, dropping off the coffee-soaked ones. Also, about 10 minutes passed between the first meal being delivered and the last meal being delivered, Okay, no problem, we were not expecting a fancy meal.
Then the bill comes. With built-in gratuity. Okay, no--wait, no, that IS a problem. She added on a 22% tip! We felt that was a little high--particularly for such poor service. Also, it looked like an error. The bill was actually had an 11% tip, multipled by two.
We asked about it, and her response was, "well, the machine is broken, so it automatically multiplies things by two. So if I put in 18%, it becomes 36%!" We asked her to put in 9%, then, so it would end up as 18%. She then responded, inexplicably, "Well, the dinner entrees are more expensive than the breakfast entrees."
Eventually we convinced her to calculate an 18% tip by doubling the 9%, but not without quite a bit of negotiating.
Didn't ruin our morning, by any means, but certainly made me less enthusiastic about a return trip!
Tom Sietsema: Crazy! I'm still doing the math, though ....
Capitol Hill: Tom--In fairness to Sonoma, I should say that the server said that they had had a training session on the cheeses. But I got the feeling that the training didn't take, or needed to go deeper--when asked about various cheeses, she responded "I don't really remember it," or "it didn't leave a real impression on me." Maybe some role-playing or practice runs would help? But, despite her obvious greenness, we still left a 20% tip.
Tom Sietsema: Okay, let me amend my previous statement: Maybe summer school is in order!
D.C.: I'm probably in the Ford 500 intended market and have considered it but frankly am afraid to go "Ford" having been in the Toyota family since 1988. Just the name Ford reminds me of growing up in the 70s and seeing neighbors working under the hood all summer long.
Tom Sietsema: Folks, these are some of the "questions" I get on Wednesdays....
Arlington, Va.: Tom, read the Eekly Dish today and had to chuckle. I've been meaning to write you about my first experience at Extra Virgin. My husband and I were excited to try the new Shirlington restaurant, as we frequent that area often for casual dining (I consider Carlyle pretty casual too because the menu has a broad range of selections). Upon arriving there on the Thursday evening, there were 4-5 open tables outside and probably double that number of open tables inside. I was SHOCKED - every other outdoor table from Guapo's to Cap City to Aladdin, etc was full on our walk down. I figured, there had to be something weird/wrong with Extra Virgin. <br/>Well, we figured it out - selection, price points, and service. I tried to order a glass of chardonnay from the bar and was told they only offer one chardonnay by the glass - for $12 - so I ordered a more reasonable Miller Lite (the wine list shows an $8 option by the glass, but I was told they aren't serving that anymore). The seats were were sitting in at the bar left ample space between our stool and the bar booths behind us, however the entire time were sitting there, servers were carrying trays of food over our heads and making us feel like we were in the way. We examined the menu - there were very few slections and the price points seemed $3-5 high for what I would expect. At those prices, I expect an experience and the only experience I got while we were there was immaturity and chaos. We tried the sausage -stuffed vidalia onion appetizer and found in enjoyable, but the entire experience will not have me rushing back there any time soon. It's a shame - we were looking forward to another option in the neighborhood.
Tom Sietsema: The "Eekly" Dish. That was intentional, yes?
Arlington: Can you please post the link for Restaurant Week info? I can't find it!
Third time's the charm: Hi Tom, I know you get a lot of questions for your weekly chat and need to be selective. I also assume that you do not know of a good colombian restaurant, otherwise you would have answered my request that I submitted the last two weeks. But I would very much appreciate you at least throwing my question out to the chatters to see if they can help in my quest for good authentic Colombian food in the DC/VA area. Thanks so much!
Tom Sietsema: I'm tossing it out to the (smart and savvy) peanut gallery!
My partner of 22 years and I are going to be married while we are in Vancouver next month. Several friends will be there, and we want to have a nice dinner following the ceremony. We all love to dine, and price is no object.
The most recent "Postcard from Tom" from Vancouver is from November, 2002. Do you still recommend Lumiere and Ouest? Are they still you top recommendations for Vancouver? Do your chatters have favorites they would like to share? We just want this to be a very special evening.
Tom Sietsema: Twenty two years? Congrats.<br/><br/> Vancouver is a fabulous food city. And Lumiere would be a perfect spot to celebrate your happy occasion. The service is tops, the food is seasonal and innovative.
Washington, D.C.: My 12-year-old nephew is coming up to visit. Any suggestions on a fun place to bring kids in the area?
Thanks, very much enjoy your reviews.
Tom Sietsema: How about a hot dog at the Spy Museum's cafe? Or Native American food at the new American Indian museum on the Mall? Or brunch at Colorado Kitchen, with its counter seating and whimsical decor?<br/><br/> Any chatters care to pipe up?
Roseville, Calif.: My family is planning a trip to the D.C. area in July. We're on a tight budget and would like to know if you could suggest a website or other means of securing dining coupons for the D.C. area. <br/>Thank you!
Tom Sietsema: I know of none. Chatters?
Alexandria, Va.: Hey Tom...love the chats! I'm posting early as I am not able to participate "live." What would be your suggestion(s) as far as places to eat AND get a good view of the fireworks in the District? Thanks!
Tom Sietsema: The Truman Balcony at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?<br/><br/> In-room dining in a top-floor suite at the Hay Adams?<br/><br/> Seriously, I'm stumped. Good food and a matching view are pretty hard to come by. Close to you, there's Potomac Landing, but I assume you're looking in the District?
Falls Church Va.: Hi Tom: <br/>Why do some restaurants adamantly refuse to give seperate checks to each of multiple couples at a single table? How hard can it be?
Tom Sietsema: Can we get a restaurateur to address this problem?
Re: Summer School: I honestly find it hard to believe that any restaurant in D.C. would allow servers to go on the floor without enough training. It has been my experience that servers spend a few days in the kitchen as prep cooks and running food, a few days behind the bar, and at least a week on the floor shadowing and practicing with more experienced servers. It that not typical? Perhaps some restaurants should take note.
Tom Sietsema: Perhaps they should. (The smart ones do.)
Silver Spring, Md.: G'day -
China Star has gone a little downhill since their wonderful chef left earlier this year (February?), and a lot of dishes disappeared from the menu. The chef has recently turned up at TemptAsian in Alexandria (near Landmark Mall), and has brought at least some of those dishes with him. Early reports on Chowhound are favorable. Have you tried it yet, or heard anything about TemptAsian? (the name is just awful, but I'm willing to overlook it if the Country Young Chicken has made a reappearance)
Tom Sietsema: Early reports from this hired mouth are also favorable. It's true. The original chef from China Star has relocated to Alexandria. Ignore the silly name and taste for yourself.
Arlington, Va.: Noted on a credit card receipt from Georgetown's Old Glory: "D.C.'s Mecca for barbecue." Not much of a boast, is it? I wonder what the annual pork rib consumption is in Saudi Arabia.
I enjoyed reading your review about Citrus Cafe. I live in Charles County and just a few weeks ago spotted this restaurant... realizing as you point out that it recently was called The Stable. My friend and I considered stopping in but changed our mind not fully aware of whether it was going to be a good meal or not or how the atmosphere would be. Even though you gave it a single-star - satisfactory rating, it may be worth trying. If I do partake of a meal there, I'll email you with my comments.
Thanks again for getting out of the city and into the country. FYI - a couple of other Charles County restaurants worthy of your review would include Gustavo's & The Crossing at Casey Jones, both in La Plata.
Tom Sietsema: Thanks for your thanks. I expected to get some angry emails ("Why did you way out there? I live in Dupont Circle!") but was pleased to get some nice responses from readers who also live out yur way. <br/><br/> If you know how to navigate the menu, Citrus Cafe can be an enjoyable experience. (Just ask the server not to clean neighboring tables with Windex! )
Fort Worth, Tex.: I enjoy reading these chats, whether you are grumpy or not, or just perceived to be.
But if we don't happen to live where you write about, where should one go to find restaurants in their city that has accommodations such as privite dining room for a small group, or patio seating? Should I contact the local paper's food critic, or the area restaurant associtation? The small weekend guide doesn't seem to always list these. Thanks for your help.
Tom Sietsema: Good morning, Ft. Worth! <br/><br/> Food editors and restaurant critics get calls all the time from readers seeking this or that. I'd certainly contact your local food writers for suggestions. Keep in mind, though, they are some of the busiest people at their publications and tend to be one-man/one-woman shops. In other words, don't keep them on the phone too long! <br/><br/> I had a woman call me a few weeks ago. "I'm a neighbor of INSERT FAMOUS BYLINE HERE and I thought I'd ask you about where to take some visitors." She proceded to ask all sorts of additional questions -- about patios, prices, food selection, etc. -- and called me back two more times after I gave her, like, five recommendations. <br/><br/> I didn't return her fourth call, needless to say. And if she tells INSERT FAMOUS BYLINE that I wasn't helpful, I'll share MY side of the story. ;)
Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom, just wondering if you have visited Hanks Oyster Bar on Q Street, between 16th and 17th...it looks so inviting. Also, if you have the time, I would love to hear about good waterfront crab shacks (love a good dive like Quarter Deck, but not crowded like St. Michael's Crab Claw).
Tom Sietsema: My review of Hank's is slated to run July 17. <br/><br/> Have you ever been to Jimmy Cantler's in Annapolis or Stoney's Seafood House on Broomes Island? Both count seats on the water and both are great summer fun.
Petworth, D.C.: Merkado seems to be getting a lot of buzz, as a counterpoint I would like to relate my recent experience there. After waiting 45 minutes at the bar for what we thought was going to be a meal well worth the wait, we ordered 5 of the small plates which all came at about the same time(everything sounded so good we decided to go with small plates and come back to sample the entrees).
Due to the fact that there is a food runner who took away the mostly uneaten dishes...(1 of 5 was fabulous, the rest dreadful) honestly this was the worst meal I have ever paid for...the server was unaware that we had not enjoyed our food.
So, doing what we all agree about in this chat I politely told the server of the problems with the food. After receiving merely a blank stare decided against continuing. Up to this point the service from all the employees at the restaurant had been stellar.
What is the diner to do at this point? Didn't want anything for free...merely wanted to point out that there were some SERIOUS issues with the food I had just been served and would soon be paying for. Left a 20% tip as the service was not the issue. What else should I have done?
Tom Sietsema: I think I would have mentioned something to the manager on the way out -- and in just the diplomatic way you did here. <br/><br/> Has anyone else been to the newcomer in Logan Circle? I've been four times; my review appears this weekend in the Magazine.
Bethesda, Md.: Hi Tom, <br/>Have you ever dined at any of Gordon Ramsey's restaurants? Is he really worth all the drama and fame? <br/>Thanks!
Tom Sietsema: Several years ago, I had a memorable lunch at the original GR in London, where I made a reservation in my own name, because ... who's going to know me there, right?<br/><br/> My pal and I sat down and were promptly greeted with two flutes of Champagne. "From one Washingtonian to another," said our captain -- who turned out to be Jarad Slipp, an alumnus of Restaurant Nora in Washington!<br/><br/> Slipp, of course, went on to open Nectar and now toils at Ray's the Steaks in Arlington.<br/><br/> GR was first-rate -- and very, very expensive -- as I recall. Definitely a highlight of that particular trip.
Washington D.C.: Tom, do your editors ever try to tone down your reviews? Or are your free to say anything you want?
Tom Sietsema: As a columnist and a critic, I am in a position to be more opinionated, but I still subscribe to a reporter's standards of fairness, accuracy and such. <br/><br/> Now and then, an editor might not get a joke or ask me to better explain why a restaurant is getting the rating it is, but in general, I'm free to write what I write.
Vienna Va.: For the person looking for Indian buffet--head out to Virginia for Minerva. The buffet (especially on the weekend) is amazing and extensive. They have locations in Herndon and in Fairfax. It's a great way to try things you've never heard of.
Tom Sietsema: I reviewed the place several years ago. Is it still screening those Bollywod flicks?
Restaurant Coupons: For a good source of restaurant coupons... www.restaurant.com usually you can pay around $10 for a $25 gift certificate to the restaurant. sometimes they'll have even further discounts on the gift certificates. just be sure to check if there are any restrictions on use for your particular choice.
Tom Sietsema: To the rescue!
Where's the Titanic??: So Tom, when you decide to share your "Titanic" experience with us, will you identify it as such so that those of us who have been sitting on pins and needles don't miss it? WHEN are you gonna share?????????
Tom Sietsema: Your ship has already sailed.<br/><br/> My review of Leopold's ran a couple Sundays ago.
Washington, D.C.: Tom, where should I go to find family-oriented Italian restaurant?
Tom Sietsema: By "family-oriented," I take it you're looking for something casual and traditional? I like Famous Luigi's on 19th St. for unfussy pastas myself. Pasta Mia in Adams Morgan is a draw for others, but be prepared to wait in line.
D.C. - English teacher: Not to be a jerk, but a couple of times in chats you've asked people to give you more perimeters. Don't you mean parameters?
Tom Sietsema: Yes, yes, yes! (My bad, I'm just juggling lots of balls here...)
My birthday is coming up, and I'm looking for a nice restaurant in D.C. to celebrate with some friends (4-6). As we are all very recent colleges grads, ideally, I'm looking for a funky atmosphere, nice drinks, but cheap dishes... preferably in D.C. somewhere. Thanks!
Tom Sietsema: I'm not sure what your definition of "funky" is, but I think you'd have fun at ChiCha Lounge on U St., Singapore Bistro on 19th St., Mimi's in Dupont Circle or Felix in Adams Morgan.
Loving Sushi Also: For the Shushi craver in Arlington, my suggestion is to do a happy hour at Cafe Asia- suhi's great and the atmosphere if very cool
Tom Sietsema: Another good tip.<br/><br/> Lunch calls. See you next week!
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate. | 220.414634 | 0.634146 | 0.829268 | high | low | abstractive | 4,804 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/22/DI2005062201613.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005063019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/22/DI2005062201613.html | White House Talk | 2033-07-15T17:56:59 | What's going on inside the White House? Ask Dan Froomkin , who writes the White House Briefing column for washingtonpost.com. He'll answer your questions, take your comments and links, and point you to coverage around the Web.
Today's White House Briefing: World War III.
Dan is also deputy editor of Niemanwatchdog.org . You can e-mail him at [email protected] .
Dan Froomkin: Welcome to another edition of White House Talk. Lots to White House talk about today, starting with last night's speech. That was all I wrote about in today's column , headlined: Word War III.
Severna Park, Md.: As a Republican and vet I should probably be mad at your column today, but the lack of reality in the White House is scary. How soon do you expect the polls to show if this has stemmed the bleeding? The gist on CNN last night was that it bought the President time, do you concur?
Dan Froomkin: I'm glad you're not mad at me.
The CNN insta-poll you mention, as I wrote in my column, was hilariously skewed. As Bill Schneider acknowledged ruefully, most of the people who told Gallup they were going to watch the speech, it turns out didn't! And most who did were Republicans.
I don't think the speech will have earth-shattering results. Conventional wisdom is that I'll bump Bush up a point or two.
But as one of my readers pointed out yesterday in an e-mail, the public has been way ahead of the press and the politicians lately when it comes to reacting to what you so eloquently call the "lack of reality in the White House."
So it could also just make things worse for him.
Can you tell me the reason the White House chose to do this speech at a military base if they weren't going to use the troops in the background? I'm no supporter of the President, but even I know he comes off better when he's got people around him in a less formal setting. If they weren't going to do that, why not just do the speech from the Oval Office?
Dan Froomkin: That's a mystery. More to the point, why come speak to the troops and then hold them silent, at attention? On TV, that came off like they were angry. Then you have a member of the advance team provoking them into one solitary, sort of pathetic, burst of applause? All very weird. And a rare miss by the exceptionally talented advance team.
Did they have to change course along the way? Were they intending Bush to be surrounded by cheering troops, then worried that the press would (appropriately) excoriate them for using the military as campaign-style props? Inquiring minds want to know more.
Charleston, W.V.: On the advice of your column I checked out AmericaSupportsYou.mil
Interesting to search "Democrat" and "Republican" - I'd be interested to see if any messages critical of the administration, or supportive of Democrats, make it on the site.
Was this speech the first time Bush asked Americans directly to serve in the military? Doesn't this change his messages from right after 9/11 (the terrorists win if you don't go about your life as normal)?
Dan Froomkin: I would love to hear about people's results searching the viewable messages at AmericaSupportsYou.mil .
I think it was to Bush's enormous credit that he encouraged people to join the military. Recruitment is in terrible shape, clearly due to his decision to go to war, and I think it's appropriate and right of him to try to do something about it. And yes, as far as I know, this is the first time he's done that.
I will now inevitably get people asking me if he's sending his twins.
Burlington, Vt.: Do people really want Bush impeached? Ignoring (for the sake of argument) the fact that that's not ever gonna happen, would President CHENEY be any kind of solution?
Dan Froomkin: a) It's a small, nascent movement.
b) I'm not sure they've thought it out that far yet.
Washington, D.C.: The reporters in the White House Press corps finally seem to be getting tough with McClellan, but he still dodges everything I understand that's his job but how do you get more honest answers?
Dan Froomkin: I agree that there has been quite the outbreak of assertive questioning, particularly from Terry Moran at ABC, David Gregory of NBC and Bill Plante of CBS. My hat's off to 'em.
But ultimately, yeah, it's useless, beyond making theater. Scott has his marching orders, and he's a good soldier.
In some ways, the further you get from the White House, the more accurate your picture of the place is.
Dogged questions are good, but dogged reporting is better.&.
And: Maybe, just maybe, with members of Bush's own party starting to peel off from the official White House groupthink, maybe we'll start to find out more about what's really going on in there.
Silver Spring, Md.: What a great idea the President had last night, flying the flag on the Fourth of July! Wow, I never would have thought of that. It will sure be great to see how many people support his bold plan for Iraq by counting the flags that day!
Dan Froomkin: It could be quite the turning point, eh?
Fort Collins, Colo.: There is a famous old story about a man who is tried for killing his parents and asks for mercy from the court because he is an orphan. In his speech last night, President Bush claimed that the war in Iraq is necessary to fight the terrorists... who were able to establish themselves there because Saddam Hussein was deposed. Does the White House not see the ironic similarity between the two?
Do you think the "stony, untelegenic silence" from the soldiers at Fort Bragg during Bush's speech might reflect a shifting mindset in the armed forces? In your opinion, could it be indicative that they are a bit fed up with the stark disconnect between the President's rhetoric and what they know to be the case on the ground in Iraq?
Dan Froomkin: No, I don't. We are a long way from member of the armed forces in large numbers expressing anything but strong support for their commander in chief. It would be against their nature.
And in fact there were several stories today, including one by the AP's Tim Whitmire chronicling the depth of their continued support.
What you saw, as I mentioned above, was some bizarre stage management.
Chico, Calif.: Is there still a sense that, even though Rove and Company hit the "Rally Base" button hard and often, Bush is still trying to do what he thinks is best for the country?
Dan Froomkin: I think you have just asked one of the most important questions of the second term. It first came to me during all these Social Security events, where the White House was only letting in people who essentially agreed with Bush. Doesn't he seem himself as the president of all the people?
And Rove of course is at the febrile center of this question. As I wrote in my newly updated Who's Who in the White House recently, Rove, with his new deputy chief of staff duties, "is the poster child for how politics and policy have merged in the Bush White House. Traditionally, governing is a considerably different matter than running for office, where winning is everything. Not so with Rove. If he eventually starts losing, he could end up taking the blame for creating a divisive presidency, aimed more at achieving partisan goals than the common good. But if he keeps winning, he will be a kingmaker even as his boss becomes a lame duck -- and his legacy could be a GOP that is indeed the ruling party for decades to come."
Louisville, Ky.: I just reread the transcript and saw the attribution to bin Laden, but isn't "this third world war" a little much? As much as Bush wants to be seen as a war president -- and will apparently fight indefinitely to achieve that status -- doesn't using any sense of "World War III" seem hyperbolic and totally inappropriate?
Dan Froomkin: I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- that Bush's third world war allusion -- poached from the lips of Osama bin Laden no less! -- has not gotten more attention.
Boulder, Colo.: Probably pretty speculative, but--what impact would Time revealing the Plame leaker (as is suggested in Editor and Publisher) today have on the news cycle of the Bush speech?
Dan Froomkin: I think the speech's news cycle has a pretty short half life, unless it begins to outrage people, of course.
Olympia, Wash.: Hi Dan, love your work and these chats, especially.
Do you cover the White House in-person? Do you personally see the exchanges where Scott McClellan declines to actually answer yes or no questions?
What about the President? In his speeches and in the debates -- which I see on TV -- he comes across as stilted, and frankly, kind of intellectually challenged. Does he present a different "aspect" when you're in the same room as he is? Does he exude leadership or competence?
His speech last night came across the TV (to me) as faux sincerity; perhaps I am just a cynical blue stater.
Dan Froomkin: Thank you! I do not go to the White House very often. Which, all in all, I think is an advantage when it comes to writing about the place.
The few times I've seen Bush in person, he was speaking from prepared texts, and I was most taken by the fact that he was, well, not exactly engaging with the text, if you know what I mean. Certainly not like a certain recent past president who often used such texts as outlines at best. Bush was just reading aloud. And not always that effectively. Somehow, that's odder in person than when you see it on TV.
So unlike, say, Reagan, I didn't find him larger than life in person.
Santa Fe, N.M.: Well, you can tell Bush is getting nervous, he actually mentioned Bin Laden in this speech. What do you think will happen, if in August, the Iraqis have not drafted a Constitution?
Dan Froomkin: I don't know what it means, but I almost fell off the couch when I heard it. As I wrote in my August 12, 2004 column (and it was still largely true until yesterday) Bush treated bin Laden a lot like those wizards in the Harry Potter books treat He Who Must Not Be Named.
I won't make any predictions about the constitution, sorry!
Decatur, Ga.: I watched the President last night in hopes he'd reveal the "clear path to victory" that his handlers promised earlier in the day. Did I miss something? Did he deliver that? The speech sounded very familiar and I heard nothing new in it. That said, do you believe this speech was more about "rallying the base" than anything else? It seems like he was trying to energize his supporters more than answering his critics or persuading his constituents (the American public). What do you think?
Dan Froomkin: You didn't miss anything except for a pretty bold change in rhetoric that I don't think is aimed solely at the base. Bush is trying (and don't underestimate his bully pulpit) to take the country back to bygone days of early post-9/11, when the country (not just the base) was behind him.
Chicago, Ill. : DAN: Putting aside the text of last night's speech for a moment, I haven't seen much coverage/reaction to the President's physical appearance last night. To me, he looked tired, low on energy and stressed out. His delivery seemed flat as well (even by Bush's low standards). Could his pre-speech meeting with families of deceased soldiers effected him? Is it just me, or did the President have a below average performance (or worse) last night?
Dan Froomkin: You know, Bush is in the eye of the beholder.
Some people thought he was spot-on last night. They also liked his speech. Others didn't and didn't.
I thought he was about average, with one possible exception. He kept shifting his eyes from one side to the other, like maybe his TelePrompters were spread out more than usual?
Greenbelt, Md.: So with their poll numbers down and the failure of Bush's speech last night, what's the over/under on when we get a new, vague and indecipherable terror alert from the White House?
I'll be the first to weigh in. It will be the middle of next week, so as not to interfere with 4th of July spending and traveling, but soon enough to grab attention before vacation season starts in earnest. Yup, sounds about right.
Dan Froomkin: If things really worked that way, you don't think they would have sounded the alarm already? You conspiracy theorists are always well advised to consider another alternative: Incompetence. See this fascinating report from NBC about the bogus analysis that led to terror alert in Dec. 2003.
Arlington, Va.: Trust me. We've thought all the way to President Hastert. It's not encouraging.
Dan Froomkin: A nascent impeachmentist is heard from.
Los Angeles, Calif.: RE: "Reading Aloud" Isn't that what the President really looked like he was doing last night? Was it just me or did the President appear not engaged or up to the task? Will Americans see this guy, with his war (and perhaps his legacy) on the line, just going through the motions and loose even more confidence in him?
Dan Froomkin: Find someone who supports the president and liked the speech who thinks he looked disengaged, and we'll talk.
Am I the only one who thinks President Bush should stop using the line that Americans need to realize we are fighting terrorist in Iraq and not in the U.S.?
How are we going to get all the Iraqis on our side if they hear us essentially say "We've decided to fight terrorism but have chosen your country to be our battleground!"
I would think he would want to stop using that argument and frame it around terrorist are trying to steal Iraqis's freedoms and we are going to make sure that it doesn't happen.
Bush seems to be sending the wrong signals with the "we're fighting terrorist abroad so we don't have to fight them here" line.
Dan Froomkin: I asked a similar question a few weeks back in an item I wrote for NiemanWatchdog.org about the wave after wave of suicide bombers: "To the extent that foreign terrorists are being lured to Iraq to blow themselves up, how do the Iraqis feel about being the bait?"
Laurel, Md.: Dan, a few weeks ago, the Neimanwatchdog.org Web site to which you link included a chart relating President Bush's approval rating with the price of gasoline. With the former enough of a problem now for the President to make a major speech with no new content, is the White House also trying any new initiatives about the latter?
Despite what reporters may think about how awful the WMD deception was, I suspect the fact that gasoline is up 50% since the invasion is motivating a lot of the disillusion about Iraq.
Dan Froomkin: Actually, that link was from my April 8 column right here on washingtonpost.com. It suggested a pretty strong inverse correlation between Bush's approval ratings and the price of gas.
But if you look at it now, you'll see the correlation is getting weaker. As the good doctor himself noted, in early May in particular, Bush's approval ratings were going down sharply -- even as gas prices were also going down.
Ellicott City, Md.: So what is the problem with giving a list of Iraq objectives, tasks that need to be completed before we leave? Something like a checklist so we the people can see that progress is being made? This is not a timeline that the White House keeps shifting the argument to, but just a list of goals so that there is someway to quantifiably say we are making progress.
Dan Froomkin: I think that's a fine question.
Washington, D.C.: Boy, the conservative shouting heads can really point the spotlight toward (or away from) whatever they want; much better than the liberal ones can.
Examples: Howard Dean's comment about how "some" Republicans didn't have to work for a living was morphed into a broadside about all Republicans. On the other hand, Karl Rove spoke about how liberals (no modifier) offered terrorists "therapy and understanding," but somehow his defense was that he was only talking about "some" liberals.
And why no more attention to Rove's assertion that liberals' motive is to put our troops in greater danger?
Dan Froomkin: Oh yeah, Karl Rove's speech about liberals. I'd almost forgotten.
I think you answer your own question, to some extent. The conservative talking heads vastly outnumber and outdo the liberal ones, day in and day out.
That said, the news cycle is also very, very fast.
Washington, D.C.: I saw that a Washington Post-ABC poll said that only 13 percent of Americans are in favor of a withdrawal from Iraq. It is also evident that The Post's editors do not favor a timetable for withdrawal. Next time, why don't you ask people "should the U.S. military still be in Iraq one year from now?" See what kind of results you get then.
Dan Froomkin: The Post poll did find that 13 percent of Americans support an immediate withdrawal. Considering that I can't think of a major political figure who has advocated that, i.e. it's not even on the political radar, 3 percent is a pretty huge number, if you ask me.
And yes, I would be more interested in getting at such questions as: How soon do you want us out? Do you think there's a clear plan for getting out? (Gallup asked; 61 percent said no.) Etc.
Why did the press give Bush's speech prime time-front page coverage when there was NO NEWS in the speech? It was free PR for the same old li(n)es.
Instances like these fuel the perception that the press is little more than Bush's lap dog.
Dan Froomkin: Well, there was some news there. But it wasn't so much the news most papers headlined, i.e. "Bush: War 'Worth It'".
It was that Bush invoked 9/11 so much, talked about World War III, and in spite of the clamor refused to explain in detail how we're going to get out of there.
But most of the mainstream media is a creature of instinct, driven to write about what the president said, first and foremost. The analysis, the omissions and the fact checking tend to get bumped inside. The White House knows that and takes advantage of it.
Middletown, Conn.: How does the White House select the dead soldiers' families with whom Bush will deign to speak? I think he met with roughly half of the Fort Bragg families last night. What I'm wondering is if the White House advance team vets families in advance so he will only get families prepared to believe that their sacrifices were worth it.
Dan Froomkin: That's a fine question and I would like to get the answer, too. I have talked to members of several families of dead soldiers who oppose the war, and none of them, as far as I know, have ever had the chance to meet the president. I have a hard time believing that is just coincidence.
Clifton, Va.: Dan, I think the first step in dogged reporting is being confrontational at news conferences. Giving lip service to non answers does nothing but spawn more non answers, as you've pointed out many times. More bloggers asking more pointed questions seems to be shaking reporters out of their slumber. Do you think this trend will continue, or will the usual summer slowdown occur regardless?
Dan Froomkin: Yes it's a good start, but just a start. Yes I think it will continue. No, not through August. Nothing continues through August in Washington.
New York, N.Y.: I could only watch the speech in small bits - Bush's face is often awash with inappropriate emotions (i.e. smiling when threatening someone or smirking wishfully when he gets through a list of names (any names for that matter as the lists don't seem to be anything but rote memorization)). It was tiresome and repetitive. The cracking voice and stiff smile are strictly sentimentalism as far as I can tell. He's a bad actor.
Dan Froomkin: Well, like I said, Bush is in the eye of the beholder. And you've got quite an angry eye.
Washington, D.C.: I thought the well-behaved or well-trained silence seemed weird given that we are so used to lots of applause in these big speeches a la the State of the Union etc. but I though it must be the military way. But then everybody applauded at once at what I didn't even think was an applause line. When the applause started I couldn't even recall what the line was...and they all applauded together. Did an applause light come on or something? It was so bizarre and of course there was not news, just the same repetition of assertions as facts. No surprise there. I thought the applause burst was the most interesting part of the speech.
Dan Froomkin: As I mentioned before, several people on the scene reported that a member of Bush's staff started the applause that one time, and the soldiers chimed in.
Leesburg, Va.: Funny that you should mention Bush shifting his eyes back-and-forth a lot last night - my husband remarked on the same thing. It seemed to me that he did the "eye thing" whenever he said something that was either evasive or inconvenient but phrased to his advantage... you know, what we used to call lying when a Democrat did it? Maybe his eyes shift around a lot because he can't handle looking the soldiers in the eyes.
Dan Froomkin: I just think he was looking side to side, myself.
Strange eye movement can indeed be a sign of lying -- right up there with touching your nose and your ear. Go look at Clinton's grand jury testimony, for example.
State College, Pa.: I posted a message of support at America Supports You that basically said "I support the troops, but I don't agree with the leadership" in very simple terms. Guess what, it didn't show up in the search results... I am not holding my breath. But it begs a larger question... is this a free speech violation?
Dan Froomkin: Well, try a more positive one, and see if it shows up, and then e-mail me at [email protected] with the results!
Duxbury, Mass.: Just to let you know the Bush screening of attendees to his events continues- my son is training at Ft. Bragg and said only a few pre-screened individuals from each unit was allowed to attend last night's speech.
Dan Froomkin: Prescreened for what? Have him e-mail me.
Dallas, Tex.: Hi Dan, I enjoy your column everyday!
Now that Bush has asked young men to enlist, has anyone asked (or will ask) him whether or not he does the same thing to his twins?
Dan Froomkin: Hi! I knew I'd find that question here somewhere.
Islam / Muslim - 4
Where the bases are: Dan, I live in North Carolina, do you have any idea why the military loves this president? From where I sit it looks like an abusive relationship to me. Maybe some of our generals should visit Oprah?
Dan Froomkin: Yeah, I'll suggest that to the next Marine I run into.
Dumfries, Va.: I think one of the greatest missteps this administration made was not in harnessing the American urge to do something as a nation after September 11. Now we are asked to fly a flag and enlist? Do you believe that the opportunity has passed for him to rally a united America?
Dan Froomkin: Yes, it passed a long, long time ago, and I suspect history will not look kindly on the missed opportunity. Heck, why stop with a united America. It could have been a united world, maybe.
Austin, Tex.: Dan - Great column. Great service to concerned citizens. Thank you! It seems every time the President gives a "new" speech about Iraq (White House, aircraft carrier deck, War College and now Ft. Bragg) the only thing "new" is the REASON for the war (WMD, liberating Iraqis, spreading freedom and now fighting the same terrorists who were responsible for 9/11). Hasn't anyone at the White House figured out that the constantly changing rationale gives citizens the impression that the President is not being truthful? Hasn't this lack of credibility been largely responsible for the public's loss of confidence in the President and the war he started?
Dan Froomkin: Thanks for the kind word.
But as far as the changing rationales, up until now, it's been working just fine.
Dan Froomkin: I've got to go. Your questions today were particularly excellent and voluminous and I am very very sorry I wasn't able to get to more of them. I'll try to keep them in mind for future columns. Keep reading, and I'll see you again here in two weeks.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | White House Briefing columnist Dan Froomkin takes your questions on the latest White House coverage. | 323.1875 | 0.875 | 1.75 | high | medium | mixed | 4,805 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/24/DI2005062401160.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005063019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/24/DI2005062401160.html | Baseball | 2033-07-15T17:56:59 | Barry Svrluga: Greetings from the RFK Stadium press box, Nationals fans. Another week, another stay in first place. Think this team will remain there through the All-Star break, which is now just a week-and-a-half away? It's starting to look that way.
Tons of questions again, and I'll try to get to as many as possible. Let's start.
Falls Church City, Va.: Hi Barry
I'm an admirer of the way Frank Robinson guides the Nats when it comes to clubhouse rules, expected norms of behavior, motivation, etc. I take issue, however, with his game-management decisions. (Full disclosure: I'm a die-hard Bill James devotee.) Last night in the 1st he ran the Nats out of a likely run when he sent Wilkerson (who probably could have scored on Guillen's double.) More to my dislike was having Marlon Byrd bunt with runners on 1st and 2nd and no outs (with the weak hitting Wil Cordero, Brian Schneider and Christian Guzman due up next!) Why give up a valuable out in that situation with the bottom of the order due up? (Yes ... the Pirates made a hash of the play and a run scored, but that was too close to being caught by Doumit for a possible double play.) Finally, I was surprised that Drese was sent out there in the 8th -- especially when the bullpen had the day off Monday.
Your thoughts? (And good luck with the book!)
Barry Svrluga: These are all good points, Falls Church, and the Moneyball types -- who value outs like they value their lives -- is never going to be happy with those bunting decisions. I agree that this team tries to hit-and-run a bit too much, especially because it doesn't have a lot of contact hitters and doesn't have a lot of speed.
(Let's check the two elements of that play: "Hit" and "run". Hmmm. No contact hitters. No speed. Seems like a strikemout-throwemout double play waiting to happen.)
Bunting: I think that Robinson has done it too early and too often, but it's clear where the strategy is coming from. He doesn't feel like this team is going to break out for many five- or six-run innings. And it has shown, like last night, it can win with two or three runs. He can justify that strategy, even if some of us don't agree with it.
I was surprised Drese came out for the eighth (in which he retired the side in order). But I think there's some concern about overuse of the bullpen. Luis Ayala leads the majors in appearances with 43. Gary Majewski has never been used as much as he is now. It's starting to show, as he's been much rockier than he was earlier in the season.
Still, does that justify leaving Drese in? I'm not sure.
Rosslyn, Va.: Are there any plans for The Post to expand their coverage of the Nationals farm system? At the very least could they publish a weekly stats/team notes update?
Barry Svrluga: Indeed, there are. Daniel Lyght, one of our summer interns, will be doing much more on minor league baseball, and he has a story on Page E4 of today's Post about Potomac's Salomon Manriquez.
Look for a few more minor league updates throughout the summer.
Rosslyn, Va.: What is going on with Vinny Castilla? He seems lost at the plate, swinging at the first pitch at a Guzman-esque pace. Is it just the 'tired bat' or have pitchers found a way to repeatedly get him out?
Barry Svrluga: Remember that Castilla is 37 -- he'll be 38 next week -- and there could be legitimate concerns about how quickly he'll lose his skills. But he needs to go back to what he was doing earlier in the year, and what he did when he had success in Atlanta, which was going the opposite way when the pitch is outside, rather than rolling over his hands and grounding weakly to shortstop or third base.
GM Jim Bowden believes Castilla will steady himself, but right now, he's a hole in the lineup.
In regards to a question I asked you before about Jim Bowden staying on, I was not referring to the decisions of the new owners but Bowden's own decision. When he became GM, he said that it was a temporary gig and that he planned to return to ESPN as soon as new owners were found. Has he changed his mind now and wants to stay on?
Also, are you outraged by the sheer overreaching of Tom Davis about the ownership issue. Politics and sports should never mix but he is committing a major power play by trumpeting Malek and making xenophobic remarks to the Ledecky group.
P.S. If you haven't figured it out about "Dutch" Zimmerman I'll tell ya, a bunch of Nats bloggers floated the idea of nick-naming Ryan Zimmerman "Dutch" because apparently it was a tradition in baseball to call players with German names "Dutch". Why? I dunno.
Barry Svrluga: In the words of Spinal Tap, "Hello Cleveland!"
Yes, Bowden would like to stay on. His comments about taking a leave of absence from "Cold Pizza" were of concern about the very temporary nature of the job at the time. When he was hired in November, it was conceivable that the team could have been sold by Opening Day. Now, it probably won't be sold by the end of the season, so he would like to prove he's doing a good job now and make it difficult for the new owners to replace him.
Anyone interested in the Tom Davis/George Soros flap should read Sally Jenkins's column in today's Post. It's right on.
Interesting on "Dutch." Perhaps I'll inform him he has a cult following already.
Rockville, Md.: I'm very pleased with how The Post has covered the Nationals in addition to that other team that captured the hearts of some Washington suburbanites. But in the context of continuous improvement, can The Post start adding more coverage on the Nationals farm teams? I mean something as simple as reporting the standings of the AAA team would be a start. In addition, maybe a weekly look at the top prospects and how they're faring. I mean, is Eddy Chavez still in New Orleans and how many walks does he have?
Barry Svrluga: As mentioned, I believe we'll be doing more. I'll try to work updates into my notebooks as well.
Endy Chavez, by the way, was traded to Philadelphia for Marlon Byrd.
15th and L NW: With all the beat up outfielders we have now, and the possibility of Wilkerson playing some 1B, is there any talk of bringing up anyone from New Orleans? If so, who would be the most likely candidate?
Barry Svrluga: Matt Cepicky, who has some major league experience and has always hit well in the minors, would be a candidate to be called up. But I'm watching Ryan Church play catch right now along the third base line, and the hope is he won't have to be placed on the disabled list. If no one goes on the DL, they can't bring anybody up, so ...
And Nick Johnson felt much better yesterday. Bowden expects him to play in the weekend series at Chicago.
Downtown Washington, D.C.: Barry -- First, I want to add my compliments to others you get on your columns -- your style is very enjoyable as well as informative.
Question related to Boswell's email column on Nat's and O's injuries being out of line with continued success: What role do you think training plays vs just bad luck? Accidents do happen, but sometimes very good training reduces the harm of some accidents. Any discussion of the Nats revising the pre-season +/or during season training?
Barry Svrluga: Thanks very much.
As for training, I've asked this question a couple of times this year, and it's really a hard one to answer, as I'm not a doctor or an athletic trainer myself. All I can say is that the Nationals seem happy with their staff, and they really do consider the injuries freaks. Some of that makes complete sense, as with Vidro (injured sliding into home), Sledge (freak popping of hamstring) and Eischen (breaking arm while fielding grounder).
1st Base: Thanks again for chatting, Barry. Everyone knew that the rap against Nick Johnson coming into this year was that he couldn't stay healthy. Yet, I believe when he got hurt Sunday he was the only Nat that had played in every game. While his injury certainly did not result from over use, why haven't the Nats found a decent first base back-up to give Nick an occasional day off? Wil Cordero is a joke and he needs to go!
Barry Svrluga: Johnson actually missed a game earlier this year after fouling a ball off the back of his leg, a weird play. But until last night, that was it.
Backup at first base isn't one of the Nationals' primary needs, particularly the way Johnson has played. With this lineup, he needs to be in there every night. The team is much more interested in pursuing a starting pitcher and/or another bat than getting a backup for Johnson, who they think will recover from this injury rather quickly.
Is Larkin getting any pressure to suit-up? I know he has said he would never play for a team other than Cincinnati, but ... Might we see him activated as pinch hitter for down the stretch?
Barry Svrluga: I doubt it. Before the Spivey trade, Bowden asked Larkin about playing nearly every day. Now, he's not in playing shape, and with Spivey, the team doesn't need him as much.
I would never say never, but I'd say it's 95-5 against.
Block Island, R.I.: How did Churchy go from being out 1-2 games -- during which time you, St Barry (may peace be upon you) came close to calling him out -- to being a DL possibility? Is he definitely out through the Cubs series?
Barry Svrluga: He simply isn't recovering as quickly as the team had hoped. It was a violent collision with the wall, one which team physician Bruce Thomas likened with a football player being tackled.
No, he's not definitely out for the Cubs series. In fact, he just finished playing catch, and I'll talk to him later. It'll be interesting to see if he takes batting practice, because he said the motion of swinging bothered him more.
Fairfax, Va.: Barry, a quick non-Nats question.
Is it time for the Sox to do something, ANYTHING, about Foulke?
Barry Svrluga: Take him out back and ...
Wait, I sound too much like a reactionary New Englander. (Wait, maybe that's what I am.)
That was nasty last night, no?
Arlington, Va.: I heard there was 35,000 at RFK last night, despite the Yankees being in town up the road. Does there just happen to be a lot of fans in the area interested in seeing the Nats play Pittsburgh, or do you think this will now be the typical weeknight atttendance as long as the Nats are in contention? And if this is the new norm, how much of the increase would you attribute to the Nats play on the field, versus the fact that it's now summer and kids are out of school and summer interns have arrived, versus the increased marketing of the team in recent weeks?
Barry Svrluga: I was surprised at the size of the crowd last night. I'm sure kids being out of school has something to do with it, as does the play of the team. It'll be interesting to see what happens in July and August, when this town tends to shut down. The announced attendance might be high because many tickets will be sold, but will the big-bucks folks in the lower bowl show up, or give their tickets away, when they're spending a week on Martha's Vineyard?
Arlington, Va.: What's the latest on Vidro? He supposedly tweaked his knee last week and I haven't heard anything since about his projected return. Also, do you see Spivey spending more time at 3rd spelling Vinny who sadly appears to be on the slide?
Barry Svrluga: Vidro has adjusted his thinking toward returning after the All-Star break. The setback with his knee was a reminder that he shouldn't rush things.
Spivey at third? Haven't heard that. Robinson continues to see Jamey Carroll as his backup third baseman.
Section 503: Why wouldn't Frank use another pitcher in the 9th for an out or two to help save Chad?
Barry Svrluga: What's that "ain't broke, don't fix it" thing? A closer should be able to pitch an inning at a time. Last night, Cordero pitched after having two nights off. You HAVE TO use him for the ninth in that situation.
Section 535: I liked how Drese threw at the first batter the inning after Guillen got hit. Why didn't any of the other pitchers do this the other 9-10 times Guillen got hit?
Barry Svrluga: That will be interesting to follow. Robinson mentioned it earlier in the year, that if pitchers continue to throw at Guillen, they better watch out.
To be fair, though, I don't think Fogg was throwing at Guillen last night. The ball barely hit him -- and it may have actually been a foul ball.
Downtown: We've heard how the players are really glad to be in D.C., meeting the community and getting to know fans. How does the team regard the media, are they pretty open with most reporters, or are they pretty closed off, considering all the trash that was talked about them in Montreal re: how badly they had to play (or considering they were just altogether ignored in many cases)?
Barry Svrluga: The team, from my perspective, has been a pleasure to deal with. The players seem to understand their responsibility to talk to us so that their thoughts get conveyed to the public. Most of them are open to talking about a range of subjects. I don't know how they regard us, but they are willing to work with us, no question.
Chevy Chase, Washington, D.C.: Hi Barry:
Another question re: last night. The game was played in 2:11. Was that the fastest game of the season for our boys? There was no mention of the brevity of the game in the paper this morning.
Barry Svrluga: Indeed, it was the fastest game of the year, a nice and tiny 2:11. Not bad for Drese, who was lit up his last time against the Pirates.
Washington, D.C.: What is Blanco contributing to the club right now? I know he is a Rule V player, so if we "option" him down (or whatever the formal word is) we would most likely have to return him to his former team; but is he really worth a roster spot? Does he have some sort of potential that us fans are unaware of? Maybe you could explicate Blanco's situation for me. Thanks.
Barry Svrluga: Sure. When the team kept Blanco out of spring training, it wasn't expecting to be in contention this late in the season. In an ideal world, he would be playing every day at Class AA Harrisburg or maybe Class AAA New Orleans right now.
But the reason he's here: He can hit. There's no way he can show it right now without consistent at-bats, but if he's served a fastball, watch out. The Nationals feel his potential is too great to give up on now.
Svrlugaville, Fla.: Was at the Nats game on Saturday night and saw Marlon Byrd make 2 outstanding plays in the field. If Church gets healthy and continues to hit, it looks like Byrd is the odd man out. Will Bowden try to trade him while he has value, or let him go somewhere in the offseason? And - did anyone find his Caddy yet???
Barry Svrluga: Hello, Svrlugaville. The search for Byrd's Escalade is still on, and he's still unhappy about it. As for his job: Keep in mind that he and Church platoon, and that Church hasn't played regularly against lefties yet. So I think Byrd will keep his old job when Church gets back.
Now, could he be packaged in a trade for a pitcher? Absolutely.
Gambier, D.C.: If they put Wil Cordero on the DL (when Vidro returns) as it has been rumored, is there a chance of "rehabing" him in the minors at New Orleans or something so that he can get some every day at-bats to find his batter's eye again and maybe be able to return to the club (in his PH role) when rosters expand in September?
Barry Svrluga: That's a possiblity. He also could be just released. It's all up for debate until Vidro is ready to return, which won't be for two weeks. But the driving force in all of this is the fact that Cordero is 1 for 28 on the season. One single. Last night's sac fly. And that's it.
Burke, Va.: How about that Guillen? He's hurt, he plays, he scores ... Without a doubt his teammates have to take notice of that. Anybody express their love or respect in the locker room last night? Are the guys noticing the leadership by example?
Barry Svrluga: Indeed, teammates notice that Guillen likes to play, wants to play, will play if there's anyway possible. Was there any outward sign of appreciation last night? No. But that's not really how this team goes about things. Wilkerson's the same way. After each game for the last week, he's had his right forearm wrapped up and his left shoulder wrapped up. He looks rather like a mummy. Yet he keeps playing.
Washington, D.C.: So, Boswell writes a column warning Church that if he doesn't cowboy up, he's not going to be allowed to join "the lodge."
Then you write an article letting us know that Johnson and Guillen are hurt and the team is looking for Church to step up.
Then last night's game arrives and Church sits and Guillen plays (after visiting our war wounded at Walter Reed, no less).
So what does it all mean?
Barry Svrluga: It's hard to say. Church is genuinely sore. But there are some in the clubhouse who wonder if other guys might play with the same injury. Each guy responds differently, and the doctors say Church's injury is completely legitimate. Was Guillen's not as bad? Apparently so.
Washington, D.C.: from the O's notebook: --- Baltimore is a destination Burnett would accept because his wife is from the area.
"We certainly would discuss the Orioles or other clubs that lie in that geographical region," Braunecker said.---reading that last quote, it sounds like Burnett's agent is talking about a deal to bring him here to D.C. ... am I crazy?
Barry Svrluga: I thought the same thing when I read it this morning. The problem: They're looking to sign a lucrative longterm deal, and this franchise -- with no ownership -- isn't equipped to do that quite yet. So while in the longterm Burnett might not mind playing in Washington, I don't think a longterm deal could get done without a new owner.
Falls Church, Va.: Hey Barry,
Amid all the hoopla over whether Derrek Lee has a shot at the Triple Crown, the guys over at Baseball Prospectus suggest today that Cristian Guzman could win the Anti-Triple Crown (last in average, home runs and RBIs among those with enough plate appearances).
Guzman is last in average (by 19 points) and near the bottom in RBIs. He does have three HRs, which could hurt his chances.
Whatever Jim Bowden has done well this year, signing Guzman to a four-year deal reeks of long-term disaster.
Barry Svrluga: You are correct. I keep saying that if only Guzman would do what he normally did in Minnesota, he'd be fine. But it's to the point where it looks like that won't happen this year. He got hot about a weak ago, going 9 for 20 over one span, but now has cooled right back off again, and cool for him is like the Ice Age.
Four years, $16.8 million seems like a lot right now (though he did make a key defensive play in gunning down a runner at the plate last night).
London, U.K.: "retired the side in order" -- Exactly what does that mean?
Barry Svrluga: Hello, old chap.
That means a 1-2-3 inning; three up, three down.
Arlington, Va.: Public Service Announcement: I just found this out yesterday, but apparently all government employees can get the $10 outfield reserved seats for $7 on games played from Monday-Thursday. Sure, they're not the greatest seats, but $7 to watch a game is hard to beat. Apparently, this promotion has been active since May (and unfortunately it ends tomorrow). The fact that more people aren't aware of this and other Nats promotions is only a testament to the fact that the MASN/Comcast/Cox mess hurts this team immeasurably.
Barry Svrluga: I agree with you on the MASN/Comcast mess affecting that kind of thing. But I also believe the team could do a better job of using the media to get this message across. I ran a note about this promotion when it began in May, but there have been several instances when there is stuff like this going on that the club doesn't seem to publicize.
For instance: Did you know that Luis Ayala and radio announcer Charlie Slowes were at ESPN Zone on Monday for a Q and A and autograph session? I sure didn't. If I had, I would have mentioned it so the public could know.
All The World Is a Svrluga: Nats Web site is saying today that Zach Day will go on the trade block as soon as he's healthy. Maybe that's a foregone conclusion, but do you get the impression that Zach also wants outta here in lieu of The Frank Factor.
By the way, Oh heralded Svrluga -- there are 7 Panera locations in Chicago. A must for your travel planning.
Barry Svrluga: If all the world was a Svrluga, we would have major, major problems.
Day, indeed, could absolutely be used as trade bait, and Colorado and Cincinnati could be prime destinations. But there's still a chance that he remains here and pitches for this club. Keep in mind: It's unlikely this team will have its rotation stay healthy and effective the rest of the way.
The top pitching targets available right now appear to be Jason Schmidt in San Francisco and Jason Jennings in Colorado. Schmidt has a club option for something like $10 million for next year, which the Nationals could buy out for $3.5 million. But will the Giants part with him, and will the Nationals -- even with Day included -- have enough to pry him loose? I doubt it.
15th and L: Barry, thanks for the chat as always. Question, most of us have seen the ads in the post urging us to call Comcast, Cox, Adelphia etc., to implore them to carry MASN. What is confusing to me is that these ads have the Washington Nationals logo on them. This implies that the Nationals ownership (MLB) and front office (Tavares) endorse the actions these ads implore us to take. Can you confirm that Tony T. endorses these ads? I for one will NOT being calling anyone to carry MASN. Thanks!
Barry Svrluga: Indeed, the team wants its games on TV, no question. Tavares and the Nationals aren't as concerned with who broadcasts them but that they're broadcasted in some way, shape or form. So yes, they endorse the ads.
Washington, D.C.: Now that we have basically ended the stupid "O" outburst during the National Anthem, there is another issue we need to face head on. People need to stop wearing shirts of teams not playing in the game to the game. When you go to a Nats game, the only appropriate attire is Nats stuff or of the team playing. Dont wear a Red Sox t-shirt to the Nats-Pittsburgh game or a Mark McGuire Cards jersey when the Nats arent playing the Cards. Why do people do this? Just because you are going to a baseball game doesnt mean you should wear baseball stuff. I just don't get it.
Barry Svrluga: I will throw it out there, Washington, and people can chew on it.
Washington, D.C.: The Nats are supposedly among the teams scouting Jason Schmidt. What could the Nats possibly offer to land a top-flight starter like Schmidt?
Barry Svrluga: As I just mentioned, it's hard for me to imagine this one, just because of the price needed in return. Schmidt, when healthy, is one of the N.L.'s best pitchers. The Nationals farm system is bereft of talent, and Bowden is pledging to be cautious about trading the few marketable players he has there. I hate to keep pointing to Terrmel Sledge's injury as one that hinders the club in the trade market, but it really does. Sledge/Church are similar guys, both left-handed hitting outfielders, and one would have been expendable. Now, though, Bowden is reluctant to trade Church.
The Beltway: Those of us here in the DC-area appreciate what a very special team we have here. But, do you get a sense from the writers and broadcasters you meet from other cities that the Nats get any attention or respect for what they are accomplishing?
Barry Svrluga: I think, right now, the Nationals are a little bit of an oddity/curiousity. People from other towns seem to think, "Hmm, they're having a nice little run. I wonder how they do it with that lineup." It's a legitimate question.
The respect the Nationals gain will be from staying in the race. If we're having this discussion in the middle of August, I'd say there'll be plenty of respect to go around.
Washington, D.C.: 2:11 shortest game? I assume you mean for the Nationals, 'cause the white sox and mariners played a game in 1:39 earlier this season.
Barry Svrluga: Yes, for the Nationals.
Crestwood, D.C.: When is Joey Eischen expected to return? Are there any lefty set-up men on the block this month that the Nats might pursue?
Barry Svrluga: Eischen is eligible to come off the disabled list on July 1, which is Friday. He's in New Orleans rehabbing right now. I'm going to check on his progress today.
Neither a Cardinals nor Cubs fan...: But nonetheless I think it's nice to see apparel from other teams. I'm a Nationals fan and if I were going to some random game in another city I wouldn't mind wearing some Nationals apparel. Lots of people do summer ballpark tours and stuff like that and I am sure Washington has been added to a lot of such trips this year.
And Barry, if you're already at RFK at this hour I can't help wondering what time you have to get there for an afternoon game.
Barry Svrluga: Ah, the fashion commentary continues.
For tomorrow's afternoon game, I likely won't get here until about 10 a.m. Love those night-day turnarounds.
Chicago, Ill.: Question: Lots of DCers in this town. Do you think the Nats will have any fan base at crazy Wrigley this weekend?
Something you need to know:
The only Panera near the downtown hotels and Wrigley is located at Clark and Diversey. Yum.
Great meatloaf at SWK. Near your hotel ...
Barry Svrluga: I have seen Nationals fans in almost every city, but particularly in Pittsburgh last week. Chicago? I'm not sure. That's pretty staunch Cubs territory, no? I'll let you know next week.
Thanks for the recommendations. But how in the world do you know where I'm staying?
New Jersey Ave.: The Schmidt trade could work. The Giants need someone to replace Ray Durham who's best days are behind him. Trade Armas and an infielder (Spivey?) for Schmidt
Barry Svrluga: I'll pass this on to Mr. Bowden.
Wooster, Ohio: Hey Mr. Barry,
How is Nats pitching coach St. Claire regarded? What's his background?
Barry Svrluga: St. Claire, who has done a superb job with an ever-changing pitching staff this year, is respected as a detail-oriented guy. He pitched in the majors for parts of nine seasons with Montreal, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Atlanta and Toronto. Want to know how the Braves started on their run back in 1991? Ask St. Claire, who was a member of the first Atlanta staff to win a divisional title during that time.
Other Jerseys: I can't say I mind people wearing jerseys of teams not playing at the ballpark. This happens all the time at hockey games (remember those). DC is a town of transplants, so of course people still root a little for hometown teams. Besides, those jerseys are expensive -- a good jersey is now the price of a cheap suit.
Rosslyn, Va.: Have the Nationals made any forays into Latin America to replenish the farm system? I thought I read that Bowden had targeted a guy down there. I know that Jose Rijo has a Dominican academy of note, anything of value come from there or elsewhere yet?
Barry Svrluga: The Nationals are taking the money they would have spent on their second and third round draft picks (which they lost because they signed Vinny Castilla and Cristian Guzman as free agents) on developing players in Latin America. Bowden and Rijo have several prospects they're excited about, but these kids are just 16 or 17 years old. I hope to explore this issue more in the future.
Ballston, Va.: Actually, what I hate is when people wear different sports' stuff to a baseball game. For example, I always see Steelers fans at Pirates (and previously at Penguins) games. Hello, morons, you're at the wrong place for football ...
Barry Svrluga: So keep those Redskins jerseys at home, Ballston?
Washington, D.C.: Has anyone ever come out and definitively told the press what got Guillen essentially booted from the Angels last year? Since no players protested it at the time, I always assumed that he had to be horrible in the clubhouse and that the problem was beyond a tiff with his manager. But now this year I hear nothing but great things about what he brings to the clubhouse.
Was there any specific incident or was it Scoscia just being petty over some minor stuff?
Barry Svrluga: It absolutely was a specific incident in which Guillen tossed his batting helmet toward Scioscia when he was removed for a pinch runner, and the two got into a heated shouting match in front of Guillen's locker after the game. Keep in mind: Guillen has been tremendous to this point, but his history is such that he much be watched throughout the entire season.
But there's no telling where this club woudl be without him.
Arlington, Va.: I know the rumor is that you are working on a book possibly about this season. If so, I'm hoping you can note how this Nationals team seem to embody the USA in general. Think about some of the great moments in our history, for example ... The Revolutionary War (outmanned Americans against the "superior" Brits ... given no chance), the 1980 US Hockey Team victory (they didn't "deserve" to win). The list goes on and on. I just think this team is what america is about ... totally different people, working hard and together as a team against the odds to accomplish something THEY believe is possible.
Barry Svrluga: A tear to my eye, Arlington. I have never before thought of the 1980 Olympic hockey team and the American Revolution as closely tied together.
Indeed, I hope the book will tell about the characters on this team and the spirit that they seem to have, as well as the process of moving a team to a new city. But it's an unfinished product right now. The story is still to be told.
No fashion police : Look, when I go up to the Phillies/Dodgers game, you better believe I'm wearing my Nationals hat. If I have picked out the perfect shirt by then, I'll wear that. If not, perhaps just a Bryd/Nationals jersey.
Barry Svrluga: Who knew this topic would have staying power?
Re: Player Appearances: Brad Wilkerson was also at a Sprint Store in Alexandria on Monday to sign autographs.
Barry Svrluga: Who knew? Not us.
Herndon, Va.: As per Tom Davis/George Soros. How about MLB giving up its Anti-Trust exemption then it wouldn't have to worry about congress?
Barry Svrluga: A valid point.
Alexandria, Va.: Tony Armas has been like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of late. Given Frank's lack of patience with shaky starters why doesn't he give Sunny Kim a shot to replace Armas? Kim has pitched pretty well when given the chance.
Barry Svrluga: I think Armas will be watched closely. He has to start producing and being more consistent to truly stabilize the rotation. Everybody keeps talking about how good his "stuff" can be. Well, he needs to show it, or someone -- Kim, Zach Day, a traded player -- might replace him in the rotation sometime in the next month. Hernandez can't win every single one of his starts to make up for others' inconsistencies, can he?
Barry Svrluga: Folks, thanks for your questions, and again, I apologize to those I didn't get to. Rosslyn, Va., I think you set a record for sending in the most questions in one chat, and I wanted to make sure I spread the answers around.
Enjoy the holiday weekend, and I'll talk to you again next week, when I'll be back at RFK for the series against the Mets.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate. | 169.219512 | 0.682927 | 0.829268 | high | low | abstractive | 4,806 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400677.html/ | https://web.archive.org/web/2005063019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400677.html/ | On the Road to Cutting Settlement Time and Cost | 2033-07-15T17:56:59 | Is there any hope for simplifying the paper-laden, costly and often confusing American system of closing a home mortgage? Can anybody help straighten out the mess?
Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson thinks so and is expected to lay out a road map soon on how to do it. The new effort, which will begin with a series of national forums for consumer and industry groups in mid-July, is expected to culminate in a new set of proposals to streamline the entire loan application and closing process. Hearings focused on the concerns of small businesses in the mortgage settlement field are planned for Los Angeles, Chicago and Dallas-Fort Worth later this summer.
Jackson and his top aides at the Housing and Urban Development Department say they want to hear from everybody with a good idea. They also emphasize that they are not wedded to proposals first floated in 2002 that ultimately were withdrawn under congressional and industry lobby pressure.
Here are some of the broad areas of inquiry the upcoming reform efforts are likely to pursue:
· How can 11th-hour surprises on settlement fees be eliminated or reduced? Thousands of borrowers have complained to federal regulators that they were given "good faith estimates" of total transaction fees by their loan officers that turned out to be low-balled -- hundreds or thousands of dollars less than what they were asked to pay at the final closing.
Federal truth-in-lending rules require good faith estimates be provided within three business days of a loan application. But no federal law requires lenders, brokers, title or escrow companies, lawyers, appraisers or other vendors to stand behind their estimates. As a result, title insurance and settlement fees estimated up front at $2,000 routinely morph into charges of $3,000 to $4,000 on the final settlement sheet. Lender charges can suddenly balloon by $1,000 or more, thanks to previously undisclosed "junk fees" for processing, commitment, document preparation and a wide array of creative, last-minute items.
· Can transferring all or most of the responsibility for paying for these services to lenders themselves lessen the problem? Should lenders or other service providers be encouraged to roll all loan, title, appraisal and settlement-related charges into a single number that they can quote -- and guarantee -- to loan shoppers up front?
Rather than getting simply a rate quote from a lender, you would get a comprehensive quote covering the whole deal. For example, you might be quoted a 30-year fixed interest rate of 5.75 percent, plus guaranteed settlement charges of $3,500. If costs exceed the $3,500 estimate, it would be the guarantor's problem, not yours.
Some lenders already offer fixed-fee packages, most notably ABN-Amro Mortgage Corp. and GMAC's Ditech.com subsidiary. Bank of America also offers a variation to its customers that eliminates all lender and settlement charges except title insurance. Consumers seem to like the simplicity: ABN-Amro says it closed half a billion dollars worth of "one-fee" mortgages during May alone.
· Can the total costs of the settlement process be sharply reduced? Almost nobody doubts that the answer is yes. Take title insurance, for example. One of the largest items at closing, title insurance premiums are poorly understood by the home buyers who pay them. In many areas of the country, 80 percent or more of title premiums go to the settlement or title agency, and often get split with realty brokers. In other words, just 20 percent of the premium actually pays for the insurance policy itself.
Nobody in the pipeline tells consumers where their premiums really are going or the true cost of the product they are buying. But enlightened home buyers and refinancers can demand -- and get -- lower premiums. Cutting out the fat in that area alone, especially the lucrative splits with the realty firms who steer business to affiliated title and escrow companies, could save billions of dollars a year.
But that big money currently pays for entrenched lobbies at the state legislative and congressional levels that are pledged to preserve the profitable status quo.
The key question facing settlement-cost reformers in the months ahead therefore may not be: Can we streamline the system and reduce fees? More likely it is this: Can we cut through the protective thicket of lobbyists and political allies who like things just the way they are and are determined to keep them that way?
Kenneth R. Harney's e-mail address [email protected]. | Is there any hope for simplifying the paper-laden, costly and often confusing American system of closing a home mortgage? Can anybody help straighten out the mess? | 27.580645 | 1 | 31 | medium | high | extractive | 4,807 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401414.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401414.html | Taking On the Lenders and the Feds | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | A home will not become a home if you have to fight your way past predatory lenders and a two-tiered banking system to get one. That may be the plight of many African American bank customers in New York who want to achieve the American dream of homeownership, at least according to the state's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, who has launched a mortgage lending investigation after analyzing lending data obtained under the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.
As explained in a court filing this week, the Spitzer inquiry discovered "substantial racial disparities in interest rates charged by various banks on their New York State loans." The data, according to the attorney general's office, "revealed that at Wells Fargo, African American customers were 3 times more likely to receive high cost loans; at JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup, African American customers were nearly 2 times more likely to receive high cost loans, and at HSBC . . . African American customers were about 1.5 times as likely to receive such loans." Under New York state's anti-discrimination laws, Spitzer's office said, that data establishes a prima facie case of race-based discrimination in credit offerings.
"But wait, that's New York state, and Spitzer is a Democrat running hard for governor," you may be thinking. "What does any of this have to do with Washington?" Well, plenty.
It so happens that Washington believes New York has no business sticking its nose into the business of national banks doing business in the Empire State. That view, expressed by the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, also applies to the Union's 49 other states.
The OCC says it reached out to Spitzer last month to see how they each could work in a complementary way to uphold anti-discrimination lending laws, but he wouldn't play ball. The federal agency feels so strongly about keeping New York away from single-handedly investigating racial disparities in home mortgage lending by the big banks that it went to federal court with the representatives of the big banks last week and asked that Spitzer be stopped in his tracks with a temporary restraining order. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency claimed that the New Yorker's probe "creates confusion and uncertainty" and undermines the OCC's ability to do its job. But Judge Sidney H. Stein of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan refused to block Spitzer's review.
Folks living beyond the Hudson River may be wondering what's going on. Is this a federal-state turf battle or, as Spitzer charges, an example of the banks enjoying "the cozy embrace of their would-be national regulator?"
For the record, I worked nearly 10 years for a national bank, so I'm familiar with the OCC's supervisory responsibilities for the national banking system. And until last year my wife was a director of a West Coast mortgage lending institution. I know that some lending disparities are based on more than race and that they can be explained. Apparently so does Spitzer, who has asked the banks to provide, on a voluntary basis, their explanatory data for scrutiny by his office.
Spitzer's position is straightforward: A national bank engaging in discriminatory loan pricing in violation of state anti-discrimination laws shouldn't be shielded by the federal government. What's more, he suggests that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is hardly a ball of fire when it comes to anti-discrimination enforcement; It has no history of pursuing civil rights enforcement in New York, according to Spitzer's press secretary, Juanita Scarlett. Contrast the OCC's record with that of Spitzer, who since 1999, Scarlett said, has settled about a dozen cases against major financial institutions for engaging in predatory lending practices targeting minorities, the elderly and poor people.
So what to do? It's simply not enough for Washington to charge that Spitzer is politicizing the lending discrimination issue because of his race for the statehouse in Albany. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, in the face of the HMDA loan pricing data, has a duty to review the material and act where required.
But is that now the case?
Is the OCC's approach to banks today closer to that of a trade industry leader than that of a federal regulator? In a speech last fall before the Consumer Bankers Association, acting Comptroller of the Currency Julie L. Williams warned her audience that the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act required bankers to publicly report new and more detailed data concerning their home mortgage lending business. Higher-priced loans for the first time had to be reported by race, ethnicity, income level and gender, and the racial and ethnic composition and income level of the census tract in which the property is located. The thrust of her message to the bankers: "Be prepared."
A failure of preparedness, Williams warned, could be costly, not only for individual banks but for the entire industry. She observed that "a failure to adequately address a compliance risk issue can create reputation risk implosion that can wound an institution's business prospects, torpedo its stock price and in some cases prove mortal to its ability to continue an existing franchise."
And of course she's right. The banking industry's reputation is at stake. But what, pray tell, about those people for whom home ownership is placed out of reach because of a bank's unfair lending practices? Is Washington as riled up about that?
Which may help explain why Eliot Spitzer is challenging the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and intervening, on behalf of consumers, with lenders -- even in court if necessary. Would that Washington cared as much. | A home will not become a home if you have to fight your way past predatory lenders and a two-tiered banking system to get one. That may be the plight of many African American bank customers in New York who want to achieve the American dream of homeownership, at least according to the state's... | 18.266667 | 0.983333 | 58.016667 | medium | high | extractive | 4,808 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401696.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401696.html | Hard-Line Tehran Mayor Wins Iranian Presidency | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | TEHRAN, June 25 -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard-line mayor of Tehran who has invoked Iran's 1979 revolution and expressed doubts about rapprochement with the United States, won a runoff election Friday and was elected president of the Islamic republic in a landslide, the Interior Ministry announced early Saturday.
Ahmadinejad defeated Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former two-term president who had won the first round of voting last week and was attempting to appeal to socially moderate and reform-minded voters.
Ahmadinejad's election stands to complicate Iran's gradual engagement with the West, including difficult negotiations over the country's nuclear program. The apparent victory completes the domination of Iran's elective offices by the religious fundamentalists who have long held ultimate authority in the theocracy.
"Today is the beginning of a new political era," Ahmadinejad said as he cast his ballot in a working-class neighborhood of Tehran, the capital, where he has been mayor for two years.
In an allusion to occasions when he joined street sweepers in a show of populism, a hallmark of his presidential bid, he added: "I am proud of being the Iranian nation's little servant and street sweeper."
With 85 percent of votes counted, a spokesman for the Guardian Council, which oversees Iran's electoral process, said returns showed Ahmadinejad leading with 61.8 percent of the vote, to 35.7 for Rafsanjani. Officials said 47 percent of eligible voters turned out, down from 63 percent in the first round.
The Guardian Council is the most activist of three panels of self-appointed, mostly hard-line clerics whose authority outstrips that of any elected official in Iran. Last year, the Guardian Council used its power to bar all reformers from running for parliament.
Rafsanjani, 70, a senior statesman, Shiite cleric and business tycoon, carried the banner of the reformist movement whose leader, President Mohammad Khatami, must leave office after two consecutive terms.
Khatami's eight-year struggle against Iran's clerical hard-liners transformed the nation's political landscape but failed to produce structural change.
"The people actually did test the reformists during the last eight years, but they didn't see much from them," said Rohollah Samimi, 23, as he prepared to vote for Ahmadinejad. "So people here decided to return to the people who are promoting revolutionary values and see if they can bring about change."
[In Washington, a State Department spokeswoman, Joanne Moore, told the Associated Press that the result would not change the U.S. view of Iran.
[ "With the conclusion of the elections in Iran, we have seen nothing that sways us from our view that Iran is out of step with the rest of the region in the currents of freedom and liberty that have been so apparent in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon," Moore said.] | Victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could complicate Iran's gradual engagement with the West, including difficult nuclear negotiations. | 29.052632 | 0.947368 | 6.842105 | medium | high | mixed | 4,809 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401636.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401636.html | Price Soars For Extension Of Metrorail | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | The engineering firms developing the plan to extend Metrorail through Tysons Corner told Virginia transportation leaders yesterday that the project as envisioned will probably cost $2.4 billion, a 60 percent increase over the previous estimate and a price that far outstrips the carefully negotiated financing agreement.
Project leaders said they would immediately start work on revising the scope of the construction to reduce that figure, but it was not immediately clear how much cost-cutting would be feasible.
"There's no way we can build a project that costs that much money," Sam Carnaggio, the state's project director of the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project, said of the $2.4 billion figure. "Now's the time to separate the needs from the wants."
The escalating estimate creates an array of political and practical complications for government and civic leaders in Northern Virginia, who have called the project a top priority for the traffic-choked region.
The project eventually would extend 23 miles from West Falls Church through Dulles International Airport, but planners have split it into two phases, the first through Tysons, because of concerns about the cost.
The engineering firms reported yesterday that the cost of the Tysons rail portion could be held at about $1.7 billion, an increase of roughly 15 percent, but only by altering the project in several significant ways, including replacing the proposed mile-long tunnel through Tysons with above-ground tracks, eliminating two pedestrian bridges to the stations on Route 123, reducing train platform sizes and deviating from Metrorail construction standards.
It is too early to tell whether the changes, outlined by the engineering group known as Dulles Transit Partners, would be acceptable to Fairfax County, the state and Metro, all of which have a stake in the outcome. Officials said they were reviewing the proposals.
The first phase of the line would extend from West Falls Church through Tysons to Wiehle Avenue, in the Reston area. Opponents have criticized the segment as far too pricey, given that it is likely to attract about 15,100 new daily riders. Metro averages nearly 660,000 passengers daily.
Yesterday's report is likely to be seized upon by those who have been calling for the rail money to be spent instead for roads, innovative bus systems or other transportation solutions.
"This should come as a wake-up call," said William Vincent, an advocate for a system known as Bus Rapid Transit, which has buses running in dedicated lanes and stopping at stations in a manner similar to trains. "It demonstrates the need once again to come up with a more cost-effective strategy."
Under the financing plan for the Tysons portion, which previously had been estimated to cost $1.5 billion, about half the money would come from the federal government, about one-quarter from Dulles Toll Road collections and other state revenue, and about one-quarter from commercial property owners along the train route, who have agreed to pay a special real estate tax.
The new cost estimates were made as engineers develop more detailed drawings for the project, in a phase known as preliminary engineering. | The plan to extend Orange Line from Tysons Corner to Dulles will probably cost $2.4 billion, a 60 percent increase over the estimate. | 22.884615 | 0.961538 | 7.5 | medium | high | mixed | 4,810 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401022.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401022.html | Retesting Reveals Mad Cow Case | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | New tests have confirmed that a Texas animal that federal officials earlier declared to be free of mad cow disease did have the brain-wasting ailment, the U.S. Agriculture Department announced yesterday.
The definitive testing, done in England over the past two weeks, showed that the ailing animal, first flagged as suspicious in November, was infected with mad cow disease. The animal was retested after the USDA's inspector general requested the additional check because of continuing concerns about the sample dismissed by the agency.
USDA Secretary Mike Johanns said that officials are just now trying to learn more about the origins of the animal, but that there is no indication that it was imported, as was the only other animal to test positive for the disease in the United States. That would make the newly identified animal the first born in this country found to have mad cow disease.
Johanns sought yesterday to assure consumers that U.S. beef is safe, and that any suspect beef would have been kept off supermarket shelves.
But he acknowledged a number of embarrassing mistakes and oversights by the agency. In addition to misdiagnosing the diseased sample, officials apparently mislabeled the sample that tested positive, officials said. According to USDA's chief veterinarian, John Clifford, a tag describing the breed of the infected animal was apparently mislabeled, an error that has slowed the process of determining where the animal came from.
The lab in Weybridge, England, considered the world's best, made the diagnosis using two tests -- including one the USDA used when it declared the animal disease-free. USDA officials previously said that the diseased animal escaped their notice because they performed only an immunohistochemistry test, or IHC, and not a Western blot test. Yesterday, Johanns said that the Weybridge lab found the sample to be positive for mad cow disease using both types of test.
Johanns said that from now on, the agency will use both tests on all samples found to be suspicious on an initial, rapid screening test for the disease. About 388,000 animals have been subjected to that test, and only three have been found to be suspicious, Johanns said.
Scientists believe that mad cow disease is spread through the feeding of infected animal parts to other cattle. The United States banned that kind of feed in 1997, and Johanns said he believes the infected animal was born before that time.
In very rare cases, the disease has been passed on to humans who eat the infected meat, and the result was always fatal. There have been no known cases of the human variant of mad cow disease in this country.
Yesterday's announcement drew immediate and sharp criticism of the administration's handling of mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The beef industry lost billions of dollars in exports when the first mad cow case was found, and critics said the administration has sought to minimize additional threats to protect the industry from a second crisis.
Over the past week, some industry representatives had questioned the inspector general's authority to order the additional tests that ultimately found the positive sample, and Johanns publicly agreed with some of their criticism.
"Now we know why USDA resisted having the suspect animal subjected to the most sophisticated BSE test," said Carol Tucker Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America. "They were afraid the truth would come out. The public and the industry know that this animal was infected with BSE only because the USDA office of inspector general insisted that the additional test be done." | New tests have confirmed that a Texas animal that federal officials earlier declared to be free of mad cow disease did have the brain-wasting ailment, the U.S. Agriculture Department announced yesterday. | 18.666667 | 0.972222 | 17.361111 | medium | high | extractive | 4,811 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400484.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400484.html | Italy Seeks Arrests of 13 in Alleged Rendition | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | MILAN, June 24 -- Italian authorities said Friday they have issued arrest warrants against 13 American intelligence operatives, charging that they kidnapped a radical Islamic cleric as he walked to a mosque here two years ago, held him hostage at two U.S. military bases and then covertly flew him to Cairo. He later said he was tortured by Egyptian security police.
The case marks the first known instance of a foreign government filing criminal charges against U.S. operatives for their alleged role in an overseas counterterrorism mission. Coming from a longtime ally, Italy, which has worked closely with the U.S. government to fight terrorism and has sent troops to Iraq, the charges reflect growing unease in Europe about some U.S. tactics against suspected Islamic terrorists.
There was no sign that any of the Americans was currently in Italy; the identities that many of them used in Italy appear to be cover names. An Italian official said the government would ask the United States for "judicial assistance" but did not specify whether it would seek extradition of the 13.
The warrants, approved by an Italian judge Thursday, followed a two-year investigation by prosecutors and police in Milan into the Feb. 17, 2003, disappearance of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar. A veteran of military training camps in Bosnia and Afghanistan, Nasr was a longtime surveillance target of Italian counterterrorism police, who have made no secret of their frustration over how he was forcibly taken out of the country without their knowledge.
Italian prosecutors have concluded that Nasr was the target of a top-secret operation that the CIA calls an "extraordinary rendition." It is the forcible and highly secretive transfer of terrorism suspects to their home countries or other nations where they can be interrogated without the same legal protections available to them in the United States or the places from which they were removed.
Michael Scheuer, a former senior counterterrorism official at the CIA, said details provided by the Italians suggest that the Nasr case was not a CIA operation. He also said the agency would never approve a kidnapping in Italy.
According to Italian court documents, investigators in Milan determined that Nasr was kidnapped just after noon by eight U.S. operatives as he was walking from his house to a nearby mosque to pray. He was bundled into a van and taken to Aviano Air Base, a joint Italian-U.S. military installation. Hours later, he was put on a Learjet to Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where he was transferred to another airplane, which took him to Cairo, the documents show.
The documents also show that the Americans spent more than $100,000 to stay in luxury hotels in Milan, Florence and Venice before and after Nasr's disappearance.
Italian investigators believe that Nasr was released from jail in Egypt, at least temporarily. A year after his disappearance, he called home to his wife and colleagues in Milan and said he had been kidnapped by Americans and tortured with electric shocks by Egyptian security police, according to wiretap transcripts of the calls, the documents said.
The CIA and the U.S. Embassy in Rome declined to comment Friday. State Department spokesman J. Adam Ereli told reporters, "I don't have any facts or comments for you about those reports." The State Department also said any extradition requests from Italy would be handled by the Justice Department.
According to Italian court documents, police and prosecutors in Milan identified 19 Americans, four of them women, whom they suspected of playing a role in the kidnapping, although only 13 were charged with a crime. Investigators relied on cell phone records, hotel registries, car rental receipts, electronic highway toll passes and other documents to determine the identities of the Americans, according to the documents.
Milan prosecutors state in the documents that although they could independently confirm that only one of those named in the warrants was a CIA operative, the overall findings "allow us to attribute the kidnapping with certainty to the CIA." | MILAN, June 24 -- Italian authorities said Friday they have issued arrest warrants against 13 American intelligence operatives, charging that they kidnapped a radical Islamic cleric as he walked to a mosque here two years ago, held him hostage at two U.S. military bases and then covertly flew him to... | 14 | 0.981481 | 52.018519 | low | high | extractive | 4,812 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401597.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401597.html | Marvel, DC Duel At the Box Office | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | Suppose Batman and the Fantastic Four are standing at an intersection and get into a fight. Who wins?
An age-old comic book fight is being renewed this summer, and it's not the struggle of good against evil -- it's the jostling for revenue and prestige between rival comic companies and their fictional universes.
Crime-fighter Batman, after all, is an employee of DC Comics Inc., a division of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. His latest adventure on the big screen, "Batman Begins," kicked off as the No. 1 flick last week and took in a not-bad $48.7 million in its opening weekend. "Fantastic Four," which opens July 8, belongs to Marvel Enterprises Inc.'s comics.
The difference between DC and Marvel used to be one of those cultural dividing lines -- a slightly geekier version of the Beatles-vs.-the-Stones question. The decline of comic books since the 1970s made the issue largely irrelevant, but video games, online role-playing games and new movies are bringing the classic DC-Marvel conflict back to life.
Superman is on his way back to the big screen, as is his DC colleague Wonder Woman. Marvel, riding high off its major successes with the "X-Men" and "Spider-Man" movies, is digging deep into its catalogue and working on screen adaptations of Iron Man, Submariner, Thor, Silver Surfer and others. Marvel's "Ghost Rider," starring Nicolas Cage as motorcycle stunt performer Johnny Blaze, is set for a release next summer.
To keep the revenue stream flowing, both companies have deals to develop "massively multi-player" online games, virtual universes of Marvel or DC characters that fans will pay a monthly fee to inhabit through their computers or game consoles. DC announced an agreement with Sony Online Entertainment for such a game last week; Marvel has a deal for such a game with Vivendi Universal Games.
Many credit Marvel Studios chief executive Avi Arad for launching comic-book heroes into a new age of profitability. When Arad, a former toymaker from Israel, took the reins in the late 1990s, he immediately started trying to drum up Hollywood attention and scored an early surprise hit with Blade, about an African American character who also happens to be half-vampire.
When Arad began offering his characters to the major studios, it was "absolutely not obvious" to moviemakers that audiences had any interest in seeing superheroes anymore. "When I started, forget it -- it was tough, it was banging on doors," he said.
For Arad, the box-office success of the X-Men and Spider-Man, with two hit movies apiece and more sequels on the way, is lucrative vindication that Marvel's characters still have life and relevance in today's pop culture. "These are very good times for us," he said of his once-broke company. "Now we have a lot of money in the bank."
DC is playing a bit of catch-up, though executives at DC and Warner Bros. are quick to point out that they have been more successful on the small screen, with the TV show "Smallville" and several animated series airing on Cartoon Network. What's more, since its TV and film projects are filmed by studios and aired on networks owned by Warner Bros., DC gets to keep more profit than Marvel does on its projects.
But DC Comics' most valuable property, Superman, has not struck big-screen pay dirt since the Christopher Reeve movies two decades ago. "Batman Begins" is the first time Bruce Wayne has gotten onto the big screen since "Batman & Robin" flopped in 1997.
That last movie "killed the franchise for eight years," said Chuck Dixon, who wrote Batman comics for over a decade. He skipped "Batman & Robin" even though it featured a villain he co-created called Bane. The character went on to become "a pasta shape in Spaghetti-Os, which means a lot more to me than the appearance in that awful movie," he said. | Washington, DC, Virginia, Maryland business news headlines with stock portfolio and market news, economy, government/tech policy, mutual funds, personal finance. Dow Jones, S&P 500, NASDAQ quotes. Features top DC, VA, MD businesses, company research tools | 15.745098 | 0.372549 | 0.411765 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,813 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401932.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401932.html | Nats, Loaiza Are in Good Company | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | When Esteban Loaiza decided, finally, that the best way for him to secure a win would be to deliver the key hit himself, the fans in the box below Section 425 at RFK Stadium leapt to their feet. There was Condoleezza Rice -- sports fan, secretary of state -- standing and clapping. And sitting down in the corner to her right, munching on some ballpark food, was President Bush, the one fan no other team can boast.
By the time closer Chad Cordero finished out the Nationals' 3-0 victory over the Toronto Blue Jays on a balmy night in front of 36,689, Loaiza had posted six shutout innings and come up with a two-run double, Brad Wilkerson had added a solo homer, Bush and Rice had departed, and the club at the center of the free world still had a bit of a glow to it, what with the First Fan on hand.
"It was pretty cool, coming into the game and being able to look up in that box and see the president of the United States rooting for his home team," catcher Brian Schneider said. "There's no one else in the league that's going to be able to get that opportunity. It's just an awesome situation we're in."
In more ways than one. The victory was the Nationals' 11th straight at RFK, where they have now won 15 of their last 16 to push the best home record in the majors to 25-9. They extended their lead in the NL East to a season-high four games over the second-place Atlanta Braves, who leap-frogged the Philadelphia Phillies. They improved to 2-0 in front of Bush, who hadn't returned since April 14, the first major league game in Washington in 34 years.
And they did it behind Loaiza (3-5), who woke up last week with a stiff neck, a pain that extended to his upper back and caused him to miss his last start. It's a wonder, by that point, that he didn't have a throbbing headache, one caused by mulling over the utter lack of run support he has experienced all year. The numbers are remarkable: Loaiza's ERA of 3.87 entering last night was just a half run per game worse than that of ace Livan Hernandez (3.38), but Hernandez has 10 wins, and Loaiza entered last night with two.
"We don't score when he's out there," Manager Frank Robinson said, "for some reason."
So the solution was simple. Loaiza watched the first two batters reach in the bottom of the second, then, not surprisingly, looked on as Schneider lined weakly to second and shortstop Cristian Guzman hit a lazy fly to center. With Loaiza coming up, Toronto starter Josh Towers looked like he would be out of the inning. Except Towers made a mistake.
"Looked like to me," Robinson said, "he lost a little focus out there with the pitcher up."
And it cost him. Loaiza jumped on Towers's first pitch, pulling it into left field, scoring Vinny Castilla easily from second, and getting a 2-0 lead when Junior Spivey motored all the way in from first, Loaiza's first RBI since July 2, 1998.
"That was the big play in the game, no doubt," Wilkerson said. "If you lay it in the middle of the plate for him, he's going to hit it hard somewhere a lot of times."
Enough that his 1-for-2 night raised his average to .233, 30 points better than Guzman. And from there, Loaiza made it stand up. He allowed base runners all night, including runners on first and second with nobody out in the sixth. But he calmly and craftily pitched out of each situation, ending his evening by getting the heart of the Blue Jays' lineup -- Aaron Hill, Vernon Wells and Eric Hinske -- to pop out, strike out and ground out, respectively.
After he was lifted for a pinch hitter, Loaiza's fate lay in the hands of the Nationals' reliable bullpen. But to get this win, Luis Ayala had to relieve a shaky Gary Majewski in the seventh, and Ayala himself had to pitch out of a first-and-second mess in the eighth. That left it to Cordero, who notched yet another save -- his 24th, and 21st consecutive opportunity converted -- by pitching a 1-2-3 ninth, the last out recorded on a lunging grab by left fielder Marlon Byrd.
Thus, Loaiza, with his 103rd career win, became second only to Fernando Valenzuela in wins by a Mexican-born pitcher. "That gives me chills," Loaiza said.
And the Nationals found yet another way to win. A two-run double. By the pitcher. In front of the president.
"To tell you the truth," Schneider said, "I don't care if we go all year long finding all these crazy ways to win -- as long as we keep winning." | This is your source for info on Washington Nationals baseball. Learn about DC baseball at the RFK stadium. Get the latest schedule and stats for the Washington Nationals. Stay updated on the latest Washington Nationals news! | 23.069767 | 0.534884 | 0.627907 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,814 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401865.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401865.html | During Road Trip, Nats Players' Cars Broken Into at RFK | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | On Wednesday night, the Washington Nationals returned from their 10-day, three-city road trip still in first place in the National League East. They arrived at RFK Stadium by bus from Dulles Airport, grabbed their luggage and headed for their cars.
But when they arrived in the players' parking lot beyond the right field wall at RFK Stadium, they discovered that several of their cars had been broken into -- and that of outfielder Marlon Byrd had been stolen -- a breach of security that left several players angered and shaken.
"Bottom line, it was a [expletive] job done here by the people who work here, a [expletive] job here," Byrd said before last night's 3-0 victory over the Toronto Blue Jays. "There's no way that my car can be driven off the lot while we're out of town, and I get here, and I'm walking around looking for my car. Whoever's job it was, whoever's supposed to be doing that job, did not do their job."
The D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission, which manages the stadium, is responsible for security at the stadium, but commission officials could not say how many cars were broken into or when, exactly, the break-in occurred. "We have had a couple of incidents," commission chairman Mark Tuohey said last night. "We are looking into it. I have no further comment."
A security videotape captured four men entering the RFK lots in a black Dodge Ram extended cab truck at about 1:15 p.m. Monday and breaking into 11 vehicles, said D.C. Police Inspector Andy Solberg.
At least three men from the truck, which possibly had West Virginia license plates, worked quickly and efficiently -- "like a precision team" -- popping locks and scouring through vehicles for valuables, he said. The men completed the thefts within minutes, Solberg said, although they spent more than an hour traveling between two lots. The thieves took credit cards, cash, a jacket, gloves and CDs. The truck also hit a white Chevy Cavalier, damaging a rear bumper.
The lot was not locked during the time of the break-ins, police said.
Byrd's Cadillac Escalade was stolen from the stadium two days later. Police hope to enhance a copy of the video to help investigators identify the suspects.
According to a police source, the videotape showed that the thieves remained calm when trouble arose. When a passerby walked near three of the thieves, the men simply sat in one of the violated vehicles and waited until the passerby left the scene, the source said. The men then continued to rifle through the car, the source said.
Team officials said in addition to Byrd's stolen car, 12 vehicles in two separate lots were damaged -- seven owned by front-office officials in one lot, five owned by players or coaches in the lot beyond right field.
Team sources said the cars of Byrd and outfielder Ryan Church, as well as those of coaches Tom McCraw, Eddie Rodriguez and Don Buford and assistant athletic trainer Scott Lawrenson, were broken into, but Byrd's was the only one stolen. Players and coaches said that all the cars that were targeted were American-made, despite the fact that several luxury imports sat in the lot from the time the Nationals departed for Anaheim, Calif., on the night of June 12, until their return on Wednesday night.
Team members said pitcher Luis Ayala's car was broken into during an earlier road trip, and they were frustrated that security hadn't improved. | Upon their arrival back home from a long road trip, Nationals players and coaches found their cars broken into in the RFK Stadium players' lot and Marlon Byrd's vehicle was stolen. | 19.885714 | 0.8 | 1.542857 | medium | medium | mixed | 4,815 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062302082.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062302082.html | 'Land of the Dead': Yuppies Add Zest to a Zombie Feast | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | The dead are back, but they don't want to party anymore. Now, like everyone else, they want to make a killing in real estate.
They've got their eye on a fixer-upper, too. "Two million bdrms, 750,000 bthrms, 3 riv vu." It's called Pittsburgh.
Thus, "George A. Romero's Land of the Dead" in which the zombies take the Iron City.
As Romero has it -- extrapolating into the near future from his famous (or infamous) zombie canon, "Night of the Living Dead," "Dawn of the Dead" and "Day of the Dead" -- the recently deceased, all 6 billion of them, have turned into shuffling, flesh-eating bags of putrefying, jellified flesh with really nasty hygiene, teeth and wardrobes, some even wearing white after Labor Day. Now they've taken over the world, except for the City of the Three Rivers. There, a few remaining humans have barricaded themselves off from the universal death. But that society itself is riven: Yuppies and haute-bourgie high-livers occupy a tower, protected from reality by soldiers; this elite, Romero lets us know in tropes that go back as far as De Mille, is corrupt in its pleasure and its indifference. The streets, meanwhile, are a bazaar of prostitution, weird haircuts and black markets, filled with scalawags, hustlers, reformers and assorted other riffraff. In other words: every movie future from "Metropolis" to "Blade Runner."
Underneath the film is that grim old staple from, oh, what was it called, you know, that book, I think it was . . . oh yeah, the Bible. It's the one about Sodom and Gomorrah, cities of sin, and while we may weep crocodile tears at the fate of the nominal victims, the secret pleasures of the tale are seeing those who got too much pleasure too cheaply being repaid by the righteous sword of vengeance. So on that primitive level, "George A. Romero's Land of the Dead" could be said to satisfy: Yes, it shows us cannibal zombies eating yuppies. Along with gunsight camera footage and Wile E. Coyote cartoons, I could watch that all day.
Romero focuses on political squabbling in the last city. Between the corrupt rich and the hardscrabble poor are a class of freebooters one could only call the Cool. The Cool are the guys and gals who go out into the hinterlands and scavenge for necessities of life, like Courvoisier and Band-Aids. They dress raffishly and have neat guns, low-cut jeans and insouciant, sexy manners; they're the only ones who seem to have a lot of fun.
The plot takes off when a dinner-jacketed dictator named Kaufman (played by a silky Dennis Hopper) betrays one of his scavengers, Cholo (John Leguizamo), and orders him killed. Cholo, hardened by years of mowing down zombies, is too quick for his assassin, however. He escapes with the city's only armored trailer truck and heads out of town, where he threatens to use that truck -- helpfully, it's rocket-armed -- to blow up Pittsburgh if he's not paid off. So Kaufman sends a squad, led by Riley (handsome-but-dull Simon Baker) to take him out.
Meanwhile, the dead have begun to notice things. Like the apes in "2001: A Space Odyssey," they tumble to the idea of a tool, except the tool they tumble to isn't a bone club, it's a Steyr AUG assault rifle that uses 5.56mm NATO ammunition. This is not good. Now they're not just ugly, hungry and dead, but also heavily armed. They head to the three rivers and take another leap up the learning curve. It occurs to them: We may stink and our heads may occasionally fall off, but the one advantage we have is that we don't have to breathe. We can walk under the rivers.
The movie isn't particularly scary. It's not about fear and it has almost no startles, no long stalking scenes, no ritualized, fetishized deaths. It never reaches the squalid fury of "Night of the Living Dead," and it hasn't the sarcastic wit of "Dawn of the Dead." But it has something.
It has zombies. They're weirdly impressive, not just in the various states of decay that Romero's makeup artists are able to create. But that insistent shamble, without panic, without speed, without focus: remorseless, stoical, unstoppable, even when those around them are being chopped down by gunfire. There's something satisfying in the zombies' progress, almost poignant. Though they will eat us -- Romero loves to show us zombies feeding grossly on the only recently killed, faces and fingers bright with blood -- there's nothing personal about it. They bear us no ill will, they don't hate us or eat us from envy or malice; they just need to supplement their diets with iron, and what's a man but a walking iron tablet?
Romero also has got a lyrical streak, as if there's a Japanese watercolorist lurking sensitively under the zombiemeister. Many of the images have a surprising beauty to them. One shot, for example, of the zombies on their ceaseless, pointless nightwalks as glimpsed through a screen of fog and trees, has an almost ethereal sense to it. And he can do things with the carnage that are more stunning than horrifying: Two dead boys play tug-of-war with an arm until it splits slowly lengthwise, and as repulsive as that sounds, it's oddly impressive, even haunting, on-screen.
Too bad the plot held no surprises and the acting no revelations. No actor could be said to stand out and the movie never acquires much tension or momentum. The finale, in which those walls come tumbling down and Pittsburgh is Sodomized, is powerful, but it has nothing to do with the drama we've been witnessing; it's powerful as spectacle, not story.
George A. Romero's Land of the Dead (110 minutes, at area theaters) is rated R for extreme gore, drug references and sexual innuendo. | Search Washington, DC area movie listings, reviews and locations from the Washington Post. Features DC, Virginia and Maryland entertainment listings for movies and movie guide. Visit http://eg.washingtonpost.com/section/movies today. | 35.823529 | 0.441176 | 0.5 | high | low | abstractive | 4,816 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062302074.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062302074.html | Public Broadcast Agency Picks GOP Appointee Over Protests | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | The agency that distributes federal funds to public radio and TV stations yesterday announced that it has hired a former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee as its new chief executive, renewing charges of partisanship from public broadcasters and Democrats.
Patricia de Stacy Harrison, an assistant secretary of state, will take over as head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the congressionally chartered agency that this year will distribute almost $400 million in tax money to National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of noncommercial radio and TV stations.
Harrison, a former public relations executive who has no public broadcasting experience, was a co-chairman of the RNC from 1997 to 2001, and helped raise funds to elect party candidates, including President Bush, who appointed her to the State Department. She earlier was named to a post in the Commerce Department by President George H.W. Bush.
Harrison's new job was made considerably easier yesterday when the House voted to restore $100 million in CPB funding after the money had been cut by the Appropriations Committee. The House vote, on a bipartisan margin of 284 to 140, staved off a 25 percent cutback in the CPB's budget.
However, the House declined to restore about $102.4 million that underwrote the production of PBS children's programs such as "Arthur" and "Sesame Street," and funded satellite facilities technology and public TV stations' federally mandated conversion to digital transmission. If the Senate doesn't restore those funds, "the future of the Public Broadcasting Service [is] still at stake," said Pat Mitchell, the president of PBS.
Harrison was the candidate favored by the CPB's chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who has stirred controversy in recent months by asserting that public broadcasting displays a liberal bias in its news and public-affairs reporting. Tomlinson headed the three-person search committee that recruited Harrison. The eight-member CPB board passed over four other finalists in favor of Harrison. Two board members, Ernest J. Wilson III and Beth Courtney, both Democrats, voted against her.
The CPB board's vote was held in closed session Wednesday night and announced yesterday afternoon -- just as the House was voting on CPB's budget.
The funding uncertainties and Tomlinson's claims of bias underscore the tense climate Harrison will face when she takes over at CPB on July 5. Tomlinson's complaints have prompted a furious backlash from within public broadcasting, including calls for him to step down.
But even some opponents of Harrison's candidacy said her ties to influential Republicans could be an asset. "I think she's going to have a very difficult time and will have to work very hard to ensure that she's not seen as partisan, or as part of some subtle plot to undo public broadcasting," said Courtney, chief executive of Louisiana Public Broadcasting. At the same time, Courtney said that she told Harrison in a brief phone call, "I look forward to seeing you organize a Republicans-for-public-broadcasting rally soon."
Harrison was unavailable for comment yesterday. She has avoided all public statements since her name was first mentioned as a candidate two months ago. CPB officials said she would not comment until she begins the job. By law, she can be paid as much as $180,000 a year.
Harrison was first approached about the post 18 months ago but was unwilling to leave the State Department while Colin Powell was secretary of state, according to a CPB official who spoke on condition that his name not be published because it involved a personnel matter.
Harrison's appointment has perhaps more symbolic import than practical effect on public broadcasting. About 75 percent of all CPB funds are passed to individual stations under a grant formula, and 5 percent more goes to administrative costs. The agency can initiate and fund some programming, but by law it cannot force PBS, NPR or local stations to air any program. However, it can set broad programming goals and is a key advocate for funding from Congress.
In an interview yesterday, Tomlinson praised Harrison's administrative skills, saying she had worked to nearly double the budget of her State Department agency -- educational and cultural affairs -- in three years. He also said she would be a vigorous, nonpartisan advocate for public broadcasting: "As I've said before, the leaders of public broadcasting check their partisanship at the door. They work for public broadcasting. It's essential that we do nothing to drive Democrats away."
In her State Department role, Harrison has praised the work of the department's Office of Broadcasting Services, which in early 2002 began producing feature reports, some coordinated by the White House, that promoted the administration's arguments for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The reports were distributed free to domestic and international TV stations. In testimony before Congress last year, Harrison said the Bush administration regarded these "good news" segments as "powerful strategic tools" for swaying public opinion.
Harrison's selection was attacked by Democrats as the wrong choice for an agency that has usually been noncontroversial, if not always nonpartisan.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), noting that the CPB was created to insulate public broadcasters from government and politics, said in a statement that she was "troubled" by the decision to name "a partisan political operative." She questioned the integrity of the selection process, saying it was "made behind closed doors and out of the light of day."
Twenty Democratic House members last week called on Tomlinson to delay the search, saying it was hasty. (The CPB's previous CEO, Kathleen Cox, left in early April, after the board declined to renew her contract.) In a separate action this week, 16 Democratic senators, including Clinton, called on Tomlinson to resign, saying he had politicized the agency.
PBS's Mitchell said her organization "has had concerns about the appointment of a former political party chair" but added that it is "our hope and expectation that Ms. Harrison will execute her responsibilities with nonpartisan integrity." | The agency that distributes federal funds to public radio and TV stations yesterday announced that it has hired a former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee as its new chief executive, renewing charges of partisanship from public broadcasters and Democrats. | 26.636364 | 1 | 44 | medium | high | extractive | 4,817 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401804.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401804.html | Legg Mason to Swap Units With Citigroup | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | Legg Mason Inc. agreed to swap its 1,400 stockbrokers for Citigroup Inc.'s mutual fund business, a $3.7 billion deal that would complete Legg Mason's transformation into one of the largest U.S. money managers.
With the deal announced yesterday, New York-based Citigroup would largely exit the mutual fund business in favor of selling such funds for others. The Baltimore-based Legg Mason would do the opposite, concentrating strictly on managing mutual funds and other investment products and getting out of the stock brokerage business.
The unusual transaction highlights the growing pressure on the investment industry to break up the combined retail brokerage and investment fund businesses that Citigroup, Legg Mason and many Wall Street firms built in the past decade. Executives at both companies said the deal was driven in part by concerns over the inherent conflict in stock brokers selling funds that are put together in-house when more appropriate or better-run funds managed by others are widely available.
"Given the more challenging regulatory environment, . . . we expect more deals to come," Banc of America Securities analyst Michael A. Hecht wrote in a note sent to investors yesterday.
By the end of the year, investors who have individual accounts at Legg Mason Wood Walker Inc., the company's retail brokerage subsidiary, are set to become customers of Citigroup brokerage unit Smith Barney. Neither firm would comment on possible job losses, though some cuts are inevitable as some administrative jobs will overlap.
Legg Mason officials said they would now be able to concentrate on advice and investment funds, the most profitable and fastest-growing part of their business.
"There's no question that we've worried the last few years on the regulatory side," said Legg Mason chief executive Raymond A. "Chip" Mason of his firm's brokers selling Legg Mason's own investment funds.
Now, Legg Mason's mutual funds and other investment products are sold through only its own network of brokers. With completion of the Citigroup deal, expected at the end of the year, those funds would be sold through Smith Barney, which would have nearly 14,000 brokers and 7.5 million clients. Legg Mason's 1,400 brokers in 135 East Coast offices would become Smith Barney employees.
Mason and Co. was founded as a stock brokerage by Mason and then-partner James W. Brinkley 43 years ago in southern Virginia, and it merged with Baltimore's Legg & Co. in 1970. Mason, 68, yesterday said it was a "very personal, difficult decision" to sell the brokerage.
Making phone calls to brokerage employees yesterday morning, he said, "was one of the hardest things I've ever had do. I just wanted to get through it."
The deal presents a new set of risks for Legg Mason, along with the potential benefits.
Citigroup's asset management business includes 80 funds with about $160 billion of mutual fund assets, most of which have not performed well and in recent months have been shrinking. It has not performed well relative to stand-alone mutual fund companies. "Our asset management business has not been what we had hoped," said Citigroup chief executive Charles O. Prince. | Washington, DC, Virginia, Maryland business news headlines with stock portfolio and market news, economy, government/tech policy, mutual funds, personal finance. Dow Jones, S&P 500, NASDAQ quotes. Features top DC, VA, MD businesses, company research tools | 11.882353 | 0.470588 | 0.54902 | low | low | abstractive | 4,818 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401500.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401500.html | Guidant Issues 2nd Defibrillator Warning | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | INDIANAPOLIS, June 24 -- A second safety warning from Guidant Corp., one of the nation's largest medical device manufacturers, urged doctors to stop using five defibrillator models because they could malfunction and may have to be recalled.
Guidant announced its second worldwide safety advisory in a week on Friday, after voluntarily recalling seven defibrillator models last week. The devices sense an irregular heart rhythm and shock the heart back into correct beating. At least 74,900 defibrillators are now under a company warning.
The latest Guidant safety announcement affects the Contak Renewal 3, the company's largest seller; the Contak Renewal 4; the Renewal RF; the Renewal 3; and the Renewal 4 AVT models.
The five models have a magnetic switch that can become stuck in a closed position, preventing the device from treating irregular heart rhythms. The faulty switch also can drain the defibrillator's battery more quickly.
The devices have had at least four malfunctions among them, Guidant said. A fifth case is suspected but not confirmed. No patients using the devices have died or been injured, the company said.
Guidant said physicians should reprogram the defibrillators so their magnet use is off. The devices will continue to function. Patients who hear beeping tones from the defibrillators, however, should go to the emergency room immediately. | INDIANAPOLIS, June 24 -- A second safety warning from Guidant Corp., one of the nation's largest medical device manufacturers, urged doctors to stop using five defibrillator models because they could malfunction and may have to be recalled. | 5.928571 | 1 | 42 | low | high | extractive | 4,819 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401797.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401797.html | Sculpted Bodies And a Strip Act At Justice Dept. | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | After more than three years, the most talked-about coverup at the Justice Department has come to an end.
Two soaring blue drapes that hung in the department's Great Hall were unceremoniously removed yesterday, once again revealing a pair of risque Art Deco-era sculptures that flank the room's stage.
Justice spokesman Kevin Madden said that the decision to remove the drapes was made by Paul Corts, assistant attorney general for administration, and that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales "agreed with the recommendation." He declined to elaborate on the decision.
The 12-foot cast aluminum semi-nude sculptures -- which include an exposed female breast -- had been hidden from view since early 2002, when the drapes were installed at a cost of $8,000.
Under the previous attorney general, John D. Ashcroft, Justice officials long insisted that the curtains were put up to improve the room's use as a television backdrop and that Ashcroft had nothing to do with it.
But because internal e-mails referred to "hiding the statues" -- and because the room was rarely used for media events in recent years -- the episode was quickly seized upon by pundits and satirists as a symbol of Ashcroft's allegedly puritanical and censorious bearing.
In an appearance on "The Late Show With David Letterman" in April 2002, Ashcroft joked about the decision. "I didn't really know much about this," he said. "Someone ordered some draperies for the statues. . . . It turns out it really wasn't a covering for the statues as it really was a construction curtain. They're being remodeled."
One statue, "Spirit of Justice," depicts a woman wearing a toga-type dress with one breast revealed and arms raised. The male statue, "Majesty of Law," is bare-chested with a garment draped around the waist.
"Spirit of Justice" probably had her most famous moment in news photographs from 1986, when she was seen behind then-attorney general Edwin Meese III as he held a report on pornography.
The sculptures were created by Prix de Rome winner C. Paul Jennewein, and cost U.S. taxpayers a total of $7,275 when they were commissioned in 1933. The statues have stood in the Great Hall since the Justice Department headquarters building opened in 1936. | Get Washington DC, Virginia, Maryland and national news. Get the latest/breaking news, featuring national security, science and courts. Read news headlines from the nation and from The Washington Post. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/nation today. | 10.619048 | 0.452381 | 0.452381 | low | low | abstractive | 4,820 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401619.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401619.html | Required Report on Trip by House Ethics Chairman Is Missing | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | The chairman of the House ethics committee apparently did not properly file a required report about a $3,170 trip to Canada last year. His staff said it must have been lost in the mail.
Perhaps the report, due nine months ago, will turn up. But this is a potentially embarrassing juncture for the chairman, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), to suffer a paperwork blunder.
Intense scrutiny of the travel of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has impelled lawmakers from both parties to file or amend reports on more than 200 trips, some from years ago. The Hastings committee, currently stalled by a partisan standoff, eventually will have to decide whether any of that tardiness should be punished.
The errant report came to light when PoliticalMoneyLine, a Web site specializing in money and politics, compared the trips summarized on lawmakers' annual financial disclosures -- released earlier this month -- with those on the more detailed disclosure forms that are supposed to be filed within 30 days of a trip.
Hastings listed a trip from July 30 to Aug. 1, 2004, to Stuart Island, B.C., that was paid for by Washington Group International, an Idaho-based engineering and construction company that provides nuclear-cleanup services.
PoliticalMoneyLine did not find a matching travel report that would have spelled out the details of the trip.
When a reporter asked Hastings's office about the discrepancy yesterday, an aide to the lawmaker went to the reading room where the disclosure forms are filed and did not find it.
His office supplied its file copy of the form, which showed that he was accompanied by his wife, Claire Hastings; that the transportation was $675 for each of them; and that their expenses for meals and lodging totaled $1,820. Hastings, longtime chairman of the House's Nuclear Cleanup Caucus, went on the trip to participate in an energy symposium, the form said.
Ed Cassidy, Hastings's chief of staff, said that the form -- dated Aug. 12, 2004 -- was probably mailed from the lawmaker's district office because he would have been home for the summer, and that it must have been lost in transit.
"Our copies were in our files, and we never gave it another thought," Cassidy said.
Hastings will refile the document Monday, Cassidy said.
Democratic aides said it is unusual to mail such a form because, typically, an aide takes it to the House clerk's office and gets a copy with a time stamp to show when it was filed.
Hastings was named chairman of the ethics committee in February, replacing Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), who fell out of favor with GOP leaders.
To avert an ethics docket stuffed with hundreds of cases, Republican leaders have contemplated declaring what amounts to an amnesty for past paperwork errors, then restating the rules and enforcing them rigorously. Substantive violations, such as accepting a trip from a registered lobbyist, would not be excused, according to aides.
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), the ethics committee's ranking Democrat, said in a letter delivered to House offices on Wednesday that the committee is not functioning because Hastings "has been insisting on implementing an entirely unprecedented proposal on Committee staffing" that disregards rules calling for a nonpartisan staff. Hastings wants to make Cassidy, his 10-year chief of staff, co-director of the committee staff.
Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, replied yesterday with a letter to GOP House members saying that he hopes that the Democratic leadership "quits obstructing this process." | Latest politics news headlines from Washington DC. Follow 2004 elections, campaigns, Democrats, Republicans, political cartoons, opinions from The Washington Post. Features government policy, government tech, political analysis and reports. | 18.025641 | 0.487179 | 0.538462 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,821 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301888.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301888.html | Funds for Health Care of Veterans $1 Billion Short | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | The Bush administration, already accused by veterans groups of seeking inadequate funds for health care next year, acknowledged yesterday that it is short $1 billion for covering current needs at the Department of Veterans Affairs this year.
The disclosure of the shortfall angered Senate Republicans who have been voting down Democratic proposals to boost VA programs at significant political cost. Their votes have brought the wrath of the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and other organizations down on the GOP.
"I was on the phone this morning with Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson, letting him know that I am not pleased that this has happened," said Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. "I am certain that he is going to take serious steps to ensure that this type of episode is not repeated."
The $1 billion shortfall emerged during an administration midyear budget review and was acknowledged only during lengthy questioning of Jonathan B. Perlin, VA undersecretary for health, by House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) at a hearing yesterday.
"We weren't on the mark from the actuarial model," Perlin testified. He said that the department has already had to use more than $300 million from a fund that had been expected to be carried over to the fiscal 2006 budget, and that as much as $600 million for planned capital spending will have to be shifted to pay for health care.
At a noon news conference yesterday, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee covering veterans affairs and the lead sponsor of Senate Democratic efforts to add $1.9 billion to the VA budget, accused the Bush administration of unwillingness "to make the sacrifices necessary to fulfill the promises we have made to our veterans."
In a rare display of bipartisanship on the polarized issue of veterans spending, Craig appeared with Murray at the news conference and said he agreed with many of her comments.
Murray cited an April 5 letter written by Nicholson to the Senate in a bid to defeat her amendment: "I can assure you that VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in FY2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service that is always our goal," he had said.
Murray aides said they obtained a draft copy of the midyear review in early April, suggesting that the department knew of the budget problems at the time Nicholson wrote the letter.
VA spokesman Terry Jemison refused to release a copy of the document, saying, "We don't provide information about pre-decisional budget passback and midyear reviews."
Nicholson issued a statement yesterday: "The health care needs of America's veterans are among VA's highest priorities. Working with our partners in Congress, I'm confident that VA's budget will continue to provide world-class health care to the nation's veterans."
Craig and other Senate and House Republicans declined to say how much the fiscal 2006 budget would be raised above the level proposed by the administration. They said any attempt to supplement the current fiscal 2005 appropriation will have to await more detailed information on the shortfall this year. Craig said he plans to hold a hearing next week on VA funding needs. | The Bush administration, already accused by veterans groups of seeking inadequate funds for health care next year, acknowledged yesterday that it is short $1 billion for covering current needs at the Department of Veterans Affairs this year. | 15.365854 | 1 | 41 | low | high | extractive | 4,822 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401667.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401667.html | Plot Alleged in Death Of Indonesian Activist | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | JAKARTA, Indonesia -- The fatal, midair poisoning last year of Indonesia's best-known human rights campaigner, Munir Said Thalib, was a plot by operatives from the country's spy agency, according to members of a presidential commission probing the September murder.
Police Brig. Gen. Marsudhi Hanafi, who heads the commission, said last week that investigators had obtained a document detailing plans at Indonesia's State Intelligence Agency to kill Munir and uncovered telephone records showing calls between numbers of a suspect in the murder and an official at the agency.
The commission has focused in the last month on a deputy director of the spy agency, commonly known by its Indonesian initials BIN, Hanafi said. Commission investigators discovered more than two dozen calls placed between the telephone numbers of the murder suspect and a deputy director. The content of the conversations is unknown, Hanafi and other commission members said. They said the calls were made in the weeks before and after Munir's death.
"We believe this is an abuse of power in BIN," Hanafi said. "These people used BIN's power, authority and facilities to carry out this operation."
The deputy director, Maj. Gen. Muchdi Purwopranjono, and other BIN officials have said in published news interviews that they did not know the suspect.
Human rights advocates have long accused Indonesia's security forces, including the spy agency, of atrocities. But in recent years, BIN has won quiet praise from U.S. officials for cooperating with the CIA in tracking down Muslim extremists, including several linked to al Qaeda.
Munir, 38, a frequent critic of the security forces, fell sick aboard an overnight Garuda Indonesia flight a few hours after leaving Jakarta and died before reaching his destination, Amsterdam. An autopsy two months later in the Netherlands found he had ingested a highly lethal dose of arsenic, setting off a major murder investigation.
In March, Indonesian police arrested Pollycarpus Budihari Priyatno, an off-duty Garuda pilot who had given Munir his business class seat on the flight, and charged him with being an accomplice to murder. Pollycarpus acknowledged in an interview in March that he invited Munir to sit in business class but said he was not involved in the crime. His attorney denied that Pollycarpus worked for BIN and said Pollycarpus was not involved in Munir's death. Hanafi said investigators now believe Pollycarpus did not poison Munir. "He only opened the gate," Hanafi said.
Pollycarpus is in police detention. Police said they were preparing a criminal file with several counts against him, to be turned over to prosecutors for trial.
Dutch forensic investigators reported after an autopsy that Munir had ingested 465 milligrams of arsenic, more than three times a lethal dose. Indonesian police suspect that the arsenic was slipped into Munir's food or drink that he was served in the business class section.
When investigators confiscated Pollycarpus's cell phone and examined the list of dialed numbers, there was one they couldn't trace, two other commission members said. An operator told them the number was not listed as being in service, they said. The president of Indonesia's national telephone company said in a meeting with investigators at corporate headquarters last month that he was baffled, the commission members said.
But finally, after extensive sleuthing, technical experts at the phone company managed to identify the number, commissioners said. They said it was a confidential line inside the office of Muchdi, BIN's deputy director for agent mobilization. Pollycarpus had called the confidential telephone line in Muchdi's personal office at BIN six times, commission members said.
Further examination of the cell phone and other telephone records revealed that calls were placed between Pollycarpus's and Muchdi's telephones about 26 times both before and after Munir's death, Hanafi said in an interview. Among these, telephone records showed that multiple calls had been placed to Pollycarpus's number from Muchdi's personal mobile telephone.
"This is extraordinary," Hanafi said. "It was very surprising to us."
Muchdi, a former head of Indonesian army special forces, recently retired from the spy agency and has declined two requests to appear before the commission, officials said. But he told police that he never called Pollycarpus, explaining that his cell phone may have been used by someone else, police said.
An associate of Muchdi who works as his media liaison said the retired general would be willing to discuss the case sometime in the future but did not say when.
In an interview published this month in Ekspos magazine, Muchdi denied that either he or BIN was involved in the murder. "Both are wrongful accusations," he said. "It was neither officials nor the institution." He repeated that he did not know Pollycarpus and had never called him. "My cell phone is often used by people close to me. So I don't really know if they made a phone call and what conversation they had," Muchdi said.
After tracking these telephone calls, investigators in the last few days obtained an internal security agency document describing the in-flight assassination as one of four plots put in motion by BIN operatives to kill Munir, each with a specific team assigned to carry them out, Hanafi said.
The special commission has also sought to question Col. Bambang Irawan, a retired Indonesian special forces officer who a witness identified as being on that same flight but whose name did not appear on the passenger list. Irawan was a BIN operative, according to Hanafi and two other commission members.
Hanafi said the commission has evidence that Irawan and Pollycarpus were acquaintances and frequently traveled together. Irawan could not be located for comment. A spokesman for the Indonesian army said military officers had also tried unsuccessfully to contact him.
Investigators are now trying to learn more about another passenger, who sat beside Munir in business class, an elderly chemist who lives in the Netherlands but works as a consultant to an Indonesian company. The commission had also tried to take testimony from the spy agency's former chief, Gen. A.M. Hendropriyono, who resigned from BIN after Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono became president in October.
A.M. Hendropriyono, Indonesia's intelligence chief, has denied that his agency had any involvement. At a news conference this week, he accused Hanafi's commission of overstepping its authority.
But a spokesman for Yudhoyono, who appointed the commission six months ago, expressed complete support for its work. "He appreciates what they've been doing," said spokesman Andi Mallarangeng. "Anybody who is trying to hamper the work of the commission will face the president."
Special correspondent Yayu Yuniar contributed to this report. | JAKARTA, Indonesia -- The fatal, midair poisoning last year of Indonesia's best-known human rights campaigner, Munir Said Thalib, was a plot by operatives from the country's spy agency, according to members of a presidential commission probing the September murder. | 26.061224 | 1 | 49 | medium | high | extractive | 4,823 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401951.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401951.html | Outsourcing in India In Crisis Over Scam | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | NEW DELHI, June 24 -- India's booming outsourcing industry struggled with new political and security worries Friday after a British tabloid reported that one of its reporters purchased private financial data on British citizens from an Indian outsourcing worker as part of a sting operation.
The Sun newspaper reported Thursday that a reporter posing as a businessman purchased the bank account details of 1,000 Britons -- including customers of some of Britain's best-known banks -- for about $5.50 each.
The worker who allegedly sold the information bragged to the undercover reporter that he could "sell as many as 200,000 account details a month" and declared that "technology is made by man and it can be broken by man," according to the newspaper. The Sun said the worker received the information from "a web of contacts who work in call centers."
The newspaper's report, which was widely covered in the Indian news media, has renewed criticism that outsourcing firms have failed to erect adequate protections against fraud in their zeal to take advantage of the booming demand from foreign companies seeking to lower costs by shifting some office operations abroad.
The incident also has played into the hands of workers and politicians in Britain, the United States and other developed countries who see the outsourcing phenomenon as a threat to employment and prosperity at home and are eager to find ways to discredit it.
The report comes on the heels of another scandal in which several Indian outsourcing workers in the western city of Pune are alleged to have used their positions to steal $426,000 from New York-based customers of Citibank.
"This is California" during the Gold Rush, said Shankkar Aiyar, a business journalist and senior editor at India Today magazine who has written widely on outsourcing. "Everybody who sees an opportunity sets up shop. They want to start fast, they've got a contract in hand, and some of them are taking shortcuts."
India has no monopoly on such fraud. This month, MasterCard International Inc. announced that more than 40 million credit card numbers belonging to U.S. consumers were accessed by a computer hacker who breached security at a processing center operated by another company in Tuscon.
India's National Association of Software and Service Companies, known as NASSCOM, has said the industry was already taking a number of steps to promote better security, including the development of a national registry of outsourcing workers that will help screen out potential criminals. Outsourcing companies in India typically bar workers from downloading or printing information, and often from carrying cell phones or even pens into their work areas.
"The problem is not unique to any single nation," the group said in a statement Thursday. "It is one that can affect any country, and each of us has a responsibility to take on the criminals."
The Sun identified the outsourcing worker at the center of its sting as Kkaran Bahree, 24, a computer expert and college graduate who lives with his parents in New Delhi. It said he provided the newspaper's reporter, Oliver Harvey, with "account holders' secret passwords, addresses, phone numbers and details of their credit cards, passports and driving licenses." The newspaper said that some of the information was contained on a CD and that Harvey's three meetings with Bahree had been secretly recorded and filmed.
The Sun said that Bahree "gathers supposedly secret information from corrupt call center workers in Delhi" and that it had verified the authenticity of the information with "a security expert." The newspaper said it had given investigation details to the City of London police.
Bahree could not be reached for comment Friday. But in an interview with the BBC on Thursday, he denied any wrongdoing, saying he had been asked by an associate to give a CD to the Sun's reporter, did not know what it contained and had not received any payment.
The newspaper said Bahree had worked for several years at Daksh eServices, now a subsidiary of IBM, and currently works for an outsourcing company called Infinity eSearch in the fast-growing New Delhi suburb of Gurgaon.
At a news conference Friday, Infinity's managing director, Rahul Dutt, said the firm had no banking clients in Britain and did not handle financial information for clients, according to the Press Trust of India news service. Dutt said Bahree has worked at the company for about three months and had been given until 5:30 p.m. Friday to give an explanation "about his alleged role in the scam." Calls to the company's Gurgaon office went unanswered late Friday afternoon.
India's outsourcing industry performs a range of customer-service and other back-office functions for Western and multinational firms in areas such as banking, insurance and health care. The industry is creating jobs at the rate of nearly 100,000 a year, and its revenue is growing at more than 40 percent annually, according to NASSCOM. But analysts warn that the industry's rapid growth has stretched the supply of educated English speakers, prompting some companies to lower their hiring standards. | NEW DELHI, June 24 -- India's booming outsourcing industry struggled with new political and security worries Friday after a British tabloid reported that one of its reporters purchased private financial data on British citizens from an Indian outsourcing worker as part of a sting operation. | 20.083333 | 1 | 48 | medium | high | extractive | 4,824 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/24/DI2005062401141.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/24/DI2005062401141.html | Metro: Roads and Rails | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | Do you think Metro has grown unreliable and become downright unpleasant? Or are you happy with your commutes on rail and bus? Does the thought of the intercounty connector (ICC) keep you up at night or does it seem like it's long overdue? And what of the moves by Maryland and Virginia to encourage the private sector to build road projects, such as widening the Capital Beltway?
Washington Post staff writers Lyndsey Layton and Steve Ginsberg were online Monday, June 27, at 11 a.m. ET to answer your questions, feel your pain and share the drama of getting from Point A to Point B.
Steve Ginsberg: Good morning commuters and welcome to the chat. So let's chat...
Beltsville, Md.: The Intercounty Connector is long overdue.
Steve Ginsberg: Looks like people are finally tired of long-drawn out arguments for this road. Anyone care to rebut...
Fairfax, Va.: Just drove on 66 and something occured to me: why is 66 such a nicer road in Arlington County (i.e., smoother, quieter, etc.), but when you cross the Beltway interchange, 66 is a concrete, rough, bumpy and noisy road? For some reason, I feel safer on the Arlington stretch (granted it's two lanes), but does anyone else feel the same way? Could 66 be improved in Fairfax, knowing it's a different surface (concrete blocks vs. pavement)?
Steve Ginsberg: You're very perceptive. 66 is, in fact, a nicer road in Arlington, where it has a newly laid asphalt surface. the Fairfax portion is made out of concrete and is essentially a glorified shoulder. VDOT folks say it'll last a couple more years, but then they'll need to do something about it.
Lyndsey Layton: Good morning all! One item of leftover business from our last chat - a poster asked where one can buy the retro stickers seen on Metrobuses that celebrate the anniversary of the bus system. Metro tells me those stickers are not for sale. Sorry, folks.
Alexandria, Va.: Can we do a PSA here? I have heard several colleagues and some tourists complain about this scam. A person will walk up to someone at the farecard machine about to buy a farecard. This person will show a farecard with money already on it, say that they no longer need the card, and if you will give them the cash, you can have the fare card. Normally the request for cash is less than the amount on the fare card so it sounds like a good deal. The thing is that the fare card doesn't work when you insert it into the ticket machine. It's been demagnetized or is actually not a real fare card. If it's just demagnetized, I suppose one could submit it to metro to get a new farecard. But that doesn't do any good if you don't use metro often or aren't from the area. Unfortunately, even the smartest people have fallen for this scam. Some have been too tired or too much in a hurry to think it through. A constant reminder of it seems too good to be true, it is.
Lyndsey Layton: Has any one out there been a victim of this?
Not a Fan of Truckers, Rockville, Md.: It seems like every weekday morning, there's an accident involving an 18 wheeler that results in the shutting down of at least two highway lanes. Despite the regularity of this event, it takes forever for fire crews and emergency vehicles to arrive on the scene to do their job.
Why don't they station clearing crews capable of handling explosive situations right on the highway? when is this going to happen? It seems to me that the regularity of this warrants some precautionary investment. The time that such crews could save commuters would justify (and probably far eclipse) their expense and also save lives.
Steve Ginsberg: They have tried to station more crews on or near highways, especially near accident-prone areas. But you never really know where an accident is going to occur, so it's hard to station them near most of them. Perhaps they could have more out there, but then I suspect we'd be complaining about throwing money away on emergency crews that do nothing all day long.
On the separate issue of truckers, their presence has increased considerably in the 10 years that NAFTA has been in effect. It seems like there is a slowly growing sentiment that something needs to be done, most notably a proposal on the Hill to fund separated lanes for them.
Centreville, Va.: Only Metro can make something as simple as a Park and Ride bus complicated. Apparently my local 12C route has been removed as of yesterday, and appended onto the 12S route. The online infor for 12S claims that it stops at the Centreville Stone Road Park and Ride but doesn't show any actual times when it does during the morning commute. I guess if I need to be at Vienna station by 8am, I should just show up at the park and ride by 7am and see what arrives there, huh. Thanks for nothing, WMATA.
Lyndsey Layton: Hi Centreville. The bus system in Zimbabwe is similar; no schedule, just show up and wait. But I have to think there is a better way. Email me separately at [email protected] and I'll try to get some better information.
Alexandria, Va.: I don't think designating 66 inside the Beltway HOV for rush hour traffic is a good idea. It seems like it just creates bottlenecks and other traffic problems elsewhere. What do you think?
Steve Ginsberg: I think that corridor is going to be congested whether 66 is HOV or not. There are so many people using that road (and adjacent Metro line) that it's hard to envision it getting better no matter what is done. But it seems like getting rid of the designation and adding more drivers would not be a great solution. Raising the carpool requirement to three or four people might help more.
Silver Spring, Md.: This morning at around 7:10 a.m., I saw a police car backing up on the shoulder of the beltway near the Route 1 (MD) exit. It looks like he was trying to get to the Route 1 exit instead of staying on the beltway, but backing up during rush our?!?! Even with lights on (no siren though), that's just waiting for an accident to happen. I wish I could have gotten a tag number to report it but was unable to.
Steve Ginsberg: I believe that maneuver is also called "attempted man slaughter," rush hour or not. Unless he was off to a crime, he shouldn't be doing that.
Washington, D.C.: I ride Metrorail's red and blue/orange lines to and from work. It is common knowledge that several rail lines are rapidly approaching their capacity, yet Metrorail authorities have not made common sense changes that might alleviate the crowding. I lived several years in Boston. Boston's subway cars have seats that face the center of the car, rather than the front and back of the train. This does not significantly reduce seating capacity, but it does create much more standing room in the center of each car.
Similarly, removing the many poles currently placed next to each door would allow passengers to get on and off cars more quickly and would also remove the incentive of standing passengers to linger near the doors (which constricts the space available to get on and off). The poles could be relocated to the center of each aisle in the space newly created by reorienting the seats.
Similar changes were mentioned in a Washington Post (or Express?) article of early last summer. Since that time, I have read only that Metrorail plans to buy more of its current cars so that it can deploy eight-car trains. Surely it must be less expensive to reconfigure the interior of a car than it is to purchase a new car. If so, wouldn't these changes allow Metrorail to increase carrying capacity and decrease loading/unloading times at a lower cost than buying a new car?
Lyndsey Layton: Hi Washington. Metro currently has an order for new rail cars that have slightly redesigned interiors to try to improve flow, but nothing as radical as perimeter (or bench seating) that you find in Boston, New York and other places where the subway system is designed to carry crowds. The Metro board of directors has resisted that idea for years, saying they want Metro to have the cushier appearance of a commuter railroad and not, heavens forbid, resemble anything as utilitarian as the New York subway. But the impact of crowding continues and the directors are inching toward design improvements with each new rail car order.
A simple question...: A car and a pedestrian come to a red light at the same time. Who has the right-of-way when it turns green (walker going straight, driver turning)?
Steve Ginsberg: the walker has the right of way. (of course, the car is much bigger, so you should use your own judgment.)
Rockville, Md.: The Intercounty Connector would be a huge waste of money. $3 billion (including interest) works out to a cost of over $1400 for every single household in Maryland. Why spend all this money when very few people would take the ICC from end to end, and it would do nothing to relieve traffic on the Beltway, I-270, or I-95? In fact, building the ICC would actually add traffic to parts of the Beltway and would make traffic worse on many local roads.
The most logical way to address our traffic congestion problem is to do everything possible to encourage shorter commutes and mass transit use. The ICC is a 1950's-style solution to our modern predicament.
Steve Ginsberg: ohmigod! someone opposes the ICC.
Alexandria, Va.: First, a "bravissima" to Lyndsey for her series of articles the other week.
Metro's response to the articles -- indeed to most problems that have been uncovered over the years -- has been "yes, we know, but we are doing better now." Yet they seem to be making the same boneheaded decisions. Please tell me I am misinformed about the following two items:
- Metro is planning a pedestrian corridor between Metro Center and Gallery Place to let passengers avoid the crowds when transferring between the Red/Blue/Orange and Red/Yellow/Green lines. But is it true that this corridor will be OUTSIDE the faregates, so people will have to pay two fares for the honor of walking instead of riding between the two stations? Tell me how that will encourage people to use the corridor.
- Metro plans to extend to Dulles Airport. Do they really plan to continue the two-track system which doesn't allow for express trains or an extra track to be used in case of emergency? Do they expect people to ride all the way to the airport on a "local" train? Metro have been bemoaning the limitations of a two-track system, yet they keep building more two-track lines.
Thanks for keeping Metro on its toes.
Lyndsey Layton: Hi Alexandria. Thanks so much for the kind words.
I am embarrassed to admit that despite the fact I've written about that pedestrian tunnel, the question of double charging passengers never occurred to me. Let's assume that the tunnel is many years away - that's enough time for Metro to figure this out.
Regarding the extension to the airport, you're so right about repeating the design flaw of a two-track railroad. But that project is already one of the most costly transit projects in the country and they're already talking about features to cut (the tunnel underneath Tysons Corner, for instance). There's no way the state would consider adding a third track. Which brings us to your other point - about 21 butt-numbing stops from the airport to Metro Center.
no sale?!: Re: the no-sale of retro stickers ... That's precisely why Metro will never be a profitable, service-oriented enterprise. Why be so quick to dismiss a potential source of revenue???
Lyndsey Layton: From your keypad to Metro's computer screens, my friend.
Washington, D.C.: Definitely use your own judgment, especially with D.C. drivers, but the pedestrian ALWAYS has the right of way, period. In particular, cars are SUPPOSED to stop for walkers in marked crossways. We even have one by my office with a red cone and a "Yield for Pedestrians" sign in the middle of it, and STILL drivers blow throw it.
Steve Ginsberg: Yep. I nearly got run over this morning as someone in a minivan rolled through a stop sign. Watch out for us drivers. We're completely at your mercy.
Laurel, Md.: Lyndsey, did you ever get that trip to Paris to research the snap-back seats on the Paris Metro? I don't recall ever seeing your report.
Lyndsey Layton: No, Laurel, I'm still waiting for all of you to flood the inbox of my editor ([email protected]) and demand that I be dispatched to Paris at once.
Get out the shovels: I know this project is one of D.C. Planner's pipedreams, but can we expect the elimination of 395 (through D.C.) during our lifetime? I am in favor of our very own 'Big Dig' -- but without the leaks. Thanks.
Steve Ginsberg: I guess it depends how old you are, but I'm gonna say no either way.
Memorial Bridge: Do you know how (and WHY) they're completely wrecking the traffic patterns on the Memorial Bridge? It's been going on for months and there's no sign of progress. It used to be easy to zip down Rock Creek Parkway and onto the bridge, but now they've cut the parkway down to one lane, which has to merge into the bridge traffic. What's the deal?
Steve Ginsberg: The park service tells me that the project has two purposes: to improve security around Lincoln Memorial and to improve traffic around it. They are not widening the bridge, but they are reconfiguring the pavement around it so there will be another lane as drivers come inbound from Virginia. The park service emphasizes that this is the first roadwork in that area in 40 years.
They also say it's going to continue until next summer.
Washington, D.C.: Testifying before a DC Council Committee, Metro CEO Dick White said the rewards of his job were really not that great. An incredulous Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) asked about White's $259,000 salary and $50,000 expense account. (Clearly White is among those top-earning 1 percent of Americans Al Gore spoke so much of.) After 9 years, do you think White is burned out with Metro and maybe the agency is stagnating as a result? His remaining days must be numbered.
Dick White's response was eye-opening; many of the people in the hearing room appeared stunned. You have to appreciate that he's got a difficult job and has been under a great deal of stress lately.
D.C., reply to simple question: Wouldn't it make far more sense to configure traffic lights so that pedestrians and cars aren't directed to enter the same space at the same time?? Like at Connecticut and Calvert. The pedestrians go while the cars stop, then the cars go when pedestrians stop. Is it that hard??
Steve Ginsberg: That could be done, of course, but that also makes everyone's wait longer and cuts down on the time they get to go. It seems better for people to just respect walkers and then go when they've crossed. I think you get just as many cars through the light this way as you do at intersections like Conn. and Calvert.
Somewhere in Montgomery County: Can I just rant. Over 30 miles one way from Prince George's to Montgomery County every day, and I have time to spit out my work in an hour and spend the rest of the day on chat rooms! Why? Because I have to wait for other people to get back to me BY EMAIL on items that I will then process on MY COMPUTER!!! I can do all of this at home. Why don't I? I'm a government contractor -- I might steal from the government if I had freedom!! AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve Ginsberg: You can just rant. It's fun, isn't it? Give it another shot, this time with feeling.
Washington, D.C.: Prior poster: "but the pedestrian ALWAYS has the right of way, period"
NO. Not if the pedestrian has a DON'T WALK sign and the driver has a GREEN LIGHT. Almost every morning I see some fool pedestrian walk out in front of an oncoming car that has a green light. I confess that I half-hope that one of those fools gets run over, if it would teach both drivers and pedestrians that there is a time to walk (WHEN IT SAYS WALK) and a time not to walk (WHEN IT SAYS DON'T WALK).
Sorry about the all caps, but this is a MAJOR pet peeve of mine!
Steve Ginsberg: Is this where there is just a regular old green light or is there a dedicated turn signal? I'm not sure why the walker would have a DON'T WALK sign if there wasn't a dedicated turn signal.
Arlington, Va.: Another reason why I66 is better inside the beltway is the lack of trucks. All those big trucks on 66 outside the beltway take a big toll.
Steve Ginsberg: more anti-truck talk...
Walking in Arlington: Pedestrians never have the right of way here in NoVa. I once had an elderly man yell at me to hurry up crossing while he was impatiently waiting in his car to make a turn. I had the right of way and he was at a red light waiting to take a right turn. Definitely, pedestrians do not rule in this area.
Steve Ginsberg: I doubt pedestrians rule anywhere, except maybe New York. I wish drivers would recognize that it's a helluva lot better for traffic to have us all walking instead of driving.
Olney, Md.: Do you know why Rt 108 was closed from Old Baltimore Road through Sandy Spring for most of the day yesterday?
Steve Ginsberg: I don't. Anyone?
RE: the walker has the right of way.: You wouldn't know it by walking through downtown DC. I've lost track of the number of times that I've almost been run over because a car either tries to turn before I set foot on the crosswalk, or worse, tries to shoot through a narrow space between two groups of pedestrians walking across the street. If the DC government is looking for a way to bring in extra revenue, they should station a few motorcycle cops at busy intersections and chase down drivers who ignore crosswalks.
Steve Ginsberg: that would certainly be nice. I don't have my fingers crossed, though.
The Dulles Line: I can see how, if you decide you're going to build a subway line and the money does not exist for a three- or four-track design, you go with two tracks under the theory that some is better than none. But please tell me that Metro is at least designing in some more pocket tracks on this line. (A pocket track is a short track in between the two main tracks, usually located just outside of a station, where a broken-down train can be pushed until there is time to remove it, or where a train can reverse direction.) The lack of adequate pockets is as much a major flaw of the Metro system as the lack of express tracks, because it means that it's hard to shove a broken-down train out of the way QUICKLY. The only pocket track on the Orange/Blue Lines in all of their shared trackage is the one just beyond Stadium-Armory!
Lyndsey Layton: Hiya. The first phase of the Dulles line, to Tysons, is in preliminary engineering now and I haven't seen designs. When they built the most recent addition to Largo on the Blue Line, Metro engineers included a good number of crossovers (places where a train can move from one track to another), to provide flexibility for operations. That's another solution.
But with financial pressures bearing down on the Dulles line, I think there will be an impulse to skimp on some of these improvements. We'll see.
Washington, D.C.: Metrorail needs more farecard machines that accept SmarTrip. Everywhere I go, there are lines at the SmarTrip-compatible machines while farecard-only machines are unused. Thanks.
Lanham, Md.: Metro doesn't pay attention to the information on its Web page. According to a link on the weekend track work section, a brochure lists track work on the Orange Line between Cheverly and Eastern Market and on the Red Line between Silver Spring and Forest Glen. Yet the home page only lists track work on the Red Line.
I called Metro's customer service Friday afternoon. The rep was UNABLE to confirm if there was track work on the Orange Line. Isn't that wonderful.
I guess Metro thinks NOBODY reads the info they put out.
I hear you. Metro has got some major problems when it comes to communicating with the public.
More on pedestrians: "It seems better for people to just respect walkers and then go when they've crossed."
On the other hand, outside my downtown office, there is a sign for "No Turn on Red 7 AM to 7 PM." But the pedestrians think they are entitled to walk even when there is only one second before the light changes. If you let them walk, you risk a ticket for an illegal right turn. If the pedestrians won't respect that it's not their turn, I don't think drivers should have to respect them either (and many don't -- once the "Don't Walk" light comes on, I see many drivers force their way through the crosswalk, and many pedestrians respond with their middle fingers).
Steve Ginsberg: Alls I'm saying is in the fight between your car and that walker, only one of you has the chance to kill the other. Yes, obviously walkers should also obey the rules, but it can be deadly for you to not respect them whereas it's merely annoying for them to not respect you. Their middle finger stands no chance against your front grill.
Washington, D.C.: I've been on a number of Metrobusses in D.C. that have copies of Bible verses posted on the partition behind the driver. Is that allowed, and if so, why? I know it's just a little thing, but I'm paying for that ride, and I feel like I'm being preached to at my own expense.
Lyndsey Layton: Washington, I've seen that, too! I've assumed that it's some very expressive passenger who has been taping those messages in place. Regardless, the operators are supposed to inspect the buses at the beginning and end of the shift, and toss out any trash or debris.
Follow-up on my rant: You responded to my post with this question: "Is this where there is just a regular old green light or is there a dedicated turn signal? I'm not sure why the walker would have a DON'T WALK sign if there wasn't a dedicated turn signal."
No, what I'm referring to is flat-out crossing against the light. That is--I drive down G Street and approach the light at 13th. I've got a green. Some pedestrian waiting to cross G has a "Don't Walk" but thinks he is entitled to walk anyway. It's not MY responsibility to yield to him!;
Steve Ginsberg: It is your responsibility not to kill him, even if he's in the wrong. People break traffic rules all the time, in cars, on bikes, walking, etc., but that doesn't justify endangering either of you.
I-66 HOV: If I-66 becomes HOV-3 instead of HOV-2, wouldn't that just throw more traffic onto Lee Highway and Arlington Blvd? Does Arlington County really want that?
Steve Ginsberg: It might. It might also get more people carpooling and less people driving. I'm not saying it's the answer, just that it may do more to relieve congestion than getting rid of HOV altogether.
RE: Pedestrians: The first poster was correct. Pedestrians do always have the right of way -- inside a crosswalk, outside a crosswalk, Walk sign, or Don't Walk sign. It's one of the Golden Rule's of driving. This does not mean a pedestrian crossing on a Don't Walk sign should be crossing, but as far as driving rules and liability goes, pedestrians always have the right of way.
Steve Ginsberg: Right. Don't kill the walker.
Arlington, VA: What is going on with Metro lately? For the past several weeks, I've experienced delays almost every single time I've ridden Metro, morning and evening. It's like a return to the bad old days of about 6 or so years ago, when there was that horrible summer when trains kept breaking down.
On another note, I just have to rant about people who think that they have a god-given right to read their paper/book/magazine no matter how crowded the Metro car is. It drives me nuts to see a person's worth of space being taken up by idiots holding out a book or newspaper, while I'm so crammed in that I have to turn my head sideways. Even worse is when people use my back or head as a book rest. People, if the car is crowded, have a little consideration for someone besides yourself and put the book away until you have room to read it.
Lyndsey Layton: Hi Arlington. Now don't get down on NEWSPAPER readers but I agree, no one balance his hardcover on your head. For goodness' sake, people!
Regarding the quality of your commute, it's been rough out there on the Orange/Blue lines for several reasons, including the recent problem with the failure of a track circuit in the tunnel between Rosslyn and Foggy Bottom.
Herndon Va: Why are the traffic reports around here so utterly useless?
I have a LONG commute everyday (Bowie to Herndon) on roads that can have wildly variable traffic (Beltway and the Tollway)
Listening to WTOP's Traffic reports (or Mtero Traffic's for that matter) is an exercise in utter frustration. You never know if they are going to mention your stretch of the roadway, and even if they do its in vague terms like "some Slowing" or a "slow Patch"
When I lived in Chicago traffic reports were simpler, they only reported travel times on all the major arteries between clearly defined landmarks (ie "Airport to The Loop on the Kennedy is 1hour 16 min)
Steve Ginsberg: Apparently so. There's some new technology that provides better traffic reports, but it's expensive and some of it requires coordination with state DOTs. I suspect we'll see more of it, but I'm not sure how soon.
TKPK, Md.: Great series on Metro problems a few weeks ago. Can you provide any follow-up to a piece that ran a few months ago about all the Metro board members who don't use the system that they oversee? Did your story shame any of them into riding the bus or rail at all?
Lyndsey Layton: TKPK, Thanks so much. I can't say I see any difference in riding behavior by the Metro board members. Oh, wait. Jim Graham did tell me that he rode Metrobus twice since that story appeared. There is one new development, however. Dan Tanghlerini, the District's transportation director, joined the Metro board and he's a daily rider. So you've got one of 12.
Falls Church, Va.: re: "The Metro board of directors has resisted that idea for years, saying they want Metro to have the cushier appearance of a commuter railroad ..."
Just wondering -- is this the same board of directors that also resist using Metro ??
Lyndsey Layton: By and large.
Online shopper: Metro already sells memorabilia -- so buy some now, and in 25 years it will be retro. I don't think they'd sell enough of the current retro stickers to fund a few more subway cars.
Lyndsey Layton: A savvy tip.
Who's in charge?: Could you tell me what agency or group is supposed to be in charge of traffic during events in D.C., such as the Cherry Blossom Festival or BBQ Battle? I need to know to whom to complain about the total abdication of traffic management responsibilities ...
Steve Ginsberg: The simple answer is that the Department of Transportation coordinates a plan in conjunction with the Police Department ahead of time. The police enforce it during events. But nothing is simple on DC streets because the secret service, park service and a bunch of other agencies often have some role in closing streets, depending on where the event is and what it's for. For you, I would suggest starting with DOT and MPD.
Arlington, Va.: Metro promised more trains on ALL rail lines after Nationals games. But on Saturday night, there was an 18-minute gap between Red Line trains towards Shady Grove.
This dangerous overcrowding is going to lead to someone being pushed onto the tracks.
It's not rocket science to know ehen the crowds are coming. How come Metro can't be prepared?
Lyndsey Layton: Hi Arlington. I believe Metro was doing track work at the time of that game, so all trains on the Red Line were sharing a single track, which slows down traffic considerably.
Yikes! Scary drivers!: No wonder pedestrians feel so threatened, if drivers have the attitude that "It's not MY responsibility to yield to them!" How arrogant and selfish can someone be?! Thank you, Steve, for pointing out that it IS actually the driver's responsibility not to kill the pedestrian. It's shocking to me how many people on this chat -- who presumably are a very small, self-selected group -- are so rabidly self-centered that they have lost sight of how deadly their cars can be and instead think only about the inconvenience of waiting 5 extra seconds for a pedestrian to walk past their car.
Steve Ginsberg: Well I don't think that's particular to drivers. Walkers, bikers, Metro riders, all of us are in a hurry to get where we want to go. But drivers do have a special responsibility because they're by far the biggest and most dangerous on the street. Just wish more of them would see it that way.
Metro TUNNEL???: Huh? Really? A four- to five-block long tunnel connecting Gallery Place to Metro Center to ease congestion? How much of a convenience will this tunnel be if Metro passengers have to walk five to seven minutes from one station to the next? Isn't mass transit supposed to be a matter of convenience? Sounds to me like the tunnel isn't the solution - Metro should dig even deeper into other more pressing problems.
Lyndsey Layton: Actually, it kind of makes sense, if you think about the crowding in that section of the subway. The idea is to move people, you don't have to do it on overcrowded trains. Those stations are so close together, it's an easy walk. So you move the people, through an underground, climate controlled space (that maybe has some vendors along the way, so you can earn a little rent and provide services to riders) and take the pressure off the trains.
I sent you an e-mail a couple of weeks ago regarding the problems with Metrobus -- namely the fact that you'll frequently have two buses show up at the same time, one of them being 10 or more minutes late, and yet they both continue along the route as normal, with the first bus being packed and the 2nd being empty! Also, the fact that the majority of buses don't have GPS, meaning that basically, at any given point, Metro tells passengers that they have "no idea" where one of its buses might be. Do you have any comments, or any idea if a series on metrobus might be done? Thanks, and I loved your metro series last month.
Lyndsey Layton: Hiya. Lyndsey here. I'm working on a some stories about Metrobus. Stay tuned. And if you have specific thoughts, please send them to me at [email protected]. Thanks
Connecticut visitor: I enjoy my visits to DC and work hard to be "a good tourist" -- i.e., not block sidewalks, stay to the right on escalators, etc. We're planning another trip but need to stay out in the 'burbs. Is it difficult to find parking at the Metro stations after the morning rush at the Silver Springs or Rockville stations? Thanks!
Lyndsey Layton: Hi Connecticut. What a thoughtful tourist. I think you should be able to find parking at the Silver Spring station after the morning rush.
Greenbelt, Md.: Loved Lyndsey's recent expose on shoddy Metrobus service. The main question I have is when is Metro going to take a hard look at bus service and make modifications reflecting the way their passengers use the service. Some bus routes date back to the early 20th Century when most service fed into the downtown employment area. There needs to be more north-south and east-west service that traverses the District without having to necessarily go through downtown. Is anything in the works?
washingtonpost.com: Review Finds Metrobus in Decay (Post, June 17)
Lyndsey Layton: Hi Greenbelt. I think it's going to take some significant political pressure, and money, to improve Metrobus. If you have specific ideas, please email me separately. Thanks.
Woodbridge, Va.: Rather than widening the Beltway, I'd much rather see a Metrorail line that circles the Beltway, connecting the spokes of Metro's existing lines. Seems to me that it would increase ridership significantly. It would certainly make commuting to the Tyson's Corner/McLean area much easier! What's the likelihood of this happening within the next decade?
Steve Ginsberg: There's really no likelihood of this happening in the next decade. There is a constituency for a Metro line around the Beltway but no officials are talking about it. Instead, Virginia and Maryland are looking to add toll lanes to both sides of the road.
Reston, Va.: I started commuting on MetroRail in the early 1980s, first from Eisenhower Ave, and then after moving to Reston, using Fairfax Connector bus to West Falls Church Metro. Recently, I started driving solo to save my sanity.
The Orange line to/from Virginia is overcrowded, sometimes undependable, and almost always driven by a surly Metro operator. God forbid I try to ride the train from L'Enfant Plaza after a Nationals baseball game!
Why in the world are they talking about increasing Metro ridership from Vienna, without first adding trains to the existing schedule? Apparently, these proponents of increased ridership don't use MetroRail now.
Lyndsey Layton: Hi Reston. You've hit on a serious flaw. A lot of land use planning around Metro stations in the city and the burbs doesn't examine the capacity constraints of the existing Metro system.
Washington, D.C.: I noticed in APTA's Peer Review of Metrobus operations that they recommend ensuring bus drivers stock their buses with schedules before each run. Yet more often than not, the buses I ride have no schedules at all! Apparently Metro can't even get drivers to follow federal law by inspecting their buses before each run and reporting any problems. And what ever happened to that system map Metro finally stopped charging for?? Even if the excuse is that the same buses run different routes, those system maps apply universally. Why is Metro so boneheaded that we can't at least get those system maps on all buses and in rail stations? It seems like they're trying to preserve the mystery of Metrobus.
Lyndsey Layton: Metrobus, the stealth transit system....
Washington, D.C.: Re: Metro pedestrian tunnels
I believe they are also considering pedestrian tunnels linking Gallery Place (the most poorly laid out hub, in my opinion) and Metro Center
Lyndsey Layton: Right, two tunnels - one linking the Farraguts and the other connecting Metro Center and Gallery Place
Alexandria, Va.: I live in Alexandria and take the Blue Line metro every day from Van Dorn to Rosslyn. I can't help but notice that everyday during the afternoon rush hour how overstuffed the Metro is. While waiting on the platform, I noticed that there are always two 6 car orange line trains, and one blue line, that alternates between four and six car train.
My question is, why doesn't metro help us Blue Line commuters by using 6 car trains, not just 4, and more frequent than the two to one ratio being currently used? I can't help but notice that metro does have a lot of cars sitting in the Eisenhower Avenue metro yard ...
Metro runs 4s on the Blue Line during the rush because that's all they've got. They're running all their functioning rail cars during the a.m. and p.m. rushes.
Lyndsey Layton: Looks like we've hit our deadline, folks. Thanks for chatting. We're sorry if we didn't get to answer all your questions. Please join us again in two weeks.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Washington Post staff writers Lyndsey Layton and Steve Ginsberg discussed local travel and transportation. | 497.133333 | 0.933333 | 5.733333 | high | medium | mixed | 4,825 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/24/DI2005062400781.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/24/DI2005062400781.html | Revisiting Washington | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | Today's discussion with Courtland Milloy has been canceled. Please stay tuned for another discussion with Courtland Milloy, date and time still to be determined. Thank you.
You're driving around on a Saturday, mentally noting the people you're passing on the street, the landmarks and buildings that catch your eye. Have you ever wondered the history of it all? Are you conjuring up memories of your own from decades past?
After 30 years as a Metro reporter and columnist for The Washington Post, Courtland Milloy is retracing his steps, revisiting many of the people he's written about and updating their stories.
Join Milloy on Monday, June 27, at Noon ET for a revisit to Washington. Feel free to share your own recollections of life in Washington from the early 1970s to the present and to inquire about past subjects of his columns.
Sunday's Column: Apologies Futile When Wrongs Are Not Righted (Post, June 26)
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Join Post columnist Courtland Milloy for a revisit to Washington. Feel free to share your own recollections of life in Washington from the early 1970s to the present and to inquire about past subjects of his columns. | 5.538462 | 1 | 29.820513 | low | high | extractive | 4,826 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/23/DI2005062301410.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/23/DI2005062301410.html | "Mystery! Inspector Lynley" | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | New York Times bestselling author Elizabeth George was online Monday, June 27, at 2 p.m. ET to answer your questions about her latest book in The Inspector Lynley Mysteries, "With No One As Witness," as well as Series 4 of The Inspector Lynley Mysteries airing on PBS Sundays, June 26 - July 17 (check local listings).
Please keep in mind, plot details may be revealed ...
In "With No One As Witness," Detective Inspector Thomas Lynley is back along with his partner, Barbara Havers, and newly promoted Detective Sergeant Winston Nkata to hunt for a sinister killer.
During "The Inspector Lynley Mysteries," Series 4, George's crime-cracking duo, Lynley and Havers, will investigate four new contemporary murder mysteries -- building to a dramatic climax that threatens Lynley's relationship with the two women closest to him.
George is a graduate of the University of California at Riverside and California State University at Fullerton and began her career as a high school English teacher. George's awards include the Anthony, the Agatha, the Grand Prix de la literature Policiere and the MIMI. She is only one of two American writers whose novels have been adapted for MYSTERY!.
San Francisco, Calif.: I am halfway into reading "With No One As A Witness" and it is the first of your books for me. I was introduced to your novels through the Inspector Lynley Mystery series. Since I became a fan through the TV Series, it enabled me to know who the characters are in "WNOAAW". Question: All of your characters are strong, opinionated and dedicated to their respective jobs. Do you base these attributes on people you know, interviewed and researched, or are they composites of people you know, interviewed or researched? Thank you.
Elizabeth George: I suppose that, in large part, the quality of being strong, opinionated, and dedicated to a profession or a job is something that comes from me rather than something I witnessed in someone I was interviewing, deciding afterwards to use it in a character. I'd say that nearly all of the successful professional people I know are pretty much like that as well.
Beyond that, though, having strong and opinionated people makes for good conflict in a novel since they're obviously going to butt heads at one time or another. When you read "In the Presence of the Enemy" I think you'll notice this in particular, as it involves all five of my mine characters and they soon find themselves in major conflict over their involvement in a kidnapping case and their differing styles of handling what happens in that case.
I hope you continue to enjoy the books, and it's great to know that you came to them through the television series.
Rimini, Italy: Many are wondering about the cut of 150 pages you did while writing WNOAW, you said in an interview or during your tour, that they were part of this last book, but that you decided to put them in the next. Can you tell us something about this? You also told about an omniscient way that you wished to use for this next novel. What is that meaning of this "omniscient" word in this contest?
Elizabeth George: Buon giorno! How exciting to get a question from Italia. What a glorious country.
On to your question: What happened was the WNOAW was becoming longer and longer as I attempted to create a plot structure called an hour-glass plot. Using this structure, the writer creates what appear to be two different and unrelated novels that end up colliding in one moment and then going on their separate ways. To do this structure justice, I saw it was going to run about 1500 manuscript pages in length. It was also going to demand that the reader hold an enormous cast of characters in her head. About 900 pages into it, I decided to pull out the other plot and to use it for my next novel, which is what I'm doing right now.
Omniscient is a style of narration in which the story is told from the all-seeing and all-knowing viewpoint of a narrator who is outside the action and can consequently comment on the action, on characters, on social conditions, etc. Lots of literary novels are written this way (Think "Cold Mountain" for starters) and most of the classic novels were written this way. It's the most difficult of the narrative styles to carry off, so I wanted to try it as a challenge to myself.
Denver, Colo.: Is it true that you're a born-again Christian? This isn't obvious in your writing, perhaps in the topics chosen?
Elizabeth George: You are confusing me with the other Elizabeth George. You will see the difference if you log onto her Web site which is ElizabethGeorge.com and mine which is ElizabethGeorgeonline.com.
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada: I have loved everyone of your books on Detective Lynley, especially Playing for the Ashes. I noticed that on the Detective Lynley mysteries there are two titles I didn't recognize: A Cry for Justice and If Wishes were Horses. I've never seen these in book form. Where can I get them? Keep writing, your a truly fabulous writer!
Elizabeth George: I gave the BBC permission to use my characters in their own crime stories as long as I could approve the script and as long as they made no changes in the characters personally or professionally. The two you have seen are among the 6 independent stories they've filmed with my permission. There are no novels to go with them.
Huntington Beach, Calif.: With Lynley resigned (for now?), will you focus more on Havers or on some of the other characters you have been introducing over the last few books? (Loved "With No One As Witness" -- your finest to date!)
Lynley has gone to Cornwall to recover from WNOAW. It wasn't my intention to reassign him or retire him, as you will see. I'll continue my focus on all the characters from the books, continuing the process of dipping in and out of their lives at different times.
New York, N.Y.: A few years ago a message on your Web site described Helen as "cryptocatholic." Do you agree? How would you describe Helen? Thanks.
Elizabeth George: Gosh. I don't know what "cryptocatholic" means. I should dash for my dictionary. Instead, I will say that Helen is first of all what I would call a fading It girl. It girls are upper class girls in England who are generally well-bred, did no go a university for higher education, come from wealthy families, and lead fairly idle lives until such a time as they marry a well-heeled man. They get their pictures taken at parties and after that they appear in Hello magazine. If they get drunk and vomit in the gutter, the tabloids are there to see it all. Helen comes from this group of young woman but she's older and now she has to take a look at what she's done with her life as far as being a productive member of society goes. Having no sense of real purpose, she feels inadequate and when she agrees to marry Lynley, there is part of her that feels even worse because she's ended up doing just exactly what she was brought up to do. Yet she's surrounded by people who are leading productive lives, which causes her to look at her own life and find it wanting.
Dallas, Tex.: What plans do you have for Tommy, will he return to New Scotland Yard in your next book?
Elizabeth George: Lynley will definitely return.
Rochester N.Y.: Dear Ms. George, I very much enjoy your books, primarily because of the characters involved -- although the mysteries are very good puzzles.
I wonder if you've thought of writing about Lynley, Helen, etc. ... outside of the murder mystery genre? I guess I'd encourage you to write some more stories about these characters, perhaps earlier in their lives.
Elizabeth George: I love the structure of the crime novel, and I can't imagine writing about these characters outside that structure. The crime provides a throughline in the novel, driving it forward. On that structure I can hang as much as I want from the point of view of the characters' lives. Right now that gives me a lot of freedom to explore who they are and what's happening to them, so I guess I'll be sticking to it for now. Basically, I consider these "regular" novels in which crimes occur and must be solved.
College Park, Md.: I love your writing style, the way the story comes from so many points of view. I also like the way you have introduced the class struggle in England with out making the books preachy.
Besides all that I am an incurable Anglophile so I love mysteries set in England with strong female characters.
Elizabeth George: Thanks so much. I try to make the books reflective of England as it is today. Not too much like the England Agatha Christie wrote about, but still an endlessly fascinating place.
Lynley Lover on the Chesapeake Bay: Elizabeth:
An important element in the success of your books, and of the recognition they have deservedly received, is your ability to "get the language right." That is, you write as if you were English/British and use idiomatic language correctly and effectively. Are you able to do this because you have spent a lot of time personally researching and studying modern British speech, or do you have staff and editors who help you get it right? (Either way, you're "spot on!")
Elizabeth George: I have indeed spent a lot of time in England since my first trip there in 1966. That's helped me inordinately when it comes to getting the language right. I also watch British television both here in the US and when I'm in England and I read a large number of British novels. All of this helps me stay current.
Additionally, I have three or four slang thesauruses (is the plural of that thesari???) that I use, and I generally know when I need a British word instead of an American one.
My English editor and copy editor read the manuscript and if I go wrong, they put me right too. But most of the language remains as I wrote it.
Rimini, Italy: Thank you, Mrs. George. I think you have always done this in your wonderful way to describe the feelings of every character!
Derby, England, UK: What are your plans for Azhar and Hadiyyah?
Elizabeth George: Gosh, you really don't want to know, do you? There is a story arc for them and Havers, but telling it would spoil the surprise.
Arlington, Va.: With a male and female lead in your stories, how did you resist the impulse to develop a romantic relationship between them? The relationship between Havers and Lynley is what makes the series so interesting to me, but I am torn because I frankly (sorry) have never been satisfied with Lynley's love interests and am always secretly rooting for the cliched romantic story line between the leads. Also, how much input did you have in casting for the television series?
Elizabeth George: I wanted to write about a variety of kinds of love when I started this series. One of the kinds I wanted to write about is the non-sexual love that can exist between a man and a woman in close friendship. That's what Lynley and Havers represent. It's easy to resist having them "end up" together because that would never happen in a million years in real life, considering their respective backgrounds.
I had no input at all into the casting of my characters on television.
Bowie, Md.: I'm addicted to reading and owning every Inspector Lynley novel. The characters and plots are compelling and I thank you for them. I was curious as to how much input you have in the adaptation of your characters and novels to the television series currently running on PBS' "Mystery"?
Elizabeth George: I had no input into the casting or the screenplays done from my novels. Oddly enough, now that the BBC is making their own shows using my characters, I have approval over scripts and over characters, although still not over the casting.
Houston, Tex.: What about the man in the shadows with the kid who shot Helen? Will we learn more about this person?
Elizabeth George: You will learn all.
Chappaqua, N.Y.: You are quite particular about, and very effective at, evoking particular settings and, as you put it, landscapes in your novels. Since these are essential parts of your novels, how well do you feel they translate to the mystery series on television? Is it easier or more difficult to achieve the same goal in a different medium? Best regards.
Elizabeth George: I think some of them have translated well, especially when they've gone to the exact location as they did with going to Jervaulx Abbey and Jervaulx Hall in A Great Deliverance and Walton-on-the-Naze in Deception on His Mind. I think the other settings have translated okay.
Oakland, Calif.: Last night's BBC version of "In Pursuit of the Proper Sinner" was the first I have seen. I could not believe how wrong Helen was portrayed. Doesn't that bother you?
Elizabeth George: Drives me insane. It's one of those situations when you have to raise your hands in surrender and say, "Oh well."
Derby, England, UK: Do you have any contact with British authors such as Ruth Rendell and P.D. James ? If so, how do you find you all get along ?
Elizabeth George: While I've met P.D. James and indeed took a seminar from her many years ago, I do not know Ruth Rendell. Living as I do in California, I have contact with British authors only when I do an event in England that involves all of us.
Fairfax, Va.: Ms. George, I have enjoyed many of your books and the Mystery! series as well. I note that the Mystery! version seems to be moving Lynley and Havers together in a much more personal sense than do your books. Is this an intentional departure to heighten the tension between the two characters?
Elizabeth George: Definitely. They know what they're doing. They also know that the television characters will only "get together" over my dead body.
Beaumont, Tex.: Do you expect to ever write a book with an American setting and characters? Not that I'm complaining -- I love your Lynley books.
Elizabeth George: I have no plans to do that right now. I love writing about England, always have. I was writing about England when I was fifteen years old.
RE: Derby: Three cheers also from me for Azhar and Hadiyyah! Wonderful characters.
Elizabeth George: Thanks so much. I like them too.
Derby,England, UK: Just to thank you for two things :
Firstly for setting a novel, and hence an ILM episode in Derbyshire, and secondly for answering tonight (yes, it's evening here) every single question I had.
Elizabeth George: Derbyshire. What a gorgeous place! When I first drove through to see if it would work for me as a setting in a novel, I spent the whole time going around curves in the road saying, "Oh my God!" at one sight after another.
Eugene, Ore.: Love your books -- you're one of my favored few I buy in hardback rather than borrow from the library.
I enjoy the character of Barbara quite a lot. She speaks for a lot of us who aren't among the "beautiful people." I'm wondering if there's a romance on the way with her Pakistani neighbor. If so, would this be Barbara's first such romance?
Elizabeth George: Someday I hope to be able to fit more of Barbara's backstory into a novel so that readers can know more about her love life. As to romance with Azhar....you just keep reading.
Oakland, Calif.: Given what happened to Helen, and the direction the BBC series appears headed, it seems prudent for Azhar to be sure his estate plan is in order. Any comments?
Elizabeth George: Everyone should have an orderly estate plan in my universe.
Houston, Tex.: Will Tommy return to New Scotland Yard? What are your plans for him in your next novel?
Elizabeth George: He will return.,
New York, N.Y.: I'm a guy and have read all of your books after my mom recommended them. I wonder if you write for a particular audience, women for instance? Sometimes I do feel that the perspective is "feminine," I guess, interesting but at odds with my perspective.
Thanks for the books and the chat.
Elizabeth George: I'm not actually writing for any particular audience. I just write the novels as I see them.
Houston, Tex.: Tell me more? This person in the shadows, is it someone from Tommy's past, or someone he has put away??
Elizabeth George: No way! You will have to keep reading. But I'm thrilled to know that you observed something in need of further exploration.
Washington, D.C.: If Barbara gets promoted, will that affect her partnership with Lynley?
Elizabeth George: Not really. In reality, it would. But this is fiction.
Taipei, TAIWAN: Is there any possibility in the future for Lynley to develope romantic interest towards Havers?
Wall, N.J.: I have read all of your Lynley books and feel that I personally know each of your characters! Your characterization is brilliant. Thank you for the years of wonderful reading adventures.
I'm always amazed when I read of the fact that you're an American -- you write such "English" novels! What do you attribute your Englishness to?
Elizabeth George: I guess I attribute my "Englishness" to hard work, research, many trips to England, a respect for their culture and traditions (despite the way I sometimes have a laugh at their expense), and a love of the countryside.
New York, N.Y.: If you are sitting down to write A great Deliverance today (or your first book involving Lynley et al.), what if any would you do differently?
Elizabeth George: I think I'd opt for a simpler vocabulary in that first novel. I got a little carried away. I do love language, but sometimes I probably needed to restrain myself.
Washington, D.C.: It took two readings of A Traitor to Memory to figure out that there are two mysteries in that novel: the one that occurs during the course of the novel and the death of Sonia. Did Richard kill Sonia? Also, was Richard III the inspiration for Richard in A Traitor to Memory?
Elizabeth George: Richard did not kill Sonia. The last sentence in the novel tells you who did. No Richard III wasn't the inspiration for RIchard in the novel. They just have the same name.
La Spezia, Italy: Dear Ms George,
In your last novel you took a shocking decision. Eventually why didn't you try to link it in some way to the case?
Elizabeth George: I've been to La Spezia! Viva Italia! Che bella!
Anyway. The obvious thing would have been to link it. I hate to do the obvious thing. Instead I chose the terrible irony of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Dallas, Tex.: Barb M. here from Maui Retreat 2004. Just want to thank you again for being such a marvelous teacher. My book is nearly finished. Hoping to attend MWC Retreat 2005
Elizabeth George: Barb! You rock! I am delighted to know you've worked through the tough stuff. It is a great story.
Bethesda, Md.: I'd be interested in knowing if you watched the BTK killer on TV today. Creepy!!
Also, could you describe how you research your mysteries? For example, do you ever talk to people like Mr. BTK?
Elizabeth George: I had no idea the BTK killer was going to be on tv today or I probably would have watched.
I don't talk to killers as research since there are plenty of books available out there to read up on them.
New York, N.Y.: Is Barbara going to come to terms with her weight and appearance?
Elizabeth George: I don't know. That woman is just ungovernable, isn't she? Put her in the vicinity of a carbohydrate and she is a goner.
Boston, Mass.: How does your perspective as an American help (or hinder) your treatment of the very British themes and locales covered in your books?
Elizabeth George: I think I have a bit of distance that allows me to notice and react to things that someone living there might not notice or react to. That acts as a help in my novels. The fact that I'm so far away when I have a simple question about a location makes it tougher.
Derby,England, UK: Having read your latest book, With No One As Witness, I am struck by some of the similarities in it to the plots of the Inspector Lynley Mysteries episodes which are not based on any of the novels.
This leads me to wonder whether you give the BBC -- or whoever is producing the TV series -- foreknowledge of your intentions for the characters.I also wonder how much say you have over what they do with your characters.
I am the moderator of the UK yahoo! Inspector Lynley group and a member of the Elizabeth-George-Mysteries yahoo! group. We discuss many aspects of your work and of the BBC series. This is something about which we have been speculating and we would all be glad of your answer.
Thank you for your creation of such interesting people.
Elizabeth George: The BBC knows where the characters are heading. We are in contact. I read the treatments for the episodes and then the screenplays as well. I comment on them and control what happens to the characters on film.
Oakland, Calif.: Regarding your response to Taipei about Lynley and Havers, thank you, thank you, thank you!
La Spezia, Italy: In WNOAW there are many moments where Winston Nkata remembers Lynley -- Havers notes this similarity and "tells" it to the reader. But a very strange similarity is that the behavior of Winnie remembers so much that of Lynley in his first time with Helen ... the last phone call between Winston and Yasmine is very like that between Tommy and Helen at the end of Missing Joseph. Have you noticed this? Have we to read, in next novels something more lower class instead of the aristocrat lives you described until now? Don't you think that the force of your series is the contrast between the privileged world of Tommy and that one of colleagues and friends?
Elizabeth George: Lynley is an enormous influence on Winston Nkata because he is older, successful, respected, and everything that Winston wants to mold himself into being.
I actually don't think there is too much similarity between the phone calls you mention. Lynley knows Helen loves him and just wants her to admit it, which she does obliquely. Winton doesn't know that about Yasmin and, indeed, Yasmin is not in love with Winston. But she knows he's a good man, not like her husband and not like many other men she's met.
Lynley isn't gone from the series, if that's where you were heading about reading about the lower classes in my books in the future.
Cincinnati, Ohio: I'm curious as to why you portray Havers as so appallingly unattractive (at least so far in those I've read). Her awful family is an interesting touch, but why describe her as so unrelentingly ugly?
Elizabeth George: Gosh, I never think of her as unremittingly ugly. She's not doing anything with herself, it's true. But I think that's what makes her an interesting character.
Rimini, Italy: Which of your main characters is your favorite? You told time ago that at the beginning Simon was the dearest to you. During these years have you changed your preference, and in case, how many times?
Elizabeth George: Simon is always the character dearest to my heart. Havers is the easiest character to write.
Sheboygn, Wis.: Deb and Simon have had many struggles with trying to have a child. Are we ever going to see resolution to this, with adoption or advances in technology.
BTW, love your books and thanks for the postcard. It made my day!
Elizabeth George: Deborah cannot have children due to a genetic problem, which is explained in A Traitor to Memory. As to the rest of it....you'll have to stay tuned.
La Spezia, Italy: Dear Ms George,
The inspector Lynley is the most complicated of your characters because you may never anticipate how will interact with relatives and colleagues. But in this late investigation, Tommy's behavior is really contradictory. Since the beginning he seems more weak and irresolute compared with previous novels and he takes some arguable decisions. Why this change?
Many thanks for your attention.
Elizabeth George: As far as him being weak and irresolute, I disagree. He's in a terribly difficult position because of how his superiors are behaving with regard to the serial killings. He's not in a position to put his foot down. Should he do that, he gets fired and exposes his entire team to the lunacy of Hillier et al.
Derby, England, UK: You've said that you don't like the way the BBC portrayed Helen. I agree that they have rather brought out the worst in her, with all her uncertainties and vulnerabilities, but apart from that I think they've done very well, actually. As Lynley is portrayed as more and more of a wimp, TV Helen is the only one who would ever put up with him. She suits his TV personality better than the sweet Helen we saw in A Great Deliverance and read about in the books. And he puts up with her of course.
Elizabeth George: You may be the only person out there willing to defend the characterization., As they say down under, Good on ya.
Las Vegas, Nev.: Ms. George, I enjoy the Inspector Lynley series very much. Aren't you being too hard on Havers? She was trying to save somebody, when she wounded the inspector with the flare gun. I think she should get a break. Also, how did you manage to master the English mystery genre? You do it awfully well.
Elizabeth George: In the novel it wasn't a flare gun. It was a weapon and it was attempted murder. She was lucky not to have a hell of a lot worse done to her, the mad woman.
Chattanooga, Tenn.: You are a marvelous writer. I tend to grit my teeth when I buy one of your books because your stories make great emotional demands upon your readers, but, so far, the effort has always been worth it.
Do you ever find it difficult to write about horrid things happening to your characters?
Elizabeth George: The challenge for me is to write about difficult things with restraint. No melodrama, no milking the scene. Just to write it simply but in such a way that the reader is caught up in and moved by it all.
Leverkusen, Germany: If Tommy returns to Scotland Yard, will he ever learn to deal with Hillier?
Elizabeth George: You'll have to keep reading. That Hillier is a pill, isn't he?
New York, N.Y.: Rather a silly question but here goes ... my husband is English and we travel to the UK quite a bit but what was this thing about sweet corn in the book? Is this some new fad going on? My husband also reads all your books and we were wondering. P.S. I know the Brits eat lots of weird stuff!
Elizabeth George: Sweet corn is what they call American corn, like the stuff we buy in cans. Corn on its own refers to wheat.
Richmond, Va.: When you wrote "A Great Deliverance" did you know from the start that you actually wanted to continue with these characters and make a series about them?
Marquette, Mich.: Ms. George, what is it like to see your characters be portrayed on the screen? After seeing all these episodes of the LYNLEY mysteries, do you now picture your characters as Nathaniel Parker and Sharon Small?
Elizabeth George: It's a little strange to see actors doing my characters although I'm relieved to say that when I write about Lynley and Havers I don't see Nathaniel Parker or Sharon Small. I don't say that to demean them, by the way. I think they're doing great in capturing the essence of my characters. But my Lynley and Havers look very different from the BBC's.
Richmond, Va.: What is your writing schedule like each day -- do you create outlines for each of your books?
Elizabeth George: I get up at 5:00, work out, and then sit down to write. i write five pages a day, five days a week, until the novel is done. I create characters in advance as well as a step outline and a running plot outline.
Richmond, Va.: I'm so excited to talk to a published author, which I've never done before. How do you feel about your books being filmed on TV? Do you think the actors/actresses are faithful to the characters that you wrote and how do you feel if a plotline is changed or omitted from the film?
Elizabeth George: TV and books are entirely different media, with very different demands. I knew that the films could not capture all of the stories in the books without being six hours long. Since the BBC didn't want to commit that much time to them, I was prepared to see them reduced to crime only. I think the actors and actresses are doing a great job with the parts, especially Sharon Small as Havers.
Anonymous: Who are your favorite authors? What are your favorite books? Do you like movies and TV or mainly reading?
Elizabeth George: The author who's had the biggest impact on me as a writer is John Fowles. The author whose career trajectory and artistic growth I most admire is John LeCarre. My favorite novel is To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee.
New York, N.Y.: How did it feel to see your novels adapted for television? Are you surprised by the results? Are Lynley and Havers what you expected?
Elizabeth George: Physically Lynley and Havers are very different from the Lynley and Havers in my head. But I do think they've captured the essence of the characters quite well. It was thrilling and odd to see my work on the screen. I giggled a lot. I had a big "opening night" for fifty people when I got a copy of the first film. I had it at a local hotel, and it was black tie. What fun.
Elizabeth George: I now have to sign off as I have another appointment in 45 minutes. Thanks to all of you who participated. Elizabeth
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | New York Times bestselling author Elizabeth George will answer your questions about her latest in "The Inspector Lynley Mysteries," "With No One As Witness." Series 4 of the program airs Sundays, June 26 - July 17, on PBS (check local listings). | 120.153846 | 0.961538 | 5.230769 | high | high | mixed | 4,827 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/24/DI2005062400868.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/24/DI2005062400868.html | Talk About Travel | 2033-07-15T17:50:19 | The Post's Travel Section Flight Crew will take your comments, questions, suspicions, warnings, gripes, sad tales and happy endings springing from the world of... the world. Of course, the Flight Crew will be happy to answer your travel questions -- but the best thing about this forum, we insist, is that it lets travelers exchange information with other travelers who've been there, done that or otherwise have insights, ideas and information to share. Different members of the Crew will rotate through the captain's chair every week, but the one constant is you, our valued passengers.
We know you have a choice in online travel forums, and speaking for the entire Flight Crew, we want to thank you for flying with us.
You may also browse an archive of previous live travel discussions.
Steve Hendrix: I really want to go somewhere. That's strange, because I was away last weekend (and the weekend before). Still, that olÃàget-on-a-plane itch is making itself felt in my britches this afternoon (either that, or my daughter put coriander in my boxers again) that makes me yearn for the scent of jet exhaust. Wouldn't it be fun to just get jiggy all the sudden and book a trip somewhere, departure time, Now-30. My equally restless wife and I have done it few times án unplanned backpacking trip, a jaunt to a cheap beach motel, a driving itinerary scrapped in favor of a sidetrip we learned of on the fly. Which brings us to our friendly contest for today: Spontaneous travel. Tell us about your most unplanned, last-minute, seat-of-your-pants journey whether they worked or not -- we'll give you a couple of "Plane Clean Airline air filters (little doohickeys you snap over the air vent above your seat to filter out the impurities at least until they throw your butt off the plane). Here today are K.C. Summers, John Deiner, Andrea Sachs, Anne McDonough, Carol Sottili and me, Steve Hendrix. Let's go!
Washington, DC: FOLLOW-UP TIPS TO LAST WEEK'S CHAT(Hawaii honeymooners and fearful flyer): To the Hawaii-bound honeymooners, I'd recommend skipping Maui (too commercial) in favor of Kauai (stunning beauty, myriad of outdoor activities, far less crowded) and Big Island (ACTIVE volcano, pretty beaches, unique scenery and very nice snorkeling). Split 10-12 days between the 2 islands.
As a recovering Fearful Flyer, I'd highly recommend talking to your doctor about anti-anxiety medication to be taken before flight (and no, I don't work for the pharmaceutical industry). The pills have worked wonders for me. Before the doc prescribed, I was grounded (and miserable) for 3 years. The year I started taking them I went to Hawaii twice, Miami and Puerto Rico. The web site fearofflyinghelp.com (free!)and Capt. Truman Cummings' fear of flying audiotapes have also provided very helpful information. Best of luck.
KC Summers: Thanks Wash. You're right about Maui being crowded -- the traffic rivals anything in DC -- but some think Haleakala (sp?) is worth it. But yeah, everyone raves about the beauty of Kauai. Whatever they do, they shouldn't miss the Big Island! Thanks much for the fear-of-flying tips. Very helpful.
Sorry to ask such silly questions but I have never done this before. I will be going to Paris on British Airways next month. The flight from Miami to London does not leave until 8:45pm. I plan on sleeping as much as possible. Do I need to bring earplugs or do they give you some if you need them. Also, what food services do they have? I am concerned they will serve a dinner (too late for me to eat). Will they serve a meal on the flight from Heathrow to Charles de Gaulle. That is probably when I will be the hungriest. Maybe I will have to try to grab something in Heathrow between flights. I don't even know if the 2 hours between will allow me to do so with customs etc. I have tried calling and asking about the food service but everything is automated unless you want to change a flight. Travelling is difficult enough without being hungry on top of it. Can I bring fruit or other food on the plane like I do here in the US? I'm allergic to nuts and sulfites (dried fruits).
Carol Sottili: You don't have to eat the dinner they serve if you don't want to. Just let the flight attendant know that you won't be eating, and sleep through it. But it is noisy during meal time (I take an ambien and have no trouble sleeping). They also will serve breakfast before you land, so you won't be too hungry. I don't think you'll get much in the way of a meal between London and Paris, as it is such a short flight. Two hours should be enough time to get through customs. And if you don't make it, there is always another flight. I would also recommend that you take food along with you, especially since you have food allergies. There are no restrictions on this. I always take along snack foods to tide me over. Have fun. Don't worry too much because before you know it, you'll be in London.
Richmond, Va: Love your advice, Flight Crew!!!!
We want to go to either Bermuda or the Bahamas on a cruise. (Sort of a cruise there and dock for a "beach" week.) Which location is better in your opinion? We will be taking a 2 and 3 year old! Thanks!
John Deiner: Hey, Rich. Here's the one I'd do first: Bermuda. I'm thinking that most of the cruise lines stop at Nassau or Freeport and the line's private island. Not so bad, but you may get a lot more diversity in Bermuda, where you'll stop at St. George, the Naval Dockyards and Hamilton, which are three very different ports on one great little island. Plenty of super beaches reachable by cab, bus or moped, so you don't necessarily have to spend a fortune to get to the beach -- and an uncrowded one at that. Either way, beach and sun won't be too far way. Have a great trip!
Washington, DC: My most spontaneous trip was from DC to Charlotte at 9 p.m. after a good friend called--dumped and heartbroken. I'd never driven on 95 at night before and was tired -- and not sure where the good places to stop were. I drank something like 120 ounces of coke on that drive. Got in at 3 a.m., dead tired but wired. Fell asleep about 30 minutes later, but it was all worth it to be able to comfort a friend in agony.
Steve Hendrix: Okay, you get huge bonus points for such a Samaritan effort. But I'll bet the traffic was no problem!
New Jersey: My grandfather will be turning 80 next year and our family would like to get together to celebrate. Unfortunately weÃòe geographically spread out (TX, VA, OH, NJ) Can you suggest some possible places that will be entertaining for a diverse group of 25 (ages range from 14 Ãà80) but that is semi centrally located to all of us? WeÃä like to be able to do some things together (birthday party or dinner) but also be able to split up and all be entertained. I suggested Vegas but thought IÃä get an expert opinion. Thanks!
KC Summers: I wouldn't do Vegas with a 14-year-old. You do see kids there, but the scene on the Strip can be pretty raunchy. Have you thought about a cruise? Even if you're not a cruise person, they're great for intergenerational travel -- especially if you choose a line with lots of active stuff (climbing walls, gyms, etc.) for the younger ones. You can all go your separate ways during the day, then get together for dinner. Check cruisecritic.com for ideas.
Rockville, Md.: I'd like to rent a beach house on a beach as deserted as possible. I have an autistic child who bolts and I cannot keep him safe in a crowded environment. Any suggestion? Let's say within a day's drive of DC. Thanks.
John Deiner: Hey, Rock. Carol and I both seem to think that the farther reaches of the Outer Banks may be your best bet. Towns like Avon, Buxton and Frisco, north of Cape Hatteras, offer some beautiful homes on the beach but they're spaced farther apart, and the entire area is far less trammeled than the Duck/Nags Head corridor. They're cheaper to rent as well. And the road in that area can be less busy as well, but there are still a good number of cars buzzing about. Anybody else out there with suggestions for Rockville?
Florida: I'm recently single and want to take my first solo trip. Where would you recommend for a single woman with an interest in history and architecture?
Andrea Sachs: For architecture and singledom, I recommend Miami's South Beach, which has a wonderful collection of art deco buildings and, um, cute guys. Also, Chicago and New Orleans have a great mix of structures and history, and are very social cities. All three offer architectural tours; check with the tourism offices or for Chicago (www.architecture.org). And Columbia, Ind., is a who's who of architects, but I'm not so sure how lively the single scene is. Better stick to Chicago for your first solo outing, then Indiana for later in the game.
Northern Va.: Are you guys seeing any examples of airlines having different attitudes when working with awards tickets versus paid tickets? My recent experience with United seems to bear the theory out. My usual experience with United has been very good when I travel on a paid ticket. Recently, on an awards flight, they changed the flight times, and it was no longer convenient for me. I found out at the last minute, and called to make alternate arrangements. Three hours and four operators later, I was left with "We called and left you a message a month ago, we did everything we were obligated to do, your fault you didn't call and check on your reservation. $100 to rebook your ticket". I asked to be escalated to a supervisor, and he even said that I was LUCKY that they were willing to change my ticket, since it was within 24 hours of my travel time.
I had to pony up the fee. All in all, I still reached my destination for less than the usual airfare. I just wondered whether airlines play hardball more when it's an awards ticket. I've had to change my ticket last minute on business trips and never had a problem.
I'm debating whether to report this to United Customer Service or not. Maybe this attitude is promoted within the company?
Carol Sottili: You've been lucky on a paid ticket because I think they play hardball with anyone that they don't perceive they need. For example, I accidentally used last year's calendar and plugged in the wrong dates for a trip on United, and didn't realize it until I was checking my travel plans a couple of months later. When I called to explain, the supervisor was rude and mean-spirited. He said something along the lines of, "You're lucky you've discovered it now instead of the day you travel. We would have charged you the penalty plus more than $1,000 for the ticket." and "We're in bankruptcy. We can't be helping you out." I was quite surprised by the attitude. It seems short sighted to me to lose long-time customers who fly frequently on an airline for a $100 change fee, but that's the way it is these days. Whenever I fly that route from now on, I'll fly on an airline that doesn't charge a change penalty - that's the power we hold as consumers.
Unplanned Travel: I once flew from Washington to northern Michigan to supervise a press check on a book. At some point between signatures, the book's graphic artists -- both Traverse City residents -- suggested a side trip to Mackinac Island. This isn't so wacky, of course. But they were also both collectors and restorers of turn-of-the-century bicycles, and recruited me to ride one of them in the island's Lilac Festival parade. So there I was, on a business trip, high atop an old bicycle, waving to picture-snapping tourists. Very surreal, but fun!
Steve Hendrix: How fun! For making a business trip fun, that beats the hell out of watching golf at the hotel bar.
Dover, Ohio: Most I ever spent on a hotel room: two nights at the Royal Sonesta on Bourbon Street in New Orleans would have paid two months' rent on our first apartment! Let me explain: when we got married in 1971 our first apartment cost $115/month, furnished (not well, but still . . .) For our 25th wedding anniversary in 1986 we went to New Orleans and paid $230/night for our room. Was it worth it? Absolutely, and we plan to go back next year for our 35th. Had plans to go for our 30th but 9-11 scared us out of it.
John Deiner: This is a leftover from last week, folks. Just thought I'd throw it out there so Dover could get his kind words in on the Sonesta.
Silver Spring, Md.: How to purify water where in the world there is no water bottles available? While traveling abroad, are there any tablets that one can carry to purify water and make it drinkable?
Anne McDonough: You can buy iodine tablets at camping stores like REI. Alternatively, an electric coil can be used to boil water, and you can let that cool for...cold water, or you can buy a portable water purifier. For this and other travel health-related questions, check out the CDC at http://www.cdc.gov/travel/reference.htm. For complete info, you can order their The Yellow Book through the site. Does anyone have personal experience with a particular type of iodine tablet or coil?
Reston, Va.: My favorite spur of the moment trip was when my boyfriend and I went to the airport and went up to every ticket booth asking for any standby flights and wound up getting one to Miami, FL for about $50 - we got there, grabbed a taxi, dropped by the mall for suits, and hit the beach!
Steve Hendrix: Wow. That actually worked? How long did you stay?
St. Mary's City, Md: Ill-advised road trip.
Just before starting college, I was reading the Washington Post one morning and noticed that my favorite pitcher was scheduled to start the next day (in Miami). As I hadn't anything better to do, I hopped in the car and drove (from Maryland), 22 hours in those days before those reality checks provided by Mapquest . . .
Steve Hendrix: Awww. Maybe we can it make it up to you (in a very tiny way).
New York, NY : Thanks so much, this is a wonderful resource! I've started planning my dream trip to South Africa. From what I can tell so far, a good 10-14 day itinerary would be to fly into Johannesburg, drive out to Kruger National Park for a few days, then fly from Jo'burg to Cape Town and stay there the rest of the time, with day trips around the area. Does this sound right? We're two mid-thirty city folk. --And my key question is that I'd rather not have to rent a car, but is that a must?
Andrea Sachs: I don't think you need a car at all. For Kruger, you will be part of safari. For J'burg, you can hire a driver or take a day tour to see the townships and other attractions (from my recent experience, we weren't really encouraged to wander much beyond the hotel unless otherwise supervised). And in Cape Town, you can walk to most places, take cabs or maybe rent a car for a day, just to hit the beaches and wine route.
Washington, DC: To the fearful flyer -- if you're going to take any anti-anxiety medication, make sure Tom Cruise is no where in sight.
Bowie, Md.: Hey crew....John - couldn't agree w/ you more with your review of the Wynn...seems like they didn't improve from the opening weekend that I told you about a few weeks ago - were there still lines at various places as well? ...And, btw, the folks at the Little White Chapel said hi last Monday when we renewed our vows! Oh, most spontaneous trip - no advance warning, I coordinated days off w/ spouse's boss....had suitcases packed in trunk...just jumped on a plane one morning, instead of us heading downtown to work, for our 1st anniversary staying at the Polynesian Resort at Disneyworld. Truely a fun and even romantic getaway! (Had reservations to Dinner at the top of the Contemporary Resort.)
John Deiner: Hey, Bowie. Yeah, Wynn wasn't what I expected, which wouldn't be so bad, but . . . $2.7 billion to build? That's a lot of shrimp cocktails. Lines weren't so bad, actually, except at check-in, and I'm still wondering how they get off charging $10 to go to a car dealership. But thanks for checking in, and congratulations on your renewal!
Columbia, Md. - I was born spontaneous: Growing up, my parents were the king and queen of spontaneous travel. Apparently in the 70s - pre me and my brother - they would take cheap charter flights anywhere at a moment's notice - quite exciting for back then. My Dad thought having a baby shouldn't change this - and would get those cheap last minute charters, and would literally fly to Europe with no notice. It was easier since my Mom didn't work, he was a road warrior and a pioneer on the frequent flyer game, and on at least 50 percent of his business trips, he took us along.
My baby brother was a problem, though - a lot fussier, and would cry if his routine was messed up. So we would have "planned" trips - we packed and were ready, and the baby understood we were traveling. -Where- was the surprise - it was Ocean City, MD unless Dad could get awesome deals/ tickets/ etc for Europe or for another city. Funny thing is my brother was happiest in Ocean City, not any of the cooler places we went.
As for today - my better half still thinks my desire to get away on a moment's notice is crazy. My parents still fly off anywhere at the drop of a hat - Dad reads the Travel section religiously at dawn on Sunday and checks the webfares Wed - and goes just because a fare is cheap. Oddly enough, as an adult my brother is more laid back, and drives my Mom crazy with his last minute road trips.
Steve Hendrix: That could be movie. You're like the Wild Thornberrys. Congrats.
Washington, DC: My boyfriend surprised me with a week on a couple of islands on the Great Barrier Reef. Now we just have to figure out how to get there! We were thinking of going from late Dec. to early Jan., or possibly in Feb. The best airfare we've been able to find is about $2200 (surprisingly, no difference between Christmas-time and mid-Feb.) -- is that about the cheapest we'll find for that time of year?
Also, we're dreading the idea of spending 20+ hours sitting in a cramped coach seat. We think we could cobble together enough frequent-flyer miles to get at least business class, if not first class, but so far we can't find any flights that have award seats available (in any class). Do you have any idea if they're -ever- available on long-haul trips like this? Are there any websites that give tips on how to get frequent-flyer award seats? I've never redeemed frequent-flyer miles, and I just feel like there's some trick to it that I'm missing....
Carol Sottili: The trick is booking as soon as the seats become available, which is 331 days in advance of travel. You waited too long. Frequent flyer seats in business and first class go very quickly on long flights, especially to desireable destinations in Australia, New Zealand, etc. As for $2,200 for a round-trip flight, that sounds high. Keep looking. Kayak.com, for example, lists flights for as low as $1,806 in that time period.
Dupont West, Washington, D.C.: Question. What is the general rule for overseas connecting flights. ID Tags with home and destination address inside the luggage or outside or both? Please clarify.
KC Summers: Both, definitely, because if the outside one gets torn off there'll be another way for the airline to contact you. And you're smart to provide the destination address as well -- a lot of people don't think of that. Of course, you could avoid the whole problem by not checking your bag. Yes, it can be done. Just make sure all your clothes are black!
Powhatan, Va.: HELLO CREW!!! Why has the price of cruising seem to be going up? Is it?
Carol Sottili: Yup, they are going up. The days of the $259 seven-night cruise are over. Seems like the cruise ships are packing them in, so it's the old supply-and-demand deal. Here's the latest press release about it from the trade group that represents cruise lines: New York (June 07, 2005) - Strong consumer demand for seagoing vacations drove robust passenger growth in the first three months of 2005 as the member fleets of the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) carried 2.63 million worldwide guests in the first quarter of 2005, an 8.9 percent increase over the same period in 2004. North American passengers grew by 12.9 percent during the quarter to 2.34 million guests, up from 2.10 million first-quarter guests one year ago. The 2005 first-quarter passenger figures are new statistics released today by CLIA, whose 19 member cruise lines represent nearly 98 percent of the cruise capacity marketed in North America. In addition to the growing passenger totals, CLIA cruise lines also posted impressive occupancy figures, with a 104.3 percent occupancy factor in the first quarter of 2005 compared with 103.3 percent for the year prior.
Rockville, Md.: The most spontaneous trip I've ever taken was to Boston for the weekend a few years ago. My friends and I were sitting in a bar in DC drinking heavily on a Friday night when one of us came up with the idea to go to Boston the next day to visit our roommate, who was coincidentally late with that monthÃó rent. Like any idea conceived over many pints of beer, we though this was great, but we were a little reluctant to go because of all the costly tolls on the way up. When I chimed in and said I had an EZ-Pass the trip was sealed. Somebody booked a room at the Red Roof Inn outside of Boston after they cam home from the bar that night and we were off the next morning at 9am.
While we never found our roommate and got his rent, we had a great time hanging out in the city, checking out the bars and going around speaking in horrible Boston accents.
Steve Hendrix: That sounded like a classic mid-70s road trip, until you got to the Easypass part. Still counts, though!
Washington, DC: Dear Flight Crew:
My friends and I are making (very) tentative plans to go to Europe for New Year's. Flights are pretty cheap right now, but is it too soon to buy tickets already? especially since we're not sure if we're going. Thanks.
Carol Sottili: I wouldn't book unless you're sure you know you want to go because change penalties are very steep - $150 and up for international tickets. There will be more sales.
Rockville, Md.: Yesterday we went to North New Jersey for a wedding and drove back at night. At 00:30 am in the morning, there were only 3 lanes open at the entrance of Delaware Turnpike for all the traffic coming back and we waited for 30 minutes to be able to pay $2. Why don't they increase it to $3 and open more lanes? There was no traffic on the way, except for waiting at the toll booths. Who can I complain to?
John Deiner: We're always a good starting point for complaints! You could go to Delaware Dept. of Transportation, I supose. I can't believe there were only three lanes open. If that's the toll plaza I think it is, there's a great, free workaround it. Take a look at a road atlas and you'll see that you can get off at the exit before the toll plaza and loop around it quite easily on local roads, thus avoiding the toll and, more important (from my perspective at least), the horrid traffic leading up to it. Works both coming and going of course, and usually only takes 10 or 15 minutes. Plus there are lots of fast-food and WaWa sort of places to stop at if you need a break.
Washington, D.C.: I didn't see the weekly travel deals box in yesterday's section -- did I just miss it? I'm in desparate need of some deals for use in Aug/Sept! Thanks.
KC Summers: You're not going crazy, Deals didn't run this week -- even Deal-meisters need a vacation sometimes! But don't worry, Carol will be back next Sunday. Btw, did you notice what we ran in its place: a story telling about our cool new feature, Your Vacation in Lights, and how to enter?
Purifying water: I've used iodine tablets, but make sure you aren't allergic to iodine. You can also buy purifying kits at any camping store. They are pump like things. But where in the world can you not buy bottled water? I've backpacked through plenty of third world countries, and unless you are doing serious camping, you can always buy bottled water.
You should, if you are nervous, make sure it's fizzy water. That way you know that it isn't tap water put in a recycled bottle. Even the cap isn't a sure bet, as unscrupulous shop keepers can use a match to remelt plastic.
Anne McDonough: While it's pretty much available anywhere, I know plenty of folks who'd rather not buy bottled water because of the resulting mounds of plastic bottles. One of the many reasons I love traveling in China is the availability, just about everywhere, of (free!) piping hot boiled water. You never have to deal with iodine or anything. Excellent tip in the fizzy water.
Spontaneous trip: I was marooned in Williamsburg during Hurricane Isabel or whichever one it was (September 2003). After things settled down, we were stuck in a house with no electricity and no prospects of getting any for at least a week. The instant we learned the college was going to be closed for over two weeks, we ran outside, changed the oil on the car, and jumped in and drove to West Virginia. It was great--stayed in bed-and-breakfasts and saw places I know I'll never see again, like this tiny little old mining town called Bramwell. Sigh, now you've gotten me all sentimental just remembering.
Steve Hendrix: Good one! (It was Isabel--hit on Sept. 18, my daughter Isabel's birthday.)
RE: water purifier: Yes, go to REI or Hudson Trail. You can get water purifiers specifically matched to where you are traveling. They aren't very expensive and light to carry. I got my husband one a few years back. Just tell the staff everything about where you'll be and they'll set you up.
Anne McDonough: Excellent, thanks for the followup.
Post-trip post: Hi! I recently returned from a trip to Finland, Iceland, and Sweden, and wanted to report back in that all of the travel tips I received from you and the chatsters were very helpful! It was the trip of a lifetime - my husband and I hope to visit Sweden again for a more lengthy visit in the future. Gary Lee suggested we visit the IceBar in Stockholm - we had a couple of drinks we'll never forget, in the shivering cold negative 5 degree temperature. We took an overnight ferry to and from Stockholm - Turku, Finland, per a Post suggestion - which worked very well too. We also took a day trip to Tallinn, from Helsinki, and absolutely loved the medival architechture and the winding roads! Thank you for all the tips - I highly recommend a visit to that part of the world!
Steve Hendrix: Well, so glad we could help.
Reston, Va.: I loved the article on bicycle and ferry adventure. I have a practical (if somewhat naive) question. How much stuff did you carry with you? A moderate size backpack maybe? I really love this idea, it sounds like a marvelous trip, but I've never done a bike trip and could use a little practical guidance. Thanks!
Andrea Sachs: Hi, so glad you liked the piece. It was a wonderful trip and not so hard to do (or plan). If you are staying at hotels, you don't need much stuff at all (camping is another issue and experience). If you have panniers, you can stuff all of your essentials in those (bathing suit, rain gear, shorts, long pants, T-shirts, sweatshirt, sunscreen, etc., plus a bike emergency kit and bike lock). You can also pack in a mid-size backpack, though your back might get a bit soar (and hot) after biking for hours. However, you can bungee it to the back of your bike. Before you go, visit a bike shop for tips on packing. They have all sorts of bags these days for the front and back of your bike that won't weigh down your cycling. Have a blast and let us know how you enjoyed the trip when you get back. You will never be off any beaten pack and can easily buy anything you have forgotten. Plus, if you have a bike emergency, you are near enough to a town, so you can call walk and roll for help.
Chevy Chase, Md.: Last year when I mentioned to my husband that I might be laid off, he quickly suggested a trip to Australia and New Zealand. My boss was shocked when, upon telling me that my job had been eliminated, I yelped and said, "That's great! I'm going to Australia!" I planned a 4 week trip (that we ended up extending to eight while we were there) in about 2 weeks. It was so much fun because it was so spontaneous and because we had the freedom to do whatever we wantedd without having to check in at the office. (He's self-employed.) The PERFECT trip of a lifetime!
Steve Hendrix: Everybody who's laid off should go to New Zealand. I don't know why they don't think of it.
Melatar, Washington, DC: For a friend's birthday, I asked only, "mountains or water?" I had printed out two destinations from the WashPost "Escapes" columns, one in West Virginia, one on the Chesapeake. They contain everything you need for an excellent day trip to new places.
She picked "water" and we had a spontaneous and memorable day with crabs and beer and walking the paved trail at Chesapeak Beach.
Steve Hendrix: There's something zen-like about that....
Washington, DC: I know you probably cannot plug specific products, but I'm moving and will most likely start flying a lot in the future. I've never had a frequent flyer mileage program before and wondering what type of plan is best and where to start. How do people get all those frequent flyer miles?
Carol Sottili: I've never played the frequent flyer game, but there are plenty of people who don't spend much on flying. They get a credit card that gives them miles and then charge everything, including car payments, mortgage payments, hospital bills, all types of big ticket items, to get miles, miles, miles. One of the favorite cards is the MilesOne Capital One card because it's good on many airlines and there are no blackout dates, but I have no idea what the fees, etc. are on the card. Also, if you know what airline you're going to fly, you may want to get a credit card issued by that airline. Go to www.webflyer.com for more details about the frequent flyer world.
Annandale, Va.: Hello, travel folks, An old French friend will be visiting this summer. We are both turning 50 (Wow! old gets a whole lot older from this perspective!). I am considering taking her and my kids whitewater rafting on the Cheat or New Rivers. I've done the Colorado and the Green, I don't believe she has. Any suggestions as to outfitters, where to stay, anything else? The only time available is the 1st week of August, not the best I know, but, more technically dificult. Thanks for your help!
Steve Hendrix: The New is the Eastern river folks say is the closest to the big western waters, but thats mostly in the Spring. In August, all those rivers will be lower and slower. We'll post a link to a recent Escapes we ran on rafting the New.
washingtonpost.com: The Now River , (April 26, 2005)
Steve Hendrix: Here the piece on rafting the New River...
Southwest: Kids-n-car seats. Hi crew - you guys rock! I have a flight question about toddlers and car seats. We have an upcoming family vacation that involves a 5-hour flight. We have two-year-old twins and are wondering about the benefits of using their car seats on the plane vs. checking them as baggage. Do the car seats provide any real in-flight protection for toddlers? Are they hard to get through security? Any and all advice welcome! Thanks!
Carol Sottili: Since you have to buy seats for both kids, and you're bringing them anyway, I'd bring them on board. Here's a little bit more info about the topic, published in Travel QandA last year: Q We are flying to Europe with our 1 1/2-year-old and have purchased a seat for her. We are confused about the rules regarding car seat use on planes. United's Web site says we may bring a car seat, but when we called the airline, we were told we must use a car seat. I would like to take her FAA-approved car seat, but my husband is concerned about lugging it around. Does the airline rent them? A You don't need a child restraint seat for children under age 2 on airplanes. Alison Duquett, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said, "The FAA does not require parents to use a child restraint seat. However, we strongly encourage it." Children under 2 can either sit on an adult's lap or in a separate seat, with or without a child-restraint system. During take-off and landing, the child must be either seated in your lap, or secured in a seatbelt, but the flight attendant has the authority to decide which is safer, according to United spokesman Jason Schechter. The issue of whether children under 2 should be permitted to sit on parents' laps while flying has been debated for years. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the government's National Transportation Safety Board are among the groups who have been lobbying the FAA to mandate child-safety restraints aboard airliners. The FAA has responded by strongly recommending that parents use child-restraint systems but has not adopted the rule, citing arguments, including the results of a recent study, that conclude such a law may cause an increase in deaths if parents switch from air to car travel to avoid paying for the extra plane ticket. Most airlines offer discounts of up to 50 percent on seats for children under 2. Children in laps travel free. Duquett noted that child-restraint seats must be government-approved for use on aircraft -- a statement to this effect will be printed on the seat if it is. Airlines, including United, do not rent car seats, but if you're driving during your vacation, the seat will be put to good use.
re: Boca Raton: this traveler should be reminded NOT to bring fruit on international flights, unless it is all consumed or left on the plane. Don't take fruit off the plane when you land in the UK!
Spontaneous Travel: When my husband and I started dating, I hated The Who. He loved them and I would just tune them out (or go home). The first concert he took me to was under duress so I slept through it (at Madison Square Garden, no less!). Then my husband and I married and I couldnÃô escape The Who. I started listening to them and fell in love with their music. Last spring, I was reading the NY Post gossip column where I saw a picture of Roger Daltrey (The WhoÃó lead singer). His photo had been taken the previous day at MacyÃó because he was in town for a concert to be held that night. As soon as I read that photo caption, I called Ticketmaster, bought the last tickets available, booked tickets on Amtrak and then called my husband. He thought I was the best for booking the last minute trip. We combined the trip with dinner at Mesa Grill and it was a fantastic night (and a great concert!!!).
Steve Hendrix: What does he think is better, that you became a fan or that you bagged those tix?
Washington, D.C.: Hey, Flight Crew! Have any of you (or the chatters) traveled with a pet? My husband and I have been thinking about going on a couple of weekend jaunts this summer, but we'd hate to leave our puppy behind. I know some hotels say that pets are allowed, but are the pets really welcome? Is is difficult to find places such as outdoor cafes where pets are allowed? I'd appreciate any advice. Thanks!
Andrea Sachs: If the hotel says they take pets, they take pets (just ask ahead if there is an additional charge and a size/weight limit). Pet-friendliness varies per city and country. Paris is very pro-pooch, as is Toronto (Rover can ride the subway). There are tons of guidebooks and online resources that list hotels, restaurants, attractions, etc. that allow pets, such as www.petswelcome.com, www.petsonthego.com and www.dogfriendly.com. However, sometimes bringing Rover along is not such a great idea. Dogs can get stressed when taken out of their safe environment, and being cooped up in a hotel is no better than being at home. In addition, can you really relax and tour without restriction if you know you have to, say, rush down the Eiffel Tower to make it back to the hotel to walk the dog. Sometimes the nicest thing is to leave the puppy at home and shower him with affections upon your return.
Washington DC: Silly question...I want to mend a pair of pants during a long flight, but I suppose in this age of heightened security, I wouldn't be able to bring on board my needle, pins, and a pair of blunt-tipped scissors?
KC Summers: I just got off the phone with the TSA and it turns out ... they're not sure. Or rather, it's at the discretion of the screener. Blunt-tipped scissors are fine, but needles and pins-a (And so it begins / needles and pins / because of all my pride / the tears I gotta hide -- oh sorry, I got carried away there!). Anyway, they say pins are okay as long as they have a "circular end," which could or could not mean that little tiny end on a straight pin. It's up to the screener you get, so go ahead and try, but be prepared to have them confiscated.
re: ID Tags: Luggage Tag Tip: Put the name of the hotel you're going to, WITH the dates of stay on one side. Label the other side, "Home" and w/your home info on the back side (we use return address labels). That way, if you're gone for only a couple of days, and your luggage is lost, HOPEFULLY someone will know to send it back to your home, instead of a location you've already left. Don't forget to put your cell phone #, if you brought it on your trip!
KC Summers: Good tip, esp about the cell phone number. Thanks!
Deserted Beach: Try Caswell Beach North Carolina. Its south of Wilmington North Carolina on Oak Island. 7.5-8hour drive. That part of the island (Caswell beach) has few people. There will usually be people on the beach, but standing on your deck, you won't be able to see more than a dozen up/down the beach at any one time.
John Deiner: Wonderful idea,and within the one-day drive request. Great stuff, thanks.
top this!: not exotic, but definitely unplanned.
me - 23 and pretty impulsive (now, older and better at stifling impulses unless you ask my friends that is). had JUST moved to the DC area from college. barely a week here as a matter of fact.
good friend I hadn't seen in 6 months, stationed at Fort Bragg.
setting: my rental house in Vienna.
midnight phone call from friend. no idea how he got my number. very excited to hear from him. after 30 minutes the line went dead, couldn't reach him again. naturally this is pre-internet, pre-cell phone so people don't seem as "close" or "easy to reach" as they do now. (do people ever really actually MISS each other like they used to? you can reach nearly anyone at anytime, anywhere, but I digress).
well, it was Saturday night and I didn't have to be to work until Monday at 9 AM so...
I grabbed a change of clothes, some money, makeup and a hairdryer, stuffed it and me into the jalopy and drove overnight from Vienna to Fort Bragg.
it says something that my friend actually WASN'T surprised to see me. (we're two of a kind in a way I guess?)
I'm there, I'm dead tired but we all decided to go to the nearest beach which was a few more hours yet. he and all his army buddies and I piled into his VW bus and took off. I think it was Atlantic Beach although I could be mistaken (is that even in NC?)
what a great day - good food, good company, the beach... got back to his house very late, and I still had to drive home. I remember napping on the way back from the beach. I actually did make it to work Monday morning.
now, I'm 39, still willing to travel at the drop of a hat but have to plan, ask for vacation, etc. no way could I go without sleep though, and even though now I've upped it to international travel and 4-5 star hotels the memories don't beat being 23 and pulling stunts like this (there are others, this is the first that came to mind).
Steve Hendrix: Ah, the days of partying through the day and drinking through the night!
In college, I was once at a bar with my glass blowing teacher. It was about 10:30 p.m. that we decided it would be just the thing to get in the car and drive 12 hours to Key West. My car--his case of Heineken. He drove once, for about 10 minutes sometime just after dawn. I was younger, and more sober. We had a great time until he hooked that woman on the pier in the bottom with his fishing hook.
Re: Architecture: That's COLUMBUS, Indiana (not Columbia). The architecture is lovely, and it is boring as sin.
Andrea Sachs: Sorry, you are right. I was typing fast and thinking of, well, not Columbus. Thanks!
Bethesda, Md.: We (4 of us, 2 of whom are kids) are planning a trip to Boston Leaving July 1 and returning July 5. Do you have any suggestions for alternate route to drive other than I-95? Any suggestions for sight-seeing? And yes, any suggestions for reasonably-priced alternative to driving? Thanks a bunch!
Carol Sottili: I'm stumped as to a better route to Boston - if anyone has one, please let us know. It's not a fun drive, and I think it has the potential to be hellacious on the July 4th weekend. Go to Little Italy and eat at Artus on Prince Street (the eggplant parmigiano is the best I've ever had, and that includes my mother's). I also enjoyed doing the Freedom Trail sites. Have you considered flying? There are usually cheap flights to Boston or Providence, although it is a holiday weekend, so seats may be at a premium. And you'd then have to rent a car. Check out www.flyi.com - I believe it's having a sale.
Arlington, Va.: Re frequent flyer plans: Diners Club card miles are good on several different airlines. It's not a cheap card ($90 a year) but it also gives you CDW coverage for car rentals and a few other bells and whistles. There used to be a problem because a lot of merchants didn't accept Diner's, but they have a new arrangement with Mastercard, and now every place that takes MC takes the DC card, too. I pump EVERYthing from groceries at Safeway, to my cell phone bill to my Washington Post subscription through my card. (I think there is a limit of 60,000 miles a year, though.)
Anonymous: While at Oxford, my flatmates and I burned out on all the work. So we decided that we needed to be "Fun and Spontaneous" and on a Friday evening we organized a last minute "Fun and Spontaneous" weekend trip to London. Europe is famous for last-minute hotel and flight websites and we scored a great room for all our friends that night for -very- cheap. We called all our friends and asked them if they were "Fun&Spontaneous" as well. A bunch of us took the bus down and were roaring around London by midnight. It would seem more crazy if travelling from Oxford to London wasn't so darn easy - easier even than my commute to work every morning.
Steve Hendrix: Is that you, President Clinton?
Denver, Colo. to India: Hi Flight Crew! I need your help. My mother turns 60 this year and to celebrate she would like to do a mother- daughter trip to India. This is completely unlike her to want to visit a country so far away from home. She would like to go on a tour, but I do not know where to search for reputable tour companies that do business in India. Do you have any suggestions? We would like to do northern India for two weeks, and our budget is about $4,000/ person including airfare, and we hope to travel this fall. Thanks so much for your help with this!
Anne McDonough: Unfortunately we have zippo experience with tour companies dealing with India, so here's hoping the clicksters have some ideas and want to weigh in. Clicksters?
Washington DC: The most spontaneous trip IÃöe ever taken was to Bolivia, just before Thanksgiving of last year. Some friends citizens of Bolivia, but residents in Europe called us to tell us that they were in the country and asked us to visit them, being USA and Bolivia in the same great American continent and all that. Well my SO and I bought out tickets 3 days before departure and went there searching for adventure. The thing is that I never realized South America was sooooo faaaar away (7 hours flight). But it was a great and unexpected trip!!!
Steve Hendrix: Okay, Bolivia in 3 days is pretty quick planning.
Reston, Va: My most spontaneous trip was from DC to UVA in college. At 5pm Thursday my friends and I decided to visit another friend at UVA and party. We left at 8pm, arrived at 10pm, partied all night, left at 6am, got back at about 8am. I had just enough time to change my clothes and roll into my part-time job on Friday morning. My boss took one look at me and asked "Did you party last night???" I looked so bad, she sent me home!
Steve Hendrix: Kind of a rite of passage for college kids, it seems.
Anonymous: Someone else may have addressed this, but re: bringing food on a overseas flight. you can bring pretty much whatever you want, but if it wasn't packed commercially and if it falls into certain categories regardless, you can't take it OFF the flight (no fruit, no meats, no cheeses, etc.) They can get VERY tetchy about this at customs.
Carol Sottili: I've never had a problem probably because I eat whatever I bring on board. But it makes sense that you can't bring certain opened foods into other countries. Each country has specific rules about this, so you're best off just bringing enough to eat onto the plane, unless it's commercially packaged.
Re: New Zealand: I know why people don't go to NZ when they are out of a job: they woudln't come back. Even with a current job, I fought really hard the idea of just staying there. In fact I am planning to quit my job and move there in about 5 years.
Steve Hendrix: See you there.
currently in Riga, Latvia: Hey Crew -
Just wanted to let you know that it's really too bad you hadn't really done an article about the Baltics. Because now they (well, certainly the capital cities) are overflowing with tourists. This is my 5th time in Riga in almost 20 years, and although I'm happy about the money tourists are pumping into the economy, I'm a bit sad that Latvia is no longer an undiscovered gem. (And particularly sad that British bachelor parties are now traveling to Riga as their party destination of choice.) Having said that, however, I'd still like to tell all of the WP Travel readers that the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) are beautiful and worthy of a trip!
KC Summers: You know, you're absolutely right, and they're on our list (of places to ruin?). We had short items on Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania last year when they joined the E.U. but not big stories, and we need to rectify that. Gary is a big fan of Riga and is always touting it as a great city.
For the pet person: Petswelcome.com is a great way to find pet-friendly lodging. We've successfully booked two vacations with our pooches to places we found through this website.
Andrea Sachs: Good to hear. Thanks!
Alexandria, Va.: Unplanned: Not too exciting, but Ocean City, MD, a couple years ago, with a friend, just decided to drive down Saturday morning, middle of July sometime I think. Actually hit the Delaware shore first, and just kept heading south looking for a hotel/motel/bnb with a vacancy. Gave up in Ocean City and hit the beach for a couple hours (at this point, thinking we might end up -sleeping- on the beach, or in the car). Heading back to the car from the swim, refreshed and ready to room-hunt some more, happened past a b and (well, just the b, no breakfast) with an empty room. Cheap, small bed, tiny room, no A/C-- which was fine with us; we were there for the beach, not the bed.
Steve Hendrix: It counts, Alex, it counts.
Washington, D.C: Hi - I am going to New York this weekend. I have done watching fireworks at Roosevelt Island. Do you have other recommendation? Also, I do not make any plan about this teip at all, so could you recommend one special thing to do?
Anne McDonough: Try to find a rooftop to watch from--or head to Brooklyn for a gorgeous view of the fireworks back over Manhattan. The River to River Festival's running all summer and has some July 4th events lined up (www.rivertorivernyc.org).
History and Architecture: I recommend Charleston, SC for the newly single woman. It's a beautifully historic city with some unique architecture in the homes and some lovely churches, courthouses, etc. If you stay on the beaten path it's a very safe place to be and you can walk around downtown, don't even need a car. Great food too!
Andrea Sachs: Great advice. I forgot about Charleston.
Re: Luggage Tags: i've had my luggage go missing for several days on numerous occasions (at least 15 times, it's my luck) and it happens in particular when i'm flying int'l and have several connections.
anyway, i always write my name and address/contact details inside and outside, however, the airline will never just send you luggage without verifying with you (and that means you have to claim it upon landing). it's good practice you have your name on it to help 'verify' that it's yours, but it's not required -- that's what the airline tracking numbers are for and that's what all airlines go by.
if you get somewhere and your luggage doesn't show up, you go to "baggage claim" and let them know. you describe how your luggage looks and give them your contact details and dates. they'll do the rest and send it to you. but in many places you have to bug them daily to "find" your bag for you.
oh, and of course, if you can avoid checking in anything, that's best!
just my $0.02 since it's happened to me so many times.
KC Summers: Like I said -- that's why I never check my luggage. I might look monotonous and boring but it's worth the tradeoff.
DC: "...Whenever I fly that route from now on, I'll fly on an airline that doesn't charge a change penalty - that's the power we hold as consumers."
Don't almost all airlines charge for changing a ticket?
Carol Sottili: Nope. Some discount airlines, such as Southwest, don't charge penalty fees as long as you fly within the year.
Re: Frequent Flying: The Capital One Miles credit card is a good one (I have it), but it takes a LONG time to accumulate a trip, since you get only $1 to spend toward a ticket for every $100 charged. So I had to charge around $30,000 to get to California for free.
Just keep it in mind...
Paris on Christmas Day: As a follow-up to last week's poster looking for restaurant suggestions for Christmas in Paris, I'd like to suggest the Hotel Meurice. I had the best meal I've EVER had on Christmas Day a few years ago. The hotel is very historic, and the food, service, and ambience cannot be beat. It was expensive ($500 for a multi-course dinner for 4), but worth every penny.
KC Summers: Yikes, but thanks!
Crazy Travel, Arlington!: Well, though we didn't stray TOO far, it was still silly... Following a spring break road trip to Florida and the beach, we stopped on the way back to DC/VA in Atlanta to grab a bite/spend the night. While at dinner at 7pm, we decided instead to head to Wilmington, NC where we had a friend living/going to school in film. We went for it, thinking it would only be a few hours...boy were we wrong! We arrived at our friend's apartment around 2am, and he and his roommate took us out to an all-night food joint to get something to eat and drink. We stayed up almost all night cruising and talking, and the next morning hit the sights in Wilmington - including several places used in the WB show Dawson's Creek (which our friend worked for part-time, as part of his education)! We left later that morning and headed back to DC/VA, but having seen Pacey's beach house and the gang's high school. What a riot. We still reminisce about how crazy that trip was, but how much fun we had on our little Southeastern US Roadtrip!
Steve Hendrix: Yep, it's more than 400 miles from Atlanta to Wilmington.
Bowie, Md.: Ooh ooh, about FF miles:
In the last few years, I transfered significant parts of car purchases onto a card with a travel reward program. This gave me about 25,000 points (at about a dollar per.) When I looked up how much travel I could get for that, I found that 5,000 would get me an admission to an airport first-class lounge, and that 50,000 was needed for the cheapest tickets available.
A relative who runs a small business says she's going to New Zealand this year because she charges tens of thousands of dollars a year (for her business.) Is that what's necessary to earn travel?
Carol Sottili: Maybe you need a $4,000 a month mortgage payment.
New York, NY: Different solo woman question -- I want to go to Scotland (first time) and London (just to see a show!), but my friend only has time for London. Where would you recommend a first-timer go/see in Scotland, and is it worth it to do alone or is it just too solitary and isolated an area (unlike, say, Paris)?
Also, is it worth going in November? Thanks!
Andrea Sachs: No, I think you can solo tour Scotland. Just don't do any long hikes alone, or pair up with a hiking group. The people are so friendly, you might find a travle mate over a glass of, yes, Scotch. As for November: It can be cold and raw, but fares are less.
Cruise Newbie: Hey, travel crew! Thanks to my mother-in-law's largesse, our family is taking a Holland America cruise to Alaska next month. We're new at this, but the space restrictions on a ship don't seem to go along with the stuff necessary for the trip (formal clothes, casual clothes, cold-weather clothes and the accompanying 149 pairs of footwear). Do you have any tips for packing for this kind of experience?
John Deiner: Hey, Newbie. Never been to Alaska on a cruise, but have been on ones where I have to pack lots of clothes. Usually by the fourth or fifth day, you start to notice a lot more wrinkly shirts, skirts with smudges, etc. Try, if you can, to take as little formalwear as possible and, repeat after me, recycle.
Very good. Most ships have a place you can iron, or just fork over the bucks and let them iron for you. As for footwear, you're outta luck, but you'll be surprised at the amount of space you DO have for your stuff. You can really cram a lot of clothes into the drawers and closets, which are usually well designed.
getting to boston: another route would be to take the Merrit parkway in CT then Rt 84 to the Mass Pike (Rt. 90) or any other combination of rts through CT that lead to 84.
Boston will be horrible driving that weekend. I deffinately would reccommend staying outside the city and taking the T in.
Bronx, NY: Water purification: Iodine tablets are the easiest way to go when you can't buy bottled water, but then the water tastes funky. However, you can buy a second type of tablet (it's actually concentrated vitamin C) to use in conjunction with the iodine, which neutralizes it, and thus the taste. You have to let the iodine-treated water sit for a while - read the instructions on the Vit. C tabs - before adding the second tab, but you wind up with normal-tasting, safe water. Buy them where you find the iodine pills.
The pump filters mentioned by a couple other chatsters work just fine, too, they just take up a little more space in luggage.
Anne McDonough: Forgot to mention the iodine aftertaste, thanks for the reminder and the antidote.
Alexandria, Va. Last minute trip: I get esaver emails from USAir and one January they had a special deal to Manchester England. I love England in the winter. I contacted the National Trust and rented two of their cottages for 4 nights each. One was on remote Holyhead in Wales where we endured gales the other in Shropshire. Both out of the way places. We hiked and cooked our meals in the cottages and drove around the countryside. It was lovely and inexpensive with not another tourist in sight.
Steve Hendrix: Lemme just throw out a few more of these...
Bermuda Bound Toddlers: To the person looking to travel with their 2 and 3 year old--we just returned from Montana with my 2 and 3 year old. Things that save the trip: 1. portable DVD player with lots of Barney/Dragontales/American Dragon 2. the Crystal Light "on the go" lemonade packets (for the I NEED MEMEMONDADE moments). 3. disposable bags-this is a camping item that you can in a camping store. They are small canisters with a roll of tweleve bags. Tie it to your day pack for those trash/diaper/never want to see THAT again moments.
As an update to the flight crew: we took your advice on seeing the Tetons--excellent choice. We also loved the northern part of Yellowstone (Gritty Gardiner, MT) was the best. The summer storms coming over the mountain range made for beautiful evenings. We flew Song and enjoyed the service and atmosphere more than any other carrier. Also, appreciate the tip to let each person spend time by themselves--even if it is a 20 minute walk--oh the heaven that can be pondered in 20 minutes without the toddlers!
John Deiner: Great stuff. And glad you enjoyed the Tetons!
My husband and I flew to Phoenix for a family wedding. When we sat down in our rental car, he said, "We could go to Sedona." I thought for about 10 seconds about seeing the sunrise in Sedona vs a going to a boring event and said, "ok." It was wonderful.
Washington, DC: It turns out that I'm going to have to travel to Atlanta several times in the next year. I remember people talking about travel packs for the shuttle to New York where you could be multiple tickets at once for what divided out to a pretty good price. Is there something similar for Atlanta?
Carol Sottili: There is no shuttle service to Atlanta, and I don't know of any multiple trip coupons that you can buy.
Aspen Hill, Md.: Hey, Gang. My best spontaneous trip was a couple of years after I moved to the DC area. I decided one day that I would spend that weekend at my parents' house for Easter, with no warning. Yeah, they were happy to see me.
The best spontaneous trip I took with my parents as a kid was up to Boston. We were already on the road in Connecticut, when we saw the "Boston -number]" sign. My father said to my mother, "Want to?" Mom was startled about not planning or packing, but what the heck? Next thing we knew, my parents were taking the kids on a makeshift educational trip for a couple of days. Loved it.
Steve Hendrix: And a good son. (Daughter?)
I came home from work to find a message on my answering machine from the Sydney police department stating that my wife, who traveled to Australia to visit a friend, had gotten into a terrible car accident. Called my wife's friend and got no answer, which by then I began to panic! I shot over to Dulles to book a last minute flight to Australia, costing my a whopping $7,000!!! I finally got to Sydney, extremely jet lagged. Went to the Central hospital to see my wife only to find that it was not my wife! It was a completely different woman with the same exact name as my wife! My wife was off with her friend doing some kind of jungle tour, hence why I couldn't reach her. I couldn't believe it! Apparently the Sydney police contacted the U.S. embassy in which my wife registered with, and came up with her phone/contact info. Can you believe that. It was too bad I had absolutely no spending money to enjoy the rest of my time there!
Germantown, Md.: I travel to the PHilippines several times a year and I always feel as though I'm missing out on a better airfare deal (usually found after I've already made my flight plans). Is there a site or meta-site that is useful for finding reasonable airfares that don't require short-notice or foregoing the amenities/pleasure of flying on a reputable airline? Also, what is the shortest flight path from the Washington, DC area to Manila, Philippines? Thanks.
Washington , DC: For the "seamstress" who wants to hem pants on the plane: Maybe you could use the iron on binding instead of pins and just have the needle, thread and blunt scissors (maybe in wallet?).
KC Summers: Great idea, Wash, but she might not be able to take the needles -- that's up to the discretion of the screener, along with the pins. But she could tape the hem at home, or even staple it, then use the hotel iron to iron on the binding. Brilliant!
Alternate routes to Boston: First alternative: I270 N, US15 N, I83 N, I81 N, I78 E, I287 N (over Tappan Zee), I684 N, I84 E, I90 (Mass pike) E to Boston.
Second alternative you stay on I81 to I84 at Scranton then take I84 East.
Hope I got this in on time!
Fairfax, Va.: Why are the airport transportation options so lousy here? We've got the Washington Flyer monopoly at Dulles (45 dollars for an 11 mile cab ride?). We've got SuperShuttle that takes 3 hours to get a body home from BWI. Is it really asking too much for a clean, comfortable ride that doesn't take 3 times as long as the flight and cost half as much? I'd have taken Metro last night, but the Marc trains don't run on weekends (!) and I would've missed the last Metro train out of New Carrolton.
Steve Hendrix: It makes money for the airports, Fairfax. If it also makes life hard for the traveler, well, sorry.
Steve Hendrix: Folks, we had some great examples of spontaneous travels. It's amazing any of your remain employed. A tough choice, but we're giving the airplane air filters to Washington, D.C., for being willing to capitalize on a chance to see Bolivia on three days notice. Admirable. WDC, send your pariculars to [email protected]. Thanks all. See you in TWO weeks (No chat on the Fourth of July).
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Washington Post Travel editors and writers take your questions and comments every Monday at 2 p.m. ET. | 755.944444 | 0.833333 | 1.166667 | high | medium | abstractive | 4,828 |
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2005/06/stalinist_repub.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2005/06/stalinist_repub.html | Daily Humor and Observations from Joel Achenbach | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | « Ed Klein: Ambitious Hack? | Main | Why is Grass Green? »
Karl Rove reportedly said the other night, "Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." This comment and more many like it have set off another round of demands for an apology, followed by demands that those who are demanding an apology apologize -- and so on. We live in an apology culture; unless you say something that later will require an apology you won't be heard to begin with. [A personal note: I would like to apologize for comparing Guantanamo Bay to Chesapeake Bay. That was a huge exaggeration.]
I will give Rove the benefit of the doubt and assume his words had some kind of broader, less ridiculous context. Rove knows as well as anyone that liberals are not firing IEDs at our soldiers. He also is enough of a student of history to know that any attempt to muzzle your political opponents for national security reasons (the comfort-to-the-enemy argument) is the first step toward ... wait, let me think of a moderate term that won't get me in trouble like Durbin...okay, toward Stalinism.
My guess is that, as part of some double-secret triple-backloop political strategy, Rove realized he needed to cause a distraction. He informed the president that the poll numbers were looking bad, or that Social Security privatization is about as likely as the resurgence of alchemy. The president said, "Karl, go out there and say something really dumb." By now you should know that nothing happens in the White House political shop except for very calculated reasons. Rove is a red herring. Keep your eye on the big fish.
June 24, 2005 | Permalink
I think the more likely possibility is that Republicans have such overwhelming control of the government in such a partisan climate, that their idiocyometers have just stopped working. Karl Rove can rave like a loon, the President and VP can offer up answers to question that have tenuous connections to reality at best, and senators can give their completely uninformed medical opinion on family matters that are none of their business, and all because they know that no matter how ludicrous they act the Democrats don't have a hammer to swing.
For the record, I'm not some crazy left-wing Republican-hater. I'm a moderate who's fed up with the partisan bickering, and I think that the Democrats are just as guilty. Does anyone really think that they've given REAL consideration to Republican judicial nominees, or even the Bolton confirmation, except to find reasons not to confirm? Democrats have been acting as if they refuse to cooperate with Republicans just to be contrary--they'd probably take their ball and go home if they could.
Posted by: jw | June 24, 2005 08:31 AM
As far as the judicial nominees go, I believe that Bush has had over 200 approved and nine blocked, of which two withdrew and four were passed. Not exactly massive obstruction. (These numbers are off the top of my head and may be off, but not by much.) After 9/11 the Demos in Congress were generally supportive of Bush on security issues, they passed No Child Left Behind, and the Repubs killed them in the midterms in 2002. They've learned that rolling over gets them nowhere, yet they have no leverage and DeLay and his crew change the rules whenever it suits them. I'm curious. What would cooperation look like and how would it benefit them? When Mr. Rove is looking around for someone to blame for inciting the insurgency, he might want to talk to that guy who made the "Bring it on!" comment a while back. And while I'm ranting, let's take the money spent on flying Air Force One all over to stage these Social Security charades and put it into up-armoring a few Humvees in Iraq, dagnabit!
Posted by: kurosawaguy | June 24, 2005 08:53 AM
I don' think Guantanamo Bay is that far off from Chesapeake Bay. In both places our government is trying to get away with things things that should be illegal.
Posted by: Ryan | June 24, 2005 09:01 AM
Rove reminds me of a guy who beats up another guy and then gets mad at the folks who rat on him, painting himself as the victim.
It doesn't matter whether our military's actions are compared to Hitler's, Stalin's or Charlemagne's, it's not the COMPARING that's the problem here. We should all be apologizing for the actions, not the words. Karl Rove and his cronies should go first.
Posted by: TBG | June 24, 2005 09:05 AM
I like Guantanamo Bay. They have really good jerk chicken and the bowling alley's a lot of fun.
Posted by: jw | June 24, 2005 09:08 AM
I'll start: I apologize for everything I've ever said, written, or thought. Further, I'd like to preapologize for any speaking, writing, or thinking I may do in the future.
Joel, after reviewing my secret stash of tapes I made of Comedy Central's "That's My Bush" TV series, I agree that Rove may be performing a political Triple Lindy here to prevent bloggers from further comparing this administration to the 1972 Miami Dolphins.
Oh, and I'm waiting for your official apology for this blog.
Posted by: bc | June 24, 2005 09:18 AM
And NO ONE should be apologizing for the military's actions, thank you very much. How condescending is that? You think that some 18 year old kid who's pulling duty in Gitmo and just wants to serve his country enjoys being compared to a Nazi? He's the only person who should be apologized to.
Posted by: jw | June 24, 2005 09:19 AM
Karl Rove is just one very ugly Tom Cruise.
There is a need for both these guys to draw attention to themselves, via over-the-top drama or words, to draw big box office (getting noticed)--and deflect the attention from--in Cruise's case that he's an aging Hollywood almost has-been, and in Rove's case, that the Republican agenda and Bush's poll numbers are in deep doo-doo territory.
It is the theatrics or thespianism of the desperate.
Posted by: Meooowww | June 24, 2005 09:21 AM
I agree that JW is not some left-wing Republican hater. He sounds much more like a right-wing Democrat hater who sees the damage this administration has done and continues to do, but cannot condemn or face it. The real shame here is less that Bush & Co. seem determined to destroy American democracy than that so-called loyal Americans like JW will permit it to hold onto an illusion.
Posted by: Singlegal | June 24, 2005 09:40 AM
This administration lies and gets us into a war that has made us less safe and they have the nerve to accuse Liberals of being unpatriotic!! Rove should apologize - not only to Liberals but to all of America - and not only for those ridiculous comments but for being the archetect of the campaign that put the worst president in US history in office. And, although I am not a Democrat, I take offense by those who say that the Democrats are jsut as guilty. They are not just as guilty as the Republicans. They have made some mistakes, some of them did vote for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq is the most grevious, but down the line they are far less at fault than Republicans. To suggest that they are equally at fault is ridiculous!
Posted by: Mark | June 24, 2005 09:40 AM
Mark: Rove masterminded the Warren G. Harding campaign??
Posted by: Achenbach | June 24, 2005 09:46 AM
Karl Rove conveniently forgets that immediately after 9/11, Congress, the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats, voted UNANIMOUSLY to go to war in Afghanistan, and to search and destroy Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists who were responsible.
Perhaps Mr. Rove is confused. Could it be that the "indictments and therapy" he claims the Democrats are prescribing are for Republicans, not terrorists?
Posted by: Greg | June 24, 2005 09:51 AM
re: jw's comments, dated 6/24
A large part of the problem with partisan bickering is that bit of equivocation coming at the end of the letter in question. Being contrary is part of what makes a loyal opposition possible. The other part is loyalty to the greater whole. Blaming both sides for the problem may soothe one's conscience, but it sounds more like capitulation than reason.
Posted by: CA | June 24, 2005 09:52 AM
Agreed, I think the far right is faultering on almost every front, and with the president's poll numbers continuing to decline, I think Rove is trying to launch an all-out last-ditch effort to gain some traction and reverse the Republicans continued decline. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. Bush and Co. are like a wounded cornered dog, and instead of admitting guilt (which I think is absolutely inconceivable with this Administration), they're going to go down swinging, destroying or desgracing anything or anyone that tries to hold them accountable. When all is said and done, I seriously doubt this country will ever fully recover from what is about to be unleashed in Bush's second term.
Posted by: Shawn | June 24, 2005 09:52 AM
You're right, Joel. The attack of the Republicans on the Democrats who attacked Karl Rove's attack on them (whew!) was just too well-organized to be coincidental. It's deliberate obfuscation.
The question is: what's the real game? What is it they are trying to draw attention away from?
Posted by: Paul | June 24, 2005 09:55 AM
Rant on! Well said and on point. I cannot understand how anyone can defend the lunatics that are running this country (running it straight into the ground).
Posted by: jlessl | June 24, 2005 09:57 AM
I must say, I really enjoyed Karl Rove's comment about 9/11 being a time for Americans "to brandish steel". I love to see soft, fat little pasty-white guys talk about brandishing steel. I suspect the only steel he's ever brandished is stainless flatware.
Posted by: David | June 24, 2005 09:57 AM
The question is: what's the real game? What is it they are trying to draw attention away from?
It's called "myth making." Rove's words will be repeated ad nauseum by every Limbaugh and Hannity wannabe for the next three months. They are reinforcing the myth that liberals are only obstructionists and are weak on defense and the so-called war on terrorism.
Posted by: Greg | June 24, 2005 09:59 AM
Politics, schmolitics. Yeah, sure the Iraq War is all the fault of the Republicans. So was the VietNam War, the Civil War, that demise of the dinosaurs, and the increase of obese children. I don't expect anything less from a flaming left-wing liberal rag like the Post. They like nothing better than taking snarky pot-shots at Republican Presidents and their staff. You'll please note the Republican in office inherited a mess from a Democrat who couldn't keep his mind on his work.
Now, if I recall there was that guy in the White House who had inappropriate sex with a staffer, lied about it, and it's just a guy thing, really. And JFK, another Democrat with the habits of rabbits. No big deal. When was the last time anyone saw Bill and Hillary in the same room together since he left office? I think they're just staying together for the sake of her running for the Oval Office, God forbid. I'm moving to Canada if she wins.
Now have at it -- hit me with your best shot.
Posted by: WASP | June 24, 2005 10:00 AM
A wordsmithing challenge to the 15:
Take Durbin's central text and re-write it so that it would not "require" an apology, accepting his premis as worth saying.
How the hell did we get through the Mi Li investigation without 1,000s of apologies?
BTW, I apologize to all who watched any of the really bad games during the 1972 NFL season.
Posted by: Dolphin Michael | June 24, 2005 10:01 AM
I've traditionally been a political moderate, but Rove's comments have me unable to get Eminem's song "Puke" from playing in my head. This administration truly makes me so angry I get nauseous. By the way, I'm 46 and Eminem is not usually on my playlist!
Posted by: Tammi | June 24, 2005 10:02 AM
Rove's idiotic comment can't be anything other than an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that W has stepped on his d1ck with hare-brained SS reform scheme that has no chance of passing and doesn't address the solvency problem. Rove is waaaay too smart to start a firestorm like this unintentionally.
Posted by: KJ | June 24, 2005 10:06 AM
Do Rove's comments remind anybody else of Joe McCarthy? Naming names and calling them out for being weak on defending our country? To me, that's the part that's un-American.
Posted by: Matt | June 24, 2005 10:07 AM
The Democrats are as much to blame for the Iraq mess, having shown NO profiles in courage as votes came up to go to War. The Dem Leadership wants it both ways, be a sheep for the vote, then bay like a wolf at the War. On a side note: The Republikans employ diversionary IED's (Improvised Excitable Demagoguery) about Durbin, Hillary, etc. to get the country to stop fixating on energy, war, environment, housing, etc..Look over there, it's a silly Senator !
Posted by: Jonesy | June 24, 2005 10:07 AM
But when the Republicans' "decline" is complete, what will we be left with? A Democratic Party that has no cohesive plan that goes beyond defeating the opposing party? One that perpetrates the culture of confrontation and contention while pandering to the left-wing minority? Or one that recognizes that the vast majority of Americans are people who, like me, firmly straddle the line--supporting the war on terror but disagreeing with the handling of the Iraq situation, a person of faith who beleives that exploring all avenues of stem-cell research is crutial, who loves the Red Sox but hates the DH rule?
I'd hope that Democrats would recognize a return to the middle in politics is that route to real power, but their incessent whining in Congress makes me embarassed for my party.
Oh yeah, did I mention I'm a registered Democrat?
Posted by: jw | June 24, 2005 10:07 AM
I don't think the Republicans would squeal as much if they felt more secure. They are aware than half of the nation's voters (and most who know how to read) detest them and Bush's numbers continue to sink (although to put it in perspective, they're about the same as they were last summer). The Dems need to keep the heat on these liars. And, ahem, provide a meaningful alternative to neo-con.
Posted by: Alexandria | June 24, 2005 10:09 AM
Posted by: markkens | June 24, 2005 10:09 AM
I agree with David. Karl Rove is once again doing what he does best - re-write history. If he says something, and its repeated often enough by commentators, it must be true.
By Fall 2006, the Democrats will be painted as "those liberals who kept us from waging war on terrorism", "kept us from victory in Iraq" and therefore are responsible for whatever terrorist actions against Americans happen between now and then." That's the agenda for Karl Rove and company.
Posted by: Cate | June 24, 2005 10:11 AM
According to MSNBC, Al Jazeera is NOT broadcasting Durbin's remarks in any overt way. They simply reported the event on the 16th as a straight news story, on both their English and Arabic news site. There are only individual blogs in the Arabic world that are running with the story, but not Al Jazeera.
This is a Rove triple play: lie about the left, lie about the coverage of the left in the mideast and its effects on the war on terror, and by doing so, divert attention away from the real issue---the abuse at Guantanamo Bay and the Downing Street Memos (which was just starting to take off in the mainstream press).
Posted by: Stefani | June 24, 2005 10:11 AM
sorry excuse for a government...
it's interesting that there has been little or no talk of political resistance from within the ranks of the U.S. Military (aside from calls for downing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and complaints about mandatory Stop-Loss programs)... My viewpoint on the whole issue is similar to my viewpoint on U.S. citizenry at large... namely that thir political will has been voraciously stifled by excessive beaurocracy and a rampant medieval gung-ho crusade mentality of a semi-conscious and fully hypocritical religious majority. At the risk of being labelled unpatriotic by a country where I've been discriminated against for not being white, rich and hypnotically acquiescent, the real America is dead... the CIA murdered her in the 70s.
Posted by: Alan | June 24, 2005 10:12 AM
I believe Rowe was completely right. It only requires a review of what Al Jazeera to realize that the Arab Street does not hear the apology, only the Assertion. Our democratic leadership is doing its best to lose this war, because they believe that this is good for democratic candidates.
Posted by: Leon Rogson | June 24, 2005 10:13 AM
Do any of you have a remotely intellectual response to Rove's statement? Did any of you notice that the author compared Rove to a Nazi. The Nazis and Communists used soldiers, prisons, and executions to control speach. Rove merely stated his opinion and he is compared to a Nazi by the author. Yes, tolerance, love, compassion. Right.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 10:14 AM
Do any of you have a remotely intellectual response to Rove's statement? Did any of you notice that the author compared Rove to a Nazi. The Nazis and Communists used soldiers, prisons, and executions to control speach. Rove merely stated his opinion and he is compared to a Nazi by the author. Yes, tolerance, love, compassion. Right.
Posted by: craig | June 24, 2005 10:14 AM
The problem I have with the whole political spectrum right now is that honest debate has been replaced with personal destruction. No one debates issues and outcomes of decisions. People just say...that is dumb! No explanation, no facts no back-up...nothing. Just destroy him and when we are the only ones left standing...they'll have to do it our way. This goes for both parties!
Posted by: SDS | June 24, 2005 10:14 AM
Of course, the latest line is that Rove wasn't talking about Democrats at all ... How could you possibly think that?! He said liberals, not Democrats! This by the same folks who've spent the better part of the last 40 years attempting to merge the meaning of the two, and demonizing both.
Honestly, to me the most offensive part is not the speach, but the White House quickly and publically going on record defending it. Rove is Dubya's closest adviser and a well-paid government official. That speaks volumes - Our government has defended pitting one half of America against the other. Why do they hate America?
The forest they don't want you to notice is that they are truly tanking - on every front. Rove has generally been smart enough to stay in the shadows in the past. This episode smacks of desparation, and in the end, I suppose we should all be applauding it.
Posted by: Mike | June 24, 2005 10:14 AM
Posted by: JC | June 24, 2005 10:15 AM
Republicans are just turning up the noise to drown out the scandals. In Ohio, we are about to discover that tax money was diverted from the Bureau of Workers Compensation to any number of Republican campaign efforts. The goal of the Administration right now is to take the focus off the graft.
Forget Iraq and 911. The con is in full swing.
Posted by: Buckeye | June 24, 2005 10:16 AM
Why can't you just admit it, Karl Rove handed the democrats their a$$ on on a platter. They fell for the oldest trick in the history of childish behavior. By saying the liberals considered 9/11 an international police issue as opposed to an act of war, he tricked the dems (Clinton, Reed, Shmuker, etal) into admitting they were liberals even though they try to tell us theyt are not. I laughted my a$$ off. :)
Posted by: elinks | June 24, 2005 10:17 AM
I think it's hilarious that people whip out the "but there was unanimous support in Congress for the war in Afghanistan" comment as though that has anything to do with the fact that liberals on the whole (which is what Rove was speaking about) acted like a bunch of wimpy, defeatist surrender-monkeys practically as soon as the first plane struck (exaggeration used there, in case it isn't obvious). See: MoveOn.org petition, peace rallies, and anti-war protests right after 9/11 occurred.
The "red herring" is the faux show of pain and hurt the Democrats have quickly leaped to take upon themselves regarding Rove's comments, so as to bury the truth of his comments under the massive wave of their whining and griping.
Instead of discussing why liberalism is such a vile mentality and why it is destructive to the war effort, we're discussing whether or not Rove should apologize to a bunch of Democrat congressmen&women who jumped into the path of his comment purposely, so as to create this entire debacle and derail any discussion of liberalism versus conservatism, which was the actual point of Rove's comment.
Posted by: Silly People | June 24, 2005 10:17 AM
The military ranks are no place for political resistance. There's a word for that: insubordination, and in the extreme, treason. You want to resist, it's real easy. Get out and run for office. Or become an activist. There's a very good reason the military has regulations against political campaigning beyond having a bumper-sticker on your car. You may disagree, but at the end of the day you better know who the boss is.
Posted by: jw | June 24, 2005 10:18 AM
What's amazing to me is that folks still keep wandering back to clinton as if bush's foul-ups were his fault, six years later. Hillary's just an easy target for rabid right-wingers with nothing else to target.
Posted by: LP | June 24, 2005 10:18 AM
Making comparisons of Guantanamo Bay to all these various historical atrocities is ridiculous, attention-grabbing babble. That's all it is. I don't think they should apologize for saying those things, their words expose their idiocy, and that's punishment enough. As for Rove, of course it is over the top to say that liberal's motives are to harm Americans. He essentially is using the same tactic that liberals are using to attack Gitmo. All he is doing is slinging the back in their face. It's right there in front of you, but you'll never see it because of your bias.
Posted by: chris | June 24, 2005 10:18 AM
IT IS DOUBTFUL THE COUNTRY WILL BE ABLE TO RECOVER FROM TNE BUSH ERA. HIS WAR, HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, HIS TOM DELAY, HIS M. BOLTON, HIS NO "CHILD LEFT BEHIND", HIS OIL CRONIES, HIS PARM. CRONIES. HIS POLICIES HAVE CAUSED THE WORLD TO VIEW US LESS FAVORABLELY THAN COMMUNIST CHINA.
Posted by: ROXIE | June 24, 2005 10:19 AM
maybe its just that Karl Rove is an evil person who only cares about his big $ partners and can find no lows too low to stoop to?
Posted by: daltonic | June 24, 2005 10:19 AM
Wasp what was your post about? and could somebody get around to apologizing for Nixon?
Posted by: parithed | June 24, 2005 10:20 AM
So is that the best you got? That Dems are womanizers? This must be another attempt at covering up some of the real problems the current administration has. Dubya can be a great husband and father, yet lie and kill thousands in Iraq....but that's ok. Sheesh.
Posted by: J | June 24, 2005 10:21 AM
We need more partisan bickering. Maybe if these gentlemen (and ladies) start yelling at each other more often, they'll be too busy to pass laws and screw up even further. Personally, I can't wait for CNN to start showing fistfights on the Senate floor. If government can't govern, it should at least be entertaining.
Posted by: Dex | June 24, 2005 10:21 AM
For the sake of a few votes in FL we find ourself in the middle of Iraq searching for madman who is half a world away. And Rowe rants on about the Dems. The evening news is so poor and porus that I search for the BBC for a glimmer of what is happening on the ground in Afganistan and elsewhere. Having fought in Vietnam and studied the logic and rhetoric that the politicians (Dems and Reps) used to support that fiasco, I hear the same "light at the end of the tunnel" logic rolling out of the White House and Pentagon. I hear the same bitter criticism directed at anyone who questions the war or its status.
Rowe or not...we're looking at ten more years in country and billions that could have been used more effectively. Add in another 1,000 or so US dead and the "freeing" of Iraq is simply not worth the price.
Posted by: ursa | June 24, 2005 10:21 AM
oh... did I mention that I'm a veteran?
Posted by: Alan | June 24, 2005 10:21 AM
keep in mind that the republicans spent more money investigating bill clinton than they did investigating 9/11. please someone wake me up from this nightmare!
Posted by: jugger grimrodd | June 24, 2005 10:21 AM
If Karl Rove believes this is true:
"Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
Then why is the Republican Party running video of Mr. Durbin's comments 24/7 on their web site? Is it their intent to put American men and women in uniform in danger?
Posted by: SpinDentist | June 24, 2005 10:22 AM
Rove's just doing what he has always done for dear old W - divide us into good and bad, conservative and liberal, patriotic and unpatriotic, etc etc etc blah blah blah. He does it 'cause it works. This will slide right off him like slime off a duck.
Posted by: JC | June 24, 2005 10:22 AM
Not that I condone the "rabbit habits" of the Democratic presidents WASP mentions, but...
The president's job is not to be a good spouse (Ideally it would be nice if they were). However, I would much rather have a president with "rabbit habits" than a president who leads the country into a war, threatening thousands of lives, for false reasons.
Funny how WASPs list of accusations against Democrats have nothing to do with running the government/country.
Posted by: anti-WASP | June 24, 2005 10:22 AM
Let's face facts here- neither party's leadership reflects the average American. Two words: Voter TurnOut (or is that three? Turn out) Anyway, I have no doubt that in the days after 9-11 most Americans also wanted to "unleash the might and power" even though Rove characterized that as a purely conservative desire. However, I am quite confident that there was, in fact, a hesitation by most Americans's (myself included) to ponder for a moment what the most appropriate response should be. At the end of the day, the Republicans have moved this country alarmingly close to a Facist State while the Democrats have allowed them do so through the lost of thier backbone. The result is we no longer have a unified fight against terrorism but -yet again- we have committed young patriotic troops to a conflict where they are fighting against an unkown enemy who uses brutality and guerilla like tactics. Additionally, we see on the news everyday that succes is measured in body counts and the government we are trying to support would crumble if we did not continue on. Hmmm huantingly familiar.
Sadly, if Republicans and Democrats had the courage to do what was right for the country and not their policital careers perhaps we wouldn't hear about the daily deaths of our fellow citizens along with pentagon's insurgents killed tally.
Posted by: Chris | June 24, 2005 10:24 AM
OK, WASPY. You're a douche. Way to compare horny presidents to a guy who's getting our troops slaughtered so he can TRY to save a little face. Easily the most offensive comparison of the weak. You're like a little, tiny Karl Rove Jr. What parallel could possibly exist there?
you're just like the clown on the Hill, flashing a shiny object to attempt to distract from the real issue. Your man screwed up royally. Blame Clinton if you want, but the only thing Bill ever did (in the political arena, which is the only arean a politician should be judged by, unless you want to get into DUI's and coke binges by your boy Bush), was not go get Osama. Do I need to remind you nimrod OSAMA IS NOT IN IRAQ.
It's dimwits like you, lemmings that follow whatever bread crumb trail the republicans will leave out for you, that are goingh to doom this country. Why are we there? Besides trying to fix a place we destroyed. WHY?! What is it going to take for you to understand Hussein was just another Castro. Yes, things he did to his countrymen were awful, but if you're going to start policing the world, we're are going to fail. This isn't the Inquisition, we can't purge every culture by ourselves and sidestep the rest of the world when they don't agree with us. Oh yeah, and you know, we didn't even officially go in to liberate a country. Your boy lied about that too. Funny how he can change jhis primary reason for invading a nation and kill thousands of people so quickly!
Posted by: WASPisaDouche | June 24, 2005 10:25 AM
Rove and his circle continue to massage 9/11 as their main weapon of political destruction, they did to win the reelection and they will in the future, no questions about it. As you can see Bush is unable to carry a second term without Irak, 9/11 terror threat alerts (mere psych-ops courtesy of Tom Ridge), by the way, we don't see yellow, orange, blue alerts, wow! we're safe right after November 2004, isn't that great?, only in America.
It is time now for democrats to take a stand and assume a very decisive position, don't make the mistake of attempting to please everybody because like in life, it doesn't work that way, not everybody will agree with you but hey no sweat. Take a side with your core values and stick with it, leave the political correctness BS and fight. Don't provide more ammunitions to your adversaries.
Posted by: Outsider | June 24, 2005 10:26 AM
Agreed, the guys at the wheel are lunatics. But, what are the alternatives? The more that the democrats say "Vote for us because we are not Bush. Bush is evil." the more they alienate people like me who have been solidly democrat in the past. I am looking for solutions to very difficult problems that the country is facing. I might be a latte drinker from Boston, but I shall do my civic duty to vote in a party that ensures economic well being, tolerance of all its citizens, and provides national security. Frankly, the choice has come down to religous nuts on the right and union thugs on the left. The question has come down to this: Do we want to let people like Karl Rove destroy the country's social fabric by voting in the republicans or do you want to let the AFL-CIO destroy the country's economic fabric by voting in the democrats. The culture wars have gone on long enough.
Posted by: thinkforachange | June 24, 2005 10:26 AM
Jesus! Can't we all just get along?
Posted by: Jay Taylor | June 24, 2005 10:27 AM
I hate being called a liberal, but Conservatives got a good thing going. anyone who isn't a warmongering, hateful, greedy, sniping jerk is forced into the other category. I can't stand hippies and the like, but I'd gladly be labeled one of them than be in the same hemisphere as any of the people supporting Karl Rove on this blog.
Posted by: WASPisaDouche | June 24, 2005 10:27 AM
the real red herring here is the whole of the iraq debacle - most of the 9/11 terrorists were from saudi arabia, but the bush family's alliance with the house of saud does not allow us to go after them.... it's no coincidence that many of this administration and administrations previous also hold/held board seats, vp positons, etc., in the US's top energy corporations, such as Halliburton, bechtal, et al.
Posted by: LP | June 24, 2005 10:27 AM
The word is 'speech' not 'speach.' And 9/11 happened only 8 months into the Bush Administration, not 6 years. Clinton ignored earlier terrorist attacks, while he was snogging his staff, and didn't do anything about them.
BTW -- when I worked in law enforcement, police officers' code word for Negroes was 'Democrat.' If they wanted to know the race of a perp, they'd ask 'Is he a Democrat?' meaning 'Is he black?'
Posted by: WASP | June 24, 2005 10:27 AM
Apotheosis of the military is the shibbolethof fascism. The soldiers in Iraq are federal employees who signed up for the pay and benefits package. Earning a living by killing people doesn't mean you love your country any more than earning a living in a day-care center does. Their laundry is done by Bengalis, the latrines are cleaned by Sri Lankans. I'm paying KBR $20 a meal for their cheeseburger and fries.You have a greater chance of being shot in Washington DC than Baghdad.
Posted by: Bill Fishlore | June 24, 2005 10:28 AM
Hi WASP, Let's agree on what we can about WJC- he is a lying weasel with a zipper problem who wouldn't know a principle if it bit him in the tail. Leave JFK out of things, unless you want to go on with me about Nixon and what a great thing it would have been if Strom Thurmond had been president, etc. As to what Clinton did and did not do, well, he left office with a budget surplus and a country at peace. He did not get after UBL as much as he might have, but since the military hated Slick Willie worse than latrine duty and Congress was in the hands of his opponents, not much could have been done without further provocation. He did not OTOH lead us into war to the tune of 1700 dead (and counting), 13,000 wounded (and counting), who knows how many civilians dead and wounded, and a half trillion dollars (and counting really really fast), based on a series of pretexts which have since all been discredited. Even given all that, and assuming Bush's complete and sincere belief in the faulty intelligence he received, I would still have retained some respect for the man if at the time he had asked for some sort of shared sacrifice on the part of all Americans. My personal proposal would have been to freeze the tax cuts and impose a $.50 /gal gas tax to go to pay for the war. Now THAT would be supporting our troops, instead of a million magnetic yellow ribbons and a bunch of fat no bid contracts for Halliburton.
Posted by: kurosawaguy | June 24, 2005 10:29 AM
Boy, look at all the moonbats posting. And you think the Republicans have never worked a day in their life huh? ha ha If you think that Rove's comments hurt, its because it is true that the liberals were seeking counseling for the terrorists and for themselves. Its a fact Jack...and they have been anti-war, so 'unsupportive' would be a mild word when it comes to protecting us from the beheaders. One must have a low esteem problem, when they don't even wish to protect themselves. Comparing Rove's comments (completely supported by everyone from McKinney to Kennedy), to the dastardly Turban Durbin is unconscionable. The liberals do truly have a mental disease, and now I see it is not 'self diagnosed' very easily, but is surely chronic.
Posted by: dickied | June 24, 2005 10:29 AM
Achenbach: The president said, "Karl, go out there and say something really dumb."
Let's see, if I were putting out a casting call for a movie about the second-term Bush administration, I think Jim Carrey woiuld be an excellent choice for playing the role of President Bush. Karl Rove could be played by Jeff Daniels. It would be an original movie, but also a sequel: Dumb and Dumber II.
Who should be tapped as the director? Why, the real behind-the-scenes director, Neo-Conservative in Chief, Dick "the insurgency is in its last throes" Cheney!
Posted by: Meeooowww | June 24, 2005 10:29 AM
Joel seems so much more insightful when he writes what I am thinking; he should do it more often. However, I was taken aback by the stunning news that alchemy isn't making a comeback. I immediately tried calling my financial adviser but his phone service was disconnected; so I tried calling A.C.M.E. Alchemy Inc. directly but they seem to have disappeared along with my children's college fund money. See what you've done Joel? You've ruined everything for moi. It's all your fault. Blame is no game. If only you had kept silent. Now I know Karl Rove is right, Michael Moore really is the Wily Wizard of Tragic-Magic. I bet you didn't think that thought did you Joel? I bested your odious stab at elite liberal mind control didn't I? Hah. I may be poor but I'm unaffected.
Posted by: Moi Moi | June 24, 2005 10:29 AM
say what you want about clinton but at least he was INSPIRED and not GROOMED to become the president. bush, rove, cheney, limbaugh, et al where hiding during vietnam but now they have no problem sending young people to do what they were afraid to do themselves. how is that moral? bush is a liar, thief, coward and everything that conservatives claimed clinton was. where is the outrage now??
Posted by: pansy division | June 24, 2005 10:30 AM
Hey and a racial blast. Wow. You prove my point better than I ever could. Thanks for the affirmation.
BTW - Turn off your internal grammar check, douchebag. It's blog, not a Harvard application essay.
Posted by: WASPisaDouche | June 24, 2005 10:30 AM
Let's see 9/11, yup the GOP went right after the villians who took down the Trade Center. Saddam and Iraq? I believe the Wanted Dead or Alive person is still alive and well. So what did Bush & Rove really start? A WAR that was NOT NEEDED. They have Blood on their hands. REMEMBER WMD's? Remember Cheney saying " They (Iraq) will be greeting us with Waving Flags? Why do you think Powell left these looneys? America WAKE UP
Posted by: ckuhn | June 24, 2005 10:30 AM
"the real red herring here is the whole of the iraq debacle - most of the 9/11 terrorists were from saudi arabia, but the bush family's alliance with the house of saud does not allow us to go after them"...
Hey everybody, guess who gets his education from Michael Moore.
Posted by: chris | June 24, 2005 10:31 AM
Well, fair enough. I have to apologize for Michael Moore. Our bad.
But you have to admit, Ann Coulter isn't a bundle of fact either. They both could benefit from early retirement.
Posted by: WASPisaDouche | June 24, 2005 10:32 AM
the military ranks are exactly the place for political activism. This war goes agains ALL military doctrine and codes of ethics. When illegal orders are followed (gleefully and with intentionally added maliciousness), the indication is that the command climate has not only sanctioned this behavior, it has done so willfully. By the way, consentious objection is not unknown in military culture... Besides, treason, which is punishable by death, is no harsher a sentence than being sentenced to death or dismemberment due to political irresponsibility, cowardice or incompetence... friendly fire or enemy fire leaves soldiers just as dead in the end. And... my point was that the MEANS for political resistance are just as stifled in the civilian sector as in the military.
Posted by: Alan | June 24, 2005 10:32 AM
Bush won............when will the liberals get over it!!!
Posted by: Kelly | June 24, 2005 10:33 AM
Moving to Canada if H. Clinton wins?
Um, you do realize that Canada's right wing is far-left of the Democrats?
Posted by: Rich | June 24, 2005 10:35 AM
Oh and Bush was really on top of things when he got a memo warning about possible airplane attacks before 9/11.
Oh, and I can't believe you would actually say that about the whole Democrat/Negroe thing.
Thanks for reinforcing my own stereotypes about police officers.
BTW -- if you are just posting this stuff as way to see how angry "the 15" will get, good job! Otherwise, you're hopeless.
Posted by: anti-WASP | June 24, 2005 10:35 AM
I miss the digressions of the SAOF.
And WASP, was the racial slam really necessary? It just displayed the level of your maturity and mindset.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2005 10:35 AM
We all are to blame for buying into this type of politics. We watch shows and elect politicans that use these tactics to sway us or to make us miss the real story going on that no one is reporting.
Look at the assault on PBS (Bill Moyers and Frontline) for actually practicing real journalism. There is little doubt that PBS and NPR do lean slightly left - but there reporting is still the least biased of all the major news outlets. The Right knows this and now needs to send the attack dogs after them.
But we the electorate created this situation and we can still change it if we want to.....
Posted by: Kyle | June 24, 2005 10:36 AM
Questions for all the Rove/Bush Repub Macho Men:
1. If your judgement and leadership on the War on Terror are so on point, Where are the HUGE CACHES of WMD'S Iraq supposedly possessed?
2. Where is and Why Havent you caught Osama Bin Laden?
3. What Did Iraq have to do with the events of 9-11-01?
Posted by: Cassini | June 24, 2005 10:36 AM
Great one-dimensional thinking. Alright, Saddam's out of power, let's get the hell out of Iraq and let the terrorists run the place.
Hey, Tsunami victims, here's your check. We're outta here.
Bush won, so it's hands off for the next four years? the founding fathers would be so proud you missed every point they ever made about eternal viligance. Go eat a doughnut.
Posted by: HeyKelly | June 24, 2005 10:36 AM
Karl Rowe was throwing red meat to a conservative audience at a fund raiser. His statements are backed up by documented quotes by prominent liberals. Seems to me that the ones who are hollering the loudest is a case of the 'hit dog barks'. Besides, the hollerers are trying to draw attention from their deafening silence on Sen. Durbin's 'Nazi' comparisons.
Posted by: Texan | June 24, 2005 10:37 AM
Will someone give Karl Rove a wife!
This way he can quit screwing the American people
Posted by: dassy | June 24, 2005 10:37 AM
Joel, I agree. Rove is an expert at the sleight-of-hand trick of misdirection. This is a calculated move. Watch his other hand!
Posted by: Necco | June 24, 2005 10:38 AM
WASP- yes, you are exactly correct. Clinton got a little memo on his desk "BTW - bin laden, HW Bush's cronie, has gone awol, and we fear he will be attacking the world trade center with airplanes sometime in the near future..." Oh, wait. Oh, that was BUSH that got that memo, not clinton. And it's Bush's family that tossed all that artillary to bin laden in the eighties - not clinton. get your facts straight. And if I were in the white house, i'd want a blow job, too.
Posted by: LP | June 24, 2005 10:39 AM
Mr WASP seems to be a bit confused. If I remember correctly, Bush inherited budget surpluses, a robust economy and a National Security staff that warned him about Osama. He gave the budget surplus away to his friends like Ken Lay, his voodoo economic policies have led to an anemic economy a best, and rather than heeding warnings about al Qaeda he was reading pre-school childrens books on 9-11 (probably because he couldn't handle grammar school level reading). And if that wasn't enough he lied to the American public to get us into this stupid foray in Iraq. Inherit a mess? No! He created it!
Posted by: Bill | June 24, 2005 10:39 AM
I don't think that Rove is nearly as smart as he thinks he is. His comments are part of his strategy to paint opponents to the war as unpatriotic so as to stop opposition and expand the powers of the executive. Funnily enough, this is also the old strategy. Do you remember this talking point from 2002? "We need to support our president in time of war"—I think that, as a country with such a powerful military and economic influence in the world, we should encourage debate and descent especially in times of war. It is not as if everyone is just afraid of getting drafted; we know that that option is not politically viable, but it would have been good to slow down the march to war. Maybe we could even have discovered the cracks in our intelligence system before the invasion is debate were welcomed before the war. How about calling the patriot act the PATRIOT act? If anyone opposes the impingement on civil liberties they are automatically un-patriotic, and the bill passes granting the executive more power. Now I think that this administration believes that they are doing something good for the world and the country with this war and, honestly, I don't have the necessary clairvoyance to determine whether the net effect will be a positive or negative one, but the clear threat to America that I see, is the consolidation of power with the executive. The attempts to change rules and bully the opposition are irresponsible and, if they continue to succeed, these changes will severely undermine the constitution.
Posted by: Will | June 24, 2005 10:39 AM
Hmm...military doctrine and code of ethics? There's nothing political about refusing to follow an illegal order, but it seems to me you're suggesting soldiers disobey orders because they don't agree with them on a political level. Doctrine is policy, not law, and as such should be left to politicians, or at least the JCS. There's no place on the battlefield for political debate.
Posted by: jw | June 24, 2005 10:40 AM
wow, this is exciting. I can't go into chat rooms at work or i'd get fired, so this is the only intelligent conversation i get to have all day.
I really can't stand hard-line whiners of either spectrum, but can't we all just admit that we take such hard stances because we just like to argue? How 3@#%^ boring would this place be if we were all moderates?
For every Fox News, there's a CNN, for every Washington Post there's a Washington Times. Gotta love it. Media is a market, ans the've created their own demand. It's genius.
Posted by: nedkelly | June 24, 2005 10:41 AM
Words of wisdom to adhere by: OPINIONS ARE LIKE ASSHOLES......EVERYONE'S GOT ONE! It seeems to me that liberal assholes are smellier than others though...lol
Posted by: George | June 24, 2005 10:41 AM
He disagrees with WASP. So shall we debate the issues? Nah...just call the guy names.
That is not debate. That is not persuasive speech.
Posted by: SDS | June 24, 2005 10:41 AM
That's not michael moore, i can't say I'm a moore fan. That's John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic HitMan, an auto-biography of a gentleman that wroked with all these guys in the seventies and eighties. Oh, wait, that's right, Saddam had all those WMDs....
Posted by: LP | June 24, 2005 10:42 AM
"Conservative" is a poor word choice in describing the violent, lawless reactionary statism that seems to be the hallmark of the Bush administration's foreign policy. The seemingly endless stream of one-liners and one-upsmanship that pours from the lips of Bush's hatchetmen is not even thinly disguised as the adolescent machoism of a fifth-grade bully.
As for the pseudo-oppositional democrats(or whatever they wish to call themselves), the are by and large virtually indistingushable from their tie-wearing pencil pushing counterparts in D.C. None of them appear to give pin's fee about the tens of thousands of dead and hundreds of billions of dollars that have resulted from their purile and completely unthoughout reaction to the events of September 11, 2001.
Heck, any child could've predicated the outcome.
Why not save the dead, their surviving friends and relatives, and the taxpayers here and abroad a lot of trouble, and just cut a check in the name of Al-Quaeda for $250,000,000,000 in exchange for a promise not to ram an airplane into a building for a few years?
Posted by: Connie | June 24, 2005 10:42 AM
There are two issue re-emerging here that I find extremely sad: First, another instance of "truth by repetition" As was stated before, assertions are being made and repeated, and no presentation of facts or counterarguments will have any effect. Just say the same thing over and over again, and people will believe it after a while. If someone complains their either "whining" or "unpatriotic." Sad times for a democracy... The other issue is the misuse of the term "liberal." In my book that is someone who is capable of accepting that other people might have a different view of things, someone who tries to understand why there is a different view, someone who is willing and capable of questioning his beliefs and, if he still finds them to be true after examination, will defend them with strong arguments. "Liberal" is a way of dealing with the uncertainties of life and the variety found in mankind. It is not a political party. If Rove critizises Liberals, he condems everyone who is trying to think before they act. And if that is now becoming a bad thing, then it really is time that God bless America. We'll need it.
Posted by: Phoebus | June 24, 2005 10:42 AM
With the words of Durbin and Ted Kennedy still echoing through the hall of the Senate, it would seem that the only recourse for these individuals is to redirect the Public attention away from the broadside of liberal comments. Mr. Rove is correct in his opinion what has the left done for us lately? The answer in clear, noithing. They have given the insurgents the same rights as American to the Judical system, some how the American policy is to place all these insurgents in the Hilton or a Bed and Breakfast Inn. How about the one in Boston Ted? I thought not. Until the Democrats can reel in Mr. Dean, stop Mr. Kerry from making statements that are off track regarding the previous election, it is now the time to form a new party. Yes there is a need for a party that represents the middle of the road democrats and not the Clinton's idea of Socialism.
Posted by: Steven | June 24, 2005 10:43 AM
This is the same old type of juvenile banter my generation is used to hearing from this quickly fading, post WWII egocentrical American generation. I long for the future. when 20 years from now our more sensible, wakened generation takes over. That is, if the former hippies and yuppies don't destory things first.
We look at the Karl Roves of the world as "children". As a matter of fact, a good majority of our republics (anyone know what a repuclic is anymore?) political body are nothing more than children in adult packages, throwing around meaningless comments and poorly worded verbal attacks, only to retract with heartless "apologies" because they can't even understand their own convictions.
To all of you in this generation I'm speaking about, my generation does not feel hatred toward you. We feel pity. We feel the pain handed to us created by your pleasures. We see the insanity festering inside of your minds. And we are not like you. We're over the last few years deciding to do something you decided not to do: grow up. Television shows you the opposite, but keep in mind that's television, not reality. And your tactics are not going to work on us.
Good people of America, things will get worse before they get better, but I'm confident my generation will try as hard as possible for all of our generations. I know there are plenty of "compentent" and intelligent persons of our not so adult generation that see through such BS as presented above, and must say I feel sorry you had to grow up around it. Hopefully by the time my generation inhabits the halls of Congress, we will be on our way for paying for the greed and consumption our fathers created for us, and we will forgive you. Because you never grew up.
Posted by: forkboy | June 24, 2005 10:43 AM
I think Rove is right on. Democrats have consistently referred to fighting terrorists as a law enforcement matter (see John Kerry's entire campaign)- it's NOT - 9/11 was an vicious attack on our soil which demanded and still demands a military response. Now the Dems have their panties in a wad about if someone looked sideways at a Koran or if prisoners didn't get chocolate milk with their honey glazed chicken at Gitmo. How can normal people listen to the Democrats in congress and think that they are really concerned about our men in uniform or preventing another 9/11 when all they whine about is how badly they think the US is treating terrorists at Gitmo?? Every time Democrats open their mouths, it's not to spread the word on what an amazing, free country we are, but how bad the US is. It's depressing.
I'd love to hear a different, useful point of view from the Democrats. I'm sick of the Bush administration and its ineptitudes. I listen and watch the Democrats with hope but instead all I hear is whining and concern for terrorists instead of concrete suggestions on being a strong nation and really winning the WOT.
AS long as the Dems keep hanging around with the likes of Michael Moore, George Soros and MoveOn.org who spew hateful comments all the time, they look like hypocrites demanding apologies and resignations from conservatives who are giving them a taste of their own medicine.
Posted by: Wis | June 24, 2005 10:44 AM
Mr WASP seems to be a bit confused. If I remember correctly, Bush inherited budget surpluses, a robust economy and a National Security staff that warned him about Osama. He gave the budget surplus away to his friends like Ken Lay, his voodoo economic policies have led to an anemic economy a best, and rather than heeding warnings about al Qaeda he was reading pre-school childrens books on 9-11 (probably because he couldn't handle grammar school level reading). And if that wasn't enough he lied to the American public to get us into this stupid foray in Iraq. Inherit a mess? No! He created it!
Posted by: Bill | June 24, 2005 10:44 AM
Hey Dassy...maybe we should just get Rove to be a Democrat...then he can screw everyone's wife.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 10:44 AM
Oh, and Joel buddy, don't forget- this is your blog and you just wade on in here into the swamp any old time you feel like it, ya hear?
Posted by: kurosawaguy | June 24, 2005 10:45 AM
At what point do we, those of us who desire to chart a change in our current course, begin to act together. The overall sentiment is clear here. The "W"rong crew is at the helm. Help us all by galvanizing our efforts to administer a change in leadership. We have seen the progression of a long term effort to seize control of this country away from the middle ground common sense folks and I think, with little argument, the results are devastating for us now and for a while to come. When you can carry on a discussion of favorability ratings that compares the US with a Communist country like China, or expose actions that can clearly be construed like something a Nazi would do, then it’s time to take action and reclaim what, for generations with great sacrifices by many, has been the building of a great nation.
Posted by: GlavestonIslander | June 24, 2005 10:45 AM
This discussion itself is what Karl Rove wanted us to get to. If we keep hammering this crap and the talkshows pick it up as they will then for those with short attention spans this will be the subject de jour for at least two weeks maybe more and every other serious issue will be ignored. This guy is pretty brilliant, won't you say.
Posted by: Hadyn | June 24, 2005 10:45 AM
"The Inquisition's here and it's here to staaaay..."
Posted by: Torquemata | June 24, 2005 10:45 AM
I blame Joel for this. Friday should be a day for posts about whether gas or charcoal is better.
And I can't believe someone actually said "negro".
The TSA15 needs deligated veto power so that only posts that are about chlorophyll and whether any ladies here are available for drinks tonight.
Posted by: jw | June 24, 2005 10:47 AM
As a moderate Democrat (read…former Republican irritated by the new direction the party has taken,) I believe that we have a case of behind covering. Mistakes were made by this administration as well as the previous and not all of these were foreseeable errors. September 11 wreaked havoc and confusion upon our nation and where confusion reigns opportunity exists. Whether it is money or power, people are taken advantage of in this milieu. America wants answers to many important questions and the more quickly we dispose of these issues, the better off we all will be. Machiavellian tactics must cease.
Posted by: Randy | June 24, 2005 10:47 AM
We have also set a record or elapsed time to 100 posts. Scary.
Posted by: jw | June 24, 2005 10:47 AM
Blah blah, so many opinions, so many idiots.
Its always a bit funny reading whats written in response to a blog column... people spout ideas and push notions that are absurd at best. We all believe what we want to believe, we all try to piece our view of the world together in a manner that suits us... lets be realistic, not everybody is right. You can stand there and say that you are right and everyone else is wrong, but lets face it, you're more than likely wrong.
Take for instance Waspisadouche. The guys a fuggin morron, just pushing the political agenda that appeals to him the most like everyone else is. "blah blah, Bush wants soldiers to die, he'd kill themselves personally if it meant saving face.. blah blah.. Osama isn't in Iraq, and since I know this I must know just where he is.. blah blah... republican.. Hussein is Castro!.. Inquisition!.. killing thousands of people sooooo quickly OMG!.. blah blah amd freakin blah.
I mean, everybody these days is trying to spin their own politics like they know what they are talking about and they are the fountain of all thats true and right. Lets be realistic about that... no one here fully understands everything that goes on in politics, what motives are what, and whatever else there may be. We take a (more often than not uneducated) guess at what it is. Should people really defend something so vehemently when its nothing but a guess?
I think we'd all do better to approach things from the middle ground, because this bickering back and forth at two opposite poles helps no one understand anything, and it certainly does not make anyone appear any more intelligent.
My apologies for this posting.
Posted by: TheDude | June 24, 2005 10:47 AM
I find it sad that in this whole argument, people seem to see Social Security privatization as an assumed lost cause and "hare-brained scheme." I am a Ph.D student in Economics, and my nearly professional opinion is that privatization is unquestionably one of the smartest things that the government could do right now to protect future generations of Americans. And this goes way, way beyond politics. I'm going to assume that a large number of people posting here are in the 20-30 age range, and all of you should realize that a privatization plan now would benefit you the most, since you will have the ability to put a large portion of your lifetime earnings in a growing account rather than a stagnant 1% government bill.
I heard a democrat on C-SPAN talking the other day, and argued that current benefits can be paid until 2040-something, and even then the system will still work if we pay 80% benefits for 30 years after that. He claimed that the problem is fictionalized, and there are more important things to talk about. Many of you seem to agree with that point. Those of you that do are being short sighted and stupid. There's a big difference between a plan that maintains benefits for 40 years before cutting them and a plan that makes them grow steadily and indefinitely.
Unfortunately, people seeking political advantage have demonized this type of plan without ever considering it's implications in a real way. They find it easier to gain votes by scaring old people into believing their benefits will be cut (they won't) or simply obstructing the policy because its passage would be a major political victory for the Republicans. I urge all of you to educate yourself about this issue and think about it in a meaningful, non-political way, because Social Security in general will probably have a greater effect on American prosperity over then next 50 years than the War in Iraq, the federal deficit, and the No Child Left Behind Act COMBINED.
This is the only thing I evangelize about. The end. Off soapbox.
Posted by: AC | June 24, 2005 10:48 AM
Joel, in your own understated way, you're 1000% right - Rove is indeed a red herring.
The 'distraction tactic' is the one bait the Dems keep taking, each and every time. It drives me crazy...
Posted by: Vince | June 24, 2005 10:48 AM
Karl Rove was completely accurate in his portrayal of the ideas of the liberal wing of the democratic party as one that is more concerned with the feelings of those who want to kill us than with the protection of the citizens of this country. Liberals do not view the US in a positive light and try at every turn to slander the efforts of US troops everywhere. These liberals compare the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo to those run by Nazis. These prisoners have all gained weight, from eating 3 squares a day, and have received exceptional dental and medical care since their incarceration. Historically speaking, these people have not a clue about what actually took place in prisons in Germany and Russia during WWII. Additionally, these are killers who would love to kill as many Americans as possible. Many of the Gitmo prisoners who were released already were encountered again on the battlefield shooting at our troops. Supporting the promotion of democracy in Iraq and supporting our troops is a lost cause for liberals but championing the rights of terrorists and killers is a much more rewarding experience for them. Karl Rove is absolutely correct is his analysis of the differences between Republicans and liberals.
Posted by: Conrad Bovell | June 24, 2005 10:49 AM
Perhaps you should put down the bong and your copy of the city papers for a few short minutes to ponder you comments about soldiers being nothing more than federal employees who signed up for the pay and benefits package. Most enlisted soldiers live below the federal poverty line and receive substandard medical care. While no doubt there are those who join becuase it is a job, you can alos walk down to the local McDonald's and get a similar pay and benefits package and not fear for their lives. The truth of the matter is most soldiers who join do see an opportunity to serve their country and either have and/or develop real sense of patriotism, particularly when dropped into a combat zone where they see their friends die around them. Those bangladeshi and sri lankin contractors you talk about are their as wage earners no different than the illiegal immigrants that take low paying jobs here in the U.S. It doesn't diminish their plight but it certainly doesn't warrant a comparison to American soldiers dying on a battle field. They do a job their country sends them to do and they do it becuase of duty, not a pay check or benefits. Get Real
Posted by: Chris | June 24, 2005 10:49 AM
LIKE I SAID BEFORE.......BUSH WON....GET OVER IT !!! (LIBERALS ARE BAD LOSERS)
Posted by: KELLY | June 24, 2005 10:49 AM
Before liberals jerk their knees after Karl Rove says something, they should stop and think about what he's up to.
After all, it is liberals & Dems who have given Rove the image of being the most Machiavellian politico in U.S. history!
But when Rove called liberals (not Dems) bleeding-heart touchy-feely wimps who "want to give therapy and understanding" to terrorists, the Dems took the bait, hook line and sinker.
Rove's ploy in fact had a lot to do with the flap over Guantanamo. He saw Democrats drifting toward identification with the politics of internet hysteria and the nutty claims of anti-American groups like Amnesty International. He used simple reverse psychology to reignite the fires of patriotism in the Dems -- in the process reminding them they can't straddle two sides on the defense of America.
Posted by: Citizen | June 24, 2005 10:50 AM
I have a question for Alan...
"This war goes agains ALL military doctrine and codes of ethics."
Please explain... the late Pope John Paul II condoned it... so it must not be against codes of ethics... and I haven't heard of one thing that the military has done against doctrine.. and don't say Gitmo because those terrorists in their aren't under the Geneva Convention... secondedly, how can you say that this war is against ALL codes of ethics when your fellow democrats are killing thousands of babies a day... you crats amaze me
Posted by: Pete | June 24, 2005 10:50 AM
I have a question for Alan...
"This war goes agains ALL military doctrine and codes of ethics."
Please explain... the late Pope John Paul II condoned it... so it must not be against codes of ethics... and I haven't heard of one thing that the military has done against doctrine.. and don't say Gitmo because those terrorists in their aren't under the Geneva Convention... secondedly, how can you say that this war is against ALL codes of ethics when your fellow democrats are killing thousands of babies a day... you crats amaze me
Posted by: Pete | June 24, 2005 10:50 AM
To WASP on your threat to move to Canada ; I'm certain you wouldn't like it here.
Posted by: Canuck | June 24, 2005 10:51 AM
My party has been hijacked by greedy cynical wackos, and the best the Democrats can do in opposition is whine for apologies. Keep your eyes on the ball- these (pre)felons want to steal or divert the nation's treasure to themselves and their campaign contributors at the cost of our military and fiscal strength, our future, our children's future and our planet. There are reasonable, non-agenda driven, true Americans and patriots in both parties. If they truly love their country, they'll get together and go around these political animals and start taking this country back.
Posted by: Moderate Republican | June 24, 2005 10:52 AM
It's not just Rove. Typical to the Repugs, they launch their attacks on multiple media fronts.
So, you have Rove's comments, you have O'Reilly calling for the arrest of all Air America employees for treason, you have Congresswoman Pryce of Ohio accusing Dems of conducting "guerilla warfare" on the military.....they create the meme, then they treat it as accepted Truth.
This is so their faithful will not waver, because Rove, et al, has shown them how they are better than us. Because they are loyal and will ignore the escalating death toll and we, who question any of it, are traitors.
This will come in handy when they want to formally attack Iran, everyone here will be so busy pissing on each other that there will be no coherent resistance and little or no notice of the continued plundering of our treasury for their war profiteering.
Posted by: roooth | June 24, 2005 10:53 AM
Over 100 comments already (jw stole my thunder in announcing this, though). This is an Achenblog record, am I right? And there will probably be more by the time I finish typing this.
jw: you just want iowabiologist to come back so you can sweet talk about chlorophyll and the dirty laundry (and massage oils) in your room over martinis.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2005 10:53 AM
While you are all complaining about the war and the poll numbers slipping for the president and the war, lets not forget the idiots that voted him back in office. He didn't force himself back in. We put him there!!! We did this to ourselves. Now the question is does the American people still have enough control over our elected government to force him out of office?? Or do we just have to take Bush's crap until 2008. I am a Republican that voted Democrat because I believe that we needed some new ideas in this war and Kerry was the only other option. I have had enough of this administration and would be glad to join the political process that removes them from office. Support our troops and lets bring them home soon!!!!!
Posted by: Walker | June 24, 2005 10:54 AM
This is a red herring. The "real" herrings are Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, and the GOP Party's rape of Native Americans. We should not be surprised that our president sees nothing wrong with publicly divisive comments that are lies. It won't be the first time.
Here is the Truth of Rove's comments: Republicans DID plan a war immediately after 9/11. Unfortunately for America, it was against Saddam Hussein, instead of the guy who actually attacked us on 9/11, Osama Bin Laden. (My proof: We have Saddam Hussein in jail with nary a WMD to be found, yet the guy who actually declared war on the United States has loyalists still killing Americans four years later.) Don Rumsfield is the best at calling press conferences to distract from bad news. This time it's my opinion that Rove is shifting attention from the testimony of the "CEO" in the case against Delay, Abramoff, Ralph Reed et al. At any rate, they would love for us to waste all day long hyperventilating about an apology. There will be no apology, so use the opportunity at the microphone to shine the light of Truth back on them.
Posted by: bevbb | June 24, 2005 10:55 AM
I don't really have massage oils. I am sooooo not cool enough for that. Although I would like to invite her in for some fine "sham-pain-ya." We are now up to 118. This is a definite speed record.
Posted by: jw | June 24, 2005 10:55 AM
I'm not seeing my comment in these replies - so I'll pipe up: Durbin's initial comments, replayed over and over again on Al Jazeera, do in fact have the effect of placing our military men and women at greater risk because they are motivating to those that would cause them harm, and can be exploited by the leadership of various terror orgs to bring those folks out of the woodwork. Rove's comments, as quoted and criticized in this blog, are actually dead on accurate in my opinion. Doesn't anyone remember the reasons given for beheading Nick Berg? Weren't they citing Abu Gharib? That's what I recall anyway... Our Senators, Repub or Dems (I'm neither), should NOT be giving these guys any reason to be motivated.
Posted by: Roger Herzler | June 24, 2005 10:57 AM
Walker's right... lets get our troops out of Iraq and abandon the Iraqi citizens.. Who cares, they arent Americans... I say why we are at it we have every troop bring home a gallon of oil.. make it two gallons, that way we can selfishly abandon the Iraqi people who so desperately wanted freedom and lower gas prices at the same time!! Good idea Walker
Posted by: Pete | June 24, 2005 10:57 AM
I am a Finish citizen. "What an amazing, free country we are."
And what grade are you in?
Posted by: Martha | June 24, 2005 10:57 AM
as long as the repug thugs can keep creating distractions like schiavo and flag burning(as they did so successfully in the election campaign)they don't have to deal with real issues like health care, the carnage in iraq and the lousy economy. the dems are saps to get pulled into their role of yapping at repug heels instead of setting the agenda.
Posted by: joannar | June 24, 2005 10:57 AM
Of course this blog hit 100 fast. It was on Google's news page...millions saw the headline. I followed the link. I have never been here before today (and probably won't be back)
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 10:57 AM
I'm afraid, very afraid...and every American citizen should also be afraid. It seems as if our beloved America is heading toward being a coountry where everything (the Presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Supreme Court Judiciary, business, religion, the military, etc. etc.) have been taken over by a radical bunch of "elites" from the richest & most privileged idealogues who seem to be controlling all aspects of American life, just like any other dictatorship. Bush & Co. care nothing for the American public (whose sons and daughters are fighting their wars?...not theirs). They are hypercritical of any word uttered that does not fall under the party line. They are placing far-right-wing zombies (to their cause) in positions that cry; no, scream for a nonpartisan such as in Public Broadcasting. It is OK to have Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity, that awful Ann Colture and the entire Fox News Network constantly spout the party line and lies, over-shouting any opposition and cutting their microphones when guests make a valid point that is contrary to Bush & Co's propoganda.
Carl Rove makes me ill as does Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and a host of others. Bush is a spoiled bully who is like a giddy, smug little boy when everything goes his way and a sullen, sniveling, vindictive little brat when he doesn't. Why don't any of the Bush gang ever answer the questions asked by reporters? They constantly revert to talking about what they want to talk about instead of giving an honest answer, then abruptly end the interview, walking away from topics that show what they have been up to. This past week I heard a reporter/journalist ask about the "secret prisions where detainees are held" and this was not denied...instead Rumsfeld talked about Gitmo. A typical bait & switch. It has been happening for six years...ever since the campaign leading up to the 2000 election. We never get a straight and truthful answer about so many things; the Iraq war, the projected cost of the war, Social Security, tax cuts for the rich, rich, rich, the energy policy, the budget deficit, etc., etc. I have never heard anyone express concern over this and it bothers me enormosly.
Posted by: Ellen | June 24, 2005 10:57 AM
If I hear one more request for an apology about anything, I am going to shoot myself. Both parties are behaving like the nineteenth century jacksonian dandies who beat each other with canes and fought duels at the slightest breach of their honor. Could the centrists of the world please unite to talk about ISSUES instead of WORD CHOICES?
Posted by: oliver | June 24, 2005 10:58 AM
To the guy who thought having sex in the oval office was worse than breaking laws and going against most of the nations of the world, let me paint you a picture.
Adultery is not illegal. In fact, you can do it to your hearts content. And the president lied about his affair(s). Now theres a shock. A man who lies. I have yet to meet one that doesn't, particularly about an affair, and particularly when they are with a strong woman (yes Hillary)
Now I really do believe that attacking a country with little to no provication with the exception of the ruler of that country threating your daddy, well yes I do believe that is illegal. I believe we call it "Terrorism".
If my president wants to get his wanker tied in a knot but still manages to keep us mostly out of hot water, then I'll stick with that guy rather than the guy that is trying to line his pockets with an oil pipeline in Iraq. Think I am kidding? Do the research buddy. Cheney used to work for the company that is getting the work contracts in Iraq even though they are not the lowest bidder nor the best for the job. Guess who's making money in that endeavor.
So glad we risked the troops for that nonsense. I say bring them home. I am sick of seeing the body bags.
Posted by: Diane | June 24, 2005 10:58 AM
I thought you had to be cool to be one of the TSA15 or SAOF or whatever we're calling it these days...or were age and financial situation the only stipulations?
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2005 10:58 AM
I suspect the liberals will 'get over it' about the same time the Republicans who believe '...the White House has lost touch with reality' do.
Posted by: Dave | June 24, 2005 10:59 AM
Is there any Democrat out there that possesses and can articulate any positive ideas for the future of this country? I have yet to hear any since Bill Clinton. In the absence of that, this version of the democratic, small d, party will be portrayed, fairly or unfairly, as the weak party who yells and screams a lot but without ever really saying anything. My, how far we have fallen.
Posted by: gtbana | June 24, 2005 10:59 AM
"The Worst President Ever", "Nazis", "Republicans started the illegal war in Iraq" ... Democrats, liberals, socialists, whatever you like to call them are a joke. One minute they're saying the decisions were solely republican, the next thing they say is the Democrats also voted in favour, so are equally patriotic. Bush started the war? As well as hypocrits, it's clear that Democrats are also suffering memory problems. You left wing people pick and choose what suits your arguments and use decisions that republicans voted for as an example of what isd wrong with republicans and use the same decision that democrats also voted for as what is good about democrats. What hypocrits. Either take the good with the bad, or your opinion is worthless. Accept there are good points about the Bush administration and the republican party instead of seeing nothing but anything and everything negative and you may begin to have an objective opinion, instead of one full of left-wing rhetoric and resentment.
For the record, I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. In fact I'm not an American and don't even live on that continent.
Democrats should accept their share of responsibility for decisions made and even when times are tough, should stick to those decisions and see things through, like Iraq, instead of blaming everyone but themselves and trying to make a bad situation worse, by pulling troops out as a political move in an attempt to harm the Republicans and wash the US' hands of a problem they're heavily involved in, rather than a decision that benefits Iraq.
Posted by: AB | June 24, 2005 10:59 AM
I suspect the liberals will 'get over it' about the same time the Republicans who believe '...the White House has lost touch with reality' do.
Posted by: Dave | June 24, 2005 10:59 AM
So amazed to see how "distorted" the reality is becoming. It's become more and more obvious that Republicans maintain their position through lies and more lies and, at the very least, distortions. Heard and repeated enough, it all becomes some sort of reality to many Americans who don't have the time to research the "truth". What I've observed is that, if one truly cares to dig for the truth - which requires more than listening to the occasional Hannity and Colmes. If one really seeks out all opinions, biased and otherwise, then it becomes all too obvious. Our president wants it his way and thus distorts the facts. It happens virtually every day he opens his mouth. (Not 2 days ago he pretended the Patriot Act was responsible for more "Terrorist" aprehensions than the facts show). So was he called a liar by the media? Heavens no! It just depends "how you look at the facts". (BS!) So you have Cheney saying we're in the "last throes" for the upteenth time, but the general who has actually been to Iraq, head of Central Command and top US commander in the Middle East, states, appolgetically, "I'm sure you'll forgive me for criticizing the vice president (after he thorougly disagrees with his political take"). Does Cheney not trust these leaders we have in the field? I'm sure he probably does, but he's not being honest with the American people. I have plenty of beefs with the Democrats or "liberals" as many like to stain them (ever consider the origin of the word liberal?) but most of my complaints lie in the fact that so few have the courage to stand up to all the distortions of the truth and outright lies that flood the airwaves everyday. And, yes, Democrats can lie too. Thing is, most Americans don't need to be lied to about the things Democrats hold dearly. There's no shame in most of those positions. Whereas trying to pretend one is protecting the envirnoment by labeling it "the clear skies initiative" ad nauseum or any of the other "catch-lie" phrases used by the administration to hoist their views on Americans, is downright dishonest, if not disgusting! Funny how things turn out. The Supreme Court decision yesterday that allows municipalities to exercise a form of emminent domain, was decided by the more "liberal" justices. This is a case where I agree with the conservatives justices. As I did with the flag burning decision some 10 years or so ago - which went the way of the conservative memebers of the court. I've said too much, but seek out the truth and that truly will make you free.
Posted by: Americaneedstruth | June 24, 2005 11:00 AM
That there's an underlying plan to Rove's comments is certain, and it's probably all-too-well designed to use cognitive frameworks to mold opinion without reference to facts or truth.
But it's not the methodology that alarms me as much as the restraint-free lust for power exhibited by the Republican leadership and their backers. It's no coincidence that the three Republican administrations we've had since the 1960's have each handed us a terrifying Constitutional crisis.
Nixon sought to subvert an election with the Watergate burglary. Reagan/Bush the Elder deliberately sold weapons to one of our most ardent enemies, Iran, in order to funnel money to a group of right-wing rebels in El Salvador in direct violation of law expressly forbidding such support.
Now Bush the Lesser has deliberately lied about a national security condition to justify starting a horrific and unnecessary war in order to advance a domestic ideological agenda.
Comparing Guantanimo Bay with a Soviet Gulag? No apologies there, but what's really scary is the similarities between the neo-conservative rise to power in the US and the rise of the Social Democrats in Germany during the 1930's.
Posted by: DNT | June 24, 2005 11:00 AM
It's all a big smoke screen to shift focus away from the Downing Street Memo. Karl Rove took one for the team. Don't be distracted!
Posted by: chuck hampton | June 24, 2005 11:00 AM
I'd be more interested in having Rove, Bush and the rogues gallery in the White House apologizing to the nation for being asleep at the wheel in the months leading up to 9/11, for hiding in bunkers during 9/11, and for launching a stupid and phony war in Iraq after 9/11.
But then again, expecting Rove, Bush and Co. to behave like responsible leaders is equal to expecting a jackass to behave like a thoroughbred.
Posted by: Phil | June 24, 2005 11:01 AM
Why would anyone listen to a propagandist? Rove's job to spin, confuse, sell bullshit, and brainwash the masses. Karl Rove is the Republican version of Bagdad Bob (remember him?) and the even more notorius Joseph Goebbels. His job is a lie, promote his lies, write lies for the people he works for, and whipser lies in the ear of the president via a hidden earpeice because the President can't lie for himself. Anyone who willfully allows their brain to get pickled by Rove is a fool.
Posted by: RealityCheck | June 24, 2005 11:01 AM
As far as the judicial nominees go, I believe that Bush has had over 200 approved and nine blocked, of which two withdrew and four were passed. Not exactly massive obstruction. (These numbers are off the top of my head and may be off, but not by much.)
Yes, these numbers are "off the top of your head" and are dead wrong. Bush has had the lowest confirmation rate for appellate court nominees of any president...ever at 69%......Even Clinton, in a Republican-controlled congress had a 74% confirmation rate. Because of the Filibuster it is "minority rules." The dems just don't get it....do they? LOL
Posted by: Mike | June 24, 2005 11:02 AM
RIGHT NOW THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO TWO GROUPS: ONE IS LIBERALS THAT ARE TOO SPINELESS TO FIGHT AND HAVE EVEN CONVINCED THEMSELVES INTELLECTUALLY THAT FIGHTING IS WRONG.
THE OTHER GROUP, REDNECK CONSERVATIVES THAT DISGUISE RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA IN TERMS LIKE "FAMILY VALUES" THIS GROUP IS READY FOR A FIGHT BUT ARE TOO STUPID TO KNOW WHAT TO FIGHT FOR.
WHILE WE BICKER ABOUT A WAR THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN THE GOVERNMENT IS MAKING A LAND GRAB REMOVING OUR RIGHTS TO PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. IT'S DEFINITELY A RED HERRING, BUT WHAT ACTION HAS THIS ADMINISTRATION(OR THE PREVIOUS ONE) MADE THAT WASN'T A METHOD OF EXACTING CONTROLL OVER AMERICAN SOCIETY.
Posted by: Wake Up | June 24, 2005 11:02 AM
"I like Guantanamo Bay. They have really good jerk chicken and the bowling alley's a lot of fun." But the beer there tastes funny ;-)
Posted by: eg | June 24, 2005 11:02 AM
Yeah! Right! Them "Liberals" They need to be tarred and feathered! Throw them in the dungeon!
One question: Does that also apply to ANY "Liberal" that was among the 3,000 that perished in 9/11?
Does that also apply to all the "Liberals" that served, have been serving and, still serve in Afghanistan & Iraq?
Does that also apply to all the "liberals" that died in Afghanistan and, "Operation Enduring Freedom"?
What a perfect way to honor and, remember them. Thanks Mr Rove! Now we know where you stand and, your brand of "conservativism" comes from.
Posted by: Frank | June 24, 2005 11:02 AM
I suspect the liberals will 'get over it' about the same time the Republicans who believe '...the White House has lost touch with reality' do.
Posted by: Dave | June 24, 2005 11:02 AM
Wow, I just can't get past this "Negroes...'Democrat'" comment. How was that supposed to be taken anyway? It's just baffling.
I bet this person voted Democrat without realizing it. Those voting machines can be complicated...
Posted by: Marc | June 24, 2005 11:03 AM
Hey, Karl Rove just told the truth since when do you have to apoligize for telling the truth.
Posted by: Don Crain | June 24, 2005 11:03 AM
He done broke out ALL CAPS... that's against the BLOG code of ethics
Posted by: Pete | June 24, 2005 11:03 AM
AFTER READING YA'LLS COMMENTS IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ROWE WAS CORRECT. US DEMOCRATS ARE SHALLOW INDIVIDUALS WHO ADHERE TO LIBERAL BELIEFS. ITS WRONG FOR US DESCRIMINATE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS OR MOSLEMS BUT CHRISTIANS....IT'S OK. US DEMOCRATS ARE JUST A BUNCH OF HYPOCRITS. THAT'S WHY I'M CHANGING MY PARTY AFFILIATION TO REPUBLICAN. I WANT TO LEAVE MY BROTHER DEMOCRATS BEHIND. THANKS FOR YALL'S SUPPORT. PS........BUSH IN 2008 !!!
Posted by: BILL CLINTON | June 24, 2005 11:04 AM
I think WakeUp might be trying to say something...he seems vehement in his caps lock style. Roxie, also. Though she was a while ago.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2005 11:04 AM
Just age and financial situation. I fit the age bracket, but I don't know about the financial one...I forget what it is, but people who live on Hot Pockets probably aren't in it.
Posted by: jw | June 24, 2005 11:05 AM
This sure looks like a "lets pat each other on the back" session. Have fun! (By the way I am laughing at both sides of this.Your two political extremes are equally childish and ridiculous.)
Posted by: Jeff | June 24, 2005 11:05 AM
For Diane: Actually, adultery is illegal in the US military. FYI.
To everyone else that's arguing Republicans vs. Democrats (my party is better than your party - nyah nyah) I say be done with all of them. It's a 3 card Monty game and they are all ripping you off. Is that too cynical? :o)
Posted by: Roger Herzler | June 24, 2005 11:05 AM
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2005 11:05 AM
Pope John Paul did NOT condone the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Check your facts. He was against it and spoke out about it
and to Kelly, re:"LIKE I SAID BEFORE.......BUSH WON....GET OVER IT !!! (LIBERALS ARE BAD LOSERS)"
You mean like the Repugs got over Gray Davis' re-election in California? Or like they got over the Democrats win in Washington state where they sued for two years because they didn't like the results? Or Jeb Bush reassuring FL Repugs not to worry about an amendment that got passed that they didn't like with a comforting, "Don't worry, I have plans to stop it"?
You guys are a joke. If there's anything worse than a sore looser, it's a meanspirited sore winner that still keeps whining.
When you've won everything, it's kind of stupid to keep posing as a poor-me victum. Waaah, the Democrats are attacking us, waaah.
Your problem is that with total control of all branches of government, you guys are royally screwing everything up in front of the whole world and need someone to blame.
Posted by: roooth | June 24, 2005 11:06 AM
Martha - try being a little more coherent. Might be hard for you though.
Since the proposition seemed to bother you, I'll repeat it: the US is an amazing and free country which the Democrats continually undermine - I could care less if some idiotic socialist European disagrees.
Posted by: Wis | June 24, 2005 11:06 AM
The problem is, that the Dems keep falling for Rove's same sleight-of-hand. You'd think they'd get it by now.
Yesterday, everyone was dancing because Public TV was *saved.* At the same time, they appointed a former RNC co-chair, as head of the (non-partisan) Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This is unprecedented... yet the media & the Dems are rejoicing.
I never thought I'd see the day when our Government would remind me 1930s Germany. They pay journalists to spew their propaganda (see Armstrong Williams et al)... make fake video news releases, to look like real news stories... and now they're taking control of the one unbiased media outlet in our country. Unbiased meaning *fair & balanced.*
Heir Rove has learned well from Heir Goebbels.
Everything I've said is fact, except my conclusion... which is MY conclusion. I dare anyone to challenge the facts. I expect the right-wing sheep to do the only thing they know how to do... attack my family, my god, or me.
Posted by: Baz | June 24, 2005 11:08 AM
Oh! BILL CLINTON, too! I think caps constitute yelling and I don't know if that's allowed here. Thought Joel has yet to censor it.
jw: I fit the age, too. But I'm in college so I'm living off of the Taco Bell value menu. I never thought about Hot Pockets. Variety would be nice.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2005 11:08 AM
CIA: Iraq now a bigger terrorist threat than Afghanistan/binLaden http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050622/pl_nm/security_iraq...
US Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
United States: Losing the War on Terror http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2...
Evidence that the US May Be Losing the Global War on Terror http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1501
US: Three Years On, War on Terrorism Looks Like a Loser http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25437
Posted by: Hattie | June 24, 2005 11:09 AM
***I think the more likely possibility is that Republicans have such overwhelming control of the government in such a partisan climate, that their idiocyometers have just stopped working***
What, then, is Durbin's excuse? Or Polosi's? Or Kennedy's?
***Karl Rove conveniently forgets that immediately after 9/11, Congress, the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats, voted UNANIMOUSLY to go to war in Afghanistan, and to search and destroy Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists who were responsible.***
*** I think Rove is trying to launch an all-out last-ditch effort to gain some traction and reverse the Republicans continued decline. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. ***
Decline? Is that what you call being in control of all branches of the Federal Government?
***Republicans are just turning up the noise to drown out the scandals***
They must pay Durbin and Dean well for their parts, eh?
***Rove's just doing what he has always done for dear old W - divide us into good and bad, conservative and liberal, patriotic and unpatriotic, etc etc etc blah blah blah. ***
As opposed to dividing us into Pol Pots and Hitlers?
***What is it going to take for you to understand Hussein was just another Castro. Yes, things he did to his countrymen were awful, ***
I don't recall Castro starting 3 wars that left over a million dead. I must've missed that.
***Jim Carrey woiuld be an excellent choice for playing the role of President Bush. Karl Rove could be played by Jeff Daniels. It would be an original movie, but also a sequel: Dumb and Dumber II.***
It must suck to lose continually to "dumb" people.
***Look at the assault on PBS (Bill Moyers and Frontline) for actually practicing real journalism.***
Real journalism is not biased. The word you want is "editorialism".
*** I long for the future. when 20 years from now our more sensible, wakened generation takes over***
Yeeha, can't wait for President Johnny Knoxville.
Posted by: j-damn | June 24, 2005 11:09 AM
Yes, Mike, "appelate court nominees", but not "total judicial nominees". let's be totally truthful in case some out there don't know the whole truth.
Posted by: Americaneedstruth | June 24, 2005 11:09 AM
Who's side will you be on in the coming civil war?
Posted by: red stater | June 24, 2005 11:10 AM
Bush War On Terror? More like Bush's War Creates Terror!
06/23/05 "ICH" - - You've made us all less safe now, while killing tens of thousands of innocent people, including Americans. Read the evidence file.
Rove: Dems Didn't Get 9/11 Consequences
"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war." http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-06222005-50614...
Republicans, not being the brightest bulbs, decided to OUT-TERRORIST and OUT-SAVAGE the handful of SAUDI terrorists.
Yeah that sure was smart;
CIA: Iraq now a bigger terrorist threat than Afghanistan/binLaden http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050622/pl_nm/security_iraq...
US Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
United States: Losing the War on Terror http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2...
Evidence that the US May Be Losing the Global War on Terror http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1501
US: Three Years On, War on Terrorism Looks Like a Loser http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25437
”We have a stronger jihadi presence in Iraq today than in March 2003,” noted Roger Cressey, the former director for Transnational Threats in Bush's National Security Council at a briefing at the libertarian Cato Institute earlier this week. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0911-01.htm
The 'War on Terrorism': Winning or Losing? Losing. http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/brie...
Terror threat to US called 'significant' - Apr 27, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/27/terror.report /
Global terror attacks triple in 2004 http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/dailyUpdate.html
Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435%20 /
US Losing the War on Terror in Iraq; The invasion of Iraq has increased, not decreased, the threat of terrorist attack http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2629.htm...
Posted by: Hattie | June 24, 2005 11:10 AM
I like Hattie. She seems to have a good head on her shoulders.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2005 11:10 AM
***I dare anyone to challenge the facts. I expect the right-wing sheep to do the only thing they know how to do... attack my family, my god, or me***
Blah blah Bushhitlerhalliburton, blah blah blah, CNN=truth, blah blah blah.
Posted by: j-damn | June 24, 2005 11:10 AM
all this talk about apologies is fun. However, Durbin did not apologize for his comments at all. He apologized for being misunderstood. Rove's general comments about liberals hardly compare to Durbin's specific references to certain attrocities in history. One suggests a group of people have the wrong "ideas", the other suggests crimes against humanity. Which requires a real apology, if it is indeed wrong.
Posted by: nobiasherewhatsoever | June 24, 2005 11:11 AM
And on a slightly different front: my ex-girlfriend's grandmother was in a Solviet gulag for much of her late teens and early 20's (her sister and cousin are actually in a picture in Anne Applebaum's excellent book). Guantanamo Bay is NOTHING like a gulag. Last time I checked none of those prisoners' shoulders are raw to the bone from hauling brush, and they aren't wading through miles of hip-deep snow without proper clothing.
Posted by: jw | June 24, 2005 11:11 AM
US Losing the War on Terror in Iraq; The invasion of Iraq has increased, not decreased, the threat of terrorist attack http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2629.htm...
Occupation Made World Less Safe, Pro-War Institute Says http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2...
Iraq Invasion Hurt War on Terror http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0719-10.htm
Musharraf: World more dangerous because of Iraq War http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/25/03544/7945
Blix Says Iraq War May Have Worsened Terror Threat http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0319-02.htm
Poll: Aussies, Brits, Italians say Iraq war increased terrorism http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/5027215.html
Posted by: Hattie | June 24, 2005 11:11 AM
Wow, WASP you are one racist small peckered bastard. Please do this country a favor and move your rancid ass to Canada. The USA would be a happier and better country without the slime of you rotting its core. Your genetic pool needs a heavy chlorine blast to rid all of us of your stupidity and of the foul odor that leaks through your porous skull and into these posts. We all know you are jealous of Clinton and wish you could get booty like that, lol.
Posted by: WASPEATSPOOP | June 24, 2005 11:12 AM
Watch this. The set-up is already under way. The big question which will be posed by the GOP in 2008, while the Iraqi Civil War is in full swing, we're outta there, and Al-Qaeda has set up shop in another failed ungovernable state, is "Who Lost Iraq?". Their prospective answer, of course, which they will repeat ad nauseum, will be that it's the fault of the Democrats/liberals/media for "undermining our troops". You just watch. That will be the only way they can try to distance themselves from the nasty political fallout from this nasty and unnecessary war of Mr. Bush's.
Posted by: jv | June 24, 2005 11:12 AM
I've been praying my wussy little liberal, anti-Christian heart out that the Democrats will take exactly one lesson from this debacle: QUIT EFFING APOLOGIZING. Repeat after me: "I will not apologize; my remarks were simply misconstrued." Durbin and his caving made me sick.
Posted by: grey | June 24, 2005 11:12 AM
j-damn, that last sentence of yours is truly inspiring. So well spoken. I think I'll come to your side.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2005 11:12 AM
I don't remember anyone offering therapy to the attackers, but I do remember that the bin Laden family was offered safe passage by Mr. Bush.
Posted by: Michael | June 24, 2005 11:12 AM
Iraq intervention increased threat of terrorism http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/c7/9...
UK Government; Iraq war 'increased terror threat' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3451239.stm
Iraq war has swollen ranks of al Qaeda http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,10...
US State Department Corrects Report to Show Rise in Terrorism http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5264512 /
Iraq has become a terrorist spawning ground, CIA admits http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Iraq-a-terroris...
Iraq Conflict Feeds International Terror Threat http://www.skyhen.org/Focus/iraqcoverage/cia_iraq_confl...
In the January CBS News poll, 62 percent thought that the threat of terror would increase if the U.S. takes military action against Iraq. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/07/opinion/meyer...
Posted by: Hattie | June 24, 2005 11:12 AM
You cannot have Conservatives without having Liberals. Conversely, you cannot have Liberals without having Conservatives. You cannot have middle of the roaders without having both sides. To view one or the other as inherently evil is childish and ignorant. Liberalism is not a "vile disease" and people who are Conservative do not have a mental condition.
In this case, Karl Rove -- one of the BIGGEST propogators of anti-liberalism (right up there with Ann Coulter) -- just is doing what he is best at: Pissing people off and getting them to stop looking at the big picture.
Liberals are not guilt free, either, but Mr. Rove could learn from Senator Durbin, who was man enough to apologize for his remarks when he realized they offended.
Posted by: ProudlyLiberal | June 24, 2005 11:13 AM
Hey Roooth: Bush won........get over it!!!
Posted by: Kelly | June 24, 2005 11:13 AM
...and just like one other poster mentioned, I miss Bill Clinton too.
What happened to the Republican Party? They weren't always like this...frothing at the mouth ultra-conservatives. It's disturbing, and disheartening.
Rove's not going away anytime soon. With the possibility of a McCain-Bush ticket in '08, it's a certainty that he's already put the "Personal Destruction Machine" in place against Clinton-Obama. He's in for a surprise, I think...
Posted by: Vince | June 24, 2005 11:15 AM
In the judgement of the JIC there is no recent evidence of Iraq complicity with international terrorism." http://memoryhole.freedomunderground.org/downing/ods020...
"US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida is so far frankly unconvincing." http://memoryhole.freedomunderground.org/downing/ricket...
Jack Straw; "In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida." http://memoryhole.freedomunderground.org/downing/straw0...
"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two. (al Qaeda & Iraq)" -Rumsfeld http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,10975887-1702,00.h...
Posted by: Hattie | June 24, 2005 11:15 AM
No, actually, CNN=FOX=MSNBC... blah blah blah. At least we agree on the facts.
Posted by: Baz | June 24, 2005 11:15 AM
Liberals are not guilt free, either, but Mr. Rove could learn from Senator Durbin, who was man enough to apologize for his remarks when he realized they offended.
One should just about NEVER have to 'apologize' if someone is offended by a comment. That's not an apology anyway. If you come to believe you were WRONG - then you make an apology. To heck with everyone getting their panties in a bunch while being perpertually offended.
Posted by: Roger Herzler | June 24, 2005 11:15 AM
Hey Pete. I don't recall saying lets start bringing them home today. You talk too much. Are you a politician? And get off your oil high horse because I bet you enjoy that resource as much as the rest of us do so be ready because one day you might have to steal a bucket of oil for yourself. If we have the most advanced military machine in the history of mankind, whats the the damn problem here?? The problem is our politicians here have put a leash on our military and turned them into a police force. They are not trained for that. Lets get serious about this war, get something accomplished and get them home. Our politicians do nothing now but talk, have meetings, wine and dine at the end of the day. It seems to me that our troops are sitting ducks over there and they now have 2 governments telling them what they can and can't do.
Posted by: Walker | June 24, 2005 11:16 AM
Hey Pete. I don't recall saying lets start bringing them home today. You talk too much. Are you a politician? And get off your oil high horse because I bet you enjoy that resource as much as the rest of us do so be ready because one day you might have to steal a bucket of oil for yourself. If we have the most advanced military machine in the history of mankind, whats the the damn problem here?? The problem is our politicians here have put a leash on our military and turned them into a police force. They are not trained for that. Lets get serious about this war, get something accomplished and get them home. Our politicians do nothing now but talk, have meetings, wine and dine at the end of the day. It seems to me that our troops are sitting ducks over there and they now have 2 governments telling them what they can and can't do.
Posted by: Walker | June 24, 2005 11:16 AM
"Comparing Guantanimo Bay with a Soviet Gulag? No apologies there, but what's really scary is the similarities between the neo-conservative rise to power in the US and the rise of the Social Democrats in Germany during the 1930's."
I guess the Presidents next move must be to round up the Jews!
Posted by: Amreicaneedsreality | June 24, 2005 11:16 AM
From BAZ - "I never thought I'd see the day when our Government would remind me 1930s Germany. They pay journalists to spew their propaganda (see Armstrong Williams et al)... make fake video news releases, to look like real news stories... and now they're taking control of the one unbiased media outlet in our country. Unbiased meaning *fair & balanced.* Heir Rove has learned well from Heir Goebbels."
Yeah, ME TOO! It *totally* reminds me of the Third Reich too!! Except that Jews aren't being loaded on cattle cars to concentration camps by the thousands. Except that my children aren't required to join the Nazi youth party. Except that I'm free to post on this blog. Except I'm not in fear of my life on a daily basis because I'm not Aryan.
Except for those little details, I totally feel like I live in 1930's Germany. Wow, what a GREAT analogy.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 11:16 AM
Such short-sidedness from a bunch of misguided lemmings. Bush may not be perfect but I am sure glad he is in power rather than any other. The proof of his success is that there have been no other terrorist attacks on American soil since 9-11. He has taken the battle to the terrorists and we, meaning those who value freedom, are winning this war. I am proud of our military who put themselves in harms way to protect our freedoms. I honor this president and the young men and women of our armed services. Joel, would you want blood of American soldiers on your hands because you feel you "have a right" to say something that will compromise their safety? Comparing Rove's comments to Stalinism really proves how low the liberal left is willing to stoop to undermine America. Also, for those of you who have forgotten, or choose to ignore, there really is a God.
Posted by: TB | June 24, 2005 11:17 AM
Rove is an intellectual but he lacks class. As the architecht of Bush's presidential campain, he was brilliant. He smeared, lied, and twisted truth better than any politician has ever done. But what does he have to show for it? A presidency and an administration that has not accomplished much except for a few wars which have no rational purpose attributed to them.
The sad part, for me, is that the God that could be discovered through Science or the Humanities is now being killed and again brought back to life in faith rituals prescribed by born-again christian leaders who do not want anyone to question their athority. Who gives a rat's ass about Rove's triple lindy's. God is dead, again.
Posted by: handy1 | June 24, 2005 11:18 AM
Ah, so good to have the WASP remind us that Clinton got impeached for lying about getting head. Lying about oral sex is a far more serious and impeachable offense than lying about why you're sending kids to die in Iraq.
Posted by: JH | June 24, 2005 11:18 AM
1) Don't shoot the messenger, I'm only reporting what I witnessed while working in a law enforcement agency.
2) I'm a baby boomer; born after WWII and my father was a veteran. So were several uncles, cousins and friends who fought in WWII, Korea, VietNam, Gulf War. One cousin stormed the beaches at Normandy. Another is buried in a military cemetery full of American soldiers in France. Their service allowed weenies like you to freely express your opinions, no matter how flakey and misinformed.
3) Civilized people do not discuss the Big Four in public: politics, money, sex or religion.
4) Politicians are on the same level as used car salesmen, lawyers, and carnival barkers. Get over it and get back to work, if you have jobs.
Posted by: WASP | June 24, 2005 11:20 AM
The events of the past few years depress me and make me truly worry about the country my sons will inherit.
Posted by: Sick_of_all_of_it | June 24, 2005 11:22 AM
Politics doesn't matter. Republicans, Democrats, moderates.....what difference does it make. Why worry about unimportant things. The only thing in life you should be concerned with is pleasing God and following my teachings. Death comes to all of us sooner or later, pay more attention to how your living your life now because this is the only one you're given.......amen
Posted by: Jesus Christ | June 24, 2005 11:24 AM
Bush is still lying. Kids are still dying.
Party of morality, my ass.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 11:25 AM
In reference to JW's remarks, the Barrel Club was great as well.
Also, the golf course clubhouse had a great bar.
Posted by: AC | June 24, 2005 11:25 AM
And lastly... the latest Rove strategy... why, Bin Laden is in Iran.
Watch as the media starts propagating this BS for Rove. They've already started on FOX.
Posted by: Baz | June 24, 2005 11:25 AM
I interpret Rove's comments thusly, "liberals/democrats are pussies". I am a 57 year old democrat/liberal. I bet I could kick Rove's ass. I hope I get the opportunity. The same goes for Bush, Cheney (how easy would that be!), Rumsfeld, the blogger asshole WASP, etc., etc.
To hell with words. We need to start swinging. The Civil War is not over. Not by a long shot.
Posted by: Dave from Boston | June 24, 2005 11:26 AM
Oh, what a delightful racist non sequitur, WASP. And "Negroes"? Nice. How very old school.
I suspect you're giving former President Clinton a bit too much credit, actually. Even allowing that he may be an above average fellow, I find it doubtful that all the minutes spent in all the (exhaustively - what is it with some people's dirty l'il minds?) documented incidences of "staff snogging" add up to all that much. Certainly not distraction sufficient to steer him away from governing.
But back to that exhaustive documentation of the aforementioned "snogging" - now that (and the attendant impeachment circus) might have been distracting. Yet, strangely, I neither recall feeling particularly ignored by that president, nor that he ignored the job of being president.
The current president? Oh, I'm afraid I can't say the same of this one. He's quite an activist on certain narrow(-minded) issues, but I can't bring myself to believe he gives a rat's ass about our nation as a whole.
Posted by: Shrike | June 24, 2005 11:26 AM
Bush: No evidence Saddam Hussein involved in Nine-Eleven attacks http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1447698
Rice: U.S. Never Said Saddam Was Behind 9/11 http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/983821/posts
Posted by: Hattie | June 24, 2005 11:26 AM
Hey Kelly - I'm over Bush "winning" It's his continuing criminal incompetence and his war profiteer buddies that I want to bring him down for.
And "Damn", re: "I don't recall Castro starting 3 wars that left over a million dead. I must've missed that."
Maybe if Rumsfeld, Cheney and Reagan had supplied Castro with WMD's, biological weapans and lots of cash to keep him propped up - like they did with Saddam - he could have done more.....
Posted by: roooth | June 24, 2005 11:26 AM
Hey Kelly - I'm over Bush "winning" It's his continuing criminal incompetence and his war profiteer buddies that I want to bring him down for.
And "Damn", re: "I don't recall Castro starting 3 wars that left over a million dead. I must've missed that."
Maybe if Rumsfeld, Cheney and Reagan had supplied Castro with WMD's, biological weapans and lots of cash to keep him propped up - like they did with Saddam - he could have done more.....
Posted by: roooth | June 24, 2005 11:26 AM
12,000 liberals marched against the invasion of Afghanistan in NY City.
Posted by: bcp | June 24, 2005 11:27 AM
"The problem is, that the Dems keep falling for Rove's same sleight-of-hand. You'd think they'd get it by now."
Rove is indeed a red-herring. His comments are a mere defelection. Keep your eyes on the ball, people. Think Downing Street Minutes. Think bombing escalation in 2002. Think...
Posted by: Ed | June 24, 2005 11:27 AM
Pete - JPII did not CONDONE the Iraq war, he CONDEMNED it.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just not their own facts".
Posted by: CF | June 24, 2005 11:27 AM
Hey Kelly - I'm over Bush "winning" It's his continuing criminal incompetence and his war profiteer buddies that I want to bring him down for.
And "Damn", re: "I don't recall Castro starting 3 wars that left over a million dead. I must've missed that."
Maybe if Rumsfeld, Cheney and Reagan had supplied Castro with WMD's, biological weapans and lots of cash to keep him propped up - like they did with Saddam - he could have done more.....
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 11:27 AM
What saddens me about Karl Rove is that he is so lionized by the Republican Party; many conservative commentators said he should have been Time's Man of the Year, for getting the President re-elected. Yet this is the same man who when running "W"'s campaigns against Senator McCain in the primaries, first tried to spread the rumor than McCain gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy in order to get preferential treatment at the Hanoi Hilton. Well one only has to look at Senator McCain's face to see where his jaw had been broken several times to see what a ludicrous lie that was, so Karl came up with a better one, he fathered several children while in South Vietnam and then dumped and left them there to return to his family in America. This one the people bought, and "W" bested McCain and won. In fact this lie worked so well that he did it again against Senator Kerry, and it worked. So here's the quagmire the Republicans have, their ideal leader, the man who is the lion of the republican party provides wins by lies, and character assassinations, and is morally bankrupted, (so where is the party of family values,, unless of course your idea of family values is lie and do whatever it takes to win) and this is one of the Presidents best friends. Is it any wonder we are finding out now about all the lies that were told to us about Iraq?
Posted by: Barry Dean | June 24, 2005 11:28 AM
How come when John McCain gets his hands tied behind his back and is lifted straight up by those hands, dislocating his shoulder in the process, and injuring him so severely that even today he cannot raise his arms fully we say that the Vietnamese tortured him yet when the same thing is done to fighters the US has captured, it is not tourture? How can this be? Oh, I forgot, someone parsed the wording on tourture.......
Posted by: Just a Guy trying to do the right thing | June 24, 2005 11:28 AM
Can someone please remind me of a time that the present administration has told me the truth about ANYthing?
Posted by: Doug | June 24, 2005 11:30 AM
Rumsfeld sees no link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11 http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rums...
Posted by: Hattie | June 24, 2005 11:30 AM
I have read comment after comment blaming someone for something. Going back and fourth. The truth is that Karl Rove spoke about something he felt and should be able to that. He spoke about a political ideology that he disagree, hardly comparable to Durbin's comments that consistently chastise his own country and the policies of his government. He is the senate, why not keep the comments to the floor. He and his fellow democrats must be suffering the 'post election syndrome' like our friends in Florida and elsewhere. Dean's constant comments continually demonstrate the disillusion of the democratic party and this one sided article demonstrates the biased at it's finest.
Democrats and the liberal types are worried what the world thinks of the US specially worried about European opinion. I believe they should worry about our won country first and not the very countries that are constantly undermining our economic well being.
Karl Rove and friends have merely stated what millions feel, even if they do not want to admit it. It is ridiculous that we have so many people make so many bad comments against their own country and do so very little for it.
Posted by: Jason | June 24, 2005 11:30 AM
Richard Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who lead an internal review of the CIA's prewar intelligence;
“the CIA has not found any proof of operational ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.” http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?pid=8...
Posted by: Hattie | June 24, 2005 11:32 AM
Posted by: Kelly | June 24, 2005 11:32 AM
Posted by: roooth | June 24, 2005 11:35 AM
The White House’s own publication, A Decade of Defiance and Deception, makes no mention of Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.htm...
The 2002 congressional joint intelligence committee’s report on the Sept. 11 attacks revealed that the Bush administration had no evidence to support its claim that Saddam’s government was supporting al-Qaeda. http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-949...
Posted by: Hattie | June 24, 2005 11:36 AM
Just say bahhhhhh little sheep. Your blind adherence to the Republican or Democratic parties is just pathetic.
Posted by: Farmer John | June 24, 2005 11:36 AM
Please don't put words in my mouth... what I said is what I said... no mentions of cattle cars, etc... only about the media. Ya dig. This is how bad things begin.
Posted by: Baz | June 24, 2005 11:36 AM
Where else, but the Washington Post, will you find such yellow journalism? Perhaps the NY Times and USA Today. Washington Post misses the point again and advances it's own agenda. Bad Paper! Bad Reporter!!
Posted by: Dave | June 24, 2005 11:37 AM
I have always believed the American people could govern themselves. Even after Nixon was re-elected, I held firm with that idea. His resignation affirmed my belief. So what have the American people done by re-electing Bush? Does anyone think the military men and women were happy? I haven't seen a poll on it but comments I've heard say they were not happy.
Democracy allows for mistakes. It also requires they be corrected. Its time for Bush's impeachment for: Lying to the American People. Violations of Law wrt prisoner abuse by his military. Lying to Congress (about the reason to invade Iraq). Lying to Congress (about the cost of Medicare). Lying to Congress (about the costs of the occupation). Lying and Lying and more Lying!
Who will have the courage to confront this guy and his lies? The Dems are pathetic in their ability to confront the obvious vioations of law, lies and trampling of the constitution. The price of freedom is vigilence and right now everyone is looking the other way. Will someone please call a cop!
Posted by: Jim Middleroader | June 24, 2005 11:37 AM
You say of the Democrats, "They've learned that rolling over gets them nowhere, yet they have no leverage and DeLay and his crew change the rules whenever it suits them. I'm curious. What would cooperation look like and how would it benefit them?"
I'm curious. How does the current scene resemble 'cooperation'; and why aren't you asking how it would benefit US ALL?
Posted by: Percival | June 24, 2005 11:37 AM
What the Democrats are doing now is the same BS they were doing when they lost the election and why they'll lose the next one.
They attack the Republicans at any oppertunity. They blame anything negative on the Republicans. They use buzzwords like Gulag, referring to camp X-ray to discredit the Republicans. They claim everything the Bush administration does is spin, conspiracy and cover-up, except where anti-Bush information has leaked from a sieve like government to prove that the government can't keep anything a secret. They ressurect old debates about Haliburton and Cheyney to lend weight to an argument completely unrelated.
What they eventually do is make people stop listening to what they have to say and vote for someone who doesn't sound like a bitter and twisted hatemonger, like all Democrats singing from the same anti-Bush hymm sheet.
Posted by: SeeTheBigPicture | June 24, 2005 11:39 AM
READ. THINK. THEN KEEP POSTING A BUNCH OF LINKS.
Please think about this: Posting an unending flow of links that bolster your opinion is definetly time well spent. Take a look at the sources of these unending articles. Is there a pattern in them? There is a point at which beliefs like this begin to look un-american. If your disgust with our system, policies, and freedoms is so great, go surround yourself with similar thinkers... perhaps is France or better yet, Iran. Maybe Indonesia? Oh that's right, you would not move to one of those places if your life depended on it.
Posted by: Hattie? | June 24, 2005 11:39 AM
It's so much easier to hate you americans AND know we are right to hate you. When your own leaders admit publicly that your troops are a bunch of murderers. When I learn of your atoricities on Al-Jazerra I know they must be true... after all your own government officials decry them as so.
Posted by: Abdul | June 24, 2005 11:40 AM
Right on Jim Middleroader, The next step is realizing that you are the cop. There is no one to call. We are all responsible for the government getting out of hand.
Posted by: TJ | June 24, 2005 11:41 AM
No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Powell says:
According to a "top secret British document", quoted by the BBC "there is nothing but enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda." The BBC said the leak came from intelligence officials upset that their work was being used to justify war." (quoted in Daily News, New York, 6 February 2003).
Iraq-al Qaeda links weak, say former Bush officials:
Three former Bush administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues have told National Journal that the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda to Iraq was tenuous, exaggerated, and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.
Posted by: Hattie | June 24, 2005 11:41 AM
Let's face it. Karl Rove is a political genius. He's successfully made an issue about virtually everything that the Dems have said or done recently. What's sad about this issue is that the Dems have no 'central authority' to vet discussions or events and comment on them either en masse or with equal political genius. When will the liberals in this country gather together and create their equal and opposite think tanks so they can outsmart the Republicans? Until they do the Republicans will continue to win each and every public argument until the Dems are ALL sent whimpering in the corner.
Hey Dems it's called 'framing the argument'. Learn how to and you'll win a few!!
Posted by: M. Smith | June 24, 2005 11:41 AM
Posted by: jw | June 24, 2005 11:41 AM
READ. THINK. VERIFY LINKS. THINK AGAIN. SPARE US. SHUT OFF COMPUTER.
Use google: http://www.google.com to verify info. And links.
Posted by: Dave | June 24, 2005 11:42 AM
Posted by: PSK | June 24, 2005 11:42 AM
Karl Rove takes the heat for reminding us in a none too suttle way that the left is suspect on National Security. Most Americans believe that, as exemplified by a 53% vote for Bush. If the Democratic party refuses to move to the center, it will lose again and again. In a three party system, the winners cover the center and leave the left and right wing loonies in the political wilderness. How about a party of the center with a McCain Lieberman ticket that would represent the silent majority. It would win hands down.
Posted by: John Kerr | June 24, 2005 11:42 AM
Why don't YOU do "something for our country" and learn to construct an intelligible sentence. My four year-old can write better than that!
If you are on the side of us God-fearing American-loving freedom fighters, who believe in 9-11 and the President, then please do us all a favor and shut the ____ up and learn how to communicate effectively.
Please stop trying to help us.
Posted by: Walter | June 24, 2005 11:42 AM
We should start extending the terms of office. Bush in 2008 and 2012 would be great.............Bush is the gratest president in American history. He has fixed the problems Clinton and his fellow Nazi hillbillies brought to the whitehouse in the 90's. He has brought respect to the presidency once again...... Damned, I'm proud to be an American... God Bless America and God Bless George W. Bush !!!!
Posted by: Kerry Johns | June 24, 2005 11:43 AM
I think I have decided to be radical. My question here is "How can we impeach not just this President, but this ENTIRE administration?
Because that is what it would take to return any realm of sanity to our government. Just impeaching Bush would leave us with even more unpleasant (is that possible?) alternatives.
God help us all to get through the next 3 years until something can change. Hopefully, and I do believe this, for the better.
Posted by: Patricia Witherspoon | June 24, 2005 11:44 AM
Thank you, Dave. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2005 11:44 AM
Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam’s links with al Qaeda, and several key parts of the administration’s case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful. http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2004/03/04/news/na...
Iraq and al Qaeda: What Evidence? http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF...
bush's own hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. David Kay;
David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."
He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link, as being "evidence free." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2...
Posted by: Hattie | June 24, 2005 11:45 AM
“According to Israeli intelligence, Palestinians are still not connected to the global terror network, and neither is Iraq.” http://www.haaretz.com /
bush's second and final hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. Charles Dueffler;
Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq, no capability since 1991, no evidence of ties to al Qaeda, no serious threat; http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/06/1096949583...
OFFICIAL VERDICT: WHITE HOUSE MISLED WORLD OVER SADDAM-AL QAEDA TIES http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0617-03.htm
No evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties: 9/11 commission http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911
"CIA Review Finds No Evidence Saddam Had Ties to Islamic Terrorists" http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1005-01.htm
Posted by: Hattie | June 24, 2005 11:46 AM
Wait, I was referring to Dave's post about Hattie. Not Dave's post about the Post and Joel. Have to clarify that because I'm personally a fan of the Post and this blog.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2005 11:46 AM
To Wake up, the land grab has been going on for decades, the Supreme court just made it official. Iraq is the wrong war, but we're in it now and it has to be finished. Pres. Bush made a huge mistake and seems to have problems admitting it. The conservatives are pushing for destroying the mideast and the liberals are hell bent on us "understanding" the radical Muslim's dislike of us. And no matter who is in office, Dem or Rep we will bow to the Saudi oil wells
Posted by: mike | June 24, 2005 11:46 AM
I agree with Shrike. Republican politics are as disenfranchising and polemical to those not deemed worthy of the "party line" that they resemble the jock fraternity in Revenge of the Nerds than a representative institution... or worse, they ARE acting as avery astute representative institution and that many people in America really believe that they can determine definitively who really matters in America and who can supressed and leeched off of as so many mindless sheep and vagrants. The ideal republican picture of the nation seems to be remarkably similar to what western Europe looked like in the Middle Ages. Let me know when the middle class looks less like serfs trapped in a corporate feudalism. This all reminds me of a Teddy Roosevelt response to Congress over the Panama Canal fiasco... (paraphrasing)"I stole the Panama Canal fair and square... Let Congress debate about it."
Posted by: Alan | June 24, 2005 11:47 AM
Karl Rove said what Bush would like to Everyone knows that.
If Gore had been elected,invaded Iraq,came up empty,and had the callousness to say "Bring it on",he would have been impeached and removed from office by now.
Culture of life,nonsense. He trots that out when it suits his pandering.
The Feds spent $40M on the wrong investigation. Apparently, it's far worse to lie about a blow job, than to plan the worst crime in modern history.
The Republicans are the hypocrites.
Posted by: mgottlieb | June 24, 2005 11:47 AM
Posted by: Tony Burns | June 24, 2005 11:47 AM
If a lunatic on the street begins shouting illogical crazy talk, does it make sense to engage him? No, the right thing is either to ignore him, or if warranted, to quietly notify the police.
Do not fall for Karl Rove's game. Do not get mad about his comments: better to blithely dismiss him as the desperate lunatic that he is.
Controversy and anger will only keep this idiot in the spotlight and feed his ego.
Posted by: Joel C | June 24, 2005 11:49 AM
It's going to take a long time for this country to get over Bush and his gang, who are bankrupting the treasury and wrecking the military. They are watching their poll numbers go down the toilet and can't even begin to wonder why, because this is a group of people that can't believe it could be wrong about anything. After 9/11, this country would have responded to a dramatic call for sacrifice. Bush told us to keep shopping, then proceeded to mislead us into a cesspool. I'm sure he believed in his heart that Iraq would be quick and inexpensive. It has turned out to be neither, but try telling him that. With Bush, belief is alway more important that any inconvenient or uncomfortable fact. He is as divorced from reality as Hitler was over Stalingrad. The tragedy for America is that we probably have to endure three-and-a-half more years of him.
Posted by: rboid | June 24, 2005 11:51 AM
Rove was right, when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993 Clinton and Company arrested some terrorists in America and never went after Bin Laden who planned the 1993.
How many times did the #1 Terrorist inthe world (during the 90s) eat dinner in the White House during the Clinton regime? I lost track, but I am sure someone knows how often Yassir Arafat was a guest of President Clinton.
Rove spoke the truth about Liberals, not Democrats, he said liberals and all Democrats took offense to it. I guess all Democrats are liberals. Finally the truth is out there.
Posted by: Mike | June 24, 2005 11:51 AM
Help, Joel, stop me before I post again! Too late. Whew, boy this thread went off the road, into the ditch and deep, deep into the weeds in a hurry. Anyway, to Mike, I just wanted to acknowledge that I blew the numbers on the judge thing and you were right to call me on it. And thanks go to the person explaining about how libs and Dems are "shortsided". I guess that explains the uneven shoe wear and the problem with getting the cuffs hemmed to match...
Posted by: kurosawaguy | June 24, 2005 11:51 AM
Ohhh wasp, don't shoot the messenger right?, don't want to discuss the Big Four?, you started it now take it like a man, don't cry now.
You know what really revolts me?, people bringing the WWII veteran tale, the uncle, the father,the grandfather, etc. in a futile attempt to take credit of what you haven't done, they and not you fought that war, they protected freedom, not you, you divide, and still none of them are bragging in everybody's faces and demanding to be thanked all the time for the opportunity of having freedom of speech, like other paper tigers or chicken-hawks you are just trying to cash the reputation the greatest generation ever, acquired. Come on man, you want to be another G. Gordon Liddy?, you've got the t-shirt?, another gung-ho?, a pistol wagging tough guy?, and you were in law-enforcement?, glad to hear you retired, we need professional grade, responsible people not tough talking wannabes.
"DIVIDE AND YOU WILL CONQUER", that's the mantra of this administration, that's how the game is played, United States of American never was so divided like today, that's how most of republicans try to prevail, keeping the president within a cocoon of silence, misinformation and utter ignorance, with ridiculous farses called "town hall meetings", with pseudo-journalists planted in the White House, with peddlers like De Lay and Co. Divide and conquer, that's the law of Karl Rove and his henchmen, manouvering in the dark where they belong. This is our country at its worst, God please help us.
Posted by: Outsider | June 24, 2005 11:51 AM
Introducing ... Operation Yellow Elephant!!
C'mon, if you're a big supporter of Bush and his war, what are you doing on this blog. Recruitment is at an all time.
If this war is really necessary to protect your country, why aren't you serving?
Your country needs you in Iraq, get to a recruiter:http://www.usarmy.com
Or are you just a little yellow elephant?
BTW, save your breath asking me, just about everyone in my family has served, and my 18 yr old just joined the Marines.
Posted by: roooth | June 24, 2005 11:51 AM
hey Kerry Johns your right. BUSh is grate man and loves Jesus to! The lieberlals are evil (remember Terri!!!!!) and dont want US to be a ntion in CHRIST as GOD intended!! GOD belss ROVE for he spoke the truth We were ATTACKED and when your AATTACKED you KILL the pople who ATTACKED you thats why were in IRAQ killing TERRORITST whith the help of JESUS!
Posted by: johnmark | June 24, 2005 11:51 AM
Bush for eight years is the GOP's gift to the Dems for giving us Bill Clinton for eight years.
Posted by: nottamember | June 24, 2005 11:53 AM
You're obviously not in the majority over here so quit your complaining.
Posted by: Josh | June 24, 2005 11:53 AM
GET A HINT:.........BUSH WON, GET OVER IT !!!
Posted by: Kelly | June 24, 2005 11:54 AM
Sorry, I meant Sara's post about Dave's reference to the Hattie post about not posting. My pre-post post about not posting was in regard to the post Dave tendered about not posting unless you've read all the posts and verified your information before posting.
p.s. Sorry about this post.
Posted by: Dot | June 24, 2005 11:54 AM
In our war against cancer, we make every attempt to determine the cause. Who can argue with that strategy.
Terrorism is a cancer, and it will kill the civilized world as we know it. And we DO know what causes it. The problem with both parties as well as the majority of our population is that we are NOT willing to address those causes.
hint: killing 100 thousand innocents is NOT the answer.
#1 cause = greed, yours and mine and especially, politicians'
Posted by: Dave | June 24, 2005 11:55 AM
Would you like a list of links to prove alien existence?
A list of links proves one thing; other websites exist. Apart from that, they are nothing more than these blogs; biased opinion and rhetoric.
I could search Google to prove JF Kennedy is still alive and would find as many links as you're spamming this site with to support my argument, but it wouldn't make it true.
You're a fool and anyone who bases their opinion on other peoples opinions is a fool too. Try to think for yourself, not through the information presented you by people whose agenda may not be to present the truth.
That's how suicide bombers become so. They're indoctrinated by other peoples information, whose agenda is to persuade these people to blow themselves up and to do that, they must convince the bomber that killing other people is right and they'll be rewarded in heaven for it.
That is how powerful imposing your opinion on others can be, so to form your own opinion, you should use your own judgement to filter out what you believe to be fact, not hop onto a bandwagon, then absorb every opinion you can find that agrees with it.
Maybe you should post a few links opposing your argument? Perhaps then, you'll read them and realise that 2 people can see the same thing in 2 different ways and what matters is not what they're looking at, but why they were looking!
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 11:56 AM
Karl Rove is a political hack. Rove's like that wimpy little kid in elementary school that tried to tell the bully who to beat up on, but would never get his own hands dirty. The bottomline? Karl Rove is chickensh*t. Not only does he lack any type of professional skill, the man holds a "teaching" position in a Texas University... although never actually bothering with schooling post-high school himself. The man (if I can truly call him that) is a coward who enjoys using the strength of the greatest nation in the world to oppress and kill people that look and think differently than he does. At least Adolf Hitler had the fortitude to stand behind his actions in the Holocaust (horrific as they were, in his sick mind he believe in his decisions). The same cannot be said for this weasel Rove who hides behind the most ignorant and gullible (not dumb, however) man-child to ever step foot in the White House (for any position, just sadly enough... he is the President). For any of you hoping for change from this administration, don't hold your breath... just keep your fingers crossed and hope that Rove and Bush and all of the religious fanatics that elected them are right about the "afterlife"... because if they are, I'm sure there's a nice little concentration camp just like the one they've set up at Gitmo prepared for Rove's arrival. One final piece to Karl Rove, in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, "Go to hell you dumb pigf*cker!"
Posted by: True Patriot | June 24, 2005 11:57 AM
Dot, where's your first post?
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2005 11:57 AM
Funneling money to Iranian rebels was an attempt to bring the Shah, a friend of the U.S., back into power without putting our boys into a war with radical Islamists. Illegal?, perhaps, but none of our troops died. Had it gone on longer, Iran might be a democratic, stable society today.
Posted by: Americaneedsreality | June 24, 2005 11:58 AM
RE: the response to Kelly, Glad to see you believe in inclusion for everyone, as long as they think like you.
Posted by: mike | June 24, 2005 11:58 AM
You stupid retard; The conservatives are the majority whether you want to believe it or not. We have the majority in Senate, in the House of Representatives, We have the majority of American voters as proven by the last election..... And thank God we will also have the majority in the Supreme Court. So Josh, I am a conservative and I AM THE MAJORITY.......you're a loser. Also remember, BUSH WON.........GET OVER IT!!!
Posted by: Kelly | June 24, 2005 11:58 AM
Baz - if you're not talking about concentration camps or other lovely aspects of 1930's Germany, then why don't you try to make more accurate analogies than US=Nazi Germany and Bush=Hitler? Please. These extreme analogies get to be such a bore to listen to.
C'mon, think a little before you spout off stupid comparisions that aren't logical. It's just so...Michael Moore...or Dick Durbin.
Posted by: Wis | June 24, 2005 11:59 AM
I argree with JOhnmark. It is because of the evil of the terrorists that Jesus would have wanted us to attack evil with evil. In the Bible it says that we are God's children. Everyone nose that children must be taught hard lessons, and that sometimes it hurts to be disciplened but it is an important part of growing up. Therefore, we must teach eveil that it does not benefirt God or us if you are not loving of Jesus and others. Attacking someone is not always bad. It depends on why.
Thank you. God Bless America and God Bless Jesus.
Posted by: Dave B | June 24, 2005 11:59 AM
Get over it Liberals. GO Bush
Posted by: Grandma | June 24, 2005 11:59 AM
“what's really scary is the similarities between the neo-conservative rise to power in the US and the rise of the Social Democrats in Germany during the 1930's.”
DNT… you are profoundly astute.
Posted by: Randy | June 24, 2005 11:59 AM
The Democratic Party has become more of a threat to the United States than the nineteen hijackers on September 11th, or the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The outrageous rhetoric from senators Kennedy and Durbin, among others, is now being added to the training sessions of new terrorists, and fueling anti American attitudes around the world.
The Democratic Party is actively subverting U.S. foreign policy with Clinton breaking with traditions and speaking against Gitmo to foreign press. Clinton was outraged with Carter "negotiated" a failed deal with North Korea, that cost Americans millions in aid and money, yet he engages in exactly the same behavior that caused his outrage.
Have you all forgetten? Has the memory of the WTC crashing to earth and the Pentagon burning left you all?
Are you all so hateful that you would rather see the United States fail in Iraq than see a chance for democracy succeed in the Middle East?
I can see three decades of our failing public school system has taken it's toll, breading a generation of self serving, spoiled brats. The Greatest Generation must be ashamed of this new generation, except of course, those brave, and proud mem and woman that continue to defend your right to spew your anti American rhetoric.
Posted by: Outraged Democrat | June 24, 2005 12:00 PM
Get over it Liberals. GO Bush
Posted by: Grandma | June 24, 2005 12:00 PM
Get over it Liberals. GO Bush
Posted by: Grandma | June 24, 2005 12:00 PM
Rove and Cruise? Well, they both have BMI over 31, by my estimate.
Not much else I see in common.
Posted by: Gary | June 24, 2005 12:02 PM
Rove and Cruise? Well, they both have BMI over 31, by my estimate.
Not much else I see in common.
Posted by: Gary | June 24, 2005 12:02 PM
Get over it Liberals. GO Bush
Posted by: Grandma | June 24, 2005 12:02 PM
I know I'm the cop. I voted for Kerry, not because I thought he was the best but because I thought he was the least of the worst. Too many times Americans are given this sad choice. No wonder we only show up 50% of the time to vote.
I've been pondering the history of American democracy. Political parties were an after-the-fact invention to consolidate power. The "rules" in Congress were made up as they went along. The "rules" are not in the Constitution and as long as they don't violate the Constitution they are ok. I think its time for someone to begin the discussion of whether a 2-party system is way better than a 1-party system and whether the current way Congress runs itself is in conformance with the constitution. Its time to take stock and figure out if we're still on the right road.
Posted by: Jim Middleroader | June 24, 2005 12:02 PM
Say what you will about Karl Rove, but the man is a political genius.
He must have God on his side to have been able to get George Bush into the White House for two terms!
Posted by: Jack O'Hara | June 24, 2005 12:02 PM
The anti-abortion issue becomes a little more clear to me now; those babies are needed for cannon fodder in places like Iraq where they can be wasted as "heros". What is happening to us? How did we get here? Where are we going? Why?
Posted by: Dick Johnson | June 24, 2005 12:02 PM
It is the President's job to lead us to a solution. Does Gitmo have problems? By most accounts, yes. Have this administration identified some of the problems and produced a plan to resolve those problems? If so, he has not communicated them. Are there problems in Iraq? I watch them daily. Is there a plan? None have been communicated. Do we Americans know what the plan is in Afganistan? I've watched for it but still don't know what it is. Is there a problem with Social Security? I think the problem is solvency in the future. Is there a plan? If there is a plan, it hasn't been communicated.
Do we have a leader? I think we better have a plan the next time we vote!
Posted by: eric | June 24, 2005 12:02 PM
Rove and Cruise? Well, they both have BMI over 31, by my estimate.
Not much else I see in common.
Posted by: Gary | June 24, 2005 12:02 PM
Sure the Dems lost Congress, The White House, and slowly the judiciary and they whine alot but what they whine about is true. W and the Repubs won, so where is my safer more inclusive America?
Is it even possible to kill all the terrorist so that there will never be another attack? These guys are in charge no doubt about it but is this country a better place?
It will be in a few days when Karl makes the ultimate sacrifice to save W and quits...stay tuned!!!
Posted by: klonzo | June 24, 2005 12:02 PM
"I'm a uniter,not a divider."
When a man tells you how honest he is,you better hang on to your wallet.
This is the same game as the Cold War,just the names of the players have changed.
Posted by: mgottlieb | June 24, 2005 12:03 PM
I agree with Kelly. If you are in a race and you win, then the looser must accept that. Even though Hitler won the election in Germany in the early 1930s, we have to respect him as their chosen leader. Anybudy against him was just being a crybaby and a poor loser. That's not the American way.
Posted by: Alice | June 24, 2005 12:03 PM
All of you read the comments blogged here in the past couple of hours?
Didn't think so, me neither.
Sounds like a lot of complaining, and for good reason. There is a reason there are two or more political parties. Because every Joe Schmo thinks he can make the lives of the Billions of people on earth better.
Get a clue people, there is no single or group of people that can accomplish this. WE'RE HUMAN.
Take a cue from Gandi (sp?). He said if everyone were to live by the standards of the bible, that the world would be a better place. The bible advocates getting out of anything to do with politics, yes really, go actually read and study it for a change instead of listening to some clergy member grinding his own axe and supporting some govt. official.
Posted by: out of it | June 24, 2005 12:04 PM
If we were to poll the guys and gals on the ground in Iraq, I think that we would be surprised at how many are Democrats{ or as Rove puts it, liberals}, who would you want defending you? These democrats or that little whimp Rove? If we had to depend on him and the rest of those CHICKEN HAWKS who hid under the bed while the real men were fighting in Vietnam we would really be in trouble. It is real easy to talk tough when someone else is doing the dying. These people were a disgrace to their country then and they are a disgrace now.
Posted by: Donna | June 24, 2005 12:04 PM
Do you know WHY we were attacked on 911?
It wasn't the 100 thousand innocents we've killed so far.
I'm not talking about enemy combatants, I'm talking about civilians.
Posted by: Dave | June 24, 2005 12:04 PM
Re: Your 3rd posting of, "GET A HINT:.........BUSH WON, GET OVER IT !!!"
This time I'll speak veeeerrrry slowly for you, cause you are, after all, a Repug:
I'm over Bush winning. I want him brought down because he is criminally incompetent and surrounds himself with war profiteers who have caused death, destruction, and torture for their personal profit.
Posted by: roooth | June 24, 2005 12:05 PM
I hope Rove realizes how comments about evil liberals look from abroad, where "liberal" still has the meaning of "associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives" (according to Merriam-Webster online).
And to the jokers who think that the pope acquiesced to Irak II? Try this:
Guess that makes the pope a liberal surrender-monkey, then. Suck it up!
Posted by: El Tonno | June 24, 2005 12:05 PM
As a soldier in Iraq for my second tour, I can only hope that this great debate will lead to some worthwhile and far-reaching discussion of our foreign policy strategy. In our fair land of 99% reactionary thinkers, I am amazed that there have been 3 hours and 18 minutes of posts towards this topic. Isn't there a sale at Walmart right now? Don't you all need to get to Starbucks for your Triple Decaf Latte with cinnamon? The truth is that King George the Second learned (and is still under the tutilage of) well from George the First the art of media control. Of course the Downing Street Memo is accurate; the government lied about thier intentions concerning Iraq. Of course Dick Chaney is not thoroughly divorced from Haliburton. Of course the Patriot Act is an attempt by the powers that be to limit the free will of the people. I can't blame them for getting away with it though. If Ted Kennedy can get away with Chappaquidick, why shouldn't the Bushes get away with taking over a soverign nation without justifiable reason. Voltaire said it best: something about you shutting up with all that talk I donna like or I smasha you face...?!?!?!
Posted by: Tom | June 24, 2005 12:05 PM
How's this for rhetoric from the Right Wing? I think they should apologize.
Here's what anti-choice activist Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, has to say about your right to doctor-prescribed birth-control:
On the fight against "radical feminazis" -- that is, women trying to get birth control: Pharmacists for Life helps: "Pharmacists of Conscience who find themselves under attack by legal and judicial mechanisms, employers, fellow employees, the left, and radical feminazis..." On the helpful lecture she offers women asking for a birth control prescription. "I'd work on them every month. I'd say, 'Hey, when are you going to get off the pill?' " On her apparent pleasure in dispensing Viagra. "I helped a whole lot of old married men get lucky!"
And last, but certainly not least: On Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's recent order requiring pharmacists to fill birth control prescriptions (and his Serbian heritage). "Governor 'Slobodan' Blagojevich refuses to back down... Hiz Honor continues to show a despotic disrespect for the law and freedom of religion and conscience, as did his "namesake" who is up for war crimes following ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Heczegovina. The Guv would love to cleanse IL of any pharmacists who still have a conscience, or so it seems!"
Posted by: Chooser | June 24, 2005 12:07 PM
True Patriot, take a deep breath, go get some more Kool Aid, take lots of little sips, go lie down. The men in white coats will be coming for you soon, so just rest.
Only a True Moonbat would write "At least Adolf Hitler had the fortitude to stand behind his actions in the Holocaust." What a sick person.
Posted by: Wis | June 24, 2005 12:07 PM
I nominate Karl Rove to star in "Robot Chicken".
It's not even worth the time to "dissemble" (uh...that means to take it apart, I think?) his remark.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Go ahead - make my day!
Posted by: Yogi-one | June 24, 2005 12:07 PM
Get a hint: BUSH WON.......GET OVER IT... stop whining and being like a typical liberal.... The only way to change your political party is to change the way you think. stop whining and blaming everyone else for your own mistakes. Clinton could have stopped the terorists when he was in office but he didn't... We had to wait till George W.Bush came into office to get the job done right... Thanks George for a job well done !!! GOD BLESS AMERICA and GEORGE W. BUSH.
Posted by: kelly | June 24, 2005 12:08 PM
Right on to whoever told Hattie what-for. You'll never develop an independent mind and learn to think for yourself if you read stuff on the internet. True knowledge comes from within. Only by freeing oneself from barrage of facts and stuff is it possible to be truly free in how you see the world and think.
Posted by: Drifter | June 24, 2005 12:08 PM
The 18 year old kid pulling a tour of duty in GITMO who is trying to defend his country by committing the acts of torture described in the FBI Report that Durbin read should not be surprised at being compared to a Nazi or Gulag guard, both had institutional approval to commit torture. And while we are at it, Let's hold a Nuremburg tribunal for the leaders who authorized the torture, Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz. The Nazi leaders who authorized the torture. Perhaps a long vacation in Leavenworth federal prison would be satisfactory for our leaders who authorized the torture.
Posted by: jdcolv | June 24, 2005 12:08 PM
"I'm a uniter,not a divider."
When a man tells you how honest he is,you better hang on to your wallet.
Rove,Limbaugh,Falwell and the rest of their coterie are third rate rabble rousers.
Posted by: mgottlieb | June 24, 2005 12:10 PM
I don't think "cool" is the best adjective for the SAOF. There does seem to be a common thread of intelligence, and a tendency to be interested in every subject that Joel cares to write about. And we are witty, or at least we find ourselves amusing.
There is a tendency towards elitism, which I share but am embarrassed to own up to. I was about to suggest that we call the outsiders "GOOGLERS" from now on, but then I felt ashamed and want to say that the blog is open to everybody and that we are all enriched by the opportunity to learn from others with diverse viewpoints. Even the ones who are obviously insane or stupid. [I'm sorry. I apologize.]
You're okay, Sara, come on in. jw needs his fantasy of the week. Bring your own massage oil.
Posted by: kbertocci | June 24, 2005 12:12 PM
Guys-its simple. Its our team versus your team. Obscure the substance, change the subject, set the bait, - makes the dems overeact. This scenario keeps playing and the rubes don't catch on.
Why do you think we have another flag burning amendment --this is just fodder for 2006. The dem line should be: "It's unfortunate that a man of Mr. Rove's calibre has been reduced to making such slanderous and erroneous statements about a period (post 9/11)in which both liberals and conservatives largely agreed. I'm sorry and disappointed that he would impune the patriotism of so many Americans.
Posted by: CEL | June 24, 2005 12:12 PM
Oh, and Hitler *NEVER* won any election
The Nazis were *always* a minority party.
However, he played his hands well and got the license to kill from parliament afraid of red unrest. End of story.
Posted by: El Tonno | June 24, 2005 12:13 PM
Karl Rove should be president in 2008, I'd definitely vote for him and so would the majority of Americans. At least he isn't a lier like Clinton. Remember the comment he made: "I NEVER HAD SEX WITH THAT WOMAN"..of course he later admitted that he lied and was impeached for it..
Posted by: Karl Rove | June 24, 2005 12:13 PM
"Outraged Democrat" wrote: Have you all forgetten? Has the memory of the WTC crashing to earth and the Pentagon burning left you all?
I haven't forgotten but Bush has. I guess when Bush said he wanted Osama "dead or alive" he was ok with "alive". Osama continues to threaten America and its interests while Bush points the American spear at Iraq. Bush is not defending the nation as he swore to do and has stated the he is "not concerned" about Osama. Well, damn it, I'm concerned. I'd like to see $500B and 250K American troops smother the hills of the Afgan/Pak border area and find him and kill him dead, dead, dead. But Bush is not concerned ... Its the guy that tried to kill his Daddy that we should all be focused on. History will judge the last election harshly. How could American have left such an idiot in charge?
Posted by: Jim Middleroader | June 24, 2005 12:13 PM
Funny, I was "tortured" more in bootcamp than the report out of GITMO says the "detainees" were tortured. And all my times in the desert I believe I lived in unairconditioned tents eating C Rats or MREs for most my meals. During bootcamp I was mentally harassed, forced to stand at attention for hours, not allowed to talk, call my family, marched in the rain and cold and subjected to many other "atrocities"
Posted by: mike | June 24, 2005 12:14 PM
Karl Rove is saying what many conservative republicans believe. They truly think that liberals are soft "tree huggers" who want to sing in a circle and hold hands.
He is appealing to his base. The flaw in his logic is that he really believes that no matter how far right the republican party goes, they can shift the moderates with them by using some well calculated "wedge" issues such as gay marriage as well as the general fear of terrorism.
It's a sad commentary that Karl and the republican leadership truly believe that the American public does not have the ability to think beyond 1-2 issues. I think they will get a wake up call in the mid-term elections. I guess they forgot the lessons learned form Newt and company.
Posted by: Patrick | June 24, 2005 12:14 PM
CONGRESS NEEDS CASH ON DEPOSIT
The ongoing Odepus Cain and Abel Battle between political parties is damaging American Business:
Our Troops are tired and could use free plane tickets for a military vacation back home with their families and atleast a cryonic preservation option if something bad happens to them in Iraq
I mailed the US Treasury Two Trillion $2,000,000,000,000.00 Deposit Dollars to help
an Act of Congress is needed, and political unity so people can have a happy and fun future
cut and pasted blog below ------------------------------------------
The $1000 Billion Deposit Dollar US Tax Trust The $1000 Billion Deposit Dollar US Tax Trust
The $1000 Billion Deposit Dollar US Tax Trust of 2004 NOTICE: AN ACT OF CONGRESS IS NEED TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN NOTES AND COIN AS LEGAL TENDER FOR DEPOSIT
(1) $1,000,000,000,000.00 IN MILLIONARE BANK USA NOTES
(2) $1,000,000,000,000.00 IN WASHINGTON MINT 2003 TRILLION DOLLAR SILVER PROOF COIN REGISTRATION NUMBER 7398
TOTAL OF $2 TRILLION DEPOSIT DOLLARS IN TAX TRUST FOR THE 2004 TAX YEAR
An Act of Congress is needed to authorize the deposit of certain United States, money notes and coins as Legal tender so the US Treasurer can issue Treasury checks secured by them. Money, is man made like there is nothing natural about civilizations or MONEY
" It Was New Money Created by The Bank " Treasury Secretary Anderson 1959 This email is not a joke at all, Congress has an extra $1,000 Billion Deposit Dollars AVAILABLE if Congress needs it, a Capital Gain tax of $1,000 Billion Dollars of a like Kinded Exchange of Currency for Currency for Deposit into the US Treasury was claimed in 2004
Money, like Civilization is man made
there is nothing natural about civilizations or MONEY ----------------------------------------------------------- " It Was New Money Created by The Bank " Treasury Secretary Anderson 1959
----------------------------------------------------------- This email is not a joke at all,
Congress has an extra $1,000 Billion Deposit Dollars AVAILABLE if Congress needs it,
a Capital Gain tax of $1,000 Billion Dollars of a like Kinded Exchange of
Currency for Currency for Deposit into the US Treasury was claimed in 2004 Taxes
DOES THE UNITED STATES HOLD $$$$TRILLIONS IN CREATED GOLD COIN METAL ????
It is Up to Congress to accept the Deposit and then circulate or issue Treasury checks of said
$1,000 Billion Dollars Millionare Bank USA notes,
Capital Gain Tax of a like Kinded Exchange
Our Company made a Huge Capital Gain from a Like Kinded Exchange in Currency
only $60 BIllion Dollars in Millionare Bank USA notes where mailed
We did not realize a DEPOSIT LOOPHOLE EXISTED until a week ago 4/12/2005
OUR Private COMPANY IS VERY HAPPY TO FORWARD THE REMAINING $940 BILLION
DOLLARS IN MILLIONARE BANK USA NOTES
FOR DEPOSIT INTO THE UNITED STATES TREASURY
I PRAY THE IRS WILL ACCEPT AND DEPOSIT THE CURRENCY FOR THE UNITED STATES
AGAIN WE STILL OWE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT $940 BILLION IN MILLIONARE
BANK USA CURRENCY it is up to Congress to place a VALUE ON MONEY, including Paper Money
Taxes due The United States, FROM A CAPITAL GAIN OF A LIKE KINDED EXCHANGE OF
WE ONLY REALIZED THIS CAPITAL GAIN, DEPOSIT LOOPHOLE, DAYS AGO
IT IS UP TO THE UNITED STATES TREASURY TO ACCEPT AND CIRCULATE ANY OF
THESE BANK NOTE CURRENCY, as authorized by Law VIA TREASURY CHECK FOR
WE PLAN ON MAILING THE ADDITIONAL $940 BILLION DOLLARS IN MILLIONARE BANK
USA CURRENCY NEXT MONTH ( re file in June 2005 ) IF ACCEPTABLE TO THE US TREASURY
GOD BLESS YOU AND AMERICA
Cryonic Life Insurance Company Dept of General Resurrection Br Daniel Izzo 512 Onondaga Ave Syraucse, NY 13207
ANOTHER IDEA IS FOR THE UNITED STATES MINT TO MAKE $20 CREATED GOLD COINS CREATED GOLD IS NOT THE STANDARD WEIGHT AS GOLD, BUT IT IS FINE LIKE GOLD The British Pieces made of bronze created gold should look finer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- US CODE TITLE 31 SEC 5103 LEGAL TENDER
TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 51 > SUBCHAPTER I > ? 5103 Prev Next US CODE TITLE 31 SEC ? 5103. Legal tender Release date: 2003-05-15 United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US CODE TITLE 12 SEC 412 APPLICATION FOR NOTES, COLLATERAL REQUIRED TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII > ? 412 Prev Next ? 412. Application for notes; collateral required Release date: 2004-03-18 Any Federal Reserve bank may make application to the local Federal Reserve agent for such amount of the Federal Reserve notes hereinbefore provided for as it may require. Such application shall be accompanied with a tender to the local Federal Reserve agent of collateral in amount equal to the sum of the Federal Reserve notes thus applied for and issued pursuant to such application. The collateral security thus offered shall be notes, drafts, bills of exchange, or acceptances acquired under section 92, 342 to 348, 349 to 352, 361, 372, or 373 of this title, or bills of exchange endorsed by a member bank of any Federal Reserve district and purchased under the provisions of sections 348a and 353 to 359 of this title, or bankers? acceptances purchased under the provisions of said sections 348a and 353 to 359 of this title, or gold certificates, or Special Drawing Right certificates, or any obligations which are direct obligations of, or are fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United States or any agency thereof, or assets that Federal Reserve banks may purchase or hold under sections 348a and 353 to 359 of this title. In no event shall such collateral security be less than the amount of Federal Reserve notes applied for. The Federal Reserve agent shall each day notify the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of all issues and withdrawals of Federal Reserve notes to and by the Federal Reserve bank to which he is accredited. The said Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may at any time call upon a Federal Reserve bank for additional security to protect the Federal Reserve notes issued to it. Collateral shall not be required for Federal Reserve notes which are held in the vaults of Federal Reserve banks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US CODE TITLE 12 SEC 342 DEPOSITS AND EXCHANGE
TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER IX > ? 342 Prev Next US CODE TITLE 12 SEC ? 342. Deposits; exchange and collection; member and nonmember banks or other depository institutions; charges Release date: 2004-03-18 Any Federal Reserve bank may receive from any of its member banks, or other depository institutions, and from the Unites States, deposits of current funds in lawful money, national-bank notes, Federal reserve notes, or checks, and drafts, payable upon presentation or other items, and also, for collection, maturing notes and bills; or, solely for purposes of exchange or of collection may receive from other Federal reserve banks deposits of current funds in lawful money, national-bank notes, or checks upon other Federal reserve banks, and checks and drafts, payable upon presentation within its district or other items, and maturing notes and bills payable within its district; or, solely for the purposes of exchange or of collection, may receive from any nonmember bank or trust company or other depository institution deposits of current funds in lawful money, national-bank notes, Federal reserve notes, checks and drafts payable upon presentation or other items, or maturing notes and bills: Provided, Such nonmember bank or trust company or other depository institution maintains with the Federal Reserve bank of its district a balance in such amount as the Board determines taking into account items in transit, services provided by the Federal Reserve bank, and other factors as the Board may deem appropriate: Provided further, That nothing in this or any other section of this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting a member or nonmember bank or other depository institution from making reasonable charges, to be determined and regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, but in no case to exceed 10 cents per $100 or fraction thereof, based on the total of checks and drafts presented at any one time, for collection or payment of checks and drafts and remission therefor by exchange or otherwise; but no such charges shall be made against the Federal reserve banks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US CODE TITLE 31 SEC 5111
TREASURER'S AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SPECIAL COINS
LIKE SPECIAL NATIONAL TRILLION DOLLAR COINS TO SECURE THE NATIONAL DEBT
US CODE TITLE 31 SEC 5111 see PART 2 AND 3
TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 51 > SUBCHAPTER II > ? 5111 Prev Next ? 5111. Minting and issuing coins, medals, and numismatic items Release date: 2003-05-15 (a) The Secretary of the Treasury? (1) shall mint and issue coins described in section 5112 of this title in amounts the Secretary decides are necessary to meet the needs of the United States; (2) may prepare national medal dies and strike national and other medals if it does not interfere with regular minting operations but may not prepare private medal dies; (3) may prepare and distribute numismatic items; and (4) may mint coins for a foreign country if the minting does not interfere with regular minting operations, and shall prescribe a charge for minting the foreign coins equal to the cost of the minting (including labor, materials, and the use of machinery). (b) The Department of the Treasury has a coinage metal fund and a coinage profit fund. The Secretary may use the coinage metal fund to buy metal to mint coins. The Secretary shall credit the coinage profit fund with the amount by which the nominal value of the coins minted from the metal exceeds the cost of the metal. The Secretary shall charge the coinage profit fund with waste incurred in minting coins and the cost of distributing the coins, including the cost of coin bags and pallets. The Secretary shall deposit in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts excess amounts in the coinage profit fund. (c) Procurements Relating to Coin Production.? (1) In general.? The Secretary may make contracts, on conditions the Secretary decides are appropriate and are in the public interest, to acquire articles, materials, supplies, and services (including equipment, manufacturing facilities, patents, patent rights, technical knowledge, and assistance) necessary to produce the coins referred to in this title.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- US CODE TITLE 31 SEC 3302 CUSTODIANS OF MONEY
TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE III > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER I > ? 3302 Prev Next ? 3302. Custodians of money Release date: 2003-05-15 (a) Except as provided by another law, an official or agent of the United States Government having custody or possession of public money shall keep the money safe without? (1) lending the money; (2) using the money; (3) depositing the money in a bank; and (4) exchanging the money for other amounts. (b) Except as provided in section 3718 (b) [1] of this title, an official or agent of the Government receiving money for the Government from any source shall deposit the money in the Treasury as soon as practicable without deduction for any charge or claim. (c) (1) A person having custody or possession of public money, including a disbursing official having public money not for current expenditure, shall deposit the money without delay in the Treasury or with a depositary designated by the Secretary of the Treasury under law. Except as provided in paragraph (2), money required to be deposited pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited not later than the third day after the custodian receives the money. The Secretary or a depositary receiving a deposit shall issue duplicate receipts for the money deposited. The original receipt is for the Secretary and the duplicate is for the custodian. (2) The Secretary of the Treasury may by regulation prescribe that a person having custody or possession of money required by this subsection to be deposited shall deposit such money during a period of time that is greater or lesser than the period of time specified by the second sentence of paragraph (1). (d) An official or agent not complying with subsection (b) of this section may be removed from office. The official or agent may be required to forfeit to the Government any part of the money held by the official or agent and to which the official or agent may be entitled. (e) An official or agent of the Government having custody or possession of public money shall keep an accurate entry of each amount of public money received, transferred, and paid. (f) When authorized by the Secretary, an official or agent of the Government having custody or possession of public money, or performing other fiscal agent services, may be allowed necessary expenses to collect, keep, transfer, and pay out public money and to perform those services. However, money appropriated for those expenses may not be used to employ or pay officers and employees of the Government. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- US CODE TITLE 31 SEC 5154 STATE TAXATION
TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 51 > SUBCHAPTER V > ? 5154 Prev Next ? 5154. State taxation Release date: 2003-05-15 A State or a territory or possession of the United States may tax United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) as money on hand or on deposit in the same way and at the same rate that the State, territory, or possession taxes other forms of money. This section does not affect a law taxing national banks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 51 > SUBCHAPTER V > ? 5153 Prev Next ? 5153. Counterfeit currency Release date: 2003-05-15 Disbursing officials of the United States Government and officers of national banks shall stamp or mark the word ?counterfeit?, ?altered?, or ?worthless? on counterfeit notes intended to circulate as currency that are presented to them. An official or officer wrongfully stamping or marking an item of genuine United States currency (including a Federal reserve note or a circulating note of Federal reserve banks and national banks) shall redeem the currency at face value when presented. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by Brother-Dan-Izzo @ 4:27 AM 0 comments 2003 TRILLION DOLLAR SILVER PROOF THE WASHINTON MINT REGISTRATION NO. 7398 My Favorite Links: Got Full Blown AIDs ? blog 90% Cancer Cure Diet with EFAs food oil and sulphur in cheese Cryonic Life Insurance Company The $1000 Billion Deposit Dollar US Tax Trust My Info: Name: Br Dan Izzo Email: [email protected]
Posted by: Br Dan izzo | June 24, 2005 12:14 PM
The auther describes Rove as a Stalinist, but really what we have here is Plutocracy, a government controlled by money and the interests of money. Keep your hands off my stash while I try to pocket yours seems to be the rule of law here.
Posted by: Lamar Crawford | June 24, 2005 12:14 PM
why should rove apologize? i'm sure he's expressed his views accurately. i'm sure he feels just that way about liberals and it's breath of fresh air to hear anyone at that level of government speak frankly. shouldn't the people most "harmed" by what he said be thankful for the insight?
everyone gripes about lack of candor in government. a big thanks to plainspoken karl fer tellin' it as he sees it. after all there are differences between libs and cons.
Posted by: mike | June 24, 2005 12:16 PM
All you Democrats and Liberals must know that you cannot be saved if you do not love Jesus. Jesus did not love terrorists, he wanted to have them converted through God's love. That is in plain English in the Bible.
Liberal whinners who attach our President should learn that there is more to leading a great country than critizing torture (which we do not endorse, by the way!!!).
Democrats and liberals need to calm down and to learn to appreciate that our leaders know more than most of us do about the world, and therefore they must be trsuted to make the right decisions. Anything less is a betrayal of our trust in them. You do not doubt God, do you? The place you trust in our Surpreme Commander in Chief.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 12:16 PM
why should rove apologize? i'm sure he's expressed his views accurately. i'm sure he feels just that way about liberals and it's breath of fresh air to hear anyone at that level of government speak frankly. shouldn't the people most "harmed" by what he said be thankful for the insight?
everyone gripes about lack of candor in government. a big thanks to plainspoken karl fer tellin' it as he sees it. after all there are differences between libs and cons.
Posted by: mike | June 24, 2005 12:16 PM
I served in Viet Nam, consider myself a Liberal, have a small consulting firm, live in a nice home, have a good wife, have some money for retirement - basically living the American middle-class life. I have never been so dissappointed in our government (even tragic, pathetic Nixon was on target at times, and was certainly more capable than our current leader). President Bush is an embarrassment and makes you wonder how does a small-minded, silly person get that far? What does that say about our culture, that he is where he is? With limbaugh, hannity, orielly, and others of their ilk spewing distortions all day, every day, it seems difficult for average folks to get a bearing on the truth. Still, how is it that our fellow countrymen are so fooled by such frauds, and for this long? Our culture is in trouble.
Posted by: shoot me now | June 24, 2005 12:17 PM
Kelly, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Bush got the job done right???????????
Which job, making sure he ignored warning after warning about an impending attack?
Making sure his butt was out of town when they expected the attack?
Making sure he stood on an aircraft carrier in his play uniform so he could look like a CIC?
He's as big a coward as all you big mouth Repugs who love the war but won't put your life on the line?
If this war is really necessary to protect your country, why aren't you serving?
Your country needs you in Iraq, get to a recruiter:http://www.usarmy.com
Or are you just a little yellow elephant? http://www.wonkette.com/politics/enlist-young-republicans-have-other-priorities-109325.php
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 12:17 PM
Stalin killed almost 43 million people using his gulags, etc.... Much more than the Nazis and their death camps. Yet somehow you believe comparing the Bush administration to Stalin is less offensive that comparing them to Nazi Germany? I have no love for the current administration, but I dearly wish for a time machine so you and Rove and Durbin could be sent back to a Soviet Gulag, or perhaps Buchenwald, to see what it was really like. Then maybe such ignorant comparisons between those horrible places and the USA would not so oft and easily spill from your lips. You not only malign America, you marginalize the men, women and children who died in those hell holes.
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 12:19 PM
Yes. Durbin and the liberals aren't firing missiles at our troops. But the Bush gang would LOVE to find another Jane Fonda type of figure who they could use as a tool to say that the "enemy" is holding their own by inspiration supplied by American disloyalty. The Jane Fonda myth galvanized a generation of conservatives until (wait... it still does.)
Sadly the liberals can't get mean enough to do the same and show any number of public spokesmen are flushing our standing down the drain in the world community AND doing more to rally the "enemy" troops than anything that Durbin might have said.
Posted by: Dennis from Cape Cod | June 24, 2005 12:19 PM
I'm a wee bit confused. Much of this incessant and mindless banter (specifically the variants of "GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GO BUSH") seem like what I encountered during my (wonderful) secondary school education. *sigh* If you do not like what you're reading, then stop reading it. It's as simple as that. Unless you can provide relevant commentary or analysis, sans proclamations of your lust for our...beloved leader...keep out.
Posted by: freshman | June 24, 2005 12:19 PM
Do you people realise that the ideology of Al Qaeda is to create a planet, yes, an entire planet into an islamic state, like that created by the Taliban?
If you did, then you may begin to realize that it isn't a war against people who want the US out of Iraq or from interferring in the middle east affairs. It is a war against your way of life, by people who believe your religion, your freedom of choice, your lifestyle and even your heritage should be denied you and controlled by shiah law. Your complete compliance with their rules of existence is absolute and failure to comply to anything they decide is gods will, warrants your death.
These are people that won't surrender, ever. They won't worry about things not going to plan every time, or decisions making them accountable. They aren't concerned with who said what. They gain strength from the weaknesses of democracy, as seen in Spain. They prey on fear and know that any action they take will eventually be blamed on the government of the country they attacked too. It's win, win for them and they'll never stop, because they KNOW that you as a person living in a western democracy, WILL give up, because history proves that time is on their side. When the going gets tough, democracies start finger pointing and casting blame, until their policy changes. At that point, Al Qaeda is incentivised to go to the next level, with the eventual aim of destablising and causing chaos, when they can move in and build a nation of islam. Why do you think Al Qaeda terrorists are leaving Europe and the U.S. to be suicide bombers in Iraq, instead of where they are? Because Iraq is an oppertunity for them to create a base for their Islamic state. It is a battle between Islamic extremism and Democracy and should they win, they'll be stronger than ever and be able to be more adventurous by expanding their islamic world.
Be fully aware of what the stakes are and that it is a war that will never end. You should not be infighting but showing solidarity and ensuring that no matter what, Iraq will not be abandoned to terrorists, no matter how many soldiers and civilians they terrorists murder, or whether the reason for the Iraq invasion was right or not.
Posted by: Pragmatist | June 24, 2005 12:20 PM
If I have to choose between a President who lies about a blow job and leaves a budget surplus or one who lies about the reasons to kill thousands, piss away billions and creates the biggest deficit in history, I'll take the BJ guy.
Regardless, democracy does not exitst in this country. It is plutocratic oligarchy, plain and simple. (Please, do us all a favor and grab a dictionary if necessary.) That is the primary crime all our elected snakes are trying to distract us from figuring out and doing something about. Wake up now or stay the sleepy sheep you are!
Posted by: Irma Brown | June 24, 2005 12:20 PM
If I have to choose between a President who lies about a blow job and leaves a budget surplus or one who lies about the reasons to kill thousands, piss away billions and creates the biggest deficit in history, I'll take the BJ guy.
Regardless, democracy does not exitst in this country. It is plutocratic oligarchy, plain and simple. (Please, do us all a favor and grab a dictionary if necessary.) That is the primary crime all our elected snakes are trying to distract us from figuring out and doing something about. Wake up now or stay the sleepy sheep you are!
Posted by: Irma Brown | June 24, 2005 12:20 PM
I apologize to the American people for not telling the truth about the American Left before just now. Let me once again clarify what I said... Liberal scum in the past have demoralized our nation. I stand by this wholeheartedly and truely believe this. Its time to move on to a new horizon. KARL ROVE in 2008.....
Posted by: Karl Rove | June 24, 2005 12:20 PM
Thank you Hattie, Hard to swallow the criticisms of her postings. Do they support one view? Well, the subjects are varied, but many of them just point to the fact that the administration itself - or other supposed "respected" organizations have come to the same conclusions based on the facts. The fact that Hattie reads is no reason to condemn her. Is she just responding to others' opinions? Well, in most cases she is pointing out how the "facts" differ from what many are saying on this blog. One needs to read or learn before forming rational opinions. Seems one blogger believes she should form her own opinions in a vacuum?? Hmmm, have any of you actually called up many of the articles she's posted? Certainly we should all read opposing views as well as those supporting our own views. Many of the sources are quite credible to both conservatives and liberals alike and are just stating what the facts really are. The fact that members of this administration, when pointedly asked, have agreed there is no real substative link between Iraq and Bin Laden, tells us all something....I would check out some of Hattie's postings, as well as other "opposing" views if someone would post something as credible as many of those.
Posted by: Americansfortruth | June 24, 2005 12:22 PM
>>Democrats and liberals need to calm down >>and to learn to appreciate that our >>leaders know more than most of us do >>about the world, and therefore they must >>be trsuted to make the right decisions. >>Anything less is a betrayal of our trust >>in them. You do not doubt God, do you? >>The place you trust in our Surpreme >>Commander in Chief.
Would you like to buy some swamp land in Florida?
Posted by: ed | June 24, 2005 12:22 PM
The anti-abortion issue becomes a little more clear to me now; those babies are needed for cannon fodder in places like Iraq where they can be wasted as "heros". What is happening to us? How did we get here? Where are we going? Why?
Posted by: Dick Johnson | June 24, 2005 12:22 PM
The anti-abortion issue becomes a little more clear to me now; those babies are needed for cannon fodder in places like Iraq where they can be wasted as "heros". What is happening to us? How did we get here? Where are we going? Why?
Posted by: Dick Johnson | June 24, 2005 12:23 PM
Rove’s despicable description regarding the liberal vs. conservative responses to 9/11 was actually the exact opposite of the truth. I recall my associates and I saying in our e-mails on 9/11 that this was an act of war and that Bush’s response--bringing these criminals to justice--was ridiculous. It was Bush who saw this as simply a crime to be punished. I remember saying in one e-mail that this should be War and Peace, not Crime and Punishment. I remember saying we needed an FDR, not a GWB. In fact, I was so angry that I was saying we should use tactical nuclear weapons. It wasn’t until his neo-conservative puppetmasters had a chance to reprogram his primitive brain functions several days too late, that Bush started talking in terms of a war instead of a crime. And then it took him what—a month or more to actually act militarily in Afghanistan! Gee, I’m sure that sent a great message of decisiveness. We should have started bombing them the same day or even the same hour! On his own, Bush had no ability to respond intelligently or appropriately to the situation. It seems that poor Durbin is falling all over himself trying to make amends for doing nothing more than calling a spade a spade. The only person who needs to apologize is the head Nazi himself—Bush! People apparently have decided that unless you go goose-stepping by in an SS uniform on your way to guard duty at the local death camp, you’re not a Nazi. Bush and his cohorts are very much the moral equivalent of the Nazis. Who cares if you exterminate the innocent in death camps or just blow them to bits with bombs! Who cares which ethnic/religious group you torture, murder, and persecute? It’s all the same kind of fascism. Bush’s right-wing religious plutocracy is horrifyingly similar to that of Hitler. Different time, different country, different flag. Same evil. People never see clearly through the fog of their own times. I think we live in very dark times, but few of us are ready to wake up to it—least of all the media.
Posted by: BillyD51 | June 24, 2005 12:23 PM
It is shameful that Americans were involved in torture. Criticising them is not an act of unpatriotism. The individual soldiers wer NOT responsible, the leaders are. Remember, this is a democracy where EVERYONE has a right to speak up about what goes wrong. The majority of US troops are decent, good persons. Bush claims to support democracybut is this democracy?
Posted by: Patriot | June 24, 2005 12:23 PM
Is this "Kelly" person the best that the Neocons have to offer on this blog? Is it really his argument that "Bush Won" and therefore has the right to lie, distract, and then lie some more and those of us who don't like it had just better shut our cake holes and take it, because "Bush Won"?
A better question might be, where were all these people who now disapprove of Bush's performance in office when we really needed them -- Election Day?
You made your bed, America. Sleep well!
Posted by: The Anti-Kelly | June 24, 2005 12:23 PM
I roflmao at the republicans who bring up Clinton as if their is some kind of connection with sex with an intern and a president who is guilty of HIGH CRIMES and Misdemeaners for lying to the Americans to go to war and then runs the most incompetent war in the history of the US because of him there are 1730 dead Americans. How many Americans died while Clinton was having sex? I think that we should begin to start a movement to impeach Bush and all of his cronies. Anyone want to sign a petition??
Posted by: donna | June 24, 2005 12:24 PM
Father Tom: I'd like to "attach" the president -- preferably to a hot-air balloon (which no doubt could be filled to capacity by mouth by Mr. Rove) to be floated over Iraq, so that he could be greeted warmly by the Iraqi people like the liberator he is...
Come back when you've acquired a spell-checker...
Posted by: zippy the other pinhead | June 24, 2005 12:25 PM
Donna writes: "How many Americans died while Clinton was having sex?"
The answer, unless you count all those little Clinton wigglies that died on Monica's blue dress -- None!
Of course, now that this fact has been made public, DeLay et al will probably seek to indict Clinton for manslaugther for letting his sperm die without resulting in a conception.
Posted by: The Anti-Kelly | June 24, 2005 12:26 PM
kbertocci: I'd have to bring my own massage oil. jw admits that he doesn't really own any. i think he may still be a little hung up on iowabiologist, though.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2005 12:27 PM
I got over bush winning did you get over the clap?
Posted by: KellyisEZ | June 24, 2005 12:29 PM
Mike has it right. Think Mr. Klein have a son, daughter, cousin, niece, nephew serving in Iraq (of course neither does Mr Rove)? If he (they) did they might be much more sensitve about Durbin's words and others (i.e. Kennedy, etc) and their impact on the troops and usefulness with Al Jazera, Al Queda etc.
Posted by: ggsamj | June 24, 2005 12:30 PM
Please allow me to clarify. I put my faith in God and Jesus's love. I t is just that I also believe that our leaders are also worthy of our respect too. It is the Democrats and Liberals who wisht to tear down the society of goodness that America is. And for that, I must stand up and say that you do not help terrorism by critizing the President in his war against evil. God said it best in the Bible when he wrote: "I am the light of this World." (And, yes, I believe that the Buible is God's word, and that he wrote every page of it.)
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 12:30 PM
Why would anyone get too worked up about Rove's statements this far into his career? He has been an outrageous liar ever since he wrangled his way into Texas politics. It's no secret that he is an example of why we need checks and balances. He holds an unelected office (and an amazingly powerful one too I might add), and can, and clearly does, virtually do what he pleases. I mean come on, this is a guy who, with no concern for decency or morality, bugged his bosses office so that his opponent in the Texas Gubernatorial election would come out, on the eve of the election, smelling like a snake. He's clever, because it worked. Unfortunately, he's also an immoral, devious liar. As for all the goofiness about Democrats who are or aren't liberals. WTF? Is it just me or is that just silly? Rove made his comments because he can, because he believes them, and he knows that his power is total, and that he is untouchable. It's macho bullying. Durbin was right. Gitmo is a disaster, and it show how little we care for humanity. Bad people need to be stopped. They don't need to be huddled on the ground, perpetually bound and gagged while defecating on themselves. Last I checked, that didn't do anyone any good. That's just plain nasty. Amnesty International was dead on in their report, and look what the goons in Washington had to say about that. They tried to say it proved that Amnesty had no credit to speak of. Amnesty International? Morally bankrupt? Are we really that stupid in this country? They are comitted to the freedoms of all people, not just guys like Karl Rove. What's next? Arm bands?
Posted by: Blicero | June 24, 2005 12:31 PM
So glad to see that Bush as brought "civility" back to government. Karl Rove's stupidity had taken our minds off of the kind of Doritos that Saddam Hussein likes to munch.
Posted by: Bob Davidson | June 24, 2005 12:32 PM
and remember, BUSH WON......GET OVER IT!!
Posted by: kelly | June 24, 2005 12:32 PM
Let me see if I understand your point, Father Tom. If we criticize the President, we are helping evil? Might I suggest actually READING the Bill of Rights instead of wiping your hiney with it? And what sort of pen did God use when he wrote the Buible? A really BIG one?
Posted by: The Anti-Kelly | June 24, 2005 12:32 PM
"I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?"
Posted by: Matthew Bell | June 24, 2005 12:33 PM
> What is happening to us? How did we get here? Where are we going? Why?
Beats me. Probably something to do with the frog that doesn't notice it is being boiled alive if you heat the water slowly enough.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 12:34 PM
Yes, Kelly, that's the argument. It was the same thing the Nazi's said as they marched the Jews to the camps. Hitler won. Get over it.
My God, but you are a moron!!!
Posted by: The Anti-Kelly | June 24, 2005 12:35 PM
Enough already - It's time to fire all of them and start over.
Power to the people - jail time to those opposed.
Posted by: Commonsense | June 24, 2005 12:35 PM
Here's the s I left off up above. I hate misspellings.
Posted by: Blicero | June 24, 2005 12:35 PM
To Zipper the Other Pinhead.
I did not mean to upset you. But you must understand that a world of peace sometimes takes sacrifice. That is gained by supporintg the President -- not by attacking him. The idea you have about a balloon is not funny. A person who was floating high up could be seriously injured if they fell, not to mention if someone was under them. Some things are not funny.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 12:36 PM
Being a Democrat or a Republican used to mean something entirely different. Now these two parties seem to be defined by their lunatic fringe. Sadly, our two party system seems to have a broken wheel.
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 12:36 PM
Karl was absoulutely right, liberals did want to "understand the enemy" because it was immediately apparent to those of us with a semblance of an education that this was a terrorist act which would inevitably be followed by futile military action against nations who were not to blame, in order to save face/gain oil access. Now we are feeling the sting of having been lied into a war with Iraq, and there could be no better time in history to question why someone would want to "understand their enemy" before they cripple and kill soldiers on both sides, as well as throw the U.S. economy into the toilet for years to come, if not forever. Wake up folks, smart does NOT equal wimpy. The greatest generals and armies in history were the ones that had foresight, political and intellectual capacity. We did not even begin to solve the problem that was made evident on 9/11, instead we have made it decidedly worse, and unfortunately, that means it will happen again. We can only hope that it happens after 2008. How can anyone seriously be proud of electing this president and his Rove of Death? You want to hear liberal elitist ranting? I think it's about hateful uneducated people voting for whom they see as the person most similar to themselves. Period.
Posted by: karlsMom | June 24, 2005 12:37 PM
'You go to war with the Army you have,not the one you want.'
That is callous-look how many have been killed or maimed.
This is nothing more than an oil war.Who is the beneficiary of this war? The defense contractors.Civilian contractors like truck drivers,are paid $100K,which comes from tax dollars paid by the middle class.Those tax cuts only benefit those making more than $200K a year...you can look it up.
Leave it to Republicans to figure out how to privatize a war!
The troops are left with broken lives.
Posted by: mgottlieb | June 24, 2005 12:37 PM
Can god bless other countries or just america? it seems like we want to have the monopoly on him. Never understood that.
Posted by: parithed | June 24, 2005 12:37 PM
After reading Rove's complete interview, please explain, using the whole and not the excerpts, what he said that was fallacious.
Posted by: blackdude | June 24, 2005 12:37 PM
Father Tom -- let me just throw this out there. How much of the Bill of Rights are you willing to toss into the trash just so President Bush can continue his little misadventure?
Posted by: The Anti-Kelly | June 24, 2005 12:38 PM
Typical Rove move. When you are out of answers, villify your opponent.
Easier than defending your own position when you have no defense.
It works for Rush Limbaugh, and it captivates the uninformed.
The White House must feel desperate. They are on the ropes.
Posted by: Eileen | June 24, 2005 12:39 PM
Stalinists got one thing right ... the Purge! If the Dems ever get back into office, sending a few million idiots ... er, Republicans ... to "Siberia" might prevent them from driving the ship of state into a leeward shore AGAIN...
Posted by: Old Joe | June 24, 2005 12:40 PM
Blackdude-- if you read the entire speech and do not know why people are outraged, then no one here will be able to explain it to your satisfaction.
But just in case -- he said (paraphrasing) that Conservatives want to "kill" evil while Liberals want to sing folk songs.
Posted by: The Anti-Kelly | June 24, 2005 12:41 PM
This is getting ridiculous. You're all attacking each other over things like spell check. In a perfect world there would be no typos and no bi-partisan politics, but this isn't a perfect world so make the best of what you've got and stop hating each other for typing "attach" instead of "attack." Grow up.
Posted by: Sara | June 24, 2005 12:41 PM
God wrote the Bible is clear. I don't know if he used a pen or what, but it doesn't matter because his word is there. He probably did use a pen or some sort of writing instrument. I think you are rude about the Bill of rights which I would never use to wipe anything. I only use sanitary objects not that is any of your business.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 12:41 PM
BUSH WON, SO ONCE AND FOR ALL......GET OVER IT, OK????
GEEEEEZ.....CAN YOU MORONIC LIBERALS GET A HINT?
Posted by: kelly | June 24, 2005 12:42 PM
Father Tom is a bit confused. Democracy and dicourse go hand-in-hand. It's not tearing down America - it's asking for a better America! Is that not possible or a righteous goal?? Good / Evil; Black/White; Moral/ Amoral??? Nothing is that simple. Many Anmericans could do well visiting much of the world they purport to be experts on. How many of you have even been to the Middle East??? Any clue about their multiple cultures? There is as much difference between Saudi and Iraqi citizens as there is between Americans and Mexicans. Not a good analogy, but this world is a very diverse place. Do you really want democracy in Saudi today??? Well then be prepared for a very fundamentalist society - way more than now. And why do you think Bush isn't giving Pakistan a hard time, which, up until a few years ago did practice democracy? Even had a woman in charge. Now we have a military dictator in charge who....oh wait, who supports Bush and his agenda. Nothing in this world is as simple as Father Tom believes it is.
Posted by: americansfor truth | June 24, 2005 12:42 PM
speak out now, and vote when it's your time.
a freely elected administration is just a reflection of the people that put it there. it's tough love--and we're ALL as guilty as we are innocent.
Posted by: nunatak | June 24, 2005 12:42 PM
Ever notice that every time Bush/Chaney mention that the Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes or that we're winning the war the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq goes up. What a hypocrite!!
Posted by: Kevin | June 24, 2005 12:42 PM
Ånd to all those who claim to be Christian while supporting this immoral administration:
Who would Jesus kill? Would he abandon the poor? Would he abandon every principal to gain more power?
Not all Christians support this power-hungry administration whose behavior represents everything Christ condemned.
Posted by: Eileen | June 24, 2005 12:42 PM
Anyone pulling guard duty in Gitmo who abuses people should be compared to as SOMETHING bad, because its wrong. I can say that as someone who has worked in a max sec prison -I never once abused an inmate-even though God knows they test a persons patience. BIG DIFFERENCE was the inmates I guarded had actually been TRIED AND CONVICTED. The Gimto detainees had NOTHING-no way to even prove factual innocence. Is THIS the American way? If so, I'll pass. I'll take the Constitution over this kind of "rule of law" any day. I say that as someone coming from a military family. Shame on you for condoning this, America. People are waking up-the Republicans know one party rule forever really might not be good for America. Duh. Get the facts- http://prissypatriot.blogspot.com
Posted by: Prissy | June 24, 2005 12:42 PM
Six more U.S. troops dead.
Those of you who think this is a good thing, go to Iraq and volunteer for the front line.
The rest of you: stop bickering about who's to blame for what and put your superior minds together and figure out how to end this thing.
Posted by: jeff | June 24, 2005 12:43 PM
Every time Kelly posts "BW-GOI" another brain cell dies.
And Father Tom is putting us on. Please, God, let him be putting us on!
Posted by: The Anti-Kelly | June 24, 2005 12:44 PM
25,000 dead at Iwo Jima. Where was the outrage then??
Posted by: redstater | June 24, 2005 12:44 PM
Rove & Co. Taking over.
The more people the 'Cons' piss off, the bigger a backlash they'll be facing in the future. I've had some friends tell me about being scared of Pax-Republicana. People saying that the Democrats controlled government with an Iron fist in the Post WWII era, and now it's the Republicans turn.
Republican slanted, yes. Republican Dominated no. Democrats did not control both houses of congress and the presidency for over 50 years. Something about (Ike), Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Senior seems to kill that idea. The Republicans had to change their methods, style, and message many times before becoming 'Conservatives'. Democrats may need to change their message to battle a 'Neo-Conservative' America. In the end, these new alliances will stop the wholesale rollback of liberties estabished by our Mothers & Fathers. The best place to start is inside their playbook.
Posted by: Backspan | June 24, 2005 12:44 PM
Every time public opinion goes against Bush, we get another little announcement about terrorism that scares people.
He got elected on fear, and fear is all he has on his side.
Bush is the real enemy.
Posted by: Eileen | June 24, 2005 12:44 PM
Jeff -- How to end this thing?
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!!! RIGHT NOW!!! THIS INSTANT!!!
Posted by: The Anti-Kelly | June 24, 2005 12:45 PM
Hey Father Tom what about "blessed are the peacemakers"? Where does that fit into bush's war plan?
Posted by: parithed | June 24, 2005 12:46 PM
Every time a liberal speaks, God kills a kitten.
Posted by: xiangdao | June 24, 2005 12:46 PM
Father Tom, you remind me of an old Fugs song...."Kill for Peace"....
Posted by: americans for truth | June 24, 2005 12:46 PM
HITLER BELONGED TO THE NATIONAL-SOCIALIST PARTY (SEE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN LIBERALS AND SOCIALISM THERE). GET A LIFE, BECOME A REPUBLICAN AND JOIN THE MILLIONS OF HAPPY AMERICANS (THE MAJORITY) WHO LIKEWISE DO..
Posted by: KELLY | June 24, 2005 12:47 PM
I see a lot of comments out there about Democrats weakening America by coddling terrorists and condemning torture and inhuman practices at institutions like Gitmo. In response I would say that torturing and abusing detainees, though they may be and probably are the lowest form of human existence, should be denounced loudly and strongly so that we can preserve the greatest weapon that we have against terrorism and tyranny...our stature in the world as the leader of human rights and freedom. The Bush admininstration likes to say "Freedom is on the march". That is all well and good but will countries really follow us as the leader in that parade if they see us as abusers of human rights and freedom? By the way, it is not just Democrats who are speaking out against Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. Republicans are also (correctly) calling for change. And despite attempts by the administration to discredit Amnesty International, the world does hold that organization in high regard and is hearing loudly its reports on our abuses.
Posted by: ThinkAboutIt | June 24, 2005 12:47 PM
I 100% agree...what's disappointing is that the Democrats took the bait. The old adage is "Fool me once, shame on me..."...but it seems that the minority party is content to be fooled into a meaningless media war dozens of times. While they fight Rove for communications legitimacy (a fight they will surely never win, and be lucky to draw), the GOP will outflank them on policy.
Posted by: Patrick | June 24, 2005 12:47 PM
Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. ~Donald Rumsfeld
Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official... ~Theodore Roosevelt
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it. ~Edward R. Murrow
Posted by: canuck | June 24, 2005 12:47 PM
It's pretty clear that the left is trying everything it can to undermine the war for political gain.
Gitmo is nothing like the nazi death camps, the soviet gulag, etc. to compare them is ridiculous. And I'm glad someone from the right is actually speaking out against the left and calling them out for who they really are.
By the way, Howard Dean is the greatest. I wish he'd say more because every time he opens his mouth more and more average Americans begin to understand how out of touch with reality the left in this country is.
Posted by: JoeAmerican | June 24, 2005 12:47 PM
What I'm really confused about is why all the energy expressed in all these comments isn't directed at actively, in whatever way, changing what is going on in America today? The comments sound frustrated, angry, and helpless.
Almost everyone says how bad it is, or is going to get; or talks about the 1700+ dead, the 20,000+ wounded, and the more than 100,000 "collateral damage" civilians; about apologies/no apologies; candour/no candour; republicans and/or democrats --- who really gives a heck if all these talkers aren't ACTIVELY talking ABOUT doing something specific or actually doing something to change this? Like Bush and Rove, talk is usefully distracting and it's cheap.
The truth is that almost all of your elected or not reps aren't doing a thing (Rep. Conyers aside, for example). They aren't, from the comments, even representing your views, let alone listening to you and your arguments. Your gripes don't change a thing - you elected these folks, special interests (corporate) own almost all of them, and mostly (in this column) you only talk ??!! Maybe that's why the Insane Clown Posse (Bush, Cheney, Rumsey, Wolfowitz, Rice, et al) ride as they will and desire.
From an overseas observer (and great admirer of Americans but not of American government).
Posted by: Kyle Manjaro | June 24, 2005 12:48 PM
It seems you support Bush blindly simply because he was elected (ya know, Hitler was also elected...).
To help open you eyes please understand that you are supporting the following:
-A war against a country that did not threaten or attack the USA.
-The suppression of information about the costs of Bush's medicare plan from the Congress that needed to considered it.
-The shifting of wealth from the poor to the rich through Bush's tax policies.
-The supression of information needed by Congress to consider a UN ambassador's approval to serve.
-The administration's retaliation against a CIA operative whose husband happened to have proof discounting the lie Bush was saying about Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium.
Father Tom, I believe its ok to blindly believe in God, or Jesus, or Ala, or Krishna, or whatever diety you like, but blind faith in any person who has been given the power of the president of the USA is unAmerican.
Posted by: Jim Middleroader | June 24, 2005 12:48 PM
Anti-Kelly, I would not call the President an adventurer. Or the Buill of Rights something to throw in the trash. (I beklieve in reccycling too,because it is good for God's earth.) An adventure is something you do on a journey. The President lives in Washington D.C. and has to take car of a large home as well as lead the free world. That takes a LOT of work. And he needs ourt support -- not attaching him.'
Kelly, thank you for making sense about how spelling is not as important as winning a race to be the President. I agree. The important thing to remember is that if you believe in American and God's word then it doesn't matter about the Bill of Rights and stuff so much. Freedom and Jesus's love are what's important. Thank you for standing up in what you believe is the Truth.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 12:49 PM
Karl Rove's comments highlight the anti-capitalist policies of the national socialist Bush White House.
Posted by: Neil | June 24, 2005 12:49 PM
To all of you who continue to bitch, moan and complain about "the politicians", SHUT UP! Did you vote? We, the people, elected these polititians. If you don't like what they say or do, vote for someone new. Don't like Rep. or Dem. choices, vote independant, ask for a write in ballot. Put your own name down, ask your friends to vote for you, etc. As to "apologies", they should cease! Don't apologize for anyhting you say. If you beleive it and other people are offended by it, well that's just the right to be free. You gotta listen to other people as well as they do you. As far as troops being in Iraq, I don't think they should be there. I still support my brothers and sisters who are there. We should bring them home! The "freedom fighters" are killing more of their own people than we ever have or will. Bring our troops home, or just take over the whole damn country! I have a unique theory about why the Mid-east people hate Americans so much. Because if we want something, like a loaf of bread, we can drive our SUV down to Wal-mart and pay 59 cents for a loaf of white, wheat, rye, etc. In the Mid-East they have to go stand in line for 3 days and spend a weeks salary to do the same thing. It is pure and simple jealousy. I see a simple solution, bomb Iraq, pave the whole country and build the biggest Super Center Wal-Mart the world has ever seen. God bless America! If you don't like it, LEAVE!
Posted by: TN Dave | June 24, 2005 12:49 PM
Arguing with Kelly is like mud wrestling with a pig. You can't win, and the pig likes it.
But just in case he still has a working brain cell -- there was nothing even remotely liberal about Hitler's policies. He called his party National Socialist because it sounded good to the disaffected German citizenry of the time. It had nothing to do with socialism. In fact, Hitler hated the Communists with nearly the same passion as he hated Jews.
Join the majority? Seems the "majority" thinks your president is doing a crappy job. So I'm already IN the majority.
Posted by: The Anti-Kelly | June 24, 2005 12:50 PM
To both sides of this discussion. Resorting to personal attacks and name calling means you have no real argument. Stick to the point.
Posted by: notpersonal | June 24, 2005 12:50 PM
"Every time a liberal speaks, God kills a kitten." Come on, try and be original. We all got the email which you plagiarized this from.
Posted by: Xiangdao be original | June 24, 2005 12:50 PM
Posted by: parithed | June 24, 2005 12:51 PM
Kelly is a very good student of the Repu-thugs current strategy. Repeat something stupid enough times and it will stick. Jeez, do you have anything else to say but 'we won...you lost' pathetic twat.
Posted by: kellyisatwat | June 24, 2005 12:52 PM
Posted by: me myself and your wife | June 24, 2005 12:53 PM
Hey Kelly, saying Bush "won" is pretty dubious. He shouldn't have been in the office at all if you really want to split hairs. His first go round was stolen beyond argument. The 04 election may well have been stolen in Ohio as well. But really, either way, if we don't agree with the way the president is running the country we get to say so, and you don't have to like it. How does one get over the unceremonial plundering of our liberties? Do the families of those who have died in Iraq need to get over it too? Hmmm...Blog forums are the home of verbal sparring, perhaps you may want to get over that and enjoy your day.
Posted by: Blicero | June 24, 2005 12:55 PM
>>>Do you people realise that the ideology of Al Qaeda is to create a planet, yes, an entire planet into an Islamic state<<
Do you realize that this is what we do with freedom? We tote it around like the 'holy grail'. As if capitolism is the ONLY way to find God. And belive me, there will be a Starbucks and a McDonalds in every corner of the globe if we (America) has anything to say about it. That's right, global takeover.
Yes, I like my way of life. I love it. I don't want anybody infringing upon it, least of all my own government. And right now, I gotta' tell ya', MY morals and MY ideology are being infringed. I'm glad that I'm fairly young and will be around in 20 or 30 years to see if history brings justice to this administration. Just one more nightmare in the history of the world.
As for Al Qaeda; there will always be an Al Qaeda, a KKK, skinheads etc. What's so special about America is that these people can exist here with the rest of us. And people like you and me can speak our minds in a place like this. God bless America, our troops, and every other poor soul who has died in the name of freedom, regardless of the color of their skin or their God up above.
Posted by: Faith | June 24, 2005 12:56 PM
Gor, you people are morons.
Posted by: Scott | June 24, 2005 12:56 PM
Prissy, POWs don't get trials. You are applying civil rules to military operations. Ask American servicemen who were POWS in WWII or Korea, or Vietnam if they think the POWs at Gitmo are being mistreated. Then compare and contrast their experiences.
Unrelated: Nunatak made a good point. "We the People", means just that. We are all responsible for our government because WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. People from foreign lands who say "We love the American people but hate your government" do not understand the founding principals of this country. We may not like our current presidential administration either, but we have to accept responsibility for it.
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 12:57 PM
you are judged by those with whom you choose to associate. Let's see: Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Jack Abramoff, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, etc. these people are evil, lying, bastards. A big thank you should go out to the 51% of those who voted for GWB. Way to go. little side not on rush limbaugh for all you ignorant right wingers; he is a drug using hypocrite. when he wants your opinion he'll give it to you. why do you think he never has guests?
Posted by: notafanofbush | June 24, 2005 12:57 PM
"The important thing to remember is that if you believe in American and God's word then it doesn't matter about the Bill of Rights and stuff so much. Freedom and Jesus's love are what's important. Thank you for standing up in what you believe is the Truth."
So apparently Father Tom does not include those Americans of us who are Hindu, Budist, atheist, or many of the other religions and sects who don't believe that the only truth is the way you interpret it. And not need the Bill of Rights??? Do you realize how amazing America is for separating religion from the government??? Have you ever lived in a country like Saudi Arabia where they would take your bible away from you when you enter the country??? (I have) I am not a religious sort, but I would totally protect anyone's right to believe as they wish - just as long as they don't believe I SHOULD HAVE TO FOLLOOW IN HIS FOOTSTEPS! That IS the American way.
Posted by: americansfor truth | June 24, 2005 12:58 PM
As usual, you liberals are all the same. All you can do is either have all of your favorite liberal congress people say something stupid or dumb and you will wholeheartedly support them. But let one, and mean only one, conservative tell it like it is and we are in Chicken Little land.
Posted by: Jim Ball | June 24, 2005 12:59 PM
JESUS WEILDS A BRIGHT AND FALMING SWORD AND WHEN HE IS DONE WITH THE TERRORSISTS HE WILL COME FORTHE LIEBERALS FOR THEY ARE NOT RIGHTEOUS YEA VERILY SURE HE SAID THAT THING ABOUT THE OETHER CHEEK BUT THEIR COMES ATIME FOR ACTION AND IT IS NOW
Posted by: johnamrk | June 24, 2005 12:59 PM
Mac -- if the argument is that our torture isn't as bad as their torture, we've already lost. They win. They dragged us down to their level. It's over.
Posted by: The Anti-Kelly | June 24, 2005 12:59 PM
two sphincters on the same old dog
Posted by: chaos | June 24, 2005 01:00 PM
Sombedody said something like I was joking. I am not. Let me be clear.
The Bill of Rights is a great book that will always be remebered as one of the most important things man has created.
But it is not the same as the Bible, which is different.
I know the world has many beliefes and systems but that means that man has fallen far from the Tree of KNowledge (the way than an apple can sometimes fall on the ground and roll a far way away from the tree).
Our Presidnet loves Jesus. That much is clear. Gogin against him is like going aginst Jesus. This is provable through simple logic. Therefore, if you help the terrorists you are not on Jesus's side.
Which side do you want to be on?
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 01:01 PM
Lib'-er-al: One who does not accept as Absolute Truth each and every word uttered by Rush (or W, Dick, Rummy, Paul, Tom, etc., etc., etc.)
Posted by: Joe | June 24, 2005 01:01 PM
Odd. I see the occasional "Jesus" in the causalty lists from Iraq... but none of them has the last name "Christ."
A time for action? In Iraq? Why?
Posted by: The Anti-Kelly | June 24, 2005 01:01 PM
Xiangdao be original: how 'bout this one?
All your base are belong to us.
Posted by: xiangdao | June 24, 2005 01:02 PM
Get your head out of your ass, learn to think for yourself and please, do try not to choke on your rhetoric; it's bound to get messy.
As a Republican I find your position uneducated, corrosive, and so incredibly sodden with the fear, as to be physically offensive.
It is our duty as American citizens to question those in power. The Constitution of the United States ensures our voice and our ability to tear down the existing government if that is our collective wish. But we have these tools only if we as a people ensure those founding rules, found within both the Constitution and Bill of Rights are protected, supported and not destroyed by limiting provisions added (like the Patriot Act) in times of fear and explotive circumstances.
Fight for what is in the best interests of all, fight for your voice, fight for your right to pursue Liberty, Truth and the pursuit of Happiness. Fight for your future, fight for yourself, fight for the greater good, fight for the baby in the arms of the woman on the bus, fight for the America we have always believed in, dreamt of and have seen glimpses of through the smoke.
Posted by: Commonsense | June 24, 2005 01:02 PM
Karl is trying another "Swift Boat" and most people are falling for it. You know. that's why the fat guy get paid the bug bucks. But, use your head: this bait and switch has happened so many times! One way to get a guy to not talk is to mess with his religion's book. One way to lose a war is attack the symptoms and leave the root cause in place. Terrorists or insurgents or whatever you want to call them are financed and trained in Saudi, Syria and Pakistan. Pull out our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. For every rock they throw at our installations, go after Pakistan, Saudi and Syria in earnest. You will have insurgency in it's last throes soon after. Alas, we are led by idiots (Karl, Chaney and Bush, in that order). Why bother reasoning with them? Their kids are not in the line of fire, ours are. They gain from keeping America divided and on edge. We lose.
Posted by: SaneGuy | June 24, 2005 01:02 PM
>>>Gor, you people are morons.
I guess this includes you.
Posted by: Faith | June 24, 2005 01:03 PM
The National Socialist Party had nothing to do with Socialism.He did that to appeal to the unemployed.Hitler was a capitalist and a fascist.The commandants of the death camps sold what was left of the victims to other German private industries.
Karl Koch,Commandant of Buchenwald was shot for prison graft.
Iwo Jima? That was a war to preserve Western Civilization,not preserve Halliburton. The WMDs story was made from whole cloth,and Americans are being killed and maimed because of it.
BTW,MacArthur's crossing the Yangtze cost 10K American casualties.It was the Chinese soldiers who inflicted those horrific losses. Truman severely punished MacArthur for disobeying the Commander-In-Chief.
Posted by: mgottlieb | June 24, 2005 01:03 PM
Sorry everyone... I am a freaking idiot
To be honest I am actually embarrassed at the Republican Party.
(God, my meds. I have to stop forgetting to take them)
Posted by: KELLY | June 24, 2005 01:03 PM
Get your head out of your ass, learn to think for yourself and please, do try not to choke on your rhetoric; it's bound to get messy.
As a Republican I find your position uneducated, corrosive, and so incredibly sodden with the fear, as to be physically offensive.
To Kelly: best to simply keep your mouth shut if you can't express yourself without shouting.
It is our duty as American citizens to question those in power. The Constitution of the United States ensures our voice and our ability to tear down the existing government if that is our collective wish. But we have these tools only if we as a people ensure those founding rules, found within both the Constitution and Bill of Rights are protected, supported and not destroyed by limiting provisions added (like the Patriot Act) in times of fear and under explotive circumstances.
Fight for what is in the best interests of all, fight for your voice, fight for your right to pursue Liberty, Truth and the pursuit of Happiness. Fight for your future, fight for yourself, fight for the greater good, fight for the baby in the arms of the woman on the bus, fight for the America we have always believed in, dreamt of and have seen glimpses of through the smoke.
Posted by: Commonsense | June 24, 2005 01:03 PM
Father Tom, I believe its ok to blindly believe in God, or Jesus, or Ala, or Krishna, or whatever diety you like, but blind faith in any person who has been given the power of the president of the USA is unAmerican.
No it is not ok to blindly believe in something. This just gives you Taliban with the bible instead of the Koran. Or people sitting in front of abortion clinics waiting to cap a doctor 'to save life'. The Evil.
As to Father Toms' "God wrote the bible"... *polite cough - Gnosticism - cough*.
Posted by: El Tonno | June 24, 2005 01:04 PM
Cheney and Rummy said that the insurgency is despirate and in it's final days. Me thinks that sliding poll numbers, a sliding victory in Iraq, a sliding economy and a sliding health care system (just to mention a few of the many issues that are sliding down hill in this country) makes this lame duck White House despirate, and they will continue to slide until their final days. Rove can bark all he wants! The truth will come out about this administration. America, the truth hurts, and there is only so long that one can hide the truth.
Posted by: Marco | June 24, 2005 01:04 PM
WASP-Maybe I can help you move to Canada earlier. You along with the rest of the right wing lug nuts that are destroying our life, liberty and pursuits of happiness. Let's make sure we get you a one way ticket.
Posted by: MDubya | June 24, 2005 01:04 PM
Father Tom -- you are kidding, right? Please say you are kidding and that you don't mean "Going against Bush means going against Jesus." Please? Please???
You're making me want to cry!
Posted by: The Anti-Kelly | June 24, 2005 01:04 PM
when will wasp, jw, and father tom enlist?
Posted by: dave | June 24, 2005 01:04 PM
Well said TN Dave. Thats the best one I have heard. I love it!!! And to all of you getting into religious discussions, get the hell off the web and go bow to your God you idiots?? I love this country and its freedoms because I can say that God is dead and I don't have to be beheaded for that. Enjoy your freedom of speech and the english you are using. Oh, and don't forget to thank the troops that are out keeping things this way for you.
Posted by: JP | June 24, 2005 01:05 PM
Regarding the "outrage" expressed by the likes of "Hillary" and "Schumer" I remind them that it was one of their own, Harry Truman, who said "I didn't give them hell, I just told the truth and they thought it was hell". I will give the lefties credit. The only way they can even exist today is because thirty years of left wing deterioration in education in the USA has dumbed down the general populace to the point where their lunacy does not immediately appear. I am still waiting for the likes of Durbin, and Dean and Pelosi (not to mention the Michael Moore cadre) to "tone it down." At least the Republicans are not saying things that Al Jazeera can hype to those who practice the "religion of peace".
Posted by: BGC from a RED state (NY) | June 24, 2005 01:05 PM
This bickering needs to end, the real problem with the US right now is our economy are you aware that China is about to purchase our 3rd Largest Oil Company? Hostile Take-over? Our stock market has been stagnent for 5 years, let's focus our attention off the "He Said She Said" and stand up to really matters in the USA and that is a Strong Economy.
Does the Bush Administration have any agenda to the state of our economy?
Posted by: I wish somebody would stand up to our BRUTAL economy | June 24, 2005 01:06 PM
Speak softly and wield a "falming sword". Hey Father Tom, put me on whatever side you aren't on. Geez.
Posted by: blicero | June 24, 2005 01:06 PM
Regarding the "outrage" expressed by the likes of "Hillary" and "Schumer" I remind them that it was one of their own, Harry Truman, who said "I didn't give them hell, I just told the truth and they thought it was hell". I will give the lefties credit. The only way they can even exist today is because thirty years of left wing deterioration in education in the USA has dumbed down the general populace to the point where their lunacy does not immediately appear. I am still waiting for the likes of Durbin, and Dean and Pelosi (not to mention the Michael Moore cadre) to "tone it down." At least the Republicans are not saying things that Al Jazeera can hype to those who practice the "religion of peace".
Posted by: BGC from a RED state (NY) | June 24, 2005 01:06 PM
hahah I just stumbled upon this while looking through google news and it's keeping me enterntained at work
i find it funny though that the best response alot of right-wingers can come up with is name-calling, i.e. "surrender monkeys"
Posted by: Denis | June 24, 2005 01:06 PM
>>Mac -- if the argument is that our torture isn't as bad as their torture, we've already lost. They win. They dragged us down to their level. It's over.<<
The Geneva Convention did a fair job of describing how POWs should be treated. We are not in violation as far I know. If I'm wrong, then I'll re-evaluate my position. However, the violations will have to be substantiated by more than simple wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 01:06 PM
I'm done. Father Tom is a flake and a symptom of what is wrong with the religious right. "I am right and the rest of the whole world (or americans who dissagree with me) are wrong!" "I have the only true Religion" Well guess what, the Bible has been cannonized and edited and voted on and revised to the nth degree. Not even religious scholars dissagree with that. If you believe it is truly God's only word than you have been duped as much as much as those who use Bush, God and Jesus in the same sentence. Ooops! That was you!!! Oh and don't forget when you celebrate Easter you are celebrating an old Pagan holiday related to the rising of the sun god (or some other similar foolishness). Look it up!
Posted by: americansfortruth | June 24, 2005 01:07 PM
Apology?!?! Dick "the turban" Durbin didn't apologize. He said he was sorry that his words hurt someone... Ok.. I'll run you over with my car and I'll get out of it by saying, "I’m sorry the tire of my car crushed your head" geez... don't be such a bunch of pansies!!! Interrogation is a tough job... if a detainee at gitmo is subjected to loud music and cold rooms (as the FBI has reported) saves 1 life, it's well worth it. All the accusations have come from a stance of ignorance because NO ONE but the individuals at Gitmo knows what’s going on at Gitmo. Until we know what’s happening there, comments comparing the guards at Gitmo to Natzies and are way out of line. As too some of the comments coming from the Right… It seems to me that both sizes are talking out of their rectums. The left has gone too far left & the right has gone too far right. But if you want to see a place that is completely controlled by democrats, go live in Massachusetts for a few years… What a friggin nightmare!
Posted by: Bill in NH | June 24, 2005 01:07 PM
AMAZING! Rove mentions LIBERALS and "Moveon.org" by name, and all you machine democrats get up in arms. How typical. Read your own posts here, it realy sounds like you're hoping for a terrorist victory n Iraq if it hurts Bush.
WHAT, many of you are saying that. So what is your problem with Rove's statments, they seem to refelct most of you here on the left.
Posted by: Don McD | June 24, 2005 01:08 PM
Rove only spoke the truth. Ted Kennedy, Chucky Schummer, Boxer, Durbin are triators!!!!!!!
Posted by: Jasinacus | June 24, 2005 01:08 PM
Bravo to Rove for telling it like it is. Howard Dean, Richard Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and the others have undermined the President at a time of war and made themselves look like horses behinds. Then again, this is common for the left.
Posted by: Conservative | June 24, 2005 01:08 PM
Don't Cry - Laugh at the poor bastard.
And go get some icecream - its Friday -you deserve it.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 01:09 PM
A family therapist once told us that the conservatives were the first ones in line at the abortion clinic when their daughters are pregnant. He should know, they are his clients and this is a frequent topic. While I'm asking, how many of you people truly do what jesus would do? How many of you have adopted a child of color or a child with a disability? How many of you have tried in vitro fertilization where many fertilized eggs(a life by your standards) are rejected by the uterine wall. those viable lives are going down the toilet. every fertilized egg that doesn't take is grounds for murder by your standards. I am a moderate and I believe in individual rights above all things. Do not impose your values on others and judge not, lest ye be judged.
Posted by: notafanofbush | June 24, 2005 01:09 PM
Americans should not question the President because he is leading the fight on War on Terror. He is trying the best he can!
Posted by: CodBlessAmerica | June 24, 2005 01:10 PM
I agree with whoever said that the were defending their ideoliogy and freedom to live the life that they wanted to live in a free America. That person (God Bless Him) has a good point. We believe in a free soceity where people can think and live as they like. Othret society's are not as free. For example, I know for a fact that if you are dirving a car in France, there are places where you have give the right of way to walkers. Not true in this Country (except in some places).
The point is that Our soldiers have a right to attack terrorists who wish to take away our freedom, even if that means defending our right to not stop for a walker. (There are consequences, however, if you hurt someone! Don't forget the Ten Commandments.)
American is a place where I can be free to choose how I wish to live. Are you going to lose that to terrorists? The Democrats can't seem to decide. The Republicans know which side they are on and want to preserve their freedoms, whether that means how to drive, or other choices we all make.
God gave us the freedom to choose. A terrorist cannot take it away. I believe in my heart that the President is truly commited to fight against the terrorists. Are you?
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 01:10 PM
Good for you, "Commonsense". I do believe in the America I love. I want it back whether in Republican or Democratic hands. I don't really care which as long as "America's" Constitutional values are upheld.
Posted by: americansfortruth | June 24, 2005 01:11 PM
I believe your family therapist just as much as I believe John Kerry really had a plan.
Your comments about adoption and invitro are just plane stupid.
Posted by: Conservative | June 24, 2005 01:12 PM
The remarks by Karl Rove are typical of the members of the administration who never put on a uniform (or when they did it was to fly obsolete planes for a weekend a month). I'm sure that like Dick Cheney, they had better things to do with their time. As a retired Army Ranger, I'm deeply offended by these people and their despicable ideology. This the same nonsense that was force fed to the public during the Vietnam War. It is time for the American public to show how patriotic they truly are and stage a new revolution to restore the United States to the ideals that we are obliged to uphold.
Oh and Karl, you do not received the Order of the Purple Heart for sticking your foot in your mouth. SHUT UP!!!!! (For the record, I have 2 Purple Hearts which I'm proud of). The same goes for Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter and those other right wing spoiled brat mouthpieces who have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
D.R. RANGERS LEAD THE WAY!
Posted by: AngryVietVet | June 24, 2005 01:12 PM
So, let me get this straight...no Democrats or liberals are fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq? You mean, there aren't any Democrats or liberals in the US Military? Or that no Democrats or Liberals died in the attacks of September 11? Karl Rove...puhlease...
1. Downing Street Memo 2. Bush's poll numbers at their lowest. 3. Only 27% of Americans support his Social Security privatization plan. 4. More than half of Americans now think that going to Iraq was a mistake. 5. The VA announced that they're short $1 billion.
Those of you have proudly stick a "Support the troops bumper sticker" on your car, do you know how many troops have come back amputated, severely disfigured, or with permanent health problems? What have you done to "support the troops"? Lets not forget that every single Republican in the Senate, except for Arlen Spector, voted against the Murray Amendment which would have increased funding to the VA by over $1 billion. Republicans supporting the troops? Prove it.
If I recall, Rove never fought for this country or risked his life fighting for our freedoms. In fact, more Democrats in Congress have served in the military than Republicans.
This is just getting absolutely ridiculous. What good has this administration done for America?
Posted by: I'm an American! | June 24, 2005 01:13 PM
When has Rove EVER told it"like it" is?
I mean from a reality perspective your as funny as Rev Tom
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 01:14 PM
>>I do believe in the America I love. I want it back whether in Republican or Democratic hands. I don't really care which as long as "America's" Constitutional values are upheld.<<
Good luck with that. We've given up so much since 911 we may never get it back. Now our homes can be taken away by Wal-Mart.
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 01:14 PM
I have more bad news for Republicans and their blind faith: 9/11 happened because we stuck our nose in Kuwait. That was an oil war,and so is this one.
Saddam Hussein is a thug - Idi Amin was FAR worse. We didn't "liberate" Uganda because they don't sit on trillions of gallons of crude.
I will keep saying this: Iraq is an oil war,and the troops are paying for it in advance,with blood.
Posted by: mgottlieb | June 24, 2005 01:14 PM
If Bush believes so strongly that the war in Iraq is important to all Americans why aren't his nieces and nephews over there fighting it? I see Billy Bush on Entertainment tonight feeding the at the Hollywood trough. He's fighting age. This war is being fought by reservists and people with no options. Ask the military recruiters how many kids they sign up from St. Albans or Philips Exeter.
Posted by: notafanofbush | June 24, 2005 01:15 PM
"when will wasp, jw, and father tom enlist?"
Exactly. And don't forget to add kelly to the list. I'd love to see these war mongers all enlist and help the cause. Recruitement is way down you know, enlist NOW...
Posted by: kellyisatwat | June 24, 2005 01:16 PM
Here is a reality check for you. Can you name a republican congressman or senator who is being used to headline Al Jazeera?
Most Libs do feel exactly the way Karl described. It is a shame.
Posted by: Conservative | June 24, 2005 01:16 PM
I see Dead Kittens!!!...............There's another one!!
Posted by: Cynic | June 24, 2005 01:17 PM
Let's take a poll--how many think Father Tom was putting us on, and how many think he's for real?
Posted by: cabinjohn | June 24, 2005 01:17 PM
Hmmmm, can't decide if "Codblessamerica" is a joke or another typo??
Posted by: americansfortruth | June 24, 2005 01:17 PM
notafanofbush-Why are you here BSing the this site on not over there on the frontlines??
Posted by: JP | June 24, 2005 01:17 PM
All rights rest on the most basic right which seldom gets mentioned - to understand what is really going on, read George Orwell. Our press has lost its integrity. That decays all freedoms, which originate with the freedom to think independently based on objective information.
Posted by: harlock | June 24, 2005 01:18 PM
"when will wasp, jw, and father tom enlist? i'm waiting..."
Hmm...that'll happen about, say, 6 years ago. Dumb ass.
Not sure how I get grouped with those two though.
Posted by: jw | June 24, 2005 01:18 PM
If I recall, didn't Al Jeezera constantly play Bush's incredulous remarks "Bring Em On!!!!!!".... yeah, that's not inciting terrorists..
Posted by: I'm an American! | June 24, 2005 01:18 PM
Carl Rove is keeping true to his title: Strategist Extraordinaire! Ah, the good old department of dirty tricks lives on, thanks to Rove! The Democrats have no idea how to behave like the Republicans, for they lack that grip-on-the-throttle approach for control.
Posted by: JES | June 24, 2005 01:19 PM
AVV, Right on man! You've got it nailed - th enew revolution - it's coming - just REALLY slow picking up steam - it will happen - its a complacency issue, sort of a couch potatoe syndrome for social obligation.
It will happen. The pendulum has already started it's return swing.
Posted by: Commonsense | June 24, 2005 01:19 PM
We stuck our nose in Kuwait? Please.
You are a typical Liberal. Blame America for everything. I guess those poor Kuwati's who were killed, raped, kidnapped or dismembered did not deserve Liberation.
Posted by: Conservative | June 24, 2005 01:19 PM
Carl Rove is keeping true to his title: Strategist Extraordinaire! Ah, the good old department of dirty tricks lives on, thanks to Rove! The Democrats have no idea how to behave like the Republicans, for they lack that grip-on-the-throttle approach for control.
Posted by: JES | June 24, 2005 01:20 PM
The Democrats have been tripping over themselves this year to shed the liberal label and paint themselves as moderates for the next election.
You have gotta love it, he got all these Democrats to agree together (all at once) that they are all personally offended as the aforementioned liberals. ...Played them like a fiddle if you ask me.
A smarter, honest and moderate minded Dem would have said, "who is Karl talking about, certainly not me?!"
Posted by: Richeyrich | June 24, 2005 01:22 PM
plane stupid? hmmm... obviously a fan of bush.
Go ask the Italian goverment about their policy on in-vitro. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jun/02061201.html You moronic conservatives can put another plank in the campaign platform for 2008.
Posted by: notafanofbush | June 24, 2005 01:22 PM
To whoever said that I think I know the truth. You are wrong.
I said that The truth lies in Jesus's word (or the Word of God -- you're pick!). Just because the Billof Rights is a great book does not mean that it is the truth. That is up to God.
I think the problem here is that people are blinding themselve to the real issue which is whether The President should be criticized for doing God's work. Now, don't get me wrong. God is against killing, of that I am sure. But, he does say that if someone takes your eye, then that person must give you his eye to replace it. To me that seems only fair, which is obvious because God is the Great Judge, and therefore must be fair.
Lesson: if a terrorist attacks one of our buildings, then he has to give us one of his buildings. This thing has gotten totally out of control, however. Too many buildings have been lost. That is not the President's fault, however. He has many important things to worry about. Someone should count the buildings and then we can decide.
God Bless America and our President.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 01:23 PM
Once again, Libs look to the norms of another country to set the standard for their own.
Posted by: Conservative | June 24, 2005 01:24 PM
If this type of government bashing and military bashing were to have taken place during WWII, all of us would be speaking German right now. The fanatical wack jobs being held at Guantanamo Bay would cut your heads off in a second. You call what we're doing to the people being held in Guantanamo Bay as abuse. I guess putting panties on someone's head is the equivalant of chopping someone's head off. We need someone like Karl Rove to shut up these lunatic Senators who constantly condemn the military and are basically supporting our enemy.
Posted by: NotAfanOfLiberals | June 24, 2005 01:24 PM
In fact, Clinton tried to go after bin Laden and the Republican controlled congress would not let him follow the money and wanted to protect "off-shore tax haven's" becuase in Phil Gramm's opinion the American people deserve to get the lowest possible tax rate wherever they can. Not for nothing but, I don't know any poor or middle class people who have enough money to hide it offshore to avoid paying taxes. In fact, Clinton's hands were tied by the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY that spent $70 million dollars of taxpayer money to expose that this man had an extramarital affair. Nice work. When the Repugs accused Clinton of trying to distract the American people from his troubles when he wanted to go in after Osama, intelligence officials when the the Hill to discuss the growing problem of Osama bin Laden. The Repugs wanted none of it and said there was no reason they couldn't move forward with the impeachment hearings. It was not Clinton who was not paying attention, it was the Repugs who could not be destracted from trying to distroy a man merely because they despised him. Apparently Repugs make no mistakes and are never wrong...even when they are wrong.
Posted by: bichn | June 24, 2005 01:24 PM
Didn't the polls indicate last year over and over that most Americans thought Conservative Bush would be tougher on terrorism than Liberal Kerry?
Posted by: trex | June 24, 2005 01:24 PM
Is this Father Tom character for real? Or is he a 3rd grade student? That is exactly what he sounds like-can't think his way out of a wet paper sack.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 01:24 PM
Posted by: Rama Patel | June 24, 2005 01:27 PM
Hey Father Tom, I defend your right to not use spell check, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Here's how it is. No one, including Republicans folks, gets to get away with saying that people who disagree with them are with the terrorists. I have met all kinds of people with all kinds of ideas about God, Govt, and the "War on Terror", and none of them, not a single one (and this includes straight up Birkenstock wearing, no armpit shaving Liberals), has ever sided with the terrorists or sympathized with them. The Al Queda creeps may have a legitimate beef with our foreign policy, but ultimately they are totally out of their gourds. Saying the US has done deplorable things to move itself through history is unfortunately true. However, it doesn't mean I love terrorism for saying that. I loved it when Chomsky got into the argument with the French guy who couldn't understand the idea of free speech. It means you can speak freely about damn near anything without fear of the man coming down on you. No one has to agree with what you say, but you still have the right to say it. And believe me Father Tom, that right is a good one, and it's also worth fighting for. Rove is free to say whatever he likes too, and so is everyone else in here. That's how it goes. Freedom is ugly business, but it beats the alternative. Let's not find ourselves in it.
Posted by: Blicero | June 24, 2005 01:27 PM
I think its clear that we are all united against terrorism in the strongest terms- then everything else IS debatable FYI the Durbin apology quickly followed on the heels of another Democrat from his state, one Richard Daley called him out for using senatese silly/inappropriate hyperbole. After all Daley's son enlisted a few months back.
Posted by: Lory | June 24, 2005 01:28 PM
I guess only conservatives serve in the U.S. Military? There have been over 50,000 U.S. Medical Evacuations from Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. I guess they were all conservatives. Do our troops take an oath to protect George Bush or an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC? I am neither left or right, a conservative or a liberal. I'm a citizen of the United States In America, which used to be the greatest Nation in the history of the world. Welcome To The 4th Reich, onward to Iran Christian Zionist Soldiers.
Posted by: crusader bunnypants | June 24, 2005 01:28 PM
> Good luck with that. We've given up so much since 911 we may never get it back. Now our homes can be taken away by Wal-Mart.
Hmm...yeah. And here it's being blamed on liberalism: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301420.html
Oh, I have just strayed 20 lightyears from the Rove silliness. No matter..
Posted by: El Tonno | June 24, 2005 01:28 PM
How come nobody told me that we became Italians?? When the hell did that happen?? Guess that doesn't matter because they are at war in Iraq too......
Posted by: JP | June 24, 2005 01:28 PM
I would like to see all of the summer interns at the Heritage Foundation,sign up for the military.
They talk a good game,but they really are in basic training as drug company lobbyists.
How many are going to die,be maimed or come back psyco cases before we say "enough'? There weren't any weapons - end of discussion.
Posted by: mgottlieb | June 24, 2005 01:28 PM
One correction. I think that when we count buildings, we should not lump houses into the same category as office buildings, which are obviously bigger.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 01:30 PM
Father Tom, I lived /worked in Saudi Arabia for 25 years. Your statments and diatribes read EXACTLY like those of Islamic Fundamentalists. You may "think" you are right - and that God chose Bush, but there are many in the world who believe the exact opposite - that Bush is the devil. I don't believe either but have learned that those with your blinded beliefs are what is threatening our freedoms, not protecting them! Go ahead and delude yourself, it's obvious that no facts would ever sway you - anymore than for those Islamic fundamentalists.
Posted by: americansfortruth | June 24, 2005 01:30 PM
Hey Greg...eights years of peace and prosperity too much for you?!
Posted by: RC | June 24, 2005 01:32 PM
>>>The Geneva Convention did a fair job of describing how POWs should be treated. We are not in violation as far I know. If I'm wrong, then I'll re-evaluate my position. However, the violations will have to be substantiated by more than simple wailing and gnashing of teeth. - Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 01:06 PM <<<<
Mac, read or go and listen to Seymour Hersh (New Yorker Magazine). Hersh broke the Abu Ghraib story (in the States). Remember the day Senators were allowed to take a peek at some of the DVDs and photographs from Abu Ghraib that haven't been made public yet? A number of them came out white, green, and visibly shaken. Now why was that? I have no idea, but Seymour does. He's written and spoken about what's to come (and come out).
I wouldn't worry about anything as staid as the Geneva Convention if I were you, or about the UN or the Red Cross "bitching" about 'torture', or, as you so gently put it, "We are not in violation as far I know." I suggest you get your head out of that dark place it's so into it thinks that's sunshine coming down its way, and practise some wailing and gnashing of teeth because, despite the Pentagon's "heroic" defensive efforts, information is a lot like life, it just wants to be free, and what Seymour and others have written and spoken about, and what some of the senators reputedly saw and heard was us (as in U.S. us) soldiers raping some Iraqi women and children in Abu Ghraib. What creeped them out were not the visuals, but the nerve-scraping whines and the screams. When the DVD gets out or is outed I guess you'll "re-evaluate" your position and, perhaps, even wait for the trials (if any) before you figure it out: what's happening there is happening in our name, in YOUR name, in my name, etc, regardless of how much "evaluation" 'we' have to do.
Posted by: Re-Evaluate | June 24, 2005 01:33 PM
God did not put Bush in the White House. He is there to represent the people of this country (no matter what their religion or political party). If he wants to do God's work he should resign and become a minister. And as far as the eye-for-an-eye comment, OSAMA BIN LADEN IS NOT IN IRAQ!!!!!!!
You will never make me believe that God would want the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. I will also never believe that he would approve of any kind of discrimination for any reason.
If God had actually put Bush in the White House, he would have been FIRED long ago!!!!
Posted by: bichn | June 24, 2005 01:33 PM
i enjoy each day seeing the liberal left digging themselves into deeper and deeper holes by their actions and words. not only have the dem party been taken over by leftist whackjobs, the dem party has also lost touch with the vast majority of american people. the dems have no plans of their own, just lame criticism and personal attacks. its no wonder republicans hold the majority now.
Posted by: Paul | June 24, 2005 01:33 PM
I think he was correct. Democrats run around screaming about stuff that puts our own troops in danger. They should keep their mouths shut so that the stupidity of their remarks stops burdening all of our ears, and killing American soldiers.
Posted by: elementskater | June 24, 2005 01:33 PM
if there is only one thing manifestly clear to republicans, democrats and independents alike, it is this simple truth: the political process in the united states is not perfect. however, we all enjoy the freedoms provided by the sacrifice of generations of men and women before us, including the right to express our opinions without fear of government reprisals. people fought and died so we could all have a say in how our government is run. it is sad that most political debate is no longer concerned with finding common ground to serve as a starting point for resolving important issues. we have certainly lost our way from the path envisioned by our founding fathers.
Posted by: Michael | June 24, 2005 01:33 PM
Why does every discussion have to digress into Jesus and abortion? Frankly, those are two subjects at the bottom of my urgency list. This has nothing to do with that. Who cares?
Regarding Rove, yes, his comments were divisive, as were Sen. Reid's comments when he called the president an "idiot." It's tit-for-tat nonsense. But read what Rove said. He said "liberals," not necessarily "Democrats." It's funny that so many Democrats who go through great pains to paint themselves as "moderates" get so offended when someone calls out "liberals."
Plus, Rove's comments were made at a gathering of the New York Conservative Party. Go to any such partisan gathering, on the right or the left, and you'll find enough red meat to make a vegetarian vomit.
Compare this to Sen. Durbin's comments, which were made on the floor of the Senate, and you can see why this "outrage" is a little suspect. Pot, meet kettle.
I'm sorry, but I think this all is a lot of hot air about nothing. Ooh, Rove said something offensive about liberals and Democrats are offended...in other news, the sky's blue and water's wet. Perspective, people. Perspective.
Posted by: PG | June 24, 2005 01:34 PM
If you voted for Bush and support his war, put your "life" where your mouth is: enlist yourself, your kids or your grandkids. What better cannon fodder than young republicans?
Posted by: Bicycle Commuter | June 24, 2005 01:34 PM
Buckeye has completely lost his mind, forget 911 and iraq, oh and the workers comp scandal is some sort of brand new problem those programs have been scammed and abused since the beginning get a grip.ill pass you heart warming thoughts to my family fighting for your worthless existence. please relocate to california or NY thank you.
Posted by: Ohio Matt | June 24, 2005 01:34 PM
I'm MORE than happy to hear someone state what I've been thinking for years. Fact is, I realize that civil war is probally inevitable in the US in coming years. See all you left nuts on the battlefield!
Posted by: Liberals Are Losers | June 24, 2005 01:34 PM
the Italian soldiers I met were there reluctantly at best. as far as my not going to fight, I lost a leg to an IED in 04. you got both of yours?
Posted by: notafanofbush | June 24, 2005 01:35 PM
Durbin alleges that the US is like Hitler's Germany.
We are not Nazi's. This assertion is crystal clear.
Stop depending Durbin. He made a mistake and he has not apologized for saying it.
We are in the midst of stupid intellectuals.
Posted by: Conservative | June 24, 2005 01:37 PM
It is obvious that Father Tom is a committed member of the cwc, christians without christ, and as such cannot be constrained by Jesus' message to mankind. Remember the beautiful verse "Suffer the little children..."? It was the faithful core of the cwc that twisted that message into "Bugger the little children..." Forget Brotherly Love, the Sermon on The Mount and the Ten Commandments. The cwc has replaced them with their own moral concerns: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research and other social issues.Christ's message for those christians has now become a "yes,but" response to the teachings of the Bible and now, with GWB as their leader, they think that they have the power to act. This is where Father Tom and many other "Christians" seem to be: abortion is wrong but war is OK. Never mind the paradox. Trust me; somewhere in the Bible it says so.
Posted by: Dick Johnson | June 24, 2005 01:38 PM
Please don't this one vote.
"Americans should not question the President because he is leading the fight on War on Terror. He is trying the best he can! Posted by: CodBlessAmerica | June 24, 2005 01:10 PM"
Posted by: GalvestonIslander | June 24, 2005 01:40 PM
Father Tom and your coterie,like Rove:
Dr.Johnson defined patriotism as "The last refuge of a scoundrel."
Posted by: mgottlieb | June 24, 2005 01:40 PM
BRAVO!! 'I'm an American!' for telling it like it is!!!
Patriotic words back empty promises.
Why should the Republicans be scared of spending an extra $1 Billion Dollars to support our troops at home ??
They spend that much money for dental floss in Afghanistan!!!
Oh, right, I forgot. The Rich Americans who got tax cuts can't stand to see our government wih a budget deficit!!!
Now it all makes sense!!!
Posted by: I Love Greenday! | June 24, 2005 01:41 PM
To the person who said that everyone was against the terrorists. I agree. But now people are against The President too. How ccan that be? Example: if I have open my umbrella while the wind is blowing south, I must point it north or the umbrella will fold inside out. Both cannot be going in the same direction or disaster!
Same thing here. Supporting the President and the repbublicns is like holding firmly to your umbrella when it is windy outside. Make sure you point toward the wind, though, or else! Seems to me that the Democrats and liberals want to turn away from the wind! This doesnt make sense. for one you will get very wet from the rain.
Lesson: Two things that are going against each other means that one thing must win out. I believe that if we support our President, then we will win.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 01:41 PM
Please don't let this one vote.
"Americans should not question the President because he is leading the fight on War on Terror. He is trying the best he can! Posted by: CodBlessAmerica | June 24, 2005 01:10 PM"
Posted by: GalvestonIslander | June 24, 2005 01:42 PM
Good Lord. I just read every single post made to this thread, and I can't believe how far we've all gone off the rails as a country. What the hell happened? George W. Bush capitalized on a horrifying tragedy in order to accomplish things the far right has dreamed of for decades. The entire ship of state is off course. He's dying to dismantle our extremely paltry social safety net, and with such a stranglehold on things, he'll probably get his way again. Has anyone ever told him "no" in his life?
But what's dominating the news? Name-calling silliness. George W. Bush and his ideological cronies are destroying the country. Look at yourselves in the mirror and ask honestly, are you really better off now than you were in 2000? I'm not. My friends and I, the college class of 2002, were the first class of new graduates to have to contend with the George W. Bush war economy. It's not pretty. Lots of us still live with our parents because we can't find work that pays enough for us to get our own places. We did everything right. We went to school, got our degrees, helped our neighbors, and our reward is all of this. It's so demoralizing. It's enough to make you want to throw yourself off a bridge, and that's not exaggeration.
God help this country and its citizens. Somehow, we'll get through this, but who knows what we'll have when it's over? All you neo-cons out there, who wouldn't know patriotism if it bit you on the nose, wake up. You're destroying your own futures. 2008 can't come soon enough, unless they change the Constitution to keep Bush in office forever. These days, nothing surprises me.
Posted by: tired and sad | June 24, 2005 01:42 PM
LOL... Clinton tried to go after Bin Ladin?? Clinton pi$$ed down his leg at the thought of stirring that pot, even after it was confirmed that OBL was involved in the twin towers attack of '93! Oh, and BTW, YES, I am a conservative, and YES, I am a retired Gulf War Veteran, and YES, I think we should have kicked Saddam's A$$ the first time we were there and then none of this would be an issue.
The U.N. sucks, and we need to kick them out of NY and send them to Paris for there new home. Then the corruption can at least be accomplished without running up such a big long distance bill.
Posted by: Amer-I-Can | June 24, 2005 01:42 PM
I stand corrected notafanofbush. My apologies. I have the upmost respect for this country's soldiers. Yes I have both legs. But I have had 4 knee surgeries and an an ankle surgery since I got ran over by a left lib after an argument at the bar. I have talked to military personnel and now that my leg cannot be relied on and I have been genetically blessed with blindness, I can't go fight other than sitting in an office. But I am sorry and I thank you.
Posted by: JP | June 24, 2005 01:42 PM
I find it absolutely amazing that everyone is so focused on how Durbin's comments are supposedly hurting our men and women in uniform -- as if the acts of torture and homicide (yes, the Pentagon estimates either 26 or 27 detainees have died in custody as the result of homicide) are somehow lost on the rest of the world. They're not. In trying to keep tabs on my brother in Iraq -- because our flipping media can't be bothered to actually cover the war worth a damn -- I've come across any number of moderate to raving lunatic Arab and Islamist Web sites. Believe me, nothing Durbin says could matter in the least to them. They knew about Abu Ghraib long before we did, and they abound with conspiracy theories that leave no doubt as to the degree to which they hate Americans.
But the thing is, it didn't have to be this way. Had we managed the occupation intelligently we could have truly convinced the world that our intention really was to rid the world of a tyrant, whatever the real reasons were. But what does the world see? They see an Iraq where the Prime Minister is the head of a former Islamist terrorist organization and the Oil Minister is the alleged pro_Iranian spy Chalabi. They see us defending torture and even homicide in Gitmo, and recall that we released 80% of the Abu Ghraib detainees because we tacitly agreed with the Red Cross in their estimate that by far the majority of Abu Ghraib detainees were probably innocent. They recall that the same people who executed this war were the ones that supported Saddam at his worst. And they see us unable to reconstruct Iraq while spending $2 billion on a new embassy and untold billions on "enduring" military bases.
And Durbin is our PR problem? I don't think so. In fact, I doubt anyone outside the US media bubble COULD think so.
Posted by: Rover | June 24, 2005 01:44 PM
Osama Bin Laden and weapons of mass destruction. Both never existed. Why? Because we can't find either one.
Knowing for sure they are not in an easily deployable location in Iraq is useful to strategic planners. Everyone has hindsight and thinks they are a brilliant international strategist. Discussion not over...
Posted by: Richard | June 24, 2005 01:44 PM
To whoever said that The President is the Devil. You are wrong. Everyone know that the devil is red and has horns and enjoys hot places. The President goes running in Washington, D.C. That's true. But he does not have horns or even goat bumps. Therefore, your argument is wrong.
Shouldn't we be focusing on the main issue here which is counting the buildings?
God Bless American, Freedom, and So on.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 01:45 PM
> If this type of government bashing and > military bashing were to have taken place > during WWII, all of us would be speaking > German right now.
Improbable. Do not forget that Japan attacked (while the US spooks messed up *bigtime*) and that Hitler declared war (silly ass).
You probably would need a Soviet Visa to go to Paris and the US would have good trade relations with the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. China cannot be found on a map.
Posted by: El Tonno | June 24, 2005 01:45 PM
Osama Bin Laden and weapons of mass destruction. Both never existed. Why? Because we can't find either one.
Knowing for sure they are not in an easily deployable location in Iraq is useful to strategic planners. Everyone has hindsight and thinks they are a brilliant international strategist. Discussion not over...
Posted by: Richard | June 24, 2005 01:45 PM
Carl Rove apologize for pointing out Al-Jeezera prints what idiotic Senators say that adds fuel to an enemies fire? The appearence of an un-United States. Huh, they might be right. Oh well, tough camel dung..from another arrogant ugly American.
Posted by: Joeschmo | June 24, 2005 01:46 PM
Bush is a great man. He stuck it to Saddam because (well im not exaclty sure why) but he did stick it to him. Iraq was mocking us every second so why shouldn't we start a war.
And come on if these democrat/liberals would just stop talking then the enemy would defiantly stop killing our boys and girls. I dont see why everyone cant see that.
Posted by: ilovebush | June 24, 2005 01:46 PM
Change Rove's comments about "liberals" (which assumes "all liberals") to "most liberals", and then tell me how what he said is wrong. There has been a lack of support from the Democrats in the war on terror and an even greater lack of ideas.
The Democrats role in the war on terror so far has been to criticize the Republicans handling of the war on terror.
Posted by: Keith | June 24, 2005 01:46 PM
>>Hmm...yeah. And here it's being blamed on liberalism: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301420.html
Yeah I read that too. I looked up the results:
It can be interpreted any way you like. All the Democrat appointees voted to allow cities to grab any land they please, and re-sell it to the highest bidder. Some republicans voted for it and some against it - a balanced split.
I choose to believe that for the most part these justices voted based on their beliefs - not blind loyalty to some political party. I also believe those who voted FOR it have done the American people a grave injustice - regardless of the party of the politician who nominated them.
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 01:47 PM
>>Hmm...yeah. And here it's being blamed on liberalism: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301420.html
Yeah I read that too. I looked up the results:
It can be interpreted any way you like. All the Democrat appointees voted to allow cities to grab any land they please, and re-sell it to the highest bidder. Some republicans voted for it and some against it - a balanced split.
I choose to believe that for the most part these justices voted based on their beliefs - not blind loyalty to some political party. I also believe those who voted FOR it have done the American people a grave injustice - regardless of the party of the politician who nominated them.
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 01:47 PM
ilovebush... Thanks for the stir.....
Posted by: Amer-I-Can | June 24, 2005 01:49 PM
liberals to the 9/11 attacks would be funny, if it so many innocent people were not dying because of a grudge Bush has against Hussain. His remarks are telling me he believes republicans are in the last throes of losing the 2006 midterm elections. That means he looks like a guy who’s desperate. The president had full support of Americans, and most of the world, after 9/11. It is his misguided invasion of Iraq that divided Americans, and has turned most of the world against us. We now know from a recent poll many foreigner’s have a more favorable view of the Chinese government then our own! Conservative’s policies have done little to diminish the number of people who hate America; rather their policies have bread greater numbers of terrorists. These sorts of facts are what are causing American’s to rethink the wisdom of conservative’s policies. It’s really that simple. For political reasons republican’s want to make it complicated. Karl’s comments illustrate why Osama remains alive and now the CIA tells us Bush has created more terrorists. I don’t anticipate an apology , I anticipate falling poll number for our Dear Leader.
Posted by: Alba | June 24, 2005 01:50 PM
Father Tom- If you'll refer to your Bible, I believe you'll find the "eye for an eye" bit in the Old Testament. Seems like Jesus overturned that by emphasizing forgiveness and "turning the other cheek." Better brush up on your scripture there a bit, padre.
Posted by: whonose | June 24, 2005 01:51 PM
in defense of the GENEVA convention--no one has yet confirmed that AMERICA has violated it's terms.
be-that-as-it-may, the evidence is mounting and it's incumbent upon the conventions enforcers to investigate and take action lest they are accused of being complacent themselves.
either we'll abide by one set of laws--or we will abide by none.
Posted by: nunatak | June 24, 2005 01:52 PM
>LOL... >Clinton tried to go after Bin Ladin?? >Clinton pi$$ed down his leg at the thought >of stirring that pot, even after it was >confirmed that OBL was involved in the >twin towers attack of '93!
Dear Sir, may I direct you here:
> YES, I think we should have kicked > Saddam's A$$ the first time we were there
Agreed. Cheaper that way too.
> and then none of this would be an issue.
Posted by: El Tonno | June 24, 2005 01:52 PM
Hmm. Karl Rove did not accuse Democrats of anything. He attacked liberals. I find it interesting that Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid and other leading Democrats are complaining, because they often style themselves as centrists and moderates (and I used to believe them!) But if they're getting upset about Karl Rove personally attacking far-Left liberals, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude the people getting offended are far-Left liberals. That would mean thT Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid are all far-Left liberals. I really thought they were moderates.
Now I don't trust them anymore.
Posted by: Moderate Independent | June 24, 2005 01:52 PM
In WASP's diatribe, he missed the two flings by George HW Bush. Two in his four years while Bill only had one in his eight years. I'm only trying to help WASP and save him from rewriting history.
Posted by: Larry Elden | June 24, 2005 01:52 PM
I cornered Rove the other day. You read it here first!
Karl Rove: You want answers? Monkey:I think I'm entitled to them. Rove: You want answers? Monkey: I want the truth! Rove: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago (I'm assuming one of those Muslim names) and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Posted by: alternativemonkeystrikesback | June 24, 2005 01:53 PM
Hmm. Karl Rove did not accuse Democrats of anything. He attacked liberals. I find it interesting that Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid and other leading Democrats are complaining, because they often style themselves as centrists and moderates (and I used to believe them!) But if they're getting upset about Karl Rove personally attacking far-Left liberals, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude the people getting offended are far-Left liberals. That would mean thT Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid are all far-Left liberals. I really thought they were moderates.
Now I don't trust them anymore.
Posted by: Moderate Independent | June 24, 2005 01:53 PM
I am not very religious; however, I think that ALL religions have their pro's and con's. I also believe that Jesus would want individuals to think for themselves. The president is just another citizen. There are plenty of citizens who love Jesus. Why should we follow one of the many who love Jesus?
The world is not just black and white. I think Jesus would appreciate it if you started thinking for yourself rather than blindly following another human.
Posted by: gringobonk | June 24, 2005 01:53 PM
Osama Bin Laden and weapons of mass destruction. Both never existed. Why? Because we can't find either one.
Knowing for sure they are not in an easily deployable location in Iraq is useful to strategic planners. Everyone has hindsight and thinks they are a brilliant international strategist. Discussion not over...
Posted by: Richard | June 24, 2005 01:53 PM
It's been 1,376 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'
Usama bin Laden died of kidney failure in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan!
"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring -- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.
0 WMDS in IRAQ 1,730? U.S. Troops Killed "in" Iraq 50,000 Medical Evacuations 112,000 Iraqis Killed By "smart" bombs $300,000,000,000.00+
The US Goverenment and its corporate state media lied to start an illegal war of conquest. USA! USA! USA!
Long live the 4th Reich, I give it a few months.
Posted by: Maldoror | June 24, 2005 01:54 PM
I've been reading everyone's posts and these posts seems to suggest that we have some kind of power to change what is happening in this country. Unfortunately I think the US of today is not the country we once were or will ever be again, and I don't think there is much that can be done about it. The level of lies and dishonesty at the highest levels of government in this bush administration, as well as the degree of pandering to the wealthiest few has changed US into a country mad with greed and power. In my lifetime both Kennedy's were assasinated, by who??? That magic bullet theory, lone assassin theory (JFK) is ridiculous, then we get Nixon whose idea of a "dirty trick" is to burglarize the DNC, and now fast forward to bush. I think it's over for democracy in the US. Besides the horror of the 2000 election we now have voting computers that can be rigged. All it takes, on the national level is to rig a few voting districts in a couple of state. I believe the power and greed at the top of the republican party knows no boundry. I don't think we will ever have another honest election and the US is disintegrating. One does not have to look too far into the history of nations to see that the power-mad and greedy at the top of governments have destoyed countries for generations. I think we are at the tipping point now. The dishonesty rampant in this administration has turned the US upside down. I believe there are plenty of honest republicans but I also believe few of them have the time to really think about what is happening. Karl Rove will do his best to make sure of that. Bush thinks God is guiding his decisions, Cheney is banking millions from Halliburton, Rumsfeld thinks if he clicks his heels together and says "I do believe" then things in Iraq will go well. The list goes on and on.
Posted by: wish it weren't so | June 24, 2005 01:54 PM
>>Hmm...yeah. And here it's being blamed on liberalism: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301420.html
Yeah I read that too. I looked up the results:
It can be interpreted any way you like. All the Democrat appointees voted to allow cities to grab any land they please, and re-sell it to the highest bidder. Some republicans voted for it and some against it - a balanced split.
I choose to believe that for the most part these justices voted based on their beliefs - not blind loyalty to some political party. I also believe those who voted FOR it have done the American people a grave injustice - regardless of the party of the politician who nominated them.
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 01:54 PM
I cornered Rove the other day. You read it here first!
Karl Rove: You want answers? Monkey:I think I'm entitled to them. Rove: You want answers? Monkey: I want the truth! Rove: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago (I'm assuming one of those Muslim names) and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Posted by: alternativemonkeystrikesback | June 24, 2005 01:55 PM
I've been reading everyone's posts and these posts seems to suggest that we have some kind of power to change what is happening in this country. Unfortunately I think the US of today is not the country we once were or will ever be again, and I don't think there is much that can be done about it. The level of lies and dishonesty at the highest levels of government in this bush administration, as well as the degree of pandering to the wealthiest few has changed US into a country mad with greed and power. In my lifetime both Kennedy's were assasinated, by who??? That magic bullet theory, lone assassin theory (JFK) is ridiculous, then we get Nixon whose idea of a "dirty trick" is to burglarize the DNC, and now fast forward to bush. I think it's over for democracy in the US. Besides the horror of the 2000 election we now have voting computers that can be rigged. All it takes, on the national level is to rig a few voting districts in a couple of state. I believe the power and greed at the top of the republican party knows no boundry. I don't think we will ever have another honest election and the US is disintegrating. One does not have to look too far into the history of nations to see that the power-mad and greedy at the top of governments have destoyed countries for generations. I think we are at the tipping point now. The dishonesty rampant in this administration has turned the US upside down. I believe there are plenty of honest republicans but I also believe few of them have the time to really think about what is happening. Karl Rove will do his best to make sure of that. Bush thinks God is guiding his decisions, Cheney is banking millions from Halliburton, Rumsfeld thinks if he clicks his heels together and says "I do believe" then things in Iraq will go well. The list goes on and on.
Posted by: wish it weren't so | June 24, 2005 01:55 PM
I've been reading everyone's posts and these posts seems to suggest that we have some kind of power to change what is happening in this country. Unfortunately I think the US of today is not the country we once were or will ever be again, and I don't think there is much that can be done about it. The level of lies and dishonesty at the highest levels of government in this bush administration, as well as the degree of pandering to the wealthiest few has changed US into a country mad with greed and power. In my lifetime both Kennedy's were assasinated, by who??? That magic bullet theory, lone assassin theory (JFK) is ridiculous, then we get Nixon whose idea of a "dirty trick" is to burglarize the DNC, and now fast forward to bush. I think it's over for democracy in the US. Besides the horror of the 2000 election we now have voting computers that can be rigged. All it takes, on the national level is to rig a few voting districts in a couple of state. I believe the power and greed at the top of the republican party knows no boundry. I don't think we will ever have another honest election and the US is disintegrating. One does not have to look too far into the history of nations to see that the power-mad and greedy at the top of governments have destoyed countries for generations. I think we are at the tipping point now. The dishonesty rampant in this administration has turned the US upside down. I believe there are plenty of honest republicans but I also believe few of them have the time to really think about what is happening. Karl Rove will do his best to make sure of that. Bush thinks God is guiding his decisions, Cheney is banking millions from Halliburton, Rumsfeld thinks if he clicks his heels together and says "I do believe" then things in Iraq will go well. The list goes on and on.
Posted by: wish it weren't so | June 24, 2005 01:55 PM
I've been reading everyone's posts and these posts seems to suggest that we have some kind of power to change what is happening in this country. Unfortunately I think the US of today is not the country we once were or will ever be again, and I don't think there is much that can be done about it. The level of lies and dishonesty at the highest levels of government in this bush administration, as well as the degree of pandering to the wealthiest few has changed US into a country mad with greed and power. In my lifetime both Kennedy's were assasinated, by who??? That magic bullet theory, lone assassin theory (JFK) is ridiculous, then we get Nixon whose idea of a "dirty trick" is to burglarize the DNC, and now fast forward to bush. I think it's over for democracy in the US. Besides the horror of the 2000 election we now have voting computers that can be rigged. All it takes, on the national level is to rig a few voting districts in a couple of state. I believe the power and greed at the top of the republican party knows no boundry. I don't think we will ever have another honest election and the US is disintegrating. One does not have to look too far into the history of nations to see that the power-mad and greedy at the top of governments have destoyed countries for generations. I think we are at the tipping point now. The dishonesty rampant in this administration has turned the US upside down. I believe there are plenty of honest republicans but I also believe few of them have the time to really think about what is happening. Karl Rove will do his best to make sure of that. Bush thinks God is guiding his decisions, Cheney is banking millions from Halliburton, Rumsfeld thinks if he clicks his heels together and says "I do believe" then things in Iraq will go well. The list goes on and on.
Posted by: wish it weren't so | June 24, 2005 01:55 PM
Change Rove's comments about "liberals" (which assumes "all liberals") to "most liberals", and then tell me how what he said is wrong. There has been a lack of support from the Democrats in the war on terror and an even greater lack of ideas.
The Democrats role in the war on terror so far has been to criticize the Republicans handling of the war on terror.
Posted by: Keith | June 24, 2005 01:55 PM
Hey Alba, I find it interesting that the only real push back that we have received has been from nations with dictators, or the major players in the corrupt oil for food scandal. Hmmmmm.... I guess the 36 countries that support us, still to this day, don't really count since they seem to be disregarded so regularly.
Posted by: Amer-I-Can | June 24, 2005 01:56 PM
The problem isn't so much the "look over here" antics of Rove, but the whole "My Sandbox" mentality of the Administration, and the majorities in both chambers. Occupying 1600 Pennsylvania isn't free reign, isn't carte blanc, and it isn't like having your parents gone for the weekend so you can invite all your friends over to raid the liquor cabinet. It's a responsibility. And there will be criticism, sniping, and obstrunctionism in good faith (and bad). To get bent out of shape about it, to smirk and ignore, to demonize your adversary and push on no matter what is the height of arrogance.
For years, nay decades, the Republicans have lamented entitlement programs. My advice, stop treating your offices and positions as an entitlement.
Posted by: WDR | June 24, 2005 01:56 PM
Joel Achenbach, You're a nobody hack mock journalist. Did you really need to use that title? Of course, otherwise no one would read this.
Posted by: Where did all the Journalists GO? | June 24, 2005 01:57 PM
Is it of scientific interest? That the Republican spokesmen are usually pink and pudgey with WEAL tough words to impart? Is we scared or what? Not unrelated to the president who loves war and loves being awarpresident. WEALLY TOUGH. My God, it's dangerous. Especially now when things are beginning to unravel. What will they do to keep their big images of themselves? BE SCSRED.
Posted by: Pudgy | June 24, 2005 01:57 PM
Why did the planes that crashed into the WTC pass over a nuclear power plant that if crashed into would have caused massive death and devestation. WHO BENIFITED THE MOST FROM A WTC HIT THAT POLARIZED AMERICA INTO A WAR MACHINE.
Posted by: R.BLOCKER | June 24, 2005 01:58 PM
Hey, is this blog trying to supplant DU or dKos? Looking at the tilt to port, it sure seems that way.
Posted by: idgit | June 24, 2005 01:58 PM
Conservative - tending to conserve; preserve established institutions etc; opposed to change; cautious; takes no chances
Liberal - tolerant, receptive, non-conformist; broadminded; favoring reform or progress; impartial; rational, distached, dispassionate; unconventional; individualist
These are the definitions for conservative and for liberal.
Sorry folks -- we ain't got a lot of them folks about no more. They be far and few. And from this blogosphere I happened upon, many of you don't know how to be conservative or liberal either. Screaming "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right" don't make it so. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but you need to back it up with some real facts if you want the other person to see your point of view.
Currently, we are inundated with righties and lefties who are more alike than un-alike.
Just my opinion -- and your blogs prove my point.
Posted by: ET | June 24, 2005 01:58 PM
The point is that, in fact, Al Jazeera broadcast Durbin's original statement, but not his retraction. It did/does encourage the enemy; the implication for troops in the field is real. No, Rove did not call for silencing Durbin; he merely pointed out that acts have consequences, as Durbin should have considered.
Posted by: Martin | June 24, 2005 01:59 PM
>>For years, nay decades, the Republicans have lamented entitlement programs. My advice, stop treating your offices and positions as an entitlement.<<
Actually, not only Republicans treat their offices as entitlement programs. The federal government is rife with this mentality.
Term limits for EVERY POLITICIAN!
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 02:00 PM
Someone said that the Bible provides two choices when someone takes your eye. True, God wrote that we should turn the other cheek. But that is only if someone slaps your first cheek. He said nothing about the eye. Besides, if someone takes my eye then I offer him the other one, how can I read the Bible?
So you see, your interpretation is wrong.
The point is that when the terrorists attached the one large building, we didn't even have a chance to offer them the other one. I call that being selfish.
A polite terrorist would have at least waited for permission to attack the other building. Therefore, we must take their eyes or their buildings. Not sure which.
God Bless American and our Great President
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 02:00 PM
Has "Father Tom" ever been told that Jesus was at least a liberal and probably a socialist. He should be more familiar with the spiritual leader of a great number of people.
Posted by: Larry Elden | June 24, 2005 02:00 PM
Durbin's a knucklehead. If you're going to use "gulag", "killing fields", etc. in a statement, be prepared for a shite-sturm. And have the 'nads to stand-up to the criticism and explain yourself. I wonder why anyone would look at the US Congress and say that it's a model of a modern democracy.
Posted by: clamflat | June 24, 2005 02:00 PM
Posted by: Amer-I-Can | June 24, 2005 02:01 PM
What does Iraq have to do with the war on terror? Osama is in Pakistan, the head of the CIA says he knows exactly where he is but we can't get him because it would ruffle feathers.
Huhhhhhhh????? We can spend $300 billion and kill over 100,000 civilians and over 1700 US soldiers and piss off pretty much the entire world (and set a dangerous precedent for China to follow whenever it feels like it -- what are we gonna do? -- by starting an unprovoked war) invading secular Iraq but we can't go after the man who killed 2700 of our people who is holing up in the nation that is selling nukes to every creep in the world?
Meanwhile, we can't afford $2 billion to protect our ports?
In what way is this treasury-busting war a war on terrorists? If anything it seems that terrorists are less afraid of the US military because Iraq has shown once again the limitations of conventional American military power. Which is, we can destroy but we can't hold territory occupied by a determined enemy.
Posted by: Rover | June 24, 2005 02:01 PM
To read all this (which is pretty close to how the media pundits collectively opine) would have one believe that we've become a nation of extremes and intolerance. Maybe we have, but I'd rather not believe that this is so. But it's hard not to.
We used to be the one nation of tolerance; a plural society in which we had a fundamental respect for others' views, others' ways and manners and mores. Instead, 'We' spend more time talking about 'them' and their wrongness as if in pointing out their wrongness 'we' will automatically become 'right'. Debate is no longer about ideas; it's about who's louder. At best debate these days is pro forma. And disrespectful. Did I mention 'intolerance'?
I sometimes fear for our republic. Until recently, we were a nation that kept to the high road. Sometimes, as I look at all the perspectives I've read in the posts above mine, I get the feeling that the low road is the highest we'll manage. Extremism or intolerance of any flavor sees to it. And we're OK with that?
I once read (from a 'Murphy's Law' desk calendar some years back) that 'The world is divided into the righteous and the unrighteous, and it is the righteous who do the dividing.'
Insofar as I haven't espoused my own political views here, my expectation is that my opinion here will be collectively trashed. If nothing else I got folks to generally agree on THAT.
Posted by: jjg | June 24, 2005 02:02 PM
Is it of scientific interest? That the Republican spokesmen are usually pink and pudgey with WEAL tough words to impart? Is we scared or what? Not unrelated to the president who loves war and loves being awarpresident. WEALLY TOUGH. My God, it's dangerous. Especially now when things are beginning to unravel. What will they do to keep their big images of themselves? BE scared.
Posted by: Pudgy | June 24, 2005 02:02 PM
"Is Father Tom for real or just putting us on?"
Unfortunately 51% of America is just like Father Tom. Deluded, self righteous, and religious enough to put their religion before their patriotism.
The Bible never speaks of democracy or human rights. It does speak of the Roman government as ligitimate. The bible does not talk of individual freedom or free speech. Read the Constitution and you'll see the evil in the Bush administration. Read the Bible and all you will hear is that Bush is "pro life" or "against gay marriage". Remember, Germany was a capitalist christian democracy in 1933. The republicans have already: -threatened the American Judiciary with the impeachment of judges who disagree with them. -invaded a country that did not threatened us. -demonized their political enemies. -created a propaganda machine in the form of conservative talk radio & TV, which spouts so many lies we have become accoustomed to them and sadly are ignoring them. -outed a CIA agent, an illegal act, as vengence for showing what a fool Bush was to say Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.
Read your history America. The Father Toms are everywhere. The chanting Germans in 1933, the chanting Russians in 1917, the chanting Japanese who raped China and Korea, the chanting KKK who lynched innocent blacks in the American South, the chanting Chinese who lead the cultural revolution, the chanting Cambodians who followed Pol Pot. All thought they were in the right and had the blassings of the devine. Now we have the republicans building a one-party state out of what was a pluralistic democracy. As has been pointed out, it will be up to the American people, who have revolted in the past, to stand up and be counted, and throw these unAmerican bastards out of office. 2006 - Bring It On!
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 02:02 PM
"Is Father Tom for real or just putting us on?"
Unfortunately 51% of America is just like Father Tom. Deluded, self righteous, and religious enough to put their religion before their patriotism.
The Bible never speaks of democracy or human rights. It does speak of the Roman government as ligitimate. The bible does not talk of individual freedom or free speech. Read the Constitution and you'll see the evil in the Bush administration. Read the Bible and all you will hear is that Bush is "pro life" or "against gay marriage". Remember, Germany was a capitalist christian democracy in 1933. The republicans have already: -threatened the American Judiciary with the impeachment of judges who disagree with them. -invaded a country that did not threatened us. -demonized their political enemies. -created a propaganda machine in the form of conservative talk radio & TV, which spouts so many lies we have become accoustomed to them and sadly are ignoring them. -outed a CIA agent, an illegal act, as vengence for showing what a fool Bush was to say Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.
Read your history America. The Father Toms are everywhere. The chanting Germans in 1933, the chanting Russians in 1917, the chanting Japanese who raped China and Korea, the chanting KKK who lynched innocent blacks in the American South, the chanting Chinese who lead the cultural revolution, the chanting Cambodians who followed Pol Pot. All thought they were in the right and had the blassings of the devine. Now we have the republicans building a one-party state out of what was a pluralistic democracy. As has been pointed out, it will be up to the American people, who have revolted in the past, to stand up and be counted, and throw these unAmerican bastards out of office. 2006 - Bring It On!
Posted by: Jim Middleroader | June 24, 2005 02:03 PM
To read all this (which is pretty close to how the media pundits collectively opine) would have one believe that we've become a nation of extremes and intolerance. Maybe we have, but I'd rather not believe that this is so. But it's hard not to.
We used to be the one nation of tolerance; a plural society in which we had a fundamental respect for others' views, others' ways and manners and mores. Instead, 'We' spend more time talking about 'them' and their wrongness as if in pointing out their wrongness 'we' will automatically become 'right'. Debate is no longer about ideas; it's about who's louder. At best debate these days is pro forma. And disrespectful. Did I mention 'intolerance'?
I sometimes fear for our republic. Until recently, we were a nation that kept to the high road. Sometimes, as I look at all the perspectives I've read in the posts above mine, I get the feeling that the low road is the highest we'll manage. Extremism or intolerance of any flavor sees to it. And we're OK with that?
I once read (from a 'Murphy's Law' desk calendar some years back) that 'The world is divided into the righteous and the unrighteous, and it is the righteous who do the dividing.'
Insofar as I haven't espoused my own political views here, my expectation is that my opinion here will be collectively trashed. If nothing else I got folks to generally agree on THAT.
Posted by: jjg | June 24, 2005 02:03 PM
The point is that, in fact, Al Jazeera broadcast Durbin's original statement, but not his retraction. It did/does encourage the enemy; the implication for troops in the field is real. No, Rove did not call for silencing Durbin; he merely pointed out that acts have consequences, as Durbin should have considered.
Posted by: Martin | June 24, 2005 02:03 PM
The FBI agent Durbin cited said detainees at Guantanamo had been found huddled on the floor, covered in their own excrement, having torn their own hair out over the night, shivering uncontrollably in frigid air-conditioning.
Some of these detainees may have been Taliban soldiers who fought against US forces in Afghanistan. Some may have been Al Qaeda terrorists. Some may have been innocent people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because none of them have ever been able to make their case in a court of law, we don't know who they were.
Do you patriots support this manner of treating detainees? You think anyone who US forces catch must have been guilty of something, so it's their own damn fault if they wind up shivering on the floor, covered in their own filth, tearing their hair out? You think such treatment is becoming of the United States of America?
Posted by: An FBI agent's testimony | June 24, 2005 02:04 PM
polarized? sorry, i have to post fast, im at work. grouped would be more appropriate
Posted by: R.BLOCKER | June 24, 2005 02:04 PM
Wow, that was entertaining watching WASP out himself and watching his ass get handed to him.
Posted by: flockshock | June 24, 2005 02:05 PM
Posted by: uuilly | June 24, 2005 02:05 PM
Some people here are hysterical. "Bush is a benevolent genious who has everyone fooled and will soon unveil his great plan that will lead us to victory!" "No, Bush is an evil genius who is so brilliant that he's capitalized on a tragedy with the end goal of ruling the world!"
Come on, people. This is the guy who can't even make it through a news conference without practically pissing himself. Funny that the same people who make fun of his stupidity also seem to think that he's the mastermind of some grand evil scheme.
Democrat supporters rightfully made fun of Republican supporters for all of the conspiracy theories during the Clinton years, but now they're guilty of the same thing. Here's a hint, if you're hearing it all from Rush/Michael Moore, News Max/MoveOn, and it's conspicuously absent from mainstream news because of some vast media conspiracy to "cover it up," chances are it's not true.
Bush is what he is. He's a sub-par president (in my opinion), who is equal to, or maybe slightly better/worse than what we would have gotten with the equally horrific Kerry. He's made some good decisions which he has tried to spin into great decisions, and some poor decisions which he has tried to spin into good decisions...which makes him about the same as the two presidents that preceded him.
Sorry to burst your bubble...he's no savior, and he's no evil genius. Just another president, whose term is up in three years. Maybe this time we'll actually get two halfway decent candidates to choose from instead of the garbage that the two parties have tried to shove down our throats the past five elections.
Posted by: PG | June 24, 2005 02:05 PM
Yawn. Joel, didn't you used to write something useful, like a tech column?
Posted by: Xixi | June 24, 2005 02:06 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble,but the hypocrites are in the Republican camp:
Gingrich has been married 3 times;he committed adultery twice.Limbaugh has a fondness for OxyContin,and buys it behind a convience store,and has divorced three times.Dan Burton has a child out of wedlock. Neil Bush divorced because he committed adultery with call girls in Hong Kong and Thailand.And don't forget Siverado. Henry Hyde had an affair with a married woman,when he was 40.
And don't forget all the moral lectures from the Catholic Church...seems their clergy has a fondness for boys.
Posted by: mgottlieb | June 24, 2005 02:06 PM
Pondiferous. Or should I use a real word to explain my exasperation? Carl Rove states a fact (Durbins words are being strewn accross a sympatheric network) and we want an apology? We say what he said was dumb and act like he is up to something? How about this. What he said hurts because it is true. Just because your intention is not to foster energy toward the terrorist movement, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just like the idiots report of the Quran down the toilet, the liberal media has no objective standard in which to guide its actions. This constitutes people doing what they want without thinking of the complications. It's like the other idiot who asked Cheney about Poll's shifting on the Iraq situation. How many times do Poll's need to be wrong before we realize, they are just methods of distraction? The reason you hear the liberals louder then ever, is because they are losing, and they have no idea why.
John Stewart pressed Dean for a concise answer to any one of their defamations of the Bush policy. He echoed the mantra of the Democrats. "We will do it better". Wow, real concise. Maybe if Democrats and liberals realized that the lack of objective points of view suffocate intellectual reasoning, then maybe they would have a platform to stand on. Keep screaming though, I am sure the people want a whiner as their next leader.
Oh wait, no they don't.
Posted by: Eatmeimadanish | June 24, 2005 02:06 PM
Sorry kids, the Bush administration did not inherit a roubust economy in 2001, but one where the stock market had declined over 1000 points during the year 2000, beginning last quarter 1999. The reason its called the Clinton/Gore recession is becuase the 1993 economy was on the rise when the 1994 administration took over. The economy was in the midst of the dot com burst of 2000, and then 9/11 happened - two huge blows to our economy and yet for most segments the economy is now better than it has ever been. You can blame efficiency and productivity via technology for the loss of jobs in certain sections of the economy. You can blame 1994 - 2000 for the huge exodus of business to foreign countries as Bubba signed the master bill for those tax breaks. Also thanks, Bill, for closing a 25 year technology gap with the Chinese in exchange for large contributions to the Dem. Natl. Committee...that is what impeachment should've been for, not for doing interns and then lying about it...also gutting the justice department and the military from 15 divisions to 10...BUT to be fair, I feel Iraq has been badly mismanaged - a week after toppling that statue we should've been out of there, and I'd rather we went to Syria after Afghanistan...Saudi Arabia next...Gitmo must stay..enemy combatants dont apply to any Geneva Convention articles, and there has been no torture of any kind - sorry the underwear on the head doesnt compare to being put in a 2 foot tall bamboo box while still standing. If they have info that might save American lives get it, period. Oh yes I want $$$ to go to solar and wind power, not "nuclr" as George puts it...someday a real third party must again emerge, Nader aint it though...
Posted by: Bill | June 24, 2005 02:06 PM
"Americans should not question the President because he is leading the fight on War on Terror. He is trying the best he can!" Posted by: CodBlessAmerica |
Fitting malaprop Mr. "CodBlessAmerica". American certainly reeks of a fish smell, and the rotten head can be found on a biped wearing a Swastika shirt in Washington. Of course, the Swastika has been altered so that the symbol now looks like a +. Propaganda, fear, failure to stand for human right, etc., etc., only it's being done under the guise of a "good Christian man..."
Posted by: Bayoureality | June 24, 2005 02:06 PM
Martin, Al Jazeera is a news network. It's no more biased than FOX. So what if it broadcast Durbin's statement? This causes the hearts of our brave troops to wither and pale?
Posted by: brooksfoe | June 24, 2005 02:08 PM
To ilovebush: Bush is a great man. How/ That statement strains credulity.
Iraq was mocking us every second so why shouldn't we start a war? What kind of a ridiculous notion is that? Other countries have been mocking us for years and we haven't started wars with them. You do not start wars because your feelings get hurt. People die in war. This includes the innocent. And when I say the innocent that includes our soldiers who had nothing to do with these petty trivialities.
And if these democrat/liberals would just stop talking then the enemy would defiantly stop killing our boys and girls. I don't see why everyone can't see that. Where did you grow up? Did you just come out of some right wing cocoon? Did you receive an education? Do you bother to educate yourself or do you get your news from Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter?
You have obviously never fought in a war, never knew anybody who fought in a war and are not willing to fight in a war. Talking does not get "our boys and girls" killed. It's weaponry held by those who want us out of there. They don't care what we say. They want us dead.
Now you know why everyone can't see that. Stop thinking like an ideologue and get an education. And if you want to find out what it's all about, then head down to your local Army recruiter.
I spent 20 years in the Army in the Rangers. I have fought for this country and probably understand more about this than the collective minds of this administration and your right wing flunkies, none of whom by the way ever put on a uniform in defense of this country. They would be the first to run in the face of combat but that's typical of the cowards that these people truly are.
Posted by: AngryVietVet | June 24, 2005 02:08 PM
Joe, Nobody "fires" IED's at us in Iraq. Perhaps you are confusing them with RPG's;which are airborne. IED's are a ground placed, ambush type weapon. As it happens, the ingredients for these IED's mainly come from old munitions stocks that we did not adequately secure in the aftermath of the invasion or are brought in thru the porous borders that we still haven't secured. Had our military commitment been of adequate size for the job or had we waited until we had the support of other nations we could have prevented both of these situations from being the advantage they have become to the enemy.
Posted by: Clint Mensa | June 24, 2005 02:09 PM
Woah! You right-wingers make me laugh! You get so worked up over NOTHING. Maybe they should focus on things that are important like, oh say, 45 million Americans not haveing access to helthcare.
Posted by: Chris | June 24, 2005 02:09 PM
So, the question remains: What is happening that Rove is trying to obscure?
Osama's stated goal has been to kill Americans and bankrupt the US via an extended war in Iraq. What is W's goal? To kill Americans and bankrupt the US through an extended war in Iraq. Osama hasn't been found because W is Osama...Rove has discovered W's terrible secret! I didn't vote for W in 2000 because his tax cuts sounded like an effort to revitalize the national debt. I didn't vote for W in 2004 because it was clear he was a sociopath (or is that psychopath...a little help here...I apologize).
Posted by: wixie | June 24, 2005 02:10 PM
"Remember, Germany was a capitalist christian democracy in 1933."
Wow...Godwin was right. Every Internet discussion does end with a Nazi comparison, regardless of the topic.
People should be really careful about "Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Nazis, Nazis, Nazis." When you say it so much, it loses its meaning.
Posted by: PG | June 24, 2005 02:10 PM
Father Tom, I was thinking. Maybe we could build some buildings in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Crawford, or wherever BinLaden is hiding so that we can then exact our architectural revenge on those artless terrorists. It appears your beef with BinLaden is an aesthetic one. In other words you are implying they came here to wreck our buildings alone. The people? collateral damage. Well, let's build some big 'ol buildings over there, bomb them back into paste, and then declare the war on terror over. Eight buildings should do it. Seven for the entire World Trade Center, and one for the Pentagon. No wait, make that nine, then we will have one on them! Will we have crushed their hate for our buildings then?
Posted by: Blicero | June 24, 2005 02:10 PM
Well said, Joel. I have been in this country for almost 20 years, and I view it as a sign of my patriotism when I privately, of course, compare Bush to Stalin in more than one way.
Posted by: SNS | June 24, 2005 02:10 PM
War sucks. I acknowlege that. But I do support the War on Terror, and I think it was neccessary to protect our nation and show those that wish to hurt us that we won't "go quietly into the night." But it seems to me like most of the american public that doesn't support the Iraq War doesn't support it for the wrong reasons. Alot of people are always saying "Osama isn't in Iraq, so why are we fighting there?" Granted, this isn't one of the main objections, I realise that, there are some other legitimate concerns, I just think the No Osama In Iraq line is a poor excuse.
I supporte the war on terror, and I supported going into Iraq, not as a part of the war on terror, but as a way to dispose of an evil tyrant that kills his own people outright (don't try to compare Bush to this, that is just the bad comparison making people are crying about in this whole discussion). Saddam was an evil man, who we (the american government) has been trying to get rid of for decades. DemoCrappy president, RepubliCant president, it doesn't matter, they all tried it in some way, none so blatant as Bush's action though. GWB was the only one who had the balls to say "Thats enough Mr. Hussein, I'm tired of your crap, I'm coming in to get you!" And that is what I totally support. I do not believe how so many of you can look at Iraq and say "There is nothing wrong there, why should we intervene?" and then decry our soldiers dying to protect others. You have to be completely blind to what was going on in Iraq to think that way.
It is inherently american to only think about ourselves. We see our own people dying and we bitch and moan and ask for something to be done, but when we see people from another country being slaughtered we turn our heads and refuse to acknowledge it. It happened in Rwanda, it happened in Iraq for many years, and it happens everyday all over the world in places we never hear about why? because the AMERICAN PUBLIC DOESN'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT so 'they' don't tell us. As I said, I don't like war, but I think as one of the most powerful nations in the world we have a DUTY to defend the weak and protect the innocent, in our country and all over the world. It's a big step, and I realise it may also be almost impossible, but someone has to do it because the UN Peacekeepers can't do it.
All that being said, I don't like how the war in Iraq ended up going and I blame that on poor management, but I still support the decission and the resolve Bush showed in the matter.
Posted by: fencesitter | June 24, 2005 02:11 PM
Anyone remember the 2000 election?
"Bush can't get anything done with such a closely divided congress"
"Even with a (liberal darling) Yale Undergrad and a (liberal darling) Harvard MBA, he's stoopid"
Anyone remember the 2004 elections?
"Bush is out of touch with America"
"Bush is un-presidential compared to Kerry"
"Bush will lose in a close race"
Bustamanti anyone? (ahead of Ah'nold by double digits...)
Kerry Anyone? (Pulling ahead at the last minute... yet lost by the largest margin since Mondale.)
Seems some folks just can't see what they don't want to see.
ya know what a Liberal is? Someone who's heart is bigger than their brain. Uh oh, the Sensitivity Police will be after me now!
Posted by: The Hammer | June 24, 2005 02:11 PM
hey dick since you feel so badly for the towel head torture victims in gitmo listening to that awful rap music why dont you adopt them all and take them home with you? you can all read the kuran together and trust me after the next election you will have plenty of time to do that.
Posted by: dick durban is a dick | June 24, 2005 02:11 PM
Martin, Al Jazeera is a news network. It's no more biased than FOX. So what if it broadcast Durbin's statement? This causes the hearts of our brave troops to wither and pale?
Posted by: brooksfoe | June 24, 2005 02:11 PM
A clarification. I stated that a polite terrorist would wait for someone to offer the other cheek. That does not mean I agree with the terrorist! Just that I think terrorists sometimes have a short temper, probably from the pressure of fighting against things.
Lesson: if you meet a terrorist, try to calm him down first. As Jesus said, patience is a vuirtue. Then when he has calmed down, offer him the other cheek. If he is a good terrorist, he will not strike. If he is a bad terrorist he may strike your cheek. Only then do you have God's permission to take his eye. That is in the Bible.
God Bless America, The Bible and and Presidnet Bush
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 02:12 PM
father tom is just plain nutty.
Posted by: gringobonk | June 24, 2005 02:12 PM
I believe as President Bush has stated many times there is a turd in the white house. It is starting to smell and it is time to flush it out of there.
Posted by: Gary | June 24, 2005 02:12 PM
I believe as President Bush has stated many times there is a turd in the white house. It is starting to smell and it is time to flush it out of there.
Posted by: Gary | June 24, 2005 02:12 PM
I believe as President Bush has stated many times there is a turd in the white house. It is starting to smell and it is time to flush it out of there.
Posted by: Gary | June 24, 2005 02:12 PM
Wow PG, there was a whole lot of logic in that statement.... Stop it, you're scaring me!!
Posted by: Amer-I-Can | June 24, 2005 02:13 PM
I believe as President Bush has stated many times there is a turd in the white house. It is starting to smell and it is time to flush it out of there.
Posted by: Gary | June 24, 2005 02:13 PM
What I am disturbed about is the fact that the Pentagon is keeping records that includes social security numbers, GPAs and courses of study for "recruitment" purposes by a private company. Wow, hackers could seriously have a field day with this one! There goes the Republican adminstration collecting data as a "distraction" from the fact thatit might be absolutely necessary for a draft to be in place to fulfill all of our commitments around the world. They can collect all the data they want to, double the enlistment bonus and pay off families to fight THEIR war but cannot provide benfits for the veterans that they have over here. When will people wake up and see the real danger theses folks are to our constitution,free speech and basic quality of life...
Posted by: kuuks | June 24, 2005 02:13 PM
I just like this board, but I gotta go now and get me a beer (with p=100%) and some sexual healing (with p=0.5%). Take care USA.
Posted by: El Tonno | June 24, 2005 02:13 PM
I believe as President Bush has stated many times there is a turd in the white house. It is starting to smell and it is time to flush it out of there.
Posted by: Gary | June 24, 2005 02:14 PM
Why are you giving Karl Rove the benefit of the doubt? Isn't that a part of the problem? That the press keeps giving these guys the benefit of the doubt instead of asking the hard questions that need to be asked and holding people accountable? Come on, you guys, do your jobs!
Posted by: Pam LaPier | June 24, 2005 02:14 PM
>>Do you patriots support this manner of treating detainees?<<
They are POWs and have been treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. If they choose to pull out their own hair or crap themselves to get attention, so be it. It is not 'treatment' if they do it to themselves.
I also find it hard to believe that anyone would legitimately complain about having air conditioning in Gitmo. It's not exactly a cool place in June. I'll bet they'll be crying about not enough cable channels before too much longer.
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 02:14 PM
"Father Tom" is pretty clearly amusing himself -- I say he's a put-on.
The scary part is, it's pretty damn hard to tell the difference, as evidenced by all the people taking him as being for real.
You really have to work to outdo the self-parody of the real Father Toms. And there are plenty of them out there.
Posted by: jmb3 | June 24, 2005 02:15 PM
If you make incorrect inflammatory comments, then you will incorrectly inflame the enemy. So Carl is correct.
Posted by: Jeff | June 24, 2005 02:15 PM
>>Do you patriots support this manner of treating detainees?<<
They are POWs and have been treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. If they choose to pull out their own hair or crap themselves to get attention, so be it. It is not 'treatment' if they do it to themselves.
I also find it hard to believe that anyone would legitimately complain about having air conditioning in Gitmo. It's not exactly a cool place in June. I'll bet they'll be crying about not enough cable channels before too much longer.
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 02:15 PM
Lets all try and be honest. Was ANYONE walking around thinking we needed a war with Iraq before this crew got control of the government. NO. "Support our troops" should mean not thinking so little of their lives as to send them into a politically driven war we started. These ideologues talk a tough game when they are sending others to do their fighting. When it was their turn to "Brandish Steel" they were AWOL. How people can fall in line with their patriotic spin to support their neocon agenda is shocking. Where is the critical thinking? Don't let them re-define what patriotism is. Perhaps we are the United States of Lemmings?
Posted by: Doug | June 24, 2005 02:16 PM
Has everyon noticed that the republicans all same the same thing...?
Its amazing how Rush Limbaugh does the thinking for all of them. Unfortunately he gets his script from Rove.
Think for yourselves for a change.
Posted by: GoDonkeys | June 24, 2005 02:16 PM
The time karl speaks of, after 911 is actually the only time during the Bush administration that we all acted like united americans, we we're all united, we voted 98 to 0 in the senate and 420 to 1 in the house to authorize necessary force against terror. for karl to say it went any other way is rediculous. The problem is that after that, Bush went after the wrong guy, and invented WMDs and all kinds of crazy things, that is what has divided us. We would still be united today if the administration had gone after the right enemy, and not abused it's support. I don't get Karl, he's trying to say we were divided when we were most united.
Posted by: bruno | June 24, 2005 02:17 PM
from Posted by: WASP | June 24, 2005 10:00 AM...The usual "Clinton got a free BJ and I didn't!" argument used once again to absolve all of Bush's sins...
What is it about these BAFERWCCs (Born Again Fundamentalist Evangelical Right Wing Conservative Christians) and sex?
Posted by: Bob Anderson | June 24, 2005 02:17 PM
I believe Gary in an unemployed welfare recipient who cannot figure out how to post. The only turd here is the one that came out of your fat cow mom and she named it Gary.
Posted by: Gary is a moron | June 24, 2005 02:17 PM
How quickly you people forget:
"It's outrageous that the same Democrats who stood by Dick Durbin's libeling of our military are now expressing faux outrage over Karl Rove's statement of historical fact. George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn and the hard left were wrong after 9/11, just as it was wrong for Democrat leaders to stand by and remain silent after Dick Durbin made his deplorable comments." - RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman
Liberal Third Party Groups Urged Restraint, Blamed America:
Immediately After 9/11, MoveOn.Org Petition Urged "Moderation And Restraint" And Use Of "International Judicial Institutions."
* "We, The Undersigned, Citizens And Residents Of The United States Of America … Appeal To The President Of The United States, George W. Bush … And To All Leaders Internationally To Use Moderation And Restraint In Responding To The Recent Terrorist Attacks Against The United States." (MoveOn.Org Website, "MoveOn Peace," http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)
* "We Implore The Powers That Be To Use, Wherever Possible, International Judicial Institutions And International Human Rights Law To Bring To Justice Those Responsible For The Attacks, Rather Than The Instruments Of War, Violence Or Destruction." (MoveOn.Org Website, "MoveOn Peace," http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)
* "[W]e Demand That There Be No Recourse To Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons, Or Any Weapons Of Indiscriminate Destruction, And Feel That It Is Our Inalienable Human Right To Live In A World Free Of Such Arms." (MoveOn.Org Website, "MoveOn Peace," http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)
Just After 9/11, Liberal Filmmaker Michael Moore Derided "Terror And Bloodshed" Committed By Americans. (David Brooks, Op-Ed, "All Hail Moore," The New York Times, 6/26/04)
* Just After 9/11, Moore Blamed America's "Taxpayer-Funded Terrorism" And Bush Administration For Terrorist Attacks. "We abhor terrorism – unless we're the ones doing the terrorizing. We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me.…Let's mourn, let's grieve, and when it's appropriate let's examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in." (Michael Moore Website Archive, "Death, Downtown," Posted 9/12/01, www.michaelmoore.com , Accessed 7/27/04)
* Michael Moore Said U.S. Should Not Have Removed Taliban After 9/11. Moore: "Likewise, to bomb Afghanistan – I mean, I've never understood this, Tim." (CNBC's "Tim Russert," 10/19/02)
Liberal Donor George Soros Claimed America Should Have Treated 9/11 Attacks As Crime, Responded With Police Work. "War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action. To protect against terrorism, you need precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering – all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate. Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would have pursued Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but we would not have invaded Iraq. Nor would we have our military struggling to perform police work in full combat gear and getting killed in the process." (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 18)
* Soros Said The Execution Of 9/11 Attacks "Could Not Have Been More Spectacular." "Admittedly, the terrorist attack was a historic event in its own right. Hijacking fully loaded airplanes and using them as suicide bombs was an audacious idea, and the execution could not have been more spectacular." (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 2)
* Soros Said War On Terror Had Claimed More Innocent Victims Than 9/11 Attack Itself. "This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself." (George Soros, Remarks At Take Back America Conference, Washington, DC, 6/3/04)
Liberal Democrats Urged Restraint, Blamed America:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): "'The Time For Peace Is Now,' [Kucinich] Declared Optimistically July 11, Two Months To The Day Before Terrorists Hit The Pentagon And The World Trade Center. … Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence." (Elizabeth Auster, "Offer The Hand Of Peace," [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)
* Kucinich: "Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn't Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …" (Elizabeth Auster, "Offer The Hand Of Peace," [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): "Only Now Are We Trying To Figure Out What Is Islam. Maybe If There Was A Department Of Peace, They Would Be Able To Say, 'Uh-Oh, We've Got Some Problems With These People,' … I Truly Believe That If We Had A Department Of Peace, We Would Have Seen [9/11] Coming." (Ethan Wallison, "War A Challenge For Peace Caucus," Roll Call, 10/1/01)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): "I Am Convinced That Military Action Will Not Prevent Further Acts Of International Terrorism Against The United States." (Eddy Ramirez, "Calif. Congresswoman Alone In Vote Against War Powers Resolution," [University Of California-Berkeley] Daily Californian , 9/17/01)
Al Sharpton (D-NY) Said That The Attacks On The World Trade Center Are Evidence That "America Is Beginning To Reap What It Has Sown." (Adam Nagourney, "Say It Loud," The New York Times, 12/1/02)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Claimed Osama Bin Laden Could Be Compared To "Revolutionaries That Helped To Cast Off The British Crown." "'One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown,' Kaptur told an Ohio newspaper, The (Toledo) Blade." (Malie Rulon, "Lawmaker Compares Osama, U.S. Patriots," The Associated Press, 3/6/03)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Said The United States Would "Pay Every Single Hour, Ever Single Day" That Bombs Were Dropped In Afghanistan. "'How much longer does the bombing campaign continue?' Biden asked during an Oct. 22 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'We're going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues.'" (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly , 10/26/01)
"The Bombing Campaign, [Biden] Said, Reinforced Existing Stereotypes Of The United States As A 'High-Tech Bully …'" (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)
Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) Said Osama Bin Laden Not Guilty. Dean: "I Still Have This Old-Fashioned Notion That Even With People Like Osama, Who Is Very Likely To Be Found Guilty, We Should Do Our Best Not To, In Positions Of Executive Power, Not To Prejudge Jury Trials." ("Dean Not Ready To Pronounce Osama Bin Laden Guilty," The Associated Press, 12/26/03)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) To High School Students: "How Would [Muslims] Look At Us Today If We Had Been There Helping Them With Some Of That Rather Than Just Being The People Who Are Going To Bomb In Iraq And Go To Afghanistan? … War Is Expensive Too … Your Generation Ought To Be Thinking About Whether We Should Be Better Neighbors Out In Other Countries So That They Have A Different Vision Of Us." (Gregg Herrington, "Senator Asks Students To Ponder," The [Vancouver, WA] Columbian, 12/19/02)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "[W]ar On Terror Is Far Less Of A Military Operation And Far More Of An Intelligence-Gathering, Law-Enforcement Operation." (The Iowa Brown & Black Coalition Presidential Forum, Des Moines, IA, 1/11/04)
* Kerry: "[W]hat We've Learned Is That The War On Terror Is Much More Of An Intelligence Operation And A Law Enforcement Operation." (NPR's "All Things Considered," 3/19/03)
Posted by: New Jersey Moderate | June 24, 2005 02:18 PM
Its all Hyperbole, Talk is cheap, hyperbole is a journalist's JOB!!!
Posted by: Rmulvan | June 24, 2005 02:18 PM
A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan stepped back into the political spotlight this week, expressing doubt about the official 9/11 story and claiming "if they lied to us about Ruby Ridge, Waco and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why should we believe them now." http://virtualmatter.blogspot.com/2005/06/former-asst-sec-of-treasury-under.html
Posted by: JJ | June 24, 2005 02:19 PM
Blicero, I think your proposal is a good one. But I am not sure if it would stop the hate for our buildings. This is something I admit I do not understand, why someone would be angry at a buidling (unless it was blocking the view from their porch). The New York buildings are very tall and blocked a lot of light. Still that does not make it right for someone to be angry at it so much that they would become a terrorist.
I'm stumped. Again, this is one of those things that makes me believe that the Presiodent needs advisors for.
Can anyone out there help us out on this oen?
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 02:20 PM
Turds? fat mothers? what is this 5th grade?
Can you say, Downing Street Memo? Impeachment? High Crime? a bit more serious than a thong in the oval office.
Posted by: playnice | June 24, 2005 02:21 PM
Ah yes...those lowly Democrats talking badly about the war on terrorism.
Far better to lie to the American people and start a war against a country not related to the terrorists who struck America and ignore two countries with far more terrorist ties and weapons capability, Iran and North Korea.
Posted by: GoDonkeys | June 24, 2005 02:22 PM
Father Tom, you give intelligent and thoughtful Christians a bad name. Go away.
Posted by: flockshock | June 24, 2005 02:22 PM
A further clarification. I was educated in a cardboard box until time I was eleven years old. Father worked fifteen years at Dairy Queen never complained about no dental care. I have volunteered for service U.S. Marine Corps 1979 but was rejected on account of inaccurate medical diagnosiss.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 02:23 PM
"More Democrats served in the military than the Republicans." I'd like to see the actual numbers to back that up. I served in the Marines from 92 - 96, under Slick Willie as the commander in chief. I received no pay raises the entire time I was in. Not even a cost of living raise. These are the reasons military people are primarily Republicans. Because the Republicans do more to support the military than the Dem's do. Every time a helicopter crashed in the last 5 years because of black market parts being installed on them, I thought "Thanks Bill!" Why? Because of Clinton's cut backs to the military. The truth hurts sometimes. But it's still the truth. P.S. Hey Father Tom, where is the original version of the bible? Has anyone ever seen or found it? Has anyone ever gone looking for it? Maybe it's just a tall tale, like Paul Bunyon and Babe the big blue ox? Food for thouhgt!?
Posted by: TN Dave | June 24, 2005 02:23 PM
Personally, I didn't think Durbin had anything to apologize for. I think if the administration and the military don't want to have their acts of torture brought into the light, perhaps they should stop committing them.
Of course most members of the military or the administration were not involved in these things, but by the same token when Karl Rove or Donald Rumsfeld defends those actions against all criticism, they are giving strong implicit sanction to the torturers. A defense of "We didn't do it, it was only a few bad apples, and it's those damn liberals' fault anyway" does not make everything all right.
Whether or not "enemy combatants" can be held indefinitely, it is absolutely inexcusable to treat them as subhuman. This is exactly the kind of behavior that is losing the War on Terror for the U.S. As a patriotic U.S. citizen, the whole thing makes me sick.
Posted by: kf | June 24, 2005 02:24 PM
Rove may be correct – So if you’re a young Republican I’d suggest you prove us Liberals wrong, enlist in the Army, go fight Dear Leaders war – PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Posted by: Liberal | June 24, 2005 02:25 PM
Bush is still lying. The kids are still dying.
Bush should be impeached and imprisoned for murdering our nation's children with his lies.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 02:25 PM
Joel, your Rove Herring Theory sounds promising. How do you account for Rep Hostetler (R-Ind.) and his truly half-hearted attempt to criticize the liberal assault on Christianity earlier this week? He apologized instantly! We could have been treated "Democrats Swear They're Not Anti-Christian" headlines all week. Rove and Company missed a great opportunity to really slam the Dems against the wall.
Posted by: AckAck | June 24, 2005 02:26 PM
Joel, your Rove Herring Theory sounds promising. How do you account for Rep Hostetler (R-Ind.) and his truly half-hearted attempt to criticize the liberal assault on Christianity earlier this week? He apologized instantly! We could have been treated to "Democrats Swear They're Not Anti-Christian" headlines all week. Rove and Company missed a great opportunity to really slam the loyal opposition against the wall.
Posted by: AckAck | June 24, 2005 02:27 PM
The President is wrong. Supporting the wrong path, regardless of facts or consequences, does not make you a winner. There is more then one way to deal with terrorists. Perpetuating a failed war to liberate Iraqi's from themselves will not end terrorism.
I am a registered Republican. I was a soldier deployed to SWA last year in support of OIF. I served honorably and was recognized by my command for my service. I say this with a heavy heart. The current leadership of the republican party is evil. I know they believe they are doing the right thing but belief that you are doing good does not excuse evil.
I was taught that too torture and kill people was evil. I was taught that Americans are supposed to be good. But we torture and kill people. Our President sanctions the torture and murdering of people. He may believe he is good, but his actions are evil.
Father Tom, hold tight to your umbrella. The storm is raging. Keep you umbrella pointed toward the wind. You believe you won't get wet, but when your determination blinds you you will not see the error of your ways.
I am willing to get wet if it means doing the right thing.
Posted by: Jason | June 24, 2005 02:27 PM
Here is a reality check for you. Can you name a republican congressman or senator who is being used to headline Al Jazeera?
Hey, how about ........ Chuck Hagel???
I guess, by reporting what Hagel said, NewsMax and CNN and MSNBC are bad boys as well?
Reality Check, that is such a cute way to put it. Here is a reponding question: Do you want to listen to what Rummie says about the progress of the occupation or ... how about the US Ambassador to Iraq who happened to go there and saw for himself?
The hardest thing to deal with is the truth. How do you seek out the truth, or do you just think that you know what is true?
The whole Durbin quote was about the truth. When he read the truth about the treatment in GITMO, he was shocked. Durbin uneliquently said that he would not expect that treatment from his own countrymen but of those from tyrannical regimes (of which he listed many).
The truth is that such treatment is happening and happening on purpose. Second, it is happening off shore for a reason. This was all planned and carried out to skirt the laws that we used to respect. This is a fact. The JAGs have complained and been to leave the site. We know that.
Come on now, let's get real and stop thinking that liberals want to kill American soldiers or that we can call use code words like Democrats to refer to Blacks. The truth is what we are after.
What has really changed here? It is the way that we have gone about starting the war in Iraq; the way we have occupied Iraq; and the shape that Iraq is in now and the shape that the US is in right now.
For all you youngin's who think that we need to spend another 5 years sorting out Iraq, remember what happened in VietNam, when it is all said and done, we, as a nation, "can move the Goal Line" and say enough.
Maybe, enough is enough. You so-called conservatives need to take a deep breath and look at the facts. Don't look at what you claim are dishonest motives or my favorite in attacking Michael Moore, sure it is 100% true, but presented in a way to mislead...
You guys are tripping over the truth. You are getting spun to death. Take care of the poor in this country first, before you go off to other parts of the world to solve their problems with military might and billions of borrowed dollars.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 02:27 PM
"I received no pay raises the entire time I was in. Not even a cost of living raise. These are the reasons military people are primarily Republicans."
Well, TN Dave, it's nice to know you always thought about what was best for the country, rather than about your own salary, in making these decisions.
Posted by: brooksfoe | June 24, 2005 02:27 PM
Is it just me, or does it seem like Father Tom is channeling Amelia Bedilia? Come on guys, he's putting you on!
Posted by: Brother Bob | June 24, 2005 02:28 PM
>>Wow...Godwin was right. Every Internet discussion does end with a Nazi comparison, regardless of the topic.
I actually agree, the comparison is overused, but it is a legitimate comparison to the Bush experience.
I guess what is more comparable is not what each government did, but how the people blindly followed each, cheering, no matter what the government did, because any suggestion that the government was wrong was met with that terrible label "your unpatriotic" and antiGerman/antiAmerican. The latest example comes from Carl Rove: "Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." Rove fails to mention that what Durban said was a description of the treatment of detaines at Gitmo as described by American FBI Agents! Of course, he wants to believe that it is untrue, so, to him, it is...
The propaganda machine is in full throttle. The other branches of government are under attack and you only have to ask Micheal Schaivo or Valarie Plame what happens when you anger anyone in this administration. Oh, but that can't happen here...
Posted by: Jim Middleroader | June 24, 2005 02:28 PM
The President is wrong. Supporting the wrong path, regardless of facts or consequences, does not make you a winner. There is more then one way to deal with terrorists. Perpetuating a failed war to liberate Iraqi's from themselves will not end terrorism.
I am a registered Republican. I was a soldier deployed to SWA last year in support of OIF. I served honorably and was recognized by my command for my service. I say this with a heavy heart. The current leadership of the republican party is evil. I know they believe they are doing the right thing but belief that you are doing good does not excuse evil.
I was taught that too torture and kill people was evil. I was taught that Americans are supposed to be good. But we torture and kill people. Our President sanctions the torture and murdering of people. He may believe he is good, but his actions are evil.
Father Tom, hold tight to your umbrella. The storm is raging. Keep you umbrella pointed toward the wind. You believe you won't get wet, but when your determination blinds you you will not see the error of your ways.
I am willing to get wet if it means doing the right thing.
Posted by: Jason | June 24, 2005 02:28 PM
"I received no pay raises the entire time I was in. Not even a cost of living raise. These are the reasons military people are primarily Republicans."
Well, TN Dave, it's nice to know you always thought about what was best for the country, rather than about your own salary, in making these decisions.
Posted by: brooksfoe | June 24, 2005 02:28 PM
Gary is a welfare recipient because his job was shipped overseas after his employers CEOs spent 3 years of projected earnings to Abramhoff. Thankfully, Abramhoff was able to come through for the CEOs, but not until all non-execs, like Gary, had lost their jobs to 15 cents/day workers in China. But Gary, you're in luck, 'cause the army is in need of those who can no longer live in this country but are ready to die in another. And yes, poor Gary's mother was obese. But after years of having worked in a chemical processing plant, Gary's mom lost 125 lbs. when malignant tumor was removed from her abdomen. The only bms the poor lady now has is via a colostomy bag - which should be properly disposed of on George W. Bush.
Posted by: Bayoureality | June 24, 2005 02:28 PM
Why don't you people just admit that this country has become a dictatorship and get to the real problem, Bush and Cheney and the oil concerns that put them into power. For oil, by oil, until the oil is all gone. Then the middle east will be a forgotten corner of the world once again. Maybe Bush will refuse to vacate the Presidency when his term is up based on some trumped up threat. Don't act surprised when it happens.
Posted by: gilbertgosane | June 24, 2005 02:29 PM
Is it just me, or does it seem like Father Tom is channeling Amelia Bedelia? Come on guys, he's putting you on!
Posted by: Brother Bob | June 24, 2005 02:29 PM
To JJ: You prove a good point, which is that sometimes a liberal approach will help our enemies. Terrorists don't care if you turn a cheeck. They want to attack buildings! Everybody knows buildings are bigger then cheeks and can't turn on their own anyway (except for fancy building that is built on ball bearings or something).
Liberals fail to see that each person only has two cheeks. If you add up all the people in the U.S., that makes for about 600 million cheeks. But there are way more buildings in America! Therefore, once all the cheeks are turned, the buildings will be attacked.
This is the simple thing that Liberals don't understand!
Our President and His Team do understand, and that is why they are committed to protecting all the cheeks, eyes and buildings in a free American.
God Bless Republicans, God, The White House, and so on.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 02:30 PM
This administration has cut $100 million in medical benefits for those NYFD heroes Bush stood with on sept 12, 2001.
More than one plan has been floated by this administration to cut benefits for those soldiers returning from Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
There is strong evidence that there is a traitor in the white house who leaked the name of a CIA agent in the field.
There is strong evidence that this administration placed our sons and daughters in harm's way, and is killing Iraqis, both innocent and otherwise, at best without checking his facts, at worst lying to the American public.
There is strong evidence that Iraqi is safer for terrorists now than it was before the war.
This administration has taken away freedoms (Patriot Act) AND failed to provide any real security or protection. A remarkable feat.
If you think these are not slippery slopes that CAN POTENTIALLY (that is what the article said) lead to fascist laws, then you're only kidding yourself.
I'm as liberal as they come, and I'm as patriotic as they come, and I feel I have a right to pretty pi$$ed off at right-wing ideologues who think they know something about liberals.
I have a right to be pi$$ed off that Bush says he supports troops and then takes away their benefits.
I have a right to be pi$$ed off that however committed our president is to fighting terror, he is not competent to the task, nor qualified for any job that I know of.
I have a right to be pi$$ed off when right-wing ideologues try to tell me what I think.
I have a right to be pi$$ed off when cable TV pundits get their facts wrong, and no one questions him because he's Bill-O-F@cking-Liely.
That's all any liberal wants, no more no less, and when Republicans try to take that away, or tell me I'm a traitor, or tell me I'm soft on terror, I will step up and say "bring it on" 'cause I will go toe-to-toe on any topic with any of you right-wing frauds and win.
I've met plenty of conservatives, and it's a rare one that measures up to their talk.
I am absolutely sick and disgusted with all of the crap conservatives are fabricating about liberals. It's fiction, just like a Bush press conference.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 02:31 PM
Hey how bout that the left and the right are insane!
Posted by: Joe Normal | June 24, 2005 02:32 PM
This is ground control to Father Tom...
Posted by: brooksfoe | June 24, 2005 02:32 PM
Why does anyone who's against Bush's policies automatically get lumped in with Michael Moore and Moveon.org? I've never seen a single damn one of his movies or looked at that website. I know propaganda when I smell it, which is why I don't believe White House press statements.
Posted by: grey | June 24, 2005 02:33 PM
This administration has cut $100 million in medical benefits for those NYFD heroes Bush stood with on sept 12, 2001.
More than one plan has been floated by this administration to cut benefits for those soldiers returning from Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
There is strong evidence that there is a traitor in the white house who leaked the name of a CIA agent in the field.
There is strong evidence that this administration placed our sons and daughters in harm's way, and is killing Iraqis, both innocent and otherwise, at best without checking his facts, at worst lying to the American public.
There is strong evidence that Iraqi is safer for terrorists now than it was before the war.
This administration has taken away freedoms (Patriot Act) AND failed to provide any real security or protection. A remarkable feat.
If you think these are not slippery slopes that CAN POTENTIALLY (that is what the article said) lead to fascist laws, then you're only kidding yourself.
I'm as liberal as they come, and I'm as patriotic as they come, and I feel I have a right to pretty pi$$ed off at right-wing ideologues who think they know something about liberals.
I have a right to be pi$$ed off that Bush says he supports troops and then takes away their benefits.
I have a right to be pi$$ed off that however committed our president is to fighting terror, he is not competent to the task, nor qualified for any job that I know of.
I have a right to be pi$$ed off that America claims to want to fight a war, but rejected a certified war hero and leader, and now wonders why we're losing.
I have a right to be pi$$ed off when right-wing ideologues try to tell me what I think.
I have a right to be pi$$ed off when cable TV pundits get their facts wrong, and no one questions him because he's Bill-O-F@cking-Liely.
That's all any liberal wants, no more no less, and when Republicans try to take that away, or tell me I'm a traitor, or tell me I'm soft on terror, I will step up and say "bring it on" 'cause I will go toe-to-toe on any topic with any of you right-wing frauds and win.
I've met plenty of conservatives, and it's a rare one that measures up to their talk.
I am absolutely sick and disgusted with all of the crap conservatives are fabricating about liberals. It's fiction, just like a Bush press conference.
Posted by: True Blue Liberal | June 24, 2005 02:34 PM
Over 1700 lives, billions of dollars, a dramatic loss of staure in the world, a war that has given terroism a call-to-arms, and countless domestic problems ignored.
Oh no the hypnosis is wearing off.... MUST REMEMBER... support the flag....Freedom....War on Terror...Code Orange...liberators of the middle east...hard work...freedom fries. Ah - free from reality - I feel numb and right again!
Posted by: Doug | June 24, 2005 02:34 PM
He pi$$ed off...I'm with you.
Unless the neo-cons have the bullet points in hand from O'liely, or druggy Limbaugh they have nothing to say.
Posted by: GoDonkeys | June 24, 2005 02:35 PM
>>Was ANYONE walking around thinking we needed a war with Iraq before this crew got control of the government. NO. <<
Agreed, when taken in the context of the stated reason we went to war. However, I did think Saddam needed to be deposed as dictator. Just as I thought Idi Amin should have been deposed as dictator. Stalin should have been deposed. Dictatorial regimes are unavoidably vicious and should be stamped out. I've waited my whole life for the UN to do their job and I keep getting disappointed.
I stand amazed at those who think we should embrace a live-and-let-live policy with criminals against humanity. These isolationists are the same people who would watch from their front yard while their neighbor was raped in hers - and not get involved. At some point you really have to say "enough is enough" to retain your humanity. History has shown (again and again) that waiting too long is by far the worst course of action. Call the police (read: the UN)? Yeah, that works - NOT.
Do I think the war in Iraq was fought for the right reason (according to dubya)? No, I do not. I do not think Iraq was a threat to the US. I never expected them to find any WMD. He was, however, a threat to humanity that needed to be removed. I can think of others without too much trouble. Will we go there? Maybe, if we move out of this Politically Correct quagmire that pervades our poor country; but probably not.
Do I think Saddam's removal could have been accomplished more easily? Maybe, or maybe not. Kennedy said that "we do not do these things because they are easy, we do them because they are hard". This quote applies across the board in my opinion. I have fought. I have buried friends. I have also seen enemies vanquished - horrible men who were a blight on humanity.
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 02:36 PM
I think we may have the beginning of a promising Father Tom Initiative to resolve a lot of the world's polarization here.
The keys are cheeks, and buildings.
Cheeks are infinitely fungible: they can be turned, and turned, and turned again, ad infinitum.
Buildings, on the other hand, are discrete and must be exchanged carefully on a one-for-one basis.
More broadly, it's about love (cheeks) and trust (buildings).
Not sure about concrete proposals to put this into play. How about a national forum of some kind? Anyone?
Posted by: brooksfoe | June 24, 2005 02:36 PM
Some have stated that Rove's statements smack of desperation.
It could also be the opposite. Maybe he is taunting the Democrats - showing everyone how impotent they are.
"Apology - yeah right that will be the day." - thinks Rove and the adminstration mouthpieces immediately back him up 100%. .
These guys don't do apologies. They see it as a sign of weakness (the irony being that almost all of them are certified chickenhawks).
Maybe it is time to find a strategy that hits them where it hurts:
Posted by: Bohdan | June 24, 2005 02:37 PM
You're right -- I didn't understand a thing that Father Tom just said, but somehow I don't think it has anything to do with being liberal.
Posted by: True Blue Liberal | June 24, 2005 02:38 PM
The "terror" we're at "war" with in Iraq is Rove's and Cheney's, et.al. True SH had a nasty hand there, but in the long run, history might judge W's nation-building aftermath as even more heinous--for Iraquis now headed for a very long, nasty civil war; for the world, for our creating a nourishing ground for insurgents; and for us for risking our political capital and squandering our resources. And WASP, When Clinton Lied, No One Died. The only people totally wrapped up in the sex lives of others are generally sexually supressed or impotent themselves. The problem for Democrats is trying to end run scrimmage against a very long term plan by Rove...
Posted by: j | June 24, 2005 02:38 PM
Interesting how Rove wins again. He cemented the concept that all media should focus on the analogy that Durbin used, thereby diverting the media from the central issue: we are behaving as badly as the despots we claim to be battling. Many pundits in effect said, "well, it's OK that Durbin was upset at the report, but he should have used a less radical analogy". Jesus Murphy, give me a break! What would have been an acceptable analogy? Please give me one that on the one hand uses torture practices, but doesn't reach the Hitler/PolPot level. Does one overanalogy make that crap OK? To the dim bulb that says something to the effect that "do you think that an 18 year old fighting for his country likes to be compared to----", use your head for a change. Durbin approx. said, "if I didn't know better, I would think that I was looking at a report from ....", and did not say who was guilty, much less did he say your noble, innocent 18 year old did it. Only you are suggesting that, and you further go on to suggest that virtually all the troops act badly! Did you ever consider that there might be a few bad apples in the basket and that they might just be in the administration? What is clear is that someone pulled this Gitmo crap, and it is to them and their superiors that Durbin's remarks are directed, no others. The silly remarks of these Rove supporters need to go into the same category as those from the dittoheads that say if you don't think this war was a good idea, you are not patriotic and you don't support our troops. To me, supporting our troops means: 1. Pay them well, 2.Equip them well, and above all 3. Use them well. A clear exhibition of disregard for our troops is to put them in an impossible situation, poorly planned (if at all) just to gain brownie points with the radical bible thumping right.
Posted by: Trawlerman | June 24, 2005 02:38 PM
"Why does anyone who's against Bush's policies automatically get lumped in with Michael Moore and Moveon.org?"
Why does Michael Moore get lumped in with MoveOn.org? MoveOn.org is a serious, responsible political organization; claims to the contrary are pure Republican crap-flinging.
Posted by: brooksfoe | June 24, 2005 02:38 PM
Uncle Tom, that's the biggest load of sh*t I've ever read.
Our fearless monkey leader and his team have killed more Americans (and their cheeks and eyes, one would think) than the terrorists ever hoped for in their wildest dreams.
Children (with cheeks and eyes!) have been sent ill-equipped and under-trained to die for Bush's lies. Our allies (and their cheeks and eyes and buildings!) have been bombed, abducted, tortured and killed for Bush's lies.
Americans (and their cheeks and eyes) are being captured, totured and beheaded on camera, all for Bush's war of lies.
Yeah, I'm glad that hero is cowering safely in his office and egging on the terrorists from behind his Secret Service agents for my sake.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 02:39 PM
Man the truth hurts so you have to cry about it? Rove speaks the painful truth about the current state of liberals. NOT DEMOCRATS as a party, but the real liberal nuts like Dean, Durbin, Hillary, Pelosi. Unfortunately, they are the main components of the Democratic party at the moment. I suggest you try to take your party back from the brink of Implosion.
Posted by: Haha | June 24, 2005 02:39 PM
This war was not started for a humanitarian reason. There are so many other areas of the world where we could invest money and troops with a better outcome and in turn setting a strong moral example. This was not planned for the people of Iraq.
Posted by: Doug | June 24, 2005 02:40 PM
If all the young Republican’s enlisted in the Army instead of spending their time trashing liberals maybe we’d have a chance of getting out of Iraq before 2020.- PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Posted by: Liberal | June 24, 2005 02:41 PM
Hey, just figured this out:
Father Tom is Osama bin Laden!
Posted by: Jim Middleroader | June 24, 2005 02:42 PM
Why don't you people just admit that this country has become a dictatorship and get to the real problem, Bush and Cheney and the oil concerns that put them into power. For oil, by oil, until the oil is all gone. Then the middle east will be a forgotten corner of the world once again. Maybe Bush will refuse to vacate the Presidency when his term is up based on some trumped up threat. Don't act surprised when it happens. I'm still waiting for an entire group of people to say, no I won't go fight your war, go yourself. THEN I will be impressed by mankind. Say what you will about that, your so called cowards are the only intelligent life on this planet. Next time your government gives a war, RSVP no thanks!
Posted by: gilbertgosane | June 24, 2005 02:42 PM
New Jersey "Moderate" - Well, Bush has clearly proven them right, eh? I mean obviously starting a war with a 3rd world dictatorship in the middle east is clearly not the way to address terrorism. You need to hunt down the individuals one by one. You'll notice that the U.S. Military has barely captured only a small handful of terrorist leaders. Most were captured by Pakistani Police.
I can't help but notice that the Repubs on this board are usually the ones to drag out the name calling and whatnot.
No matter. Truth always comes out. It just does. The right wing should be very fearful. Joe McCarthy did the right wing in for a decade. History repeats itself.
Posted by: Me | June 24, 2005 02:43 PM
Father Tom's theology is as skewed as his politics. "As Jesus said, patience is a vuirtue." Jesus didn't say that. Geoffrey Chaucer did. It's from The Canterbury Tales: "Pacience is an heigh vertu, certyn."
"If he is a bad terrorist he may strike your cheek. Only then do you have God's permission to take his eye. That is in the Bible." Perhaps Father Tom is reading the "King George Version" of the Bible. The "King James" puts it this way: "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39 "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you." Matthew 5:4
That's what Jesus really said. Exactly the sort of "wimpy" sentiments Karl Rove was attacking. Indeed, purported "Christians" like Father Tom (and Karl Rove and George W. Bush) who claim God favors shooting first and asking questions later may have a bit of a surprise in store when "the roll is called up yonder."
Posted by: Patriot 1 | June 24, 2005 02:44 PM
Cheers, Liberal! If Republicans want this war so much, they can get in those un-armored humvees with no body armor. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Posted by: True Blue Liberal | June 24, 2005 02:46 PM
To the person who said that I was calling Christains bad names, you obviously did not read what I wrote. All Christians are Gold's Children. If you read the Bible then you must have some intelligence.
My point is that there is nothing wrong with believing in Jesus or in wanting a land of the free thta is safe for all good Christians, and where builidngs and people do not have to be afriad of terrorists.
I have presented arguments that support this belief. And I stand by my word that the President is committed to freedom and to winning. The fact that the Liberals are against him proves that they are also against the buildings.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 02:46 PM
Durbin can call his country's government and armed forces Bullies, Stalinists and Nazi's, and Rove can call Durbin and his ilk on these and their countless other stupid comments.
The Demoncrats' gnashing of teeth and cries for apologies (a therapeutic remedy, by the way) serve only to reinforce Rove's point, and to remind us that among the things Demoncrats like to control is SPEECH.
Here are the two "couldn't be different" reactions to the demands for apologies:
--"His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized ..."
--"Of course not," McClellan said when asked by reporters whether President Bush will ask Rove to apologize.
So who do you really want running the war on terror?
Posted by: georgie-porgie | June 24, 2005 02:48 PM
Rummy says "When you go to war, you go with the army that you have and not with the army that you want". If we did go to war for the humanitarian reason of removing Saddam and liberating the Iraqi people, why couldn't we wait and do it with the army that wanted, or at least made sure all of the humvees were properly armored?
Posted by: GoDonkeys | June 24, 2005 02:51 PM
father tom(Whatever happened to call no man father for you have one father, your lord in heaven, Mt 23:9), you are a liar. That is not the bible, that is a complete corruption of the gospel. that is not even close to what Matt. 5:38, 39 teachs.
matt. 5:43, 44. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
you and your so called 'christian' president should maybe read what you qoute.
Gal 1:6-9 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
revelation 22:15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a LIE.
Posted by: the bible | June 24, 2005 02:51 PM
Mac: "Do I think the war in Iraq was fought for the right reason (according to dubya)? No, I do not. I do not think Iraq was a threat to the US. I never expected them to find any WMD. He was, however, a threat to humanity that needed to be removed."
EXACTLY what I said earlier, and exactly what I believe. You and I should do lunch.
Posted by: fencesitter | June 24, 2005 02:52 PM
"I am absolutely sick and disgusted with all of the crap conservatives are fabricating about liberals. It's fiction, just like a Bush press conference." Posted by: | June 24, 2005 02:31 PM
How about a name? At least give us SOMETHING to shoot at. You know us Conservatives, we just want to lie and shoot stuff. I know we ain't as good or honest as yoos Liberals, but "By God", we sure know how to tear stuff up.
Much like Slick Willy tore up my Medical Retirement after DS, and took a crap on me leaving me with NO medical coverage, and ineligible for insurance... But that's OK, he needed to do it for the good of the government, even though he claimed that he wouldn't touch the military. No Lies in press conferences there!! MY A$$
Posted by: Amer-I-Can | June 24, 2005 02:52 PM
"So who do you really want running the war on terror?"
Hmm...and who, exactly, is running it now, GP? Scott McClellan, Jeff Gannon's great and good friend? Or Dick "Come to Gitmo, America's Island Paradise" Cheney?
It sure as heck isn't GWB, who stopped worrying about Osama bin Laden the day the first bomb fell on Baghdad.
Posted by: Patriot 1 | June 24, 2005 02:54 PM
>> You and I should do lunch.
Look me up if you ever make it down South; but only if you like steak. ;)
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 02:54 PM
Interesting how you changed the subject so deftly. From what Rove said about what 'liberals' said and di, to what Melman said about what Rove said about what 'liberals' said, and then some evidence to prove Melman's remarks.
Nice contribution to the fog.
Posted by: Judy | June 24, 2005 02:55 PM
I thought the Iraq war was started because Saddam wouldn't comply with some UN mandate. Didn't the UN ask us to go in and clear out that mare's nest?
Posted by: CodBlessAmerica | June 24, 2005 02:55 PM
re slick willy and your coverage. how about some facts. the congress makes the laws that determine military benefits. the last time I checked the Newties took over Congress in 1994 and haven't relenquished it since. Republicans cut your benefits.
Posted by: playnice | June 24, 2005 02:58 PM
"Didn't the UN ask us to go in and clear out that mare's nest?"
Most assuredly not. Indeed, the UN weapons inspectors were the first to expose Bush's lies about Iraq's weapons. There was no UN mandate...or even a fig leaf...for the overthrow of the Iraqi regime.
Posted by: Patriot 1 | June 24, 2005 02:58 PM
"Much like Slick Willy tore up my Medical Retirement after DS, and took a crap on me leaving me with NO medical coverage, and ineligible for insurance... But that's OK, he needed to do it for the good of the government, even though he claimed that he wouldn't touch the military. No Lies in press conferences there!! MY A$$" Posted by: Amer-I-Can | June 24, 2005 02:52 PM
I've always said that Bill Clinton was the best Republican president this country has ever seen.
Posted by: True Blue Liberal | June 24, 2005 02:59 PM
put up or move into a sand cave in Iraq you pissants.
Posted by: 911 | June 24, 2005 02:59 PM
"Didn't the UN ask us to go in and clear out that mare's nest?"
Most assuredly not. Indeed, the UN weapons inspectors were the first to expose Bush's lies about Iraq's weapons. There was no UN mandate...or even a fig leaf...for the overthrow of the Iraqi regime.
Posted by: Patriot 1 | June 24, 2005 02:59 PM
"So who do you really want running the war on terror?"
I'll take the guys who are strong enough to admit a mistake and move on. You know the ones who live in REALITY. Not the ones who ignore facts and stick stubbornly to their plan even when it is clear they are wrong.
Posted by: Doug | June 24, 2005 03:00 PM
Now the UN asked us to go in?
I must be waking up from a long nightmare and now see the light. If you are referring to resolution 1441 from the UN I suggest you read it before repeating Rush or Hannity's nonsense on the matter.
If you fancy a good read, the Downing Street memos are highly enlightening; although common sense and logic are sufficient to infer all that is contained in those documents.
Posted by: GoDonkeys | June 24, 2005 03:00 PM
Goodbye everyone (Adios muchachos, for those pesky Californians). Nice to see that not much has changed for all of our posturing. Hopefully some sort of centrist party that really cares about this country will materialize and save us from the lunatic fringe before it's too late.
Posted by: Mac | June 24, 2005 03:00 PM
"So who do you really want running the war on terror?"
I'll take the guys who are strong enough to admit a mistake and move on. You know the ones who live in REALITY. Not the ones who ignore facts and stick stubbornly to their plan even when it is clear they are wrong.
Posted by: Doug | June 24, 2005 03:01 PM
First of all, it is wrong for someone out there to say that I am Osama Bin Laden. That is name-calling, something I believe is not a nice thiung to do. Besides Osama Bin Laden lives far from my house. Thererfore, we cannot be the same person. So much for that point.
Second, someone said something about shutting up or about cheeks and buildings. If we are to make progress as a nation we must remain open to knew thoughts and ideas. That can only happend if we are allowed to talk on the internet. So it is unAmerican to stop someone from talking no matter what they say.
Third, to the person who "corrected" my quotes from Jesus. Yes, I know about Chaucer and King George. What you don't realize is that God is the original creator. And everything we do is a result of his greatness, except for terrorism, which comes from evil, the Deveil, and Eve's apple. There is no shame in admitting that our greatest thoughts come from God no matter if you are Chuacer or Harry Potter.
God Bless you for reading, and for believing that America is a Great Land With Many Great Buildings and People.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 03:02 PM
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said of Rove's remark that he "has decided to move to center stage in the theater of the absurd."
Beautifully put, and I agree completely, BUT: this is a "your mother wears combat boots" situation, only worse.
How DARE this man insult my mother? How DARE he impugn my patriotism? How DARE he assume that only Repug's are patriotic? HOW DARE HE??
the Rove-Cheney-Rumsfeld triumvirate answers only to corporate America, anyway. That's the only "nation" they know. And we voting citizens, who care so deeply about our beloved country that we WOULD -- I'm speaking as a liberal here -- give our life for our country if asked (for a reasonable, reasoned, defensive and defensible protection of our homeland, not the half-cocked Iraq-Vietnam-Fog-of-War situation that those bastards got us into and now cannot get us out of).
This country is in the worst trouble, the worst divisiveness, than it has been in since 1776, it seems to me. Abraham Lincoln was quite right about the divided house, and the triumvirate seems to be doing everything it can to divide us more.
We elected [well, not me, but they did win] a truly text-book fascist government that, one by tiny one, is removing our civil liberties through all sorts of legal/legislative sleights of hand.
I believe that Karl Rove is not only arrogant, he's dangerous. Democrats have never thought they've owned America; they've always thought the people own America.
But the current administration? They evidently believe that THEY, and only they -- along with the companies they own stock or have other interests in -- own this country.
How DARE that man impugn MY patriotism?? He doesn't even know me!
BTW, is Ken Lay really going to stand trial? Are Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Kozlowski the corporate Breaker Morants of our time? [I'm not defending them; I am suggesting that this administration, with all its corporate ties, is even more conspiratorial than we know about.]
Posted by: leslie | June 24, 2005 03:02 PM
You have apparently not noticed that the war is being waged "over there" and not "over here". Let's just agree that whoever it is has done a reasonably good job of keeping it off of our shores, even if you're not crazy about everything that goes on there.
I've never seen Gitmo, but compared to the $hitholes that Iraqis call "cities", I've got to believe that Paradise is close to the right term. 3 squares a day, air conditioning and you don't have to strap on a bomb vest at the whim of some a$$hole with a turban and a gun. You can't even argue that they gave up freedom to be locked up in Cuba.
Finally, it's probably one of the nicer places on the Island.
Posted by: Patriot 1 | June 24, 2005 03:03 PM
I wonder?? Were the German citizens in the 1930s, that questioned the emergence of the NAZI party, unpatriotic for not declaring undying support to Hitler and the government in power? Or were they the true patriots. Or were the true patriots the unthinking masses swept up in the mass hysteria of the righteous sounding rhetoric of the lunatics in charge? If GWB and Karl Rove et al question my patriotism for questioning their rhetoric and policies, I feel no compunction whatsoever in saying they are a bigger threat to our democracy than any outside force currently on the face of the planet. When our democracy falls, as someday it inevitably will, the cause of the fall will come from within, not from outside. Bringing down the twin towers did not make me fear for the future of our democracy. Gitmo and the Patriot Act (among other things) do.
Posted by: phineoust | June 24, 2005 03:04 PM
Now the UN asked us to go in?
I must be waking up from a long nightmare and now see the light. If you are referring to resolution 1441 from the UN I suggest you read it before repeating Rush or Hannity's nonsense on the matter.
If you fancy a good read, the Downing Street memos are highly enlightening; although common sense and logic are sufficient to infer all that is contained in those documents.
Posted by: GoDonkeys | June 24, 2005 03:05 PM
Michael Moore and MoveOn.org and the ACLU should all pack up and move their Liberal asses to Iraq where their heads can be used as lamp posts.
Posted by: Soory4U | June 24, 2005 03:05 PM
>>"I guess what is more comparable is not what each government did, but how the people blindly followed each, cheering, no matter what the government did, because any suggestion that the government was wrong was met with that terrible label "your unpatriotic" and antiGerman/antiAmerican."<<
51% - 49%...I wouldn't call that "blindly following." This message board alone proves that not everyone is cheering. This country is as it has always been: a place of passionate people with very different ideas. Hitler in Germany was...do I really have to give the history lesson?
There's not even anywhere near the amount of people in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib combined as there was number of people killed by either Hitler or Stalin. If you put it all in proportions, the comparison is still ludicrous.
Look, there are certain types of intelligence gathering that, imo, are necessary, and others that I think are well beyond the pale. This government has used both. No, I'm not particularly proud of all of the tactics used. No, I don't agree with a lot of the decisions this administration has made. But Hitler? Come on. I wish Hitler had been like Bush. He would have got stuck in the Rhineland for years on end and World War II would never have happened.
I agree that Bush and his people throw around this "un-American, unpatriotic" rhetoric a bit too much, but Durbin making those asinine statements, on the floor of the Senate, no less, is at least equally inexcusable. It's just a flat out ridiculous statement.
Personally, I don't care if Durbin apologizes or not. If he truly believes that, fine. In those words, he has told me all I need to know about him.
This is why a lot of Democrats' legitimate criticisms of the Bush administration fall on deaf ears. Because they try and make an impact with statements like this. Not only that, but they stand shoulder to shoulder with the fringe elements of their base, such as MoveOn and Michael Moore, who make equally over-the-top statements on a daily basis. Going on about Hitler and Stalin does nothing to persuade people or represent your side. It only further entrenches those with hardcore beliefs on both sides.
In fact, both parties have selfishly used every aspect of this war to polarize this nation and paint people with different political persuasions as "anti-American, unpatriotic wacky liberals" or "fanatical religious, knuckle-dragging neo-cons." Unfortunately, a growing number of people are buying into this garbage to the point where you can't even have a political discussion without everyone hurling the latest insults that they heard on the Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken shows.
Posted by: P | June 24, 2005 03:05 PM
Sorry, that last post was by me, and NOT Patriot 1...
That conversion would have been too easy.
Posted by: Georgie-Porgie | June 24, 2005 03:06 PM
This is a copy of an E-Mail that I sent Bush today ,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As a democratic grandmother of 4 military age young people ,I would lie down in the street in front of the bus taking them to camp if any one of them decided to join YOUR military!! I am a patriot, wife of an x military and daughter and grand daughter of Democratic men that served their country well. I look at you and all of the people around you and I do not see more then one or two that has served their country, and that sure wasn't that pasty faced little coward Rove. I think that you should bring all of those cowardly democratic kids home now, after all who wants liberal abettors in the military. Then we will be left with all the republican heros , but it sure won't be the kids of anyone you know. And it sure won't be a very big military. Shame on you and shame on Rove for denigating probably 2/3 of the enlisted people in the military and their families that have paid dearly for your blunder!! ---------------------------------------- I think it is everyone's duty to let Bush know what they think, wtite to him at... [email protected]
Posted by: donna | June 24, 2005 03:06 PM
>>"I guess what is more comparable is not what each government did, but how the people blindly followed each, cheering, no matter what the government did, because any suggestion that the government was wrong was met with that terrible label "your unpatriotic" and antiGerman/antiAmerican."<<
51% - 49%...I wouldn't call that "blindly following." This message board alone proves that not everyone is cheering. This country is as it has always been: a place of passionate people with very different ideas. Hitler in Germany was...do I really have to give the history lesson?
There's not even anywhere near the amount of people in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib combined as there was number of people killed by either Hitler or Stalin. If you put it all in proportions, the comparison is still ludicrous.
Look, there are certain types of intelligence gathering that, imo, are necessary, and others that I think are well beyond the pale. This government has used both. No, I'm not particularly proud of all of the tactics used. No, I don't agree with a lot of the decisions this administration has made. But Hitler? Come on. I wish Hitler had been like Bush. He would have got stuck in the Rhineland for years on end and World War II would never have happened.
I agree that Bush and his people throw around this "un-American, unpatriotic" rhetoric a bit too much, but Durbin making those asinine statements, on the floor of the Senate, no less, is at least equally inexcusable. It's just a flat out ridiculous statement.
Personally, I don't care if Durbin apologizes or not. If he truly believes that, fine. In those words, he has told me all I need to know about him.
This is why a lot of Democrats' legitimate criticisms of the Bush administration fall on deaf ears. Because they try and make an impact with statements like this. Not only that, but they stand shoulder to shoulder with the fringe elements of their base, such as MoveOn and Michael Moore, who make equally over-the-top statements on a daily basis. Going on about Hitler and Stalin does nothing to persuade people or represent your side. It only further entrenches those with hardcore beliefs on both sides.
In fact, both parties are guilty of this type of rhetoric. Both have selfishly used every aspect of this war to polarize this nation and paint people with different political persuasions as "anti-American, unpatriotic wacky liberals" or "fanatical religious, knuckle-dragging neo-cons." Unfortunately, a growing number of people are buying into this garbage to the point where you can't even have a political discussion without everyone hurling the latest insults that they heard on the Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken shows.
Posted by: PG | June 24, 2005 03:07 PM
OUCH True Blue.... but it was a nice stick
Posted by: Amer-I-Can | June 24, 2005 03:07 PM
Why is it that no Republican can have a conversation about politics without bringing up Clinton. Three words: GET OVER IT.
Besides, what's worse: lying about a war (or Iran Contra or a break-in of your opponents' office) or lying about a blow job?
Posted by: Fatbaldwhiteguy | June 24, 2005 03:08 PM
Did you see that? Doug must be one of those people who almost stole the first election!
Or maybe he's from Chicago.
Posted by: I only vote once | June 24, 2005 03:08 PM
I wonder?? Were the German citizens in the 1930s, that questioned the emergence of the NAZI party, unpatriotic for not declaring undying support to Hitler and the government in power? Or were they the true patriots. Or were the true patriots the unthinking masses swept up in the mass hysteria of the righteous sounding rhetoric of the lunatics in charge? If GWB and Karl Rove et al question my patriotism for questioning their rhetoric and policies, I feel no compunction whatsoever in saying they are a bigger threat to our democracy than any outside force currently on the face of the planet. When our democracy falls, as someday it inevitably will, the cause of the fall will come from within, not from outside. Bringing down the twin towers did not make me fear for the future of our democracy. Gitmo and the Patriot Act (among other things) do.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 03:09 PM
Sorry for the double post! First one was unedited and I acidentally hit send...ouch, they're long, too...
Posted by: PG | June 24, 2005 03:10 PM
I wonder?? Were the German citizens in the 1930s, that questioned the emergence of the NAZI party, unpatriotic for not declaring undying support to Hitler and the government in power? Or were they the true patriots. Or were the true patriots the unthinking masses swept up in the mass hysteria of the righteous sounding rhetoric of the lunatics in charge? If GWB and Karl Rove et al question my patriotism for questioning their rhetoric and policies, I feel no compunction whatsoever in saying they are a bigger threat to our democracy than any outside force currently on the face of the planet. When our democracy falls, as someday it inevitably will, the cause of the fall will come from within, not from outside. Bringing down the twin towers did not make me fear for the future of our democracy. Gitmo and the Patriot Act (among other things) do.
Posted by: phineoust | June 24, 2005 03:10 PM
"There was no UN mandate...or even a fig leaf...for the overthrow of the Iraqi regime."
Which I say is exactly the problem with the UN "Peacekeepers". They looked at Saddam, saw his crimes, and said/did nothing.
I know this discussion has gotten way off topic but I have to know something. Straight up, I want to know how many of you really believe without a doubt that Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat to Humanity and should NOT have been overthrown. How many of you have no regard for human suffering?
Posted by: fencesitter | June 24, 2005 03:11 PM
The War on Terror is just another political creation in the great tradition of unwinnable "wars" that politicians use to get elected and divert us from the real reason they are in office, to help the corporations by streamlining the free market enterprise. The War on Poverty...the War on Drugs...The War on Terror. Where are we with "winning" these? We spent a ton of money so far, thats about all I can see.
Can anyone, liberal or conservative, envision a day when we "win" the war on terror? Was anyone decided what will constitute a "win"?
Why do grown, learned men discuss winning this war like it is something that can actually be acheived?
The idea that Conservatives are fighting this "war" harder than the liberals, then to have the liberals insist they are fighting just as hard in this unachievable endeavor, would be comical if it were not so sad.
Posted by: FollowTheMoney | June 24, 2005 03:11 PM
Sorry for my double post too. Just gettin the hang of this bloggin' stuff.
Posted by: phineoust | June 24, 2005 03:12 PM
Lets face it, all administrations are defined by one act. Reagan-Fall of USSR, Bush 1--Desert Shield and Not finising off Saddamm, Clinton-Monica, Bush 2 - 9/11. So as much as we want to think the public will be fed up with Bush and his cronies by 2006, they won't be because we will be in a 6-9 month period awash in how he was in place for the countries healing post attack. We need to focus on 2006. Sorry but Hillary will never get even close to elected and the sooner we get away from her and to a Moderate (VA Gov Warner?)the better chance we have of not having a Pres McCain.
Posted by: Joe Kazanu | June 24, 2005 03:15 PM
Brooksfoe, interesting food for thought.
Posted by: grey | June 24, 2005 03:15 PM
Look at that! The conservative crowd apologizes without needing to be asked.
The liberal crowd rants and demands.
At the end of the day, I'm going to tally up the insults, and post them on this log. Tune in tomorrow.
Posted by: I only vote once | June 24, 2005 03:15 PM
One more thing...I try to be as open as possible, but it really ticks me off that people like this idiotically ignorant DICK who is saying incredibly stupid things about human beings that bleed just like you and me...You don't know a thing about rap music, a thing about the Koran, or thing about history or you would know why this war is really going on. Maybe he should volunteer his services to the armed forces if he feels that those people should not have a decent place to stay in. America should hold itself to a better standard than that. People in this country should EXPECT better than that. I am sick of these ignorant extremists spreading all of their ignorant fear and cloaking it with Religion and calling it good. Jesus never sanctioned retalitaing after truning the other cheek or God would have struck the Jews and the Roman people down after they had tortured him on the cross. For your information, I am a liberal who beilives in opportunity and EQUALITY for everyone, and I also happen to believe that Guantanomo should not be shut down...My heart is not bigger than my brain...there are perfectly logical reasons to think the GOP is a detriment to this country: for instance, unemployment and outsourcing..I am sure you will have a job DICK after the Republicans stay in office for a while..., education levels are PITIFUL, your children's education is going down the tiolet for nuclear bombs but the GOP does not care because they have the money to send their kids to private schools and they claim to be inclusive, give me a dag gone break! Affirative Action is being attacked, our social security is being attacked, and our armed forces are losing recruitment at an alarming rate. You think LIBERALS did all of that? In the five years that the GOP has been in power they have managed to destroy whatever progress this country achieved while Bill Clinton was in power. There are people in this country who actually believe all of the lies that were FED to them by the Grand Old Party..LIES LIES and IGNORANCE that is what the GOP has brought to our country. That and Hipocritical politics..gotta love that.
Hey dick you are a real ignorant buttwhole who wouldn't know the difference between what a blatant lie is and complete BSing if it hit him in the face! RAP IS GREAT...my IQ is quite high (142) and my heart is even bigger and I am not afriad to BRAG about that. Take that! By the way what Rap music have you heard??? I do not complain about country music is music..honestly what does that have to do with Gipmo anyway???? Who is 'them' you racist SOB! GOP stirkes again racism prevails because of the comfortable claok of religion. BEAUTIFUL! I apologize people I appreciate solid constructive debate rather than ignorant rantings
Posted by: kuuks | June 24, 2005 03:17 PM
I'm extremely offended that some of you cretins posting today think I'm a "he," a born again right wing fundamentalist, repressed, impotent, whatever. I'm none of those. I'm offended and demand an apology. If you're offended by my remarks, then I'm offended that you're offended. People -- get a life.
Let's get the record straight -- I'm a 59-year-old woman, pro-choice, haven't been inside a church in 40 years except for weddings and funerals, which are pretty much the same thing IMHO. I drive a foreign-made car, worked two jobs to put myself through college, maintain my own house, work full time to support myself, have never been on welfare, psychiatric leave or drugs. I belong to AAA and the Lions Club. I think some of these posts are made up by nut cases to 'stir the pot' and if these are representative of educated Americans, then I will move to Canada or Ireland or Nova Scotia. Been there before and the natives are quite friendly and they speak English.
Stop trying to get me to enlist -- I have arthritis and my eyesight is 20/400.
Posted by: WASP | June 24, 2005 03:17 PM
>Can anyone, liberal or conservative, >envision a day when we "win" the war on >terror? Was anyone decided what will >constitute a "win"?
Oh yeah! A win is when these savages turn on themselves in Iraq, and we're no longer there.
Posted by: WinDefiner | June 24, 2005 03:18 PM
I can't believe I just spent 20 minutes scrolling through the most toxic and pointless discussion thread I have every read. I feel the need to go shower.
Posted by: Fool | June 24, 2005 03:18 PM
"Let's just agree that whoever it is has done a reasonably good job of keeping it off of our shores, even if you're not crazy about everything that goes on there."
Fine -- I'll give GWB credit for keeping the U.S. safe from international terrorists for the past 4 years... right after you give Bill Clinton credit for keeping the U.S. safe from terrorism between 1993 and 2001. But wait -- if you do that, who can you blame for 9/11?
As for waging the "war on terrorism" in someplace "over there", I assure you it isn't being fought in Iraq. What is happening in Iraq today is NOT the war againt terrorism GWB promised in the aftermath of 9/11. The current violence in Iraq is a RESULT of the war, not a cause of it.
And despite Porter Goss's most recent gaseous emissions, the U.S. is no closer to catching Osama bin Laden today than it was when Tower 2 collapsed.
As for Gitmo -- if you have to endure being hung upside-down by your manacled wrists over a filthy overflowing toilet in order to get "3 squares a day" and "air conditioning"... you can have it.
Posted by: Patriot 1 | June 24, 2005 03:20 PM
Hurry! Please pack your bags and go. You can't be tolerant of political speech and un/informed opinion? You must go.
Posted by: Travel Agent | June 24, 2005 03:21 PM
It is sad that all the Liberals are trying to complicate the situation by writing long posts with various facts. This confuses the issue which makes it hard to know what to do. But Jesus said to trust in the Lord and you can then go to heaven when your done. To me that's a good deal.
Therefore, Liberals who complicate things with facts are just trying to keep Christians from going to heaven.
I don't think they do this on purpose. They are trying hard to be good patriots but they do not understand theat it is important to trust in your country and in God.
As for Rush Libmbaugh (who somebody said was not a nice man) I don't know how you can say that unless you were at his house. To me he has interesting viewpoints and is not any of the things people say about him. Plus, I think his drug problems are his own busioness. The Liberal media want to bring him dsown by focusing attention on his private life instead of his controversial viewpoints.
This is another sign of how the Liberal media are dangerous to freedom, and our President. In times of war, it may be neceeary to stop the Liberal media even if that means using force. I think that's in the Constitution somewhere. Any help?
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 03:21 PM
Oh yeah! A win is when these savages turn on themselves in Iraq, and we're no longer there. Posted by: WinDefiner | June 24, 2005 03:18 PM
Where does timothy McViegh fit in this definition of a "win?"
Posted by: FollowTheMoney | June 24, 2005 03:23 PM
>> Where does timothy McViegh fit in this definition of a "win?"
He's in the DEAD CRIMINAL column.
Posted by: JusticeNow | June 24, 2005 03:25 PM
To those who charge that calls for understanding the enemy are a sign of weakness: perhaps you should read Michael Shermer's books (e.g. Imperial Hubris). Shermer's a Reagan-loving Christian ex-CIA guy -- who says we have *got* to understand what motivates this enemy to fight, if we ever hope to either (1) negotiate peace, (2) neutralize them by undermining their public support or (3) destroy them with force. Blind, blundering flag-waving ignorance won't help us do it. Hint: a fair resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would mvoe us immeasurably towards (2).
Regarding Durbin: his point was that someone reading the *FBI e-mails* by an *eyewitness* to Gitmo, would think they were reading about a prisoner camp run by a repressive, totalitarian regime -- if they didn't know beforehand that it was run by the USA. This point is obviously *so* important that Rove et al. are pulling out all the stops to divert attention from it.
Rather than 'apologize', Durbin should simply keep hammering that point home: What kind of country do we want to be?
Posted by: krabapple | June 24, 2005 03:26 PM
. In times of war, it may be neceeary to stop the Liberal media even if that means using force. I think that's in the Constitution somewhere. Any help?
Yeah, its specifically states in the First Amendent that it is UNCONSTITIONAL to do that.
Why does it seem like Xians skip the first ammendment on there way to vociferously defending the 2nd?
Posted by: FollowTheMoney | June 24, 2005 03:27 PM
Who’s fault is it that so many young Republican’s can’t summon the patriotism to enlist in the ARMY.
Young Republicans – Calling all young Republican’s enlist in the army today!!
SUPPORT DEAR LEADER'S WAR IN IRAQ
Posted by: Liberal | June 24, 2005 03:27 PM
. In times of war, it may be neceeary to stop the Liberal media even if that means using force. I think that's in the Constitution somewhere. Any help?
Yeah, its specifically states in the First Amendent that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do that.
Why does it seem like poeople skip the first ammendment on there way to vociferously defending the 2nd?
Posted by: FollowTheMoney | June 24, 2005 03:28 PM
I am sorry about arthritis and bad eyes. Bear in mind that even a bad eye can be taken by a terrorist who believes in an eye for an eye. Plus I don't think that a terrorist cares if it is a good one or a bad one.
Bear in mnd that chruches are buioldings too. Terrorists don't like them, which should be obvious now.
For the record I am not an old man and cannot drive a foreign car at all.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 03:29 PM
"Liberals who complicate things with facts are just trying to keep Christians from going to heaven."
The Bush Doctrine has never been more eloquently stated. Here's the GOP slogan for '06 -- "Down with facts, Up with Christians!"
Posted by: Patriot 1 | June 24, 2005 03:29 PM
I'll blame OBL for 9/11, not any American. I take it you have a different view.
I'll give Clinton credit for keeping the terrorist acts on American soil under super-catastrophic levels (the WTC, the Embassies in Africa, the Cole)...he didn't have the benefit of a 9/11 to make him step up. I'm pretty sure he would have.
I even liked how he bombed the Aspirin factory, although I thought it was a bit weak. But again, that was before 9/11.
as for "endure being hung upside-down by your manacled wrists over a filthy overflowing toilet", you've probably described most of terrorist-controlled Iraq, except that the water's probably been flushed more recently.
Posted by: georgie-porgie | June 24, 2005 03:30 PM
Father Tom makes my point for me, better than I ever could. The danger to democracy comes from within.
Posted by: phineoust | June 24, 2005 03:31 PM
">Can anyone, liberal or conservative, >envision a day when we "win" the war on >terror? Was anyone decided what will >constitute a "win"? Oh yeah! A win is when these savages turn on themselves in Iraq, and we're no longer there."
I believe the War on Terror can be won without us actually maintaining a large presence in another country (Afghanastan) much like what we do for the wars on drugs, poverty, etc listed before. War in Iraq is a different story however, being as it is a differt war than the war on terror (or at least it SHOULD be).
Posted by: fencesitter | June 24, 2005 03:34 PM
>>Who’s fault is it that so many young Republican’s can’t summon the patriotism to enlist in the ARMY.<<
Says who? This is quite possibly the most uninformed post I've read so far. I'm sure you read a lot of news and read a lot of papers, and probably belive everything Hollywood vomits toward you.
Try getting out and meeting some soldiers once in a while, preferably those who have been over there.
Posted by: JusticeNow | June 24, 2005 03:35 PM
Seems to me that if we truly are committed toa freedom loving America of the red white and blue, then we must agree to allow our chosen leader to get the job done no matter what. hard to say when it will end but I'm glas that Im over here and noth over there!
Still it is wasteful to Goad's earth if we simply allow all the bad things from this war go to waste. I say that we need to continue to fight to keep their memory alive.
So support our troops and people and buildings, cheeks, eyes, arthritis and the like by asking your congressman to allow the President to run again in 2008. I know it's illegal but we can probably vote for an exception just this once.
God Bless The War Against The Terrorists, The White House, The President, Jesus and the Rest.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 03:38 PM
The question was, I think, what is Karl Rove REALLY doing with his fatwah on "liberals"?
I offer a tentative answer: He is preparing the way for 2006, when the GOP...still unable to produce the corpus delicti of the man who actually attacked the U.S on 9/11... blames the Democrats for its failures.
It's sheer, Machiavelian genius. Rove will accuse those terrorist-friendly liberals of tying the hands of Real American Patriots (Republicans) who were ready to turn all of Iraq into a parking lot in their quest to kill Osama bin Laden... but couldn't because of those lilly livers in the Congressional minority.
(And let us always remember what Father Tom has taught us today -- facts keep Christians out of heaven, so we won't be having any of them here!)
Posted by: Patriot 1 | June 24, 2005 03:39 PM
re:Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 03:21 PM. Focusing on Rush Limbaugh's private life is wrong. WOW!! Now that is the pot calling the kettle black.
In the 90's the right screamed where is the outrage. I guess outrage is only allowed if you're a moral man like William Bennett. He's in the hypocrite camp with Rush. The party of traditional values. Too Funny.
Posted by: playnice | June 24, 2005 03:39 PM
TN Dave, I just read that the VA has a $1 billion shortfall. Will you blame that one on Clinton as well? This administration rushed us into Iraq with too few troops, with insufficent armor, and in some cases, insufficient training for the duties they were assigned, because they knew they would lose support for going into Iraq once people realized they were lying about the connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Posted by: bichn | June 24, 2005 03:41 PM
Sorry I wasted a reply to one of Father Tom's posts. I thought he was serious. I didn't realize that he's just a complete idiot.
Posted by: phineoust | June 24, 2005 03:42 PM
Someone earlier had said that all Conservative posters merely echo Rush. This is undeniably true. However, count how many times you hear "no blood for oil," "how come YOU don't enlist," "Bush is Hitler," "Repugs," "religious right," etc. Now, I know 30 people didn't spontaneously come up with those...so who's giving the other side their talking points?
Let's just have a rule...if you heard it on talk radio, don't bring it to the dicussion.
Posted by: PG | June 24, 2005 03:44 PM
Okay, well I've finally made it to the end of the posts. Whew.
Many points I agree with, many I don't. What is fact and what is fiction, hard to tell.
I definitely support having your own opinion, but I, as I'm sure most of us, have only the opinions and biased information that is available to us from the internet, public tv, radio, etc. to give us even the slightest idea of what is going on in our government or the world.
I find it continually disturbing that anyone can atest to knowing anything. That being said, you can't just sit there and wait for the magic truth-giver to come down and sort it out for us. We have to make decisions based on, at best, compromised information.
Did I support the war, no. Did I support taking a little time to make a rational decision, yes. Do I support pulling us out of Iraq immediately and leaving a hole there to be filled by anyone, no.
I support some common sense. I support checking authority at every level. Why, because corruption occurs at every level. I support ignoring statistics. That's the first thing you learn about statistics is that you can make them say anything you want.
I do believe that everyone, Reps.,Dems, Independents, non-USers, and terrorist all believe they are doing the right an honorable thing. So whose definition of right and honorable do we use to decide whose the bad guy and whose the good guy? It appears we use the definition that is closest to our own, which in its way makes some sense.
In the end, it seems that there will always be terrorist as long as we don't know why they are resisting what is going on, whatever that may be. Is it opression, is it racism, hatred, who knows. We like to think of it as simply "Evil" because that makes our choices easier, but life isn't easy. Things are not black and white.
I appreciate all the views given in this post, and will try to take some insight from all of them, but in the end I will come to my own decision and move forward in life. As I do with everything. But know that your input has had some effect, be it positive or negative.
So when you go to sleep tonight know that you've had an effect on the world at large. Know that someone actually thought about your opinion and contemplated it vs. just objecting and fighting the thought.
Know that you have power, and you have chosen to use it a certain way. Whether that is an acceptable way is purely in your judgement, and will make little difference to me on the whole.
Discussion is a wonderful thing, contemplation is even better.
Whew, that was a bit long winded, but hey, it's the only one you'll see from me today, so I had to roll it all up into one.
Good day to all of you, and keep you mind moving.
Posted by: Jaegernaut | June 24, 2005 03:45 PM
Dem, Gopper, Indie, who knows what I am. So far my voting record is Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Perot, Clinton, Gore, Kerry. Reagan did a good job of scaring me into believing the USSR would soon take over. Plus recessions are bad news. Then Reagan again, even though by then I was watching warily. But Mondale? Please. Then Bush, Sr. Maybe my biggest voting mistake (he really was one of the least effective ever), but like Mondale, I just couldn't vote for Dukakis. Perot was a protest vote. By then I realized that Reaganomics and Bush Sr. had been a disaster for most of America, as in the part I was part of, and Slick Willy was just too slick for me. The Clinton re-election vote was obvious. Everything that everyone (Dems, Goppers, Indies too) looks to for grading a presidency and country was looking up. Voting for Dole just made it obvious that you'd vote for RinTinTin if he were the GOP's candidate. Gore? Well, he wasn't exciting, but like Mondale and Dukakis, I just couldn't vote for Dubya. Where they were too wimpy, Dubya was simply just too stupid. It was as obvious to me then as it is to everyone on the planet now.
How do Goppers live with defending a Prez that most of them are smarter than? Anyway, take a stupid Gopper, give him the Presidency, and what do you get? An over-powerful VP for starters; an administration and party that consistently blames the last guy for all the country's faults (as we all know, pointing fingers is a primary indicator of poor leadership); a return to easy-to-implement economic policies (tax break for you!) that provide short term fixes, easily fooling the minions, while the rest of us realize the long term effects; 9/11, which might been averted had the last guy's terrorist team been listened to, instead they were laughed at, and of course then blamed; lying about Iraq's WMD and then of course, taking America to War, not because Iraq attacked us, or because they were linked to 9/11, but because they had WMDs...um, because they actually were linked to 9/11?...um, OK, because Saddam is a baaaad man. Yeah, that's it!
May I repeat something? War.
That's pretty much the prime indicator of how stupid this President and administration really is. We should be scouring the planet for OBL and Al Q. Instead, we War with a country that wasn't even involved in 9/11. (I won't get into how the original and glorious War predictions from Dick and Rummy now sound like assessments from, you got it, stupid men). And now, instead of getting OBL and Al Q, we got Saddam, and we have this country that we demolished and now have to fix, at the cost of $billions per month, as well as an average of 540 U.S. casualties a month (60 dead and 480 injured), and in the process we create a cesspool where our real enemies are breeding in order to wreak havoc on us for generations.
Posted by: TheTruth | June 24, 2005 03:45 PM
"Let's just have a rule...if you heard it on talk radio, don't bring it to the dicussion."
I can live by that rule, since I don't listen to talk radio. Besides, I call it the "Repo Party". Seems more appropriate.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 03:46 PM
I started reading this blog and its comments this afternoon, and hey! has it wandered around some! Still, very interesting. Two thoughts have struck me from amongst all the comments today:
(i) If, as murmurings indicate, term limits are modified and an amendment to let a President serve more than two sittings passes (as GWB and co. might hope), won't Clinton have to "have an accident", otherwise (q) he'll run, and (b) he'll win by a landslide! ?
(ii) There are more months to the end of GWB's term than there are months behind us to the start of the Iraq war. At the present and quickening pace, does that mean there'll be mored dead Americans in Iraq than dead Americans that died on 9/11 by the time GWB leaves office? (I know there's absolutely no connection between Saddam and 9/11).
Posted by: Just Thinking | June 24, 2005 03:48 PM
Sitting back and allowing a really bad president do real damage to working families all over the country (not just the military families) is unconscionable. Jesus said that which you do to the list of you, you do to me. We will all be judged on how we treat the least of us.
Posted by: bichn | June 24, 2005 03:48 PM
We don't really have a war on terror, only a war of terror. Bush and Bin Laden are two of a kind. Each thinks his God is telling him to send his fighters to the other side of the planet to slaughter innocent civilians by the thousands. And of course each has convinced himself that he is somehow fully justified in this insane, immoral course of action. I'm not really a believer, myself, but if I though God were telling me to do this sort of thing, I'd be wise enough to know it was time to find a new God.
Posted by: Bill-Man | June 24, 2005 03:48 PM
>>"So support our troops and people and buildings, cheeks, eyes, arthritis and the like by asking your congressman to allow the President to run again in 2008."
Hehe...Father Tom, from the name, right down to comments like this, you've got to be one of the most successful trolls I've seen on a forum in a long time. I tip my hat.
Posted by: PG | June 24, 2005 03:49 PM
Last time I checked there wasn't much in the way of liberal talk radio. Talking points, however, are absolute necessities for the conservatives because anything else would be too deep for your herd to understand and defend. We moderates balance our own news. tyvm
Posted by: playnice | June 24, 2005 03:51 PM
So, from several comments and based on only one example, it's unpatriotic to point out that America was mistreating prisoners but it's not unpatriotic to actually mistreat the prisoners, regardless of the prisoner's rights under the Geneva Conventions. There would not have been any reason for any negative comments about Abu Ghraib or Gitmo if nothing negative had occurred there.
Also, it was my understanding that winning an election did not mean that you were entitled to get your way in all things. If so, then Newt Gingrich and all the "Contract with America" people were upatriotic traitors who should have been exiled from the country. I didn't believe that then, I don't believe that now and I think that if you can't support an argument without calling someone who disagrees with you unpatriotic then you need a refresher course on American values.
After 9/11, everybody wanted to get the people who did this and thus the War in Afghanistan against the Taliban. This war was widely and correctly supported. And then instead of finishing the job we took a left turn into Iraq, which had, at best, a spurious to connection to 9-11. Reasonable people can disagree about something this momentus and stifling the voices of people who disagree with you is the most unAmerican thing I can think of.
Posted by: mm | June 24, 2005 03:53 PM
Regarding Durbin: his point was that someone reading the *FBI e-mails* by an *eyewitness* to Gitmo, would think they were reading about a prisoner camp run by a repressive, totalitarian regime -- if they didn't know beforehand that it was run by the USA. This point is obviously *so* important that Rove et al. are pulling out all the stops to divert attention from it. Rather than 'apologize', Durbin should simply keep hammering that point home: What kind of country do we want to be?" Posted by: krabapple | June 24, 2005 03:26 PM
Thank you! A little context! Suddenly, Durbin's comments make more sense, and frankly, it's disappointing that no has pointed this out until now.
If we do not follow the Geneva conventions and respect international law at Gitmo, why should Saddam Hussein respect international law? Why should Kim Jong Il respect international law? If we do not obey these laws, what kind of country do we become?
Posted by: True Blue Liberal | June 24, 2005 03:54 PM
Rove controls the presidency, both houses of congress, and FOX news, the polls keep tanking, so he blame the liberals.
INSTEAD OF BLAMING LIBERAL’S DEAR LEADER SHOULD HAVE ARMY RECRUITERS TAG ALONE TO ALL HIS FUND RAISERS.
Posted by: Liberal | June 24, 2005 03:55 PM
What a laugh. All the Clinton was great Bush sucks comments show just how shortsighted most of you are and how much your "medicine" has afftected your memories.
Rove states that the liberals would prefer to prosecute terrorists rather than kill them. Wonder where he got that idea?
The Balkans? Sudan? The 2 African Embassy bombings? Yemen?
Each and every time the Clinton Administration was faced with an attack they looked to the UN, set up courts and war crime tribunals, gave it enough attention to make it through the short span of public interest and demand for action, then left with nothing accomplished.
Bush summed it up just after 9/11 when he stated our response would be studied and involve the full force of our military. He then stated he wasn't going to shoot a multi million dollar missle into some tents and camels and claim victory -- like Clinton did -- in response to the attack.
They have made some mistakes, most wars include them -- even FDR screwed up a couple of times during WW2, but in all his tenacity and focus has made us safer. When this is over the Middle East will look a hell of a lot better than the Balkans or Central Africa do after the great Prosecution by the Clinton Administrations.
Posted by: Hawk | June 24, 2005 03:56 PM
what blather, bomb the fu.. out of the towel heads and send the boys home!! no f.cki...apologies here!!!!
Posted by: 911again | June 24, 2005 03:56 PM
One more thing. As for terrorists on airplanes, that could be easily solved if we armed all the passengers. This is legal under the Constitution. It would be cheaper than hiring all the extra airport security. And the airlines could operate faster and more efficiently. Just pass out the pistols when getting on board and collect them when done -- just like headphones.
this idea has a couple of flaws but is theoretically a start.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 03:57 PM
>>"I definitely support having your own opinion, but I, as I'm sure most of us, have only the opinions and biased information that is available to us from the internet, public tv, radio, etc. to give us even the slightest idea of what is going on in our government or the world."
Might I make a suggestion? For every story that you are interested in, use a site like Google News to link to the same story from multiple sources. Then you'll get every perspective. Something happens in Israel? You can link to an American paper, a European paper, an Israeli paper, an Arab paper, etc. If nothing else, you're at least not indoctrinating yourself with the same rhetoric from the same news source.
That's how I found this story...after I had already read five other similar ones, both from admittedly biased sources on both sides, and from "objective" sources.
Posted by: PG | June 24, 2005 03:57 PM
I think that ANY administration that perpetuates an US and THEM mentality deserves what ever black eye it gets. The Carl Rove comments are a red herring, a sort of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" trick. Everyone seems to forget that this nation of ours was built, brick by brick, by compromise and reason. Yes there have been many times, such as the current times, when extremism was strong. The Alien and Sedition acts for one, or the period just after the Civil War another period of time that comes to mind is the Nixon Administration. One of the great US and THEM periods of time.
No matter. What matters is the simple fact that our employees ( remember they work for us) are not doing the work of the people. Neither side is. Both are simply looking for leverage against the other. Rather than doing the tough work that needs to be done. The list is long and daunting. Healthcare - for all Americans Education - The BEST investment in the future of this great country Energy ( No - Bush has it all wrong Oil is a finite resource) Infrastructure ( both real and virtual) Science - We're falling behind here so fast it's not even funny. Corporate Reform - These guys are robbing us blind
Oh and one more thing - just to stir the pot - The Jewish God is The Christian God is the Islamic God. And guess what people, other than different methods of worship, illuminated by MAN. The basic precepts of each are the same. Treat each other with repsect. Or as you would like to be treated. That's what it boils down to. All the rest is just window dressing.
Oh and one more thing God did not choose George, God has got a lot on his plate, wouldn't you think? You really think God paying close attention? Give me a break. God might give him a dope slap at some point...
Posted by: Phoebus | June 24, 2005 03:59 PM
Clinton was a great President...Amen...even today, people are still talking about him. How many years has Bush been in the office? Yet, people can't seem to find anything nice to say about the guy. Don't be mad because you can't find somebody to give him a BJ. Getting a BJ is better than sending somebody child to die. Clinton--What?
Posted by: What? | June 24, 2005 03:59 PM
I have a better idea, Father Tom -- let's just kill all airline passengers before they board the plane! Then no one could possibly hijack a jetliner! And if they are good Christians, they will go straight to heaven unsullied by facts.
Posted by: Patriot 1 | June 24, 2005 04:02 PM
In response to the person who wants to bomb everyone in Iraq, I think that Jesus said that you should do unto toerhs as they do unto you. Personally, if someone bombed me, I would want them to apologize if I got hurt.
Therefore, I think thatit would Christain and American if we apologized after we bombed everyone. This is especially true when it comes to children because they don't understand that we are trying to help them be free.
Sounds old fashioned, I know. But sometimes a little courtesty is all the world needs.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 04:03 PM
to mm war is war and there is no such thing as mistreating prisoners. Did you watch any of the beheadings? couldn't say what you said if you had the guts to watch....these are butchers who would as soon slit your wife & kids throats to promote their beliefs...got to draw the line somewhere.
Posted by: 911 | June 24, 2005 04:05 PM
You must be able to see into the future to state things will look better....etc. Myself I can not see into the future, however I can view history. Lie upon Lie upon Lie. Whether a person, a country or some other entity "deserves" something in ones eye, there must be truth and probable cause. You can not have "hurt feelings" or want "revenge", decide to give a reason, change your reasoning many times over. I DO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, I DO NOT SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT OR HIS ADMINISTRATION.
The Republicans have always said "no big government", and look what they've done.... This administration is so very messed up, I truly believe if the truth came up and bit them in the nose, leaving a welt seeable by anyone looking at them, they would deny it to the end.
It is a sad sad state our Nation and it's Political figures are in.
Thank you for your time
Posted by: Lynn | June 24, 2005 04:06 PM
re PG 3:57 -- factcheck.org is good for this as well. Media sources have historically let us down. Read the actual spoken and written words for the real truth. It's your mind, exercise it.
as far as Father Tom and the 911 terrorists. He must have missed the VIDEO showing the 911 hijackers getting taken out of line at Logan (Boston). We've had the measures in place to prevent hijacking. This administration believes it is necessary for my mother to remove her shoes before being allowed to board a plane. I hope she never gets any prosthetic limbs. She'll never get to visit her grandchildren.
Posted by: playnice | June 24, 2005 04:06 PM
God Bless America, and Nobody else...LOL
Posted by: what? | June 24, 2005 04:06 PM
>>"Last time I checked there wasn't much in the way of liberal talk radio. Talking points, however, are absolute necessities for the conservatives because anything else would be too deep for your herd to understand and defend. We moderates balance our own news. tyvm"
BUSHED? AIR AMERICA RADIO...c'mon, you've seen the billboards. And calling conservatives "my herd" shows me that you really haven't been reading my posts. Sorry, I call BS where I see BS. Ten people using the same line shows me that it must have come from somewhere and is not original. I get into many discussions on many forums, and you start to notice patterns with both the hardcore conservatives and hardcore liberals. If you're not guilty of that, bravo, then my post was not directed towards you.
Posted by: PG | June 24, 2005 04:07 PM
Why doesn’t Karl Rove invite Army recruiters to join him at his speaking engagements? What better way to show his patriotism.
Posted by: Liberal | June 24, 2005 04:07 PM
To ther person who wants to kill people on airplanes, you sound like a terrorist. For your information, terrorists are UnAmerican! That should be obvious.
Second, killing people would not solve the problem because then you are doing something that the terrorists want. They don't care if they die, right? So seems to me that you're approach won't help the situation.
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 04:09 PM
I think I broke my neck from shaking my head so much during the election campaigns as Factcheck.org repeatedly put both Bush and Kerry, and their mouthpieces, to shame by doing nothing more than simply pointing out facts and showing the raw text of whatever document/speech/vote happened to be in question at the time.
Posted by: PG | June 24, 2005 04:11 PM
"Which I say is exactly the problem with the UN 'Peacekeepers'. They looked at Saddam, saw his crimes, and said/did nothing." Posted by: fencesitter
Though it's off-topic, it's worth noting (given all the talk of UN failures these days) that the UN is a SUPRANATIONAL organization. It does not have an army.
UN Peacekeepers are troops "donated" by member countries, of which there are 191. In Rwanda, the bulk of the peacekeeping forces came from Bangladesh and Ghana. The Belgians - the best-equipped, best-trained soldiers that UNAMIR had on the ground - pulled out after sustaining ten casualties.
Lt. General Roméo Dallaire, commander of the peacekeeping mission, first asked, then demanded, then BEGGED for more help from the international community. America was at the forefront in denying requests for more aid in terms of troops, equipment, and even transportation.
Oft-maligned peacekeeping forces have done much more than most realize to prevent or at least mitigate conflict and suffering; most of their failures stem from GOVERNMENTAL failures, including on the part of our own government. One-hundred-ninety countries can favor action, but the Security Council has five permanent members with veto power, and all it takes is one veto to condemn innocent civilians to further suffering.
UN Peacekeepers did not "look at Saddam, see his crimes, and say or do nothing": the international community did. If you want to prevent suffering and preserve legitimacy, urge your Representative, Senators, and the Executive branch to work WITH the UN, to take a stand, and to CONTRIBUTE, financially, logistically, and with troops.
If the US were to put forth a resolution in the Security Council stating that the genocide/crimes against humanity in Darfur were unacceptable and proposing a Chapter VI (peace-keeping)or Chapter VI (peace-enforcing) mission to the Sudan, the crises would be resolved within a relatively short amount of time. Instead, Congress, the President, and former Sec. State Colin Powell declared a finding of genocide and then did little to stop it.
Maybe if we weren't engaged in an illegal war in Iraq, we'd have some troops available to help the people of Darfur...
Bush Sr. was able, as a result of Hussein's aggression, to secure UN approval and 43 nations took part in Desert Shield/Storm. LEGITIMACY is the key. Bush had none then, and has none today. We're on, what, reason number four for the invasion of Iraq? Our "Coalition of the Willing" is made up of countries that are so dependent on US aid that they can't afford not to join. At least one (Costa Rica) doesn't even have a military. Bush did not present a very compelling case for war, but in his defense, there was no case to be made...
Posted by: DangerousChe | June 24, 2005 04:11 PM
war is war and there is no such thing as mistreating prisoners. Did you watch any of the beheadings? couldn't say what you said if you had the guts to watch....these are butchers who would as soon slit your wife & kids throats to promote their beliefs...got to draw the line somewhere. Posted by: 911 | June 24, 2005 04:05 PM
Wait a minute, how does this compare to bombing cities of civilians to promote our beliefs? (e.g., democracy) Explain to me the difference, because they seem pretty similar. And where exactly is it we've drawn the line? I don't actually see one.
Both sides claim God on their side, somehow I don't think God's involved.
Posted by: True Blue Liberal | June 24, 2005 04:11 PM
liberalism is a mental disorder
Posted by: liberal | June 24, 2005 04:12 PM
The conservatives are bad losers. That's why they hated Clinton - he was a Democrat who presided during an economic boom, a budget surplus, and continued to develop the international level of respect the BUSH SR. started (W has pretty well wiped that out). He took over the center from the GOP and there was nothing substantial they could plaster him with so they dug up the morals stuff. So now the GOP has made that supposed character stuff so important that you could have an IQ of 37 but if you go to church and were a virgin on your wedding day - ok, if you PREACH abstinence - you could get elected.
Liberals are mad because America was built on liberal ideals - from the Declaration to emancipation to the GI bill to votes for women and minorities to the fed reserve to the national park system - fought every step of the way by conservatives. If we'd listened to conservatives the Bald Eagle would have been extinct a generation ago. And then the next generation of conservatives decides that it's good we got rid of slavery after all, but they're against whatever it is that those evil liberals are up to this time. Most of those working class Christians who voted for Bush would be working 60(+)-hour weeks and spending their retirements in the poorhouses if not for 20th century American Liberals, and that's what's really really sad. They think they won but we're all losing.
Posted by: chas | June 24, 2005 04:12 PM
touche' I think the liberal talk radio goes overboard. I've listened once and have no idea where to find it on the dial. Fortunately or unfortunately it is not really mainstream. Nothing like it on TV. There is no libeeral media version of Hannity & Patsie. or the O'Really factor or these other outlets with no true discourse.
Posted by: playnice | June 24, 2005 04:13 PM
When I see Pfc. Karl Rove walking through the streets of Tikrit with a gun defending Iraqis, then I will listen to him talking about partriotism. Same for Bush and Cheney. The dems ought to be saying this. Wake up and find Bin Laden.
Posted by: c m mastersen | June 24, 2005 04:13 PM
To ther person who believes the media is conservative, FYI the media is run by people who are against American values. Example: PBS. If you look you see shows with other cultures on all the time. Not that that is bad, but what about showing American cultuer? On PBS you see cooking shows from Frnace, and boat trips in Germany, and Masterpiece theater from England and all the shows on world business news; and what about all the shows that teach children about pro-environment stuff? Makes you think. All of this stuff is pro-Liberal -- not pro-Christian. Thereofre, it is liberal.
We therefore need more balance. Pro-America equals a pro-Republican and conservative point of view which is not what we Americans are getting!
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 04:16 PM
true blue lib.....the war on Iraq was right but done wrong....we should have bombed the fu..k out of them, never used ground troups. So there we agree Bush did right and wrong..... and liberalis is a Mental Disorder!!!
Posted by: 911 | June 24, 2005 04:17 PM
I'm no believer, but I wish there were an after-life if only so Bush and Bin Laden could both wake up there together to find they hadn't made it to heaven, and that it takes a lot better justification to slaughter thousands of civilians than some lunatic beliefs and a bunch of lies.
Posted by: Bill-Man | June 24, 2005 04:18 PM
I'm no believer, but I wish there were an after-life if only so Bush and Bin Laden could both wake up there together to find they hadn't made it to heaven, and that it takes a lot better justification to slaughter thousands of civilians than some lunatic beliefs and a bunch of lies.
Posted by: 91 | June 24, 2005 04:20 PM
Tn Dave, you're full of it - as are your heroes.
When I saw your statement that "I served in the Marines from 92 - 96, under Slick Willie as the commander in chief. I received no pay raises the entire time I was in. Not even a cost of living raise," I knew you were full of crap. You see, I too was in the military - for 23 years (including those few you mention, rookie) You got a pay raise every one of those years, bucko. Don't tell such obvious lies, 'k? 'Cause this isn't Rush or O'Reilly, where the truth shall not be heard. For what it's worth, during those years an E3 under 2's base pay went up each year (as did everyone else's)- starting at $913 in '92, and ending at $1019 in '96.
Then, after saying "I'd like to see the actual numbers to back that up," when someone stated that more Dems than Pubs served in the armed forces, you turn right around and have the gall to say "These are the reasons military people are primarily Republicans." You are simply full of it - you don't know whether you're comin' or goin'.
You further prove your inability do basic research when you state "Every time a helicopter crashed in the last 5 years because of black market parts being installed on them, I thought "Thanks Bill!" Why? Because of Clinton's cut backs to the military." You see, The cuts were mostly made under George the 1st (After all, the Cold War ended) and the real dollar budgets were actually slightly more generous under Clinton. Plus, don't forget, it's the Congress which has the final say on budgets. I also seem to recall the Congress was taken over in '92 by those Republicans you so love. And by the way, black market parts come from traitorous defense contractors pocketing the money that was allocated for good parts, not from the president. You know, companies like Halliburton, MZM, et al. Hey, remember the $500 toilet seats scandal... under Reagan? I do. Remember when Reagan put together the "Grace Commission" to try to justify shutting down military commissaries? I do.
Get a clue, and not a set of talking points from Hannity or Rush if you want to enter public discourse.
Posted by: Mike | June 24, 2005 04:23 PM
The Conservatives are NOT bad losers; we are as good at losing as anybody else. We don't go around feeling sorry for ourselves when someone can't spend enough money to get the meassage out. That's not our fault! It's the fault of the Liberal media who are prejudiced against covering conservative candidates. It is the liberals who are complaining all the time, even when they have a liberal president like Jimmy Carter (who, by the way, lost to a GREAT MAN, Ronald Reagan, who also believe in God so that proves my point).
Lesson? Repbulicans don't whine as much as Liberals because they are more in power and don't have to worry about not being able to pull the strings that makes America Great.
God Bless The President and The Non-Liberal Media
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 04:24 PM
As a card carrying democrat for over 50 years I am disappointed, though not surprised by the reaction of the Dems ... they've been doing this for years ... north and south ... In the south, in the days of one partyism, their primaries could get vicious ... but come general election time they were all lovey dovey ... One thing you have to give them ... they hang together ... the Republicans could learn from that, instead of "eating their own." In summation, the view here is that the dems have just never gotten over losing in 2000. It's way past time to move on and stop acting like whiners ...
Posted by: BULLDOG | June 24, 2005 04:27 PM
Rove was stating fact. Nothing to apologise for.
Posted by: rtd | June 24, 2005 04:34 PM
"Most assuredly not. Indeed, the UN weapons inspectors were the first to expose Bush's lies about Iraq's weapons."
Man you are ignorant. Everybody thought he had WMD and you know darn well he did because he USED THEM on HIS OWN PEOPLE. The difference is one side wanted to go in NOW and the other wanted to wait. Spoonfed liberal lies you have been.
Posted by: wow | June 24, 2005 04:34 PM
Father Tom, it was funny for a while, but now it's a bit annoying:
In the context of the Internet, a troll is a person who makes inflammatory or hostile comments, which by effect or design cause disruptions in discourse, or a post made by such a person. Trolling can be described as a breaching experiment, which, because of the use of an alternate persona, allows for normal social boundaries and rules of etiquette to be tested or otherwise broken, without serious consequences.
Troll food refers to replies to the original controversial troll posts, that the trolls subsequently use as feedback to throw more fuel to the fire of their posts.
Common types of troll messages or activities:...intentionally naïve or politically contentious messages — "I think George W. Bush is the best/worst President ever."
Father Tom...I think you used the above quote word for word.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 04:36 PM
It never ceases to astonish me that conservatives still think the media are liberal. I am very liberal and I am so outraged at the media's silence, support, and complicity regarding Bush and his policies, that I haven't been able to stomach listening to the mainstream news media for the past 4 years or so. They refuse to investigate or report on any of Bush's lies or wrongdoing. The media hounded Clinton continously over even the most minor of alleged offenses, yet Bush can do almost anything without a word from the now mute media. How could this possibly bother any of you who call yourselves conservatives? I really don't understand it. As a liberal I detest the mainstream new media.
Posted by: Bill-Man | June 24, 2005 04:39 PM
To whoever said I was a troll. I am not. I do not use the internet often but was hoping today for a stimulating conversation. I was wrong. You should not assume the wrong things about someone based on what you don't know. I am sorry if my insites are not to your liking.
And by the way, not everyone who is writing things today is really me. Other people are using my name!
God Bless American and The Presidnet, of Course
Posted by: Father Tom | June 24, 2005 04:45 PM
You can always tell a paper's slant by the headlines, and especially by the pictures they use of political figures on both sides. Every news source that I've seen slants one way or the other. IMO, it all evens out. Just know that you're outraged as a liberal, but many conservatives are equally outraged and can point to just as many "uncovered stories." I think that shows that the media may slant, but overall is more or less down the middle. If you're in power, you're going to get picked on.
Posted by: PG | June 24, 2005 04:46 PM
UN Peacekeepers did not "look at Saddam, see his crimes, and say or do nothing": the international community did.
DangerousChe: You are right, that is the point I was trying to make and I misspoke. I do not blame the actual Peacekeepers. I blame the international community. But I disagree with you on one thing, the war in Iraq, while technically illegal, was neccessary and I am glade Bush acted. In a way I see it as the start of righting what the international community did wrong in Rwanda, Darfur, et al.
Posted by: fencesitter | June 24, 2005 04:46 PM
The only reason that he USED THEM on HIS OWN PEOPLE is because during the 80's America used Irag against Iran. We gave him the WMD that he used on his own people.
Posted by: wow that was stupid | June 24, 2005 04:52 PM
Iraq: Bush Myths vs. Reality http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160556,00.html
Posted by: fox news | June 24, 2005 04:54 PM
Libreals don't have a support our troops magnet on there cars cause they r dumb. President Bush is just like Jesus!
Posted by: True Believer | June 24, 2005 04:55 PM
I hate it when "patriots" claim we are at war...we are not at war, we started a war. When you add in the fact that we have such superior fire-power, this is not a war at all. I'd like to see our soft "soldiers" go toe to toe with someone of equal fire-power - we'd probably get our ass kicked more than we already are.
Posted by: Alberto | June 24, 2005 04:56 PM
Patriotism has to do with love of country,not leaders. There is no doubt that the Bush administration has led us down a path of war which at least they have not been candid about or at worst they lied to the people. Lots of circumstantial evidence is available to support this. Most of the people now understand this. The question is how long will the will of the people continue to support this war, how long will the volunteer army be able to sustain this war, Will it backfire? Publish an exit date, maybe not but he who believes that the people will continue to support a war which currently puts plenty of US soldiers in the cross hairs of terrorists is not living in reality. Why would a terrorist want to come to America to kill Americans? There are plenty in Iraq with easy access from Syria or Iran and they blend in better. They fought the Russians for many years in Afganistan and they'll fight the US military for many years in Iraq, even after the Iraqi miltary takes over of most of the operations. This current exit strategy still means many soldiers will die and the terrorists will not be banished. Anyone who doesn't see this is not unpatriotic, just blind.
Posted by: Reuben | June 24, 2005 04:58 PM
Rove was stating fact. Nothing to apologise for. Posted by: rtd | June 24, 2005 04:34 PM
Actually, the only fact in Rove's statement was that Al Jazeera broadcasts news. The other parts are actually conjecture, a guess, a type of fiction. I know cable news passes conjecture off as fact, but they can't be more different.
As I said earlier, I have a right to be pi$$ed off when folks like Rove talk about what I believe as a liberal, because I can't imagine someone being less informed on the subject. Which means that Karl Rove is talking out of his a$$, which means that he is lying, which means that he owes me an apology. Read my earlier posts.
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 04:59 PM
You really nailed it Reuben. Couldn't agree more.
Posted by: Doug | June 24, 2005 05:00 PM
Well now Alberto, obviously, you have never seen any of our "softies" in action. We consistently go toe-to-toe with ambushes in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and for every loss we take, we dish out several to the bad guys - yes, bad guys - who declared war on the US way back before 11 Sep 01.
Posted by: D | June 24, 2005 05:01 PM
Rove/Bush will go down as the most successful buddy-team since Martin & Lewis - just not as funny.
Think: Got rid of Saddam/Rather Tax cuts for the rich Gas prices hitting $3 per Oil drilling everywhere KBR making a killing
He is accomplishing everything the Supreme Court et al expected when they put him there. And the hits keep coming.
Posted by: Ensane | June 24, 2005 05:03 PM
I think that ANY administration that perpetuates an US and THEM mentality deserves what ever black eye it gets. The Carl Rove comments are a red herring, a sort of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" trick. Everyone seems to forget that this nation of ours was built, brick by brick, by compromise and reason. Yes there have been many times, such as the current times, when extremism was strong. The Alien and Sedition acts for one, or the period just after the Civil War another period of time that comes to mind is the Nixon Administration. One of the great US and THEM periods of time.
No matter. What matters is the simple fact that our employees ( remember they work for us) are not doing the work of the people. Neither side is. Both are simply looking for leverage against the other. Rather than doing the tough work that needs to be done. The list is long and daunting. Healthcare - for all Americans Education - The BEST investment in the future of this great country Energy ( No - Bush has it all wrong Oil is a finite resource) Infrastructure ( both real and virtual) Science - We're falling behind here so fast it's not even funny. Corporate Reform - These guys are robbing us blind
Oh and one more thing - just to stir the pot - The Jewish God is The Christian God is the Islamic God. And guess what people, other than different methods of worship, illuminated by MAN. The basic precepts of each are the same. Treat each other with repsect. Or as you would like to be treated. That's what it boils down to. All the rest is just window dressing.
Oh and one more thing God did not choose George, God has got a lot on his plate, wouldn't you think? You really think God paying close attention? Give me a break. God might give him a dope slap at some point...
Posted by: Phoebus | June 24, 2005 05:06 PM
****God said it best in the Bible when he wrote: "I am the light of this World." (And, yes, I believe that the Buible is God's word, and that he wrote every page of it.)****
Which one of the numerous edits to the bible are you referring to?
****JESUS WEILDS A BRIGHT AND FALMING SWORD****
Welds a falming sword? I thought he was a carpenter?
****AND WHEN HE IS DONE WITH THE TERRORSISTS***
I'm assthuming the extra Sths' are sthimply for emphasisth.
****HE WILL COME FORTHE LIEBERALS FOR THEY ARE NOT RIGHTEOUS****
Does Joe Lieberman know about this? It might come as a bit of shock if some welder shows up waving about a falming sword. ****YEA VERILY****
I think that just goes without saying.
****SURE HE SAID THAT THING ABOUT THE OETHER CHEEK****
Did I just walk into a Monty Python skit?
****BUT THEIR COMES ATIME FOR ACTION AND IT IS NOW****
I'm betting Joe is on the horn right now with 911 before that maniac in a welding mask gets the whole neighborhood in an uproar! What will the Kennedys think?!?
Posted by: me, myself and some biologist from Iowa slathered in corn oil | June 24, 2005 05:07 PM
Democrats stick together? I'll avoid the obvious icky pun in response to that. Their only togetherness is entirely accidental -- as when they're tripping over each other to distance themselves from the handful with spine enough to criticize the other party.
As for the Republicans, well I think of this administration as Warren G. Harding, plus nukes, minus flappers, minus gin. Unless Jeff Gannon qualifies as a flapper. And if teapot dome could have started a World War.
Posted by: sinuous | June 24, 2005 05:08 PM
You are not welcome in canada
Posted by: Reply to Wasp | June 24, 2005 05:19 PM
"All your base are belong to us." Nice post. Spoken like a true American.
Posted by: Xiangdao be original | June 24, 2005 05:19 PM
Posted by: | June 24, 2005 05:22 PM
****One more thing. As for terrorists on airplanes, that could be easily solved if we armed all the passengers. This is legal under the Constitution. It would be cheaper than hiring all the extra airport security. And the airlines could operate faster and more efficiently. Just pass out the pistols when getting on board and collect them when done -- just like headphones.
this idea has a couple of flaws but is theoretically a start.****
That could get a little dicey flying into Florida airspace. You feel threatened by the steward cutting you off at 6 Harvey Wallbangers and we've got Dodge City at 30,000 feet!
Not that you wouldn't be justified after your buzz is being threatened, but I hear that bullets are kind of pesky when it comes to that whole "cabin pressure" thing.
Posted by: me, myself and Father Tom slathered gun grease *WOO HOO* | June 24, 2005 05:24 PM
"To survive a war, you have to become a war....." -Jesus (or Rambo, I forget)
God bless America, and no one else, eh?.
And what is Alberto V05 hotoil going on about here? Our "soft" soldiers? Have you met a real soldier(I'm not talking national guard, two weeks a year, one weekend a month guys) ever? Those guys are crazy. They do a job you can't fathom, and have to live with it when it's done.
In perspective: my friend is a Marine, a damn good one, at 22(though young, even younger than I am). He wants to go back into full active duty he's so good. He has killed and seen people killed, and he wakes up from combat fatigue many a night. These guys are not soft, j-hole. I'd like to see you say that sentence to his face first, then we'll find this imaginary military you speak of do dearly to wage war with the next day. There's a lot more going on in the world than these sensational skirmshes you see on TV. Most of our battles go on without us knowing every fricking detail, without play by play from John Madden and Wolf Blitzer(so has to be a stage name). Just keep in mind, someone has to do it, someone chose to do it, and don't piss on them for their choice to do something. And on this note, stop pissing on what they do. They're in combat. Most soldiers don't like hearing, "I support you, but I don't support 'the war'(ie. 'what you're doing for a living')"
We humped up before, and now we're trying to make ammends for it by giving ourselves so that an different culture can attept to thrive. It won't be 2 years, it might not be 10. It's going to take generations for things to get better in Iraq. We're not playing RISK here. It's going to be a long process to help the people of Iraq to get on their own feet. We could pull out now, yeah, and watch everything fall again. Or, we couldhelp lay a foundation that will stand. Their beliefs won't change today, but over time, and new generations growing up with hope and a chance, those beliefs will adapt and become what is best for them(I'm not saying they'll become USA: the sequel, just what will work will work. It takes death for some beliefs to change The older you are, the tougher it is to change your ways.
oh, and in closing, you're right, we are not at war. We're garrisoned, and keeping a semblance of peace. Not perfect, but it's getting better.
ouch, my head hurts thinking of how many smart people there are in America, and yet how dumb and separated we are by little words like "liberal", and "conserative", and "south beach diet". Can't everyone see that both "sides" of our democracy want the same thing: separation. Oh, we talk about togetherness, and coming together, and it takes a village, blah blah...but honestly, no one wants to see everyone getting along, it's not us. We strive to cause strife amongst ourselves. Look at the news. We don't care about a man who raises funds for children as much as we care about who splashed water on Tim Cruise. It is a small inference, but it's odd that Brad Pitt tries to help a country, he gets a week of press, and because he's not boning Angelina Jolie, we don't give a dump. But, because Cruise is marrying his daughter, we're all about it. And what's with the name smashes? It's like 4th grade in the media!!!! Bennifer( I will dub this the origin, until proven wrong) Brangelina(the worst one ever, doesn't exactly "roll off the tongue" Whoever made it up, should hang their head in shame) TomKat(e)?! Lame.
Seriously, if you cannot say Tom and Kate, if it's too much exertion, you must turn in your pen, notepad, Notebook, IMac, Treo, and brain.
Speaking of crazy, anyone know anything about Sceintology that makes sense as a belief system(ps. most of their "message of goodness" is found in every religion, but oh, this isn't a religion, it's scientology.). And why is it Church of Scientology? Shouldn't it be, in all fairness, be the Institute of Scientology? Ok, I'm done. I can't believe I used an actor to prove a point. Ok, not done.... who thinks actors think too much of themselves? anyone? anyone think that their words speak louder than their actions? What makes them more important, their money? I'll be impressed when 1/2 of Tom Cruise's paycheck goes to a better cause than the "Make me look like a good guy" fund. Do something withut a camera Atually, I don't even want to hear about it, just do it.
Posted by: Howling Mad Murphy | June 24, 2005 05:31 PM
****One more thing. As for terrorists on airplanes, that could be easily solved if we armed all the passengers.****
We have, in a way. Pre-911 it was accepted procedure to allow hijackers to maintain control of the plane and do nothing after a takeover. Passengers had it beat into their heads that hijackers were political opportunists - only looking for a way to have their cause heard and to get from point A to point B, after which everyone would be let go unharmed. And this really was the case, with a few notable exceptions here and there.
I am fairly certain that that mentality has changed 180 degrees. How many of you would sit idly by during a hijacking now? Regardless of the exact number of affirmative respondants, I'm betting it's a lot higher than it would have been had I asked the same question on 9-10-01.
Posted by: Kill a Terrorist, Save a child | June 24, 2005 05:33 PM
Rove is worse than a Nazi, and so is bush and his whole gange of war criminals.
At least when we look at the hitler Nazis we KNOW they were evil. bush and his minions purport to be God-fearing christians, who are noble and good. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Posted by: Mark Hamblett (come and get me FBI) | June 24, 2005 05:34 PM
Joel may find it surprising that Alchemy has already made a resurgence!Check any good metaphysical bookstore on the topic and you'll find loads of material! There is Western (European) and Eastern (Asian) Alchemy. Taoist yoga begins with chi gong and ends with internal alchemy. Carl Jung did much to resurrect alchemy. The focus is on psychological or spiritual transformation, as well as physical health, NOT on transforming lead into gold! Expect Madonna to soon do for Alchemy what she's done for Kabbalah! (there's some overlap already: Some kabbalistic-alchemical books were written some hundreds of years back). I realize I'm completely off topic!
Posted by: Bobb999 | June 24, 2005 05:35 PM
Don Crane is an IDIOT.
Posted by: Republicans hate me | June 24, 2005 05:36 PM
****Can't everyone see that both "sides" of our democracy want the same thing: separation. Oh, we talk about togetherness, and coming together, and it takes a village, blah blah...but honestly, no one wants to see everyone getting along, it's not us.****
I'm really more of a obfuscation followed by subjugation type of fella but I'm open to new ideas.
If we go the militarist/survival of the fittest approach, I'm cappin' your arse first. Pay no attention to the man in the bushes!
Posted by: me, myself and hot pants murphy battered, deep fried and served with a side of freedom fries | June 24, 2005 05:49 PM
****Joel may find it surprising that Alchemy has already made a resurgence!Check any good metaphysical bookstore on the topic and you'll find loads of material! There is Western (European) and Eastern (Asian) Alchemy. Taoist yoga begins with chi gong and ends with internal alchemy. Carl Jung did much to resurrect alchemy. The focus is on psychological or spiritual transformation, as well as physical health, NOT on transforming lead into gold! Expect Madonna to soon do for Alchemy what she's done for Kabbalah! (there's some overlap already: Some kabbalistic-alchemical books were written some hundreds of years back). I realize I'm completely off topic!****
Sure, but can you make gold? Well, who the hell cares then?!
I'm still tallying all those angels doing the hoedown on the head of a pin.
Posted by: me, myself and bobb999 lab testing synthetic Chi on rabbits made up like brazen street hussies | June 24, 2005 06:04 PM
Until Rove and the conservatives show me the head of Osama bin Laden, they don't get to talk about who is in league with the enemy.
Posted by: AFIKME | June 24, 2005 06:07 PM
... and if the Democrats were running things, and OBL had been at large for nearly 4 years, I'd be saying the same thing.
Put up or shut up, jackasses.
Posted by: AFIKME | June 24, 2005 06:08 PM
Interesting reading, but so many wrong facts. Don't any of you get your news first hadn, and check your sources? Also, may I suggest you check your dictionary for the meaning of liberal/conservative, and revaluate what you would rather be if you had to label yourself. Liberal - not narrow in in opinion or judgment, open to change; Conservative - opposed to changem disposed to maintaining existing views, conditions. (Webster's) Are we t/b in the 21st century, or remain stuck in time (like certain ME cultures)? And if the cockpit doors had been locked, as security experts had suggested, but airlines resisted, perhaps the towers would not have fallen, and we wouldn't have to go through the 'security' charade at airports that currently exist. Does anyone know the alert color of today? Or care?
Posted by: reader | June 24, 2005 06:14 PM
In the history books, George W. Bush will make Warren Harding look like Abraham Lincoln.
Posted by: shep | June 24, 2005 06:14 PM
The alert colors only matter before elections. You know that, reader.
Posted by: AFIKME | June 24, 2005 06:15 PM
I don't think the rhetorical argument is working in your favor. That's just me though.
Posted by: AFIKME, DARRYL and his other brother DARRYL | June 24, 2005 06:17 PM
SHUT UP! You don't know what you're talking about! Looney.
Posted by: DARRYL, AFIKME and his other brother AFIKME | June 24, 2005 06:21 PM
Oh man, this is truly gross. Name callers! Rebugs! Crats! Clinton's bj! Hurt feelings! Nazis! OMG! Really? NAZIs!!! We are in the process of proving that we are not worthy of democracy. We don't even have the brains to carry on intelligent debates…ever..
Best post so far = forkboy
My son, who was voting in his first presidential election last time, resisted the brow beating his mother and i gave him that he should register Democratic. He rebuffed us with "I don't vote for parties. I don’t care what side wins. I only care that they are smart. If they are smart, they will make it work." Enough said. No, he wouldn’t register as Green like his dad either.
We do need to grow up. Thank you forkboy. And thank you for not hating me when you take control. (But, ya know, fb, we said almost exactly the same thing when we were young – keep yourself thinking straight and perhaps you will do better than we did.) Good luck!
Posted by: old liberal in calif | June 24, 2005 06:25 PM
Rhetorical? My argument is direct. The current leaders of this country have failed in their mission to bring to justice those who are responsible. They have failed to make the country more secure, financially or militarily. They have engaged in meaningless rhetoric, like Karl Rove's recent statements. They have manipulated the moods of the public with things like the alert colors, for pure political gain.
Those statements are merely a diversion from what occurred at the Senate Armed Forces Committee Meeting where it was discussed how our services are hemorrhaging 18,000 troops a month (IIRC), not due to action, but to a failure to recruit and retain. This is an utter propagandic ploy, because they are on the defensive because of the facts on the ground. If we sit here bickering about "he said she said, and my feelings are hurt" they don't have to answer any hard questions, like WHERE THE HELL IS THE HEAD OF OSAMA, AND WHY ARE YOU MISMANAGING THE RESOURCES OF THE US TO FIGHT A LOSING WAR.
If anyone's motives are clear, it is the motives of the current majority, the Republicans, who have systematically attempted to weaken this country through incompetence or malice. I don't know which anymore.
Posted by: AFIKME | June 24, 2005 06:26 PM
Father Tom, go back to school man!, I put in doubt your intellect, and please stop using God's name for every single !@#$!#@ political statment you make, like a modern time pharisee you pretend to be holier than everybody else pointing fingers at your discretion, labeling others as sinners/un-americans, how about you?,. Yeah right, conservatives you called yourselves, conservatives like Jeff Ganon for example? (male prostitute?).
Posted by: Outsider | June 24, 2005 06:28 PM
... and before all this, I was not a partisan. I have been made so by the likes of Karl Rove, because I am not in his camp, I must be with the opposition.
Posted by: AFIKME | June 24, 2005 06:28 PM
Nothing but an attempt to create a buzz and fill the media with ANYTHING to distract the public from the fact that OIL HIT $60 a barrel and MORE MARINE DIED in Iraq.
When you cannot defend your own position, you attack your opponent. That's what Rove, Bush and some four-year-olds (who haven't been taught any better) do.
Too bad the Democrats are playing into his hands by getting upset about it. It is just typical Rove nasty/divisive/immoral/cheap B.S.
Posted by: who cares about Rove's stupid comments? | June 24, 2005 06:37 PM
How would you like to have to defend a loser like George W. Bush?
It's far easier to sling mud at finer people and try to bring them down.
The American public is beginning to wake up. Polls are down and Mr. "I don't watch the polls" is worried. Rove nastiness will achieve a 2-point bounce for about 2 days, then popular opinion will resume its downward slide.
I cannot believe we have 3.5 more years of these dunces running things. Bush's approval ratings will be in the single digits - if he makes it to the end without getting impeached.
Posted by: POOR KARL | June 24, 2005 06:41 PM
The Republican machine is immoral enough when they are winning in the polls. I shudder to think how much more evil they will get as they continue the looooong slide in public opinion.
I live in Kansas and Senator Brownback (R-KS) wrote me a letter - in response to an email I wrote - in which he STILL MAINTAINS SADDAM HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
These guys just lie, and lie, and lie. The uninformed just swallow it.
Posted by: no fan of Brownback | June 24, 2005 06:46 PM
The Republican machine is immoral enough when they are winning in the polls. I shudder to think how much more evil they will get as they continue the looooong slide in public opinion.
I live in Kansas and Senator Brownback (R-KS) wrote me a letter - in response to an email I wrote - in which he STILL MAINTAINS SADDAM HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
Bush & his supporters just lie, and lie, and lie. All they have to offer is more lies and attacks on people who see through their lies.
Hey Karl - tell us why we should keep listening to Bush. We don't care what you think of Democrats/liberals/moderates.
If I were a Republican I would be so ashamed to have the likes of Rove for a spokesman.
Posted by: no fan of Brownback | June 24, 2005 06:47 PM
Rove is getting desperate. His man is sliding in the polls.
Time for the same old two tactics:
1. Sling mud at the opposition
2. (any minute now...) Make an announcement about terrorism that will scare everybody.
Americans are getting smarter. Fewer and fewer are swallowing nonsense from the White House, which is why Bush is plummeting in the polls.
Posted by: kikibird | June 24, 2005 06:50 PM
How many deaths will it take till they know...
That too many people have died?
Apparently it's around 1700. Finally people are getting sick of the sacrifice for this administration's folly.
Posted by: support your soldiers | June 24, 2005 06:52 PM
I agree it's an ~attempt~ at a distraction.
The White House knows the Downing Street Memo is the catalyst for defections from the RNC -- Their own want to know the truth. [ More: http://tinyurl.com/bbfa5 ]
Both the RNC and DNC can unite under the constution.
The issue is simply: Do you want a Constitution or a tyrant?
Choose wisely. The Constitutional shall previal.
Posted by: Constant | June 24, 2005 06:53 PM
You won't hear Karl dignify that news with a comment.
Posted by: support your soldiers | June 24, 2005 07:27 PM
So Joel, it doesn't bother you that a government official paid by our tax dollars just called more than one half of the United States citizenry traitors.
While 20% of Americans label themselves "liberal," poll after poll show that a majority of Americans have liberal values. And now more than one-half believe Iraq was a mistake.
A government official just called them all traitors. Your response? Yet another EZ-PASS for the Bush White House. Why? Because he said these stupid things as a political smokescreen strategy. What are we supposed to say? "Oh, in that case, no problem, Karl"--which is basically your position?
But I'll take your bait for a second. Let's say it was a political strategy. Let's say it was to create a smokescreen for sagging poll numbers, like the terror alerts leading up to the 2004 election (this government has no policy, only political strategy, it seems).
If this is true, then WHY AREN'T YOU WONDERING WHY OUR GOVERNMENT IS DIVIDING THE COUNTRY FOR SHORT-TERM CHEAP POLITICAL BENEFIT? Don't you think it's a bad idea for government officials to be using divisive, McCarthyesque and slanderous comments to simply distract attention from the fact that most people are finally realizing how badly the Republicans are screwing the country?
Now we get to see just how "liberal" the mainstream media is. If they all react like your wimpish excuse-making instead of being offended at being called a traitor by an official of the government, then we'll know once and for all what we're already suspected for a decade--that the corporate media is hardly liberal at all--that it is, in fact, pro-Republican.
Posted by: disgusted yet again with this newspaper | June 24, 2005 07:42 PM
It started in the mid 80's... the military used to say... it's easier to apologize than to ask for permission in the first place. Author unknown. Karl, and I love him, is brilliant. We are gonna kik butt in the next election if Dr. Scream is up against Karl.
Posted by: umlot | June 24, 2005 07:43 PM
Rove & Dabya know about as much about being real GOP'ers as I know about being a bleeding-heart liberal (I campaigned for Barry in '64; people called me an extresist then -- these days I'm lucky if I get called a moderate.), but Herr Karl's political instincts are good. He didn't get a lack of raw material this far by being a simpleton. He knows Bush is on the ropes & is vulnerable as hell. He also knows this will blow over in about as long as it takes people to forget whether Terri Schiavo's parents spell their last name with a "c" or without. Dubya values loyalty & dazzle over any kind of substance -- that has been well-documented for years. We don't really think Karl's job is in any real danger, now, do we? Of course not. Karl is writing checks he knows he won't have to cash, & they're rubber anyway. He's savvy enough to know that since by the time they *do* bounce, nobody will remember or give a particular damn -- this is a no-lose proposition for both him *&* the shrub. The way to counter this tactic is not by reacting to it -- that's exactly what it was calculated to engender. The way to nullify it is by making fun of it & ignoring him after that. Give it to Al Franken, let him puncture the buffoon, & take on another topic. The additive effect of doing that enough is that sooner or later the middle majority will wake up & say, "Damn, these boys really *are* idiots! LOOK at all this crap. Damn if I'M going to vote for them again -- I thought they were smarter than this." That's how you beat a weasel like Karl. }:)
Posted by: old-line (i.e., real) conservative | June 24, 2005 07:44 PM
Joel Achenbach is the only person who actually understands what's going on today and can write about it with facility and ease. Thanks to the Washington Post for letting this luminary speak in a casual format.
Posted by: AHH | June 24, 2005 07:47 PM
Perhaps Rove will be indicted in the matter of Valerie Plame next week and knows it? Might as well get a shot in before he's forced to resign. (May it be so.)
Posted by: webdems | June 24, 2005 07:51 PM
It's just part of the ongoing effort of the administration to deflect blame away from how poorly things are going in Iraq, the onslaught of evidence that were were mislead into war, and unprepared for the full cost of this adventure.
Rather than accept responsibility for the current situation, and how this administration contributed to it, Rove prefers to fire up the faithful with partisan polemics. All he can do I guess is move as far away from policy and outcome, and use sophmoric snarls based on nothing more than ideological red meat.
Posted by: Dick Tuck | June 24, 2005 07:59 PM
It's the Downing Street Memo that needs distracting from. At long last it's started to get traction in the amrican press.
Posted by: r1chard3 | June 24, 2005 08:02 PM
It seems the nation’s capitol is engaged in a game of chicken. Apology Chicken. Each side seeks out some spoken offense of the other side and then demands an apology. They go on talk shows and radio and spread the “outrage” until the offender is forced to respond.
The most recent example is the flack received by Sen. Dick Durbin after drawing comparisons to the torture at the hand of American forces to the torture done in the past at the hand of some foreign forces. What Durbin said was that if you were to read the description of what was done by American troops it would be hard to distinguish it from things done by Nazi or Soviet troops.
Republicans came out of the woodwork demanding an apology.
The Republicans kept up their demands and continued to feign outrage at this attack on “our men and women in uniform”.
Democrats demand apologies too. As they did this week when Karl Rove insulted them by saying that Democrats were soft on terrorists. (Actually, the more telling thing that Rove said was that in the wake of 9/11, Republicans prepared for war. Which, we have seen, they did indeed.)
What the Republicans do brilliantly is take offense on someone else’s behalf.
Democrats make the mistake of demanding an apology for some affront to Democrats.
They forget: that’s the Republicans’ job - to insult Democrats.
I’m not sure what they think. The Bush team has not and will never apologize for lying to the American people, sending more than 1700 American forces to their deaths, over 10,000 to lives as handicapped persons, and easily more than 100,000 Iraqi men, women, and children to their own horrific deaths. Does anyone think they would say they are sorry for making some Democrat feel bad?
If it were up to me, I wouldn’t call on Sen. Durbin to apologize. I would call on him to resign. For apologizing. Along with any other spineless Democrat who can’t say something and stand by it.
Posted by: ironwood | June 24, 2005 08:14 PM
Umm... what was that old saw about the relationship between great power and great responsibility?
Right. That was merely Spiderman. And Rove... he's Peter Porker.
Posted by: Jim | June 24, 2005 08:19 PM
Congress and the people should be focusing on real crises: the Iraq quagmire, the mounting deficit, greenhouse gases and fossil fuel consumption, the absence of universal affordable health care, our failing education system, the crippling polarization of our legislatures. Instead we are given the Social Security "crisis", the Schiavo case, an amendment to sanctify the flag. Karl Rove's outrageous pronouncements are merely the latest addition to the administration's arsenal of WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRACTION.
Posted by: imk | June 24, 2005 08:47 PM
Better a president with Rabbit habits than a president with Rabbit brains.
Posted by: imm | June 24, 2005 09:33 PM
Mr. Achenbach is correct, and here's why he's trying to distract us:
US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo and Iraq, Afghanistan: UN source Fri Jun 24, 9:23 AM ET
Washington has for the first time acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.
The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.
"They are no longer trying to duck this, and have respected their obligation to inform the UN," the Committee member told AFP.
"They they will have to explain themselves (to the Committee). Nothing should be kept in the dark."
UN sources said it was the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities.
The Committee, which monitors respect for the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is gathering information from the US ahead of hearings in May 2006.
Signatories of the convention are expected to submit to scrutiny of their implementation of the 1984 convention and to provide information to the Committee.
The document from Washington will not be formally made public until the hearings.
"They haven't avoided anything in their answers, whether concerning prisoners in Iraq, in Afghanistan or Guantanamo, and other accusations of mistreatment and of torture," the Committee member said.
"They said it was a question of isolated cases, that there was nothing systematic and that the guilty were in the process of being punished."
The US report said that those involved were low-ranking members of the military and that their acts were not approved by their superiors, the member added.
The US has faced criticism from UN human rights experts and international groups for mistreatment of detainees -- some of whom died in custody -- in Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly during last year's prisoner abuse scandal surrounding the Abu Ghraib facility there.
Scores of US military personnel have been investigated, and several tried and convicted, for abuse of people detained during the US-led campaign against Islamic terrorist groups.
At the Guantanamo Bay naval base, a US toehold in Cuba where around 520 suspects of some 40 nationalities are held, allegations of torture have combined with other claims of human rights breaches.
The US has faced widespread criticism for keeping the Guantanamo detainees in a "legal black hole," notably for its refusal to grant them prisoner of war status and allegedly sluggish moves to charge or try them.
Washington's report to the Committee reaffirms the US position that the Guantanamo detainees are classed as "enemy combatants," and therefore do not benefit from the POW status set out in the Geneva Conventions, the Committee member said.
Four UN human rights experts on Thursday slammed the United States for stalling on a request to allow visits to terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base, and said they planned to carry out an indirect probe of conditions there.
Posted by: lb | June 24, 2005 10:01 PM
rabbit brains? comparing Bush to Bugs Bunny is insulting to wabbits evwyware.
Posted by: playnice | June 24, 2005 10:10 PM
Assuming what Rove said about the liberals only wanting to be wimps in their ideals in going after the terrorists who attacked THe World Trade Center is true, then why doesn't the present administration release all non Conservatives in our military to let only the Conservative and Republican members of our military fight the Bush War. Some how the statement Rove made does aid and comfort the enemy.
Posted by: Dwight | June 24, 2005 10:44 PM
Be vewwy quiet -- I'm hunting neocons! hehehehehehheh
Posted by: old-line (i.e., real) conservative | June 24, 2005 10:47 PM
Bush and co. will be held accountable by God for: lying to go to war in Iraq, approving torture, loving Mammon more than stewardship of the planet, fighting for the rich over the poor, completely distorting God's message (the Bible is all about "freedom"; huh?; what about care for the poor, the sick, those in prison?), acting like modern-day Pharisees with their religious legalisms, trying to impose their religious dictates on people who don't share their interpretations or beliefs, religious hypocrisy (um, having sex out of marriage or having sex after divorce are adultery, but you conveniently skip over that in order to try to regulate the sexual behavior of others and oppress other, peaceful people), seeking to divide people rather than unite them, ... golly, the list just keeps going. Keep smilin' Bush fans. You're in deep s__t with the Big Guy. Jesus is knocking at the door, but you're not answering. You should take God's message seriously, repent, and change your ways. It's ok to be conservative, but all of the above are heinous in God's sight, and I'm afraid those are Bush's top priorities; every single one.
Posted by: Messenger | June 24, 2005 10:49 PM
There is a lot of truth coming through this long series of opinions and observations. Too bad it probably won't get to the right people. But, even if it did there is a good chance that it wouldn't be understood.
George W. Bush aka The Shrub. It fits; hope it catches on.
Has anyone given serious thought to the possibility that many Islamic people might look on Bin Laden as a freedom fighter? Wasn't this how that "tyrant" Ho Chi Mihn was regarded by the North Vietnamese? To them, Ho was a patriot and a hero. Isn't it possible that more people than we realise might see Osama in that same way.
Forget Iraq and Saddam. That whole fiasco is a red herring. We are there only because The Schrub really wants to be a "war president" and he knows (or thought he knew" that Iraq was beatable and would provide the best setting for his fantasy. Not that it wouldn't get sticky at times but even that would be manageable if he threw a few scraps when needed to assure the cwc (christians without christ)that he was not neglecting them.
Bin Laden was different. The Shrub could see the futility of chasing Bin Laden and decided early that he would have much better control fighting a sitting duck rather than a running fox. The Shrub is maybe not the brightest boy in the Bush greenhouse but he does know what he wants and how to get it. Insurgents or freedom fighters? Terrorists or patriots? We have been fooled before. Viet Nam was the lesson that we may have yet to learn. For beginners, we totally mis-judged the people's will to be free under a system of goverment that they, not us, wanted. Perhaps the Islamic people have the same desire: to be free under their choice of government, not ours.
Posted by: Dick Johnson | June 24, 2005 11:56 PM
Rove is not as smart as he thinks he is. He should brush up on his Abraham Lincoln. Truth be told, the curtain is starting to come down on this administration and the Republicans will fight like hell not to lose their place in power. Their only problem is that they control everything and John Q. Public is finally starting to pay attention. They have no one to blame so you get a statement like Rove's. People are realizing that this War was started under a false premise and now we are stuck in a morass that is hard to leave and even harder to win. For all those that are so sure that the war in Iraq was right and just, then sign up or have your kids sign up, because boots on the ground is what we need. Our President, who was stupid enough to wage this war when he thought it politically expedient, now does not have the politcal will, courage and wit to do what it will take to win it.
I'm sorry but you are lying to yourself and the facts if you don't think this is Rove Inc and the Republican's fault. The reason the public is turning against this kabal is because they realize that now we are going to have to do something very painful to clean up this Iraq wonderlust. It's one thing to have a mediocre economy, it's another thing to start two wars that have yet to register any where near a reasonable standard of accomplishment. What a mess! It's like we have Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter's bad luck all in one.
And don't get me started on the Democrats. They voted for this war and went along lockstep with these masters of war. They were too weak to call this administration out and put their foot down....and look what is got them. It's time for some good ole' fashinon prgramatic politics in this country. Every issue in this country shouldn't be decided on the votes of Fundamentalist Christians and the Gay Community. This is not that hard people.
The real problem we have is that our politicians care more about enriching themselves at the expense of our well being. They are to be public servants, our servants, not corporate or special interest servants. The power and greed that drive our country will be what causes it to be undone.
Posted by: Dan | June 25, 2005 12:30 AM
Rove is only trying to fill the airwaves and newspapers with something other than:
6 Marines dead, 14 wounded - males and females
oil shot over $60 a barrel
stock market tanking over oil prices
Shooting off his mouth will buy him about 2 days. The White House is on the ropes and Rove is desperate. This administration is built on lies and owned by big business. It's a house of cards and it's falling down.
Posted by: just me | June 25, 2005 12:41 AM
It makes me sick to see Rove, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield smiling while people are dying. Half a dozen more marines died today and you don't hear the White House honoring them. Can you imagine Abraham Lincoln, who had the decency to be grave and serious, laughing and smirking like a drunken frat boy while people died on his watch? America has reached a new low with these clowns in charge.
The "optimistic" comments are insulting to those who are suffering and dying while they are smirking.
Posted by: nobody | June 25, 2005 12:45 AM
Bush is down for the count.
Not even Rove tactics can save him now.
Posted by: Bush watcher | June 25, 2005 12:57 AM
According to Arianna Huffington's blog tonight, Cheney was checked in to the cardiac care unit in Vail with angina. Arianna was on the scene and got the scoop while the AP reported that he had gone to see an orthopedist for an old knee injury.
Posted by: webdems | June 25, 2005 02:05 AM
You want to know what Rove was trying to distract people from? The court has ruled that the Pentagon has until the end of this month (only a few days off now) to release the next set of photos and videos of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib.
Those who have seen this stuff say it is stomach-turning. Sy Hersh says what you will never forget is the screaming of the children in it. I don't think there's any way they can spin this to look good for them. There will, of course, be those who defend this administration no matter what but the tide is turning, as shown by all the recent polls; this new Abu Ghraib stuff isn't going to reverse that trend.
They desperately need all the distractions they can find. Expect 24/7 coverage of missing white girls.
Posted by: Cranky Media Guy | June 25, 2005 05:41 AM
Thoughts on the RNC strategy sessions to protect Bush: [ http://tinyurl.com/7o7b3 ]
Posted by: Constant | June 25, 2005 04:35 PM | Blog by Joel Achenbach. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/sports. | 12,888.875 | 0.875 | 1.125 | high | medium | abstractive | 4,829 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301420.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301420.html | Damaging 'Deference' | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | The country is bracing for a bruising battle over filling a Supreme Court vacancy, a battle in which conservatives will praise "judicial restraint" and "deference" to popularly elected branches of government and liberals will praise judicial activism in defense of individual rights. But consider what the court did yesterday.
Most conservatives hoped that, in the most important case the court was to decide this term, judicial activism would put a leash on popularly elected local governments and would pull courts more deeply into American governance to protect the rights of individuals. Yesterday conservatives were disappointed.
The case came from New London, Conn., where the city government, like all governments, wants more revenue and has empowered a private entity, New London Development Corp., to exercise the awesome power of eminent domain. It has done so to condemn an unblighted working-class neighborhood in order to give the space to private developers whose condominiums, luxury hotel and private offices would pay more taxes than do the owners of the condemned homes and businesses.
The question answered yesterday was: Can government profit by seizing the property of people of modest means and giving it to wealthy people who can pay more taxes than can be extracted from the original owners? The court answered yes.
The Fifth Amendment says, among other things, "nor shall private property be taken for public use , without just compensation" (emphasis added). All state constitutions echo the Constitution's Framers by stipulating that takings must be for "public use." The Framers, who weighed their words, clearly intended the adjective "public" to circumscribe government's power: Government should take private property only to create things -- roads, bridges, parks, public buildings -- directly owned or primarily used by the general public.
Fighting eviction from homes one of them had lived in all her life, the New London owners appealed to Connecticut's Supreme Court, which ruled 4 to 3 against them. Yesterday they lost again. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5 to 4 ruling that drains the phrase "public use" of its clearly intended function of denying to government an untrammeled power to dispossess individuals of their most precious property: their homes and businesses.
During oral arguments in February, Justice Antonin Scalia distilled the essence of New London's brazen claim: "You can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?" Yesterday the court said that the modifier "public" in the phrase "public use" does not modify government power at all. That is the logic of the opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
In a tart dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Scalia, noted that the consequences of this decision "will not be random." She says it is "likely" -- a considerable understatement -- that the beneficiaries of the decision will be people "with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Those on the receiving end of the life-shattering power that the court has validated will almost always be individuals of modest means. So this liberal decision -- it augments government power to aggrandize itself by bulldozing individuals' interests -- favors muscular economic battalions at the expense of society's little platoons, such as homeowners and the neighborhoods they comprise.
Dissenting separately, Thomas noted the common-law origins and clearly restrictive purpose of the Framers' "public use" requirement. And responding to the majority's dictum that the court should not "second-guess" the New London city government's "considered judgment" about what constitutes seizing property for "public use," he said: A court owes "no deference" to a legislature's or city government's self-interested reinterpretation of the phrase "public use," a notably explicit clause of the Bill of Rights, any more than a court owes deference to a legislature's determination of what constitutes a "reasonable" search of a home.
Liberalism triumphed yesterday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government.
Conservatives should be reminded to be careful what they wish for. Their often-reflexive rhetoric praises "judicial restraint" and deference to -- it sometimes seems -- almost unleashable powers of the elected branches of governments. However, in the debate about the proper role of the judiciary in American democracy, conservatives who dogmatically preach a populist creed of deference to majoritarianism will thereby abandon, or at least radically restrict, the judiciary's indispensable role in limiting government. | The country is bracing for a bruising battle over filling a Supreme Court vacancy, a battle in which conservatives will praise "judicial restraint" and "deference" to popularly elected branches of government and liberals will praise judicial activism in defense of individual rights. But consider... | 17.627451 | 0.980392 | 49.019608 | medium | high | extractive | 4,830 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301712.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301712.html | A Party Without Ideas | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | What has happened to the Democrats over the past few decades is best captured by the phrase (coined by Kevin Phillips) "reactionary liberalism." Spent of new ideas, they have but one remaining idea: to hang on to the status quo at all costs.
This is true across the board. On Social Security, which is facing an impending demographic and fiscal crisis, they have put absolutely nothing on the table. On presidential appointments -- first, judges and now ambassador to the United Nations -- they resort to the classic weapon of southern obstructionism: the filibuster. And on foreign policy, they have nothing to say on the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq or the burgeoning Arab Spring (except the refrain: "Guantanamo").
A quarter-century ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted how it was the Republicans who had become a party of ideas, while the Democrats' philosophical foundation was "deeply eroded." But even Moynihan would be surprised by the bankruptcy in the Democrats' current intellectual account.
Take trade and Central America. The status quo there is widespread poverty. The Bush administration has proposed doing something about it -- a free-trade agreement encompassing five Central American countries plus the Dominican Republic.
It's a no-brainer. If we have learned anything from the past 25 years in China, India, Chile and other centers of amazing economic growth, it is that open markets and free trade are the keys to pulling millions, indeed hundreds of millions, of people out of poverty. The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is a chance to do the same for desperately poor near-neighbors.
You would think this treaty would be a natural for Democrats, who have always portrayed themselves as the party with real sympathy for the poor -- in contradistinction to Republicans, who have hearts of stone if they have any at all. The Democratic Party has always seen itself as the tribune of the oppressed of the Third World and as deeply distressed by the fact that "the United States by far is the stingiest nation in the world for development assistance or foreign aid," to quote Jimmy Carter, former Democratic president, current Democratic saint.
You would think, therefore, that Democrats would be for CAFTA. Not so. CAFTA is in great jeopardy because Democrats have turned against it. Whereas a decade ago under President Bill Clinton, 102 House Democrats supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, that number for CAFTA is down to 10 or less. In a closed-door meeting this month, reports Jonathan Weisman of The Post, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi put heavy-handed pressure on all congressional Democrats to observe party discipline in killing the treaty.
Arguing free trade is particularly tiresome because it is the only proposition in politics that is mathematically provable. It was proved by British economist David Ricardo in 1817 that even if one country is more efficient in producing two items, trade between two countries based on the relative efficiency of production is always beneficial to both countries.
Mathematics does not change, but calculations of political expediency do. After all, it was the Democrats who, when Central America was aflame in the 1980s, argued strenuously against Ronald Reagan's muscular approach of supporting the government of El Salvador and the anti-communist revolutionaries in Nicaragua. Democrats voted time and again against Reagan's policy because, they claimed, it ignored the root causes of the widespread discontent in Central America, namely poverty and hunger.
Their alternative? Economic help, not guns. In 1983, when Reagan made a speech asking for support for El Salvador's embattled government, Sen. Chris Dodd delivered a nationally televised response on behalf of the Democratic Party in which he called Reagan's policy a failure and demanded instead that we deal with the underlying economic and social conditions: "We must restore America's role as a source of hope and a force for progress in Central America. . . . We must hear the cry for bread, and schools, work and opportunity that comes from campesinos everywhere in this hemisphere."
There is no better way to bring bread, work and opportunity to the campesinos of Central America than with markets and free trade. To his credit, Dodd supports CAFTA, which represents precisely the kind of deployment of soft power that he advocated on behalf of his party 22 years ago. Today, however, his party has overwhelmingly abandoned his -- and its own professed -- ideals.
Eighty percent of goods from these countries are already entering the United States duty-free, so CAFTA would have a minimal impact on the United States. It would, however, have a dramatic impact on these six neighbor countries -- countries that Democrats used to care about. Or so they said. | What has happened to the Democrats over the past few decades is best captured by the phrase (coined by Kevin Phillips) "reactionary liberalism." Spent of new ideas, they have but one remaining idea: to hang on to the status quo at all costs. | 17.941176 | 1 | 51 | medium | high | extractive | 4,831 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301963.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301963.html | Another Year of Living Misery in Baghdad | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | BAGHDAD, June 23 -- In the streets of Baghdad, people wondered Thursday what else could possibly go wrong.
In Karrada, a commercial district across the Tigris River from the city's fortified Green Zone, wreckage was still smoldering hours after four car bombs exploded shortly after dawn, killing 17 people and wounding 20. Water sprayed on the resulting fires commingled in pools with blood. On the north side of the city, in Shuala -- like Karrada, an area populated mostly by Shiite Muslims -- similar scenes played out in the wake of a triple car bombing that had killed 15 people the night before.
Around Baghdad, neighborhoods were celebrating the return of running water but still lamenting the three-day drought caused when insurgents ruptured a water line north of the city.
And with the temperature exceeding 100 degrees, as it has every day for weeks, people voiced anger at the prospect of spending their third summer since the U.S.-led invasion with only intermittent electricity. Those with generators will be able to power air conditioners and other appliances; the rest will simply bake.
"So many problems are happening in the city," said Mohammed Sarhan, 50, a grocer in the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Dora. "Where do I start -- water, electricity, security, unemployment or health?"
"This is not a life," Sarhan added. "This is hell."
A gathering of representatives from more than 80 countries and organizations in Brussels on Wednesday was marked by statements of support for Iraq and announcements of programs to assist the country's nearly five-month-old interim government. The conference had been billed in large part as that government's debut on the world stage and an opportunity for its leaders to lay out their plans to rebuild the country.
In Baghdad, however, the government's performance was repeatedly cited in interviews as one of the many disappointing aspects of a year that began with promise. Elections on Jan. 30 drew large numbers of voters to the polls despite the threat of insurgent violence. But formal installation of a government and formation of a committee to write Iraq's next constitution were delayed for months, and efforts to bring more Sunni Muslim Arabs into the process after they boycotted the elections continue to sputter.
"We sacrificed our souls and went out to vote. What did we get? Simply nothing," said Karima Sadoun, 56, as she stopped to buy vegetables at a shop in the eastern Baghdad district of Ghadir.
In another eastern neighborhood, Bashar Hanna, 30, said: "We need action, not speeches. . . . Iraqis now are like a car stuck in the mud. Whenever this car wants to get out of the mud, it sticks more in the crater it created."
While the on-again, off-again power supply is not new to Baghdad, it is no less maddening than in past summers, residents said. Statistics for May and June are not yet available, but the amount of electricity generated in the capital decreased steadily through February, March and April even as nationwide supplies rose, according to State Department figures. Baghdad's daily average of 854 megawatts in April was scarcely more than a third of the city's estimated prewar output of 2,500 megawatts a day.
Sarhan, the grocer, said the power shortages were affecting sales. "Not too many people come and buy from me, because they don't have electricity," he said. "They don't have a place to keep what they buy." | BAGHDAD, June 23 -- In the streets of Baghdad, people wondered Thursday what else could possibly go wrong. | 32.571429 | 1 | 21 | medium | high | extractive | 4,832 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301786.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301786.html | Court Ruling on Land Pleases D.C. Officials | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | District leaders said a Supreme Court ruling yesterday that gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property will provide the city leverage in its goal to acquire land for two controversial projects, including a new baseball stadium.
Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) had been closely watching an eminent domain case in which homeowners in New London, Conn., sued the city when it attempted to take their land to develop a shopping mall. The court upheld the right of city governments to force property owners to sell to make way for private development.
D.C. officials want to acquire 14 acres near the Anacostia waterfront by the end of the year to build a stadium for the Nationals. They also have been trying to buy the 1950s-era Skyland strip mall in Southeast to build a larger, upscale retail complex. In both cases, city officials say they will invoke eminent domain if necessary.
"I am pleased that the Supreme Court upheld 50 years of precedent today, allowing local officials the continued use of eminent domain to bolster economically depressed neighborhoods," Williams said in a statement.
D.C. Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) said that the ruling should give the city apowerful hand during negotiations with the 33 property owners at the ballpark site.
"It puts to rest the issue of whether the city has legal rights to take the properties," Evans said. "This strengthens our hand to get control of the property. Hopefully, it will encourage owners to settle with the District and accept a fair price and move on."
The city is completing assessments of property on the ballpark site and expects to begin making offers in late July, said Carol Mitten, director of the Office of Property Management. Property owners will have 30 to 45 days to negotiate with the city, Mitten said. If a deal is not reached, the city will seize the land, and a court will decide the sale price.
Reaction was mixed among attorneys for property owners.
"Any avenue the landowners in Southeast may have had to interpose a constitutional challenge is now moot," said John Barron, who represents several landowners.
But Dale Cooter, who also represents more than one owner, said the court left open some room for challenges in the ballpark case. He said it ruled that land can be taken only for comprehensive redevelopment, and he argued that a baseball stadium does not fit that description.
Kenneth Wyban, who owns a five-bedroom house on the stadium site, said he hoped a court would not support the city's plan to take land for a ballpark .
"It's totally different," Wyban said. "You'd want the city to get the maximum usage out of a property. But you will not realize it with this stadium. It will sit vacant 260 days of the year."
Whayne Quin, a land-use lawyer who has represented the District in the past, said the court decision "strengthens and confirms government authority to condemn land for revitalization."
In the Skyland case, some property owners had been threatening to block the city in court. Yesterday, the National Capital Revitalization Corp., the publicly chartered firm handling the Skyland project for the city, received calls from owners inquiring about how much the city would be willing to pay, said Therman A. Baker Jr., general counsel and chief operating officer.
"All eyes were on this decision," Baker said. "This hopefully removes any uncertainty as to our legal authority and helps to bring people to the table in a very expedited manner."
Elaine Mittelman, an attorney for several Skyland merchants and landlords who sued last year to stop any seizures, said the development in the New London case was better thought out than the new Skyland complex. And the town of New London is more economically depressed than the District as a whole, she said.
"Skyland is significantly different," Mittelman said.
But Williams said in his statement that Skyland "is an area where eminent domain could be used for the good of the entire community." | Get Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia news. Includes news headlines from The Washington Post. Get info/values for Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia homes. Features schools, crime, government, traffic, lottery, religion, obituaries. | 17.108696 | 0.434783 | 0.434783 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,833 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/24/DI2005062400562.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/24/DI2005062400562.html | Supreme Court's Ruling on Land | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | "District leaders said a Supreme Court ruling yesterday that gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property will provide the city leverage in its goal to acquire land for two controversial projects, including a new baseball stadium.
"Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) had been closely watching an eminent domain case in which homeowners in New London, Conn., sued the city when it attempted to take their land to develop a shopping mall. The court upheld the right of city governments to force property owners to sell to make way for private development.
"D.C. officials want to acquire 14 acres near the Anacostia waterfront by the end of the year to build a stadium for the Nationals. They also have been trying to buy the 1950s-era Skyland strip mall in Southeast to build a larger, upscale retail complex. In both cases, city officials say they will invoke eminent domain if necessary."
J. Peter Byrne, professor of law at Georgetown Law, was online Friday, June 24, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss what Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kelo v. City of New London might mean for the District.
J. Peter Byrne: Hi everyone. Although I support the Court's ruling in this case, because it acknowledges a power necessary for older cities to survive, I also think that the power can easily be abused, and has been abused in the past. All government power is subject to abuse. The task for government and citizens is to use this power with restraint to revitalize decaying urban areas while being scrupulously fair to those whose property is taken. We have been doing this now for many years.
Alexandria, Va.: I was recently checking in on a libertarian chat site (Reason Magazine's) following this ruling -- the chat just about burned up my computer. I'm surprised it didn't set off my smoke detector.
I usually call myself a liberal, not a libertarian, but my immediate and lasting reaction to the ruling is horror. To me it makes me wonder if my secure sense of ownership of my own home hasn't all along been a fantasy.
What is your reading of the reaction among the general public?
J. Peter Byrne: The reporting of the Kelo decision, even by the Post, has alarmed many people unnecessarily. The Court did find that the Constitution does not prohibit a city from condemning homes as part of a much discussed, publicly approved redevelopment project. It does not mean that such actions will be frequent or widespread. Using condemnation in this way must satisfy state law and must be approved in the the political process. People like you (and me) view these actions with skepticism and concern for the displaced. Homeowners are the most powerful single political force in American life. We are secure in our homes.
Chicago, Ill.: What are the long-term implications of this ruling? It seems rife for abuse by developers who have politicians in there back pocket.
J. Peter Byrne: This ruling does not change prior law much. The Court held in 1954 that government could take land for redevelopment as part of the urban renewal program. That fostered some very regrettable actions but the program as a whole was defeated by political action and legislative changes. Today, most politicians are scared stiff to use eminent domain, especially against homeowners.
Washington, D.C.: This case reflects the very reason that when I am ready to retire, I am pulling up stakes and moving to another country. Seriously. In a country like Nigeria, the land you buy is yours forever. I've had plans for a while to sell my home and move to a country where the land you own is yours for good. This country is moving towards a system where a company or developer owns everything, even the place you rest your head at night, and no one is balking about it. It baffles me. Do homeowners have no protections any more? Does scrimping and saving for the so-called American dream mean anything when the government can come in and say, "We want your land for a shopping mall. Here's $10. Go away." What then is the point of becoming a homeowner in this country?
J. Peter Byrne: You are wrong if you think your property is more secure in Nigeria than in the United States. A point many miss is that the owners must be paid "just compensation." This means at a minimum the fair market value of their property. They also usually receive additional statutory compensation, like moving expenses. This money comes form the public fisc. Also, eminent domain generally requires some litigation, also expensive, as well as politically volatile.
Alexandria, Va.: I keep seeing the stadium issue raised in this debate, but I don't see why. I thought invoking eminent domain for stadiums was settled law, since stadiums are considered common carriers in the same manner of toll roads and railroads.
So why does it keep coming up? Isn't it a matter of mixing apples and oranges?
J. Peter Byrne: You are right that there was little doubt before that DC could condemn land for a stadium, especially since it intends to be the owner. Cities have built stadia since Athens and Rome. What this decision clarifies is that the city also can take surrounding land to promote the revitalization of the area as part of the project. Of course, all this will be subject to extensive debate, as it should be.
Orlando, Fla.: One could say that local government facilitates participation and reflects people's serious stake in their homes and communities, yet permits easy exit by moving to another town. Indeed, polls show Americans prefer and have more trust in their local governments than in state or national government. But in D.C., where there is no home rule, isn't it harder to make the case that eminent domain is a good thing? There isn't the representation that exists everywhere else. It isn't democratic. There isn't the accountability.
J. Peter Byrne: Great question. When the federal government approved urban renewal in DC, local people had no real say. The Court's opinion (Berman v. Parker, 1954) is full of praise of democracy, but little existed as far as DC residents went. Today, the situation is rather different, as DC has a rough and tumble local political life. The stadium or other redevelopment projects can be approved only after extensive scrutiny and debate by our elected officials.
Culver City, Calif.: In a debate discussing Kelo with Richard Epstein, you noted "renters typically get little or nothing in compensation even though their personal attachments to their home may be much greater than their landlord's." D.C. is primarily made up of renters. Doesn't eminent domain in D.C. pose an exceptionally difficult case because of all the renters?
J. Peter Byrne: Renters do get screwed in eminent domain. They have to move, but have no ownership in their homes. Thus, they get only moving expenses at best. I thin this is wrong and have argued for "home loss payments" in excess of the market value of the displacee's home. They do this in England (which, by the way, has no written constitution).
The government must still compensate the building's owner. The risk to renters is that a landlord of a low rent property may prefer that the government condemn for compensation his building, when few would want to buy it in the market.
Vienna, Va.: This case has gotten everyone upset, but they seem to miss the point that you can always vote the people out of office if they abuse the power. And for all the libertarians and conservatives bashing this "liberal" decision, it actually shows a lot of judicial deference to the political process. To have ruled otherwise would have been the very "judicial activism" that got conservatives so upset during the Terry Schiavo decision. Why does it seem they want it both ways?
J. Peter Byrne: Interesting perspective. During the Warren Court years, conservatives argued that the Court should decide fewer policy issues, especially those traditionally decided at the state and local levels. Some "conservative" jurists today want to assume awesome power of supervision of democratic government. Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion in this case rejects 200 years of consistent court decisions deferring to state and local governments in these matters based on a clumsy literal reading of the constitution and some potted history.
Washington, D.C.: A point many miss is that the owners must be paid "just compensation."
If that's a joke, I'm not laughing. Just compensation as defined by whom, exactly? The government, the same government who wants to take your rightfully held private property.
How naive does the court think people are?
J. Peter Byrne: You are entitled to a jury trial on the adequacy of compensation. The owners in this Connecticut case did not contest the adequacy of compensation.
You obviously don't understand property rights and you certainly don't understand our constitution. "Public use" in the takings clause does not mean that private property can be turned over to private developers. If this is the case then no property is private
J. Peter Byrne: You are entitled to your opinion. For 200 years courts have held that government need not possess land to satisfy the public use criterion. They interpret public use to mean public benefit, a perfectly good reading according to the dictionary. We would have no railroads if government had to own the condemned land. Also, do we want to create a strong incentive for government to retain possession and management of land? Must DC own this baseball stadium as a matter of constitutional law? Conservatives should be the last to want that!
Jenkintown, Pa.: Does the so called fair market value have to allow for current inflated housing prices? If not what becomes of the homeowner? Do they become homeless. That could very easily happen to us.
J. Peter Byrne: Yes, the owner must receive what a willing seller today would pay a willing buyer.
Boston, Mass.: All this talk about how these newly acquired powers will not be abused by local land managers has me thinking about the provisions in the Patriot Act. How can you assure that less scrupulous actors in the future will not?
Make no mistake, this "subtle" change fundamentally changes property from a "right to own" to a "license to use."
J. Peter Byrne: Redevelopment and condemnation are far more transparent than government investigations, etc., under the Patriot Act. Also, citizens (especially homeowners) have far more control over and trust in local government than they do in the federal government.
Phoenix, Ariz.: I thought our Supreme Court in Berman v. Parker held that the urban renewal program in Washington D.C. could rip down a perfectly serviceable department store as part of a larger slum clearance project. That seems like the opposite of the good decision-making that you say would result from use of eminent domain power. If the local government only has to project higher revenues from the newer use, without having to substantiate the claim, then no one's home is safe!!!!
J. Peter Byrne: The costs and benefits of urban renewal in Southwest Washington have been and will be long debated. The community that was displaced had great tradition and neighborliness, even if so much housing was substandard. I think government then focused too much on physical conditions and not enough on social. There also was the absence of local voice in the political process and the grossly disproportionate effect on African-Americans. At the same time, Southwest became the first racially integrated neighborhood in DC and for most a nice place to live. Interestingly, the apartment building built at the site of the store at issue in Berman recently became an historic landmark, so cannot be torn down without extraordinary procedures. Ironic.
Greenbelt, Md.: I think what a lot of people found objectionable in this case was the equation between tax revenue and public interest. It seems like the decision places the interests of government (such as raising revenue) and developers (whose political contributions have a corrupting influence over local politicians) over the general population.
I can't see how this will not be a big blow to affordable housing. The conservatives are worried that this decision dilutes private property rights. I am concerned that it dilutes the notion of public goods.
J. Peter Byrne: Many share your concern. The reality for a city like New London is that it will disproportionately house the region's low income population. More affluent people move to suburbs protected by exclusionary zoning. Creating jobs helps poor urban residents. Enhancing tax revenues supports schools and essential public services. The federal government has gone out of the business of helping declining cities. Cities need to survive and take care of the poor. Who else will?
Washington, D.C.: Doesn't a city (or state) still have to pass legislation to permit eminent domain purchase in order for this ruling to affect those residents? i.e., don't some states now explicitly forbid this practice?
J. Peter Byrne: Good point. Cities can exercise eminent domain only pursuant to state constitutions and statutes. Very often, the approval of state officials also is required. Some states have constitutional provisions far more restrictive than what the US Supreme Court approved. Indeed the Court suggested that variations among states are desirable. States can restrict local use of eminent domain as much as they want.
Memphis, Tenn.: Professor Byrne, Do you believe that this decision, and the increasing number of redevelopment projects throughout the country, represent a new reality of development in the U.S.? It seems that the only way to balance the pull of suburban sprawl is with new construction and development within cities, something that is too expensive to undertake without the prospect of eminent domain. It seems to me that rather than being a one-sided boom to wealthy developers, the decision provides one of the only ways to truly maintain the growth and improvement within urban areas -- to benefit poorer communities, public schools, bring jobs, etc.
J. Peter Byrne: Most urban development, of course, still is entirely private, without any use of eminent domain. Cities are more likely to offer developers properties that they have taken in tax foreclosures and use subsidies to achieve their public goals through private development. In the Connecticut case, New London proposed to convey important parcels for $1 to a private developer willing to follow the plan. This may be brilliant or mad depending on the circumstances, but public/private cooperation is a fact of life in cities. Condemnation is the least frequent vehicle for it.
SE Washington, D.C.: While I share the concern about the broader implications of the ruling, I do have to weigh in as a current (8 year) resident of Ward 7 in Southeast D.C., where the majority of us are ELATED. Not so much at the decision, but rather that it cannot be used to further unfairly block the COMMUNITY DRIVEN and COMMUNITY DESIRED re-development of Skyland Shopping Center. It is a MUCH more complex situation, involving property owners who willfully neglected that site (when the neighborhood changed from middle-class white/to middle-class black). They ignored 16 years of organized and documented community activism to stem the decline (through the Skyland Task Force comprised of Ward 7 and 8 residents). I think property rights work both ways: business owners should be expected to be good community citizens. They were not. Had Skyland been in Arlington, it would have been sized long ago as an eyesore and a safety hazard. In this specific case, I'm glad that they will not be able to use the Kelo case to shield them from the repercussions of neglect and mismanagement.
J. Peter Byrne: I agree that it is a legitimate function of government to promote development wanted by local residents that the market seems unwilling to provide. If the owners of existing commercial space are fairly compensated, what unfairness has befallen them?
I also agree that property has a social aspect. What my neighbor owns affects greatly the quality of my life. The trick is to adjust rights and wrongs through our imperfect political process.
Alexandria, Va.: Re: "just compensation." My own home has tripled in value over the last ten years, however, property values everywhere else have gone up like crazy as well. In current conditions, there is NO WAY, if the government were to assess the on-paper value of my home, pay me for it and then kick me out, that I would be able to afford another decent home in the Washington Metropolitan area. (Especially taking into consideration the heart, elbow grease and additional funds I've put into it over the years as well.) I bet my situation perfectly mirrors the dilemma that will be awaiting most if not all of the less-than-affluent property owners we are talking about here.
J. Peter Byrne: Finding replacement housing we can afford is a serious problem. I think that just compensation law likely will become friendlier to homeowners in the coming years. This was discussed during oral arguments in Kelo, but does make much of an appearance in the opinions.
Atlanta, Ga.: You just said: "The federal government has gone out of the business of helping declining cities. Cities need to survive and take care of the poor. Who else will?"
But doesn't that admit this is really a national and federal issue, and not a state and local one? If the National League of Cities (or whomever) can just go to federal court to impose a rule that lets them rob people of their property ... isn't that just away to subvert the national will that refuses to elect a President and Congress that will fund the cities in the way liberals like you prefer?
Isn't this just politics waged through the courts?
J. Peter Byrne: Whoa. If the feds decide that they do not want to help cities, it does not follow that states and cities may not help themselves. That is the point of federalism. States and cities are self-governing, except to the extent that the federal government restricts them within the powers given it by the Constitution. The Court here only held that that the Constitution does not prohibit states and cites from exercising this power in this way.
McLean, Va.: Pure and simple, there should be a boycott of businesses and companies that use this to expand their "footprint" in areas where they are not welcome. People should vote with their pocketbooks. Lawmakers who back this should be run out of town on a rail. As someone pointed out earlier, there is no American dream if this is allowed to happen, compensation or no compensation.
J. Peter Byrne: You are safe in McLean.
Maryland: Taking land from one private owner to give to another private owner is not "necessary for cities to survive." In most cases it is transferring wealth from those who have little to those who have much. If the corporation or developer wants my land, there is a readily accessible way to get it: buy it from me at market value. Everyone really does have a price, and if they don't, figure out a way around the obstacle (or over it - ever seen pictures in London of a tall building built around and on top of (but not touching) a house the owner wouldn't see?).
No on will ever convince me that the powers of eminent domain were even meant to enrich one private owner at the expense of another. It was to build roads, schools, etc. for the benefit of many. Anything else is a taking, in every sense of the word.
J. Peter Byrne: One nightmare scenario that stirs people is that a large corporation will decide that it wants our house for a new store, etc., and will persuade spineless local pols to use eminent domain to get it. That does happen, if rarely. The Court yesterday plainly was concerned about that scenario more than the careful planning and political process in New London, and dropped hints that federal courts should look closely at takings intended to benefit particular companies and individuals to make sure that there was a substantial public benefit. No one likes that outcome.
Falls Church, Va.: Prof. Byrne, I'm not a lawyer so please forgive me if my question is naive, and explain how. Reading through the opinions, I see every reference to "property" is a reference to Real Estate. Every case they reference seems to have been about Real Estate, and this case was about Real Estate. But there are many kinds of property. Is this decision limited in impact to Real Estate, or does it conceivably mean (technically if not realistically at the moment) that my record collection, the silverware in my drawers, even the rights to my novel or trademarked phrase (my intellectual property) can be taken for economic development reasons?
J. Peter Byrne: In principle, any property may be the subject of eminent domain. Indeed, there has been talk about "taking" patents to certain drugs to address disease in the third world. What makes eminent domain most likely regarding land are the barriers to assembling large parcels in strategic locations. When government does that, it may add real value that can be captured for the public. For most other forms of property, the unaided market works more smoothly, except for "externalties."
J. Peter Byrne: Thanks for your questions. It is unfortunate that people have become so worried about a decision that follows 200 years of precedent. Relax on your porch and feel secure in your home. No other country in the world values private property rights as much as we do.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate. | 104.268293 | 0.707317 | 0.95122 | high | low | abstractive | 4,834 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400535.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400535.html | Taylor Is Charged With a Felony | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | MIAMI, June 24 -- Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor was formally charged Friday with one felony count of aggravated assault with a firearm and one misdemeanor count of simple battery for his role in a June 1 confrontation in a Miami neighborhood. The charges were announced by the Miami-Dade state attorney's office during Taylor's arraignment.
Taylor, 22, pleaded not guilty through a written document filed in advance by defense attorney Edward Carhart. Neither the 6-foot-2, 231-pound Taylor nor Carhart appeared at the arraignment, held at the Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building.
The charges stem from an incident in which police say Taylor pointed a gun at two men as he sought the return of two all-terrain vehicles he said had been stolen from him.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Mary Barzee set a tentative trial date for Sept. 12, one day after the Redskins' season opener against the Chicago Bears at FedEx Field. But because of continuances -- adjournments of a court case to future dates for various procedural reasons -- Taylor's trial likely will be postponed until after the season, which ends in January.
"I can't comment on the strength or the weakness of the case," assistant state attorney Mike Grieco told reporters outside the courtroom shortly after the arraignment. "The reason for filing was that we had a good-faith basis to go forward."
Grieco added: "I've met with all the witnesses, weighed all the evidence. In fact, I met with Mr. Taylor himself at one point."
Under Florida's stringent gun laws, Grieco said that Taylor faces a mandatory minimum sentence of three years in prison. A preliminary court date was set for July 12, when Taylor will be given an opportunity to accept a sentence of three years, Grieco said. Taylor and Carhart are required to be present at that session. Taylor faces a maximum sentence of 16 years, if convicted.
Grieco added that the charges also could change during the trial.
About 40 people, including a few handcuffed defendants at the jurors' seats, were packed into the tiny courtroom. Most were present for arraignments unrelated to Taylor's. About a dozen journalists attended because of Taylor, who starred at the University of Miami, where he majored in criminology, and nearby Gulliver Prep High before the Redskins selected him as their No. 1 draft pick in 2004.
Carhart said he spoke with Taylor by telephone after the arraignment. "He just took it all in," Carhart said in a telephone interview. "He didn't scream, holler or weep. He didn't say much."
Grieco read the charges in Taylor's arraignment, which lasted only about two minutes. Although Taylor was originally arrested on two felony counts, the state attorney consolidated them into one count after discovering another victim during the pre-arraignment investigation.
"We actually encountered and added a third victim, so he's only charged with one count, but it's for three victims," Grieco said.
Because of Taylor's legal issues, the Redskins excused him from minicamp last week. Recently, Coach Joe Gibbs said that Taylor is expected for training camp, which will start July 31 at Redskins Park.
Team spokesman Patrick Wixted said Friday that the Redskins would have no additional comment regarding the case going to trial. Taylor signed a seven-year, $18 million contract after he was drafted.
Taylor hasn't granted a media interview since October. His agent, Drew Rosenhaus, didn't return a voice mail seeking comment.
Taylor, accompanied by Carhart, gave a voluntary statement to the state attorney's office Wednesday during an approximately one-hour interview in hopes that the charges would be dropped. According to officials familiar with the case who requested anonymity, Taylor also submitted a passed lie-detector test, which was conducted by a private polygraphist. Polygraph results are not admissible in court.
Taylor has acknowledged being involved in the June 1 incident, but he disputes police reports that he possessed a gun and that his friend wielded a bat.
Taylor's co-defendant, Charles Elwood Caughman, 19, of Baltimore, was charged at his arraignment Thursday with one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
According to the police report, Taylor drove his blue 2005 Yukon Denali sport utility vehicle with Caughman into West Perrine, a high-crime neighborhood just south of downtown Miami. Several friends trailed in another car. Taylor believed that two men from the area had stolen his two ATVs, each worth roughly $7,000.
Police said Taylor got out of the car after spotting the men in front of one of their homes and pointed a handgun while demanding his ATVs. No shots were fired, police said. Taylor returned 10 minutes later with more friends, police said. This time, Taylor got out of the car and hit one of the individuals, Ryan Hill, 21, with his fist while Caughman chased another person with a bat, the police report said. After a tussle, Taylor and his group again left the scene, police said.
They went to a home owned by the mother of one of Taylor's friends, where Taylor had been parking his ATVs. A few minutes later, several shots were fired into the home and at the two cars -- including Taylor's Denali -- parked outside, according to people involved in the case who requested anonymity because a police report on this incident hasn't been filed. No one was hurt. Police retrieved shell casings from at least two different weapons, but no arrests have been made. Police consider the shooting a separate investigation.
Carhart said the shooting would be a key part of Taylor's defense.
"They are just blowing smoke when they say that they are still investigating the other case," Carhart said. "I am confident the state attorney's office hasn't seen all the witnesses or examined all the evidence.
"There's every reason to believe the people who claim to be victims are the actual perpetrators of serious crimes. And the state had to choose one side or the other. Hopefully, [the decision] is not because of Sean Taylor's high profile." | Get sports news, schedules, rosters for Washington Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, United, Mystics, Nationals. Features Washington DC, Virginia, Maryland high school/college teams, Wilbon and Kornheiser from The Washington Post. | 28.5 | 0.5 | 0.595238 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,835 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301727.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301727.html | Democrats Call for Rove To Apologize | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | Democratic leaders angrily demanded a retraction from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove yesterday after he accused liberals of responding with restraint and timidity to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but White House and Republican officials rallied to his defense and rebuffed calls for an apology.
Democrats accused Rove, President Bush's top political strategist, of impugning their patriotism, misrepresenting the support they gave Bush after terrorists hit the United States and demeaning the memories of victims. Republicans accused Democrats of overreacting to what they said were accurate characterizations of reactions among some liberals and of having defended slanderous statements against the U.S. military.
In a speech to the New York state Conservative Party on Wednesday night in Manhattan, Rove offered his view of the philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives. He cited the liberal group MoveOn.org and filmmaker Michael Moore, but he criticized only two politicians by name: Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
But as the controversy grew yesterday, other Republicans issued statements in support of Rove that cited such Democrats as Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the 2004 presidential nominee; Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.); and Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio).
The acrimonious exchanges came just two days after Durbin bowed to Republican-led pressure and apologized for comparing the treatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba to techniques used by the Nazis and the Soviets. Together, the episodes underscored the growing harshness and rising political stakes of the debate over national security at a time of declining support for Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq and pressure on him to outline a strategy for success there.
Rove's remarks were reported in yesterday's New York Times and in wire service reports, and by yesterday morning they had quickly exploded into the latest political battle between the parties.
In his speech, Rove said no issue better illustrated the philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives than national security. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war," he said in a prepared text released by the White House. "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
Rove went on to say that conservatives wanted to "unleash the might and power" of the military against the Taliban in Afghanistan, while liberals wanted to submit petitions. He cited a petition he said was backed by MoveOn.org that called for "moderation and restraint" in responding to the attacks.
"I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the twin towers crumble to the earth, a side of the Pentagon destroyed and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble," he said, according to the text. "Moderation and restraint is not what I felt -- and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will -- and to brandish steel. MoveOn.org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did."
Rove, who was criticized in 2002 for vowing that Republicans would reap political gains on national security, took special aim at Durbin. "Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger," he said. "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
The Democratic counterattack was led by the party's two top leaders in Congress. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said, "Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks, or he should resign." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said Rove "has decided to move to center stage in the theater of the absurd. He knows full well, as do all Americans, that our country came together after 9/11."
Dean accused Rove of trying to divide the country with "cynical political attacks," while Kerry said Bush should fire Rove if he believes his own calls for national unity.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) called Rove's remarks "appalling" and "saddening," while Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.) said that, after the Sept. 11 attacks, "we weren't divided. There were no liberals, progressives . . . saying that we did not have a need to respond."
Corzine referred to the House and Senate votes after the terrorist attacks authorizing Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to respond. The Senate approved the measure 98 to 0, and the House endorsed it 420 to 1.
Eli Pariser, executive director of the MoveOn political action committee, accused Rove of attempting to "change the subject away from their failed policy in Iraq" in advance of Bush's speech next week. He also disputed Rove's characterization of the petition calling for moderation and restraint, saying that the petition was a personal project before he was affiliated with MoveOn and that it was not on the group's Web site at the time of the Afghanistan war.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan, asked whether the president would ask Rove for an apology, responded, "Of course not." He added: "If people want to try to engage in personal attacks instead of defending their philosophy, that's their business."
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said a litany of comments by Democratic elected officials and their liberal allies underscored Rove's point. "It is outrageous," he said, "that the same Democratic leaders who refused to repudiate or criticize Dick Durbin's slandering of our military are now attacking Karl Rove for stating the facts. . . . Karl didn't say the Democratic Party. He said liberals."
Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report. | Democratic leaders angrily demand a retraction of comments by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who accused liberals of responding with restraint and timidity to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. | 30 | 0.947368 | 9.894737 | medium | high | extractive | 4,836 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062302086.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062302086.html | Oprah and the View From Outside Hermes' Paris Door | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | The one thing that Oprah Winfrey and Hermes agree on is that the talk show host did not get a chance to do any early-evening shopping recently at the company's Paris store. Why she was denied an opportunity to spend her money at the expensive boutique is what has gossip columnists, radio commentators and, in particular, the Internet reverberating with a chorus of girrrrrrlllll.
On June 14, Winfrey arrived at the Hermes shop at 24 Faubourg Saint-Honore. The street is well traveled by tourists and the well-to-do because of its abundance of famous designer boutiques. In the first (and untrue, both sides say) version of the incident, reported Monday in the New York Post, Hermes staff members stationed at the door failed to recognize Winfrey, as she was not in full glamour makeup with her TV hair. They denied her entry and, the gossip item claimed, told her that they have been "having a problem with North Africans lately."
The bloggers raced to their computers: "Oprah Musta Forgot She Is Black." "Oprah w/out makeup, hair done, etc. is really ugly. Seriously, I love Oprah, but what we see on TV is very different from how Oprah really looks."
On Wednesday, the New York Daily News weighed in with a different version of the story, saying Winfrey arrived just after the store had closed at 6:30 p.m. and there was no doubt about her identity. She saw shoppers still milling about inside and asked the Hermes staff at the door if she could dash in to make a quick purchase. A clerk said no, and so did a store manager. An unnamed "friend" quoted in the Daily News didn't use the term racism but suggested that if Celine Dion or Barbra Streisand had made a similar request, there wouldn't have been a problem. In this telling of the tale, the entire population of northern Africa was not maligned.
Internet postings often blended the two versions and were accompanied by outraged commentary, indignation and suggestions that Hermes start putting together an especially nice gift basket in the form of a crocodile Birkin. (The company had no comment on the subject of apologetic bouquets, jewelry or handbags.)
A spokeswoman at Winfrey's Harpo Productions confirmed the Daily News version of the story, saying that the incident was "Oprah's 'Crash' moment" -- a reference to the film in which racism unfolds in complex, subtle and surprising interactions. Winfrey also contacted Hermes' U.S. president to inform him of the incident. She plans to tell the story on her show when it returns from hiatus in September.
With the Internet painting an ever-grimmer portrait of the 168-year-old French company, Hermes issued a statement from its Paris headquarters apologizing for "not having been able to accommodate Ms. Winfrey and her team and to provide her with the service and care that Hermes strives to provide to each and every one of its customers worldwide. Hermes apologizes for any offense taken due to such circumstances."
The company also tells a slightly different version of the story. Hermes shuts its doors at 6:30, but on this particular evening the staff was preparing the store for a private event -- a presentation of ready-to-wear. As a result, there was a significant amount of activity in the boutique, which may have given the impression that shoppers were still browsing.
A Hermes spokeswoman said Winfrey arrived about 6:45, accompanied by three other people. A clerk and security guard were at the door and there was no discussion of North Africans or anyone else, according to the store's security videotape, which the company inspected after the incident. The guard explained that the store was closed. The clerk offered up her business card with an invitation for Winfrey to return the next day. The store manager, preparing for that evening's event, was not at the door.
Hermes regularly lavishes celebrities with all of the attention they have come to expect, the spokeswoman said. But Winfrey's visit was an after-hours surprise at a particularly inopportune moment.
One could argue that perhaps this was simply an example of employees not empowered to be proactive, even for a celebrity who could purchase every watch and handbag in the place and come back the next day for more. (The clerk, by the way, has not been forced to take up with an organ grinder on Boulevard Saint Germain; she remains gainfully employed.) It could be an example of a store treating a wealthy celebrity just like anyone else. It could be a case of rudeness. It could be racism. It could be a complicated blend of all that and more.
Hermes is a family-owned business that was founded as a harness shop in Paris in 1837. It is known for its luxuriously printed silk scarves and its handmade bags, namely the Birkin and the Kelly bag. It is one of fashion's most exclusive brands thanks to its high prices and its years-long Birkin waiting list that has risen to near mythic importance among high-end shoppers. The company makes little effort to reach a broad demographic. One of its silk squares retails for $320. A simple tie is $145. A basic Birkin costs about $6,000. A starter handbag is still a thousand-dollar investment.
Brands that cultivate an air of exclusivity breed paranoia, insecurity and suspicion as a byproduct. If the brand is perceived as being for a select few, there's a heightened sensitivity to the perception that the brand is not for you -- even if you happen to be extremely wealthy.
The fashion industry also is particularly ruthless about choosing its customers. Through sizing, pricing, geography and attitude, companies attempt to weed out those they don't deem representative of their image. There's a reason why so many designers steer clear of plus sizes. Fat women are not part of their fashion fantasy.
And there have been countless stories of well-known African Americans feeling snubbed. Cornel West in a three-piece suit couldn't get a cab in Manhattan. Vanessa Williams was mistaken for a waitress at a private dinner party even though she was wearing an evening gown. Condoleezza Rice -- before she became secretary of state -- reprimanded a salesgirl for showing her costume jewelry after she had requested the better pieces.
It is easy to believe that a clerk in a fancy store could be plagued by prejudices. But is it utterly naive to think she could also be indiscriminately brusque, dismissive or inflexible? The public probably will never know precisely what transpired in the case of Winfrey versus Hermes. The story has been taken over by the Internet, a forum not known for its subtlety and accuracy. (One posting had Winfrey going to Hermes to "get her hair done.")
People have argued that no matter what was going on inside the store, no matter what time it was, Winfrey -- the billionaire with millions of devoted fans who ask "How high?" when she says "Jump" -- should have been allowed to shop. It certainly would have been beneficial for the Hermes bottom line. But after-hours shopping is a favor, a perk. Not a right. There's nothing wrong with a store saying not tonight, madame, as long as the reason doesn't have anything to do with skin color. It's okay to say no to a celebrity, even when her name is Oprah. | The one thing that Oprah Winfrey and Hermes agree on is that the talk show host did not get a chance to do any early-evening shopping recently at the company's Paris store. Why she was denied an opportunity to spend her money at the expensive boutique is what has gossip columnists, radio... | 24.844828 | 0.982759 | 56.017241 | medium | high | extractive | 4,837 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062302279.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062302279.html | Spurs' Crowning Achievement | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | SAN ANTONIO, June 23 -- His toughness, heart and place among the all-time greats was questioned as the Detroit Pistons pushed, shoved and humbled him for six games. But in the most pressure-packed contest of his career, San Antonio Spurs forward Tim Duncan dusted off his detractors, dusted off the Pistons and dusted off his third NBA Finals MVP trophy after leading his team to an 81-74 win in Game 7 Thursday night.
Duncan added to his legacy with a dominant third-quarter performance and Spurs guard Manu Ginobili slammed the door with his herky-jerky antics as the Spurs wrestled back the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy from the Pistons with a 4-3 series win.
"He put his team on his shoulders and carried them to a championship," Pistons forward Ben Wallace said of Duncan. "That's what great players do."
As the final horn sounded, Duncan finally let a smile crack his perpetually stoic face and lifted his long arms toward the sky after scoring a game-high 25 points with 11 rebounds. Ginobili tracked him down and wrapped his arms around Duncan, who led the Spurs to their second title in three years -- against a defending champion Pistons team that didn't know how to give up in the first Game 7 of the NBA Finals in 11 seasons.
"I don't know how the hell we did it," said Spurs Coach Gregg Popovich, who became only the fifth coach in NBA history to win at least three NBA championships. To do it, Popovich needed to beat his mentor and friend, Larry Brown, who may have coached his last game with the Pistons.
"Nobody cares. Talk about Iraq or something that matters," Popovich said, trying to play down his accomplishment. "I probably did some good things. I probably made some mistakes. When you talk about those championships and the credit, that involves a lot of people."
The Spurs won win their third title in seven years and the first without David Robinson saddled to Duncan's hip. Duncan found a new sidekick for this championship ride in Ginobili. Ginobili, who led Argentina to a gold medal in last summer's Olympics, was a rookie reserve when the Spurs beat the Nets two years ago. But the imaginative southpaw played his best game after slumping through the previous four, scoring 23 points with five rebounds.
Ginobili had 11 in the fourth quarter. "Manu is unbelievable," Duncan said. "I don't think we've scratched the surface with him. He just plays with reckless abandon, he doesn't care the time or the situation. He's going to continue to grow and we're going to continue to grow around him."
The matchup between the past two NBA champions was a bore through the first four games, but the Spurs and Pistons kept it tight in the final three contests. This game was tied at 59 with 10 minutes 20 seconds left, but the Spurs pulled away in the next eight minutes with a 13-6 run that was highlighted by three-pointers from Robert Horry, Bruce Bowen and Ginobili. Duncan drew a double-team and kicked the ball out to Ginobili for a three-pointer that gave the Spurs a 72-65 lead with 2:46 left. With the sellout crowd on its feet, Ginobili pumped his fists. Duncan chased him down and patted him on the head.
Horry, who was a member of the Houston Rockets team that beat the New York Knicks in seven games in 1994, became the 12th player in NBA history to win six NBA championships; the second to win them with three teams. Horry scored 15 points off the bench and played inspired defense, stepping in front of Pistons guard Richard Hamilton to take a charge with 1:31 remaining.
The Pistons didn't get much from their back court as Chauncey Billups, the Finals MVP from last season, and Hamilton combined to score just 28 points on 9-of-26 shooting. Hamilton scored a team-high 15 points for the Pistons but missed 12 of 18 from the floor. The Spurs put defensive specialist Bruce Bowen on Billups to disrupt the Pistons' offensive flow, and the move worked as Billups was limited to just 13 points on 3-of-8 shooting.
And, with the Spurs holding a five-point lead in the final minute, Bowen elevated to block Billups's attempt from about 22 feet. Ginobili then raced down the floor for a driving layup that proved to be the difference.
The Pistons don't know if this is the last game for Coach Larry Brown, who will have his bladder examined following the season. During the Pistons' gutsy win in Game 6, Brown told his team, "I love you guys." But the victory merely postponed the Spurs' parade. The resilient Pistons finally found a hole from which they couldn't get out. They failed in their attempt to become the first team to win the last two games on the road to win an NBA Finals series and two road Game 7s in the same postseason. Ben Wallace had 12 points, all in the first half, and Rasheed Wallace scored 11, playing just 28 minutes because of foul trouble.
"After it was over, you know, I'm just as proud of my team as I was June 16th last year," Brown said. "I'm proud of their team and Pop and Timmy Duncan, and you know, the NBA. Because we talked about us playing the right way last year and everybody was excited. There's a perfect example over there of playing the right way."
The Pistons scored the first 10 points of the third period and took a 48-39 lead with 7:40 left when reserve forward Antonio McDyess nailed a jumper from the top of the key in the period. But Duncan finally established his presence on the offensive end, lowered his hips and shoulders and attacked the basket with a level of aggression that hadn't been witnessed for much of the series. After missing seven of his first eight attempts to start the period, Duncan scored on the Spurs' next three possessions and tied the game at 53 when hit a 10-foot bank shot off the glass.
With Duncan establishing himself inside, Ginobili finally found an open lane, as he attacked the basket for a dunk. Duncan hit another bank shot to give the Spurs a 57-55 lead with 53 seconds left in the period -- the Spurs' first lead of the half. They could've extended the lead, but Tony Parker shot an air ball that allowed Lindsey Hunter to tie the game at 57 going into the final period. Duncan scored 12 of the Spurs' 19 points in the period and added six rebounds -- one fewer than the Pistons.
"I felt like the game was going bad for me, yeah. But it was about just kind of pushing through it and just the perseverance," Duncan said. "We just stuck with it. We just kept on fighting." | Tim Duncan leads the Spurs past the Pistons, 81-74, in Game 7 to give San Antonio their third title in seven seasons. | 50.074074 | 0.962963 | 2.592593 | high | high | mixed | 4,838 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400059.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400059.html | Duncan Plays Like Duncan | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | SAN ANTONIO Everything about sports is today. Yesterday's greatness becomes irrelevant quick and in a hurry if you don't repeat it today. It wasn't enough for Tim Duncan to be first-team all-NBA every year he's been in the league, not when he missed six free throws and what should have been a dunk down the stretch in Game 5. It wasn't enough that Duncan had already earned MVP honors in two NBA Finals, not when he missed half his free throws and didn't get a shot late in defeat in Game 6.
Nobody's immune from the demands of right now, not even great players, not even the best players of their generation. For the first time in his career, Duncan felt the sting of criticism because he didn't play great in important games. He didn't play like Tim Duncan, didn't play like a guy with two championship rings. And San Antonio had little to no chance at all to take back the title belt from the Pistons if he continued to play the way he had lately. A nice, workmanlike effort wasn't going to be enough for San Antonio to win Game 7.
We've become spoiled over the years when it comes to the NBA playoffs and the Finals specifically. Bill Russell and Jerry West spoiled us. John Havlicek and Wilt spoiled us. Kareem and Doc spoiled us, as did Magic and Bird, as did Olajuwon and Michael Jordan. They summoned their best when the game was as frantic and as desperate as imaginable, in the games that unleash so much tension that lesser players shrink. What this series demanded was a great player being great in that rare animal, Game 7 of the Finals.
And Duncan, with a whole lot of us wondering what was going on with him, answered the only way that matters: He won the game. He demanded the ball the way Moses Malone used to call for it. He made hooks, he got loose for a dunk here and there, he got knocked down and got up to demand the ball again. He grabbed offensive rebounds. Duncan's numbers weren't pretty like they often are in the regular season. He made 10 of 27 shots, which is a line you associate with Allen Iverson more than Duncan. But Detroit doesn't allow pretty. The Pistons will hit you with a crowbar if you try to play pretty. Duncan missed way more shots than he made. He got some shots stripped and a couple blocked because he was playing against professional harassers Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace and Antonio McDyess, guys trying with the greatest resolve to defend their championship.
But Duncan did in Game 7 Thursday night what we've grown accustomed to seeing him do for eight NBA seasons. He understood that his team wasn't going to win unless he grabbed hold of the game. He ignored that he missed eight straight shots into the third quarter and kept firing, the way Moses and Hakeem would have. Duncan made four of his last five shots in the third quarter. Oh, he hit his free throws, too, five of six to be exact. What started out as a rotten quarter for his Spurs, with the Pistons pushing their lead to nine at one point, ended with Duncan scoring a dozen and San Antonio riding him back into a 57-57 tie going into the fourth.
Where he was, for whatever reason, uninvolved at times late in Games 5 and 6, Duncan was assertive and even aggressive in Game 7. He demonstrated a stubbornness we'd seen plenty of times before, just not in the last couple of games when it mattered. He missed one of his pet bank shots with the Spurs leading by four, 67-63. But when Manu Ginobili drove the lane and passed to Duncan standing 18 feet from the basket, Duncan caught, jumped and shot it in to push the Spurs' lead back to six, 69-63.
On San Antonio's very next possession, after Detroit's Chauncey Billups scored to cut the deficit to 69-65, Duncan threatened to turn and shoot over McDyess until Rip Hamilton came to double-team. And the moment Hamilton committed, Duncan fired an assist pass to Ginobili, who had plenty of room for the three-point jumper that made it 72-65.
Even when he failed to make the play successfully, Duncan was actively involved. He determined where Detroit's defense went, certainly helped lure Detroit's big men into big foul trouble. And when the Spurs saw Duncan being Duncan instead of some reluctant all-star, they were transformed back into champions themselves from a bunch of guys who'd lost three of four games in the Finals and were reeling. What did they do differently to get him jump-started? "We said, 'Here Mr. Two-time Finals MVP . . . Here's the ball," teammate Bruce Bowen said. "That's all it took. That's not a major adjustment. 'Hey Tim, here.' "
Or as Tony Parker said, "When we saw Timmy playing like that it just gave us so much energy."
When Duncan became Duncan again, it was as if Ginobili had been freed to play the way he had in the first two games, the way he had against Phoenix in the conference finals and against Seattle the round before that. Ginobili became daring again, going to the basket without fear of what the Pistons might do to him. And the result in the final critical possessions was free throws one trip, a flying layup the next, 23 points and five rebounds in all and a confident recklessness that matches anything the Pistons bring.
But that's the way it had to happen. Duncan had to lead them and he did, not that it started that way. "I felt the game was going bad for me," he said, speaking of the 0-for-8 stretch. "My teammates continued to throw me the ball, continued to feed me. They were more confident in me than I was. That's so appreciated . . . they'll never understand."
Duncan said it was just a matter of sticking with what was planned, sticking with playing the way he knew how and had played for years and years. "It wasn't the greatest game," he said. "I just wanted to be assertive, stay aggressive . . . I got on a roll for a bit and my shot felt good."
And a stretch, a bit, is sometimes all a great player needs. The complementary players, the guys like Ginobili and Robert Horry (15 points) follow the star, particularly in the NBA. The numbers weren't as good as they have been, but they also don't reflect the effort, the control of the game, specifically in the third quarter when it looked like Detroit was about to pull away and Gregg Popovich had to burn a timeout to plot and settle his team. "He put his team on his shoulders and carried them," Detroit's Ben Wallace said of Duncan, "which is what the great players do."
So on a night that started with a real uncertainty, even among the Spurs faithful, about what Duncan was or wasn't doing well enough right now, the man Shaq nicknamed "The Big Fundamental" wound up walking away with his third MVP award. His decision-making when double-teamed and his willingness to keep firing were far more important than being efficient.
Duncan started the Finals as the best player in the series, and after relinquishing that distinction to Detroit's Billups for four games, Duncan re-introduced himself to his teammates, to the Pistons, and to professional basketball as a great player who could produce great results when it counts, right now, this time, again. | Tim Duncan, despite that he has accomplished, had his detractors before leading the Spurs to another title. | 75.9 | 0.75 | 1.25 | high | low | abstractive | 4,839 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301774.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301774.html | Class Is Pivotal In Iran Runoff | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | BAGHERABAD, Iran -- In the 26 years since the Iranian revolution, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has become not only a millionaire but the most conspicuous embodiment of a privileged political class far removed from the struggles of ordinary people.
Class has become a pivotal issue in Friday's vote for Iran's next president. And the gap between the country's political elite and everyone else has been sharpened by the surprise emergence of Rafsanjani's opponent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard-line mayor of Tehran whose working-class background has endeared him to many Iranians and made the runoff election too close to call.
In Bagherabad, a sun-blasted working-class town 20 miles and a world away from the luxury high-rises of north Tehran, residents welcome the mayor's arrival on a political scene many have come to view with sullen anger.
"People talk about him a lot and say he's a good man to vote for," said Kobra Hassanzadeh, 50, behind the counter of a corner store that supports a family of five on $14 a day.
"They say he seems like us."
The number of other Iranians who see an ally in Ahmadinejad may decide Friday's vote, the first runoff in recent Iranian history. Campaign officials for Rafsanjani insist there is a limit to his rival's appeal. Of the 29 million votes split among seven candidates in the first round, they calculate that Ahmadinejad can count on no more than 11 million in the second round. If that's the case, they say, the mayor would prevail only if overall turnout dips toward 20 million.
"He has a mix of both religious conservative votes and rural and urban poor. That is a big base," said Nasser Hadian-Jazy, a political scientist who favors Rafsanjani.
Still, Hadian-Jazy said he believed Rafsanjani would win because reformers were worried about the alternative. "There's the fear factor," he said. "People will come out."
This week, it was Rafsanjani's campaign that looked to be running scared. The two-time former president bested Ahmadinejad by about 1 percentage point last week, then spent the brief runoff campaign promising to draw attention to social justice issues that his opponent had campaigned on heavily. On Thursday, a Rafsanjani supporter hastily unveiled a promise to put $11,000 in the pocket of every Iranian family by selling off state assets.
But it was the populist campaign of the scruffy, bearded Ahmadinejad that threw open a window on public discontent in Iran.
After last week's vote, an exit poll by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance found many voters were motivated by anger over the gap between rich and poor.
"Business is no good unless you enjoy a government rent or are the son of a cleric," said Faramarz Etemadi, 52, peddling black fabric for women's veils at a stall in Tehran's vast bazaar. "We had one shah, and now we have thousands." | World news headlines from the Washington Post, including international news and opinion from Africa, North/South America, Asia, Europe and Middle East. Features include world weather, news in Spanish, interactive maps, daily Yomiuri and Iraq coverage. | 12.586957 | 0.413043 | 0.456522 | low | low | abstractive | 4,840 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301736.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301736.html | Yahoo Closes Chat Rooms After TV Sex Report | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | Internet portal Yahoo shut down its user-created chat rooms after a television news series showed the online service used in apparent attempts to exploit children for sex.
Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako would not say whether the decision was in response to the series on Houston television station KPRC that showed online discussions bearing titles such as "9-17 Year Olds Wantin' Sex" and "Girls 12 and Under for Older Guys."
Some of Yahoo's advertisers, such as PepsiCo Inc. and State Farm Insurance Cos., said yesterday that they pulled their advertising from the site because of the series.
"We were completely unaware that our ads were associated with these chat rooms in any way," PepsiCo spokesman David DeCecco said. "As soon as we found out, we worked with Yahoo to remove them immediately from the site."
State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said his company was shocked when his company saw where some of its ads were appearing in Yahoo. Supple said the company ceased advertising with Yahoo in April as the TV station was preparing its report but resumed after it was assured that State Farm spots would not appear on chat-room pages.
Osako said the decision to close the chat rooms, which were online discussion sites that any Yahoo user could create, was made because the company is working on a better version. "We are working on improvements to enhance the user experience and compliance with our terms of service," she said.
Yahoo's "terms of service" agreement says users must agree not to use any of the company's products or services to "harm minors in any way" or to e-mail or transmit content that is "vulgar" or "obscene."
The company did not say yesterday when the service will return or how it will operate when it does. Yahoo still lets users participate in online chat rooms that the company creates.
"Yahoo chat was never where kids should be," said Parry Aftab, executive director of WiredSafety, a Web site that promotes online safety for children. Aftab said she would be happy for the company to bring the service back if there were a way to keep children safe. "Yahoo has always cared a lot about these issues, but they've mostly worked behind the scenes," she said. "If there's anybody I would trust to do this right, it would be them."
This is not the first time Yahoo's image has risked tarnish by people seeking to lure children or to trade pornographic material involving minors. A 2001 FBI investigation targeted certain Yahoo users and resulted in the arrest of more than 100 people in the United States. | Stay updated on the latest technology news. Find profiles on different sectors of the tech industry. Learn about new developments in tech policy. Read technology reviews for PCs, laptops, cell phones, and other new gadgets. | 11.422222 | 0.377778 | 0.422222 | low | low | abstractive | 4,841 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301762.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301762.html | FDA Approves Controversial Heart Medication for Blacks | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | The Food and Drug Administration yesterday approved the controversial drug BiDil to treat heart failure specifically in black patients, marking the first time a medication has been targeted at a racial group.
The agency said the approval marked "a step toward the promise of personalized medicine," and was based on research that found the drug could significantly improve the quality of life for black heart disease patients and markedly reduce their chances of being hospitalized and dying.
"Today's approval of a drug to treat severe heart failure in self-identified black population is a striking example of how a treatment can benefit some patients even if it does not help all patients," said the FDA's Robert Temple. "The information presented to the FDA clearly showed that blacks suffering from heart failure will now have an additional safe and effective option for treating their condition. In the future, we hope to discover characteristics that identify people of any race who might be helped by BiDil."
The approval was praised by heart experts and black health advocates as a welcome addition for treating a serious health problem.
"I think anything that shows a benefit for heart failure is an advance," said Keith C. Ferdinand, of New Orleans, who is a member of the Association of Black Cardiologists.
But Ferdinand and others expressed reservations about approving a drug specifically for blacks. They cited concern it would provide ammunition for the discredited idea that there are basic biological differences between the races, which historically has been used to justify discrimination.
"It invites people to think there are significant biological distinctions between racial groups when in fact the evidence shows nothing of the sort," said M. Gregg Bloche of Georgetown University. "There's a risk of casual thinking that can shade over into discrimination -- there's a substantial risk."
More than 700,000 blacks suffer from heart failure, a condition in which the heart loses its pumping ability, leaving victims weak, short of breath and eventually dying. Blacks are especially prone and tend to respond more poorly to existing treatments.
BiDil is a combination of two drugs used to treat chest pain and high blood pressure. Although the combination failed to prove effective when tested in the general population, it reduced mortality by 43 percent in a study of 1,050 heart failure patients who identified themselves as African American. That prompted NitroMed Inc. of Lexington, Mass., to seek approval for that purpose.
Critics questioned whether the move was motivated by the fact that the company would gain an extra 13 years of patent protection if the drug were approved specifically for blacks. Others said they were concerned the decision would limit the drug's use to black patients when others might also benefit.
"We all know race is an imperfect proxy for any kind of biological status, and hopefully clinicians will interpret this new approval to suggest that any patient regardless of race or ethnicity that fits the profile of the patients in the trial would benefit from this medication," Ferdinand said. | The Food and Drug Administration yesterday approved the controversial drug BiDil to treat heart failure specifically in black patients, marking the first time a medication has been targeted at a racial group. | 16.764706 | 1 | 34 | medium | high | extractive | 4,842 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301701.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301701.html | California Wildfires May Signal a Difficult Season | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | LOS ANGELES, June 23 -- What could be the West's most dangerous wildfire season in years got off to a rapid and roaring start this week, as blazes consumed several homes and threatened hundreds of others across three states.
In Southern California's Morongo Valley, an isolated house fire sparked a blaze that burned more than 5,000 desert acres and destroyed at least six other houses. In a distant suburb of Phoenix, 150 people fled a 30,000-acre fire spawned by a thunderstorm, while several smaller lightning fires raced across southern Nevada.
Forest officials said the intensity of the fires is the ironic result of the record-breaking rain and snow that hit the region this past year. Though the moisture thwarted fires last fall and relieved drought conditions across the West, it also promoted the growth of fire-prone grasses and brush.
"They dry quickly, they burn fast and they burn hot," said Vinnie Picard, a spokesman with the U.S. Forest Service at Arizona's Tonto National Forest. "We knew we were in for a difficult season."
The Arizona crisis started Tuesday as a storm passed over the forest, sparking several small fires, two of which merged Wednesday into one large blaze near the Humboldt mountain range, 40 miles north of Phoenix, and advanced toward the community of Carefree. Maricopa County officials evacuated about 200 houses on Tuesday and 30 more on Thursday.
A larger fire on the Barry M. Goldwater Range near Yuma has consumed more than 50,000 acres but is not yet threatening residential areas.
Southern California was contending Thursday with three forest fires. The largest, triggered by a house fire whose origins are still unknown, blackened about 5,500 acres north of Palm Springs. Jim Wright, deputy director and chief of fire protection for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said firefighters were challenged by hot Mojave Desert breezes.
"They're battling high temperatures, 100-plus degrees, windy conditions and rugged desert terrain," he said. "They're making progress on it."
A second fire, in Riverside County near Hemet, had burned about 2,000 mountainous acres but was moving away from populated areas, while a third was burning in desert backcountry near the Nevada border.
At least 13 wildfires were burning across southern Nevada, charring more than 4,000 acres but posing little threat to residential areas.
Officials said this week's fires are probably a sign of a difficult season ahead. The winter's heavy rainfalls -- Los Angeles is expected to close the season just an inch shy of a 120-year-old record -- may have helped protect trees in higher elevations, but Wright predicted a delayed danger.
"All that's doing is pushing off the inevitable, because those fuels will dry out," he said. "We're going to have a later-year fire season -- busy-ness with grass fires now, and as the heavier fuels dry, we'll have some bigger ones."
Wright noted that grass fires -- fast-moving and unpredictable -- pose the most risks to firefighters. Meanwhile, Picard said the fires could take a particular harsh toll on deserts, where many of these grasses were only recently introduced.
"For an ecological system, it's very dangerous," he said. "Cactuses aren't adapted to fire -- they don't grow back. It's really changing the nature of our landscape." | Get Washington DC, Virginia, Maryland and national news. Get the latest/breaking news, featuring national security, science and courts. Read news headlines from the nation and from The Washington Post. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/nation today. | 15.52381 | 0.452381 | 0.452381 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,843 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301915.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301915.html | Senator Aims to Kill Agency That Tracks Salmon | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | SEATTLE, June 23 -- Angered by a federal court order that spills water over federal dams to save endangered salmon in the Pacific Northwest, Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) has inserted language into a Senate energy bill that would kill an agency that keeps score on the survival of fish as they swim through the heavily dammed Columbia and Snake rivers.
The federal government has spent far more money trying to prevent the extinction of Northwest salmon than it has on any other endangered species. Craig's move would eliminate the Fish Passage Center, which for more than two decades has been collecting and analyzing data that document how effective that multibillion-dollar federal effort has been.
A spokesman for the Idaho senator calls the rider -- attached to an energy appropriations bill that moved last week to the Senate floor -- "a shot across the bow" to challenge what Craig believes is an agency that advocates a "controversial and one-sided" approach to salmon recovery.
"Power rates are going up, we think ratepayers ought to have some answers for how their money is being spent," said Sid Smith, a spokesman for Craig. The Northwest depends more on hydroelectric dams for power than any other part of the country.
The manager of the Fish Passage Center, Michele DeHart, said her staff collects "data that is accurate and, yes, it does show that the federal hydro system kills fish."
The federal court order that requires summer spill over dams in the Snake River means that some of the electricity that could be generated by those dams is being forgone -- at an estimated cost of about $67 million over the three summer months. Much of the data on fish survival that supported the order, which was made last month by a federal judge in Portland and has been appealed by the Bush administration, was gathered and analyzed by the Fish Passage Center.
"Maybe this is one of those deals where when you don't like the message, you kill the messenger," DeHart said.
At the heart of the dispute over salmon is a disagreement about how to increase their survival as they negotiate federal dams that have transformed the Snake and Columbia from the world's premier salmon highway to a series of slow-moving lakes separated by huge slabs of concrete.
Indian tribes, many state fish biologists, fishing organizations and environmental groups say the best way to increase survival is to keep the fish in the rivers while increasing their flow during migration months and spilling water over dams. These groups have long supported the Fish Passage Center, which has published many reports calling for more spill and increased flow -- programs that can cost millions of dollars by reducing electricity generation and disrupting irrigation and river transport.
"We all have to rely on some mutually agreeable data in order to figure out what is happening to the fish and, to date, that has come from the Fish Passage Center," said Charles Hudson, a spokesman for the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
On the other side, are federal agencies that built the dams and sell the power, along with irrigation, barging and utility interests that depend on the dammed-up Columbia and Snake for their livelihood. Their side has received considerable support from the Bush administration, which concluded last year that federal dams should be viewed as part of an "environmental baseline" when it comes to saving salmon. U.S. District Judge James Redden rejected that analysis this month, saying that it was made "more in cynicism than in sincerity."
The Bush administration did not help initiate the rider to stop funding the Fish Passage Center and had no comment on the proposal, according to Brian Gorman, a spokesman in Seattle for the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Hydropower interests generally support taking salmon out of the river and transporting them around the dams, an approach that allows maximum electricity production without interrupting river barging or irrigation. They also have been denouncing DeHart and the Fish Passage Center for years, accusing her and her staff of releasing distorted and inaccurate information.
None of these accusations, however, has been documented, according to Melinda Eden, chairman of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a group that oversees the operation of the Fish Passage Center. At the request of the council, an independent panel of scientists studied the integrity and value of the center's work two years ago and recommended continued financial support.
"We have been asking for years for people with hard evidence of irregularities [in the fish data] to step up, and nobody has brought a single piece of concrete evidence," Eden said.
The Fish Passage Center gets its money from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), which sells electricity produced by federal dams in the Northwest. Stephen J. Wright, administrator of the BPA, said through a spokesman that he would neither fight for the survival of the Fish Passage Center nor work to eliminate it. He said, though, the BPA does need data about fish and is willing to pay for it.
BPA spending on the Fish Passage Center began after passage in 1980 of the Northwest Power Act, a law that requires that federal dams be operated in a way that places salmon "on a par" with power, navigation and irrigation.
The rider that bans funding for the Fish Passage Center will have to get through a House-Senate conference and be signed by President Bush before BPA can hold back the money. | SEATTLE, June 23 -- Angered by a federal court order that spills water over federal dams to save endangered salmon in the Pacific Northwest, Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) has inserted language into a Senate energy bill that would kill an agency that keeps score on the survival of fish as they swim... | 17.466667 | 0.983333 | 58.016667 | medium | high | extractive | 4,844 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/20/DI2005062000697.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/20/DI2005062000697.html | Tell Me About It | 2033-07-15T17:46:59 | Appearing every Wednesday and Friday in The Washington Post Style section and in Sunday Source, Tell Me About It Bæfers readers advice based on the experiences of someone who's been there -- really recently. Carolyn Hax is a 30-something repatriated New Englander with a liberal arts degree and a lot of opinions and that's about it, really, when you get right down to it. Oh, and the shoes. A lot of shoes.
Other mail can be directed to Carolyn at [email protected] .
Silver Spring, Md.: It was recently discovered that I have a medical condition, nothing life threatening but just complicated to explain, that requires me to eat a strict no-sugar, low-fat diet. I'm OK with this, especially since after a few short weeks I'm already seeing improvements in my health.
The problem arises in social settings when people (who really should be minding their own business and not saying anything) make comments ranging from the polite "Why don't you try some of this dessert? It's delish!" to the obnoxious "What's the big deal? Have some cake. I know you work out!" I don't have a one word answer like "diabetes" which would shut any and all big mouths up, but way too often it seems like a simple "No thank you" isn't enough. What's a girl to do??
Carolyn Hax: Since "No, thank you" is your natural first choice, just keep repeating it in response to each level of pressure. By the third or fourth "No, thank you," you'll either have shamed the person or frustrated the unshamable into quitting.
If you get bored with that, go absurd. "I've already had eight pieces today, thanks." "I'm saving room for a hot dog." Whatever, use your imagination.
Arlington, Va.: Have I just made a major mistake? I have known a woman for years who reminds me of how Lucy treats Charlie Brown with a football: she asks for favors and then, after I do her a favor, she ridicules me for expecting anything in return. I keep trying to get rid of her, but she keeps coming back for serious help, claims she has changed and that I'm her only real friend, she apologizes, needs and gets a favor, and then, afterwards, laughs in my face. Recently, she checked herself into a hospital, claiming she is suicidal. She was released after a couple of days. She then telephones me and states she'll kill herself unless she gets a substantial amount of money. I knew I would feel great guilt if I didn't give her the money and she did kill herself, so I gave her the money. Yet, deep down, I just know she is sitting somewhere thinking "sucker" and is out spending the money. How should I deal with this woman?
Carolyn Hax: I've been in a similar situation, and I found it extremely helpful to talk to a psychiatrist. He was able to explain what the person's pathology was, how I was making myself vulnerable to it, how it was in fact necessary that I extract myself from the relationship, and then how I could (most) safely extract myself. If you were locked into anything else you'd call a locksmith; calling in a pro when you're locked into a relationship is no different.
Pre-engaged: My boyfriend and I have dated for four years and are really excited about getting married, possibly next year. He has not yet proposed, although I think it should be sometime in the next few months. We've talked extensively about our future wedding, where it will be, who will be there, and have even started getting passports together for our honeymoon.
I hate to bother you with such a petty issue, but my dilemma now is how to keep composure (and my mouth shut) before we "make it official". My boyfriend really wants to ask my father for my hand, which I think is equally romantic, respectful, and a great way to forge a new relationship with his future F-I-L. But my mother and his mother are constantly asking me when we're getting married, why I'm not pressuring him to propose, and how much they just can't wait for us to get married. I know everyone is excited (mainly for what should be a great party), but I'm turning into a bridezilla before I'm even a blushing bride.
What can I do to keep my cool and cool off the moms?
Carolyn Hax: My evil twin is backspacing my every attempt to answer this question, and typing in, "If you can't keep your composure through a drama this mini, please postpone the wedding another year. Or five."
Sterling, Va.: Don't you think we'd all be a lot better off if folks would just stop sleeping with people they're not married to?
Carolyn Hax: If only it were that easy.
How to get help for a paranoid friend?: A friend of mine has a mental illness she refuses to get help for. Paranoia, obsession, extreme sensitivity, and strange rambling phone message and emails. It's causing her a lot of problems. She can't hold down a job, she's cut off a lot of her friends, and goes through long periods of time refusing to speak to family. I've reached a point where being friends with her is very difficult, but I hang in there because I'm one of the few friends left. Her family has tried two interventions without success. I can't bring myself to return her phone calls anymore because it's so exhausting to speak with her. But I feel terrible about it, like I've abandoned her. How can I help her and keep my own sanity intact?
Carolyn Hax: You can help only up to your own limits, and then when you exceed them you have to let go. It blows but there it is. You can't save everyone. I hope you can at least feel good about your dedication and tenacity.
You can also follow the advice I gave to the sucker and get a professional opinion of what is and isn't possible in your relationship with this person, and use that information to make your efforts more effective and therefore more likely to remain within your limits, but even then there's going to be a point where the outcome is in her hands, not yours.
Carolyn Hax: Maybe the "we'd all be a lot better off" scenario is if our relationships weren't all cluttered up by other people's free will.
Bliss: Carolyn, in response to the poster from Sterling:
I just started sleeping with my new girlfriend to whom I'm not married... obviously. I've got to confess that I cannot imagine being any better off. Really. All sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows here...
Carolyn Hax: Silly person, you're just unenlightened to the heights you'll reach when you go 70K into debt on a filet-mignon carving station, mediocre swing band and doves.
Washington, D.C.: Hi Carolyn - I'm bummed out today because I was rejected from yet another job opportunity in England. I'm hoping to relocate to live out my dreams of working abroad and spend more time with the love of my life who happens to live there... ugh. Any advice for not throwing in the towel and being satisfied with a job I enjoy here and a transatlantic relationship??
Carolyn Hax: I'm sorry. Take a week or two off from the job hunt and let your motivation bob back up on its own. We all need vacations from stressful or tiring things, not just from work.
Washington, D.C.: Any advice for an accomplished person who is a little too addicted to positive feedback? How do you let it go?
Carolyn Hax: Congratulate yourself copiously every time you weather criticism.
That was cruel, I know. I'm sorry.
I don't think it's so much about letting go as it is finding a way to feel good about yourself. Praise becomes a substitute for self-worth, and since it's an ephemeral thing, you keep having to go out and get it to make yourself feel good. Once you have reliable ways to make yourself feel good--which of course you won't have to go out seeking all the time, because they're internal--you'll cut your dependency on accolades. Maybe not completely, since no one is entirely immune to the buzz of the occasional hard-earned attaperson, but enough so that you don't feel like a trained seal.
Sucker friends and other obligated people: I also had a similar friendship in my younger days - this friend constantly engaged in self-destructive behavior (drinking, drugs, bad boyfriends), constantly asked for my help/money/possessions, and frequently threatened to hurt herself or commit suicide if I didn't somehow come to her rescue. It finally came down to either her sanity or mine, and in an act of either self-preservation or selfishness/cowardice, I literally walked away from her during one of her "I'm going to kill myself" tirades. She didn't. I know she could easily have, I don't doubt that, but she didn't, and she called me later to scream at me for being a horrible person and a lousy "best friend". Fast forward many years and I'd like to say she got help and straightened out her life, but last I heard of her -I desperately avoid any contact, and I've heard she's tried to get in contact with me occasionally - it was nasty divorces and other drama. While I sometimes still feel a little guilty about just walking away those many years ago, I also know that there was NOTHING I could do to change her or help her, and she was going to pull me down with her into that whirlpool. Sometimes you just have to walk away.
Carolyn Hax: Thanks. Hard-won reassurance for others in this situation.
Washington, D.C.: Dear Carolyn, I always enjoy these chats! I'm in a very happy, very long term relationship (many years). Currently we are in one of those ho hum, kind of irritating periods, you know lots of conversations about toothpaste and cereal, not a lot of romance. Any advice on how to get through these inevitable slow patches?
Carolyn Hax: DO something. Romantic, bold, silly. You have this power.
Tho, maybe it's the chronic sleeplessness talking, but there is something romantic about conversations about toothpaste and cereal. The kind of intimacy humans all but scratch and claw to get.
Kansas City, Mo.: Hi Carolyn. My girlfriend and I have been together 3 years, and we're at a great point--very open with each other, honest, and there is still chemistry. For the past year or so, she's had a male work friend. I've been friendly with him in the past, but always cautious of him because he obviously has a crush on my girlfriend. Recently, I just can't stand the guy; I hate the way he acts around my girlfriend, I think he's inappropriate in his calling and emailing her, and he's trying to make her his "emotional girlfriend." She doesn't see this, and she treats him as she would any of her other male friends. Is this something I need to be as worked up over as I am? Do I still need to be friendly with this guy just because she is?
Carolyn Hax: You don't need to be friendly, but being any less than civil will expose the fact that you're letting old playground impulses take over. While you're more than welcome to find this guy obnoxious, he's also more than welcome to have a crush on your GF, and to try to suppress it, and to try to be content with just being her friend.
Your girlfriend's behavior in this is really the only behavior that's relevant to you. As long as she isn't romantically interested in him, or keeping him around for the attention, or anything else inappropriate--ie, as long as she's just being friendly and possibly a little obtuse--then you really just need to force yourself to shake it off.
Columbia, S.C.: If girls (figuratively, I'm hoping) fling panties at Weingarten, what should guys do at you?
Carolyn Hax: Cash is nice. Shoes, 8.5/38.5 preferably in bubble wrap. I've seen enough airborne Cheerios for several lifetimes, so those are out.
Michigan: A joyful quandary: please help!;
The young marrieds across the street, dear neighbors, just had twins. They are people of modest means and are still a bit in the blast radius of TWO bundles of joy. (New Dad said to me, chit-chatting, that he's DREAMED of what it would have been like to have had ONE baby to start with ...)
My dilemma: Having received the birth announcement, should my household respond with a gift for the parents ... for each child ... or something for everyone?
What's polite? Pragmatic? Customary? Best?
Carolyn Hax: 1. Bring dinner, bonus points for paper plates.
2. Offer to wheel the little grubs around the block in the stroller while the parents eat.
3. If you feel a gift-gift is a necessity (it isn't), a gift card to a baby store is manna.
Washington, D.C.: I'm so lazy. I've been told I'm smart, capable, funny, able to play well with others, etc. But the enthusiasm I bring to working out and having sex and knitting and wakeboarding just seems to fizzle when faced with long-range planning and big projects. And now, when the writing I've been dabbling in -finally- seems to be taking off, I can't seem to get past the days, weeks, months of hard work I know it will take to see any real success.
Gah. How can I get over this, develop a work ethic, be less of a bum?
Carolyn Hax: Pick a better project? Sometimes what you think you should be doing isn't what you really want to be doing, and so you put it off to have athletic sex on your handknit wakeboard. Not every smart, capable, funny person is meant to write the great American whatever. (But I do think every one of them goes through a period of feeling inadequate for not yet having written it.)
Washington, D.C.: Recently my grandmother has landed herself in the hospital due to severe alcohol poisoning. Now she has to undergo complete therapy and may never, ever walk again. Gram has been an alcoholic as long as I can remember. Our last family intervention ended in her not talking to us for many months and basically de-grandchilding us. We're a small family (she has one son, my father, and three grandkids, including myself). Because dad is currently involved in some military exercises abroad he can't necessarily be there for her right now. My mother thinks that maybe because me and my younger sister live near her, that we should take this time to confront Grandma about her drinking again (using materials and info that we've previously gotten from that AA group for family members). Carolyn, I don't want to do this. I've had to deal with a lot of stuff in my life, my birthmother died when I was a child, my family constantly moved with dad's job, and I'm currently in a nightmare job. I deal/dealt with all of that stuff and don't let it effect my day-to-day life. However, I just can't do this. I love my grandmother and realize that if she keeps it up her life might just be cut short (as grandmothers go she's relatively young). What can I do? I feel horribly selfish but also like I just really can't do this right now.
Carolyn Hax: Have you gotten any counseling in all this? If you have and you were happy with your person, I'd urge you to go back to help you both make this decision and live with yourself afterward. And if you haven't, I'm urging you to go. You are carrying a lot of weight for someone with only two shoulders.
To answer your question more directly, yes, you are free to decide that you just can't do this--your grandmother is responsible here, NOT you--but I don't want you to take it from me, I want you to take it from you.
I Was That Suicidal Friend: Last year I lost a lot of friends because I hit an all-time low--severe depression and a panic disorder. I was a mess and I didn't know how bad off I was. My own family didn't see it but my friends could tell I wasn't doing well---and instead of trying to help me out they made comments like calling me psycho and other choice words. At one point I even told a friend I had suicidal thoughts and all she could say was "I'm sorry." After time passed I got in contact with them and I yelled at a couple of former friends because I was angry that they weren't there for me and for treating me the way they did when I was having it rough. Speaking from experience, I wish I could have taken back all the angry words I said because now that I have my life back I can see now how it's a tough position for one who wants to help out their friend but doesn't know quite what to do and how much time and energy to give to someone who desperately needs professional help. If anyone out there has a friend that needs help----be compassionate, speak to a counselor about how to help yourself in this situation, and talk to the friend's family about your concerns as soon as possible. Last but not least, do what's right for you and don't feel guilty about cutting ties if you can't handle it. We all have our own burdens to bear.
Carolyn Hax: So very well said, thank you.
Washington, D.C.: A theme today seems to be paranoia. It seems a lot of times, when the subject comes up here of jealousy and paranoia re. opposite-sex friends of s.o.s/spouses, your advice is usually to shake it off and try not to think about it. Given the statistics, though, and the anecdotal evidence, isn't a little paranoia realistic?
I mean, it's not like everyone I know is a chronic philanderer, but I feel like almost everyone I know has either cheated on someone once, or has been cheated on once, or has been the person cheated with once.
Carolyn Hax: The reason you cite for being at least a paranoid is exactly the same reason I advise shaking it off. This stuff happens. You can choose your partners carefully, you can treat them well, you can resist the temptation to delude yourself, but beyond that, whether someone loses interest in you or falls for someone else or cheats is really out of your hands. Repeat, out of your hands.
And some of your loves probably will lose interest, fall for someone else, or cheat. Or all three. So assume it and get on with your life. When it does happens, it will feel hellish, but you will live, and eventually it won't feel so hellish any more, and you'll realize that any time spent worrying about it before it actually happened was a complete waste of what should have been the enjoyable time of being with someone.
And no, I don't think people should expect never to get jealous, or that they're failures if they ever do. It's just that jealousy is normal and useful as an infrequent warning sign that something is wrong, not as a chronic state of being. It's like adrenaline: a little when you need it is a survival tool, but a lot all the time will take years off your life.
Re: the twins and bringing dinner: Silly question, I know, but when is it too late to bring dinner? Couple down the street had a baby almost 8 weeks ago--too late to bring them a meal? I mean, my child is 2 and I would hug the person who brought my family a hot meal!;!;!;
Reason I ask is that my sister brought dinner to a new mama to find that the new mama had left the baby with daddy and went shopping. Sis kinda felt like it was okay but at the same time, if mama could be out trying on shoes, mama could whip up a box of Hamburger Helper.
What's the time frame? 2 weeks? Two months? Two years (please?)?
Carolyn Hax: Wait, whoa, hold that there phone. Just because a parent leaves the house to shop doesn't mean the call for help has expired--like you said, and I hope you corrected your sister's misimpression.
Of course, it's certainly possible the new mom your sister was helping didn't actually feel strained--one baby, equal- or majority-partner daddy, money for paid help, involved and local family, etc. But the whole point of helping people in cases like this--not just new-baby households, but those dealing with chemo or grief or a relocation or whatever--is that the Big Energy-Sucking Thing plus regular household chores can rob people of all their down time, and make something like a quick shoe expedition seem like a week at a spa. So, you bring over dinner to give them one extremely valuable extra shot at having 30 min off.
I.e., never too late to bring dinner. Just call first.
Virginia: Carolyn - Once again, I think your gender bias is coloring your answers. If a woman poster had asked what to do about a boyfriend whose female colleague was inappropriately e-mailing, calling and wanted to make him her "emotional boyfriend," I think you'd have given stronger advice than, basically, "Deal with it." Just an observation. Thanks.
Carolyn Hax: "Once again"? There are other online chats.
Anonymous: So, when a partner does decide to cheat on you or fall out of love with you or whatever, what shoes do you throw at them on their way out the door? Stillettos or the heaviest boots you can find?
Carolyn Hax: No no, never waste shoes on anger. Plus you look like a sore loser.
Des Moines, Iowa: So I followed your advice last night, and tried to communicate to my boyfriend of three months that I felt I wanted more emotional intimacy from/with him. This guy suits me very well (similar professional lives, backgrounds, sense of humor), and maybe I'm making excuses for him, but he's never had a girlfriend for this long (we're both 25) so I'm trying to give him pointers along the way. I ended up tripping over my words during our discussion and could not get the thoughts in my head out of my mouth. If this intimacy rift we discussed results in a break up, that's fine, it simply shows we aren't compatible. I'm just trying to advise him as I would another guy friend, but the mind set that "No, this is my boyfriend and my needs we're talking about" distracts me and I cannot communicate! Help!
Carolyn Hax: Then say that, too, that you felt like you mangled what you were trying to say.
But be careful with the giving-him-pointers thing. You're not his tutor, it's not your job to teach him how to behave in a relationship. When you're feeling something you want him to know about, then say it, but don't cross over into trying to guide what he feels.
Anonymous: I have a friend who needs professional help. Lots of professional help. She won't get it. She says "That's what friends are for." When we tell her that she's suffering more than she needs to, and that we are not capable of helping any more, she gets angry.
So, for the poster who says, "I was the suicidal friend..." what did it take to get you to get help? And do you think ANYTHING anyone else did could have moved you to realize you needed help?
Because I'm ready to cut off contact with this one, and I hate to do it, because I DO love her. I just can't take it any more.
Carolyn Hax: I'll put it out there, but it might be too late ... and I also think you answered your own question. At a certain point, by asking more of you than you can give, she will force you to your limit. Sometimes that's enough to push someone to get help, sometimes it isn't, but by then it's something you're doing out of necessity for yourself, not for her.
I've recently had a few dates with different guys, and something that has come up frequently in conversation is how much they wish women wouldn't bring all sorts of past emotional baggage into current relationships - i.e.., if you got burned 10 times before by men, you shouldn't pin the damage caused by those jerks on the current guy, cynically expecting him to do the same thing. I can understand this point of view to a certain extent, but I also wonder, how realistic is it to think we can just put aside our bad past experiences and open ourselves up to a new significant other with a clean slate?
Carolyn Hax: Of course the first thing I think is how much I wish men wouldn't generalize about all women like that, but then I would think that.
You (and they) can't expect to go into a new relationship with a clean slate, but that doesn't mean you go in blaming the new guy for the old guy's stuff, either. You go in with an informed slate, meaning: you take having one jerk in your past to mean that sometimes people can be jerks so you can't be naive; two jerks in your past to mean that you should move into new relationships slowly because you don't want to get in too deep before you find you're with jerk no. 3; all jerks in your past to mean the problem is probably on your end and you should try to figure it out before you date any new anyones.
So, learning enough, and adjusting enough, to be able to treat someone new as innocent till proven guilty, vs. punish them arbitrarily.
Alexandria, Va.: Duh, why can't the woman from the beginning of the chat who wants to get married to the guy ASK HIM HERSELF? Screw the old fashioned permission from the dad. It's not important.
Carolyn Hax: To you, nor, I would argue, to the fact of marriage itself, but it obviously is to her, so I didn't even bother. Besides, that's several rounds of fairy-dust removal away. (Kind of like asbestos, you need a special suit.)
Arlington, Va.: For those with suicidal friends: Call 1-800-SUICIDE. The people who staff this line are trained to talk to people who are contemplating suicide AND their loved ones. You may also be able to find out more resources to help yourself and/or your friend.
Carolyn Hax: Not one I've checked out, but thanks muchly.
Re: Philandering: "And some of your loves probably will lose interest, fall for someone else, or cheat. Or all three. So assume it and get on with your life."
So now we should just assume our other is going to cheat or lose interest in us?
Carolyn Hax: (Sound of forehead on plaster.)
"Some of," meaning, those who don't marry the first girl whose pigtails they dipped in the inkwell, and therefore are going to be in more than one relationship in their lifetimes, are going to find out what it feels like to finish second. Though I hate win-lose analogies and am just trying to get this posted before you all doze off.
Reston, Va.: My next door neighbor has a crush on me and it is to the point where he is now "always" around when I come/go from my apt. He also leaves mushy notes on my door. I had ONE dinner with him and there were no sparks (on my end). I left it at that, but he is crazed and possessed and I am not sure what to do. He is recovering from a broken marriage (2 years ago). I am to the point where I want to scream every time I see him. Last night I got home after midnight and he was on his apt. deck (with all the lights out) watching me walk into my apt. CREEPS! I have told him that I am not interested and that he has creeped me out. He isn't getting the hint.
Carolyn Hax: Read "The Gift of Fear," soon soon, call the local police to talk about your options. I have other thoughts on this but will sleep better if you go through trained, professional channels.
Sorry for the delay--I was looking for another resource for you but couldn't find. Please e-mail [email protected] and I'll send it to you.
Carolyn Hax: Oh my lost track of the time. Thanks everybody and type to you next Friday.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate. | 144.853659 | 0.512195 | 0.658537 | high | low | abstractive | 4,845 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202097.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202097.html | Exploring Inroads for Tysons Foot Traffic | 2033-07-15T17:45:19 | Every once in a while, someone tries to cross Route 7 in Tysons Corner on foot.
It isn't easy. At 170 feet curb to curb, the suburban strip is far wider than the Champs-Elysees in Paris, Las Ramblas in Barcelona or Fifth Avenue in New York. Worse, crosswalk and "Walk/Don't Walk" signals, which engineers say would impede traffic, are deliberately scarce.
The few pedestrians willing to cross typically will scan the horizon for a break in the flow of cars, sometimes tentatively dangling a toe over the curb, and finally, engulfed by the rumble and noxious breath of rushing traffic, bolt.
"It's crazy," said John Hampton, 35, a shipping and receiving supervisor, after having half-sprinted across diagonally between the Toys R Us and the McDonald's one morning last week. "You could get killed out there."
Fairfax County business leaders and planners now want to transform Tysons Corner, the vast mall and office hub where people drive to get around, into a traditional downtown where people feel comfortable walking about. Their efforts are considered critical to the success of the $1.5 billion Metrorail extension through Tysons Corner, because most potential passengers must be willing to walk at least as far as the train station.
But creating a traditional city from a place laid out almost exclusively for automobiles has never been done on this scale, planners say, and the challenges of Route 7 alone illustrate the difficulties.
Its scale is more intimidating for pedestrians than roads in traditional cities, but giving pedestrians time to cross -- when each second for walkers takes away precious "green time" for cars -- is bound to frustrate drivers.
When some neighbors requested more pedestrian signals on Route 7, engineers for the Virginia Department of Transportation studied their request but built only one in the one-mile stretch between International Drive and the Dulles Access Road. Many more are needed, pedestrian advocates say.
"They were afraid that pedestrians crossing the road would slow down traffic," said Wade Smith, a board member of the McLean Citizens Association, who has doggedly catalogued missing sidewalk segments in the area. "The biggest reason people say they can't walk around Tysons Corner is that they can't cross the main roads. It's very intimidating out there."
Route 7 is one of the central traffic arteries of Tysons Corner, a place that has most of the raw ingredients of a traditional city -- it's the Washington region's second-largest jobs center -- but lacks a city's physical setup. Buildings are separated by berms, side yards, parking lots and wide roadways that sacrifice pedestrian ease for vehicle convenience.
The vast drive-through operation at the McDonald's on Route 7, for example, is a marvel of auto-oriented convenience: To keep the cars moving at lunchtime, five headset-wearing clerks roam the pavement outside, taking orders and delivering food. For pedestrians, however, the Tysons environment can be stressful and sometimes deadly. A Sterling man was killed crossing Route 7 in April 2004, and a District pedestrian was fatally injured trying to cross Chain Bridge Road near the Tysons Corner malls in January 2004. Fairfax County police did not have statistics on hand for pedestrian accidents in the area.
Since 1994, county plans have envisioned Route 7 becoming an "urban boulevard." The proposed Metrorail line, which would have two stops on Route 7, has given the plan more prominence. | Every once in a while, someone tries to cross Route 7 in Tysons Corner on foot. | 37.388889 | 1 | 18 | high | high | extractive | 4,846 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202305.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202305.html | Pentagon Creating Student Database | 2033-07-15T17:45:19 | The Defense Department began working yesterday with a private marketing firm to create a database of high school students ages 16 to 18 and all college students to help the military identify potential recruits in a time of dwindling enlistment in some branches.
The program is provoking a furor among privacy advocates. The new database will include personal information including birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects the students are studying.
The data will be managed by BeNow Inc. of Wakefield, Mass., one of many marketing firms that use computers to analyze large amounts of data to target potential customers based on their personal profiles and habits.
"The purpose of the system . . . is to provide a single central facility within the Department of Defense to compile, process and distribute files of individuals who meet age and minimum school requirements for military service," according to the official notice of the program.
Privacy advocates said the plan appeared to be an effort to circumvent laws that restrict the government's right to collect or hold citizen information by turning to private firms to do the work.
Some information on high school students already is given to military recruiters in a separate program under provisions of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act. Recruiters have been using the information to contact students at home, angering some parents and school districts around the country.
School systems that fail to provide that information risk losing federal funds, although individual parents or students can withhold information that would be transferred to the military by their districts. John Moriarty, president of the PTA at Walter Johnson High School in Bethesda, said the issue has "generated a great deal of angst" among many parents participating in an e-mail discussion group.
Under the new system, additional data will be collected from commercial data brokers, state drivers' license records and other sources, including information already held by the military.
"Using multiple sources allows the compilation of a more complete list of eligible candidates to join the military," according to written statements provided by Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke in response to questions. "This program is important because it helps bolster the effectiveness of all the services' recruiting and retention efforts."
The Pentagon's statements added that anyone can "opt out" of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate "suppression file." That file will be matched with the full database regularly to ensure that those who do not wish to be contacted are not, according to the Pentagon.
But privacy advocates said using database marketers for military recruitment is inappropriate.
"We support the U.S. armed forces, and understand that DoD faces serious challenges in recruiting for the military," a coalition of privacy groups wrote to the Pentagon after notice of the program was published in the Federal Register a month ago. "But . . . the collection of this information is not consistent with the Privacy Act, which was passed by Congress to reduce the government's collection of personal information on Americans."
Chris Jay Hoofnagle, West Coast director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the system "an audacious plan to target-market kids, as young as 16, for military solicitation."
He added that collecting Social Security numbers was not only unnecessary but posed a needless risk of identity fraud. Theft of Social Security numbers and other personal information from data brokers, government agencies, financial institutions and other companies is rampant.
"What's ironic is that the private sector has ways of uniquely identifying individuals without using Social Security numbers for marketing," he said.
The Pentagon statements said the military is "acutely aware of the substantial security required to protect personal data," and that Social Security numbers will be used only to "provide a higher degree of accuracy in matching duplicate data records."
The Pentagon said it routinely monitors its vendors to ensure compliance with its security standards.
Krenke said she did not know how much the contract with BeNow was worth, or whether it was bid competitively.
Officials at BeNow did not return several messages seeking comment. The company's Web site does not have a published privacy policy, nor does it list either a chief privacy officer or security officer on its executive team.
According to the Federal Register notice, the data will be open to "those who require the records in the performance of their official duties." It said the data would be protected by passwords.
The system also gives the Pentagon the right, without notifying citizens, to share the data for numerous uses outside the military, including with law enforcement, state tax authorities and Congress.
Some see the program as part of a growing encroachment of government into private lives, particularly since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"It's just typical of how voracious government is when it comes to personal information," said James W. Harper, a privacy expert with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "Defense is an area where government has a legitimate responsibility . . . but there are a lot of data fields they don't need and shouldn't be keeping. Ethnicity strikes me as particularly inappropriate."
Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the Social Security Administration relaxed its privacy policies and provided data on citizens to the FBI in connection with terrorism investigations. | The Defense Department is working with a private marketing firm to create a database of high school students ages 16 to 18 and all college students to help the military identify potential recruits in a time of dwindling enlistment in some branches. | 24.27907 | 1 | 33.837209 | medium | high | extractive | 4,847 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202017.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202017.html | Split Over Schools . . . | 2033-07-15T17:45:19 | The good news is that the American public values education so highly that it is prepared to support almost any sensible reform that promises to improve the quality of grade schools and high schools.
The bad news is that the people teaching in those schools are deeply opposed to current reform efforts and skeptical of the basic premise that all students should be measured by the same high standards.
Those are the paradoxical lessons I draw from a briefing this week on a comprehensive survey of parents, educators and the general public sponsored by the Educational Testing Service and conducted jointly by the polling firms of Peter D. Hart, a Democrat, and David Winston, a Republican.
As for the value of education, when asked to identify from a list of five options the single greatest source of U.S. success in the world, the public education system edged out our democratic system of government for first place, with our entrepreneurial culture, military strength, and advantages of geography and natural resources far behind.
A plurality of parents gave a B grade to their own children's school and a C to the country's schools. When given a brief description of the No Child Left Behind Act, the Bush administration's school reform program, parents, by 45 percent to 34 percent, viewed it favorably. That may not seem like much of an endorsement, but it came after a year of increased controversy and criticism of the program, from some conservatives and many Democrats, and represented a slight improvement from last year.
But high school teachers were decidedly more negative, rating the legislation unfavorably by a ratio of 75 percent to 19 percent. When asked if the basic approach of that law should be extended to high school by requiring states to set standards and test students in grades nine through 12, more than four out of 10 parents said they strongly favored it, but an equal portion of high school teachers was strongly opposed.
More troubling, from the viewpoint of reformers, is the gap between teachers and the public on the question of performance standards for students. Those polled were asked to choose between the view that all students, teachers and schools should be held to the same standard of performance because it is wrong to have lower expectations for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and the contrary view that they should not be held to the same standard because we should not expect teachers working with disadvantaged students to have them reach the same level of performance on standardized tests as teachers in more affluent schools.
More than half of the parents favored the single standard, but only one-quarter of the high school teachers agreed.
These differences help explain why the two big teachers unions and the Bush administration have been at odds over the implementation of No Child Left Behind.
The implications for the effort to improve the schools are pretty negative. Realistically, change in the classroom depends first and foremost on what teachers are willing and able to do. Change can be coerced only up to a point. If what President Bush has called the "soft bigotry of low expectations" is viewed by most teachers as a realistic appraisal of some students, that negative message will pervade the schools.
Fortunately, there are other findings in the poll that offer more encouragement. Parents agreed with teachers that problems in the broader society affect the schools and cannot be solved entirely within the classroom. While current federal standards rely primarily on achievement tests in evaluating school performance, and some educators argue that it would be better to measure year-to-year progress of students, large majorities of parents and teachers said that both measures were important and should go into the evaluations.
They also agreed that the work of improving elementary schools is far from finished and that reforming those schools should have priority over moving on to the high schools. Fewer than one in five teachers or parents would switch the priority to high schools at this point.
When it comes to high schools, there is broad agreement that real-world, work-related experiences are important and that the problem of dropouts is critical. But parents are much more likely than teachers to believe that expectations and standards are set too low and that students are not sufficiently challenged. An earlier survey by Achieve Inc., a private business group, reported that only 24 percent of recent high school graduates said they faced challenging standards.
Clearly the educators and the public are on different wavelengths when it comes to conditions in our schools. That is a real barrier to progress. | The good news is that the American public values education so highly that it is prepared to support almost any sensible reform that promises to improve the quality of grade schools and high schools. | 24.571429 | 1 | 35 | medium | high | extractive | 4,848 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062200406.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062200406.html | House GOP Offers Plan For Social Security | 2033-07-15T17:45:19 | After watching the Social Security debate from the sidelines, House Republican leaders yesterday embraced a new approach to Social Security restructuring that would add individual investment accounts to the program, but on a much smaller scale than the Bush administration favors.
The new accounts would be financed by the Social Security surplus -- the amount of payroll tax revenue not needed to pay current benefits. That money is now used to fund other government activities and is expected to run out after 2016 as the baby-boom generation retires.
By contrast, President Bush's proposed accounts would divert payroll taxes used to fund existing Social Security benefits, which would force the government to borrow to prevent cuts in retirees' monthly checks. Once fully phased in, the Bush plan would allow workers to sock away $3,600 a year in today's dollars. Even in its peak year, the new plan could limit average account contributions to as little as $588.
Still, Republicans hope the new proposal will shift the debate away from future benefit cuts, as Bush envisions, to ending what they call the "raid" on the current Social Security surplus. But the plan, unlike Bush's, would do nothing to remedy the New Deal-era program's long-term fiscal problems.
An aide to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called the bill "a great start," and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) called it "an excellent first step." Aides said leadership will gauge reaction over the July 4 break.
Rep. Eric I. Cantor (R-Va.), the deputy House majority whip, called it "a breakthrough day," and Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) said the announcement was a victory simply because "there is movement" on a plan that many on Capitol Hill had written off as dead. But Democrats were vociferous in their condemnation, and some Republicans in the Senate remained doubtful.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), an ardent backer of personal accounts, said the current system in which surplus money in the Social Security system is used for general government spending "papers over the true size of the debt, and what this proposal does is unmask the debt."
"When the program is up and running, Congress will be faced with decisions whether to borrow, raise taxes or cut spending, which is what we should be faced with," Ryan said.
The new House initiative comes as public opposition to Bush's plan continues to grow and the Senate stands at an impasse, while House leaders have increasingly shown a reluctance to bring to a vote any plan that cannot be enacted.
Bush has made Social Security changes the centerpiece of his second-term domestic agenda, but it has proved far more difficult than White House officials had anticipated. Although the new plan is considerably less broad than Bush's approach, it would still fundamentally change the way the Social Security system operates.
This year, Social Security will bring in $69 billion more in taxes than the system pays in benefits. Congress will borrow that money to fund other programs and then send $69 billion worth of Treasury bonds to the Social Security Administration. Those bonds would be cashed to finance benefits once the system slipped into deficit.
Under the new proposal, those bonds would go to private investment accounts that would be opened for workers unless they chose not to participate. | House Republican leaders embrace a new approach to Social Security restructuring that would add individual investment accounts to the program, but on a much smaller scale than the Bush administration favors. | 20.181818 | 0.969697 | 25.757576 | medium | high | extractive | 4,849 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202087.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202087.html | Pay Abuses Common for Day Laborers, Study Finds | 2033-07-15T17:45:19 | More than half of day laborers in the Washington area have been cheated out of their wages and one in four has been harmed on the job, according to a study being released today that tries to sketch a portrait of the informal workers.
The study is based on the experiences of 476 day laborers in the District, Northern Virginia and Maryland, who were interviewed last year by a team affiliated with the University of California at Los Angeles. It depicts the typical worker as an industrious Latin American man who earns $991 a month.
Day laborers have proliferated in the Washington area thanks to the booming construction industry and the dramatic increase in immigrants, some of them illegal. The workers have posed a dilemma for local officials, who sometimes face complaints that the laborers are unsanitary or swarm around stores or street corners, creating a nuisance.
The study was funded by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as the Community Foundation for the National Capital Region, which said it participated "in the hope of supporting constructive dialogue" among officials and residents about how to deal with the workers.
Abel Valenzuela, a UCLA urban planner who was the lead researcher on the study, said day laborers in the D.C. area had an unusual profile compared with those in other cities. They gather in large numbers in at least 16 places -- more than in Chicago, he said. Whereas a few years ago, day laborers congregated in a handful of places such as Culmore and Takoma Park, they now are present throughout the region, the study said.
"It's a reflection of the area becoming an immigrant entry point. You have many, many new arrivals," Valenzuela said.
Day laborers here are more likely to work for contractors or subcontractors than are their counterparts elsewhere in the country, he said. And about two-thirds are from Central America, reflecting the makeup of the immigrant population in the D.C. area.
Valenzuela said he was still trying to tabulate what percentage of the workers had legal immigration status or were qualified to apply for it.
"I would say most day laborers don't have [immigration] documents," he said, but he added that many had permission to work.
Valenzuela defined day laborers as people looking for temporary jobs in a public or open-air space on a daily basis. Some day laborers in the Washington area gather at hiring sites organized by nonprofit groups, while others gravitate to more informal spots at street corners or convenience stores. The study found that more than half the day laborers live within 15 minutes of the site where they solicit work.
The report's results confirm some widely held perceptions: The Washington area laborers are mainly men who are relatively new to the United States. Half of them have a sixth-grade education or less.
But the study also suggests some diversity. Nearly one-third of the day laborers said they had been in this country for at least six years, and about the same number reported being at least 38 years old.
One of the most striking findings of the study was the high level of abuse reported by the workers. More than 58 percent said that, at least once, a boss had failed to pay them for a job or had given them a check that bounced. That compared with 41 percent in a similar study in Los Angeles and 45 percent in New York, Valenzuela said.
Groups that work with day laborers said the findings reflected a widespread problem. Steve Smitson, a lawyer at the nonprofit group Casa de Maryland, said his organization fields about 3,000 complaints a year from day laborers and low-wage workers who have not been paid. He noted that illegal immigrants are protected by many labor laws, although many don't know it.
"What we find is, many day
laborers are documented. But the employers just assume they're undocumented. They assume they're afraid to report the crime," he said.
Officials and day laborers have begun to fight back against such behavior. In Prince George's County, prosecutors won the conviction of a subcontractor on seven counts of failure to pay wages to day laborers. In Prince William County, five Mexican immigrants won awards totaling more than $5,000 in small claims court from contractors.
Still, the problem is rampant, according to a group of day laborers who appeared at the Shirlington Employment Center in Arlington one recent morning hoping to get help in recovering back wages.
Adonay Hernandez, 26, of Arlington said he worked three days this month installing sheetrock at a home in Reston. The contractor gave him a check for only $300, instead of the promised wage of $364, Hernandez said. Then the check bounced, he said.
"I went to the bank and they said there were no funds. He told me to go back to the bank. I've gone, like, four times," Hernandez said.
Hernandez migrated a decade ago from Honduras, where he was one of 16 siblings in a poor farming family. "My friends said life here is better," Hernandez said, and it often is. But when he doesn't get paid, he said, he sometimes has to borrow from friends to eat.
The Community Foundation, one of the study's backers, said in a statement that the study showed the need for more language and vocational training as well as legal aid for the workers. Communities have been divided about offering services to laborers who may be in the country illegally.
Lack of payment isn't the only difficulty the workers face. One-quarter of the day laborers reported suffering an injury or illness related to their work that required medical attention. A majority said they had not received any type of safety training, although many said they did dangerous jobs. And half said they sought jobs seven days a week.
"If we don't have other work, we come every day. Saturdays and Sundays, too," said Alex Fuentes, 20, a Salvadoran standing at a corner in Arlington with other day laborers last week, hoping for a job. | Get Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia news. Includes news headlines from The Washington Post. Get info/values for Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia homes. Features schools, crime, government, traffic, lottery, religion, obituaries. | 25.717391 | 0.586957 | 0.76087 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,850 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062201577.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062201577.html | Church Brings Down the House | 2033-07-15T17:45:19 | PITTSBURGH, June 22 -- The line that formed for congratulations waited at midfield for Ryan Church, who lay crumpled at the base of the right field wall, basking in the sun at PNC Park. On his right hand, he wore his black baseball glove. Nestled in his black baseball glove sat the ball, the final out of the Washington Nationals' 5-4 victory over the Pittsburgh Pirates that was, until that final moment when Church crashed into the wall, in doubt throughout most of Wednesday afternoon.
"Made the catch," Church said. "Got the 'W.' Let's get out of here."
Not so fast, because the Nationals just might want to savor this one on the ride home. Church's catch -- in which he twisted to snare a drive by Pirates catcher Humberto Cota, taking away a sure double -- merely delayed the celebration, one so many players had a reason to take part in.
Start with Jose Guillen, who raised his average to .303 -- the first time he has been above .300 since May 15 -- with a 4-for-5 performance that included a pair of solo home runs, the second time in three games he sent two balls out of PNC Park. That concluded a road trip on which Guillen hit .417 and crushed five homers, showing the form he displayed early in the season.
"Whatever role I've called on him to do, he's responded positively," Manager Frank Robinson said. "And today was one of those tremendous performances. We needed that lift, and he gave it to us."
The Nationals needed that lift because starter John Patterson, who wasn't sure he could pitch until late Tuesday night after receiving injections to relieve a stiff back on Monday, got off to a tremendously shaky start. He allowed a two-run homer to Jason Bay in the first, then gave up a monster shot to Rob Mackowiak, giving the Pirates the lead. When Matt Lawton hit a solo shot in the second, Pittsburgh went up 4-2, and Patterson appeared finished.
The back, a touch of illness, everything was racing through Patterson's head. Win, and the Nationals would head back to Washington 5-4, having won two of the three series. Lose, and, well, Patterson thought differently.
"After the second inning, I could've gone two ways," Patterson said. "I could've packed it in, or I could've battled. I decided to battle."
That he did, a characteristic he hasn't always been able to display. "I'm learning a lot about myself," he said. He retired 13 of the next 14 Pirates, allowing the Nationals to scratch back into it, getting within one run on Guillen's second homer in the third, then tying the score in the fifth on a botched pickoff by the Pirates, one in which Guillen did a masterful job of getting caught up in a rundown just long enough to allow Jamey Carroll to scoot home from third with the tying run.
"He's a smart kid," Guillen said of Carroll.
With the game tied, Patterson came out for the sixth, and a single, a bunt and a walk put runners on first and second. Lawton followed with a single to shallow center, and Robinson called to the bullpen for Hector Carrasco, the 36-year-old journeyman from the Dominican Republic.
"In that situation, I just come in thinking, 'Throw strikes,' " Carrasco said.
Carrasco got Tike Redman to bounce a grounder to first, and Nick Johnson threw home for the force play. Two outs. Then, Bay, the Pirates' most dangerous hitter, went down swinging on a wicked change-up.
"That was the game right there," Robinson said.
Technically, the game wasn't decided until catcher Brian Schneider came up to face Pirates left-hander Mike Gonzalez with two outs and runners on first and second in the eighth. Gonzalez owns a biting slider, and Schneider fouled off two of them with two strikes -- barely. With the count full and the runners off, he finally got a fastball -- "I didn't hit it hard at all," he said. But it floated over the head of shortstop Jack Wilson, scoring Church with what ended up being the winning run.
Chad Cordero came on for his 23rd save, and 20th consecutive successful opportunity, one not secured until Church made his twisting catch in left. Church could barely breathe afterward, and dressed gingerly at his locker, needing help from Carroll to even pull his shirt over his head. The entire team waited more than a minute at midfield for Church to get off the ground and join the celebration.
The catch, the wall, the win, the wait, how does that all feel?
"It was worth it," Church said. | Jose Guillen hammers two more home runs Wednesday and Brian Schneider drops in the go-ahead RBI single in the eighth inning to sneak the Nationals past the Pirates, 5-4. | 25.891892 | 0.702703 | 1.351351 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,851 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202294.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202294.html | Opponents On Different Wavelengths | 2033-07-15T17:45:19 | People who work in public television and radio bristle whenever they're accused of favoring liberal ideas and views over conservative ones. Public broadcasting, they say, is committed to presenting diverse opinions.
Yet as the House of Representatives prepares to vote on the biggest federal cutback ever for public broadcasting, there isn't much diversity to be found among the people on either side. The battle lines over public broadcasting have been drawn in sharply partisan fashion: Democrats in Congress and liberal organizations have emerged as public broadcasting's most visible and vocal supporters, while Republicans and conservatives have stayed mostly silent.
Among the groups that have been petitioning Congress on behalf of public broadcasting are a number with a history of liberal advocacy. These include People for the American Way, FreePress, Media Matters and MoveOn.org, which last year raised millions of dollars for ads critical of President Bush's reelection.
Democrats have taken the lead in trying to restore more than $100 million in funding that was cut by the Republican majority in a House committee last week. Democrats have also staged rallies to whip up public support. On Tuesday, some 16 senators -- all Democrats, Hillary Clinton among them -- advocated the removal of Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the conservative chairman of the agency that passes federal funds to public stations, saying he has politicized the nonpartisan Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And 20 House members -- all Democrats -- last week signed a letter denouncing Tomlinson's choice of Patricia de Stacy Harrison for CPB president, saying the former Republican National Committee co-chairman was "a partisan activist."
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, it's hard to find a Republican with anything nice to say about National Public Radio or the Public Broadcasting Service. Instead, they denounce them as liberal and elitist, when they bother to talk about them at all.
Public broadcasters point out that such nonpartisan organizations as the National PTA, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have recently joined the fight on their side.
But the inability to find many friends across the aisle has been a source of frustration to broadcasters because they say it obscures the breadth of public backing and hardens the partisan lines. "We know there's Republican support out there, and we, too, are surprised that it hasn't been more vocal," said Lea Sloan, a spokeswoman for PBS, which is based in Alexandria.
Some supporters fear that the presence of liberal organizations could intensify the conservative caricature of public broadcasting. One public broadcasting official said he had "mixed feelings" about MoveOn's support, given its parochial leanings and its tendency to be a lightning rod for conservative criticism. "If I had a choice in life, I might pick a different organization" for help, said this official, who asked not to be identified because he didn't want to alienate supporters.
In fact, MoveOn has been a formidable organizer; in just eight days, it has gathered more than 1 million signatures on a petition that asks members of Congress to oppose the budget cuts, which would amount to a 46 percent reduction in federal expenditures on public radio and TV next year.
MoveOn's executive director, Eli Pariser, said yesterday that his group hasn't asked for the political affiliation of those who have signed its petition, but he says he believes they span the ideological spectrum. "This is a classic issue where the Republican elite are totally divergent from their base," he said. "Their ideological fervor has taken precedence over what people want. People love PBS, they love 'Sesame Street,' they love NPR regardless of their politics."
Ken Stern, NPR's executive vice president, makes a similar point, noting that NPR listeners describe themselves as moderate, conservative and liberal in about equal measure in surveys. "The public response in the past few days has been extraordinary," he said. "It has changed the political dynamics of this issue."
But that isn't necessarily how prominent Republicans see public broadcasting. In a column in the Wall Street Journal, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan wrote that "arguing over whether PBS is and has long been politically liberal is like arguing over whether the ocean is and has long been wet. Of course it is, and everyone knows it." Noonan advocated that Washington support public broadcasting -- but only if it drops its current-affairs programs and sticks to history and cultural fare.
Another Republican, a House aide, said yesterday that "NPR's liberal bent is obvious. There's a general lack of sympathy [among Republicans] for that reason." This aide, who asked not to be identified because his boss is trying to avoid publicly criticizing public broadcasting, recounted traveling through the South recently and hearing "six Christian radio stations and NPR. The contrast was obvious. There's a real cultural dissonance there."
Public broadcasters may yet win enough support, particularly from the Senate, which has historically been more generous than the House. In an action public broadcasters saw as a hopeful sign, a Senate Appropriations subcommittee chaired by Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) on Tuesday voted to fully fund a $22 million program that subsidizes equipment purchases for public broadcasters. And Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) has signed on to an amendment sponsored by Democrats David Obey (Wis.) and Nita Lowey (N.Y.) to restore the money that was eliminated by the House Appropriations Committee last week. | Get style news headlines from The Washington Post, including entertainment news, comics, horoscopes, crossword, TV, Dear Abby. arts/theater, Sunday Source and weekend section. Washington Post columnists, movie/book reviews, Carolyn Hax, Tom Shales. | 20.568627 | 0.392157 | 0.431373 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,852 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062201475.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062201475.html | Down the Aisle, Into the Melting Pot | 2033-07-15T17:45:19 | When Michelle and Richard Hughes got married at the Arts Club of Washington last year, they knew they wanted their wedding celebration to reflect exactly who they are.
"We had been to a wedding where the bride was Asian and the groom was Jewish and they incorporated these touches from their backgrounds," says Michelle Hughes, "and we were just so touched by how special it all was."
Michelle, who is Italian American, and Richard, who is African American, read books and consulted family members about traditions they could incorporate into their ceremony.
For Michelle, that meant honoring Richard's family history by jumping the broom, a custom symbolizing commitment to a new life together that is steeped in African and African-American history. "Richard's mom has her [broom] hanging on a wall in her house, so I asked her to decorate one for us," said Michelle. They jumped over the broom after the vows and rings were exchanged but before The Kiss at the altar.
To honor the bride's heritage, Italian cookies were served as part of the wedding feast. "We saw the wedding as an opportunity to reflect our families' backgrounds and a way for our families to learn about each other," said Michelle.
In April, former Washington-area residents Miku and Judy Mehta married, in a celebration that included colors, foods and music from their respective backgrounds, India and Taiwan. Invitations to the 400-person event used Sanskrit and Chinese symbols and characters. Guests joined in a traditional Indian dance called garba, honoring Ambaji, goddess of might and power. A priest administered the ceremony by reading religious verses in Sanskrit.
In 1970, fewer than one percent of marriages in America were between people of different races; by 2000, that number had increased to more than five percent, according to researchers Sharon M. Lee and Barry Edmonston of Portland State University. Their study, published this month by the Population Reference Bureau, strongly suggests that the percentage will rise even further as Americans' attitudes about race and culture continue to change -- and as more people identify themselves as multiracial on Census forms, something they were allowed to do for the first time in 2000.
"In the 1950s if you married someone from a different ethnic, country or religious group you could be considered an outcast," said Michelle R. Nelson, an assistant professor of journalism and mass communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In a recent paper on Web site message boards dedicated to inter-cultural and inter-racial wedding planning, Nelson found that brides "are increasingly rejecting scripted and lavish white weddings that don't allow for personal and cultural identity." Instead they are incorporating their families' country, culture or race specific traditions, such as including Romanian folk dances or wearing a Spanish mantilla.
Katie L. Martin, president of Elegance & Simplicity Wedding & Event Designers, with offices in Georgetown and Bethesda, coordinated the wedding for Michelle and Richard Hughes. She estimates that her team produces 150 to 175 weddings a year, and says that at least half of them showcase traditions or customs mixing cultural, ethnic and religious traditions. "The Hugheses did a lot in terms of blending cultures and backgrounds and in a beautiful way, including African drumming and an African-American pastor."
Martin recalls a recent wedding for an Afghan Muslim bride and an Indian Muslim groom, incorporating rituals from both cultures. "The bride wore a sari during the ceremony to honor the groom's family, and the reception was alive with Middle Eastern music and dancing," she said.
Wendy Raab is co-owner of Rave Reviews, an event-management company in Kensington. Her firm has produced several intercultural weddings this year, including Indian-American, Pakistani-American and Korean-American celebrations.
"I've been in this industry for 30 years and I've done more of these weddings in the last five years than ever before," Raab said. | Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland home and garden news/headlines, including build/fix and furnishing/design, garden/patio tips. Resources and coupons for homes and gardens, DC, MD, VA contacts. Guides for organizing, cleaning, planting and caring. | 14.240741 | 0.388889 | 0.425926 | low | low | abstractive | 4,853 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101631.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101631.html | US-VISIT Delays Foreign Airlines | 2033-07-15T17:45:19 | A new air-security system designed to track foreign visitors arriving in the United States has mistakenly snagged dozens of crew members of foreign airlines, according to new documents obtained from the Department of Homeland Security.
The manager of an unidentified foreign carrier complained that 35 employees were stopped for 30 minutes to an hour after arriving in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Honolulu, New York, Anchorage and Guam. Another airline said eight crew members had been questioned in Miami, Newark, New York's John F. Kennedy and Los Angeles airports. In each case, carriers indicated that the new program called US-VISIT, which captures digital fingerprints and photographs of all foreigners entering the country, was unable to properly identify the crew members who already have had U.S. background checks.
"So far thirty five crew members of [redacted airline] experienced problems with biometrics identification at the checkpoints" in the United States, said one e-mail written to Homeland Security's privacy office that receives the complaints. "Thirty two of them encountered finger print scanning problems," one had a digital photo glitch and two appeared to have stolen passport numbers, the e-mail said.
US-VISIT was criticized by foreign governments when it was introduced in 2004. Officials in some countries, such as Brazil, complained that it made visitors feel like criminals, and Brazil retaliated by photographing and fingerprinting visitors from the United States.
U.S. Homeland Security officials said the program has received complaints from 150 people in 18 months of operation, including at least 59 foreign airline crew members. About half of the complaints were the result of false watch-list matches, many of which included the crew members.
"We are unaware of any widespread complaints related to crew processing concerns," said Homeland Security spokesman Brian Roehrkasse. "Because crews have their own lanes [at immigration and customs], oftentimes they move through more expeditiously than other travelers."
Roehrkasse said the number of foreign airline-crew complaints was small, given that 6,000 foreign crew members arrive in the country every day.
Foreign flight-crew members undergo background checks conducted by the Transportation Security Administration at least an hour before their flights depart for the United States. But Homeland Security officials said the pre-flight check does not include the immigration watch list used by US-VISIT.
In e-mails to the airlines, Homeland Security officials explain the hassles occur for a variety of reasons. In some cases, crew members' names are similar to those on a watch list known as the Interagency Border Inspection System that contains names of people suspected of immigration law violations. In other cases, crew members appear to have passport numbers identical to documents that have been reported stolen.
In one e-mail, a Homeland Security official explained that the problem with the watch-list matches is caused by a simple name-matching software called Soundex, which assigns each name a code based on its phonetics and then matches the codes. "Since IBIS operates on soundex selection criteria, a tentative match is produced when the name is queried in the system, and this results in some travelers being referred to secondary inspection upon each arrival to the United States," a US-VISIT official wrote to an unidentified airline. "This is what happened with many of your crew members."
Marcia Hofmann, director of the Open Government Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center who requested the documents from Homeland Security, said the e-mails reveal how the US-VISIT system suffers from the same shortfalls as other airline security programs that rely on name-matching to find suspected terrorists.
"Generically, it shows watch lists do have problems and it isn't just the no-fly and selectee lists that we're familiar hearing about that have inaccuracies," Hofmann said. "Perhaps there ought to be a unified effort to ensure all watch lists are maintained with accuracy." | A new air-security system designed to track foreign visitors arriving in the United States has mistakenly snagged dozens of crew members of foreign airlines, according to new documents obtained from the Department of Homeland Security. | 19.333333 | 1 | 39 | medium | high | extractive | 4,854 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062200598.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062200598.html | Intolerance Found at Air Force Academy | 2033-07-15T17:45:19 | A military study of the religious climate at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs found several examples of religious intolerance, insensitivity and inappropriate proselytizing on the part of Air Force officers and cadets, but a report issued yesterday at the Pentagon concluded that the school is not overtly discriminatory and has made improvements in recent months.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Roger A. Brady announced that his 16-member review team found a "perception of religious bias" in more than 300 interviews with cadets representing all faiths and with faculty members and administrators. Brady also found that there was a failure at the academy "to fully accommodate all members' needs and a lack of awareness over where the line is drawn between permissible and impermissible expression of beliefs."
Brady told reporters at an afternoon news conference at the Pentagon that there did not appear to be a systemic problem, but he cited examples in which professors used their lecterns to promote specific religious activities to their cadets, calling the professors "well intended, but wrong." He said some personnel were concerned about the impact of religious affiliation on their careers and some cadets expressed objections to what they perceived to be mandatory prayers at official functions and in locker rooms.
"Additionally, some faculty members and coaches consider it their duty to profess their faith and discuss this issue in their classrooms in furtherance of developing cadets' spirituality," according to the 40-page document.
The report came after allegations that officers at the academy promoted evangelical Christian beliefs and were insensitive to cadets who were of a different religion or chose not to practice a faith. The allegations spurred a heated debate about the separation of church and state at the federally funded military school and caused a backlash among the chaplain community there.
Brady's study found glaring examples of that insensitivity and recommended that seven specific incidents be investigated further. He said his group, which visited the academy over four days in early May, was there to "take the pulse" of the religious climate, not to investigate wrongdoing.
Examples of questionable behavior highlighted in the report included the school's head football coach hanging a "Team Jesus" banner in the locker room in November 2004; the academy's commandant sending out a schoolwide message on the National Day of Prayer and encouraging cadets to use the "J for Jesus" hand signal; and senior school personnel signing on to a Christian advertisement citing scripture in the base newspaper.
Also detailed in the report was an incident in February 2004, when cadets reported their peers had placed fliers on the more than 4,000 place settings at the cadet dining facility and in other common areas promoting the film "The Passion of the Christ."
"Cadets felt they were being proselytized and pressured to see the movie," the report said. "Jewish cadets told the team they encountered anti-Semitic comments that they believe 'The Passion of The Christ' flyer event inspired."
Cadets also reported being harassed for not taking part in voluntary prayer meetings during basic training and being labeled as instead taking part in the "Heathen Flight" back to dorms for time to relax.
The concerns about religious intolerance arose during earlier investigations of complaints that sexual harassment was common on the campus but were ignored by school administrators. The teams studying the academy heard stories of favoritism toward evangelical cadets and faculty members and allegations of discrimination against others.
Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), who along with 45 other Democrats asked the secretary of the Air Force to become involved in the probe, called the report a step in the right direction but said it identified serious problems at the Air Force Academy that need to be addressed immediately.
"I continue to have serious concerns," Capps said. "The report downplays the full extent of an environment consumed by religious intolerance. . . . I am offended and I am shocked by the proselytizing that has been going on."
Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said the report "could have been far more forthright than it is" and urged the academy to take decisive action to remedy the problems. The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, welcomed the report and called it "a significant start to cleaning up a poisoned atmosphere at the Air Force Academy."
Former Virginia governor James S. Gilmore III, chairman of the Air Force Academy's Board of Visitors, said yesterday that the academy has been going through a learning experience and dealing with a complicated challenge, one that is all over society. He said the academy will not tolerate religious abuse or favoritism but will protect the right of religious freedom.
"Some people thought, apparently, that they were doing the right thing by expressing their faith, but they failed to understand the impact it would have on people with other faiths or with no faith," Gilmore said. "They understand that now. I think they recognize that some faculty members probably went over the line."
Gen. John P. Jumper, Air Force chief of staff, said yesterday that he believes major strides have been made over the past two years. "When problems like this arise, we are transparent with these problems, and we don't let them roll around," Jumper said. "We take them on, and we work these problems." | A military study of the religious climate at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs found several examples of religious intolerance, insensitivity and inappropriate proselytizing on the part of Air Force officers and cadets, but a report issued yesterday at the Pentagon concluded that the school... | 21.142857 | 0.979592 | 47.020408 | medium | high | extractive | 4,855 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062200862.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062200862.html | Bush Expresses Empathy With Workers | 2033-07-15T17:45:19 | President Bush sounded a bit like Bill Clinton yesterday, telling Americans who are out of work, short on cash or frustrated by the rapidly changing economy that he feels their pain.
Speaking at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in Lusby, Md., Bush delivered his standard call for a national energy policy with a new rhetorical twist -- an appeal to the millions of people not cashing in on global trade, the recent rounds of tax cuts or the business-friendly environment fostered by the president.
"I know some workers are concerned about jobs going overseas," Bush said. "I know some are concerned about gaining the skills necessary to compete in the global market that we live in. I know that families are worried about health care and retirement, and I know moms and dads are worried about their children finding good jobs."
But Bush did not promise new policies. Instead, a top aide said, the president was reviving a strategy first tested in 2002 to present his agenda as one aimed at the working man and woman. "It's a familiar message . . . but one we have turned to again because we want people to consider the legislative priorities . . . in the context of a larger strategic goal of creating economic security for working families," said a senior White House aide, who demanded anonymity to discuss the tactical shift.
With recent polls showing Bush's popularity sagging, the White House is searching for a new way of connecting with the American people on economic issues and the war in Iraq. Bush aides had forecast that the president would begin speaking more forthrightly about problems in both areas, trying to disabuse some Republicans of concerns that he risks seeming indifferent or out of touch. Yesterday's event reflected the shift in tone, but it also made it clear that the president is not altering in any fundamental way his policies or arguments for them.
The event also highlighted a contrast between Bush and his predecessor. In general, Bush aides have been disdainful of what they regarded as Clinton's overly reactive and insincere politics of empathy. In times of trouble, however, the current president has tried to match Clinton's empathetic notes -- though usually not his practice of proposing scores of narrowly focused policies to target constituencies. Bush, aides said, thinks Clinton downsized the presidency and does not think his own policies need to be changed.
In the case of Iraq, Bush is getting a series of private briefings from military officials this week in preparation for Friday's meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari and a speech next Tuesday. One Republican official who discussed Iraq with Bush said the president is as confident as ever that significant progress is being made training Iraqi troops and setting the stage for some troops to come home next year. Still, Bush assured GOP senators this week that he plans to speak as candidly as possible about the troubles ahead.
Bush said one solution to economic problems is to enact his national energy policy -- which provides a mix of new spending and tax breaks to promote conservation, oil drilling and new sources of fuel -- and reduce taxes, regulation and the threat of lawsuits to create a more predictable business climate.
The president visited Calvert Cliffs to tout nuclear energy as a replacement for fossil fuels. Calvert Cliffs, which produces enough megawatts per hour to meet about one-third of Maryland's energy needs, is a possible site for the first new nuclear energy reactor to be built in the United States in 30 years. "There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner, safer nation," Bush said. "It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again."
Nuclear power is gaining in popularity among policymakers and even some environmentalists almost two decades after the disaster at Chernobyl, in what was then the Soviet Union, illuminated the dangers of that technology. Since then, China, France and other nations have moved aggressively to build new and safer plants while construction of nuclear facilities came to a standstill in the United States. Bush said nuclear power meets about 20 percent of the United States' energy needs, compared with 80 percent of France's. The Bush energy plan would ease the licensing process and provide more than $1 billion to expedite new construction. | President Bush sounded a bit like Bill Clinton yesterday, telling Americans who are out of work, short on cash or frustrated by the rapidly changing economy that he feels their pain. | 24.235294 | 1 | 34 | medium | high | extractive | 4,856 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062201989.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005062319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062201989.html | Senator May Block Successor to Defense Policy Chief Feith | 2033-07-15T17:45:19 | The senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee has warned the Pentagon that he may block the nomination of a new defense policy chief unless documents involving the departing policy head -- Douglas J. Feith -- are turned over for review.
The action by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) threatens to hold up another important presidential appointment as lawmakers remain deadlocked with the Bush administration over the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. That dispute, too, involves Democratic requests for documents the White House has refused to surrender.
In this instance, Levin is trying to press a probe, begun two years ago, into how Feith and his subordinates shaped the administration's view of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda before the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Levin has criticized Feith for portraying the relationship as more extensive and significant than U.S. intelligence agencies thought at the time. Administration officials have defended Feith's prewar efforts as reflecting a legitimate attempt to provide an alternative analysis. The Pentagon produced many documents that Levin requested, but has withheld others, citing confidentiality and legal concerns.
Feith announced in January he intended to step down this summer, and in late March, President Bush put forward Eric S. Edelman, a career diplomat, to succeed Feith as undersecretary of defense for policy.
When Edelman visited the Senate earlier this month in preparation for a confirmation hearing, Levin informed him and other defense officials that the nomination might go nowhere unless more documents were forthcoming.
"This should not be necessary," Levin said in a phone interview yesterday. "But the Senate is entitled to these documents, and I don't know any other way to get them.
"This is what's happening with Bolton," he added. "It's happening too many times around here -- putting holds on nominations. It's a pity this is the way the Senate has to deal with this administration."
A confirmation hearing on Edelman is expected to proceed as scheduled next week. Levin said any move he might make to block the nomination would occur after that.
Delay in approving the nomination would frustrate efforts by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to put in place a fresh team of senior associates. In recent months, Rumsfeld has chosen replacements for the jobs of deputy secretary and undersecretary for acquisition and designated a successor for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Senate action on Gordon R. England to take over the Pentagon's No. 2 position has been embroiled in a dispute between the Armed Services Committee and the Pentagon over financial conflict-of-interest requirements. But England has moved into the job and is serving as acting deputy secretary while officials on both sides continue to search for a way out of the impasse.
Lawrence T. Di Rita, the Pentagon's top spokesman, held out the prospect yesterday that a showdown with Levin could be avoided. But he emphasized the degree to which the Pentagon had cooperated and questioned the need for further Senate inquiry into Feith's office.
"We have provided Senator Levin significant volumes of documents already and are working with Senator Levin and the committee to determine what additional information Senator Levin is interested in," Di Rita said. "Many of the same issues Senator Levin is interested in have been considered in some detail by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which thus far has found no cause for concern with the policy shop and its proper role in reviewing prewar intelligence on Iraq."
Levin launched his inquiry in June 2003, after Armed Services Committee Republicans declined to participate. Last October, he issued a 46-page report that faulted Feith for misrepresenting to Congress the view of U.S. intelligence agencies about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Levin complained at the time about the difficulty he and his staff had obtaining documents for the inquiry, saying in an Oct. 6 letter to Rumsfeld that the Pentagon's "delays and refusals are intolerable and unacceptable."
Since then, Levin has received additional documents, a number of which needed CIA clearance. But according to Levin's staff, the Pentagon continues to withhold two sets of documents: one referred to as "advisory and deliberative materials and internal legal analyses"; the other said to be for use in possible prosecution of foreign nationals. | Get the latest US government news on recent federal affairs. Up-to-date information and analysis of federal legislation and contracts. Search for government job openings and career information. | 22.777778 | 0.611111 | 0.666667 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,857 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601180.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601180.html | Honduras Flirts With Three-Step Remedy to Poverty | 2033-07-15T17:38:39 | WASHINGTON -- If there were a lottery to end poverty, Honduras would be holding a winning ticket.
Over the weekend, the Group of Eight major industrial nations announced that it had agreed to "the biggest debt settlement the world has ever seen,'' which would benefit some of the poorest, most indebted nations, including Honduras. On Monday, President Bush's development aid program known as the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) made Honduras the first beneficiary in Latin America and only the second in the world. And on Tuesday, the controversial Central American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Honduras and five other nations survived its first real test in the U.S. Senate.
Combine trade, aid and debt relief and Honduras has the big-three poverty reduction strategies sought by both the left and the right.
For decades, churches, nongovernmental organizations and student groups have been advocating debt relief as well as increased aid to poverty-stricken nations. Honduras currently pays 15 percent of its annual national budget -- or $250 million -- to service its debt. If all multilateral debt is forgiven, Honduras will see a windfall equivalent to six times what it currently spends on medicines or 12 times what it spends on school meals, Honduran President Ricardo Maduro told me. With MCA, Honduras is slated to receive $215 million over the next five years to help small, poor farmers become more competitive and get their goods to market.
For at least a decade, business and pro-market leaders have been pushing for agreements such as CAFTA to further integrate the hemisphere commercially. CAFTA would open up a trade market among its member nations valued at $32 billion. The effect on that nation's poor could be significantly positive.
Yet while Honduras may have won the lottery, it might well fritter away its gains. The second-poorest Central American nation -- 64 percent of the population lives on less than $2 a day -- is also regarded as the second-most corrupt nation in the region.
Maduro is quite aware of what's at stake. The Stanford-trained economist points out that his administration has taken on corruption directly. During his three years in office, Maduro has rounded up more than 80 businessmen involved in financial crimes, penalized more than 2,000 businesses for tax evasion, and hired new customs employees through a competitive process using public advertisements.
Despite these gains, Honduras has a long way to go to clean up its act. Maduro made efforts to strengthen the National Anti-Corruption Council through congressional sanction and giving it an operating budget. But the council has not met for a year and a half, according to German Espinal, its former executive director.
Honduras was also one of the first countries in the region to eliminate immunity for former public officials, including presidents, who face prosecution. Yet, the Honduran prosecutor's office has shelved enough corruption cases, as it did last year to the benefit of former President Rafael Callejas, to make that immunity statute irrelevant. The prosecutor's office is so tainted that in an unusual move, the U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa earlier this month publicly announced its decision to revoke the deputy prosecutor's U.S. visa.
So it is no wonder some are taking the good news this week cautiously. Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, a tireless advocate for debt relief and aid, said in a nationally televised interview on Channel 5 in Honduras Monday night that "this should fill us with happiness,'' but will do so only if Honduras ends its corruption "addiction.''
"How can we progress with a Honduras the way it is?'' asked Rodriguez, whose name was on every short list of candidates for pope. "I believe if this doesn't change, any debt relief, any donation will not be useful.''
Rodriguez, one of the most popular figures in the country and frequent ally to the president in times of crisis, calls this opportunity the "second and perhaps the last chance'' for Honduras to reduce corruption significantly.
The first came more than 30 years ago when the Central American country was battered by Hurricane Fifi, killing more than 10,000 people. The international community responded with billions of dollars to help rebuild Honduras and ease the suffering of its people. But 40 percent of the aid, according to Espinal, ended up in the pockets of politicians and other officials. And so the hurricane, said Espinal, created Honduras' "new rich'' and left the rest destitute, as most remain today.
Marcela Sanchez's e-mail address is [email protected]. | Combine trade, aid and debt relief and Honduras has the big-three poverty reduction strategies sought by both the left and the right. | 33.769231 | 1 | 26 | medium | high | extractive | 4,858 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601535.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601535.html | Jackson Perhaps Free to Redeem Himself | 2033-07-15T17:38:39 | I thought I'd heard every possible take on Michael Jackson's surprising-but-not-really acquittal -- until I asked a no-nonsense friend her opinion. Not missing a beat, she said, "I wondered why he was spared."
Spared. Not acquitted or released -- and certainly not forgiven. Spared. Like "blessed," this old-fashioned word evokes a nostalgic, church-folk vibe. But my friend, a businesswoman, wasn't finished:
"I figured it must have been for redemption."
Although there's been a world of chatter about Michael's acquittal in the media, at our jobs, in grocery lines and family rooms, little has been said about redemption. On TV, every third law-school graduate has been christened a "legal expert" worthy of explaining the prosecution's missteps, the defense's brilliance and a celebrity-worshiping public's culpability.
In fact, we're all experts. Folks who barely followed the proceeding have passed judgment on the jury, the defendant's mother, attorneys for both sides, journalists and, of course, Jackson. Our smorgasbord of judgment is being served piping hot, with generous helpings of guilt, blame and scorn for all.
But in the spirit of "spared," let's step back from what we know -- and think we know -- about this mess.
One thing does seem clear: This is a man with a problem. Those who'd excuse Michael's Neverland sleepovers as understandable attempts to recapture his youth should note that any other 46-year-old man who confessed to sleeping with preteens would be under the jail.
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that half of Americans disagreed with Jackson's acquittal; one-quarter of all respondents said they were outraged. Personally, I'd prefer citizens to be exercised over mounting deaths in Iraq or the erosion of their civil liberties. But I have no problem in a society that too often ignores its children's welfare with outrage over any child's seemingly unpunished abuse -- however crazy that child's mother appears, however clumsy his family's attempts to extract celebrity loot.
Yet awaiting the verdict, I found myself worried for Jackson. I remembered watching, as a kid in my Gary, Ind., hometown, the pre-fame Michael being yanked off his feet during a talent show by a young woman who clutched him as he fought for release. Even then, I felt sad for this tiny boy who inspired such frightening passion in strangers.
The whole world watched as the adorable child morphed into the brilliant eccentric -- self-mutilating, manipulative, and egocentric enough to christen himself "the King of Pop." Like many who've heard Jackson's poignant descriptions of his abusive childhood, I suspect that it helps to explain him. The only face scarier than Michael's at the Santa Maria, Calif., courthouse was the cold, masklike visage of his father.
I won't claim to "know" how Michael's fascination with boys is played out. Past testimony, reports of porn and of alcohol-spiked "Jesus juice" suggest "molester." Yet we all know that sometimes where there's smoke, there's . . . more smoke.
But ours is a world of absolutes -- one is either guilty or innocent, sick or healthy, a convicted felon or a free man or woman. People aren't so simple. To my mind, Jackson -- like many others -- slips into the between, a place where he seems guilty of, or responsible for, something, not the exact charges he faced or pedophilia as we think of it. Something unsettling. | I thought I'd heard every possible take on Michael Jackson's surprising-but-not-really acquittal -- until I asked a no-nonsense friend her opinion. Not missing a beat, she said, "I wondered why he was spared." | 14.55102 | 1 | 49 | low | high | extractive | 4,859 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601375.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601375.html | Where's The Apology? | 2033-07-15T17:38:39 | We are entitled to our moral, ethical and philosophical commitments. We are not entitled to our own facts.
So why is this basic rule of argument often ignored by politicians whose certainty about their righteousness convinces them that they can say absolutely anything to further their causes?
The autopsy in the Terri Schiavo case provides a rare moment of political accountability. We should not "move on," as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggested. No, we cannot move on until those politicians who felt entitled to make up facts and toss around unwarranted conclusions about Schiavo's condition take responsibility for what they said -- and apologize.
Nothing in the autopsy report prevents those who opposed removing Schiavo's feeding tube from continuing to insist they were right. It's legitimate and honorable to argue on philosophical grounds that every medical decision in a tragic circumstance such as Schiavo's should be made on the side of keeping the sick person alive.
But those who supported an extraordinary use of federal power to force their own conclusion against the judgment of state courts knew that philosophical arguments would not be enough. Most Americans were uneasy about compelling Schiavo's husband, Michael, to keep his wife alive if -- as the state courts had concluded and as the autopsy confirmed on Wednesday -- she had suffered irreversible brain damage and was incapable of recovering.
So the big-government conservatives had to invent a story. They had to insist that they knew, just knew , more about Terri Schiavo's condition than the doctors on the scene. They had to question Michael Schiavo's motives and imply that he wanted to, well, get rid of her.
"As I understand it," Frist said on the Senate floor, "Terri's husband will not divorce Terri and will not allow her parents to take care of her. Terri's husband, who I have not met, does have a girlfriend he lives with and they have children of their own." No accusation here, just a brisk walk through innuendo city.
Dr. Frist, as he likes to be known, didn't just make his case as a pro-lifer. He invoked his expertise as a member of the medical profession. "I close this evening speaking more as a physician than as a U.S. senator," Frist said during the March 17 debate on the bill forcing a federal review of the case.
Proffering references to medical textbooks and journals, Frist led his colleagues through to his conclusion. He argued that "a decision had been made to starve to death a woman based on a clinical exam that took place over a very short period of time by a neurologist who was called in to make the diagnosis rather than over a longer period of time." Dr. Frist, in other words, was offering a second opinion.
In an appearance yesterday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Frist insisted: "I raised the question, 'Is she in a persistent vegetative state or not?' I never made the diagnosis, never said that she was not."
Well, that depends on the meaning of "diagnosis." In the midst of his impressively detailed medical review, Frist declared flatly: "Terri's brother told me Terri laughs, smiles, and tries to speak. That doesn't sound like a woman in a persistent vegetative state."
So, Frist wanted to be seen as having the medical expertise to support his conclusion when doing so was convenient -- and now wants us to think he did nothing of the sort. | We are entitled to our moral, ethical and philosophical commitments. We are not entitled to our own facts. | 32.380952 | 1 | 21 | medium | high | extractive | 4,860 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061700982.html%20 | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061700982.html | House Backs Withholding Dues to Spur U.N. Changes | 2033-07-15T17:38:39 | The House disregarded strong White House objections and voted yesterday to withhold up to half of the country's dues from the United Nations if the world body does not cut its bureaucracy, redirect its budget and tighten its accountability.
The bill -- one of the most extensive and specific congressional edicts to the United Nations -- requires the creation of whistle-blower protections, an independent oversight board with broad investigative authority and an ethics office to thwart possible conflicts of interest.
It requires reductions in the amount spent on conferences and public information, dictates the restructuring of the budget, and insists on tightened standards for determining membership on U.N. human rights bodies. And the measure calls for the lifting of diplomatic immunity for U.N. officials charged with serious criminal offenses.
"Yes, this is radical surgery," said House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), the bill's chief sponsor. "Sometimes that's the only way to save the patient."
The 221 to 184 vote marks the second time this week that the Republican-controlled House has rebuffed the Bush administration on a sensitive issue. On Wednesday, the House voted to curtail the FBI's ability to seize library and bookstore records for terrorism investigations under the USA Patriot Act, despite the president's veto threat.
The White House and the State Department issued a sharp warning against the U.N. bill as debate began Thursday. The administration statement, although not including a veto threat, said the bill "could detract from and undermine our efforts" to change the United Nations and would "impermissibly infringe on the president's authority under the Constitution to conduct the nation's foreign affairs."
Nevertheless, the bill passed by a wider margin than the sponsors had expected. Its backers said that the United Nations' unpopularity in the country, combined with the investigations on how billions of dollars were spent on the organization's oil-for-food humanitarian program for Iraq, has provided the most favorable conditions in years for reining in an organization they have always distrusted.
The bill's success marked a revival of the wrangling between Congress and the United Nations in the 1990s. Congressional Republicans held up more than $1 billion in U.S. funding for the United Nations, and U.N. diplomats' parking tickets fueled the dispute. The most recent major legislation concerning the United Nations was the Helms-Biden agreement of 1998, which cut the U.S. share of the U.N. budget.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is working with the Bush administration on a companion bill and plans to begin hearings next month, aides said. That means that a mandate to the United Nations is very likely to go to President Bush for his signature during this two-year Congress, although it will almost certainly be less dire than the one passed by the House, said aides in both chambers.
At the United Nations, a statement from the office of Secretary General Kofi Annan warned that the House bill could "jeopardize" his own effort to streamline the U.N. bureaucracy at a summit on U.N. reform for world leaders in September, and it said he "believes that U.S. engagement and leadership in this process is very important but does not feel that withholding dues is a productive route to achieving reform."
The vote on the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act broke along party lines, with just seven Republicans opposing it and just eight Democrats backing it.
Hyde's staff said that one reason for the lopsided victory was the personal involvement of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who was the closing speaker on the bill and has long said it is one of the most important of the year. In a fiery floor speech, DeLay said the United Nations "has become one of the world's great apologists for tyranny and terror." | World news headlines from the Washington Post, including international news and opinion from Africa, North/South America, Asia, Europe and Middle East. Features include world weather, news in Spanish, interactive maps, daily Yomiuri and Iraq coverage. | 15.891304 | 0.456522 | 0.5 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,861 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061700341.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061700341.html | Troops Launch Fresh Combat Operation in Iraq | 2033-07-15T17:38:39 | BAGHDAD, June 17 -- About 1,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops mounted a fresh assault on insurgents early Friday on the border with Syria, the U.S. military announced.
The push by Marines and sailors with Regimental Combat Team 2 of the 2nd Marine Division, in tandem with Iraqi soldiers, "began in the early morning hours aimed at rooting out terrorists, foreign fighters and disrupting terrorist support systems in and around Karabilah," according to a Marine statement.
No further details about the assault, dubbed Operation Spear, were released.
Karabilah, about three miles from the border, is one of a handful of Euphrates River towns where U.S. commanders say foreigners are being funneled from Syria into Iraq to fight the country's new government and the foreign forces that protect it. On Saturday, the Marines launched airstrikes against insurgents who had erected illegal checkpoints along local roads and were menacing civilians, according to military spokesmen who estimated that the attack killed 40 insurgents.
Last month, a major U.S. assault called Operation Matador swept through towns in the same region. Marines searched homes and patrolled roads in an effort to disrupt what commanders have described as a complex insurgent network that trains foreign fighters and moves them to all corners of Iraq. In many towns, however, Marines found mostly women, children and the elderly, along with signs that insurgents had recently fled.
In Baghdad on Friday, a car bomb killed four persons near a Shiite Muslim mosque on the city's east side. A black Daewoo driven by a suicide attacker exploded about 50 yards from the mosque, igniting a nearby fuel tanker, said a witness, Abbas Abid, 25.
Police said the bombing was a suicide attack intended to kill worshipers leaving the mosque after Friday prayers. But several people at the scene said they thought the driver was targeting a passing police convoy.
In addition, the Associated Press reported that a suicide car bomber hit an Iraqi army convoy in northern Iraq, injuring seven people.
Since Iraq's Shiite-led government took office in late April, insurgents have conducted scores of attacks calculated to enflame tensions between the country's disparate religious, ethnic and political groups.
Special correspondent Bassam Sebti contributed to this report.
About 1,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops mounted a fresh assault on insurgents early Friday on the border with Syria, the U.S. military announced. | World news headlines from the Washington Post, including international news and opinion from Africa, North/South America, Asia, Europe and Middle East. Features include world weather, news in Spanish, interactive maps, daily Yomiuri and Iraq coverage. | 9.782609 | 0.391304 | 0.434783 | low | low | abstractive | 4,862 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701006.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701006.html | Robinson, Scioscia Suspended for 1 Game | 2033-07-15T17:38:39 | ARLINGTON, Tex., June 17 Washington Nationals Manager Frank Robinson and his counterpart with the Anaheim Angels, Mike Scioscia, were each suspended for one game and issued a fine Friday by Major League Baseball officials for "aggressive and inappropriate actions" in the Nationals' victory over the Angels on Tuesday night in Anaheim, Calif., that resulted in a benches-clearing altercation.
Robinson, who said his fine was $1,000, vehemently disagreed with the decision. He was granted a hearing with John McHale, MLB's executive vice president for administration, by teleconference at noon Monday, and will be allowed to manage in the weekend series against the Texas Rangers here. Should his appeal fail, he would serve the suspension Monday night at Pittsburgh, and bench coach Eddie Rodriguez would manage the club.
"John will make the ruling," said Bob Watson, baseball's vice president for on-field operations, late Friday night. "He'll rule on his timetable. I would imagine it would be a day or two, but it might be right on the spot."
Scioscia served his suspension Friday night in the Angels' game against the Florida Marlins. Angels pitcher Brendan Donnelly -- whose use of pine tar on his glove precipitated the incident -- was suspended for 10 games, but is appealing the suspension and was available to pitch against Florida.
Robinson, who has been very clear that he feels the incident was Scioscia's fault, voiced his displeasure with the ruling before Friday's game.
"Number one, I didn't instigate the situation," Robinson said. "I didn't bring it up. I didn't start it. All I was doing was replying to what he had said to me. And it was all words."
Watson would not comment on Robinson's argument, other than to say, "Believe me, I've heard his side of it."
The confrontation occurred in the top of the seventh inning in a game the Angels led 3-1. Scioscia called Donnelly in to relieve, but before the right-hander could throw a pitch, Robinson asked the umpires to examine Donnelly's glove. They discovered pine tar -- a sticky substance which can improve the grip on a ball and possibly alter its flight -- and Donnelly was immediately ejected.
After Scioscia called for a new pitcher, he walked directly from the mound to Robinson, who was standing on the first base line, and said he would have every Nationals pitcher "undressed" by the umpires, in search of foreign substances. Robinson considered that "a threat," and charged back at Scioscia, leading to players streaming from the dugouts and bullpens.
"I think this is too severe," Robinson said. "The fine and a suspension is too severe. Nothing else happened even though the players came out onto the field. Nothing happened."
Donnelly said he had "no anger," but said he is appealing to get the penalty reduced.
"Similar circumstances with other players have resulted in lesser lengths in penalties," Donnelly told reporters in Anaheim. "I'm not using it to cheat." | This is your source for info on Washington Nationals baseball. Learn about DC baseball at the RFK stadium. Get the latest schedule and stats for the Washington Nationals. Stay updated on the latest Washington Nationals news! | 14.209302 | 0.55814 | 0.837209 | low | low | abstractive | 4,863 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/10/DI2005061001436.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/10/DI2005061001436.html | Tell Me About It | 2033-07-15T17:38:39 | Appearing every Wednesday and Friday in The Washington Post Style section and in Sunday Source, Tell Me About It Bæfers readers advice based on the experiences of someone who's been there -- really recently. Carolyn Hax is a 30-something repatriated New Englander with a liberal arts degree and a lot of opinions and that's about it, really, when you get right down to it. Oh, and the shoes. A lot of shoes.
Mail can be directed to Carolyn at [email protected] .
Wondering about Zuzu?: Just wanted an update on how her ACL was healing? Did Nick actually go stark raving mad after being confined with her for weeks on end?
Do you have visitation with her (or perhaps some sort of shared custody arrangement?) As if three toddlers wasn't enough to keep you busy!;
Yes, I realize this question is beyond nosy, yet somehow I'm able to ignore all forms of propriety and am asking anyway....
Carolyn Hax: Zuzu's fine, thanks. Nick was stark raving mad to begin with, so the confinement drove him to near normalcy. He should be back to himself, though, soon.
I've got a bit of a technical problem here, so it might be a couple of minutes before the next post. Sorry.
Washington, D.C.: Two "friends" are giving a going away party for a friend leaving town. They have made it clear that they don't like you. You are friends with the person leaving. Do you go?
Carolyn Hax: Yes, though if my car is going due west at 35 mph, and their car is going east at 40 mph, but they make two 5-min stops to get light beer and ice, I might change my mind because I don't drink light beer.
Depends on how big the party is, how numerous my other opportunities are to say goodbye to this friend, how important it was to my friend that I be there, and whether I had anything to wear.
Is it a bad idea to try dating again when one still has a crush on one's ex-girlfriend?
I'm still good friends with my ex, although I haven't (and won't) act on my crush because she dumped me.
Carolyn Hax: If you'd be dating for the sake of dating for the sake of erasing the ex, bad idea. If you'd be dating because you found someone you'd like to date, great idea.
Arlington, Va.: I am in a relationship with someone who I was very good friends with for about a year. We have been dating for about the last 2 months. He is currently living with me. Before we were together sexually I knew of his love for strip clubs. He goes there by himself just to have a few drinks. I expressed to him while we were friends that I didn't approve of that. Now that we are together he told me that last night he went out to the strip club for a few drinks. I now feel as if I can't trust him. I don't' understand why he felt the need to go to a strip club if he is in a relationship. Mine you he has also had sexual relations with one of the strippers at the club. I am ready to break it off because I lost the trust. Can you please advise me on what to do? Thank you for your time.
Carolyn Hax: You knew who he was and what his hobby was before you went out with him. Seems to me you have no reason not to trust him because he has remained exactly as advertised.
If you expected him to drop his hobby once you got together, the burden was on you to say so. Having missed that chance to say it before you started sleeping with him, the best you can do now is say it now. He of course is free to say, "Sorry, this is what I do, and I'm not changing it." Then you of course are free to keep seeing him on his terms, or to break up with him.
What you are not free to do, whether you speak up or not, is play the wronged party. Expressing disapproval of his behavior when you're his friend is not the same as articulating that you expect him to stop his behavior when you're his GF. Mind-reading abilities rarely come through for you when you want them to.
Leesburg, Va.: Hi Carolyn, In today's column you mentioned "emotional match" and I was wondering if you could elaborate more on what that means and on how to break that pattern? I'm not as bad as "women A" in the paper but do see a pattern that comes up in my relationships. While the men I choose have not been too bad (cheaters, abusers, etc.) they share common traits (emotionally unavailable, somewhat lazy, a bit irresponsible). Thanks.
Carolyn Hax: It has gone beyond old joke and into eye-rollerdom to use, "Tell me about your childhood," as a reference to therapy, but it pretty well sums up the process of finding out your emotional patterns and changing them. What do your relationships have in common, what do your failures have in common, what do you keep doing despite knowing it's not good for you, what are you hoping to get out of those things, how would you describe your parents' relationship to each other, what was your relationship with each of them, how did you get their attention, how did any siblings fit in with all this, how do these things parallel your relationship and failure and bad-habit stuff as an adult?
I could pose a hundred more of these but you get the idea. We tend to seek comfort in what we know, and sometimes it turns out that what we know isn't really the best thing for us--thus the unhappy patterns like the one you describe. Some classics for the sake of illustration: people who feel they need to be perfect/bring home straight As to be loved; people who need to date the dregs because their own self-image is so low; people who need to be mentored; people who need to play mentor to their little students/projects; people who need to play martyr/superhero and so seek out demanding mates, etc.
What do you do when the bride who is your good friend continues to tell you that her parents have contributed no money toward her wedding? She got married last in December, and she is still complaining that the money that her mom promised her that they would give her she still has not received. I feel like telling her that they are not really obligated to give her anything and that she shouldn't buy things that she can't afford then expect her 'rents to cover her.
Are her parents wrong for this? Or should they pay up and are expected to? Or should I just say nothing in awkward silence when she brings it up?
Carolyn Hax: No, parents aren't obligated to pay for their children's weddings, but to promise money and then not produce it really does suck--and it doesn't suck any less just because she's a bride looking for wedding-cost relief and not a grad student looking for, say, promised reimbursement of living expenses. She spent the money based on the understanding that she had it to spend.
But no matter how justified your friend's frustration may be, whining is never justified. They promised, but they didn't come through. Time to quit and move on already. Which you can say, by the way.
Carolyn Hax: It'll be another minute--more apologies.
He's Just Not That Into You?, AK!: A friend just got the weirdest dump I've heard -- after two months of terrific mutually electric dates, her guy claimed that it was "too good, too perfect" and that he just didn't have the time for a perfect relationship, and broke it off What the Hell? It seems to me, you make time for a perfect relationship. Would you concur that this is likely just an especially aggressive form of "it's not you, it's me"?
Carolyn Hax: Whatever it is, it's something that would have sent the terrific train off the rails sooner or later, and so sooner sounds like a gift to me.
Post-divorce friendship: Can you give any advice on maintaining a friendship with your ex after the divorce? We had an amicable parting, very healthy with a therapist and everything. We've stayed friends and see each other occasionally. But lately I feel that the friendship is very one-sided (as the marriage was) and I don't really know if I want to keep at it, feeling that the support and interest only goes one way. But I value him as a person, and don't want to write him off just because he's not meeting my needs. We said we'd stay friends --but I just don't know if it's possible. Any thoughts?
Carolyn Hax: Seems to me maintaining a post-divorce friendship--or pre-divorce marriage, or friendship for the sake of friendship, or family tie of any sort--relies heavily on your accepting the other person as-is (i.e., not as you want or hope or always imagined him to be), and then deciding honestly what you want of the relationship given its natural limits.
So, you have a guy with whom you will always have to do most of the work. Assume that won't change, and then decide: Do you want this friendship? If the answer is no, then say no, and even say why. And then, in lieu of beating yourself up for breaking another promise, just remind yourself you did your best.
Washington, D.C.: I recently had a miscarriage. I suspected something was wrong, but did not expect it at all. The doctor was very objective, but kind. People around me feel bad for me, but I think that I am not feeling "bad enough" for all the attention I am getting. I wonder whether I am just not "dealing with the pain" the way I should and that it will come back to haunt me later.
Carolyn Hax: This is a lot like the grieving question we had earlier this spring. There's no right or wrong way to grieve. Just as some women feel they know their baby from zygotehood on, others feel like it's just a remote concept that happens to make them crave fettuccini Alfredo, and both are considered normal. It is just as normal for the response to a miscarriage to have the same kind of range. There's also the matter of how well informed you are of the possibility of miscarriage (it's very common), along with the usual suspects--maternal age, time spent trying, one's normal response to stress, all that.
And, all that said, I'm sorry. Hard thing no matter how well you weather it.
For Post-divorce friendship: If there are minor (or major!) kids involved, suck it up.
If there aren't, stop doing all the work. Your doing it prevents him from doing any of it. His pace may be slower than yours -- time to stop and find out.
Carolyn Hax: Great point about the kids, thanks. I just assumed since none were mentioned that there were none involved, which was not a safe assumption.
Re: too good, too perfect: Dealing with perfection is awfully demanding sometimes...And if the guy has other demands (a high powered job,ill parents who need his care, whatever), it may seem too high to achieve.
Carolyn Hax: Ehhhhh, not buying it. A "too perfect" relationship is one that bends and adapts almost effortlessly to accommodate whatever life throws at it, like high-powered jobs and ill parents. The "perfection" you're talking about is the high-maintenance roses-and-chocolate BS.
Washington, D.C.: After being great friends for almost 10 years, I realize I've fallen for said friend. We are both single and I ended a relationship a few months ago when I knew I wanted to be with the friend. He is with someone, but it's on-again, off-again, and currently off. As friends, he's told me plenty of times that he knows he should end it and move on. That is EXACTLY what I want him to do!! Do I let him figure it out on his own, or let him know how I feel and hope he feels the same.
I almost feel like rejection would even be better than this quiet torture. And I'm sick of waiting.
Carolyn Hax: Then say something. I could argue both sides--one, that you want it to be his idea to want you, or the other, that quietly pining isn't the way great friends of 10 years interact. But doing what comes naturally is the best thing for both of you, even if it ultimately doesn't work out. At least then you'll know you gave it your best shot.
Washington, D.C.: For some reason, every time my boyfriend and I have a misunderstanding, I blow it out of proportion and feel weak about our relationship and whether it can survive. He keeps saying I should believe that a miscommunication won't make him love me less, or leave me... but for some reason I just can't. Do you or the peanuts have any advice?
Carolyn Hax: Actually, I think you're right--you can't believe that miscommunication won't make him love you less or leave you. Miscommunication is one of the main reasons love fades and people leave each other. As it should be.
There is a cheerful part coming, I promise.
What you need to stop freaking out about is the prospect of a breakup. You guys might break up--in fact, given that all relationships end (breakup or death, pick one) (and yes this is the cheerful part), you probably will have to find a way to let go of this person sooner or later. When we're happy with someone, we all hope it's later, obviously--but we all still have to accept that nothing is certain or guaranteed. And the only way for each of us to do that is to have some faith in our own ability to carry on, and even find happiness, no matter what gets thrown our way.
So that's your homework this weekend. Find a way to see yourself as a resourceful person who has options beyond the boyfriend.
Washington, D.C.: Are there medications that help to increase a woman's sex drive? This seems to be a problem for me and nearly all my married guy friends: Wife eventually loses interest in sex, won't or can't communicate what the problem is, and guy is doomed to a life a celibacy.
Carolyn Hax: I am NOT ANTI-HUSBAND, but, I have to ask.
Do you and nearly all your married guy friends:
-By her definition, not yours? Without having to be asked?
-Communicate to your wives what the problem is for you?
-Talk to your wives about other things you might be feeling, that aren't just complaints about her or other items of business about marriage, family and/or home?
-On random occasions, treat your wives like the women you fell for and not just the women you married?
The way to a woman's libido is through her mind and heart, which is why the pill people are having such a tough time creating the pink version of Viagra.
Like I sez, I'm not anti-husband, and I have seen plenty of women just shut down on their poor husbands. Nevertheless, an angry wife is still the most common cause I know of a celibate husband (though I continue to hope this is changing as gender roles die their slow and tortured death), so doing the dishes is always a better bet than hitting the pharmacy.
Maryland: A different kind of post-divorce question. My first marriage lasted less than 2 years and involved no children. I just got remarried this year. I am doing some spring cleaning and have found a box of stuff that is from my first marriage. Pictures of the first wedding, anniversary cards, notes, etc. My instinct is to throw this stuff away, but I feel a bit guilty about it. I am not sure why. Thoughts?
Carolyn Hax: I dunno, maybe the box of stuff represents feelings that are in the past but still mean something, and so chucking them doesn't seem appropriate.
At least, not yet. There's nothing that says you have to chuck the box, or decide to hold onto it for all eternity, right this very second. Leave it where it is and see if a better idea comes to you. Maybe sort through it, pull out some of the greatest hits to put in an album or smaller box.
Norfolk, Va.: Carolyn - "Too perfect" is code for, "You're a great girl, I just don't want to be involved with you." Nothing more complicated than that, really.
Carolyn Hax: Which is fine, but code is code for, "I'm not grown-up enough to say what I mean," which is code for, "this relationship wasn't going anywhere," which brings us back to my original answer.
Sex drive: Can you stand a comment from a 50-something woman with a gorgeous, funny, smart, kind husband who DOES treat her like the woman he fell in love with...but who still has trouble with sex drive? Trust me on this, women go weak at the knees at my guy and he's got the personality to match his attractiveness, and I'm not stressed or angry feeling unappreciated. We have no kids, good but unstressful jobs, a nice home, friends, are both in great physical shape. I just don't feel what I did. And I do think it's a chemical thing that comes with nearing menopause, and some women start peri-menopause in their late 30's, early 40's. I'm ready to give the pharmaceutical companies a big high five if they come up with something to help me.
Carolyn Hax: Comment welcome and appreciated, thanks. And I'll add that women who've just had babies, or take the pill, or are depressed, and a few others I'll blow off for speed, also may have chemical libido-killers they can blame.
That's why it's so important to look at the amount of effort going in, by both halves of a couple, before anyone starts pointing fingers or getting angry or even discouraged. You, for example, clearly see this as a problem that you just as clearly want to fix. Often one partner or the other either refuses to try to fix things, or doesn't even see the problem, or is too busy accusing to examine his or her own behavior.
Pregnant friend and I spoke. She told me the name decided on for the baby (sex was already determined). Baby was born. I sent a gift and mentioned the baby's name on the card. I did not know that between my last talk with my friend and the sending of the gift that the parent's changed their minds re: baby's name. No birth announcements were sent out. When parents called to thank me for the gift, they also told me of my mistake on the card and said they knew I didn't know of the name change so not to feel embarrassed. Well, I still feel embarrassed. Should I let this go or send a new card?
Carolyn Hax: Oh my goodness. Not only let this go, but also check your closets for other things you're hanging onto.
Virginia: Oh, please, Carolyn. If you are honest and don't use code, then women flip out and accuse you of being a woman-hater, or an immature child who won't commit, or whatever. Code just is much easier.
Carolyn Hax: No, dating grown women is easier.
If I have plans with my significant other for this weekend, but she hasn't spoken to me in a week due to a prior disagreement, should I not even bother to pursue contact after two times? I can see this becoming an issue down the road if we do work things out: "And on top of everything, you didn't even follow up with me regarding this weekend." But at the same time, I'm would want to simply assume she isn't interested in hanging out when there is a severe lack of communication right now hence the ball is in her court.
Carolyn Hax: Surest way to prevent this from becoming an issue down the road: Do not work things out. The silent treatment is not, and is never, and never will be, an acceptable way to handle a disagreement. You may have been responsible for the initial problem, but from there she took over and declared herself not yet ready to be dated seriously. Oh well. Leave a message for her to say you're assuming the weekend plans are off, and that when she's ready to talk beyond that, she knows where to find you.
The Pill?!!!: The Pill can cause "libido" issues? Seriously?
I had to go on it for medical reasons shortly after I started dating my husband. Sex was a novelty for me before that, so I assumed that I just naturally had the sex drive of your average house plant. I had never been on it before. Now that I have a child, I've gone back on it, and the sex drive has gone pfffft again.
The doc says it could be depression, but I'm not depressed - everything's great - but you mentioned the pill. Not that I can do much about it, but at least I have a reason to look for now.
Carolyn Hax: Don't take my word for it. Ask your doctor about the possibilities and whether a different brand/dosage might help. Remember, though, the pill changes your hormone balance, so mood and libido and weight and etc. changes are always going to be a possibility.
My boyfriend and I recently got engaged and I'm freaking out. Before he actually asked me with ring in hand, we had talked about how much we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together and that hasn't changed. The problem is that every time I think of the actual M-word I get panicky. I'm in my 30's and have spent many years on my own so its not really any need to go out and find my place in the world. Is this normal? How do I calm myself down?
Carolyn Hax: Not knowing what it is that has you freaked, I can't say what might calm you down. But I can give you the same answer I gave the divorced memento-chucker-to-be: You don't have to get married right this second, nor do you have to decide to give the ring back. Just live with the idea for a while. It'll help, too, if you can turn the volume down on the voices in your head, both the ones that will try to rationalize why everything is okay, and the ones telling you that something serious is wrong. It's okay just to let the idea sit. It's okay just to let the idea sit.
Arlington, Va.: My boyfriend is taking a week of vacation to go to Pennsylvania and build my parents a $12,000 deck for free. What can I do for him that's equally as generous and thoughtful?
Carolyn Hax: Appreciate that he's taking a week of his own time to do something nice for you. Just keeping that in mind will bear its own fruit.
Besides, the alternative is to try to match his effort, which is really just a happier version of score keeping, which is never really a happy thing. Just see who he is, and love him for it.
I'm literally ill that because of my husband's job, I have to quit my job and move out of state. How can I preserve my sense of worth when, at 30, I'll have no job, no friends, no contacts, no activities, etc. I know I'll get all those eventually, but what about the first few months?
Carolyn Hax: Your sense of worth is not in your job, friends, contacts, activities, etc. It's in knowing you gathered up your strengths and weaknesses and went out there and found a job, friends, contacts, activities, etc. It's not fun to have to go out and do all that again from scratch, and there may be X factors that keep you from putting together as good a lineup as you did in DC, but you're the same person who did it the first time, so you'll manage.
Washington, D.C.: Hi, I am in a relationship, 3 years, - and for the first year my boyfriend cheated (with several people), I found out a year later - and now its a year after that ....so we have been to couples therapy, and he's not doing it now, nor for the past 2 years - what are your thoughts on that? Also - he was in a relationship with another girl before me, for 10 years, and he cheated on her for 10 years. We are both 30. can someone like that no longer be a cheater?
Carolyn Hax: There are other signs he is a person of quality, or not a person of quality, that have nothing to do with cheating--and are therefore right out in the open for you to see. See them. That's your answer.
Carolyn Hax: Gotta go. Thanks everyone, and type to you next week.
"Helping Around the House": Not to nitpick at semantics, but I think this is part of the problem, that a lot of guys think they're "helping" around the house instead of being equal partners. Which puts the wife in the position of being the the nag or mother, or at least bossy, and no one feels sexy when they're forced into that role.
Carolyn Hax: Point taken. "Pull your weight at home" okay?
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate. | 129.243902 | 0.536585 | 0.731707 | high | low | abstractive | 4,864 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601608.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601608.html | Flu Vaccine Passes Exam | 2033-07-15T17:38:39 | MedImmune Inc. finally announced good news yesterday about its disappointing nasal flu vaccine FluMist: A new formulation works just as well when stored in a refrigerator as the old version does when it is frozen.
The Gaithersburg company had been testing a liquid, rather than frozen, form of the flu vaccine in efforts to win federal approval for a new version of the vaccine for the 2007-08 flu season.
Storing the vaccine in a freezer has been a major impediment to widespread adoption of the novel intranasal vaccine. Standard flu shots are kept in refrigerators, and many doctors' offices either don't have freezers or don't want the hassle of storing vaccines different ways.
Although MedImmune officials said they were pleased with the new study, they are eagerly awaiting results, expected later this year, on tests using the refrigerated version on children 6 months to 5 years old, a potentially lucrative market where FluMist might have an edge over painful injections.
FluMist is currently approved only for healthy patients 5 to 49.
Edward M. Connor, MedImmune's executive vice president and chief medical officer, said the goal ultimately is to prove that FluMist is superior to a flu shot. MedImmune officials have previously said that would be a major factor in deciding whether to continue selling the vaccine.
The company launched FluMist for the 2003-04 flu season with a $25 million ad campaign, charging more than double the price of a flu shot, but FluMist never caught on with consumers. The company sold fewer than 500,000 of 4 million doses.
MedImmune planned to produce only 1 million to 2 million doses for this past flu season, and it cut the wholesale price from $46 to $23.50 a dose. But in October, Chiron Corp. announced that it could ship less than half of the U.S. flu shots needed because of manufacturing problems in England.
Federal health officials scrambled to find more vaccine, advising healthy people to avoid the flu shot and encouraging them to use FluMist. The company wound up selling about 2 million doses. | MedImmune Inc. finally announced good news yesterday about its disappointing nasal flu vaccine FluMist: A new formulation works just as well when stored in a refrigerator as the old version does when it is frozen. | 10.540541 | 1 | 37 | low | high | extractive | 4,865 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601434.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601434.html | FDA Approves New Antibiotic for Resistant Bacteria | 2033-07-15T17:38:39 | The Food and Drug Administration approved a new treatment yesterday for hospital patients with serious bacterial infections, including those resistant to most other antibiotics.
The new drug, called Tygacil, is from the first new class of antibiotics to be marketed in several years. The manufacturer, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, said the intravenous drug will be used as a first-line treatment for stomach and skin infections and is effective against enough different bacteria to be used before doctors know which ones are causing the infection.
"Community and hospital-acquired infections have the real potential to become a major public health crisis," said Evan Loh, a Wyeth vice president. "The need for more antibiotics is acute."
The announcement was welcomed by doctors, especially those who are regularly confronted with bacterial infections that are resistant to existing antibiotics.
"It's very difficult to know how to treat and manage badly infected patients today," said Scott R. Schell, a professor of surgery at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey. "For the worst infections and sickest patients there are few options, so any new treatment is very appreciated."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that every year 2 million Americans acquire infections while in hospitals, and 90,000 die. About 70 percent of the hospital infections are resistant to at least one class of antibiotics.
The new drug is from a class of medicines called glycylcyclines, which is related to the tetracycline class. The two are different enough, however, that Tygacil can be used to treat infections that are resistant to tetracycline, said Janice Soreth, director of the FDA's division of anti-infective drugs.
Soreth also said the approval marked an important advance because "it's another option, another choice out there, and there are a limited number of options."
Developing new antibiotics is time-consuming and expensive, and drug companies have been slow to come up with new types in recent years. Wyeth officials said yesterday that the molecule that became Tygacil was first synthesized in 1992, and clinical development began in 1997.
"Few broad-spectrum antibiotic agents are currently in development," the company said in a statement. "Antibiotic development has slowed to the point that FDA has had few opportunities to approve new agents. In fact, development and approvals of new antibacterial agents have decreased by 56 percent over the past 20 years."
Although new antibiotics have been few and far between, the use of existing drugs has grown markedly in both human medicine and to treat and promote the growth of farm animals. Because bacteria will eventually grow resistant to any antibiotic they encounter frequently, the pool of resistant bacteria is expanding fast.
Schell, who spoke on a Wyeth teleconference but said he had no relationship to the company, said Tygacil is especially welcome because it can defeat a number of broadly resistant bacteria such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus , and because it is effective against a wide range of bugs, including E. coli .
"It's important to get the right antibiotic because if you don't choose right the first time, the patient does poorly," he said. It can take one to two days of laboratory work to determine exactly what bacteria is causing an infection.
The company said it is exploring other uses for the drug, including fighting pneumonia and some pediatric infections. | The Food and Drug Administration approved a new treatment yesterday for hospital patients with serious bacterial infections, including those resistant to most other antibiotics. | 24.807692 | 1 | 26 | medium | high | extractive | 4,866 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601569.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601569.html | Tensions Rise in House Over Security Issues | 2033-07-15T17:38:39 | A conservative, a moderate, a liberal and a libertarian teamed up in the House yesterday to prod President Bush to set a timetable to withdraw from Iraq, striking a rare tone of unity on a day when tensions about national security provoked marathon brawling on the floor.
The resolution was sponsored by Reps. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.), Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Ron Paul (R-Tex.). It calls for Bush to begin drawing down troops in Iraq by Oct. 1, 2006, but does not set a date for complete withdrawal.
Jones -- a congressman's son who voted for the war, sits on the Armed Services Committee and represents the huge Marine base at Camp Lejeune -- said he believes that in the long run, his constituents "will think that we as a nation have a responsibility to take a fresh look" at goals for Iraq. "I think Mr. Bush could really declare victory in the next six months if he wanted to," he said.
Abercrombie said he sees a parallel to Vietnam in that "military action is becoming its own political policy," and said the "Homeward Bound" legislation was written to avoid blame and generate bipartisan support.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) tried to introduce an amendment to a military spending bill that would have given the president 30 days to show Congress criteria for determining when U.S. forces could withdraw from Iraq -- but GOP leaders blocked it, saying such additions are not allowed to appropriations bills.
One of the most contentious security issues is on the domestic front, the president's call for Congress to renew 15 provisions of the USA Patriot Act that are set to expire at the end of the year. A hearing on the Patriot Act last Friday ended in turmoil when Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.) became irritated by a stream of criticism of the administration and gaveled the session to an end.
Sensenbrenner, under heavy criticism from Democrats, acknowledged during a 16-minute defense on the floor starting at 9:10 p.m. that he had "adjourned the hearing in a manner inconsistent with the spirit of comity that has and should continue to inform committee deliberations." But he said he had "exercised great patience" in the hearing. Turning to the Democratic side, he said,"I will not be deterred by malicious attacks or minority obstructionism."
"This grossly unfair and distorted depiction of my conduct demands correction," he said. Republicans leapt to their feet and showered Sensenbrenner with applause and cheers of "Hoaaaa!"
Sensenbrenner was responding to a resolution of disapproval proposed by a committee Democrat, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.). The panel's ranking Democrat, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), said he was stunned during the hearing by Sensenbrenner's "hostility" toward lawmakers and witnesses. "I've never, ever experienced a witness being stopped dead in mid-sentence," said Conyers, a 40-year congressman.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) sat across the aisle from Sensenbrenner as he spoke and later issued a statement calling Sensenbrenner "well respected" and saying that his work on the Patriot Act has been "conducted in a fair, bipartisan, and comprehensive manner." Republicans killed Nadler's resolution.
Earlier, Republican leaders set up a fight with Bush with serious international implications by opening debate on a bill that would demand new accountability and compliance from the United Nations and could lead to the United States withholding half its dues. The White House issued a stern warning that the bill "could detract from and undermine our efforts" to change the world body and could "impermissibly infringe on the president's authority under the Constitution to conduct the nation's foreign affairs."
But Republicans said they would go ahead, and expected the bill to pass today. House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (Ill.), who is making the bill one of his last causes before retiring at the end of next year, said that the United Nations' failings had grown. "We are opposed to legendary bureaucratization, to political grandstanding, to billions of dollars spent on multitudes of programs with meager results," he said.
Rep. Tom Lantos (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the committee, said the bill set up arbitrary mechanisms. "The Lord gave us Ten Commandments, but the bill before the House today gives us 39," he said.
Also yesterday, the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations slashed a White House foreign-aid request, recommending $1.75 billion instead of the $3 billion Bush had sought for the Millennium Challenge Account for developing countries. House Republicans pointed out that it was still an increase in a tight budget year, and that the administration had not spent money previously allotted. | Latest politics news headlines from Washington DC. Follow 2004 elections, campaigns, Democrats, Republicans, political cartoons, opinions from The Washington Post. Features government policy, government tech, political analysis and reports. | 23.948718 | 0.487179 | 0.641026 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,867 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601710.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601710.html | Vietnam, U.S. to Improve Intelligence, Military Ties | 2033-07-15T17:38:39 | HANOI, June 16 -- Once enemies in battle, Vietnam and the United States will cooperate in the exchange of intelligence on terrorism and transnational crime, and Vietnam will send military officers for training in the United States, Prime Minister Phan Van Khai said Thursday on the eve of the first U.S. trip by a top Vietnamese Communist leader.
The intelligence and military cooperation agreements will be announced when Khai visits next week, marking the highest-level visit to the United States since the Communists won the war in 1975. He will meet with President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday.
The move to forge solid military ties between Vietnam and the United States shows how far the relationship has advanced in the 10 years since President Bill Clinton established formal diplomatic relations. The trip will be a milestone, analysts said, a signal that a mature relationship based on mutual interests in security and trade is beginning to take shape.
"During the war, Vietnam and the United States were opponents," Khai said during a 75-minute interview at his office in the capital, which is within walking distance of the mausoleum holding the embalmed body of Ho Chi Minh, the independence leader and North Vietnamese president during the war. "Now that 30 years have elapsed since the end of the war, it is our policy to put aside the past and look to the future and a better relationship between the two countries."
Khai, an economic modernizer, will meet Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft Corp., and ring the bell on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. He will also face questions about Vietnam's human rights record. Congressional leaders and leaders in the Vietnamese American community are pressing Vietnam to allow greater religious and political freedom.
One of Khai's goals is to persuade Bush to declare his support for Vietnam's accession to the World Trade Organization, which would allow Vietnam to compete on more even footing in a region nervously eyeing China's growing economic power.
Khai's trip is part of a wider effort by Vietnam to establish stronger relations globally, and analysts say the trip's success is crucial if economic reforms are to continue to flourish.
Khai also said he wanted to reach out to the sizable Vietnamese American community, saying, "They are an integral part of our nation and a very important resource for our country."
"Some stood on that side, some on the other side, even in one family" during the war, Khai said. "A lot of suffering has been put on the Vietnamese people. That's why we would like to put behind us the past and look forward to the future."
Khai, 71, was a member of Vietnam's revolutionary youth group in 1947, served as a government planner during the Vietnam War and was chosen prime minister by the country's Communist-governed National Assembly in 1997.
He said the intelligence agreement with the United States would extend to money-laundering and would entail the creation of positions to handle intelligence-sharing in the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi as well as in the Vietnamese Embassy in Washington.
"Terrorism has become a global threat," Khai said. "To eliminate terrorism . . . and to prevent it from causing catastrophic consequences to innocent people has become a pressing issue that requires joint efforts and cooperation of different countries. Vietnam is not an exception regarding this threat." | Once enemies in battle, the two nations will cooperate in the exchange of intelligence on terrorism, crime and military training efforts. | 23.392857 | 0.785714 | 4.214286 | medium | medium | mixed | 4,868 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601165.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601165.html | Redskins Set Up for Final Minicamp | 2033-07-15T17:38:39 | On the eve of Washington Redskins minicamp, Coach Joe Gibbs said yesterday that his three-day session will be similar to the voluntary workouts regularly held during the offseason.
"There won't be a lot of difference between the work," Gibbs said. "Basically what we're doing, we're adding a lot [of plays]. I think we're at the point now where it's overload, defensively and offensively."
The minicamp, which will run today through Sunday, officially concludes the Redskins' offseason. Afterward, the bulk of the team will be off until July 31, when players are due back for training camp (though some informal rookie workouts will take place next week).
"It gives you a real good feeling for how quick a guy can pick up stuff," Gibbs said of the minicamp, the first -- and only -- time this offseason that the full complement of players is required at Redskins Park. Nonetheless, with the notable exception of safety Sean Taylor, attendance had been high.
Yesterday, the Redskins took their final organized team activity (commonly known as OTAs) after being stripped of three workouts for violating rules governing the intensity of the sessions.
"It's probably the best attended offseason program I've been a part of," Gibbs said. "Because of that, hopefully when we get back in camp we'll be ready to roll."
Besides Taylor, minicamp will be without wide receiver Rod Gardner, whom the team is expected to release or trade. Linebacker LaVar Arrington and defensive lineman Brandon Noble won't participate because they are rehabilitating knee injuries. Tight end Chris Cooley (hamstring) also may be forced to sit.
The status of linebacker Mike Barrow -- who didn't play last season because of acute tendinitis in his knee -- remains uncertain. Barrow has returned from Arizona, where he was rebuilding strength in his knee with specialists. The linebacker will meet with the Redskins' training staff with hopes of being cleared to resume workouts with the team, Gibbs said.
Redskins Notes: The Redskins signed their sixth-round pick, Jared Newberry. Newberry became the first member of the team's current draft class of six picks to sign. Terms were not disclosed. Newberry, who played mainly strongside linebacker at Stanford, is among several players competing to replace Antonio Pierce at middle linebacker. The Redskins also signed free agent offensive linemen Tyler Lenda and Tam Hopkins, both of whom completed stints in NFL Europe. . . .
The Redskins released offensive lineman Dominique Richardson. . . . The team worked out cornerback Artrell Hawkins, defensive lineman Aaris "Tank" Johnson, wide receiver Tony Johnson and defensive back Jason Shivers. . . .
Mike Grieco, a Miami-Dade prosecutor, has been named to handle the Taylor legal case. The safety faces two felony charges of aggravated assault with a firearm and simple battery.
In 2002, Grieco prosecuted felony charges against former NFL wide receiver Brian Blades for resisting arrest and assaulting an off-duty police officer after a brawl in a South Beach bar. Although Grieco reportedly wanted Blades to serve at least four months, he accepted a plea to avoid jail time. Last year, Grieco also handled a case with similar charges involving Antrel Rolle, Taylor's former Miami Hurricanes teammate. But Grieco dropped the charges against Rolle, drafted eighth in the 2005 draft by the Arizona Cardinals. . . .
Trent Baalke -- the Redskins scout who oversaw Taylor's background check -- has left the team to join the San Francisco 49ers in the same capacity, according to two club sources, although they didn't believe the change was related to Taylor. | Info on Washington Redskins including the 2004 NFL Preview. Get the latest game schedule and statistics for the Redskins. Follow the Washington Redskins under the direction of Coach Joe Gibbs. | 20.257143 | 0.628571 | 0.971429 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,869 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/17/DI2005061700926.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/17/DI2005061700926.html | Memoir: Senator Robert Byrd | 2033-07-15T17:38:39 | Washington Post Deputy National Editor for Congress Eric Pianin was online Monday, June 20, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss Senator Byrd 's memoirs.
Read more: A Senator's Shame.
Anonymous: I will never forget Senator Byrd's appearance on Larry King Live in February of 2003. It was a monumental appearance to dissuade the country from invading Iraq.
As we have seen, Senator Byrd's wisdom has been proven over tenfold. This White House should be impeached.
Please thank Senator Byrd for his courageous career.
Eric Pianin: You are right that Sen. Byrd offered the clearest and strongest arguments against entry into the war against Iraq and remains one of the Senate's most articulate critics of U.S. military intervention.
There is a well sourced quote of Senator Byrd's in 1952 where he said he had not "been interested" in the Klan or "nine years" which would be 1943.
So why is he lying about that when he clearly wrote Samuel Green in 1946, according to Byrd's story up till now?
In 1947 he then writes a letter calling African Americans "mud people" and other epitaphs, and then goes on about how he would never serve along side a Negro, etc.
Why is Byrd getting a free pass on this when it is so obvious that Byrd has been more than "interested", and in reality been very active?
He can't possibly be trying to say now that the Green letter was written in 1941? He wasn't even Imperial Wizard yet. So there are two letters now, or Byrd is now lying about the year of the Green letter and pushing it back to 1941 from 1946.
Also, Byrd has tried to say he was in the Klan for only a "few months", but it is clear from another 1941 letter to Green and Byrd saying he left the Klan in 1943 makes 2 years not 2 months.
Thank you very much and please follow up with Byrd on his huge timeline gaffs.
Eric Pianin: I think you are right that Sen. Byrd's new book offers a very truncated and incomplete description of the extent of his involvement in the Klan during the 1940's. I think that in writing his memoir, the senator is eager to secure his place in history as a champion of West Virginia and a leader on the national stage -- and doesn't want to belabor a sorry chapter in his life. But as he explained to me last week, he didn't intend for the book to provide "finite details" of his role as a Klan organizer, but to show young readers that there are serious consequences to one's choices in life.
Charleston, W.V.: What about the whole Samuel Green letter discrepancy? Didn't you find that interesting?
Eric Pianin: I did find that interesting, especially because that discrepancy became such a big issue in Byrd's first campaign for the U.S. House in 1952. Once the truth came out, many of Byrd's Democratic supporters urged him to drop out of the race. He refused and prevailed in the general election.
Harrisonburg, Va.: I'm curious whether The Post was getting pressure from the right wing to do a story on Byrd's ancient past. I think the book gave you a perfectly legitimate opening to discuss his KKK membership, but I also wonder whether you were looking for a hook to address the question. (My view is that, reprehensible as his membership was, it happened 60 years ago and Byrd -- to his enormous credit -- has evolved greatly as a human being.)
Eric Pianin: That's an interesting question. But the truth is, we didn't get any pressure from the right (or any other quarter) to do a story about Sen. Byrd's long-ago involvement in the Klan. I simply felt it was a terribly interesting and important issue that has dogged Byrd throughout his career -- even this year, when he fought the Republicans over the question of filibustering judicial nominations. Over the past 30 years or so, The Post has made passing reference to Byrd's Klan past but never explored it in any detail. I thought now would be a good time to do that, with publication of his book.
Washington, D.C.: He seems an incredible windbag. Would he prefer that all federal agencies relocate to West Virginia? (If you say no, you don't know the Byrd man). Mandatory retirement, please, in the U.S. Senate.
Eric Pianin: There is a wonderful political cartoon reproduced in his book showing Byrd being interrogated by two cops with a light dangling overhead, and the caption reads: "Senator, we just want to know where you took the Lincoln Memorial and Senate Office Building." There's no question that Byrd was highly successful in moving federal offices and jobs to economically depressed cities and towns in West Virginia.
Anonymous: Is this supposed to be a bash Byrd chat? Did he or did he NOT renounce his youth indiscretions? At least youthful for him was youthful and not 50 years old as Henry Hyde's youthful indiscretion.
Eric Pianin: He did renounce his involvement with the Klan -- and has done it over and over throughout his career. And I agree with you, he has had a remarkable career, spanning 10 presidencies. And perhaps the most remarkable thing is that he overcame his past to twice win election as Senate majority leader, in a party that was dominated by such liberal voices as Hubert Humphrey and Edward M. Kennedy.
Staunton, Va.: Yes, but don't you think by leaving out this rather large contradiction that we are not helping those same young people? Are we not contributing to a mythology if we don't show Byrd warts and all?
Eric Pianin: I agree with you, which is why we did the story.
Arlington, Va.: If anything, Byrd is an example of how one doesn't have to face the consequences of one's actions. He still has not faced up to his active involvement in the Klan, including the "race mongrels" memo. He can keep saying he's owned up to his past, but that doesn't make it true.
Eric Pianin: Thanks for your observation.
Front Royal, Va.: Having grown up in West Virginia, I know how much Sen. Byrd is admired. His past has little influence on the voters. I have a comment and a question. The article stated 55 counties separated from Virginia. This is not true. Some counties were formed after statehood. Check out the names Grant and Lincoln. Did you deliberately schedule this discussion on West Virginia Day?
Eric Pianin: We scheduled publication of the article to coincide with the formal publication of his book.
Charleston, W.V.: You did a great job at unearthing so much data from Byrd's past. And what Byrd did in the past is done, bad as it was when it came to the filibustering of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If you haven't read any of his speeches from that filibuster, I encourage you to look at them sometime. He sounds quite like an unreconstructed rebel.
My question is: Isn't this latest book of Byrd's at least something of a cover up of his racist past? I know that the book covers far more than the race question, but it's HE who is bringing it up on his own free will. It seems as though we're definitely getting more spin than truth out of the Senator on the race issue.
Eric Pianin: It's true that the book is very selective in its recitation of his career, and there are many gaps in his description of his motives and tactics. For example, he gives a very cursory discussion of his opposition to the landmark 1964 civil rights legislation, saying only that he opposed it on constitutional grounds and giving no flavor of his involvement in the southern filibuster of the legislation. Today, he says he regrets having done that, but the reader learns very little about his role from his book. Not surprisingly, he greatly downplays his Klan role as an issue, although he came up time and time again throughout his career.
Centerville, Va.: Why didn't you explore the use of the filibuster - a recent hot topic in the Senate - by Byrd and other to thwart and delay civil rights legislation?
Eric Pianin: That's an important topic, but wasn't the focus of the story, and thus got only a passing mention.
Lexington, Va.: I think I understand, now, Mr. Pianin, your mention that Byrd's story is one of transformation and redemption. When I read that, it came across as your opinion. But really, it's just what happened to him. He was transformed into a Senate leader, having been a redneck Senator previously .But that doesn't mean he had any kind of real inner transformation. He was "redeemed" by the public, by the media, by others...but we don't really know what's in his heart. Actions speak louder than words, and he still hasn't shown much to African-Americans other than contempt at each opportunity he's had along the way.
Eric Pianin: I was intrigued by the comments in the story by James Tolbert, the long-time president of the West Virginia chapter of the NAACP. Over the years, Tolbert has clashed with Byrd, and he clearly disapproved of much of Byrd's early record in the the House and Senate. But he believes that Byrd has transcended his past by gradually embracing more enlightened social views and by simply owning up to his past mistakes. But I think some blacks and liberal Democrats in West Virginia are also concerned about the Republican resurgence in the state, and the possibility that Byrd eventually could be replaced by a far more conservative politician.
Red Bank, N.J.: While it Sen. Byrd's Klan membership was a horrible thing and a viable political issue in 1952, I don't think you can hold someone in contempt for something they've did over 50 years ago. Even if he did write the letter in 1946,we're coming up on 60 yrs since then, and he has apologized. This whole things seems to me like an effort by some who are politically opposed to him trying to score political points.
Eric Pianin: He acknowledges that he can't erase his past, and felt obliged to address his Klan membership in some detail. But I agree with a number of other readers who have submitted questions that Byrd would have been better off providing a more detailed and complete record of what he did throughout the 1940's, to avoid the criticism that he was covering up part of the record. But again, he was trying to write a book that highlights what he views as his major contributions to West Virginia and the nation, and was not inclined to provide a lot of introspective insights into what motivated him as a young man.
Bethesda, Md.: Doesn't Senator Byrd's long Senate career give justification to mandatory term limits for Senators (say 2 six year terms at the most)?
Eric Pianin: That is a hard point to argue for members of an institution where seniority counts for almost everything.
Washington, D.C.: It appears to me that judging Senator Byrd for his long-ago membership in the Ku Klux Klan is applying present-day notions to the past. As the article makes clear, the Klan of the 1940's and 1950's was made up of the elite - doctors, lawyers, etc. Not the bottom-feeders that make up today's tiny, pathetic "KKK". I think the article failed to explain just how mainstream the Klan really was back then. I think I've read that in the 1920's and 1930's, the Klan had up to 5 million members.
Senator Byrd "saw the light" and left behind the Klan, as did nearly everyone else, including all the doctors, lawyers, etc., who had stood by his side in silly white sheets. Why should he be judged harshly for joining something that was not out of the ordinary at that time? Present-day morality is not retroactive.
Eric Pianin: You're right that the Klan enjoyed substantial popularity and exercised considerable political clout during the 1920's and 1930's -- not only in the Deep South, but in the Midwest and in some northern states as well. Not unlike Byrd, Hugo Black used his Klan membership as a launch pad for his political career, when he first ran for the Senate. But the fact that many prominent people belonged to the Klan -- with its long history of intolerance and violence -- hardly was a justification for it -- then or now.
Arlington, Va.: Submitting early: Please, give it a rest! Senator Byrd has apologized innumerable times for his Klan involvement. His actions speak louder than words. He has done wonders for his state. A far more important story is why haven't Southern Senators Alexander, Cochran, Sessions, Lott, Shelby, Chambliss, Cornyn and Hutchison explained themselves for NOT signing the lynching resolution? Why do they feel beholden to the white racists in the 21st century? Their actions are far more relevant today than what Senator Byrd did over sixty years ago.
Eric Pianin: That's an interesting point.
Eric Pianin: Thank you all for your provocative comments and questions. I'm very impressed with the response. I'm only sorry I couldn't answer them all -- Eric
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate. | 64.682927 | 0.536585 | 0.682927 | high | low | abstractive | 4,870 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061500780.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061500780.html | Alexandria to Tax Cell Phones as Other Revenue Drops | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | Using a cell phone is Alexandria is about to become more expensive -- $3 a month more expensive.
The City Council approved a new tax on cell phones as part of the fiscal 2006 budget. It will help make up some of the money that the city will lose after the real estate tax rate was lowered in order to provide relief to homeowners. Residents will see the new charge on their cell phone bills starting in September.
The tax will bring in an estimated $1.7 million in fiscal 2006, city officials said, about one-third of 1 percent of the city's $468 million budget. Residents will pay $3 a month on cell phone bills of more than $30, while those on lower-cost plans will be charged 10 percent of their monthly bill.
Other measures passed to offset the real estate tax cut include a 20-cent increase in cigarette sales tax and a new entertainment surcharge on items such as movie tickets.
Taxing the growing number of cell phone users should help offset the losses created by a reduction in the real estate tax rate, Mayor William D. Euille (D) said.
"I was just sitting in my car at the intersection. I looked around at 15 or 20 other cars, and everybody had a cell phone," said Euille, who estimates that he spends more than $100 a month on cell service.
Barry Murphy, a 46-year-old realty agent and Alexandria homeowner, said the tax amounts to about a latte a month for him. He carries two cell phones -- one that runs on Cingular's network and another on the Verizon Wireless network-- and uses whichever one gets better reception in a given part of town.
"I don't mind paying some taxes as long as [we get] more value" from the city, said Murphy, who pays several hundred dollars a month in cell phone bills.
But some residents said $3 could make the difference between being able to afford a cell phone and going without.
Tawanda Moore said she works 25 hours a week at the Fuddruckers restaurant on Duke Street for $7.50 an hour. She said the tax will make it difficult for her to buy a cell phone.
"There are other ways for [the government] to get their money," said Moore, 33.
For years, Alexandria has relied on a dependable 25 percent tax on local phone service, bringing in an average of $7.50 per phone line every month. But the revenue stream has been drying up as more residents drop their regular phone service for a cell phone-only lifestyle. There were about 113,000 residential and business land lines in operation in the city as of July 2004, a drop from more than 120,000 two years earlier, according to Bruce Johnson, director of the city's Office of Management and Budget. | Using a cell phone is Alexandria is about to become more expensive -- $3 a month more expensive. | 27.5 | 1 | 20 | medium | high | extractive | 4,871 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061500818.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061500818.html | Geldof: I Don't Like EBay | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | This time, he fired verbal bullets at online auction giant eBay, whose U.K. subsidiary was hosting auctions for tickets to the upcoming Live 8 concerts that Geldof organized to fight poverty in Africa.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday afternoon that eBay no longer will host auctions for the tickets: "Managing Director Doug McCallum said the company would take the tickets off its auction site, although the company said reselling charity concert tickets was not illegal in Britain. 'We've listened carefully to our customers,' McCallum told Britain's ITV television. 'Overwhelmingly the voice is that they would like us to take down the listing.'"
Geldof was angry because tickets -- 150,000 for the July 2 London Hyde Park show alone -- were supposed to be free, won in a lottery conducted via text messaging. He told Sky News that eBay's failure to remove the auctions was "despicable," and "they should have thought about it before they did this," the AP reported.
Wired.com described how the concert -- featuring the likes of Paul McCartney, Snoop Dogg, U2, Sting and Madonna -- is supposed to work: "Live 8 is not intended as a fund-raiser; rather, Geldof wants to use the concert to inspire the G8 group of industrialized nations, which meets in July in Scotland, to tackle systemic poverty issues in Africa by doubling aid money and canceling debts owed by poor nations. Live 8 is actually a series of concerts to be held simultaneously in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome and Philadelphia."
The BBC quoted Geldof as saying that the auctions exploited the "weakest people on our planet." He also scoffed at the company's offer to make matching donations to charity: "It is filthy money made on the back of the poorest people on the planet -- stick it where it belongs." Perhaps St. Bob's flagellation sounds harsh at first, but maybe it was in response to eBay's initial take on the matter: Reselling items intended for charity is not illegal in Great Britain.
As of this writing, ebay.co.uk features one auction commanding 10 million pounds (only 3.95 for postage!) in which the seller says: "This ad might be removed soon, so 'Buy it now' before it's too late!!!!!!!!!!!!" A search for tickets on eBay's U.S. Web site turned up two bids each running at 10 million pounds ($18.2 million). One seller offers his phone number for "serious bidders," while another warns off time-wasters and promises to donate the proceeds to charity.
The Boston Globe quoted Kenyan-born documentary filmmaker Sam Kiley: "How very African: For every well-intentioned dollar, there is $1,000 of thievery. Tragically, the whole eBay scam reflects the kind of greed and corruption that robs the place blind."
Wired.com reported that these are actually fake bids from "outraged eBay members." "The phony bids made the sale of tickets impossible, as almost every bid was fraudulent," Wired wrote, adding that some sneaky customers are checking out the eBay action: "Others opened new accounts to place fake bids, including one called live8legalteam, prompting speculation that the bidding was organized by Live 8 itself."
History note: For those of you who are young enough to have been spared Geldof's earlier incarnation, he was the frontman for the Boomtown Rats before playing the lead role in the 1982 film "Pink Floyd: The Wall." He achieved worldwide renown in 1985 when he and Midge Ure put together the Live Aid fundraising concerts in London and Philadelphia. Its noteworthy technological moments came when McCartney's microphone went on the fritz during a performance of "Let It Be," and Phil Collins managed to sing at both venues thanks to the Concorde. This year's technological achievement probably will be a clear violation of the basic laws of physics: the reunion of the rock world's bitterest pill, Roger Waters, with his old mates from Pink Floyd. The band hasn't played with the lineup that made it famous -- and bloated -- since the "Wall" album came out in 1979.
For a Cliff's Notes version of the event, set to music, check out John Wesley Harding's brilliant song "July 13th, 1985." (Not suitable for those with aversions to mild profanity and lighthearted references to cocaine use.)
Putting the Story in Con-Text
Before selling their tickets on eBay, text messagers everywhere did their duty, catapulting the ticket competition for Live 8 into the record books, Reuters reported. Here's how the contest went:
"Music fans broke a world record when they sent more than 2 million text messages to try to get tickets for next month's Live 8 concert in London, the Guinness Book of Records said Monday. The record-breakers' bible said 2,060,285 texts were received, setting a record for the 'Largest Text Message Lottery.' . . . With would-be concertgoers paying 1.50 pounds per text message to win a pair of tickets to Hyde Park concert, the scheme earned Live 8 a total of about 3 million pounds ($5.4 million). Some of the money will be given the Prince's Trust charity of heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles which had to cancel its own event to make way for Live 8."
The real news behind this story is that people were willing to risk carpal tunnel syndrome just so they could see Sting and U2 ... again.
A Shot of Jaeger, a Text Message and Thou
Text messaging is beginning to take over as the young inebriate's way of expressing the affection that remains bottled up until the booze is uncorked. The Miami Herald calls it "TUI" or "Texting Under the Influence." It told the story of 24-year-old artist Kiki Valdes: "At campus parties, Valdes would drink and think of Isis, the dark-haired Cubanita he had known since childhood. She would listen to his meanderings but never wanted to be his girlfriend. Still, he kept tapping out messages to her. Today, the two don't speak at all, Valdes says. Had there only been a checkpoint -- for someone to take away his cell phone."
Here's another gem from the Herald: "Many people have TUI stories -- they just don't remember them. Or don't want to admit them. Like Jonathan West, who recently strolled down Lincoln Road with his partner, Mark Jeynes, both texting away. Once, West was out drinking and texted Jeynes a rather raunchy message. One problem -- he sent it to wrong person: 'Mark' is just above 'Mom' on his cell's address book." I'm many things, but not a psychologist. But doesn't this sound like a Freudian slip between the cup and the lip?
You Have Been Warned by JarmuschJ
Hollywood's producers, directors, actors and crew have discovered instant messaging, Wired reported. "Instead of displaying simple 'away from my computer' messages, Hollywood buddy lists now overflow with come-ons, from 'need work' to 'wrapping up shoot.' Producers hiring for a new production can tell at a glance who's available now, who's not and who might be free in the near future. 'Ninety percent of my work is given to me through a pop-up (chat window) on my desktop,' said Simon Foster, 32, a freelance production coordinator living in Santa Monica."
The big question is whether anyone who "matters" uses instant messaging. Well, if David Mamet can write for the Huffblog, I suppose David Lynch could be persuaded to seek fresh, new talent via IM.
Last month, I told you how I frequently tooled down the New Jersey Turnpike at a zippy 80 miles per hour while talking on my cell phone. Enough readers convinced me of something that I already knew ... so yes, I slowed down. I do still talk on the phone, but with a headset.
At the time I told this story, I was writing about how Chicago's aldermen passed a ban on driving while communicating using a handheld device. Today, I bring you this Wall Street Journal report: "Among the many distractions faced by car drivers, cell phones and other wireless devices contributed to far and away the most crashes, near-crashes and other incidents, according to a new government study expected to be released next week. The yearlong study, which tracked 100 cars and their drivers by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, highlights the danger of talking on cellphones. The results come as Connecticut last week passed a law banning the use of hand-held phones while driving. Several other states are considering similar legislation."
Here's the interesting part: "But even as safety concerns have led several states and local jurisdictions to ban drivers from using hand-held phones, some 40 percent of cell phone use still takes place while driving." So what has to happen now? Should there be a total ban on phones while driving ... period? You tell me.
Finally, the Miami Herald wrote a story about why South Florida drivers might want to keep their phones nearby: "Parking in Coral Gables, home to 4,573 parking meters, has been made easier by the introduction this month of a park-and-pay-by-cell-phone service -- touted as the first of its kind in the country. That's right: Pay by phone. You pull up, dial a number, punch in a few keys and walk away without a worry. The meter won't expire until you call again to log off."
Send links and comments to robertDOTmacmillanATwashingtonpost.com. | Musician Bob Geldof is firing verbal bullets at online auction giant eBay, whose U.K. subsidiary was hosting auctions for tickets to the upcoming Live 8 concerts that Geldof organized to fight poverty in Africa. | 48.846154 | 0.846154 | 15.25641 | high | medium | extractive | 4,872 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401227.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401227.html | Creeping Toward the U.S. Open | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | PINEHURST, N.C. -- The U.S. Open tees off on Thursday morning, and judging by the recent pace of play in major championships, not to mention on the PGA Tour, rounds likely will take six or more hours to complete on Pinehurst No. 2.
Slow play on both the men's and women's tours this year has more than occasionally been maddening. How else to explain Rory Sabbatini's irrational behavior last Sunday at the Booz Allen Classic, when he embarrassed himself and the PGA Tour by acting like a dolt when his playing partner, Ben Crane, was moving along at a snail's pace.
In one sense, you could say that Sabbatini was justified in dashing down the 17th fairway at Congressional, retrieving his ball from the pond behind the green, hitting a chip on the putting surface and then putting out even as Crane ambled down the fairway after his own second shot to the green.
But Sabbatini's churlish behavior, when he barely grazed Crane's extended hand at the 18th hole and started barking back at him as the two headed up the hill toward the scoring area at Congressional was not the sort of image the PGA Tour is looking for. You want woofing, tune in the WWE.
The next day, Sabbatini released an apology through the PGA Tour. You could almost read between the lines that this was the tour demanding he write his mea culpa. In fact, the tour probably wrote it for him and insisted it go out under his name. Maybe they even fined him (the PGA Tour rarely announces such sanctions), and any amount they could have taken from his sixth place check for $180,000 would have been absolutely justified.
Then again, the tour need only to look in the mirror to see who else should take some of the blame for Crane's serial slow play. After all, when was the last time you heard about a tour player--prominent or Sabbatini-like--being fined for crawling around a golf course?
We do hear all the time about players allegedly being put on the clock and warned to speed it up, but until the tour starts assessing stroke or two stroke penalties, nothing is going to change.
Not surprisingly, some players said they could understand Sabbatini's frustrations on Sunday. He plays quickly, steps up to the ball, takes a rip and keeps walking, just the way you'd like him to. But some players also said at a recent players' meeting, they were told by Commissioner Tim Finchem to do whatever they had to do once they were put on the clock to catch up and get back on pace.
Sabbatini took that dictum way too far, several players said, and they were appalled by his behavior walking off the 18th hole. He also refused to go on ABC TV afterward to explain his actions, nor would he speak with the print media, a chicken you know what approach to say the least.
That's not particularly surprising coming from Sabbatini, the very same fellow who was scheduled to play in a British Open qualifier a year ago at Congressional, but was a no show on the first tee, never even bothering to call tournament officials to tell them he wouldn't be playing.
Crane took the high road on Sunday, saying he knew he was a slow player and was trying to do better, and even said he understood Sabbatini's frustration. Maybe this will be a lesson to him to speed up his own game, though his approach clearly worked for him at Congressional, where he finished in a tie for second when he sank a 50-foot birdie putt at the 18th hole.
And now, back to the U.S. Open, where I believe Tiger Woods will win his third Open title, go one better in major championships than his friend Annika Sorenstam, and head to St. Andrews in mid-July halfway to a single season grand slam. As for Sorenstam, you heard it here first: she'll also win the following week in the women's U.S. Open at Cherry Hills in Denver, giving her the first three legs of her tour's grand slam. | PINEHURST, N.C. -- The U.S. Open tees off on Thursday morning, and judging by the recent pace of play in major championships, not to mention on the PGA Tour, rounds likely will take six or more hours to complete on Pinehurst No. 2. 1. Tiger Woods: His friend Annika Sorenstam has now caught him at... | 12.40625 | 0.953125 | 37.953125 | low | high | extractive | 4,873 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061501514.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061501514.html | Bruised and Battered, Biggio Nears Record | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | BALTIMORE -- The ball hurts, Craig Biggio will make no claims otherwise. He should know; the Astros outfielder has taken fastballs off his arm, leg, back, head, backside and foot. He's been knocked to the ground, sent spinning in the dirt and wondered if a blazing pitch had irreparably disfigured his face.
Now he is on the doorstep of history.
Last night, Orioles reliever Jorge Julio drilled Biggio with a fastball in the eighth inning of a game at Camden Yards. The pitch apparently did little to the tiny player who jogged to first. "Just one of those nick jobs," he later said with a laugh.
But it was also the 263rd time in his major league career that he has been hit by a pitch, which puts him just four plunks away from the modern record of 267 owned by Don Baylor. Needless to say, it's a dubious achievement.
"I guess any record is a nice thing to be associated with," Biggio said with a laugh as he sat in the Houston clubhouse before the game. "My job is to set the table, that's what you're paid to do. It's something, over the years, that's been a way to get on base."
He swears he does not come up to the plate trying to get hit, though that is hard to believe when someone's been hit 263 times with a pitch. Rather he blames his record-setting pace on a complicated front leg kick that used to be his trademark swing. The leg kick helped him concentrate on the pitch, but it also kept him from moving out of the way of balls that were close.
Biggio would try to drop the foot and duck out of the way, but to no avail. Once the ball came roaring in, his feet turned to concrete and there was nowhere to go. Thwack!
He attempted for years to change the leg kick, not so much because of all the pitches that hit him, but because the motion was starting to exhaust him as he got older. Come up to bat 700 times in a year, that lifting and dropping of a leg on every pitch is going to take its toll.
But ridding himself of a leg kick was not easy for Biggio to do. Old habits are hard to break. He tried to remove it from his swing for parts of about three seasons only to go back, before finally ridding himself of the habit before last season. The rewards were dramatic, he dropped from 27 hit by pitches in 2003 to 15 in 2004 -- his lowest total since he was hit 11 times in 1998.
Still, getting hit 11 times is a lot. Currently, having been hit seven times already this season, he appears to be on a pace to far surpass last year's total, though he is just two behind this season's leader Brady Clark of Milwaukee. And if all goes well, he should catch Baylor sometime in August.
"It's either going to happen or not happen," Biggio said of the record. "Pitchers lose balls, they come inside. It's going to happen. It's just a part of the game."
Of course, as with all other dubious achievements, there is a blog celebrating his pursuit of Baylor. Plunkbiggio.blogspot.com has kept a daily diary of his poundings. When Julio hit him with the pitch last night, Plunkbiggio was all over the news, quickly throwing up an entry it titled "263!"
While he's only four short of Baylor, Biggio would have to be hit 24 more times if he wants to break the all-time record of 287 held by Hughie Jennings, who played much of his career in the late 1800s. Baseball doesn't generally recognize records held before 1900 and Jennings was known for intentionally trying to get hit by pitches as a way of getting on base.
You would think with all the plunkings that Biggio would have charged the mound a few times in his career. But he hasn't. He comes from an old school of thought, he said. He knows he stands close to the plate and thus is more of a target than most players. He also has never had to pull the old shoe polish trick, like in the old days, when players would point to black marks on the ball to prove they had been hit in the foot.
One time, however, he was hit hard on the bicep with a pitch that the umpire, Bob Davidson, called a foul ball. Biggio looked down at his arm, that was beginning to swell and he saw the ball had come so fast that it actually left an imprint of the stitches right on his arm.
"Okay Biggio," he said. "Go take first."
You would think, too, that Biggio might come to the plate loaded with protective armor. He doesn't. The only different equipment he uses is a slightly bigger batting helmet -- the result of having been hit in the head four times -- and an elbow pad he bought after he took fastballs off his elbow in back-to-back days.
He sees nothing wrong with this. After watching his teammate Jeff Bagwell lose parts of three straight seasons with injuries that came from being hit by a pitch, he figures he should protect himself as much as possible.
"If you're paying somebody $15 million a year and there is something they can use to protect themselves and keep that investment safe why not use it?" he said.
Baylor has already said he would be glad to bequeath the record to Biggio. There will probably be no ceremony; what do you do when somebody breaks the record for getting hit by pitches? The hope is probably that an ambulance is not heading onto the field.
For now, all Biggio can do is laugh about his new fame. At 39 years old, he is just 300 hits from 3,000 for his career. If he plays until he's 41 he has a great chance at the milestone. But nobody cares about 3,000 hits all they want to know about is being hit by a pitch.
"If someone had told me 18 years ago that I would be going after Don Baylor's record for getting hit by pitches with me being just 185 pounds I would have told you that you were crazy," he said.
Comments or questions? E-mail Les at: [email protected] | BALTIMORE -- The ball hurts, Craig Biggio will make no claims otherwise. He should know; the Astros outfielder has taken fastballs off his arm, leg, back, head, backside and foot. He's been knocked to the ground, sent spinning in the dirt and wondered if a blazing pitch had irreparably disfigured... | 20.639344 | 0.983607 | 59.016393 | medium | high | extractive | 4,874 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401383.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401383.html | Iraq, Then and Now | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | AFTER LAGGING for months, debate on Iraq in Washington is picking up again. That's a needed and welcome development, but much of the discussion is being diverted to the wrong subject. War opponents have been trumpeting several British government memos from July 2002, which describe the Bush administration's preparations for invasion, as revelatory of President Bush's deceptions about Iraq. Bloggers have demanded to know why "the mainstream media" have not paid more attention to them. Though we can't speak for The Post's news department, the answer appears obvious: The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002.
Three summers ago the pages of this and other newspapers were filled with reports about military planning for war to remove Saddam Hussein and Mr. Bush's determination to force a showdown. "Debate over whether the United States should go to war against Iraq," we stated in a lead editorial on Aug. 4, "has lurched into a higher gear." Concern that the Bush administration was not adequately prepared for a postwar occupation -- another supposed revelation of the British memos -- prompted widely reported public hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee starting on July 31, 2002.
One observation in the memos is vague but intriguing: A British official is quoted as saying that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Yet it was argued even then, and has since become conventional wisdom, that Mr. Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration spokesmen exaggerated the threat from Iraq to justify the elimination of its noxious regime. And the memos provide no information that would alter the conclusions of multiple independent investigations on both sides of the Atlantic, which were that U.S. and British intelligence agencies genuinely believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that they were not led to that judgment by the Bush administration.
Debate over whether the war should have been fought is appropriate and no doubt will continue for many years. But it ought not distract from what should be an urgent discussion of the present situation in Iraq. After a lull following January's elections, violence -- and U.S. casualties -- have returned to the level of last fall; the political process is stuck on the inability of Shiite and Sunni leaders to reach an accommodation, even as the time allotted to completing a constitution slips away. Recent in-depth reports by The Post and the New York Times have suggested that training of the new Iraqi army continues to yield mixed results and that it will be several more years, at least, before Iraqi units can take the place of U.S. troops.
All this should call into question the Bush administration's present rhetoric and apparent strategy, which assumes that the Iraqi insurgency is, as Mr. Cheney put it, in its "last throes"; that Iraqi units will be ready before the U.S. military, now facing a recruiting crisis, is broken by the strain of deploying more than 130,000 troops; and that the United States can still afford to take a relatively hands-off approach to the political process, leaving Baghdad without an ambassador for months at a time. In fact, the U.S. mission in Iraq seems to be drifting dangerously -- and the president, once again, is not talking frankly to the country about the sacrifice that may be required, or where the troops and other resources for such an effort will come from. Those ought to be the questions at center stage this summer. | AFTER LAGGING for months, debate on Iraq in Washington is picking up again. That's a needed and welcome development, but much of the discussion is being diverted to the wrong subject. War opponents have been trumpeting several British government memos from July 2002, which describe the Bush... | 12.518519 | 0.981481 | 52.018519 | low | high | extractive | 4,875 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401828.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401828.html | Kurdish Officials Sanction Abductions in Kirkuk | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | KIRKUK, Iraq -- Police and security units, forces led by Kurdish political parties and backed by the U.S. military, have abducted hundreds of minority Arabs and Turkmens in this intensely volatile city and spirited them to prisons in Kurdish-held northern Iraq, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials, government documents and families of the victims.
Seized off the streets of Kirkuk or in joint U.S.-Iraqi raids, the men have been transferred secretly and in violation of Iraqi law to prisons in the Kurdish cities of Irbil and Sulaymaniyah, sometimes with the knowledge of U.S. forces. The detainees, including merchants, members of tribal families and soldiers, have often remained missing for months; some have been tortured, according to released prisoners and the Kirkuk police chief.
A confidential State Department cable, obtained by The Washington Post and addressed to the White House, Pentagon and U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said the "extra-judicial detentions" were part of a "concerted and widespread initiative" by Kurdish political parties "to exercise authority in Kirkuk in an increasingly provocative manner."
The abductions have "greatly exacerbated tensions along purely ethnic lines" and endangered U.S. credibility, the nine-page cable, dated June 5, stated. "Turkmen in Kirkuk tell us they perceive a U.S. tolerance for the practice while Arabs in Kirkuk believe Coalition Forces are directly responsible."
The cable said the 116th Brigade Combat Team, which oversees security in Kirkuk, had urged Kurdish officials to end the practice. "I can tell you that the coalition forces absolutely do not condone it," Brig. Gen. Alan Gayhart, the brigade commander, said in an interview.
Kirkuk, a city of almost 1 million, is home to Iraq's most combustible mix of politics and economic power. Kurds, who are just shy of a majority in the city and are growing in number, hope to make Kirkuk and the vast oil reserves beneath it part of an autonomous Kurdistan. Arabs and Turkmens compose most of the rest of the population. They have struck an alliance to curb the ambitions of the Kurds, who have wielded increasing authority in a long-standing collaboration with their U.S. allies.
Some abductions occurred more than a year ago. But according to U.S. officials, Kirkuk police and Arab leaders, the campaign surged after the Jan. 30 elections consolidated the two main Kurdish parties' control over the Kirkuk provincial government. The two parties are the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party. The U.S. military said it had logged 180 cases; Arab and Turkmen politicians put the number at more than 600 and said many families feared retribution for coming forward.
U.S. and Iraqi officials, along with the State Department cable, said the campaign was being orchestrated and carried out by the Kurdish intelligence agency, known as Asayesh, and the Kurdish-led Emergency Services Unit, a 500-member anti-terrorism squad within the Kirkuk police force. Both are closely allied with the U.S. military. The intelligence agency is made up of Kurds, and the emergency unit is composed of a mixture of Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens.
The cable indicated that the problem extended to Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city and the main city in the north, and regions near the Kurdish-controlled border with Turkey.
The transfers occurred "without authority of local courts or the knowledge of Ministries of Interior or Defense in Baghdad," the State Department cable stated. U.S. military officials said judges they consulted in Kirkuk declared the practice illegal under Iraqi law.
Early on, the campaign targeted former Baath Party officials and suspected insurgents, but it has since broadened. Among those seized and secretly transferred north were car merchants, businessmen, members of tribal families, Arab soldiers and, in one case, an 87-year-old farmer with diabetes. A former fighter pilot said his interrogation in Irbil focused in part on whether he participated in the chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish city of Halabja in March 1988, in which an estimated 5,000 people died.
"I think it's about revenge," said the man, who identified himself as Abu Abdullah Jabbouri and who was released last week from the prison in Irbil. | Hundreds of minority Arabs and Turkmens in Kirkuk are being secretly sent to prisons in violation of Iraqi law, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials, documents and families of the victims. | 23.588235 | 0.970588 | 5.617647 | medium | high | mixed | 4,876 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061501836.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061501836.html | Evangelical Republicans Trust States on Social Issues | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | Evangelical Protestant Republicans are far more likely than other groupsto want courts to stay out of controversial social questions, suggesting that GOP criticism of "activist judges" resonates with the party's core constituency, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll has found.
Asked whether they trusted their state legislatures or state courts more to address the question of same-sex marriage, 69 percent of self-identified evangelical Protestant Republicans chose lawmakers. Nineteen percent backed the courts, and 11 percent said neither.
In contrast, a slim plurality of 45 percent nationwide preferred that legislatures deal with same-sex marriage, 40 percent favored the courts, and 11 percent said neither.
On the question of abortion, the country split evenly, 44 percent each for courts and state legislatures. But 66 percent of evangelical Protestant Republicans believed the issue should be left up to their state legislators, and 26 percent preferred the courts.
Separately, a poll released yesterday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that discontent among conservative Republicans and evangelical Protestants has fueled a significant drop in public support for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Overall, 57 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the court, down from 68 percent in Jan. 2001, the Pew poll found. Among conservative Republicans, there was a drop of 19 points, from 78 to 59 percent favorable to the court, and among evangelical Protestants, the decline was 22 points, from 73 to 51 percent favorable.
Those surveyed in the Post-ABC poll were responding to a question that sought to measure views of the courts after the Terri Schiavo case and the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision that sanctioned same-sex marriage in that state. These disputes have concerned not only policy but also who should make policy.
Judges are currently under fire from some conservatives who say they are usurping the lawmaking role of elected representatives.
President Bush has backed federal judicial nominees who, he says, will be "strict constructionists." A nomination to the Supreme Court by Bush is possible in the near future, because Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is ill with cancer.
A total of 1,002 randomly selected adults, including 113 self-described evangelical Protestant Republicans, were interviewed by telephone between June 2 and June 5 for the Post-ABC poll. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.
For each of three issues -- same-sex marriage, abortion and the death penalty -- respondents were asked, "Who do you trust more to deal with the issue, your state legislature or your state courts?"
On the death penalty, GOP evangelicals had slightly more confidence in the courts but still favored legislatures by 57 percent to 40 percent. This was almost the reverse of the country as a whole, where the courts were more trusted than the legislatures by 53 percent to 40 percent.
Interviews with individual respondents showed that Republicans who describe themselves as evangelical Protestants object to what they see as the courts' denial of the public's right to make policy on "moral" issues.
"I do feel strongly. I feel we've gotten away from letting the states legislate," said Sally Poff, 58, a federal employee in Beavercreek, Ohio. On same-sex marriage, she added that "it wouldn't be right for the courts, if we voted it down in Ohio, to come and say we can't do it."
James Booher, 47, of Corryton, Tenn., said he has been concerned about the power of the courts for many years. He cited past U.S. Supreme Court rulings that established a right to abortion. "That's one that always jumps to mind," he said.
Although Republican evangelical Protestants had the least faith in the courts, Republicans generally were considerably more likely than Democrats or independents to trust legislatures.
On abortion, for example, an issue that evenly divided the nation as a whole, Republicans favored legislatures over the courts by 54 to 34 percent, while Democrats favored the courts, 48 to 39 percent, and independents favored the courts by 51 to 39 percent.
Polling director Richard Morin contributed to this report. | Evangelical Protestant Republicans are far more likely than other groupsto want courts to stay out of controversial social questions, suggesting that GOP criticism of "activist judges" resonates with the party's core constituency, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll has found. | 16.875 | 1 | 48 | medium | high | extractive | 4,877 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061500272.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061500272.html | Bush Pushes Energy Agenda | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | President Bush issued a vigorous call yesterday for the enactment of his energy plan, arguing that it offers a balanced approach for securing the nation's energy future while warning that "tempers will really rise if Congress doesn't pass" the measure.
Speaking before the Energy Efficiency Forum, an annual meeting of energy industry and government officials here, Bush said that "now is the time to stop the debate and the partisan bickering, and pass an energy bill."
Since early in his first term, Bush's energy agenda has languished, the victim of sharp partisan and regional disagreements over the impact of its provisions. His proposal would open environmentally sensitive areas to oil exploration and offer tax breaks to spur the development of cleaner fuels, while encouraging construction of new oil refineries and nuclear power plants for the first time in three decades.
Taken together, Bush said, the measures would help the United States reverse its growing dependence on foreign energy sources. "People got to understand our dependence on foreign oil didn't develop overnight, and it's not going to be fixed overnight," he said. "To solve the problem, our nation needs a comprehensive energy policy."
Continuing a recent string of combative remarks casting Democrats as obstructionist for opposing much of his second-term agenda as his approval rating among Americans plummets to new lows, Bush said voters want Congress to complete work on the energy measure.
"The American people know that an energy bill will not change the price of gas immediately," Bush said. "But they're not going to tolerate inaction in Washington as they watch the underlying problems grow worse. We have a responsibility to confront problems."
Some Democrats have complained that the energy proposals under consideration in Congress offer too few incentives for conservation and the development of renewable energy sources. Also, energy analysts have said that, even if areas now off-limits to oil exploration were opened to drilling, there may be a temporary spike in production but that the long-term trend of growing dependency on foreign oil would continue.
The full Senate this week began consideration of an energy bill; a separate version of the legislation has already cleared the House. The measures would cost billions of dollars in tax breaks and other incentives. Both chambers have also approved budget resolutions calling for Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be opened to drilling, but final votes would have to be taken before that is allowed.
Although lawmakers have repeatedly failed to approve energy legislation in recent years, lawmakers are more optimistic this time. Part of the reason is that the Senate bill was jointly crafted by Democrats and Republicans, unlike in previous years when Democrats said they were shut out.
The House bill is tilted more toward providing incentives for traditional forms of energy than the legislation under consideration in the Senate, which seeks more incentives for cleaner-burning forms of energy and renewable energy. Still, some Democrats are seeking, on the Senate floor, amendments designed to boost renewable energy production.
"This bill doesn't go far enough in strengthening our national security, spurring our economy and protecting our environment," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "That is why -- over the next two weeks -- Democrats are going to fight to improve this bill. Democrats have set a goal of reducing imports of foreign oil by 40 percent over the next 20 years."
Environmentalists, meanwhile, say both versions are a costly giveaway to large energy interests and would bring little or no benefit to consumers.
The United States has become increasingly dependent on foreign oil. Last year, the country imported an average of 58 percent of its oil, a percentage that the federal government projects will continue to grow in coming years.
With gasoline prices above $2 a gallon, Bush urged quick action, saying that as Congress continues to debate an energy measure, the problem only grows worse. "The energy bill will help us make better use of the energy supplies we now have, and will make our supply of energy more affordable and more secure for the future," he said.
Bush said he will encourage advances in energy technology among the Group of Eight industrial countries at its meeting July 6 to 8 in Scotland. "When we lower the global demand for oil, Americans will be better off at the gas pump -- and future generations will breathe cleaner air, too," he said. | President Bush issued a vigorous call yesterday for the enactment of his energy plan, arguing that it offers a balanced approach for securing the nation's energy future while warning that "tempers will really rise if Congress doesn't pass" the measure. | 18.673913 | 1 | 46 | medium | high | extractive | 4,878 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR2005061300754.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR2005061300754.html | A 'Jaws' That Lacks Bite | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | Thirty years ago, a shark with a killer theme song changed the American cinematic landscape forever.
"Jaws" was released in June of 1975 and quickly went from mere movie to full-blown phenomenon. It not only launched the career of Steven Spielberg, but also was the first film to earn (and eventually surpass) $100 million at the box office, spawning the concept of the summer blockbuster as we now know it. In fact, Darth Vader might never have existed if it weren't for that 25-foot fish with the voracious appetite.
Given all of that, you'd think Universal would have packed a little more meat on its 30th anniversary DVD of "Jaws." Unfortunately -- apart from a nine-minute 1974 featurette, a lengthy documentary that's already appeared in various forms on previous "Jaws" releases and an attractive commemorative booklet -- there's not much to recommend about this two-disc set.
The best part of the DVD is its audio: In Dolby 5.1 surround sound, John Williams's spooky under-the-sea score sounds all the more ominous. The movie, on the other hand, looks decent but could have been sharper had it been remastered. As it is, the occasional spots and flecks may be noticeable, particularly to widescreen TV viewers.
But the biggest disappointment is the extras, which appear to have been tossed together like a plate of stale leftovers. The two-hour "Making of 'Jaws'" is mildly interesting, if one can forget that all of it appeared on the 1997 "Jaws" laserdisc and portions were featured on the 25th anniversary DVD release. And if the 13 minutes of deleted scenes and outtakes look familiar, they should: Those also showed up on the 2000 DVD. There is no commentary track (as is the case on virtually every Spielberg DVD) and no newly produced featurette to savor. Given the signifance of the anniversary, not to mention the movie, a look at the overall "Jaws" phenomenon -- including more on its pop culture impact and the increasingly shlocky sequels that followed it -- seems long overdue. Perhaps they're saving that for the 35th anniversary edition.
Of course, if you're dying to own a copy of "Jaws," you'll probably be satisfied enough. But you'll probably hope that a better version of this shark shocker -- one with fabulous features like those that accompanied last year's "Star Wars" trilogy -- will swim onto shelves eventually.
Best Spielberg Bonus Point: "From the Set," the 1974 featurette hosted by Brit Iain Johnstone, provides a semi-entertaining peek at a super-young Spielberg at work on the water. During an interview conducted between takes, the director offers this nugget of wisdom about his casting choices: "I like people who are outspoken and very large, so I can bring them down to life level." So that explains why he works with notorious sofa-jumper Tom Cruise.
Most Interesting Bonus Point: If you've never seen the "Making of 'Jaws'," it's worth a look. You'll hear all the usual stories about the movie (the mechanical shark didn't work, cast and crew members got seasick, etc.), but some more-obscure nuggets -- like the fact that the shark's first victim (played by Susan Backlinie) is pulled underwater by Spielberg himself -- are shared as well. Those make this a worthwhile, if out of date, doc.
Also New on DVD This Week: "A Dirty Shame," "Hitch" and "Tarzan II."
If you have feedback about "Bonus Points" or want to suggest a DVD for review, e-mail Jen Chaney. | Search Washington, DC area movie listings, reviews and locations from the Washington Post. Features DC, Virginia and Maryland entertainment listings for movies and movie guide. Visit http://eg.washingtonpost.com/section/movies today. | 21.294118 | 0.441176 | 0.5 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,879 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401609.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401609.html | Settlement In Enron Lawsuit For Chase | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. yesterday agreed to pay $2.2 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging the bank helped Enron Corp. report misleading financial results, the latest fallout from the accounting scandals of the late 1990s.
Chase became the second major investment bank in less than a week to resolve claims over the demise of the Houston energy firm. Regulators and plaintiff lawyers accused Chase of funneling $2.6 billion to Enron in the form of disguised loans between 1997 and 2001. By not acknowledging the payments as debt, Enron made its books look better.
Bank officials said they would take a $2 billion pretax charge this quarter to cover the settlement and increase reserves for other pending litigation and regulatory investigations. Chase neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.
"We are working hard to put the uncertainty of litigation risk behind us," chief executive William B. Harrison Jr. said in a news release.
The deal "sustains the course of highly favorable settlements" for Enron shareholders, said James E. Holst, general counsel for the lead plaintiff, the University of California, in a prepared statement.
The agreement requires the approval of the university's board of regents and a federal judge. Lawyers involved in the case said it was a matter of months or years before defrauded investors would see checks in the mail. Enron's collapse into bankruptcy in December 2001 cost thousands of workers their jobs and their retirement savings.
The Chase agreement comes on the heels of a slightly smaller, $2 billion deal reached by Citigroup Inc. last week. Yesterday's commitment by Chase brought the total recovery in the lawsuit to about $4.7 billion, with more settlements likely to come before the trial, scheduled to begin in October 2006.
William S. Lerach, the lead plaintiff lawyer, said the university continues to pursue other defendants, including Merrill Lynch & Co., Credit Suisse First Boston LLC and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Former Enron executives Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling, awaiting trial on criminal charges next year, also remain as defendants in the class-action case.
"I can't predict the future, but obviously the noose is tightening for the remaining defendants," Lerach said in an interview. "We've made it clear from the outset that we've been pursuing a strategy of attempting to obtain escalating settlements."
Chase shelled out $160 million two years ago to settle related charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Manhattan district attorney over the transactions with Enron. The deals in question are known as prepays because they involve the promise to provide a commodity such as oil or gas at some point in the future.
Regulators and investigators on the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations pointed to internal e-mails in an effort to show that Chase employees knew they were helping Enron disguise its mounting debt.
A Chase employee sent an e-mail to a co-worker in November 1998 saying, "Enron loves [prepays] as they are able to hide funded debt from their equity analysts," according to court papers filed by the SEC in 2003.
One unnamed bank worker said the transactions amounted to a way to "discreetly get [Enron], you know, several hundred million dollars and have no market knowledge of what's going on," in a Sept. 13, 2001, taped phone call, the court papers said.
Yesterday's Enron settlement marked the second big class-action payout in less than a year for Chase. The bank agreed in March to shell out $2 billion to resolve claims over its underwriting work for WorldCom Inc. The WorldCom lawsuit marks the biggest shareholder recovery to date in a securities class-action case -- a total of $6.13 billion that has yet to make its way back to investors.
Legal experts predicted the Enron class-action settlement could ultimately meet or exceed the WorldCom payouts. Plaintiffs in the Enron case said settlement funds would sit in bank accounts earning interest until the judge approves a disbursement plan. It is unclear how many people who bought Enron stock and bonds between 1997 and 2001 will apply for money, lawyers said. Last week Lerach predicted as many as 50,000 claims could be filed. | Washington, DC, Virginia, Maryland business news headlines with stock portfolio and market news, economy, government/tech policy, mutual funds, personal finance. Dow Jones, S&P 500, NASDAQ quotes. Features top DC, VA, MD businesses, company research tools | 15.784314 | 0.411765 | 0.411765 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,880 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001587.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001587.html | Tech Firms Try to Conquer the Globe | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | A war of the virtual worlds is gearing up between search engine company Google Inc. and software maker Microsoft Corp., as the two tech rivals race to bring competing digital versions of planet Earth onto the World Wide Web.
Where traditional, two-dimensional maps are already available online at sites such as MapQuest.com, projects underway at Google and Microsoft will eventually let users click around through immersive and interactive 3-D versions of city streets while sitting at their desktop computers.
The idea is that travelers will use the free online services not only to check out new cities, but to customize their visits by zooming in on individual points of interest flagged by the software.
"Theme parks, bike trails -- anything you can imagine under the sun" could be explored with the click of a mouse, said Tom Bailey, director of sales and marketing for Microsoft's MapPoint Business Unit, the division responsible for the company's MSN Virtual Earth project.
While giving a reporter a virtual tour, Bailey showed how the software could be used to find, and inspect, steakhouses in Seattle using street maps overlaid with satellite imagery of the city. Eventually, he said, Microsoft wants the software to be detailed enough so that users can surf their way through a shopping mall as they decide whether to shop there or not.
MSN Virtual Earth is scheduled for a release this summer; the software will let users view images 50 to 100 feet above the tops of buildings in many urban areas. Microsoft is not including rural areas at the time of the software's launch.
But Microsoft's project isn't the only planet in town. Last month, Google co-founder Sergey Brin demonstrated his company's Google Earth at a news conference and showed how the software could make it seem as if a user were flying through a digitized Grand Canyon. Brin joked that he'd never been there before and that, thanks to his company's virtual globe software, he doesn't have to visit now.
Google is working to make the software as easy to use as its popular search engine: Users start with a view of the Earth floating in outer space, zooming in at will to any spot with a roll of a mouse wheel. Google Earth uses technology developed by Keyhole Corp., a company Google acquired last October. The software is still in testing, and the company has not said when the product will be ready for a final release.
The dueling virtual planets are just the latest round in an ongoing competition between Google and Microsoft for dominance among users and customers, as the two have released products that encroach on each other's dominance among search tools and desktop software applications. The two rivals aren't even the only ones trying to digitize the planet -- online retailer Amazon.com offers panoramic pictures of real-world storefronts at its Web site. Yahoo Inc., meanwhile, is also in the map business, trying to carve its own niche by offering live traffic updates for many major cities.
Microsoft and Google are entering turf dominated by the America Online Inc.-owned MapQuest, a service with a distant head start. According to research firm ComScore Media Metrix, MapQuest had 43 million unique users for the month of May, about 76 percent of online map users.
MapQuest experimented with letting users peek at satellite images years ago, but it couldn't find a use for the technology that interested consumers beyond a few minutes' novelty.
"We weren't really seeing a return on the investment," said MapQuest spokesman Brian Hoyt. But others said they can envision a potential revenue bonanza for the company that figures out how to circumnavigate the globe in a way that appeals to consumers.
Gary Price, news editor of Search Engine Watch, said such a service could quickly generate revenue if retailers and advertisers get a chance to hawk their stores and products on it. Real estate brokers and others might pay the two companies for a fuller and ad-free version of the software, he said.
Some contributors at techie-oriented Web sites have worried that such detailed virtual maps could be used by terrorists to gather information for an attack. Bruce Schneier, founder of Counterpane Internet Security Inc. and author of books about security, scoffed at the idea.
"I find that kind of thinking stupid -- all technologies have uses that are good and bad," he said. "Terrorists can use cars and cell phones and books and pencils and go to school."
For Paul Saffo, director of a Silicon Valley think tank, Google Earth is a logical extension of a Web site that is indispensable to many users.
"Google has indexed all of cyberspace," he said. "If it's going to keep growing, it's going to have to index something else -- and that something else is physical reality. . . . Maybe the next time I lose my car keys, I can just go onto Google and search for them."
Staff writer David A. Vise contributed to this report. | Washington, DC, Virginia, Maryland business news headlines with stock portfolio and market news, economy, government/tech policy, mutual funds, personal finance. Dow Jones, S&P 500, NASDAQ quotes. Features top DC, VA, MD businesses, company research tools | 18.882353 | 0.45098 | 0.45098 | medium | low | abstractive | 4,881 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061400283.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061400283.html | Too Hot to Stay in the Classroom | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | D.C. School Superintendent Clifford B. Janey ordered all the city's public schools to close early yesterday after some principals reported classroom temperatures approaching 100 degrees, and officials said the heat might force another early dismissal of classes today.
Janey's decision to release students at 12:30 p.m. focused attention on one of the school system's long-standing problems: aging infrastructure that causes many buildings to be too cold in the winter and too warm in the spring. About 100 of the system's 145 schools -- many of them built in the World War II era -- have no central air conditioning, and 20 have faulty air conditioning systems and windows that cannot open, officials said.
There were no heat-related closings yesterday in other Washington area school systems. Baltimore public schools, however, closed 2 1/2 hours early.
D.C. school officials said Janey ordered an early shutdown of all schools, including those with working air conditioning, to minimize disruption in families with children at more than one school.
But several parents who had to interrupt work to pick up their children or scramble for babysitters questioned the decision.
"It's an absurdity. This is the kind of thing that gives the school system a bad name," Wendy Jacobson said as she arrived to pick up her first-grade son at Oyster Elementary School in Northwest, a four-year-old building that is fully air conditioned.
Philip Mueller came to Oyster to pick up his two children from their first-grade and pre-kindergarten classes. "Half of the people here probably don't have air conditioning at home half as good as it is here," he complained. "They'll bake at home."
School board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz said one reason for the system-wide closing was that the school facilities department could not provide an accurate list of which buildings had functioning air conditioning. Two school administrators denied that, saying that such information was available.
Officials said that students should report to school at the usual time this morning and that Janey will determine by 10 a.m. whether to dismiss classes early again. The weather forecast for today offered no relief, with a high to match yesterday's 92 degrees.
"There will be a combination of things going into the assessment: the weather and air conditioners -- are they working?" said Peter G. Parham, Janey's chief of staff.
Parham said principals were issued new guidelines Monday that called for them to contact the facilities department if temperatures in their buildings reached 90 degrees. In such situations, an inspector is sent to the school to determine whether the air conditioning system is functioning and, if not, whether fans can bring down the temperatures to an acceptable level, he said. Parham said any principal who is not satisfied can request an early dismissal.
Recreation centers were opened early to accommodate students who had nowhere to go yesterday. | Get Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia news. Includes news headlines from The Washington Post. Get info/values for Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia homes. Features schools, crime, government, traffic, lottery, religion, obituaries. | 12.108696 | 0.456522 | 0.5 | low | low | abstractive | 4,882 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401451.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401451.html | Gang Members to Get Life in Witness Slaying | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | A federal jury in Alexandria yesterday deadlocked on a death sentence for two members of the violent street gang Mara Salvatrucha, meaning that the two men will spend the rest of their lives in prison for the killing of a 17-year-old government witness.
Under federal law, Ismael Cisneros, 26, and Oscar A. Grande, 22, will automatically be sentenced to life in prison without parole for stabbing to death Brenda Paz, who was 16 weeks pregnant with a boy when her body was found by a fisherman on the banks of the Shenandoah River in July 2003.
After the verdicts were read, both men hugged their attorneys and smiled as they were led by U.S. marshals from the heavily guarded courtroom. Outside, Grande's sister said both families were relieved that the men would be spared.
"We're just thanking God right now," said Flor Grande Flores, 24, standing among relatives of both defendants. She wiped tears from her face and added, "We prayed so hard for them . . . and we will continue praying to God for them. We know God makes miracles."
The sentencing verdicts capped a two-month, high-profile trial that shed light on the inner workings of the gang, known also as MS-13, which has been responsible for a number of killings, shootings and assaults in the Washington region.
Prosecutors had argued for the death penalty, saying that Paz's "senseless slaughter" undermined the judicial system. Still, the verdict marked what they called a significant step in the federal crackdown on MS-13, considered the largest and most violent street gang in Northern Virginia. Federal prosecutors have been investigating MS-13 for several years, and law enforcement sources have said the goal is to cripple the gang by targeting its leaders.
"These murderers will spend the rest of their lives behind bars, and gang members now know the murder of witnesses will be severely punished," U.S. Attorney Paul J. McNulty said in a statement.
Attorneys for Cisneros and Grande said they were relieved that the jury could not agree on the death penalty.
"I'm really glad that we work in a profession and with a system where we can save even the most insignificant lives," said David Baugh, one of two lawyers who represented Grande.
Nina Ginsburg, one of two attorneys for Cisneros, added that the defendants and Paz all led sad lives that were entrenched in the culture of the gang.
"You can't grow up with the kind of values that the rest of us have when you spend your whole childhood being attacked by your father. I'm very grateful that the jury understood that people who grow up with that kind of script can't function the way we function," she said.
Among the factors the jury considered were arguments that Cisneros and Grande were victims of impoverished, abusive upbringings and that those same circumstances led them to join a pathological gang that became their support system. | A federal jury in Alexandria yesterday deadlocked on a death sentence for two members of the violent street gang Mara Salvatrucha, meaning that the two men will spend the rest of their lives in prison for the killing of a 17-year-old government witness. | 12.106383 | 1 | 47 | low | high | extractive | 4,883 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061400188.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061400188.html | Pistons Show the Right Stuff | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | AUBURN HILLS, Mich., June 14 -- First off, the 'fro was back. That should have been a sign to the San Antonio Spurs that the defending champion Detroit Pistons weren't about to go down like chumps in this best-of-seven series. Pistons center Ben Wallace unbraided his hair and sported his trademark, uncombed Afro for Game 3 of the NBA Finals on Tuesday night.
On the opening play of the game, Wallace gave the Spurs reason to fear the 'fro when he stepped in front of a pass from Manu Ginobili for a steal, dribbled the length of the court, hair bouncing wildly, and soared for a slam dunk. The Pistons delivered the first punch and they keep swinging until a Spurs team that could do no wrong in San Antonio began to stagger. The Spurs finally took a standing eight-count and a 96-79 loss at the Palace of Auburn Hills.
"We all knew how big this game was," said Pistons point guard Chauncey Billups, who had 20 points and seven assists. "And we've been in a lot of situations before. We've never been down 0-2, but in a situation like that . . . you know what it means. And you know the kind of desperation; you got to play without fear."
"I just think they were more aggressive than we were," said Spurs forward Tim Duncan, who was limited to 14 points on 5-of-15 shooting and 10 rebounds. "Nothing else to really say about it."
The Pistons were more physical, as they pushed around the Spurs, knocking down guard Tony Parker whenever he dared to drive into the lane. They hustled on defense, with arms flailing and bodies flying while they forced 18 turnovers that led to 23 points. And they didn't spend too much time screaming at the officials -- when Rasheed Wallace got a technical foul in the third quarter, Coach Larry Brown didn't waste any time finding a spot for him on the bench.
A change of scenery proved to be enough for the Pistons, who swept all three of their home games to defeat the Los Angeles Lakers in the NBA Finals last season. The shift began with Ben Wallace, who had appeared fatigued from his battle with Shaquille O'Neal in the Eastern Conference finals and was dragging against Duncan. Wallace certainly had his bounce back in Game 3 with rim-rocking dunks, including an impressive reverse, alley-oop slam in the third quarter. Wallace finished with 15 points and 11 rebounds. He blocked five shots, all in the first quarter.
"I don't know if it was a home-cooked meal or sleeping in his own bed, but his energy level was like night and day," Billups said. "That is the Ben Wallace we all know and love. There is nobody like him in this league. He's the best at what he does." Asked if he thought the Afro had anything to do with it, Billups said with a laugh, "I don't know, but we'll make sure that thing will be out on Tuesday, definitely."
Wallace wasn't the only player to break through for the Pistons, who had five players score in double figures. Guard Richard Hamilton finally brushed Bruce Bowen off his shoulder and scored a game-high 24 points on 11-of-23 shooting. Tayshaun Prince had 12 points -- two fewer than his combined total in the first two games. The Pistons became the first team in 14 games to score more than 90 points against the Spurs in the Finals.
"I think we figured out how hard we have to play," Brown said. "I don't think we realized we were in the Finals against a team that's unbelievably well-coached. I really believe Ben started us off."
The Spurs were searching for someone to get them going. Parker earned all of his team-high 21 points, crashing to floor after absorbing elbows from Billups and hip bumps from Rasheed Wallace. But after averaging 26.5 points in the first two games, Ginobili scored just seven and had six turnovers. He injured his left leg colliding with Prince in the first minute and finally looked mortal.
"I'm all right. I get hit there pretty often," Ginobili said of the leg, which was wrapped for most of the night. "That was not a matter of one guy didn't play well. I don't think anybody of us played well. We as a team didn't have that juice."
This series had been billed as evenly matched teams that play similar styles, but the first two games undercut that theory. On Tuesday, the Pistons and Spurs battled back and forth, as the game featured 18 lead changes and seven ties, with neither team leading by more than five in the first half. But the game began to take a turn in the third quarter, when the Pistons went on a 9-0 run. Antonio McDyess (12 points, 9 rebounds) rebounded a Ben Wallace miss and tipped in the ball, Lindsey Hunter completed a three-point play and McDyess followed a Hamilton miss with an emphatic two-handed jam. Then, almost in an act of desperation, Hamilton leaped to steal a pass from Ginobili and darted toward the hoop to give the Pistons a 70-63 lead.
The Spurs got within 71-68 when Brent Barry had a layup with 9 minutes 52 seconds remaining, but Billups responded with a three-pointer and a layup to trigger a decisive 12-0 run. Ben Wallace later sent the crowd into a tizzy when he caught a pass from Hamilton and zipped toward the rim for a two-handed dunk. "You know, it's one game. Now that game is over," Brown said. "I think our guys . . . realize it's going to take our very best to make this a competitive series." | The Pistons steam past the Spurs in Game 3, 96-79, to cut San Antonio's lead in the NBA Finals to 2-1. | 39.758621 | 0.862069 | 1.896552 | high | medium | mixed | 4,884 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401442.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401442.html | U.S. Golf Association Tries to Play Through the Rough | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | PINEHURST, N.C., June 14 -- The U.S. Golf Association conducts 13 national championships, including the 105th U.S. Open here this week, writes and occasionally changes the rules, regulates the handicapping system, awards millions in grants to grow the game, and serves as a regulatory agency for the multibillion dollar equipment industry.
But increasingly in recent years, the sport's governing body in this country has come under criticism for dropping the ball on a number of issues, from regulating equipment to course setups at its major championships to the elitist image its volunteer officers and executive committee project.
A year ago, the USGA was universally slammed for its course setup at the U.S. Open at Shinnecock Hills, specifically for allowing several greens, including the seventh hole, to become so dry that putting on them became virtually impossible. "We're human," said USGA Executive Director David Fay, the first to publicly admit the USGA had made a mess of Shinnecock. "We try to make it hard and fair. Sometimes you get close to the edge and sometimes you go over the edge. Last year, we went over, and all you can do is learn from your mistakes. I will say this: We are not going to deviate from our standard setup in terms of this always being regarded as the world's toughest golf tournament. But we will do everything we can to make it fair."
The USGA, based in Far Hills, N.J., was organized in 1894 by five member clubs essentially to conduct national championships and write a uniform set of rules. Now, the organization is made up of 9,000 member clubs and courses, and committees comprise more than 1,300 volunteers, with 300 paid employees.
In its 2004 annual report, it listed assets of $225 million, but critics wonder how an organization with an annual operating budget of $117 million can be run essentially by an all-volunteer officer and executive board highly influenced by a coterie of past presidents that essentially dictates major policy initiatives and relies on the USGA's paid staff to implement its directives.
"The USGA executive committee and the past presidents have a lot of very smart and successful people, but there's not a single one of them who would run their own businesses the way they run the USGA," said Jack Vardaman, a Washington attorney, highly regarded national senior amateur golfer and a former general counsel and member of the USGA executive board. He resigned two years ago when it became apparent to him that he was being pushed off the fast track to become president because of views that clashed with more traditionalist members on the board and in the ranks of past presidents.
The debacle at Shinnecock may well have been symptomatic of what Vardaman and others believe truly ails the organization -- a classic case of too many chiefs at the top with no one in position to make a final decision.
"I believe the organization has totally lost its way," said another former executive committee member who did not want to be identified because he still has friends and business associates in the organization.
"You still have the former presidents sitting in the back of the room intimidating the current officers. They have never been able to deal with the equipment issue. The staff is really, really good, high-quality competent people. But it's the leadership and creativity the [executive] committee completely lacks, and that ultimately leads to mediocrity."
Some wonder how an organization that should be the most powerful in the game can be headed by a volunteer president who only serves a single two-year term. They say Fay, who most agree is one of the most competent administrators in any sport, is often usurped in his authority by the officers, past presidents and executive committee, very few of whom reflect the diversity they say they'd like to achieve.
Among the current officers, there are no minorities and only one woman, Emily "Missy" Crisp, who serves as treasurer. On the 15-member executive board, there are no minorities, no representative of the disabled and only one other woman, Mary Bea Porter-King. The average age of the officers is 55; the average age of the rest of the executive committee is 58 and the youngest member is 48.
"The character of the leadership is very undistinguished," said Frank Hannigan, executive director of the USGA from 1982 to 1990 who began working for the organization in 1961. "In my time, it was a very big pro bono job in sports, like being on the executive committee of the National Gallery. Now they're mostly nickel-and-dimers." | The USGA continues to shun important tour issues like regulating equipment, course setups at its major championships to the elitist image its volunteer officers and executive committee project. | 28.83871 | 0.83871 | 10.83871 | medium | medium | extractive | 4,885 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/14/DI2005061401261.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/14/DI2005061401261.html | The Downing Street Memo | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | Two top-secret British documents that were leaked to the press recently suggest that the Bush administration "fixed" intelligence about Iraq and that actions at the United Nations were designed to give legal cover to British Prime Minister Tony Blair before an invasion to oust Saddam Hussein .
Michael Smith, a reporter for the Sunday Times of London, has led the coverage, starting with his report of the so-called Downing Street Memo on May 1.
Smith was online Thursday, June 16, at 10 a.m. ET to discuss the Downing Street Memo and his reporting.
Read more: Ministers Were Told of Need for Gulf War 'Excuse.' , ( Sunday Times of London, June 12, 2005. )
Blair Hit by New Leak of Secret War Plan. , ( Sunday Times of London, May 1, 2005. )
The Downing Street Memo. ,( Sunday Times of London, May 1, 2005. )
Carlisle, Pa.: In your research, did you or any reporter you know come across War College or other military-academic research that indicated that Saddam Hussein likely no longer had weapons of mass destruction and that a foreign invasion of a country such as Iraq with a strong anti-American sentiment would be a costly venture? It seems the military academicians and intelligence reports had the facts right, but this information never filtered upwards to the White House or, if it did, it was ignored, nor did the press ever consider any of it useful except for perhaps a one day news spin and then was quickly forgotten.
Michael Smith: I think it is clear from the documents themselves that the whole venture was widely viewed as being highly dubious with no certainty of what would come out of it. The administration ensured that it only got the answers it wanted. But they either ignored the advice they were getting on the likely cost or managed to filter it out with this highly pressurized regime of come up with the right answers, or we will be on your back to do so all the time. That is what resulted in the National Intelligence Estimated of October 2002 which was designed by George Tenet to get a questioning Congress off the President's back. Everyone has heard about the British "dodgy" dossiers but the actual intelligence analysis, the so-called JIC report, on which the main dossier was based spoke mostly of weapons programmes, i.e. production of the agent that would be put into weapons, rather than actual stockpiled weapons .The closest it came to saying there were actually any weapons was to say there "may be" 1.5 tons of VX gas, a conclusion that went back to the conclusions of the UNSCOM weapons inspectors in 1998. The CIA's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on the other hand, said there were probably up to 500 tons of chemical weapons in Iraq. That gives you a feel of the kind of distortion that was going on. But as for the idea that he had very active programmes going on, well everyone, including the French and the Russians, thought that. There was a kind of group think that no-one was challenging. Long answer but I hope it's helpful.
Washington, D.C.: To what do you attribute the seeming lack of interest by the American public and main stream media, at least initially, in the revelations contained in the Downing Street Memo?
Michael Smith: Firstly, I think the leaks were regarded as politically motivated. Secondly there was a feeling of well we said that way back when. Then of course as the pressure mounted from the outside, there was a defensive attitude. "We have said this before, if you the reader didn't listen well what can we do", seemed to be the attitude. I don't know if you have this expression over there, but we say someone "wants to have their cake and eat it". That's what that response reeks of. Either it was politically motivated and therefore not true or it was published before by the U.S. newspapers and was true, it can't be both can it?
The attitude they have taken is just flat wrong, to borrow an expression from the White House spokesman on the Downing St Memo.
It is one thing for the New York Times or The Washington Post to say that we were being told that the intelligence was being fixed by sources inside the CIA or Pentagon or the NSC and quite another to have documentary confirmation in the form of the minutes of a key meeting with the Prime Minister's office. Think of it this way, all the key players were there. This was the equivalent of an NSC meeting, with the President, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, George Tenet, and Tommy Franks all there. They say the evidence against Saddam Hussein is thin, the Brits think regime change is illegal under international law so we are going to have to go to the U.N. to get an ultimatum, not as a way of averting war but as an excuse to make the war legal, and oh by the way we aren't preparing for what happens after and no-one has the faintest idea what Iraq will be like after a war. Not reportable, are you kidding me?
One point I would make though, everyone keeps saying it is continually making waves over here. We at the Sunday Times are not going to let it go but no-one else is interested in the U.K. press. The Washington Post came to it late but look at everything it is doing now. Ignore today's silly editorial article. The Post is now working away at this and I know they are planning to try to do more on it. Sadly there is no sign of the New York Times changing its sniffy we told you this already view!
Manassas, Va.: Thank you. I'm not in for a head-hunting expedition no matter who the target. But I am in for revealing some concrete evidence to what has seemed obvious to most rational people for the last few years.. we (most of us) were duped into thinking there was some kind of legitimate reason to "blow thing up" in another country... thank you for starting the snowball that will hopefully PROVE that this is in fact false. Only a country's own people can decide to change their leadership/government, we can't do it for them. I hope that your presenting this issue to the world helps the U.S. people change our leadership perhaps sooner than the next election. Do you feel this is grounds for us to do so, i.e., to impeach our current President (granted this may not be your area of expertise)?
Michael Smith: I personally believe there are grounds for it but not yet, not in the memos we've seen. It needs U.S. reporters to get to work to take the documents and their implications forward. If the Brits said that there weren't enough preparations in place for what comes after, what was the reaction back in Washington. Who was it who overruled the arguments coming out of London. Whether or not we are into headhunting that person has a lot to answer for as the nightly television pictures coming out of Iraq are showing. We in the mainstream media are at a crossroads now. The Internet has opened up a large number of challenges to us. We can allow the web news sites to sideline us or we can impose our largely better honed skills and show that we are the best at what we do. U.S. journalists are world-renowned for their skills and attention to accuracy but you can be inaccurate just as much by ignoring something as you can by writing it up and getting it wrong.
Orlando, Fla.: You have experienced reaction to the Bush/Blair mendacity on the Iraq run up on both sides of the pond.. How do you compare them?
Is there a chance Blair will eventual go with a vote of No Confidence (nice that you have it)..
Here, the chance of Bush being impeached seems slim... Thought the facts certainly justify it..
Michael Smith: I think Blair will go although I personally think Bush is much more at risk because there is an unstoppable public feeling against the continued presence of U.S. soldiers as targets for insurgents. The polls and the public pressure are not going Bush's way. There is no doubt in my mind that the administration lied and distorted the truth, one Congress begins to realise the scale of it, Bush could be in serious trouble.
Pasadena, Calif.: Bush used every fictional pretext he could find to justify invading Iraq. Why hasn't the press explored his real agenda for starting an unprovoked war?
Michael Smith: The press had explored that but since 9/11 there has been pressure on the U.S. media to hold off a bit. That was understandable at first, 9/11 was a massive shock to the system and as close to a national emergency as you can get. Then with the war, there is a natural tendency to get behind our boys. That is absolutely right in my view and anyone who looks at my reporting at the time will see it is the way I reported it. The media on both sides of the Atlantic did question bad decisions but not aggressively enough. There is an understandable fear of being seen as not backing the boys in the frontline. You can do both frankly. You can back the boys who are doing what the politicians order them to do while at the same time questioning the politicians' orders. The soldiers cant challenge orders, only rarely at elections and polls can the public challenge the politicians. It is part of the media's role to make that challenge. It has been done but at times far too timidly.
Cocoa, Fla.: Many Americans suspected that the administration would find a way to go to war without world approval. Seeking a devious way to proceed this memo would confirm our suspicions. It seems this document is authentic but where will this lead us? A great number of voters are concerned and will our Congress have support for an investigation with what is known? Are there other facts we still don't know publicly?
Michael Smith: Yes there are other facts you still don't know and the media should be using these public documents as a base from which to find them out because it is those facts that will really damage Bush. Some of the media already are on the case. Knight Ridder went in very early on in this story and I see is still going. The LA Times and The Washington Post and lots of smaller papers have all been doing their bit. They need to keep going. If the administration, as it claims, did nothing wrong, it has nothing to fear from journalists looking for the facts.
Washington, D.C.: I think the implications of all of this information is truly unknown. Our Post reporters chat with us here online saying that it's not going to lead to impeachment. I am not so sure. But if not that far, I see this as causing a great deal of problems for our government. What do you think will be the consequences, if any, for Blair?
Michael Smith: I bow to their better judgment on impeachment. I do think that the pressure now is such that it could go that way but only with continued pressure from us journalists and you the people. I firmly believe that Congress will turn against this awful ill-conceived war. I frankly don't care if Saddam Hussein and his buddies ended up in a grave like the ones they prepared for so many of their own people. What I do care about is the way in which nearly 2,000 allied soldiers, more than 1700 of the Americans with yet more today, have died simply because Blair and Bush didn't prepare for what would come afterwards.
Rockville, Md.: Can we expect more disclosures from highly placed British sources?
Michael Smith: I hope so. Keep reading the Sunday Times Web site!
Austin, Tex.: Has there ever been a historical equivalent to the Downing Street Memo that may help put it in better context with the American public? Also, do you think that it's possible since few Americans know what 'Downing Street' is or means, the significance of the document is just not appreciated on this side of the Atlantic?
Michael Smith: I think in journalistic terms we need to go back to the Pentagon papers, in terms of a U.S. context you have to look at the answer I gave earlier comparing that meeting to an NSC meeting. That is its significance, that is its equivalent. It is highly damning and some of the self-serving nonsense from people who should know better in some, and it is now only some, of the U.S. media is frankly depressing.
Arlington, Va.: Do you find the parallels between how the Watergate scandal began and how this is beginning interesting, considering the recent revelation of who Deep Throat was?
Michael Smith: Well on one level, you have a source leaking stuff out and the story building up with only one newspaper keeping going, sustained by its source, it is similar. But Watergate led to a President quitting. This has only led, so far, to a greater public awareness of the mendacious way, and I think that is a fair description of the way in which the administration works.
At its most basic Watergate was an obvious crime, a break-in, nasty electoral dirty tricks and a cover-up by the White House. But I have heard people say now on a number of occasions that nobody died over Watergate. The number of Americans killed in Iraq has likely gone up even as we have been on the Internet having this discussion.
Fredericksburg, Va.: Every reason given by the Bush administration for the Iraq war has either been proven to be imaginary or questionable at best. At what does someone bring up the issue of oil as the principle motivation for the conflict? I've rarely heard anyone, other than a die hard Republican, deny it as a significant factor but no one ever publicly addresses the possibility. Outside the United States it is pretty much seen as the only reason.
Michael Smith: I honestly believe it is more complex than that, but yes the control of the Middle-East as a whole, of which this is only a part, is about oil, no question. What we need are the memos that say that to make people realise it. But interestingly it was never mentioned in any of those leaked UK memos so as I say there were a lot of reasons for Iraq and it is more complex. I really do believe, as Peter Ricketts, the Foreign Office Policy Director says in one of the memos that have come back into vogue this week, "it looks like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam."
Fairfax, Va.: Do you expect we will see more leaks which further corroborate the assertion that Bush lied to justify the neoconservatives' aggressive stance against Iraq? Also, what are your thoughts on the semantics argument of the Iraq war supporters (i.e., in the U.K., "fixed around" doesn't mean what you think it means...)?
Michael Smith: There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it. The intelligence was fixed and as for the reports that said this was one British official. Pleeeaaassee! This was the head of MI6. How much authority do you want the man to have? He has just been to Washington, he has just talked to George Tenet. He said the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. That translates in clearer terms as the intelligence was being cooked to match what the administration wanted it to say to justify invading Iraq. Fixed means the same here as it does there. More leaks? I do hope so and the more Blair and Bush lie to try to get themselves off the hook the more likely it is that we will get more leaks.
Arlington, Va.: If what you say is a major factor:
"I really do believe, as Peter Ricketts, the Foreign Office Policy Director says in one of the memos that have come back into vogue this week, "it looks like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam." "
Why on earth would the U.K. go along with Bush? The real reason must benefit the U.K. also.
Michael Smith: Oh don't get me wrong, we're not letting them off the hook either. Trust me on that one. Blair wanted to keep the alliance alive and was desperate to do anything to please George Bush and what is more he cant even claim that no-one told him it would all end in disaster. There's at least a chance that some of the neo-Cons believed the garbage about the Iraqis lining up to welcome us with open arms.
Washington, D.C.: More than oil and a Saddam grudge, it appears that Bush wanted to be a "war president" to help him stay in office and, maybe, really win an election the second time around. Do you see that as part of the motivation?
Michael Smith: Undoubtedly so. Nothing unites a country behind its leader like a war.
It seems as though the memos indicate two critical but separate points, 1. The U.S. government made the intel facts conform to the foregone policy and, 2. Perhaps equally damning that the policy planners gave little if any thought to the post-war effort. Could you perhaps comment on lack of planning for the "post-war" environment.
Michael Smith: I think that I answered this one a little time back. Absolutely one of the worst, if not the worst, thing pointed up by these memos is the lack of preparation. Very damaging to both Blair and Bush
Farmington, N.M.: One of the reasons Americans can no longer trust mainstream corporate media to exercise journalistic integrity in dissemination of the news is because pundits and reporters are being paid by our elected officials and agents to report government propaganda as if it were actually news. Do you have the same problem in Britain?
Michael Smith: I wasn't aware this was happening either here or in the UK and I absolutely know it wouldn't be happening with any of the leading papers on either side of the Atlantic. But if you have evidence of it, then perhaps you need to ring The Post news desk. it sounds like a story.
New York, N.Y.: One of the recurrent scenarios in the United States is that revelations of executive branch deception in foreign policy do not lead to a broad change in the way the public treats the administration. In your estimation as an investigative reporter, what should individual members of the American electorate do after learning about The Downing Street Memo? What actions should ordinary people take?
Michael Smith: I think they should lobby Congress. The way the polls are going, we are at the point now where that is going to be effective. I don't believe that there is a single politician on the Hill who is happy to see US soldiers dying to no good effect. If they are convinced that the administration not only failed to prepare for the aftermath, or as it seems from the memos didn't even care to believe the experts, they are soon going to come round to the view that something drastic needs to be done.
Edinburgh, U.K.: What do you think of the argument reported in Howard Kurtz's article that Sir Richard Dearlove may have came to his conclusion by reading the newspapers?
Michael Smith: This is the head of British intelligence, a man who has just had conversations with America's most senior intelligence and national security figures. He is reporting back at the highest level, to what is effectively a war cabinet and as I know to my own cost has no great regard for newspapers. He has made his own judgment, no-one better qualified to tell that meeting what was happening. No shadow of a doubt.
Anonymous: Are there other issues regarding the Iraq war which are big in the U.K. which are never heard here in the U.S.?
Michael Smith: Blair's lack of honesty has had a hugely damaging effect on his reputation. He is trusted with virtually every aspect of the government apart from the war and his "poodle-like" attitude towards George Bush. The legality is the only other issue but that is very much part of these memos. We haven't yet reached the point where people are as concerned as they are in America over the cost of the war both in human and financial terms. But there has always been strong opposition to the war here and while before the war it was a large minority, it is now a large majority. So if we were to move people back to July 2002 with the attitudes they have now, we would never go to war.
Bowie, Md.: Considering the fact that both elections (Bush and Blair) are now concluded and the public has supported both, what real significance does the memo play in today's politics? Other than confirming what the opposition already suspected.
Michael Smith: The war and the lies around the war, as patently demonstrated by the various documents I obtained, has already ensured that Blair will retire early.
I believe that we will see more coming out in America. I think as I said earlier that we have reached a tipping point, where the public will turn against the war and that will have a definite effect on the mid-term elections. Anything more depends on the mood of Congress.
Louisville, Ky.: Your tone is very damning and you are obviously actively trying to do what you can to reveal the dubious justifications for this war and the total lack of postwar planning.
If you were an American reporter, Fox News and the conservative radio movement would dismiss you out of hand as a partisan, axe-to-grind liberal, and we might never have read your disclosures. Do you feel fortunate to report for the Sunday Times?
Michael Smith: I do. But look I am not some mealy-mouthed left-wing apologist. I vote Conservative in elections for parliament and Liberal-Democrat (the term Liberal does not have the same connotations over here) in the local elections. I actually backed the idea of the war. I have just finished a book on an American military unit which is very admiring of that unit. I cant go into details as it is not published until March.
I am just a reporter doing my job. I am not partisan, other than in arguing the case for the importance of the leaks. The information in the documents is damning enough. I don't believe that Republicans want US soldiers to die for no good cause in an insurgency that could have been avoided anymore than Democrats do. This isn't about politics. It's about common sense and honesty. Like many non-Americans around the world I was brought up to believe that they were articles of faith for the American people. The level of interest in the memos shows that that wasn't wrong but a lot of non-Americans look at some of the things that have been done recently, like the way in which the war was justified and Guantanamo and wonder how that same America could do those things.
As I say, that's not being anti-American. I think no more of the Blair government in that regard. It has definitely been just as bad.
Arlington, Va.: Is your source concerned for their safety? I read that a page from one of the memos was redacted to protect their identity. Doesn't anyone in the U.K. government that had access to the memos now know who the leak is?
Michael Smith: Yes definitely concerned not to be found out. But I am not going to say anything more about that because it would only help those who are undoubtedly looking for him or her!
Baltimore, Md.: As an outside observer, I always credited Tony Blair with at least having good sense. What are the policy reasons that he would let the U.K. get sucked into the Iraq adventure by Bush? Is this, perhaps, another manifestation of the desire, shown by both Labour and Conservative politicians for the past 50 years, to prove Britain "still matters" on the world stage. (This started with Suez, I think.)
Michael Smith: I think it started out with a very pragmatic believe, which I think is right, that America is our main ally and that Saddam Hussein would need to be dealt with at some stage.
You cant do that sort of thing nowadays without the might of the American military, you probably never could since WWII. Sometimes the US view is isolationist, leave us alone, we don't want to do anything. George Bush wanted to do it and he wanted to do it now. It made sense to Blair and I have to say it made sense to me. But at that point the policy appears to have unraveled. Surely if all your experts say this is a bad idea, it's illegal, which it was for us, you haven't any way of controlling what comes after, then you drop Plan A and look for Plan B.
Blair didn't because Bush didn't want to and from that point on it was always going to end up like it has today.
Washington, D.C.: Do you think that when Blair resigns, the new PM will bow to public opinion and begin pulling British troops out? Or is there a sense there, as in some circles of the U.S., that since we started this, there's an obligation to tough it out and see the occupation through until the Iraqi government can take over?
Michael Smith: We're are stuck a barrel now. The Geneva Convention says that if you occupy a country, you have to leave it able to govern itself and protect itself. The Brits will stick to that I am sure but we will see a draw down of troops in the U.K. controlled sector because it is much more peaceful and getting to the point where it needs to be able to govern itself. But when will Iraq be repaired enough for us all to leave. I suspect it will be a long time yet.
Washington, D.C.: Assuming that PM Blair is still in power, if the U.S. decides to take military action against Iran or Syria in the future, do you think Britain will go along this time?
Michael Smith: Hell will freeze over before another U.K. prime minister follows Bush to war. It would be political suicide.
Alexandria, Va.: I guess I see this memo as being interesting from a British perspective but haven't we known the basics in the U.S. for a long time ?
Quite a while ago, Paul Wolfowitz clearly stated that WMD was used as a pretext to go to war because the administration believed it to be the only way to sell a preemptive attack on Iraq.
This was reported in the press. People read it. There seemed to be little hubbub about it.
I'd contend that most Americans just don't give a damn and those that do fall into the us vs. them category.
Michael Smith: You may be right. There is a whole swathe of America that does feel that way. It gets most of its news from Fox and it is very happy to trust the administration. But the polls show that those people are becoming a minority, maybe not a small minority but a minority. When the approval rates for the war will stop dropping is a good question but they have some way to go yet. Too many troops have died. This whole story will have an effect. But there will be other effects. How many communities are there in America who haven't lost someone? That will all have an effect. There seems no way to stop the number of soldiers dying. The polls will have their own momentum. The more people you see taking a view, the more you tend to think maybe they're right.
Anonymous: George W. Bush once slipped during a speech and stated he was upset that Saddam Hussein had tried to kill his father. Is this a possible explanation for his fixation over Saddam Hussein? Indeed, perhaps if he had been more honest about it, it might have been understood more.
Michael Smith: Maybe. That was clearly the view of Peter Ricketts when he said in one of the memos that it looked like a grudge match
Los Angeles, Calif.: Do you believe the Wolfowitz Doctrine, written up at Project for a New American Century in 2000, is evidence that should be submitted alongside the Downing Street Memos, or are the doctrine's aims of proving America's military might by overthrowing Saddam's regime and protecting our Saudi resources irrelevant for an investigation at this point?
Michael Smith: Well you cant say they didn't warn us. I think that is all part of what the congressional committees will eventually get their teeth into.
Albany, N.Y.: I have a short and sweet question for you.
Yesterday this paper, The Washington Post wrote and editorial about Iraq and mentioned the Downing Street memo and said the memo revealed absolutely nothing new and added nothing to the debate.
Michael Smith: The same as I said earlier in other answers. This is the documentary evidence from within the U.K. equivalent of an NSC meeting. It is one thing saying well The Post wrote this back then from our sources, but it is a very different thing to have the documents from the heart of government that prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The other thing we keep coming back to is the build-up of concern over the whole business of being in Iraq, losing soldiers every day. These memos not only convince the ordinary man or woman in the street they strike a chord.
That editorial said it couldn't speak for its news desk who keep going with this story. Whoever wrote it was entitled to their opinion. But they were flat wrong!
West Cornwall, Conn.: Has the name John Bolton come up when the question arises as to who it was who organised the `fixing" of the intelligence?
Michael Smith: Well the fixing of the intelligence is certainly one thing that many of us knew about already. But for anyone who didn't believe it the Bolton nomination hearings ought to have convinced them. We on the Sunday Times didn't focus on this point too much as we had already reported it. I personally think we have had too much focus on the intelligence. It's a red herring. Saying it was faulty intelligence that led us to war let's Blair and Bush off the hook. It wasn't faulty intelligence that took us to war, it was them. This is why they have both been happy to set up inquiries, two by Blair and the Presidential Commission by Bush. These masquerade as inquiries into the war. In reality, Blair and Bush set out the terms of reference so that they only look at the intelligence. When they come back and say the intelligence was faulty, Blair and Bush both say how awful it was but hey we weren't to blame for that and anyway Saddam Hussein has gone and that's a good thing. Focusing on the intelligence lets them off the hook.
Washington, D.C.: Have you embedded with British Forces in Iraq since 2003?
Michael Smith: I have both in Iraq and Afghanistan but that is not the answer to your question I think. Come back on with your point.
Toronto, Canada: I know it's not really the same thing, but was Andrew Gilligan right? Or, at least, in the future, with the likely leak of more memos do you think that the "Today" programme will be vindicated in some way?
Michael Smith: David Kelly was a very, very good source. His concerns were expressed to Andrew who rightly reported them. The concerns were that intelligence was being manipulated to make a point. Kelly never said "sexed up", nor did Gilligan, it was an announcer on the radio programme who coined that phrase, although that was the upshot of what Kelly was saying and was accepted by others who thought likewise as a correct interpretation. The problem came in the reporting, which went awry. Gilligan inadvertently said in a live interview the the Government knew that the intelligence was wrong. Kelly never said that. That was the only thing that was wrong frankly. His editors at the BBC should have spotted this and moved swiftly to correct that incorrect allegation. They didn't. We had a witch hunt against both Kelly and Gilligan. One was able to survive that, sadly one did not. A good, honest man killed himself. The Today programme has to a certain extent already been vindicated but it should have retracted the incorrect part of the story. Inside the BBC, that battle as to whether Gilligan and Today were right or wrong still rages.
Durham, N.C.: I sympathize with your sentiments. But how do you respond to the argument that, even given the fact the intelligence was "inconclusive", that the War ended a horrible, repressive regime and is instituting a democracy, which of course, requires "hard work?" There can be some claim of success, even though the Bushies have bungled the whole thing from beginning to end.
Michael Smith: The problem is that as the memo's show even if we do calm it all down, which I would hope would eventually happen, what are we going to do, withdraw? What will happen then?
This is the Cabinet Office Options Paper of March 8, 2002.
"There would... be a strong risk of the Iraqi system reverting to type. Military coup could succeed coup until an autocratic, Sunni dictator emerged who protected Sunni interests. With time he could acquire WMD."
Or what about this letter from Jack Straw to the Prime Minister dated March 25, 2002
"What will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than anything. Most of the assessments from the U.S. have assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better. Iraq has no history of democracy so no-one has this habit or experience."
Cortez, Colo.: What's the use of this information being publicized now? We are stuck there. The ones of us screaming our heads off and writing letters just based on what people in country and what Hans Blix was saying certainly don't feel any better for it.
Michael Smith: Well of course a large number of people have died, more than 1,700 of them Americans and in a sense this is all too late. But it would not have had the same effect even six months ago. There was not the same public mood. So the timing of the publication has struck a chord and should be used to take the issue forward. Those who expressed concerns now have more credibility. Congress is beginning to take notice. It will take time and the stories and public pressure will need to keep coming. But as I said earlier, the polls indicate a tipping point. I was one of those in favour of war originally. You sound like you were always against it. Things are going your way. I'm surprised to hear you so gloomy.
Washington, D.C.: In your opinion, which influential/powerful Congressmen would most easily be persuaded to champion an investigation that could challenge the U.S. administration?
Michael Smith: I confess I do not know enough about U.S. politics to say that but the main people would be the democrats and republicans in the centre of the political divide, where both parties meet. It needs to have Dean and Clinton talking about it angrily rather than, or should I say as well as, people who were always against the war like John Conyers, crucial though his part in this new public awareness has been. But it also needs Republicans on the edges to break ranks. Difficult but not impossible with the polls swinging against the war.
Fairfax, Va.: What role do you think bloggers and their persistence played in the mainstream American media picking up the Downing Street Memo story? The MSM here ignored the story for more than a month.
Michael Smith: I think your question says it all. They played a crucial role. AfterDowningStreet.org; DowningStreetMemo.com. RawStory and Salon have all played major parts. I had better stop naming sites or I will be accused of leaving out other important ones!
Woodbridge, Va.: All this stuff about how wonderful it is that we got rid of Saddam is frankly beside the point. When the war was being sold to us this administration insisted it was NOT about regime change. It was supposed to be necessary to save AMERICAN lives from Saddam's weapons. Why are they being let off the hook about this?
Michael Smith: They wont be let off the hook by me, or you I suspect. History will certainly not let them off the hook.
Houston, Tex.: Many Americans and others worldwide feel that our government was complicit in 9/11, i.e. they were behind it. Looking back, do you think that 9/11 was orchestrated as a lead in to Iraq and Afghanistan?
Michael Smith: Definitely not. No way. These guys have got all sorts of things wrong but all that stuff about 9/11 being manufactured is just conspiracy theory and silly at that.
One thing I would say, and I notice this figures in other questions. If Blair and Bush hadn't launched the Iraq War then U.S. and U.K. Special Operations Forces would have been concentrating on one man and one man alone and Osama bin Laden would have been captured, or more likely killed resisting capture.
Washington, D.C.: Mr. Smith, Do you think the majority of the Iraqi people give a fig about the Downing Street Minutes kerfluffle?
Michael Smith: I think they have far more things to worry about, but some of those are the result of the mistakes highlighted by these memos. I keep going on about the number of allied soldiers killed. Thousands more Iraqis have died and while sure Saddam wasn't renowned for being nice to his people, those who didn't cause him trouble never got any back. Even Mr Rumsfeld accepts that it is far more dangerous in Iraq now than it was before the war.
Baltimore, Md.: Did Dr. Kelly's death have anything to do with the Downing St. memo?
Michael Smith: Only in that his complaint was the same as that expressed in the memo by the head of MI6 that the intelligence was being fixed around the policy. But one was talking about the fixing that was going on around the UK Dossier and the other about the U.S., with the exaggerated weapons strengths and the phony link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein
London, U.K.: Isn't it unfair to say that the Russians were part of the 'groupthink'. In late 2002 Putin was going on record to say that there was no trustworthy data to support the existence of WMD in Iraq.
Michael Smith: No because the two things aren't mutually exclusive. There was no trustworthy data to support the existence of actual weapons, as the response you're referring to said. The JIC report simply said there "may" be 1.5 tons of VX gas and at the same time as he OKed the 45-minute claim, John Scarlett, the JIC chairman, refused to harden that up. But as for the programmes are concerned there was no dispute and no-one outside Iraq believed that the programmes were just ticking over waiting for an end to sanctions. I believe the Canadians were among those that came closest but neither the Russians nor the French were.
Boca Raton, Fla.: Mr Smith:
'The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban war fighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.'
If the WMD intelligence was 'fixed' and everyone knew that was so, why would there have been any concern whatsoever that Saddam would use WMD? The two statements appear to me in contradiction.
Michael Smith: There is no doubt that the U.S. and U.K. military were concerned about the possibility of an Iraqi chemical or biological attack. Everyone thought it was likely, the fixing came in the strength of reporting. I pointed to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate saying there were "probably" up to 500 tons of chemical weapons in Iraq as opposed to the British JIC report saying that the "may be" 1.5 tons of VX. But the biggest concern within MI6 at the time was the fixing of intelligence to show a non-existent link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Arlington, Va.: Among military people, you're know as pro-defense. Why the point of your anti-Iraq war article?
Michael Smith: Thank you for giving me the chance to answer this question. I am very pro-defence you're right. All right-thinking people should be. Saddam Hussein might not have been the threat he was painted but there are plenty out there who would be given the chance. As the 9/11 commission showed, America let its defences drop and got caught with a sucker punch. That shows the need to keep up your defences.
We in Europe rely too often on America to bail us out, even if occasionally you come a bit late to the party! Defence budgets are repeatedly cut over here with the armed forces being asked to do more and more. As some of you may have guessed by now before I became a journalist, I served in the army. That makes me all the more angry when people fight wars they don't need to and kill people who don't need to be killed, not least because it is never the politicians who get killed it is the ordinary soldiers.
Bin Laden is a legitimate target, Iraq, even an Iraq led by Saddam Hussein, was not. This was an illegal war but the most criminal part of it all was the lazy, arrogant way they went into it. (British tanks crossing the start lines, in a war being fought about WMD, did not even have any chemical or biological filters fitted because the Ministry of Defence failed to buy them in time.)
Just look at all those memos again, don't look for fixed intelligence, don't look for illegality. Just look at the lack of preparation, look how right all those experts who said it would all turn out badly were and then wonder how many British and American soldiers died because those politicians were too arrogant to take the advice of the experts.
Charlottesville, Va.: Do you think there's a way to remove the partisan tone that usually accompanies the discussion of this memo? I'd like to see it discussed in real Congressional hearings and have it become a major topic. However, every mention I've seen has come with comments about impeachment, or BUSH LIED! which doesn't help and gets it easily dismissed as partisan whining.
Michael Smith: You're right. That's the way forward. Only then will it be taken seriously and get the attention across the political divide it deserves. These things always take time. Congress has to take a more considered view and that is only right. But we are getting there. I have no doubt that the lack of preparation will be discussed in Congress. That's when the heat will really be turned on the administration.
Michael Smith: Well. I've been going on for well over three hours. It's time to put the soap box away! I would like to thank you for all your questions. Even those who clearly disagreed with the tone of some of my answers were always polite about it. It has been a great experience for me and I thank you all for the kind things you said about my journalism. I have been truly overwhelmed by the number of people who have come on line, in more ways than one. I am really sorry that I have been unable to answer all your queries but I hope somewhere in my many answers you will find the answer to the question you wanted to put. Thanks again and goodbye.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Sunday Times of London reporter Michael Smith discusses his reporting on the Downing Street Memo. | 546.75 | 0.9375 | 2.6875 | high | medium | mixed | 4,886 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/09/DI2005060901218.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/09/DI2005060901218.html | Got Plans? | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | Every Thursday at 1 p.m. ET, washingtonpost.com's Entertainment Guide experts share their best bets for local flavor, great dates and family fun. Got plans? Great. Need plans? Just ask. We have the skinny on the bars and clubs, concerts, kitchens, theaters and special events that keep life interesting. We're going out gurus, and we're at your service.
Of course, we're happy to answer questions about local entertainment, but we need to hear from you, too. Introduce us to the coolest DJ or the fastest bartender you've encountered. Sound off on the week's best concert or the city's best burger. Tell us about the best place to amuse little kids or a big art fan. Together we can plan fun ways to spend weekdays, weekends, dates and holidays. The pleasure is ours, and yours.
Each week a different guru will act as host or hostess, but the entire staff is at your service. If you're looking for more ideas, see the Entertainment Guide .
washingtonpost.com : Welcome to another rousing edition of Got Plans? There's lots going on this weekend, but one of the biggest events has to be Silverdocs , the third annual documentary film festival happening at the AFI in Silver Spring. If you're not busy with "Batman Begins," it's definitely worth a trip. Which raises a question: How many of you actually go to Washington's many local film festivals? For those of you who don't go, what's holding you back? What sort of film festival would be more enticing? Or are you strictly a Hollywood blockbuster-type? Feel free to weigh in on those questions throughout the discussion while we answer your questions in our usual enthusiastic-but-never-sarcastic fashion. (Could you tell I was being sarcastic?) Let's get started.
Alexandria, Va.: Any suggestions in D.C. or Va. for a good group dinner restaurant for a joint birthday celebration? Probably 15 to 20 people, prefer non-American food. Thinking about Casablanca in Old Town, and have already done Jaleo.
Erin: Have you tried Oyamel in Crystal City? I haven't been to Casablanca, but I enjoyed Taste of Morocco for a party last year. If you'd prefer to stay in Old Town, Cafe Salsa would be a fun pick. Also, I went to a great group dinner at Grill From Ipanema last year.
Washington, D.C.: Fritz -- Any more info on this Battle of the Law Firm bands tonight at Madam's Organ? Sounds pretty interesting.
Fritz: I think it's going to be hit or miss, because as I understand it, most of the performers are kind of bedroom musicians who are setting aside the power ties for a night of ROCK! to raise money for charity. Could be cringe inducing, but I'm most curious about the band that's playing bluegrass. (If you're looking for more info about the event, check This Week in Nightlife.)
Quarterdeck: Can you get crabs and bucks of beer at Quarter Deck? I'm looking for a place you use the wooden mallets and hammer away at your crabs!
Fritz: Heck yes. It's the best.
Going to Modest Mouse tonight at Constitution Hall... Where are some nearby places to get dinner after the show? Thanks!
Joe: Hello DC, I'll be at Modest Mouse tonight also. But I think you might have a tough time finding a place for dinner after the show since it probably won't end until 11 or later. It doesn't start until 8 and there's an opener (Camper Van Beethoven). There are a bunch of bars in Foggy Bottom to get bar food or you could always go over to G'town or the Diner in Adams Morgan. That's not exactly nearby though. Fritz says there's a late-night happy hour at McCormick and Schmick's (sp?) near Farragut Square with cheap food.
I noticed a driving course of sorts set up in the parking lot of RFK. Do you know what's going on there this weekend?
David: It's basically a two-day interactive advertisement for Chrysler. You can test drive a whole bunch of Chrylser's cars on three driving courses. They hope you then buy one of those cars in the future. The other activities they are offering -- golf swing analysis and cigar rolling -- sort of show the demographic they are going for.
Hi Gurus. Quick question: I've got a hankering for some soft shell crab, but I want to cook it myself and save some $$$. I live on U Street; any good suggestions for places to buy it from you or the rest of the gang? Thanks!
Joe: You can definitely buy soft shell crab at Whole Foods. But maybe some other readers have some good ideas?
Hi GoGs! I am thinking of going to South Beach Cafe in Bethesda this weekend. I hear it's under new management. Does it have a DJ and dancing on the upper level? Would you recommend it as a chill place to relax/hang with friends?
Rhome: Bethesda operatives have told us that it's a prime destination. Neither Fritz nor I have been there since Krunk left and before there was Krunk there wasn't that much to recommend about it after happy hour time. They do still have a hip-hop dj there Thursday through Saturday.
Washington, D.C.: I'm planning to meet up with some friends at MCCXXIII for Friday happy hour. What's the deal on the rumored $15 open bar? What about the dress code? I'm coming from my "Casual Friday" office.
Fritz: Dress code doesn't really matter until 9, which is when the all-you-can-drink happy hour ends. After that, no tennis shoes or sportswear (neat jeans seem to be okay). The open bar can be kind of a pain, especially when it's really crowded and you can't move, let alone order a drink.
Fairfax, Va.: Hi Gurus! Any suggestions on best places to celebrate our second wedding anniversary in D.C.? We'll be celebrating the weekend of July 1st (our anniversary is on June 29th). A restaurant with a nice view would be great. Near a good area to walk around. Perhaps a show beforehand?
Erin: Happy Anniversary, Fairfax! The Lafayette is a lovely dining room at the Hay-Adams overlooking the White House. I love the setting at L'Auberge Chez Francois , while Restaurant Eve offers the option of wandering through Old Town ... if you choose to stay in NoVa. You can also catch "The Last Five Years" at MetroStage , but it's about the breakup of a marriage, so it may not be the right theme for the evening. If you are interested in a show, "Lady Windermere's Fan" at The Shakespeare Theatre offers the options of Cafe Atlantico , Oya , Zaytinya and Indebleu . "Take Me Out" is playing at Studio Theatre where you'll find 15 Ria , Tabard Inn , Corduroy and DC Coast . There's a park near there, but I wouldn't advocate walking through it at night!
Washington, D.C. : Hi Gurus, I have a somewhat odd question! A friend is competing in the Miss Tennessee Pagent this Saturday, and we all really want to see her talent!! Do you know of any place in the area with a satellite that might broadcast such an event? Or an Internet cafe with good connections and reasonable rates (it will also be live via the Web)? Thanks!
Anne: This sounds like a bang-up idea. But I'm drawing a blank. Does anyone in the crowd have suggestions on establishments partial to Tennesseeans?
Washington, D.C.: I heard that FUR recently hosted a charity event and then ended up kicking out the band and the charity hosts early. I've heard countless shady stories about FUR. What's the deal with this place ... are these stories true?
Rhome: We do know that shady dealings happen in the nightclub business all the time in D.C. I've seen a lot of it with my own eyes. We can't confirm any specifics about Fur without any investigation reporting.
Fairfax, Va.: A friend of mine is coming to visit and I was wondering if you could give me a list of places to go dancing for those of us under 21? I would particularly like to know if Chaos has an under 21 night. Thanks!
Fritz: Check out the list in our Interns' Guide . I'm pretty sure Chaos is 21-and-over; if you're looking for a gay club, check out Apex.
Washington, D.C.: Hi there, this is probably a silly question for you guys, but if you could pick one musician/band etc. to play in your back yard for you and your friends, who would it be? Oh, and they can't be dead, that's a rule.
Joe: Wow, talk about a great but impossible question to answer. Just one? How about three? First of all, I want a back yard. Here are my choices: Flaming Lips, Springsteen + E Street, George Jones.
here are other picks from here.
Jen - U2 or White StripesFritz - Last Train Home/FugaziRhome - Fishbone or OzomatliAnne - Jane's AddictionDavid - The Fall/The Oranges BandErin - Weezer or NKOTBAny readers want to play?
Del Ray, Alexandria, Va.: Hi -- Can you pls provide more info about Bar Pilar (also seen it as "Pillar"??) and Vegetate? Location, concept, etc. Thanks. PMF
Fritz: My take on Bar Pilar is on the blog. (One L, not two; it's a Spanish name that Hemingway used for his fishing boat.) Pilar is a few doors down from Saint-Ex. It lacks that bar's DJs and multi-level space, but it's comfortable and has a great vintage feel.
Vegetate won't open until at least July at this point. It's going to be a veggie restaurant and DJ bar opened by DJ Dredd around, located around the corner from the Convention Center.
To the Modest House concert goers!: Right around the corner is the Old Ebbitt Grill. 675 15th Street NW. The full menu is being served until 12 a.m. and a consolidated menu until 1 a.m. Enjoy the show!
Washington, D.C.: New to D.C. this year and I was wondering if there are any good festivals over the summer to attend? Really enjoyed the Chili Cook-off, so something along those lines would be preferred. Thanks for your help!
David: Well if you liked the Chili Cook-Off, then you'll probably enjoy the National Capital Barbecue Battle , which is next weekend. Lots of ribs and brisket and pork BBQ and all that good stuff. Music from Jimmie's Chicken Shack, Chuck Brown and others.
Pre-show entertainment: Where would you recommend for a pre-movie dinner in Silver Spring. We are going to a 10 p.m. show on Saturday at the AFI Silver Theatre and would like to grab a casual dinner someplace within walking distance if possible (only park once). Only request is that it is friendly to the one veggie in our crowd.
Jen: I may be at the same show. There are a number of restaurant in the Silver Plaza, just behind the theater. Lebanese Taverna or Austin Grill are good options. Or, if you're willing to take a short walk, there's Cubano's, which is particularly key if you crave a mojito before your movie.
Summer: I know last year you had a section all about summer and things to do. I can't seem to find it now -- is it still up there? Also, on a similar note, looking for the link to the article on "beaches without the drive" -- beach-type places that don't require crossing the Bay Bridge. Thanks.
Anne: You're looking for this story on nearby beaches , I think. I found it just now when I typed "beach" in the Entertainment Guide keyword search box. As for summer suggestions, we can tell you about ice cream , swimming pools , free summer concerts ... Janet's pulled together a few beauty ideas . Keep an eye on tomorrow's Weekend section for more.
NW Washington, D.C.: Hi all,
I have a date to hear the Blues Matinee at Wolftrap this weekend (Buddy Guy, et al.) -- never been there before, and not too familiar with the area, so I'm trying to find where to eat dinner afterwards. The only place I know about is Anita's -- do they serve alcohol? Any other suggestions?
Joe: Hmm, I've been out to Wolf Trap many times, but have never eaten at restaurants in the area. But here's our listing of Vienna restaurants all of which aren't too far from Wolf Trap.
Re: Feelin' Crabby: You can get them for around $3-$4 a crab at some of the places at the Maine Ave fish market. Make sure though wherever you get them to get them cleaned if you're squeamish about killing live things. If they're not pre-cleaned you essentially have to cut off their faces with scissors or a knife, which they tend not to like.
Joe: Thanks for the info.
Arlington, Va.: Hi GoG's! This Monday is my best friend's 23rd birthday and since it is in the middle of the work week, and we are celebrating the big day with the rest of our friends this weekend, on the day of her birthday the two of us were just thinking of going to a nice dinner. She could not think of anywhere specific that she would like to try so I figured I'd write to you guys. She says she would like to go somewhere with good ol' American food in either Arlington or Old Town Alexandria. Since it is her birthday, I'll be footing the bill so please suggest places that won't put me back a whole paycheck of my meager first-real-job-out-of-college salary. Thanks so much!
Erin: Hey there. I've been in this predicament a few times recently and have a few suggestions. I love Evening Star Cafe in Del Ray next to Old Town or the more casual FireFlies on the same street. Vermilion or Stardust would be good as well. In Arlington, Carlyle might be a little on the costly side, but it's something to keep in mind when those paychecks start adding up!
Backyard Band: U2 - no question
Joe: Yeah, but you'll have to have a big back yard to accommodate Bono's ego.
MtP, Washington, D.C.: Hey Gurus-- A couple of years ago (am I showing my groupie tendencies?) you had posted a list of your fave DJ bars in the city. The list was comprised of mainly smaller venues and less mainstream musical selections than the typical weekend club vibe. Any chance there's an updated version of this list? I love the mid-week lounge scene in the city and the previous list was a great resource. Thanks! Stay cool.
Fritz: Rhome and I will get around to that soon. In the meantime, we like Wonderland, Saint-Ex, Marx Cafe (especially on weekends) and Galaxy Hut (Tues/Weds) -- all cozy places where you can get a drink and a seat and just take in whatever's playing.
Washington, D.C.: Hey, is Bar Pilar non-smoking? Passed by yesterday, and people were standing outside smoking ... I may be in the minority, but I'll be disappointed if it is...
Fritz: People have been smoking at the bar to the two times I've been in.
Washington, D.C.: Thanks so much for the scoop on the Embassy Row rooftop happy hour! Decided to go last Friday and after spending about 30 minutes looking for a place to park, we finally made it to the roof and had a blast! (Hint to readers...travel via metro and arrive between 4:30-5:00p to secure a table on the top level by the food & deejays.)
Now...I submit a challenge. Since you suggested such a cool laid-back venue for Friday nights, how about something similar for Saturdays and Sundays (both during the day and in the evening).... Are you up to that, my dear Gurus??
OH! One more tidbit -- I heard about a spot in Adams Morgan spinning old school on Sunday nights? Have you heard about this?
Rhome: Afterlight needs to take off. It has the potential of being chill, sexy and a huge blast all in the same event. When the breeze blows the humidity out of the way and Double o7 is on the mix... it's a wrap.
As for other options, there's the outdoor area at H2O, and Dream always has DJs on the second level patio. Those put you into a different size class of nightclub though. In this week's column we mention Vida putting their outdoor space to good use on Friday. Maybe they'll start doing the same for the rest of the weekend?
The old school party started this past Memorial Day weekend at Timehri . It's shaping up to be a fun time. Adrian Loving is spinning this weekend. Hopefully they can keep good talent in the lineup because the dj booth also serves as a storage closet and SEPTIC COLLECTION PIT... eeeewww!!! Nothing for boogieing patrons to worry about though.
This is my first time seeing Modest Mouse. What should I expect from the show?
Joe: Hello MC, Md. I'm sort of the wrong person to ask because I have no impartiality when it comes to Modest Mouse. They are probably in my all-time top 10 favorites. I lived in Seattle when they were just getting started and was a huge fan from their earliest shows and wrote a long story about them for the Seattle Times when I used to work there. I think they used to be much wilder and more unpredictable than they are now. I still think they are a great group, but probably less likely to stray far from their setlist. But Isaac Brock is one of rock's most interesting characters and his songs are some of the strangest most wonderful things I've ever heard. Like I said, I'm pretty biased.
Backyard Band: Foo Fighters or Coldplay
Bethesda, Md.: A friend's 21st birthday is coming up and, of course, we'd like to celebrate it with some drinks at a bar. Unfortunately, some of our friends are not 21 yet. Can you recommend a good place where the birthday girl can sip her drinks but her under-21 friends can still get inside?
Anne: Let me steer you to the Interns' Guide , particularly the story on Where to Go If You're Under 21 . There are lots of 18 and over dance parties and a bunch of all-ages clubs if you want to hear music.
Backyard bands: I'd have to say, considering the venue and my friends, Rocket from the Crypt could rattle my windows (and the neighbors, and their neighbors) any day!; It's been ages since they toured around here. D.C. needs a rockabilly influx in a bad way. Maybe I should look for Bill Kirchen playing someplace.
Joe: I'm up for more DC rockabilly. Bill Kirchen, if I'm not mistaken, moved away a couple of years ago.
Washington, D.C.: Silverdocs seems to be getting a lot of buzz! Anything I shouldn't miss if I make the trek out to SS? And is "The Aristocrats" really that ranchy?
Jen: I'm seeing "The Aristocrats" Saturday night, so I guess I'll find out then. But from what I've heard, the answer is yes, it's that raunchy. But it's not very ranchy. (I know, I know, it's a spelling mistake.) As far as other movies to check out, I recommend "Murderball," which is showing tomorrow night; it's a really interesting, well made documentary about the U.S. wheelchair rugby team. One of the guys in the movie, Mark Zupan, is actually doing an online discussion with us tomorrow. The movie got a lot of attention at Sundance and is coming out in wide release later this summer.
Desson Thomson, the critic for Weekend, also recommends a number of Silverdocs selections in this article .
Alexandria, Va.: I have a hard question: I'm looking for a place where I can take 25 thirteen-year-old boyscouts to dinner in D.C. Do you know anywhere that is kid-friendly, and not fast food or a cafeteria? We'll be at the museums and monuments during the day, but have a bus that can drive us anywhere in D.C. Thanks!
Erin: Wow, lucky you! It sounds like it's going to be quite a weekend! Unfortunately, it will be difficult to find bus parking at many places around the city. I'm thinking that Cactus Cantina up Wisconsin past the National Cathedral might be a good place for you to find parking for some kid-friendly eating. They have Tex-Mex and a large enough menu for kids. If you're up there, 2 Amys , an upscale pizza restaurant, is right next door and very good. Upper Georgetown on Wisconsin offers Kavanaugh's Pizza and Austin Grill. Any other ideas?
Washington, D.C.: Is Screen on the Green on for this year? I haven't seen any publicity about it. Also, do you know of any events scheduled for Canada Day (July 1st)? Thanks!
Jen: Screen on the Green is very much on. You can read about it here . It begins July 18.
As for Canada Day, can't say I know of any big events ... anyone else have some inside info on the Great White North?
Miss Tennessee: Borrow a laptop with wireless and go to Old Town's Market Square, where the city is now offering free wireless. Plenty of places around to grab some food too.
Anne: Now there's an independent thinker. Can you fit all your friends around a laptop in wireless Old Town ?
Old Town Alexandria, Va.: Any idea if the Waterfront Festival will be cool this weekend? I heard Lifehouse is performing....
David: I think you just answered your own question. Oh, I kid, I kid. There should be enough going on at the festival to make it a good time. Ship tours, a crafts fair, some rides, lots of food, fireworks on Saturday night. Besides Lifehouse you've got 10,000 Maniacs and former NBA star turned smooth jazz-er Wayman Tisdale providing the music.
re: Bono's ego: Hey, it's still less than his talent and philanthropy. Rather have him than faux working-class Bruce Springsteen.
Joe: Oh no, not this argument. Hey, I like Bono, but you have to admit the guy's got a huge ego. That doesn't make him untalented or unlikeable.
If I had a backyard: Band would be Barenaked Ladies or Better than Ezra.
Joe: I think you could probably get Better Than Ezra.
My Backyard Band: Why, James Brown, of course.
Joe: That would be great. Wish I had thought of it.
Backyard Band: Bon Jovi -- they put on a pretty good show at Nissan a year or so ago ... only I don't have a backyard...
Joe: The neighbors would not be happy.
Falls Church, Va.: Where are good places (esp. in DC or NoVA) to meet single, professional men in their late 20s - 30s? Where do the guys that work on the Hill hang?
Rhome: Falls Church, Va.: Where are good places (esp. in DC or NoVA) to meet single, professional men in their late 20s - 30s? Where do the guys that work on the Hill hang?
Guys that work on the Hill often hang out on the Hill . You can also find flossy suited up cats at Ozio , 1223 , pretty much anywhere that's on an email from eVIPlist.com. Also Blue Gin , Indebleu , Mie N Yu , Sequoia and Poste .
re: backyard band: Why, the actual Backyard Band of course!
Fritz: You know, I thought of that as soon as I told Joe Fugazi... but I'd still like my own private Fort Reno. I'd even set up an ice cream truck outside.
Backyard Band: Dave Matthews Band
Bar Pilar: My understanding is that Bar Pilar is non-smoking until 10:00. Though, hopefully, the city will be smoke-free soon. Yay!;
Fritz: That would make sense, considering Saint-Ex is smoke-free until 11.
Arlington, Va.: Will be in town for July 4th, as will out of town guests and want to watch fireworks -- is alcohol allowed for an Iwo Jima picnic?
Anne: Iwo Jima is a prime spot to watch Fourth of July fireworks on the Mall. But ixnay on the oozebay on all Park Service grounds.
Re: Canada Day: this from Canadian Embassy's website: "Canada's Embassy in Washington, D.C., is also featuring a major Canada Day celebration. Hosted by Ambassador Michael Kergin, the party is expected to draw approximately 1,500 Canadians with a performance by emerging Aboriginal Canadian artist George Leach and a girl's choir from Fredericton, New Brunswick. Barbequed Canadian beef will be on the menu."
Jen: There you have it, Canadian friends. Thanks for the tip.
Cap Hill, Washington, D.C.: Just moved to Capitol Hill east. I noticed that on Penn Ave + 14th there is a pub called "Trusty's" that says it's opening soon. Any word on what it will be?
Fritz: If what I heard a few months ago still holds, it's going to be yet another Joe Englert production. (He owns Cap Lounge, Lucky Bar, Big Hunt, about a zillion bars coming to H Street NE.) I think it's supposed to be a beer-and-a-hot-dog joint. Anyone else heard anything?
Backyard Dream Band, Ozomatli: Just for Rhome - just saw Ozomatli at New Orleans Jazz Fest at the smaller "congo" state - was heavenly - life changing - my friends and I walked around chanting "OHH-ZOH-MAAAT-LEEE, Ya se fue!; Ya se fue!;" for days. they literally brought the crowd to our knees. . . sigh
Rhome: Those cats "crank" for real. No wallflowers allowed. They should have a battle of the bands against Femi Kuti... in my backyard (it's big enough!). Then Tortured Soul would play the afterparty.
Dupont, Washington, D.C.: I am having some friends come visit from out of town tomorrow night and I am trying to figure out a restaurant to take them to ... I would like it to be in D.C. (downtown, Dupont, etc) somewhere, preferably a place that I can somehow park, something sort of "signature D.C." and also reasonably inexpensive ($10-18 entrees)... also prob. American food/seafood/steak/Italian/Mexican only. I know I'm being really specific but I need help!
Erin: In my humble opinion, Mexican and "signature D.C." are mutually exclusive, but let's think this through. The places that spring to mind are Capital Q for Texas style eats on H St, or the nearby Jaleo , Ben's Chili Bowl on U St and Old Ebbitt Grill by the White House (does finding the valet count for parking?) for a local experience.
Re: American Food: Is Southside 815 still open? I used to get good American food there several years ago.
Erin: Yes it is, but do you think it's a good birthday spot?
Alexandria, Va.: GOGs - are there any dive bars or hole in the wall type places to grab some greasy cheap food near Farragut Metro stops/White House?
Rhome: Fritz says to try Black Rooster Pub or Mackey's . Mine is The Meeting Place .
My backyard is 10 feet wide: Foo Fighters or Social Distortion. Music to get the neighbors rockin'
Alexandria, Va.: Backyard Band: Phish!
Backyard Band: Prince. With or without The Revolution.
Joe: Oh man, how did we forget about Prince.
Clarendon, Va.: Backyard Band: Parliament/George Clinton and the P Funk Allstars...with Maceo Parker as a guest.
Joe: And since it's outdoors, you don't have to worry about tearing the roof off.
Washington, D.C.: Guru Duders - Best place to go tubing? Where 'best place' = cheap, good fishing, lots of drinking and good scenery. Thanks.
David: This article is from a couple of years ago, but the places listed are still good to go.
A friend and I are just about to turn 21 and we were thinking about reserving a bar in D.C. or possibly Reston or Arlington. Do you have any suggestions and possibly know the general price range?
Fritz: It's going to vary wildly, depending on what you want. Do you want to splurge on drinks or make your friends pay for their own? Do you want a private room, or just push a few tables together? How about a DJ? Activities like pool tables or darts? All these things can make your price range soar. Also, if you're about to turn 21, you may have friends who are still 20 -- that's also going to change a lot about what we suggest, as many D.C. bars don't allow anyone under 21 to enter, even for special events.
U Street, Washington, D.C.: Crabby should check out the new Hank's Oyster bar on Q Street - I'll bet they have soft-shells. It's a short walk from U Street. I haven't been there yet but when I drove by yesterday the place was packed!
Washington, DC: For all the meat lovers... I've been having a craving for another Brazilian churrascaria experience -- where the servers bring the meat on the stick and slice you off pieces until you can't eat anymore. Are there any places like this in D.C. -- I don't think the Grill from Ipanema does this. We have a car, so traveling to Va. or Md. (gasp!) would be okay if need be.
Erin: Greenfield Churrascaria in Rockville could do the trick.
Backyard Band: Pearl Jam w/ Death Cab for Cutie opening...
David: Is your backyard sponsored by MoveOn.org?
I read your chats all the time and love the great advice. I was wondering where is a good place in DC to have a (romantic) picnic?
I know the Mall is an obvious spot...although it seriously lacks shade. Any ideas?
Joe: There are lots of little clearings with picnic tables in Rock Creek Park. Or you can try Glen Echo Park .
Alexandria, Va.: What is the best Mexican restaurant in the Rosslyn/Courthouse/Clarendon area? Best bang for your buck.
Erin: Well, you have a few options. On Wilson Blvd, just below Courthouse, Guajillo makes some good mole and chile rellenos. For a fabulous dive burrito/soft taco, go El Charrito Caminante all the way. They only have a counter, but it's great for takeout (on Washington Blvd. east of Wilson) and has a small, but mighty delicious menu. Finally, Taqueria Poblano has a location at Lee Hwy and N. Harrison next to the Harris Teeter with fabulous L.A. style crispy and fish tacos.
Silver Spring, Md.: Other than Local 16, what are some good happy hour /Thursday night spots in the U Street corridor?
Rhome: JoJo's happy hour has $2.50 rail drinks and domestic beer bottles with everything else a dollar off. Stetsons has half-price burgers, $2.50 rail or Miller drinks and pitcher specials. Folks don't really have to lure in patrons with deals on U Street though so you'll rarely find establishments giving it away.
Dupont, Washington, D.C.: I was given a gift certificate for the Palm by my bosses at a law firm. What can I expect? What should I wear? Good date place?
Erin: You can expect some fine dining. These days, anything goes at restaurants. I'd suggest upscale summer attire: collared shirt for a guy and a skirt for a girl, but they probably won't throw you out for not showing up in your prom clothes.
washingtonpost.com : That's all we have time for this week; thanks for all of your questions. Hope you'll join us next week for the first annual Going Out Gurus Battle of the Backyard Bands. Until then, enjoy the nice weather and keep the Better Than Ezra cranked on your stereos.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate. | 160.170732 | 0.658537 | 0.853659 | high | low | abstractive | 4,887 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/10/DI2005061001306.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/10/DI2005061001306.html | Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur | 2033-07-15T17:33:39 | This week peace talks resumed in Nigeria in a new attempt to reach a peace deal in the Darfur region's two year conflict, which has claimed more than 180,000 and displaced millions. While U.N. officials have labelled Darfur as one of the worst humanitarian crises on the globe, President Bush went a step further in condemning the Sudanese government's action as genocide. Despite the efforts of the African Union, Sudan's government continues to arm the Janjaweed milita, widely accused of committing atrocities against civilians in their campaign against rebels in the region. Why has this situation deteriorated into the humanitarian emergency that it is today? What are the prospects for current peace talks between rebels and the Sudanese government?
Jemera Rone, counsel for the Africa Division at the Human Rights Watch, was online Thursday, June 16, at 2 p.m. ET to answer your questions about the crisis in Dafur.
Fairfax, Va.: Why is the West even involved in this problem? Hand it over to the Arab world to fix.
Jemera Rone: The West has a deep interest in what happens in Africa and especially Sudan. Sudan has been a past sponsor of terrorist groups -- Osama bin Laden lived there for six years, 1990-96. There is a lot of oil in Sudan, recently exploited.
There are a growing number of Sudanese refugees in the U.S. and Canada who can explain this much better than I. Their stories of persecution at the hands of the government are horrible. Those affected are not only people from Darfur but also those from the south, from the central Nuba Mountains, from the east, and from the north--all have been targeted in order for the present government to take and stay in power. The means for holding on to power have been creation of a strong security state, torture, prolonged arbitrary detention, and open warfare with scorched earth, target the civilians strategy.
The U.S. has taken a big role in Sudan and it must follow through. It was the chief international proponent of the current north-south peace agreement that settled the 20-year war in the south but left Darfur and the rest of Sudan out.
Chevy Chase, Md.: I'd appreciate it if you would describe the current relationship between President Al-Bashir and President Bush. I understand that Khartoum joined the American "War on Terror" even in the midst of the Sudanese government's continued Islamic oppression on the Southern Christians and animists. Now that several years have passed since Al-Bashir's committment to fighting terrorism and the recent declaration of genocide by President Bush, what is that status of relations between these two leaders and/or governments?
Many thanks for the work you do on behalf of HRW!
Jemera Rone: President Bush and Sudanese President Omar El Bashir have never met, to our knowledge. Nor should the Sudanese president be granted an interview with any diplomat representing the U.S. -- aside from the contacts already made -- until the situation in Darfur (western Sudan) is totally resolved, the north-south peace agreement settling that 20-year war is fully implemented, emergency laws and restrictive practices have been abandoned, and victims are compensated.
The Sudanese government is highly desireous of good relations with the U.S. In this particular case, unilateral sanctions have been very successful. The U.S. has made it a crime for any U.S. citizen (including corporations) to do business with Sudan's government or any of its corporations--by Executive Order of Pres. Clinton in 1997, renewed yearly since. The U.S. has a veto in IMF and World Bank and other financial institutions which it exercises against the Sudanese government.
The Sudanese government, which came to power via military coup in 1989 and has had several "one party" elections since then, wants international respectability, to be treated by the U.S. as just another country with which it has trading relations. Although the U.S.' historical ties with Sudan are not deep, the U.S. is currently so dominant internationally from a political and financial point of view that its opposition has a critical impact on countries such as Sudan.
The U.S. government--every time we at Human Rights Watch ask about interest in oil development and counterterrorism--insists that there are three things the Sudanese have to do before normal relations are reinstated:
2) provide full humanitarian access
3) end the war in the South -- now amended to compliance with the north-south peace agreement and ending the war in Darfur. We need to keep reminding the U.S. government that without substantial improvement in human rights and
4), the U.S. must hold firm against any concessions to the Sudanese government.
In terms of counterrorism, that cooperation has been going on since the end of the Clinton administration. If it were only a question of the merits, the Sudanese government would probably be removed from the state department list of countries that cooperate with or shelter terrorists. The cooperation has been good. But even if it were perfect, it would never be enough to qualify Sudan for lifting of sanctions and other benefits it seeks from the U.S. -- unless human rights respect is improved in major ways.
Even today, the press is restricted; the only opposition English language newspaper in Khartoum (read by ex-pats and southern Sudanese) has been closed--again. Displaced southerners in Khartoum have been threatened with brutal displacement by police and army--again. And in the war in Darfur, there is consolidation of ethnic cleansing because the government has not reined in the Janjaweed militias, in the least little bit.
Sterling, Va.: Thank you for coming to chat with us. Does the Sudanese Government still deny that they arm and/or support the Janjaweed militias?
Jemera Rone: Yes, the Sudanese government continues to deny that it has anything to do with the Janjaweed militias. They claim first of all that "Janjaweed" is not the right term -- and waste your time in semantics. Then they say that they do not know where the Janjaweed are or how they can arrest them. When I visited Darfur, I asked one foreign observer (who had lived there several months) if it was true that the Sudanese government did not know who the Janjaweed are or how to find them. "!@#$," he replied. "They can summon them to their offices any time they want. In fact, they are IN the offices already. Not just the military barracks: they are in the governor's office when I visit. Sitting there and drinking tea. Janjaweed is what the victims call their attackers. It is a slang word of denigration in Darfur. Naturally the attackers prefer to think of themselves as "saviours of the nation" etc. But we intend to work for justice, how ever long it takes.
Harrisburg, Pa.: Have you considered inventoring the number of people in Darfur who are on life support? When you present that number to President Bush and urge him to err on the side of life, perhaps then he will take action to save the lives of people threatened by crises.
Jemera Rone: That's an excellent suggestion that I hope one of the groups rallying U.S. citizens, especially students, to work on Darfur will take up. For more information on what ordinary people are doing and can do on Darfur, check out SaveDarfur.org--there are links to many groups and also a place to buy green bracelets and videos for public education. Our Web site is chock full of Darfur information and we also have a video -- no bracelets yet, however: hrw.org.
Vienna, Va.: How can the above poster even ask about why the West is involved with this crisis? That person needs to go out and see the movie "Hotel Rwanda." These are PEOPLE, they are humans...who are affected by this crisis, and we can easily help them. Gee what a novel idea... to help countries not because we NEED to (i.e. oil in the Middle East), but because we can and should.
Jemera Rone: Thanks for this -- I entirely endorse your remarks.
Anonymous: When Colin Powell visited Darfur, his opinion was that genocide was being committed there. Since then there's been rounds of political jousting. The Sudan government denies any wrongdoing, such as arming the Janjaweed. What will it take for the Sudan government to feel culpable for what is happening? I'm hoping that I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be an easy solution to Darfur as long as the Sudanese government is not willing to take responsibility. The African Union can't bring peace if the Sudanese government has more important things on the agenda.
Jemera Rone: If the Sudanese government were able to recognize its responsibility, then we would not have the crisis we now face in Darfur. This is a very controlling government and although there are factions, the end result has been the same: denial of responsibility and denial of all real facts. When I talked to government officials in Khartoum and Darfur, it was like being in a parallel universe: everything they said was directly opposite what the hundreds of victims interviewed by Human Rights Watch and others have said. The officials repeat exactly the same party line. That's because their jobs are on the line. The press is very controlled, especially on the issue of war and Darfur, so the ordinary Sudanese living inside Sudan, who does not have friends or relatives in Darfur, does not have much of an inkling at all of what is going on. There is little pressure from inside Sudan on the government -- which is only nominally elected and is unresponsive to protests against its military operations and human rights atrocities. If the solution were easy, none of us would be here today. They would have solved it already. It is very complex but that does not mean we can or should ignore it. The primary reason it is so hard is the attitude of the government. There is one wrinkle that provides some hope. The north-south agreement, signed in January 2005, provides that the former southern rebels will be part of the government, starting in August 9. We should probably now start lobbying our contacts among the southern rebel leaders--of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army--and all our southern friends to see what they can do to get the former rebels to weigh in on behalf of the people of Darfur. The great powers (U.S., U.K. etc.) are hopeful that this ex-rebel presence in the Sudanese government will accomplish miracles in Darfur. That remains to be seen. And it may just be another way for them to duck out of a more vigorous role in making peace and respect for human rights.
Herndon, Va.: Are the Janjaweed militias as evil and as murderous as the Rwanda interhamwe? If so, is it not imperaive the world, specifically the U.N., the U.S., France, and U.K. learn from the horrible foreign policy mistakes in Rwanda that lead to 800,000+ deaths?
Jemera Rone: It is very hard to compare the Janjaweed with other notorious murderous groups such as the Interahamwe--because of different nationalities, cultures, etc. But the Janjaweed are ghastly enough on their own to warrant our extreme concern. We must remember, too, that it is not only the Janjaweed militias who are involved. These militias, and the marginalized, nomadic tribes from which they derive their uneducated and greedy pillagers/rapists/killers, have only been able to do their evil work because the Sudanese government has backed them, armed them, clothed them, put them on the payroll, and conducted joint operations with them, together with Sudanese officers and military intelligence, tanks, armored personnel carriers, Antonovs, MIGs, and helicopters. There have been many ethnic conflicts in Darfur over resources, migration routes, water, pastures, grazing, and so forth over the years as dessertification progressed, population grew, agriculture with irrigation spread, and animal population soared. None of these conflicts has ever resulted in anywhere near the 2 million people currently displaced and 200,000 or so killed, 2,000 villages destroyed, and millions of livestock looted. The smaller tribes making up the Janjaweed could never accomplish all this on their own -- and in less than two years! They can only do it because they have the backing of the Sudanese government, and they are guaranteed no prosecution for murder, arson, robbery, rape, etc. One reason they could never do this on their own is that the groups they are attacking include some of the larger and better-defended groups in Darfur: the Zaghawa, the Fur (for whom the region is named), and the Masalit. But they do not have anything like the military capacity of the government--which buys its military hardware with its oil money. And obviously even the two rebel groups cannot protect the victims from this huge disaster that has befallen them, unlike even previous conflicts and droughts. I don't think that the governments of the world have learned much from Rwanda. The U.S. does not even have a special envoy to Sudan/Darfur. One person from each country is needed, so that the finger can be pointed at individuals as well as governments. There needs to be a much higher-powered U.S. and other engagement with the diplomatic process, but also a deeper knowledge of what is actually happening in Darfur. Now the rebels are in political leadership crises, and forcing them to reach an agreement this month in African Union-sponsored talks will not realistically achieve peace on the ground. There is a ceasefire agreement in place between the Sudanese government and the two Darfur rebel groups, would you believe it? Why not start there, and use all the levers possible to make all sides live up to it?
Springfield, Va.: While I agree we need to do more, what are the Arab League and others doing to solve these problems? Just because more needs to be done, don't assume that the West needs to do it all.
Jemera Rone: The Arab League looked hopeful last year when it sent a mission to investigate human rights abuses in Darfur. The gist of the findings was leaked, and it looked even better, from our point of view. Then the report was squashed and never published. Since then, they have been rallying around the flag of the Sudanese government, although I heard that the Egyptians were trying to temper that. In short, we cannot count on the Arab League at present to take up the cause. The African Union, however, which includes the North African countries, has assumed responsibility for the ceasefire monitoring in Darfur. This has been a blessing, since no one else has stepped up to the plate. But it is a mixed blessing, since 1) the A.U. is very young and has never mounted such a military operation before and 2) it gives the U.S., E.U., and others an easy out. We at Human Rights Watch have been pounding on the donors, that is, the richer countries, to fully fund and back the A.U. mission in DArfur. The A.U., which was initially very territorial and refused to accept even logistical aid for fear that the "ex-colonials" would rush in and claim credit for whatever went right (and blame the A.U. for whatever went wrong), now has agreed to substantial assistance from the U.N., NATO, U.S., Canada, et al. So we are back at the donor governments, pressing them to give more money and hardware and intelligence (satellite photos and people to interpret them) and planning and budgeting and all other kind of assistance to the A.U. to make their mission in Darfur a success. The A.U.'s mandate to start with was to observe the ceasefire--which has been in tatters since day one (April 2004). They expanded that to include some civilian protection and are willing to do more. The most pressing need of the A.U. now, aside from the backup and hardware (helicopters, trucks, etc.), is more troops on the ground. They have about 2,300 African troops (Rwandans, Nigerians, South Africans, Senegalese, and a few others). These are a pitifully small number. The plans of the AU (put together with the help of the U.N., E.U., U.S., etc.) are to put a total of 7,700 in Darfur by end of September. NATO is coordinating a major airlift. The A.U. is also supposed to decide at its July 4-5 summit to put in a total of 12,300 troops by spring 2006. This will help enormously to protect civilians. The current military plan does not call for static protection: it envisions aggressive patrolling around displaced persons camps and on the major roads and in other areas. How much of this they can do depends on how many troops they have. The A.U. troops have already patrolled around areas where some women are gathering firewood, and this has been very popular with the women and prevented the previous practice of the Janajweed and others of raping and robbing these women out in the fields. But much more of it has to be done.
Arlington, Va.: There are reports of massive investments by China in the Sudanese oil industry. How much is that, and are the Chinese doing anything in the way of humanitarian assistance ?
Jemera Rone: The Chinese are major players in the Sudan oil industry, and own the rights to Block 6, which juts into South Darfur and where there is allegedly oil. See RightsMaps.com for oil concessions in southern Sudan. The Chinese own (through China National Petroleum Company) 40 percent of the main southern oil concession that produces oil for export -- the only one so far producing for export. The governmen6t of Sudan will make between 2 and 3 BILLION dollars this year on the oil exports, to be shared with the new southern regional government, when the peace agreement is implemented, hopefully within a few months. I am not aware of much that the Chinese are doing in terms of humanitarian assistance. They have many other investments in Sudan, such as helping them build refineries and arms manufacturing plants! They also export many cheap consumer goods (such as toothpaste) to Sudan. The Chinese are on the Security Council and they actually abstained on the resolution to refer the case of Darfur to the International Criminal Court, in March 2005. That was a big triumph, from a rule of law point of view, as we feared they would block that measure since they are so close to the Sudanese government. We need to be asking the Chinese what they are doing to get the Sudanese government to treat its citizens correctly, and stop spending all its revenue on ways to militarily punish and defeat civilians.
Annandale, Va.: You wrote, "I don't think that the governments of the world have learned much from Rwanda."
That alone makes me want to cry enough tears to fill an ocean.
If what you say is correct, what can we do as citizens? There already are weekly protests in D.C., yet the government doesn't seem to be doing anything other than paying lip-service to the crisis. People know about the crisis, but feel impotent as to what to do about it. I'm sorry.
Jemera Rone: I can only suggest that you and your friends and others who feel so strongly find new ways of expressing your outrage. Get into action. Check out websites until you find groups you can work with, whose goals you agree with. Everyone has a different role to play. In my youth -- in the dim past of the 1960s -- we took a lot of different actions to draw attention to civil rights and the war in Vietnam, not all of which were writing letters. But it started there. Be creative! Don't stop. And remember, solutions are not easy or fast but for that reason it is all the more necessary to stay involved and not give up hope. The people of Darfur, I can assure you, are really counting on you. They have told me and others so, many times.
Washington, D.C.: With regard to the U.S. Special Envoy, former Congressman John Danforth served in that capacity up until his appointment at the U.N. Is there really no one in his place? I thought Robert Zoellick had been appointed the new envoy.
Jemera Rone: Robert Zoellick is not an envoy to Darfur or any other specific place. He is number two in the entire state department (if I am not mistaken). He has been doing many of the things that John Danforth did, but he simply does not have the time to devote himself to one issue. That is why many are asking that another high-visibility person, who is seen as close to the president, be appointed to deal with Darfur. Danforth was tasked with the south.
Washington, D.C.: Is there a difference between the Muharaleen and the Janjaweed?
Jemera Rone: Different regions of Sudan. The muraheleen is the name given to the (Darfurian and Kordofani) horse-backed raiders, ethnic militias ubacked and used by the Sudanese government against the southerners in Bahr El Ghazal from the mid-1980s until the end of the southern war--about 2002. The Janjaweed are the government-backed ethnic militias coming from a different part of Darfur (and different ethnic groups) used against others in Darfur. Same counterinsurgency strategy: draining the sea (the civilians) in order to catch the fish (the rebels). They don't even care if the fish are around! They just drain. So there is not so much difference after all, from the point of view of the government. These militias are tools. Their compensation is loot taken by force from the targeted civilians--livestock, household furnishings, tools, whatever they want and can carry. One of the other differences is that it took a lot longer for the government to erode southern Sudan. They seemingly perfected the ethnic militia/forced displacement/scorched earth strategy in the south. Then they applied the identical strategy in Darfur -- but on a much faster timetable. I think they knew they had to move quickly, but even then, they did not think the world would care The targets and victims in southern Sudan were non-Muslims (Christians in the minority, mostly those practicing traditional African religions). The targets and victims in Darfur were Muslims. I suspect the Sudanese government may really have believed that the West cared only about the south because the victims were Christians. I am glad to say that many have responded to Darfur without regard to the religion of the victims.
Ashburn, Va.: Someone above mentioned the brilliant film "Hotel Rwanda", which incidentally got me to educate myself on the crisises going on in The Sudan. Do you fear that a peace agreement will lead to an escalation of the violence, as it did in Rwanda when the Hutu President was assasinated? What would stop the extremists in the Sudanese militias, particularly the more well-armed Janjaweed militias, from using the peace agreement as a stepping stone to even more violence? And doesn't this situation make it even more important and urgent that the West get involved NOW?
Jemera Rone: I am not afraid that a peace agreement will lead to an escalation of the violence in Darfur. The politics and the numbers are different than Rwanda. We also have the presence of African Union troops in Darfur, among whom is one battalion (about 1,000) of Rwandan troops, who are the brothers of the Rwandan victims of genocide. Their president has said that they will not stand by and watch people slaughtered. For that reason, and because the A.U. troops are in general more politically aware of African politics than are European troops (or even the usual Asian peacekeeping forces, including Pakistanis and Indians and Bengalis etc.), there is some hope in Darfur that was not present in Rwanda. The Janjaweed are not able to capture state power in Khartoum, and they do not have enough well-placed allies for that. But it is beginning to look like Darfur is a "failed state," although the offices are held by people appointed by Khartoum, which is close to a police state in this respect. There is no real effective government for all the people in Darfur, and certainly no government that is capable of protecting people and restoring order. The economy of Darfur has been so damaged by this conflict that it is probably worse than a failed state. Since the victims, the 2mm people, are mostly farmers, and they cannot plant or return to their land to plant in safety, they earn no income. They have no money to buy anything. They do not sell cheap food locally to others. Prices of grain in the market have gone sky high. This affects everyone. Especially the nomads. The World Food Program estimates that in addition to the 2 million displaced, another 1.5 million who have been affected by the economic crash/meltdown will need food assistance. The entire population of Darfur is only 6 million: this is more than half a large population. It is more necessary than ever for the world to get and remain engaged until this widening crisis is halted and ethnic cleansing is reversed.
Jemera Rone: I have to sign off now. It has been a pleasure! Thank you for your well-informed questions and the opportunity to participate.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate. | 120.121951 | 0.658537 | 0.756098 | high | low | abstractive | 4,888 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401340.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401340.html | The End of Europe | 2033-07-15T17:30:19 | Europe as we know it is slowly going out of business. Since French and Dutch voters rejected the proposed constitution of the European Union, we've heard countless theories as to why: the unreality of trying to forge 25 E.U. countries into a United States of Europe; fear of ceding excessive power to Brussels, the E.U. capital; and an irrational backlash against globalization. Whatever their truth, these theories miss a larger reality: Unless Europe reverses two trends -- low birthrates and meager economic growth -- it faces a bleak future of rising domestic discontent and falling global power. Actually, that future has already arrived.
Ever since 1498, after Vasco da Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope and opened trade to the Far East, Europe has shaped global history, for good and ill. It settled North and South America, invented modern science, led the Industrial Revolution, oversaw the slave trade, created huge colonial empires, and unleashed the world's two most destructive wars. This pivotal Europe is now vanishing -- and not merely because it's overshadowed by Asia and the United States.
It's hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling. Europe's birthrates have dropped well below the replacement rate of 2.1 children for each woman of childbearing age. For Western Europe as a whole, the rate is 1.5. It's 1.4 in Germany and 1.3 in Italy. In a century -- if these rates continue -- there won't be many Germans in Germany or Italians in Italy. Even assuming some increase in birthrates and continued immigration, Western Europe's population grows dramatically grayer, projects the U.S. Census Bureau. Now about one-sixth of the population is 65 and older. By 2030 that would be one-fourth, and by 2050 almost one-third.
No one knows how well modern economies will perform with so many elderly people, heavily dependent on government benefits (read: higher taxes). But Europe's economy is already faltering. In the 1970s annual growth for the 12 countries now using the euro averaged almost 3 percent; from 2001 to 2004 the annual average was 1.2 percent. In 1974 those countries had unemployment of 2.4 percent; in 2004 the rate was 8.9 percent.
Wherever they look, Western Europeans feel their way of life threatened. One solution to low birthrates is higher immigration. But many Europeans don't like the immigrants they have -- often Muslim from North Africa -- and don't want more. One way to revive economic growth would be to reduce social benefits, taxes and regulations. But that would imperil Europe's "social model," which supposedly blends capitalism's efficiency and socialism's compassion.
Consider some contrasts with the United States, as reported by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. With high unemployment benefits, almost half of Western Europe's jobless have been out of work a year or more; the U.S. figure is about 12 percent. Or take early retirement. In 2003 about 60 percent of Americans ages 55 to 64 had jobs. The comparable figures for France, Italy and Germany were 37 percent, 30 percent and 39 percent. The truth is that Europeans like early retirement, high jobless benefits and long vacations.
The trouble is that so much benevolence requires a strong economy, while the sources of all this benevolence -- high taxes, stiff regulations -- weaken the economy. With aging populations, the contradictions will only thicken. Indeed, some scholarly research suggests that high old-age benefits partly explain low birthrates. With the state paying for old age, who needs children as caregivers? High taxes may also deter young couples from assuming the added costs of children.
You can raise two objections to this sort of analysis. First, other countries are also aging and face problems similar to Europe's. True. But the aging is more pronounced in Europe and a few other nations (Japan, for instance), precisely because birthrates are so low. The U.S. birthrate, for example, is 2.1; even removing births to Hispanic Americans, it's about 1.9, reports Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute. Second, Europeans could do something about their predicament. Also, true -- they could, but they're not.
A few countries (Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands) have acted, and there are differences between Eastern and Western Europe. But in general Europe is immobilized by its problems. This is the classic dilemma of democracy: Too many people benefit from the status quo to change it; but the status quo isn't sustainable. Even modest efforts in France and Germany to curb social benefits have triggered backlashes. Many Europeans -- maybe most -- live in a state of delusion. Believing things should continue as before, they see almost any change as menacing. In reality, the new E.U. constitution wasn't radical; neither adoption nor rejection would much alter everyday life. But it symbolized change and thereby became a lightning rod for many sources of discontent (over immigration in Holland, poor economic growth in France).
All this is bad for Europe -- and the United States. A weak European economy is one reason that the world economy is shaky and so dependent on American growth. Preoccupied with divisions at home, Europe is history's has-been. It isn't a strong American ally, not simply because it disagrees with some U.S. policies but also because it doesn't want to make the commitments required of a strong ally. Unwilling to address their genuine problems, Europeans become more reflexively critical of America. This gives the impression that they're active on the world stage, even as they're quietly acquiescing in their own decline. | Europe as we know it is slowly going out of business. Since French and Dutch voters rejected the proposed constitution of the European Union, we've heard countless theories as to why: the unreality of trying to forge 25 E.U. countries into a United States of Europe; fear of ceding excessive power... | 19 | 0.982456 | 55.017544 | medium | high | extractive | 4,889 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401729.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401729.html | Anti-Tax Challengers Fall Short | 2033-07-15T17:30:19 | Five of the six Republicans in the Virginia House of Delegates who were targeted for ouster by anti-tax organizers survived their primary challenges yesterday, leaving the conservative movement's threat of ballot box retribution largely unfulfilled.
Anti-tax organizers had characterized yesterday's primaries as a referendum on the state's controversial 2004 tax plan, a $1.5 billion tax increase over two years they had decried as unjust and unnecessary. The conservative movement was particularly critical of the 17 Republican legislators who had defied party leadership and voted for the tax package championed by Gov. Mark R. Warner (D).
But the anti-tax groups fielded primary challengers for only six of the 17 Republicans who had supported the tax increase -- and of those six, only one challenger won. Chris S. Craddock, a 26-year-old youth pastor who had adopted the movement's anti-tax pledge, defeated Gary A. Reese (Fairfax).
"It just goes to show that people in my district really care about keeping our taxes low," Craddock said.
The other incumbent Republicans won handily. "I take my 3 to 1 victory as total reaffirmation," said L. Preston Bryant Jr. (Lynchburg), who had led his Republican colleagues in voting to approve the tax plan. "The overriding issue in each and every one was the tax reform package of 2004. Most people saw the big picture."
The anti-tax groups, however, argued that their side had achieved its goal merely by focusing debate on the tax issue.
"I think we've already been successful," said Robin DeJarnette, executive director of the Virginia Conservative Action PAC, one of the anti-tax movement's key groups. The challengers have "gotten the message out there even though they have been outspent by the incumbents by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1."
Four of the six anti-tax challenges arose in Northern Virginia. In addition to the Reese race, Del. Joe T. May (Loudoun) defeated Chris G. Oprison; Del. Harry J. Parrish (Manassas) beat Steve H. Chapman; and Del. Robert D. "Bobby" Orrock Sr. (Spotsylvania) won over Shaun V. Kenney.
Orrock said the anti-tax campaign got "some traction. This has been touted as a Democrat tax increase and that we sold out." But he told voters that "as a fiscally responsible individual, you've got to pay your bills and set a budget."
In other Northern Virginia contests, former Fairfax City mayor John Mason defeated Jim L. Kaplan in the Republican primary for the 37th District; he will face Democrat David L. Bulova, who beat Janet S. Oleszek.
Michael J. Golden defeated William A. Finerfrock in the Republican primary for the 41st District in central Fairfax County. James E. Hyland won a three-way race in the Republican primary for the 35th District, also in Fairfax.
The six-way Democratic primary for the 45th District in Alexandria and Arlington was won by former Air Force Capt. David L. Englin, a political newcomer.
Democrats held primaries yesterday in seven of the 100 delegate districts in Virginia; Republicans held primaries in 12.
But the most closely watched races statewide were those involving the anti-tax challengers, which focused attention on what has become one of the most divisive issues in state politics.
Yesterday's primaries were viewed as a means of measuring the political costs of that controversy as well as the strength of the party's most conservative, most anti-tax members. The Republican votes in favor of the 2004 spending plan, which raised the sales tax and other fees, ended a bitter and protracted impasse in the General Assembly over the budget.
The Virginia Conservative Action PAC supported challengers to run against five of the breakaway Republicans; a sixth challenger chose to run against Bryant.
A national group, Americans for Tax Reform, similarly pushed candidates to adopt a pledge of no new taxes. A rival PAC organized by business executives and centrist Republicans called Leadership for Virginia aided the targeted incumbents.
"The races are somewhat a test case of how viable this anti-tax movement can be," said Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University and co-editor of "The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction to Southern Politics." "If we judge them by the criterion of winning primaries, we ultimately may judge them failures after tonight. If the criterion is their ability to foster debate and send a signal to incumbents, they might be considered successful."
Staff writers Michael D. Shear, Michelle Boorstein and Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report. | Five of the six Republicans in the Virginia House of Delegates who were targeted for ouster by anti-tax organizers survived their primary challenges yesterday, leaving the conservative movement's threat of ballot box retribution largely unfulfilled. | 22.425 | 1 | 40 | medium | high | extractive | 4,890 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401695.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401695.html | U.S. Shifts Flights Out of Uzbekistan | 2033-07-15T17:30:19 | Confronted by new restrictions on the use of a critical air base in Uzbekistan, the U.S. military has shifted key operations out of the Central Asian republic, repositioning search-and-rescue planes in Afghanistan and routing heavy cargo flights through neighboring Kyrgyzstan, U.S. officials said yesterday.
The moves amount to little more than an inconvenience so far, the officials said, but could become more problematic if Uzbek authorities refuse to restore freer access to the airfield later this year.
U.S. commanders have considered the large Karshi-Khanabad air base -- dubbed K2 and located in southeastern Uzbekistan -- as a vital logistics hub. Flights in and out of there have supported combat operations against Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan and funneled humanitarian assistance to areas in northern Afghanistan.
But Uzbek President Islam Karimov recently curtailed U.S. military operations at the base after U.S. criticism of his government's shooting of hundreds of protesters in Andijan last month. The restrictions prohibit nighttime operations and also limit flights by C-17 and other heavy cargo aircraft.
The nighttime ban constitutes an unacceptable condition for HC-130 aircraft, which are used for search-and-rescue as well as tanker operations and therefore must be available to fly at all hours, the officials said. Consequently, the aircraft have been relocated to Afghanistan's Bagram air base, near Kabul.
But ramp space and especially fuel at Bagram are limited, one senior officer said. Fuel must be trucked to the base across narrow mountain passes that can become blocked during winter, he noted. Further, although the HC-130s have been moved, their maintenance facilities remain in Uzbekistan, complicating service.
Heavy cargo planes, meanwhile, which had been disgorging tons of military supplies and humanitarian assistance at the Uzbek air base for shipment into Afghanistan, are being diverted to Manas in Kyrgyzstan. Because Manas, which is outside the capital of Bishkek, is hundreds of miles farther from Afghanistan, the change has meant longer and costlier trips for trucks that pick up the goods, officials said.
Smaller cargo planes such as C-130s are still allowed to land at the Uzbek base. But U.S. commanders are considering shifting some of them to other locations as well, the officials said.
The ban on nighttime operations surprised U.S. authorities, but the restriction on heavy cargo planes had been foreshadowed, the senior officer said. Uzbek officials had complained for months that the big aircraft were damaging the airfield's old, Soviet-built runway.
"The Uzbek government has been somewhat frustrated with us for being unable to repair the runway and make a firm, longer-term commitment," said the officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity given the political sensitivity of the matter.
Money to improve the runway is contained in the emergency supplemental spending bill approved by Congress last month. But the future of U.S.-Uzbek relations remains clouded by differences within the Bush administration over how to respond to the May 13 crackdown on protesters in Andijan.
State Department officials have emphasized the need to prod Karimov to allow an international investigation of the bloodshed. Pentagon authorities fret about the risk of provoking Karimov into further limits on U.S. military access.
Uzbekistan was the focus yesterday of a senior-level discussion among representatives of the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House and other government agencies, officials said. Several denied a serious internal rift.
"We have, despite all the screaming about the alleged differences, been very consistent," said a senior official involved in the discussions. "We have not allowed our legitimate interest in K2 for operations in Afghanistan to be used as leverage against us to soften our democracy message. We're not going to pull the plug on K2 deliberately, but we've sent pretty good messages that the Uzbeks need to do the right thing." | Confronted by new restrictions on the use of a critical air base in Uzbekistan, the U.S. military has shifted key operations out of the Central Asian republic, repositioning search-and-rescue planes in Afghanistan and routing heavy cargo flights through neighboring Kyrgyzstan, U.S. officials said... | 14.215686 | 0.980392 | 49.019608 | low | high | extractive | 4,891 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061400747.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061400747.html | Panel Is Revisiting Annan Ties to Firm | 2033-07-15T17:30:19 | UNITED NATIONS, June 14 -- A U.N.-appointed panel probing corruption in the $64 billion U.N. oil-for-food program in prewar Iraq has reopened an investigation into whether U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan steered business to a Swiss company that once employed his son, Kojo.
The move came less than a day after investigators obtained a 1998 memo written by an executive of the Geneva-based company, Cotecna Inspection SA, saying that Annan and his staff indicated support for the company's bid for a $10 million-a-year contract to oversee imports of humanitarian aid into Iraq.
Annan has denied that he knew that his son's former employer was trying to do business with the United Nations before it won the Iraq contract. His spokesman, Fred Eckhard, questioned the veracity of the memo Tuesday, noting that Annan "had no knowledge that Cotecna was a contender for that contract."
The U.N.-appointed Independent Inquiry Committee, headed by former U.S. Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Paul A. Volcker, said in a March 29 report that it found no evidence that Annan had used his influence to award contracts to Cotecna.
But a statement issued by the committee Tuesday said it was "urgently reviewing" the new information, and Reid Morden, the panel's chief of staff, said "we will have to take careful look at what this [memo] says. Certainly, it's a very interesting document that has now come to light." Morden said that the panel will question Annan about the memo in the coming weeks at a previously planned interview about management flaws in the largest U.N. humanitarian program.
Disclosure of the memo drew sharp response from congressional critics of the United Nations who argue that U.N. mismanagement of the oil-for-food program underscores the need for a housecleaning at the world body. Rep. Henry J. Hyde(R-Ill.) is preparing to introduce legislation Thursday to withhold funding to the organization if it fails to implement a series of far-reaching changes.
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), chairman of the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations, said in a statement that the new document "corroborates our suspicions and amplifies our concerns about the secretary general's serious conflict of interest. I fully expect that Mr. Volcker's investigators, due to their unique access to the secretary general, will aggressively follow up on these new revelations."
Cotecna provided Volcker and congressional investigators on Monday with the memo, from Michael Wilson, then a Cotecna vice president whose father was a friend of Kofi Annan. The memo to Wilson's bosses described a brief meeting in late November 1998 in Paris with the secretary general and his staff.
"We had a brief discussion with the SG [Secretary General] and his entourage," said the memo, dated Dec. 4, 1998, one week before Cotecna beat out two competitors for the contract. "Their collective advise was that we should respond as best as we could to the Q&A session of the 1-12-98 and that we could count on their support." The numbers refer to a Dec. 1 meeting Wilson had in New York with U.N. officials about the Iraq contract. Existence of the memo was reported in Tuesday's New York Times.
Eckhard said that Annan could not remember meeting with Wilson. He said that on Tuesday the United Nations provided Volcker with a record of Annan's meetings on that trip and the names of the members of the U.N. delegation. "There is no mention in that trip record of any exchange with Michael Wilson," Eckhard told reporters. "We spoke to the secretary general, who is in Paris today, and he has no recollection of any such exchange."
Eckhard acknowledged that the latest disclosure could hamper Annan's efforts to push through a series of U.N. structural changes, including expansion of the Security Council, when world leaders gather in New York in September for the General Assembly.
A senior official familiar with Volcker's investigation cautioned that Wilson's credibility has long been a subject of concern in the committee. Wilson initially told Volcker's investigators that he had discussed Cotecna's attempts to do business with Iraq in 1997. But he later retracted the statement, saying that the discussion occurred in 1999, long after Cotecna had been awarded the contract. More recently, Wilson has been involved in a corruption inquiry in Geneva involving the construction of a U.N. facility.
The U.N. oil-for-food program was established in December 1996 to provide relief to ordinary Iraqis facing hardships as a result of U.N. sanctions, which were imposed on Baghdad after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Under the terms of the program, Iraq was permitted to sell oil to purchase food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies.
Although the program succeeded in boosting nutritional levels in Iraq, it also provided Saddam Hussein's government with an opportunity to raise more than $2 billion in illicit proceeds by requiring its trading partners to pay kickbacks in exchange for doing business in Iraq. The abuse triggered investigations by the United Nations, congressional committees and federal prosecutors.
The Volcker panel had accused the former head of the U.N. program, Benon Sevan, of improperly steering Iraqi oil deals to an Egyptian businessman. Volcker's decision to clear Annan of directing business to Cotecna prompted the resignation of a top investigator, former FBI agent Robert Parton, in protest.
Simon Smith, a representative of Kojo Annan, said that his client believes "it would be inappropriate to discuss" the latest disclosure while Volcker is investigating. But he noted that Volcker's panel had previously "concluded that there was no improper influence exerted in relation to the award of the contract to Cotecna."
Cotecna said in a statement that "it acted at all times appropriately in its bidding for, winning and performing" its U.N. contract. | UNITED NATIONS, June 14 -- A U.N.-appointed panel probing corruption in the $64 billion U.N. oil-for-food program in prewar Iraq has reopened an investigation into whether U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan steered business to a Swiss company that once employed his son, Kojo. | 21.09434 | 1 | 53 | medium | high | extractive | 4,892 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/08/DI2005060801567.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/08/DI2005060801567.html | Ask Tom - washingtonpost.com | 2033-07-15T17:30:19 | In a city loaded with diverse restaurants, from New American chic and upscale Italian to sandwich shops and burritos on the run, finding the best places to eat can be a real puzzle. Where's the best restaurant for a first date or an anniversary? Father's Day? What's the best burger joint? Who has the best service?
Ask Tom. Tom Sietsema , The Washington Post's food critic, is on hand Wednesdays at 11 a.m. ET to answer your questions, listen to your suggestions and even entertain your complaints about Washington dining. Sietsema, a veteran food writer, has sampled the wares and worked as a critic in Washington, Seattle, San Francisco and Milwaukee, and can talk restaurants with the best of 'em. Tom's Sunday magazine reviews, as well as his "Ask Tom" column, are available early on the Web.
Alexandria, Va.: About Del Merei - I live in the neighborhood and went by and tried it a couple of Saturdays ago and really loved the pork chop and while the service was fine but then I went in later that week and tried the chicken (before your review) and had to send it back because even the dark meat was dry. As a replacement I ordered a ribeye medium rare. When I received my steak it was not just rare but actually raw in the middle while already crusty on the outside so I had to send it back to be cooked more. The second time it was better and I ate the outside ring and took the inside ring home and cooked it more the next day for dinner.
My question is, after having to send back a second meal, shouldn't the manager have come over to check on my table? The restaurant wasn't crowded, when our waiter went to get our check I saw him talking to someone that I presume was the manager but not a peep from her to our table. I wasn't expecting anything comped, I paid for the steak and not the chicken which is what I expected since I ate one not the other, and if I had just sent back the chicken I might have not noticed, but the fact that the steak was also cooked incorrectly should have brought notice from the manager in my opinion. Should I have asked to speak to the manager? I didn't because I didn't want her thinking that I was trying to get something free (I wasn't), I just wanted some assurance that this was a place I should try again. What do you think?
Tom Sietsema: I think the manager should have checked in with you.
Good morning, all! I'm just back from three days in Madrid, where I got a chance to eat in some trend-setting restaurants. Spain is really where the (food) action is these days. I'll be writing about some of my recommendations in the July 3 Travel section.
Washington, D.C.: Oh, I get it. "Ray's The Steaks" = "Raise The Stakes" Very clever.
Tom Sietsema: You're just now getting that?!
Washington, D.C.: My family and I had a great experience at Corduroy last Friday night. The food was fantastic, but what really made my evening was the service. My wife is 5 months pregnant and is, of course, unable to drink alcohol. She's tried some non-alcoholic beers, but they're not too tasty. Unprompted by anyone at the table, our waiter brought out a bottle of non-alcoholic wine made from pinot noir grapes and suggested it to my wife. She had a glass and enjoyed it. (I didn't even know they made non-alcoholic wine.) I just thought it was cool that the waiter noticed my wife was pregnant and took it upon himself to offer the wine. The waiter clearly answered all of our questions about the menu, was attentive, and contributed to an enjoyable evening. That was my first experience at Corduroy after hearing so much about it and I will definitely be back.
Tom Sietsema: Thanks for your field report.
While I understand the server's good intentions, I'm not sure every pregnant woman would welcome someone making an unprompted pitch to drink something non-alcoholic. What if the customer WANTED a glass of regular wine? Trust me, these situations can be tricky. I do, however, applaud a restaurant that seeks out quality non-alcoholic beers and wines for their guests.
D.C.: Tom, this question is really bugging me (and I've asked it before, so I really hope it gets posted this time!). What is considered OK when it comes to asking about the name of your waiter/waitress?
Tom Sietsema: Personally, I don't care to know my server's name. I'm not there to bond with him or her, after all. But I know other people who really dig meeting "Brett" or "Samantha" (and then have the unfortunate habit of using the name over and over through a meal).
The firm is paying!: I am taking someone out for an interview lunch (I get to pick the place and don't have to pay!!) I was thinking The Prime Rib, but I won't be wearing a suit on Friday, and want walking distance from K and 20th. Any suggestions? Thanks, Tom.
Tom Sietsema: The Prime Rib is more fun (live music!) than delicious these days. I'd rather eat at Kinkead's, Kaz Sushi Bistro or Vidalia myself.
Washington: Looks like someone in the industry wants to remind us that Ray's is still out there.
Tom Sietsema: Such a cynic!
with all the talk of a smoking ban, where do you stand on the issue? Are you a smoker? Does smoking have an effect, positive or negative, on your dining experience?
Tom Sietsema: I do not smoke but I don't mind if others do, provided they are few in number and they are not sitting TOO close to me. On the other hand, I think puff after puff of smoke can ruin an otherwise good meal. So, I have mixed feelings.
I will say, however, that's it's a treat to go into a bar or restaurant that's smoke-free, as is the case in New York these days. I hate coming home with the smell of smoke on my clothes.
Bethesda, Md.: Hi Tom, wild and happy story...On June 06, a friend and I who work in Bethesda booked a lunch reservation at the new Bistro Asiatique through opentable.com to celebrate our birthdays. When we arrived at the restaurant we informed the chef coming out from the back that we had a reservation, and he looked at us with a funny expression on his face, and then jokingly said we could sit wherever we wanted, because the restaurant was empty. When he came back over to serve water I explained that we had just made the reservation that morning through opentable. He told us that they were no longer serving lunch, and that it was under new management, but that he would honor the reservation if we would please stay. Since I had known people had lunch there as late as the past week, I asked, "Since when is this?" and the chef explained that the changes had happened in the last 48 hours.
We had menus, and we looked at him with what I'm sure was a lot of confusion. Then, he just gave us his recommendation, a seared, nori-crusted tuna. Of course, we took it. Since we had decided to go there particularly because they served creme brulee, we asked if they were still serving it. He said he could make it. When he came back to check on us, he let us know that he had been hired, unexpectedly, on the Friday night before by the owner of the restaurant, completely unexpectedly and that he had been in the restaurant all weekend trying to get it all together. They were changing the menu, of course, new chef, the whole sha-bang. To make it even crazier, he made our lunch completely from scratch, including the creme brulee (this takes, like 45 min, apparently??). The chef's name was Dennis, and he comes from Citronelle, IndeBleu and Inlaid's. The food was really good AND he told us the meal was on him, as long as we promised to come back for dinner in a few weeks! We will! It was a great birthday lunch, thanks Dennis! Thanks Tom, for having this forum, I always enjoy it.
Centreville, Va.: What are some of the most popular Northern Virginia Restaurants for marriage proposals?
(I.e...what are some great restaurants to take your special someone if you are going to propose?)
Tom Sietsema: As I've noted here several times, if you want to propose in a restaurant, you should choose a place that you think will be around awhile. That way, you can return to the scene (where he or she HOPEFULLY has said "yes!") for future anniversaries.
One of the "popular" destinations for this is the venerable L'Auberge Chez Francois in Great Falls, with all its romantic nooks, crannies and patio seats. My preference is for something more contemporary, however: 2941 in Falls Church comes to mind, as do Colvin Run Tavern and Maestro, both in Tysons Corner. In the countryside, you might consider the Asby Inn in Paris, Va.
Non-Alcoholic Beers: For anyone no longer able to enjoy alcohol (for whatever reason) but had always liked beer, try the following:
Tom Sietsema: Thanks for the tips on sips.
Re: Names: I get that some people want to know their server's name. But is it polite to ask? I've had a waitress with a very nontraditional female name. She told it to the table when asked, but that started a whole discussion about her name. Should she have given a fake name? Do servers do that?
Tom Sietsema: Only at Archibald's, Camelot and Good Guys, to the best of my knowledge.
Arlington, Va.: With another Restaurant Week in the offing, I wanted to share suggestions from my last RW experience:
Colvin Run - awful, really dumbed down menu.
1789 - superb, best of the bunch, full menu w/supplements
Caucus Room - excellent. very limited menu, but they had steak.
I'd like to get recommendations on any of the following for this week from others who have experienced them during RW -- Menodcino, Equinox, Taberna del Alabardero, New Heights
NW, D.C.: Hey Tom. My long-distance boyfriend is flying into town tonight, but we wont get back from the airport until about 10 or 10:30 PM. Do you know of any places we could eat that late? (besides, of course, 18th street pizzas.) We aren't fancy-- we just need something metro-accessible (NW, please) and casual dress acceptable.
Tom Sietsema: Les Halles on Pennsylvania Ave. stays open til midnight, I believe. So does Old Ebbitt Grill near the White House.
Adams Morgan: Can we please talk about Gordon Ramsey? Hell's Kitchen has to be one of the most awful shows on television. None of these students know what they are doing, and no chef--especially one of his alleged high caliber--would consider turning the reins of a restaurant over to any of them. Tom, I'm curious to know if you have seen it and if so, what you think!
Tom Sietsema: I watched about 10 minutes of the premiere and tuned out. Why would such a talented chef sully his reputation and image with such a foolish show? Dumb, dumb, dumb. (The show, not the man.)
On the OTHER hand, I woke up from a siesta in Madrid last Friday and turned on the TV to see our very own Jose Andres demonstrating dish after dish after dish. It was entertaining and informative and useful.
Silver Spring, Md.: "Personally, I don't care to know my server's name. I'm not there to bond with him or her, after all."
But Tom, that's because you have to remain anonymous and impartial! I think most restaurant goers, like me, would like to bond on some level with our servers, especially at places where we are or may become a regular. Part of the charm of being a regular at a good neighborhood place is when you walk in and say hi and the patrons and staff all look up and shout, "Norm!"
As for the poster's question, I wouldn't think its ever inappropriate to ask any restaurant staff person for his/her name. (First name, anyway. If you are asking for the full name, address, marital/relationship status and birth date of an attractive bartender, you are probably out of line.)
Tom Sietsema: You raise an excellent point there. I do prefer to blend into the woodwork when that's possible. But why should you?
21 P: We had dinner Saturday night and the coffee crusted steak and BBQ Cajun shrimp were great. The steak flavoring was excellent. Service was great and the only mishap was they ran out of 3 white wines that afternoon due to a party. Must have been some party!;
Tom Sietsema: My kind of lunch crowd!
The Prime Rib: For the poster who asked about the Prime Rib, I believe they maintain a couple of loaner jackets and ties, so he should not be discouraged by not wearing a suit.
Tom Sietsema: Indeed they do, and some nice ones at that! But what if the guy is 4'3" or 6'9"?
Interview lunch: I think the Prime Rib is a pretty good place for an interview lunch because you can HEAR in there, unlike some other places!;
Tom Sietsema: Well, you've got a point there. Personally, I like Corduroy for the food and relative calm.
When going to order Omakase, are you supposed to sit at the sushi bar or at a regular table?
Tom Sietsema: For the best experience, sit at the bar. For starters, you get a chance to engage with the cooks if you want.
Overusing Server Names...: My mom's like that with servers. If the server doesn't provide his/her name, she asks for it. Then, for remainder of the meal, whenever s/he comes back to the table, my mom always uses it. It gets to such a point that the server starts to avoid the table and regrets providing it.
Me, The only reason why I need their name is to use it if I need their attention (or to ask another server to have our server come over).
Tom Sietsema: When I was formulating my response, I was thinking of a friend who I dined with recently. He asked for our server's name and dinner became this "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" episode. Drove me nuts! LOL
Re: Names, from a server's point of view: I personally do not mind when a guest asks my name. I do mind, however, when that guest (or table) uses my name throughout their dining experience as if we are best friends. Also, if you happen to have a waiter or waitress who has an uncommon name (a name you wouldn't expect a waitress to have, but would be perfectly acceptable for a waiter, for example) please do not laugh at the name and ask "why did your parents name you that?" while still laughing. It's just not nice.
Tom Sietsema: Indeed it is not!
Washington, D.C.: When rating an international cuisine restaurant do you rate it based on "authenticity" or based on the tastes of an American? Or do you find that "authentic" always tastes best? Just curious because I can imagine there being times when the most authentic cuisine may not appeal most to the "American trained" palate (if that makes any sense).
Tom Sietsema: Great question! If a flavor or food style is not common in this country, at least to a general audience, I like to give readers an idea of what to expect. I might not say something is good or bad, but rather -- for example -- it has the perfume of stinky socks or some such. I'm thinking now of durian, the notoriously smelly fruit prized in Southeast Asia for its custard-like texture.
Washington, D.C.: You promised us ages ago to share your "Titanic" story--can we have it today? Pleasepleasepleaseplease?
Tom Sietsema: Stay tuned. You are this close to reading about my misadventures!
Alexandria, Va.: Tom, do you know anything about A La Lucia, the Italian place on Madison Street in Alexandria? I've heard good things, and saw it in the Washingtonian, but I trust your opinion more, what do you think?
Tom Sietsema: Went once, wasn't impressed. Plus, I've gotten a few complaints about the staff there.
Arlington, Va.: Any early intel on the new Shirlington haunt, Extra Virgin? I saw the WSJ gave it a plug. Since you probably haven't been, any chatters who have gone?
Tom Sietsema: The place seems disorganized.
Would-be diner: Are you open for lunch this week?
Receptionist at Extra Virgin: Um, um, I'm not sure.
Would-be diner: Could you ask someone who might know?
Male voice: We aren't sure if we'll be serving lunch this week. We're still training the crew.
Would-be diner: Should I call back later this week then?
Male voice: Yes, we'll know by then.
Can I make a quick suggestion?: I'm a restaurant server at a casual Italian place, and in the past two weeks, I've had several people try to design their own dishes. If it's just a case of no mushrooms on a pizza or having a pasta with a simple cream or red sauce, that stuff is basic for any kitchen. But I've had people ask for spinach lasagne ("you have meatball lasagne, why can't you do spinach?"), or design their own pasta with ingredients that would not compliment each other well, then get in a tizzy and send it back when it tastes bad.
The kitchen at my restaurant is accommodating, and when people ask me for something, I usually check with the chef to see if we can do it. But there are some ingredients we don't have in the kitchen or ingredients that are not prepared the way they need to be to have an alternative dish. If you insist, we can try to do something elaborate, but it's not going to taste the same as if it were regularly on the menu.
Go ahead and ask if you'd like an alternative preparation, but don't get angry when we can't do it or it doesn't come out the way you want. I encourage people to try things on the menu that they would not normally have. That way, our kitchen shows off its abilities and you are much more satisfied.
Tom Sietsema: Diners, did you catch that?
Thanks for the diplomatic post, by the way. You sound like an excellent and reasoned waiter. (More! More!)
RE: Pregnant wine drinkers: I must agree that it was nice of the server to offer the non-alcoholic wine to the pregnant diner if it occurred AFTER everyone else had ordered wine and it was apparent that the pregnant woman did not plan to consume an alcoholic beverage. On the flip side, my cousin was pregnant during my college graduation a few years ago and we went to a fancy restaurant in New Orleans to celebrate. She planned to sample only a half-glass of red wine to toast with us, as her doctor informed her that a half glass a couple of times during pregnancy would be ok. The waiter proceeded to point out that since my cousin was pregnant, she would OBVIOUSLY not be drinking wine. He made such a big show that she felt too bad to drink a glass after that...she was very disappointed and upset with our presumptuous waiter, as were the rest of us.
Tom Sietsema: My point EXACTLY!
Washington D.C.: Had dinner at Palette this weekend, and It was amazing - the quail salad w/maytag crisp!(complemented by a refreshing sparking rose made only for the restaurant...) - the scallops with morels/foie gras (perfectly cooked) - a squash blossom stuffed with lobster, and the 'chicken spread' (and this was all to start) the black grouper with orzo (goat and tomato) was just great - had a bite of the rabbit but was happily full on everything else. I noticed that your review didn't include what we had eaten - and I have to say this was one of my favorite meals ever in D.C. - I hope that other people go and have the same great experience!!!!
Tom Sietsema: I'm really happy to hear that. Your sentiment has been echoed by others who have eaten there in recent weeks.
Alexandria, Va.: Someone mentioned the Prime Rib's jacket-tie requirement earlier. Personally, I enjoy it when patrons wear suits and skirts when spending good money on dinner. Where else, besides the Prime Rib, do you find this to be the case?
Tom Sietsema: 1789 in Georgetown also requires a coat (and maybe a tie, but I forget).
Any more feedback on BlackSalt?: After last week's bashing, I was curious if you heard from the restaurant or other patrons on the rude service.
Mont. County. Maryland: Have you eaten at Tandoori Nights in Gaithersburg. If so, could you please share you opinion. The decor seems beautiful from their Web site. Thanks so much for these chats and all your hard work.
Tom Sietsema: Too bad you can't eat the decor (to use the cliche). I didn't have anything there that I'd want to try again, frankly.
Late Night D.C.: Another late-night DC option to keep in mind is Colonel Brooks Tavern, just across Monroe street from the Brookland Metro Station. Although it is a long-ish Metro ride from NW, it's open until 1:30 a.m.; 2:30 a.m. Friday and Saturday.
Tom Sietsema: Good to know. Gracias.
Silver Spring, Md.: My sister and her husband are rolling into town July 4th weekend with their infant daughter. I want to make a dinner reservation (DC or Montgomery County) for Saturday, July 2nd for a place that has seafood (a variety) AND might be spacious enough to accommodate an infant. A favorite, Johnny's 1/2 shell might be too small. Thanks.
Tom Sietsema: What about Black's Bar & Kitchen in Bethesda or the Oceanaire Seafood Room downtown? For something more casual, don't forget the new Hank's Oyster Bar in Dupont. It's small but has an outdoor patio -- nice to know about when there's the chance of a crying baby.
Can you suggest a good restaurant for a wedding rehearsal dinner that will accommodate about 50 guests in the Tenleytown/Friendship Heights area? Thanks!
Tom Sietsema: That's tough! One option is the Portuguese restaurant, Tavira, in nearby Chevy Chase.
Columbia Heights: Have you been to the creperie Cafe Bonaparte on Wisconsin Ave in Georgetown? I don't see it listed on the Wash Post Web site. I went a few weeks ago and really enjoyed both the savory and sweet crepes.
Tom Sietsema: My lunch there was pretty lackluster. The signature dish wasn't exactly a good role model, in my humble opinion.
A La Lucia: I went there for my birthday dinner a few months back and was not impressed with my entree. The chef comped us a cute little appetizer right when we sat down, which was great, and the atmosphere was cozy with a neighborhood feel. I was so prepped to like it there!; But my dinner was blah. I was almost tempted to ask if they forgot an ingredient but didn't.
Tom Sietsema: That sort of mirrors my experience there, too.
On your recommendation I have started going to Sushi Taro (after many years). The food is great but the seating is somewhat strange. It seems they reserve the best seats for parties with men and two women alone get seated in the less desirable tables (little privacy, very close to another table).
Last week I went alone and sat and the bar but they put me far from the main area even though there were lots of empty spaces. I don't know if I'm being paranoid, though, have other women experienced this?
RE: Substitutions and such: ARRRGGGHHH!;!; Nothing infuriates waitstaff and the kitchen as much as diners who design their own dishes from scratch by assembling ingredients on the menu on a whim. I suspect that many of these folks, ahem, don't spend much time actually COOKING food. If they did they would realize that, yes, even in the high-end kitchens some food is (gasp!;) pre-prepped. If you get in a tizzy because they won't add spinach to your housemade ravioli ("If they're housemade, how come you can't add an ingredient?") you will be mercilessly made fun of behind your back. A little diner education can go a long way.
Tom Sietsema: You are being silently applauded by your peers, if not the picky eaters of the world. Thanks for chiming in.
The Village Bistro in Arlington - a good bet if Guajillo and Ray's are busy? A good bet on its own? Or avoid it? What are your thoughts?
Tom Sietsema: I'd rather eat at Ray's or Guajillo myself.
Tyson's Corner: re: Mark and Orlando's in today's Post. Have you been, Tom? What are your thoughts on this place? I've been but I'll reserve opinion for a more appropriate format. Any of the peanut gallery been there yet?
Tom Sietsema: To answer the question: I rarely write about restaurants in DISH that I haven't personally experienced.
D.C., Baby!: Tom -- I REALLY like a couple of the dishes at Good Guys -- I just wish they had carry-out!
Thanks for reminding me of a delightful Washington institution. And good, cheap burgers to boot.
I await your reviews of Archibald's, Camelot, and Good Guys.
Tom Sietsema: I hope you're patient!
Arlington, Va.: Hi Tom! What are some of your favorite restaurants with water views? Helps me feel a little vacation-like when I have a water view. Thank you!!
Tom Sietsema: 2941 in Falls Church has a lovely view of the water from its terrace. That's a start.
20006: Hi Tom, quick question. Have you eaten at Raku in Dupont Circle? Your review focused mostly on the Bethesda version. Good for a casual Thursday dinner with friends?
Tom Sietsema: They are two very different experiences that happen to share only the name. The Bethesda restaurant is far superior to the DC place.
Downtown D.C.: I'm not a "lady," but I my girlfriends all tell me that this city is notorious for seating two women in the "girl ghetto." It happened to one of them the week before last at Merkado. When they requested to be reseated, the restaurant obliged. Other restaurants, I'm told, were not so kind.
Tom Sietsema: The "girl ghetto" is a new one to me.
Adams Morgan, D.C.: Cheers to the DC Council for revisiting the consideration of a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. As a former waiter, I can appreciate the health impact. As a customer I look forward to enjoying an appetizing meal without taste and smell being dulled by tobacco smoke.
Tom Sietsema: I think you have legions of supporters in your camp.
Washington, D.C.: Tom. I need help. My boyfriend's mother has given me an assignment. I need to find a restaurant where approximately ten women can have a wedding shower lunch. It should a laid back, quiet place. Either a private room, or a large table in a restaurant. It can even be a fixed menu. D.C. area. Flexible on food and price. Nothing too adventurous. Help me make a good impression Tom.
Tom Sietsema: What about the handsome 21 P in Dupont Circle, Restaurant Eve in Old Town or Firefly, also in Dupont Circle and home to a cozy private room in the back?
Trying to Chill in Dupont: A friend and I returned last night from a birthday dinner at one of my favorite D.C. restaurants, Komi. Predictably, the food was sensational and the service extremely courteous and professional. So, why was this my least enjoyable birthday celebration? Because of a seriously under-achieving air-conditioning system. This presented a complex issue for me and my guest: What are the obligations of an upscale restaurant that can't adequately cool its guests in Washington summer temperatures?
We learned, as we presented our grievance first to the server and later to the manager, that the problem had persisted for 3-4 days and that it was the unintended consequence of the restaurant's recent effort to up-grade its HVAC system. On the one hand, I am sympathetic to a business located in an historic townhouse, where heating and cooling issues can be daunting challenges. I live in one. And, given thus chilly spring, none of us has had much time to adjust to Washington's summer climate. Also, within certain parameters, the cooling of one's body temperature is a somewhat personal preference.
But I am troubled by Komi's solution to the situation -- i.e., to say nothing until we brought it up and then just shrug the shoulders, albeit apologetically. It is difficult for a diner who walks in from the heat of the outdoors into a room that's someone cooler -- but not much -- to decide, while being seated, whether he/she will have cooled off sufficiently before ordering the appetizer or whether it is best to just leave. Do we ask the maitre d' to bring out a meat thermometer from the kitchen and give us a reading? Instead of acknowledging the issue up front, the manager offered us a table in the bay, which -- an hour and a half before sunset --was the hottest seat in the house. We declined the bay table and asked to be seated in the back, and Komi complied. Still, it was obvious to any observer that my brow was dripping with perspiration throughout all 3 courses, and the heads and shoulders at tables surrounding me were shining sweat beads aplenty as well. Ideally, establishments that charge as much as Komi does should just get the problem fixed, whatever it takes. Maybe that's not always possible, but, in my humble opinion, given that the problem had continued over several days, the restaurant should have apprised diners when they made their reservations (as we had done just the night before) that there was a cooling problem and explained what we could expect. If they had done so, yes, we would have cancelled last night and made other arrangements. But we would have respected the restaurant for being candid and concerned for our comfort. Even a couple of words at the door might have built a little trust (though what comparable alternatives could we find on that block, if we had backed out then?)
What I think should warrant concern for restaurants like Komi that experience an A/C meltdown is that, in our state of discomfort, all the restaurant's flaws came to the surface: Why was there such a long lag time between appetizers and entrees? What happened to the amuse that Komi used to serve? That now-retired glass of chilled cauliflower soup would have gone a long way to keep us on their side during the cooling crisis. We gave the server a lot of credit for keeping our water glasses filled -- she was most attentive and no doubt suffering from the heat more than we were -- but, at the end of the evening, we concluded that Komi had definitely dropped the ball. Would you agree?
Tom Sietsema: (No more amuse at Komi? I wasn't aware of that change.)
I'm sorry to hear that your evening was marred by the heat. Johnny Monis's food deserves a comfortable room in which to eat it. I agree with you: the restaurant should have alerted customers to the problem from the get-go, either on the phone or at the time of arrival.
I'd be curious to hear from any restaurateurs who might be lurking about this morning. How would YOU address this sticky problem?
Laurel, Md.: Hi Tom - I'm heading to a Saturday matinee (2 p.m.) of Mamma Mia this weekend at the National Theatre with my husbands mother and grandmother. I was hoping to take them out to a nice lunch in the city as they don't get to D.C. very often - within easy walking distance of the theater. Very few restaurants in that area serve lunch on Saturdays. Any suggestions?? Thanks.
Tom Sietsema: The Occidental is nearby and has the added advantage of an outdoor patio (which is welcome when the weather is cooler than it is today, of course!)
Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom, I'm going to be in Santa Barbara, Calif. on Sunday with some quality alone adventure time to kill after a friend's wedding on Saturday. I didn't see any SB eats in your postcards and wondered if you or the chatters had any can't miss places? Anything from a taco truck to chi-chi (but pref. with a place to eat at the bar) would be appreciated.
Tom Sietsema: I last visited Santa Barbara in 2002. My best meals took place at the stylish Bouchon (805-730-1160), which has a lovely wine list and farm market-fresh menu, and Brophy Brothers (805-966-4418), a casual seafood joint with amazing views and memorable clam chowder and locally caught fish.
Alexandria, Va.: I went to Mark & Orlando's today. I had a 5-course tasting menu and each course was fabulous. I started with gazpacho and it was excellent, every bit as good as Jaleo's. Frankly, it was better because it had less garlic. Then I had the scallop salad with peppers, scallions, and a vanilla vinaigrette--a remarkable blending of flavors. That was followed by the whole fish with ratatoille. The fish could have used more cracked black pepper (but maybe that's my personal taste) but was otherwise perfectly cooked. The beef tenderloin was spectacular but it was accompanied by a wonderful chutney which made the meat even better. The dessert was a sorbet medley. The consistency of the sorbet was mousse-like. All four were great, but the best was the curry. I never would have imagined a curry sorbet but it was wonderful.
Mark Medley paired each of the courses with the perfect wine. Even the post-dinner wine was top notch. I have eaten at all 100 of the top restaurants in town and many others. This restaurant belongs on that list. The only clearly better food is at Citronelle and Maestro and neither of those is a mere two weeks old. I hope you review this restaurant quickly. I have the same good feelings that I had when I was eating nearly alone at Corduroy waiting for it to become popular.
Tom Sietsema: Perfect timing. I wrote about the newcomer in today's Weekly Dish column in the Food section.
Your post sounds a wee bit personal. Do you have a connection to the restaurant, I wonder?
Tom Sietsema: The Weekly Dish
Tips for dining out with kids: My husband and I recently went out to dinner with my sister-in-law, her fiance, my mother-in-law, her husband, and my 3-year-old son.
We went to a relatively fancy restaurant and we went prepared.
We went prepared to take walks with our son outside around the building after ordering and between courses.
We went prepared to get our food packed up and to leave if our son couldn't last through a grown-up dinner.
We went prepared with snacks if he got hungry waiting for the appetizers to arrive.
As it turned out, the outside walks did the trick. Our son lasted the whole evening without even the slightest of whines. He politely and maturely ate his way through from bread to dessert and blew a kiss to the waitress as we left.
It probably didn't hurt that we practice "Restaurant Manners" with him at brunch buffets on the weekends.
Tom Sietsema: Here's to teaching kids restaurant manners! Bravo.
Pasta Mia: ...on Columbia road: thoughts?
Tom Sietsema: Be prepared for a side of rudeness with your pasta.
Going to the Bay: Hi Tom,
I couldn't find the postcards, so I'm sorry if this is redundant. I'm going to SF with my boyfriend for a wedding. We've been mulling going to the Stinking Rose while there- have you ever been? Do you have other ideas of can't miss spots in various price ranges?
Tom Sietsema: No, no, no! The Stinking Rose stinks!
My postcard columns await in the Travel section archives here online.
Washington, D.C.: Since the birth of our son 7 months ago, my husband and I have been unable to eat out with our bundle of joy, who cannot sit still long enough to let us enjoy a meal! Are there any places in Washington D.C. or Arlington that are baby-friendly or attract a lot of young families? (Of course, we want to go to good restaurants, not McDonald's!)
Tom Sietsema: Asian and Latin American restaurants typically handle families pretty well. Examples in Arlington include Minh's (Vietnamese), Guajillo (Mexican) and Costa Verde (Peruvian). You might also consider restaurants that feature patios, like Zaytinya (Mediterranean) in Washington's Penn Quarter and Perry's (eclectic/sushi) in Adams Morgan.
Temperature: Ha!; Opposite experience this winter at a place in Old Town, Alex. Place was freezing. We thought we were under a draft and asked to be reseated. The waiter said nothing and reseated us. It was still freezing. Finally after noticing the wait staff was huddled around space heaters we asked what was up and he said their heat was out. Um, useful info to know BEFORE sitting down!;!;
Re: Tandoori nights: Wow Tom that was a bashing and I assume you are not Indian? That said quite a few of my co-workers are Indian as in from India and they like it a lot. Where they find the new place in Rio (I forget the name) to not be very good.
Which brings up an interesting question. When you try foods of different ethnic origins do you ever bring along someone who knows what it should taste like? You know bring an Indian friend to try the Indian restaurant?
Tom Sietsema: As if all Indians have good palates? Or all Chinese? Or all Mexicans? I've eaten in plenty of "ethnic" restaurants filled with people from, or of, the restaurant's place of origin where the cooking is not very good.
This deserves more time than I have now, and I appreciate your feedback. Maybe we should revisit the question next week.
For Santa Barbara: Isn't there a Citronelle in Santa Barbara, too?
Tom Sietsema: Yes, but it's not very good.
Adams Morgan, D.C.: Hi Tom,
I just wanted to respond to the person asking you not to recommend Hank's Oyster bar (and to posters who have asked the same regarding their local favorite) b/c they don't want it to get too crowded.
While I'm not affiliated with Hank's, I do GM a D.C. restaurant, and I'm sure he'd tell you to keep your pleas to yourself.
Newsflash, but restaurants are in business to make money- not to provide you with a local cozy. Should my profit sharing be diminished/kitchen food cost ratio go in the red/servers miss out on much needed tips/etc so that you can enjoy a glass of wine whenever you want?
Would you ask your Dr. to not schedule as many appointments so that you can always get a slot, should you feel a little under the weather?
If you want a local, uncrowded hangout, open a restaurant yourself and make rules, but don't interfere with my livelihood- it's very selfish.
Tom Sietsema: Well, you don't have to worry about MY not reporting on a new restaurant of note. I'm not in the business of keeping food secrets from readers.
Just a word of advice: don't ever eat at Bistro du Coin (Connecticut and Florida Aves., NW) or recommend this place. I went to dinner there last night with friends and ate a dish of duck and pommes frites. I have been violently sick (vomiting, diarrhea, the whole nine yards) from it ever since. I called the restaurant this morning to lodge a complaint with the manager, to which she replied, "please call Michel the owner--he handles all these types of calls." I thought that response was very curious; just how many calls like this does this restaurant receive?! By the way, I called Michel, and am expecting him to return my call, even though his answering machine message said, "I probably won't return your call." Not exactly the response that engenders me to return to the restaurant for a second chance, you know?
Thanks for your time. I'm going back to sipping my ginger ale and eating saltines, hoping that will fix my very queasy stomach.
Tom Sietsema: While I rarely post complaints from diners who say they have gotten sick in a restaurant, because that is a tough claim to actually prove, I am publicizing this one because Bistro du Coin is one of those restaurants that pops up on my radar with some regularity, thanks to readers who complain about the French restaurant's service.
If what you're telling me is accurate -- that the hostess tried to brush you off, that the owner's voice mail indicated he wouldn't return your call -- shame on Bistro du Coin.
P.S. Following last Sunday's Ask Tom column in the Magazine, where a reader wrote about writing a polite letter of complaint and getting no response from a restaurant, I was flooded with emails from people saying "me too!" regarding their dealings with way too many well-known eateries.
Restaurants really need to make customer relations -- at least acknowledging a diner's concern -- a priority.
Arlington, Va.: Village Bistro: The food is fine, but they definitely are European in their service. (read: s-l-o-w.)
Tom Sietsema: yes ... they ... are ...
Logan Circle, D.C.: Hi Tom,
Thanks for taking my question. Have you ever been to Mar de Plata? I wanted to get your impression about it because I haven't seen it come up in your chats. Although the atmosphere is somewhat outdated (and that's an understatement), my husband and I have had two wonderful meals there. Both times the service and food were very nice. For example, we had to wait a couple of minutes for a table and so had a drink at the bar. When the host told us our table was ready, he said to just leave the drinks there and follow him. Our drink bill was transferred to our food tab and our drinks were delivered to us at our table. Just little things like that throughout the meal made us feel relaxed, special, and well treated. And, I could go on and on about the grilled calamari with garlic and ginger and the beautiful Paella de Mariscos...
Tom Sietsema: I have not had great luck with the restaurant, which is why you haven't seen me mention it much before.
menus--as--recipe: While working at a casual but busy restaurant in Arlington I had a patron come in at brunch. When they asked if we had chocolate chip pancakes and I said no, and she handed me a plastic baggie of chips and said--"just put those in the batter, would you?"
Tom Sietsema: Ha! (And you're joshing, right?)
And so we conclude another spirited hour of food chat. Have a cool rest of the week and please join me again next Wednesday. I'll be over my jet lag by then.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate. | 217.780488 | 0.707317 | 0.853659 | high | low | abstractive | 4,893 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/08/DI2005060801680.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/08/DI2005060801680.html | Federal Diary Live | 2033-07-15T17:30:19 | Stephen Barr: Greetings all! Congress is continuing to work on agency spending bills, but no word yet on congressional plans for the pay raise. Meanwhile, the White House nominee to head up OPM is Linda Springer. I'd be interested to hear what you think will be the most important issues she will face over the next two years. And, of course, the BRAC process is underway. Thanks for joining in this discussion today. On to your questions and comments.
Columbia, Md.: Stephen, You need to dig a little deeper than Mr. Benowitz in getting answers to why final retirement calculations are taking so long. I retired from the Department of Labor (CSRS) on January 3, 2005 - I still have not received my final retirement package and calculations...I'm assuming I'm covered for health and life insurance but I don't know. I didn't even receive my first interim payment until the end of March - it has been a hardship. I worked for DOL for my entire career (1972 - 2005) and never changed retirement systems. I called OPM in March to find out when I would be finalized and was told that it would be in June - that's almost 6 months later - and I'm still not final as of today. I was also told that the real problem was a lack of staffing due to downsizing and boomer retirements. Your column today did nothing for my morale.
Stephen Barr: Thanks for your feedback. Don't know what to say--I would think CSRS is a pretty straightforward calculation. My sense is that OPM is overwhelmed in the service-delivery area, but I've no real way to prove it. OPM often attributes these types of delays to the employing agency failing to get the records to them on time and in good shape. You might check with your old personnel office to see what happened on that end. Meanwhile, any other testimonials out there?
Columbia, Md.: Stephen, As a follow up to the comment I just sent...I was an IT person for my entire career - exactly what kind of backup system uses an old mine cave in Pennsylvania. Is this something new that EMC or IBM is offering. Does OPM have a backup facility for the mine in case of a cave-in?
Stephen Barr: Well, you know, this does give new meaning to the term data mining.
I think OPM considers the Boyers mine to be its backup facility. Had not thought about rock slides, though....
New York, N.Y.: Hello Mr. Barr,
A quote from your article yesterday
Flake crafted a letter, signed by 18 House members, that was sent to President Bush this year urging the administration to expand the new personnel system planned for the Department of Homeland Security to other federal agencies.
"The time has come to promote a personnel system that mirrors the market and requires management and employees to work together to achieve the same goals," the letter said.
The issue my bureau within DHS is having - there is no comparable job out in the public sector that our officers can be compared with. They still have not decided how to rank Adjudications Officers within the HRMax.
All of these politicians and committee members and millions spent on contracted agencies to "examine" and "propose" and "assist" in making all these transitions talk a good talk, but no one seems to want to make decisions on the other aspect of DHS (non-terrorist/security related functions)
Another quote from your column a couple of days back on that survey - Michael Jackson , the department's deputy secretary, told employees in a memo, "Given the department's youth and the state of transformation, the overall results were not unexpected."
The department might be "young" but the employees are seasoned government employees. At least in my bureau, the average came out to be about 12 years in the job! As with all surveys, sometimes one has to chop off both ends of extremes and concentrate on the middle to really get to the heart of complaints and issues. But saying the department is "young" is a ridiculous statement!
Okay - sorry for my ranting comments, but I do have a question. I think a couple of weeks back you had an article on the budget? And how HRMax and its changes may be delayed because of the cuts in the budget? Have there been any updates on this? (I seem to recall Janet Hale being quoted on this)
Stephen Barr: The MaxHR budget is in the hands of the Senate now, and we're waiting to see what happens. Generally speaking, I think DHS is afraid that senators looking for grant money will view the personnel roll out as an ATM. I'll try to keep you posted.
Good points in your "rant." Thanks for making them!
Washington, D.C.: I enjoyed your column. I was wondering why Congress now decided to wait until next year for DOD to go under the new pay system?
Stephen Barr: Congress asked the Pentagon to observe certain procedures in building the new pay system, or NSPS. That included consultations with unions and a public comment period. To its credit, the Pentagon is not rushing the pay conversion. Managers will get at least one rating cycle to use as a dry run before they must use new performance management criteria to help set pay raises. So, everyone at Defense will get the standard GS raise in January 2006. After that, I expect to see the pay conversion take place in stages across the department.
any backroom hearsay about the TSA Airport Screener federal positions being turned back to the contractors? I applied for one of these positions and have to get a background check, a medical exam, etc., and I'm willing to do all of this; however, I'm not sure if the President is planning to release these positions back to contractors? Not sure what these federal positions are costing the government but it seems they'd be saving money if contractors took them over. Of course, for me, as a current Federal employee, I don't want to go thru all of this paperwork only to not be offered the job, except as a contractor. Your thoughts? Thanks!
Stephen Barr: I've got no hearsay. This all seems rather uncertain right now--how many airports want to opt out of the federal workforce; what will be the liability issues if an airport goes private and leaves TSA? Besides the customer service and security issues, there are political pressures: will conservatives in Congress demand that screening revert to the private sector (they still can't believe they voted to create a new large federal agency)?
My sense is that the new leadership at DHS is studying all of this. The new person selected for TSA is a friend of the deputy DHS secretary, and I find it hard to believe that these two are willing to give up on TSA anytime soon.
Huntingtown, Md.: To Columbia, Md....a friend who retired December 31 also had the same problem. She wrote to her Congressman and Senators and all of a sudden she got her retirement annuity package completed. Seems that OPM needs to hire more people! Another concern she had was that NO State taxes were withdrawn on the interim retirement check. Good luck!
Stephen Barr: Thank you, Huntington.
Washington, D.C.: Can you tell me why there are so many online government job sites instead of one central location? In looking for a government job I have to keep updated resumes at jobs.gov, avue central, the Army Civilian Resume Builder/Answer and the Navy Civilian HR site - did I forget anyone?
For instance, why does DOJ specifically accept resumes from avue central - what wrong with them working with the job.gov site?
Stephen Barr: In theory, USAJobs at the OPM Web site is supposed to be the comprehensive listing of all federal jobs. But GAO a few years ago pointed out that not all agencies post duplicate listings with OPM. A main issue here is that OPM decentralized federal hiring in the 1990's, so agencies have set up their own procedures and purchased their own technology. I hear this complaint often and job applicants are frustrated by the different ways that they have to apply. Best of luck!
Teresa Chambers & Federal Whistle blowing: What ever happened to her story? Wasn't she also a whistle blower? I was doing some internal compare/contrast between her and Deep Throat. Maybe she should have hid her identity and went the Deep Throat route. The scary idea is, those same fears Mark Felt may have had about coming out are still apparent today in 2005.
Stephen Barr: As you know, Chambers was the Park Police chief who was fired for talking about budget and staffing issues with a Washington Post reporter. She has been pursuing legal avenues in a bid to get her job back.
You make a good point, regardless of whether you see Chief Chambers as a whistle-blower. I don't think she said anything that compromised public safety, based on the record that I have seen. She did run afoul of agency rules that officials not speak out on budget issues, I'm told. If she did, is that a firing offense?
Breezewood, Pa.: When the contractor employees were thrown out of the airports for failure to perform up to standards, they were promptly replaced by a Federally employed group who turned out to be almost as precisely inept as the minimum wage folks we had there through private contracting. Now we have a bunch of marginals who cannot be fired or disciplined and they are paid considerably more than the poorly paid marginals that they replaced. Could not the private contractors have been forced to upgrade the caliber of their staff of the "security inspectors" wage scale as set by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage determinations by simply raising the position for such work higher up the wage determination scale?
Stephen Barr: Sorry, Breezewood, I think you're off in the ditch here. I think travelers are safer today than before 9/11 because of TSA screeners. Their work involves difficult training and technology issues, and I would vote to give them a few more years to resolve their problems. TSA employees have no union protection and I've heard no agency complaints about problems in getting rid of poor performers. At some point, Congress will have to figure out its comfort level with airplane security and how much taxpayers--or a private company--is required to spend.
Arlington, Va.: I know folks who work in for OPM in Boyers in the cave. It will not cave in unless a very strong nuke makes a direct hit. Boyers is where all the records are kept.
Just a quick note the OPM takeover of DSS is a disaster. OPM has former DSS GS15s doing the work of GS5 security assistants. The quality of OPM investigations is awful from a DOD prospective. They don't meet the national investigative standards, prior files are missing and issues are not resolved. OPM will not provide copies of recent bankruptcy records. Expect the delays to grow before they get better.
Stephen Barr: Like TSA, this is another startup operation where the growing pains will take several months to resolve. Once again, technology will be an issue, also.
Washington, D.C.: Hi Stephen, do you know much about reinstatement? I'd like to return to the federal government. I've been out for less than three years and hope I can return without having to compete with the general public. If a federal office wants to hire me, can they skip the usual process of competing the job through OPM?
Stephen Barr: Not much. But here goes.
Reinstatement rights apply if you had at least 3 years of prior federal service or if you have veterans' preference.
It allows you to bypass normal civil service exams and it also makes you a "status" candidate and eligible to compete for positions normally reserved for people already inside the government.
Be warned that many of those type of positions seem to be grooved for an inside candidate, at least according to participants in these discussions. Others, it should be noted, say this is not the case.
In January 2000, the final date legislated for the new education requirements for 1102s (Procurement) passed. Those 1102s who did not have a degree by that date become ineligible for promotion beyond GS-12; DoD will not consider applicants without a degree who are not already DoD employees. Recently, I've seen several articles indicating that there are now problems finding qualified experienced journeyman-level acquisition staff. That problem seems to have been self-perpetuated by the very people now complaining. There are many 1102s in the field with eighteen to twenty years experience that are being ignored because of the lack of a degree. Yet, those same people are being asked to train the "new kid" just hired (at a higher grade) in the field. Most of us worked hard to get the experience and knowledge we are now being asked to give away to others, so they can move ahead.
Has any one, any where considered making a change to the educational requirements of the 1102s.
Stephen Barr: Not aware of anyone proposing to ease the new educational requirements. Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia pays attention to this issue, and if you feel so inclined, I would urge you to write him.
Arlington, Va.: I think the new OPM director will be facing telework as a serious issue, along with any revamping of the personnel promotion practices. One thing I'd like to see her address is the notion that we in the D.C. area get paid according to the cost of labor as opposed to the cost of living, which would be nice to switch. I doubt anything would happen in this administration, but it would be nice to see a wheel or two set in motion to get people thinking and talking about it. I doubt you'd have a lack of support from the constituency in this area.
Stephen Barr: Good point about telework. Kay Coles James, the first Bush OPM director, tried to promote telecommuting but with limited success.
Another good point about cost of living. I hear that complaint all the time (i.e., how can you expect FBI agents to live in NYC and San Fran?). Under the current system, a city like Washington falls in the middle of the pack on locality raises even though housing and other costs are among the nation's highest (young tech people regularly tell me they are leaving the government because of housing costs and going to another city).
The Bush administration wants to go to "market based pay"--which depends on the difficulty of filling a job in a given occupation in a given area. So that would seem to take both the cost of labor and the cost of living into account (at least indirectly). Performance pay would come on top of that.
You're right, it would be nice to see a large truck wheel put in motion on this issue.
Washington, D.C.: Apparently, the MSPB is doing a survey about how well the Federal workforce is managed. Are you allowed to use expletives? I hope you have that Carol Bonosaro online.
Stephen Barr: I try to keep this a G-rated forum; sometimes PG-13. Good to hear MSPB is in the field asking about federal management. My argument is that the government needs performance leadership more than it needs performance management systems.
Syracuse, N.Y.: I read recently that over 40% of the working people in France were employed at some level of government. When this is coupled with their heavily unionized private sector it becomes obvious that this drain in productive effort economic is a major cause of their stagnant economic record over the last decade. The unending growth in government employment will eventually slow wealth creation in the U.S. as well, but I really have no idea what percentage of the U.S. labor force is is collecting taxpayer funds for their meager contributions. Could you give us an idea of just how many employed Americans are on government payrolls? Thanks.
Stephen Barr: According to the 2005 budget book, there are 2.7 million federal employees (counting Postal, etc.) and 18.7 million state and local government employees. That's for a population of 290 million Americans.
On the federal level, counting the military, the government has 9.2 employees per 1,000 people. That's down from 13.3 in 1962.
The trick here, of course, is that the budget books do not count what experts call the "shadow government"--the millions of private-sector folks who make their living by selling something to the government or taking a government grant. That number is certainly growing as the Bush administration turns to contractors to help ramp up national and homeland security.
Effingham, Ill.: Are there any proposals to give FERS employees credit for unused sick leave? As a federal manager, use of S/L is a real blow to productivity. It is considered use or lose under FERS and an extra 104 hrs/yr of time off. Payment for accumulations over a set amount or retirement credit would seem cost effective.
Why haven't limits on TSP contributions for FERS and CSR employees gone up proportionately rather than equally dollar for dollar? At inception, FERS employees could contribute 2x the limit for CSRS and that proportion continues to erode, especially in light of the prospects for CSRS employees being given the rumored $20000 catch-up in 2006.
Stephen Barr: On your first question, I'm not aware of any effort in Congress to change the FERS sick leave crediting policy. That was a decision Congress made when FERS was created, largely for cost reasons. Congress also felt that this policy would be more in line with what the private sector provides. But it does create a two-class system for federal retirement.
On the TSP query, the FERS and CSRS limits were set by the FERS law and remained in place for many years. Around 2000, then-Rep. Connie Morella of Maryland succeeded in getting a phase out enacted. The limits went up by one percentage point a year. Effective next year, the percentage limits will be gone, and everyone will be capped only by the IRS dollar limit. It will be $15,000 next year.
Your reference to $20,000 is the combined amount of the $15,000 limit plus the $5,000 contribution that those age 50 and above will be able to make as a "catch-up" contribution next year. It's best to think of these as two separate figures, since only those 50 and older are eligible for the catch-ups.
Charleston, W.V.: Oh my gosh. All these horror stories about OPM and getting retirement payments. After almost 40 years of service, I'm beginning to fear retirement!!
Stephen Barr: Say it ain't so! I guess you're delivering a word from the wise -- build up that bank account before filing that retirement application, just in case that first pension check is a long time coming.
The good news is that Uncle Sam is the only employer who never faces bankruptcy, so that check will arrive, and you will get them for the rest of your life.
On that happy note, we've run out of time once again. Thanks to all for this lively discussion. We'll be back here at noon next Wednesday, hopefully to talk about the BRAC and what it means for Washington-area federal employees. See you then!
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate. | 93.878049 | 0.658537 | 0.804878 | high | low | abstractive | 4,894 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/10/DI2005061001557.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/10/DI2005061001557.html | Sports: Soccer | 2033-07-15T17:30:19 | Do you have questions about D.C. United? MLS? National team? Europe?
Silver Spring, Md.: Any news re: a new stadium for United?
Steven Goff: Greetings everyone.....Glad to be able to answer your questions and respond to comments again. First question is an easy one: new stadium. Nothing new. Sorry. Be patient. It's going to take a while before DCU is playing in its own place. Get used to the delicious RFK concessions.
Arlington, Va.: Hi Steve. There's just too much soccer happening right now. I may need to quit my job. MLS, Youth Championships, Confed. Cup, WC Qualifying, Women's Euro championships ... Gotta love the Fox Soccer Channel. Anyway, the US U20s seem to be in pretty good shape to move on out of their group. How does the team stack up against Egypt for the final group match?
Steven Goff: Yes, so much going on these days. USA u-20s are in great position to advance to the round of 16. A tie against Egypt will do it. The Egyptians have lost their first two games, but I suppose it's still possible for them to advance if they beat the USA and get through on goal differential. I would expect the USA to gain at least a tie.
Reston, Va.: Since AEG is gutting the 'Quakes, is there any chance of landing Brian Ching?
Steven Goff: Can't imagine that would happen. San Jose has a pretty good team that should finish third in the West and Ching is their most valuable player. Unless DCU is willing to make a huge trade, it ain't happening.
Whence Wilson?: Where did DC's new defender, Wilson, come from? He did a great job in his first match against the Metros. If I was Namoff, I'd be worried about my job.
Steven Goff: John Wilson played briefly in MLS a few years ago and then thrived in the minor leagues. His performance on Sunday at Giants Stadium was outstanding -- a defender who gets forward quickly and, most importantly, plays the ball out of the back quickly. With Namoff hurt, I'm sure Wilson will start again tonight. Beyond that, it will be interesting to see how Nowak handles it. I'm thinking I might have to do a feature on Wilson later this week or next week...
Silver Spring, Md.: Are the players tired of Novak already or are they going to respond to his methods again like they did last year?
Steven Goff: Good question. Nowak is a straight shooter and the players know where he's coming from. He works them very hard, perhaps too hard at times. But last year proved there is a method to his madness. I'm sure after this three-games-in-seven-days stretch the players will look forward to 11 days without a match.
Landover, Md.: What do you think of the shakeup in the NY Metro front office
Steven Goff: Another AEG shocker. First they turn things over in Chicago, now New York. Clearly, something needed to be done with the MetroStars, who have been dragging the league down. I'm not sure Lalas has all the answers, but at least AEG is paying attention to the mess created by the current MetroStars group.
Columbia, Md.: How is it fair that Bahrain or Kuwait, those soccer powerhouses, will be playing Guatemala or Costa Rica for the chance to go to the World Cup while two, maybe 3 of Greece, Turkey, and Denmark may not make it out of their qualifying groups? What are your thoughts about the allotment of WC qualifying slots?
Steven Goff: The fifth-place team in Asia and the fourth-place team in North American will face each other in a playoff in the fall for a World Cup spot. Sadly, neither team will deserve it and, most likely, they'll get smashed out of the World Cup next summer. European teams always have gripes about the qualifying process, but that's the way it is. Same goes for the NCAA basketball tournament, where small schools earn berths while big programs from major conferences don't make it. Too bad...
Tenleytown, Washington, D.C.: Who do you think is the most talented U.S. striker right now? And what skills do you think our current national team strikers should improve?
Steven Goff: Eddie Johnson is a rising star with an incredible scoring touch -- something many national teams lack. Brian McBride is sturdy and dependable and can still score goals. Brian Ching and Conor Casey will remain in the mix as target forwards, and Josh Wolff is a quick forward who is nice to have off the bench. Landon Donovan is the USA's most important player and he is best in an attacking midfield role, but, if necessary, he can play up front too.
Silver Spring, Md.: Any idea about who or whom the new operator/investor is/are, will be?
Steven Goff: Kevin Payne is involved in the group. Beyond that, the local investors are a mystery -- at the moment.:-)
Washington, D.C.: Why do we hang on to David Stokes? He seems to always be off his mark and is often making reckless plays. Other than he is tall which has not amount to much, why do we keep him aboard? There must be other defenders with more talent than this guy.
Steven Goff: Stokes is exempt from the senior roster and the salary cap because of his developmental status, so there is no reason to drop him. He has shown positive signs in reserve games lately, so he might be turning the corner. Time will tell...
Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.: I have a friend who was on United's plane on the way home from Mexico City. He said they were laughing, goofing around, having a great time, etc. Did that 5-0 humiliation upset anyone else besides me? Is there going to be any effort made by MLS teams to be more competitive in those games (even if it means moving the competition to later in the year)?
Steven Goff: It's a long flight from Mex City to DC -- you can't expect guys to mope for the entire flight. Embarrassing, it was, for the team and the league. My argument throughout preseason was that DCU needed to find a high-caliber replacement for Ryan Nelsen in time for the Pumas series (never mind MLS). They didn't do it and, as a result, we saw the Mexican club shred them.
Last goal: Can you recall who scored D.C.'s last goal? It has been a long, long time.
Maybe we should start a pool about who will finally break the scoreless streak.
I'll put a buck in that it will be Alecko.
Steven Goff: Um, er, ah, yeah, hmmmm.....I don't recall DCU scoring any goals this year! You gotta think they'll score at home tonite, right?? Eskandarian came awfully close Sunday, so I agree, it would probably be him.
Arlington, Va.: Like most people, my application for the first round of WC tickets was rejected. I know they have more rounds later this year, but the odds never look good. Any ideas on the best way to get tickets? I assume you're going ...
Steven Goff: Get to know someone who works for a World Cup sponsor: Adidas, McDonald's, Budweiser, etc. They'll have lots of tickets.The Post's travel section did a great spread in the May 22 issue about going to World Cup. Among the suggestions was travel packages, including www.soccertravel.com. The US Soccer Federation in Chicago also might be able to help you out.
Monty County, Md.: Thanks again for the excellent soccer coverage in The Post. United is treading water right now, much as they did at this point last year. However, Christian Gomez arrived late in 2004, Nellie was still here, and the team peaked at season's end. What change needs to happen this year for DCU to return to the playoffs -- which is what really matters?
Also, any hints on who the prospective young defender from Argentina is?
Steven Goff: The goalkeeping is fine, the defense is maturing, the midfield has started creating opportunities...they've just got to start scoring goals. If that happens, they should be fine. But if Eskandarian, Moreno and Quaranta continue to struggle, the team will have to find a new forward. As for the Argentine, you have to remember that this is MLS, which, because of budget constraints, means United can only afford a player a little past his prime or a youngster not ready for European caliber play.
Glover Park, Washington, D.C.: Why did DCU think it could defend a championship without making an aggressive move to replace Nelsen? Was it just a matter of not finding the right player? Or did they really think they had enough talent on the roster? If so, why trade Petke? They still haven't brought in anyone except John Wilson ... (And I admit Boswell has been a nice find.)
Steven Goff: Good question about Nelsen, although the defense has improved as the year has gone on. Still, they miss Nelsen's presence and leadership in the back. The plan is to add a young Argentine defender, but we'll have to see where that goes over the next two months.By the way, Boswell is going to be a good MLS player and Wilson has shown he can really add a new dimension to the backline.
Still waiting for the Orange Line: Steve, two questions about the rumored Chelsea match. First, does Peter Kenyon know how narrow FedEx's field is? Second, do you agree that he might actually make more money from the game being played at RFK because more people will go, thanks to the Metro access, central location, etc.?
Steven Goff: In my opinion, the only reason to consider FedEx Field is because of the rough field conditions at RFK. Otherwise, why would you play in that soul-less, 90,000-seat monster near the beltway? The game would be played on a weeknight, which, in my opinion, means a crowd of no more than 35,000. RFK would be the perfect size, but, again, the field condition could be a concern.
Arlington, Va.: How is morale on the team these days? They played well against NJ, but just haven't been able to finish. A much better looking performance than that stinker at home to Dallas the other week. Are the guys down on each other at all? How many chances is Quaranta going to get to prove himself? Does he belong up front or somewhere in the midfield?
Steven Goff: Quaranta needs to start scoring. He's finally healthy, but not producing. Team morale is pretty good, from what I can tell. They know they played very well at the Meadowlands, except for the finishing. Chicago is rolling right now, so I'm not sure DCU will be able to replicate its attacking success.
Arlington, Va.: Why is the MLS schedule so messed up? United play three games in a week and then nothing for almost two weeks. LA gets to play almost all of their games at home for the first three months of the season ... It just doesn't make sense.
Steven Goff: Bizarre scheduling, indeed.The fact that MLS also schedules games without much consideration for World Cup qualifying is also a mystery (even though they know the qualifying dates months in advance).
Landover, Md.: Is there a chance they may have to build the stadium outside of D.C.?
Steven Goff: At the moment, no. But if the Poplar Point (D.C.) site doesn't work out, maybe the team starts looking to Maryland or Virginia again. Or perhaps they'll just have RFK for themselves when the Nats move to their new (proposed) stadium.
Mechanicsburg, Pa.: Two quick ones: 1. Liverpool/UEFA decision. Justified? 2. Could we really pack a place fedex field for a united/chelsea matchup?
Steven Goff: I disagree with the UEFA decision. The World Cup champion doesn't get an automatic berth the next time around, why should Liverpool in the Champions League? I guess you could say that Liverpool has been placed in a position to qualify for Champions League only, but their inability to finish in the top 4 in England should be the final determination, in my opinion. As I said before, I don't think the Chelsea game is as big of a draw as some might think, especially on a weeknite. Despite their recent success, Chelsea doesn't have the same mainstream sports following in this country as Man U or Arsenal. Just my opinion ...
Landover, Md.: Any predictions for tonight?
Steven Goff: 0-0, of course!!!
Landover, Md.: Any word if the supposed upcoming friendly with Chelsie will be at RFK or FedEx?
Steven Goff: Announcement MIGHT be tomorrow...
Section 134: How would the new ownership group affect the stadium deal? Would having Kevin Payne in the owner's box help make it happen sooner rather than later; Or is it just stuck in back-room city politics at the moment?
Steven Goff: From what I can tell, the new ownership group has already been in talks with the city and the developers. So it will not be a case of starting all over again. Certainly Payne's presence will help the situation because he's been involved from Day 1.
Alexandria, Va.: No question, just wanted to thank you and your editors for continuing coverage of football, both in your excellent columns (I have particularly enjoyed the squad profiles) and in the News and Notes section. We travel overseas a good bit and people are always stunned at how little interest the U.S. shows in a sport the rest of the world follows passionately. Many thanks for your efforts.
Steven Goff: Thanks for your kind words. Coverage of DCU will remain steady and you'll see a lot more international stories as the World Cup approaches.However, the addition of a baseball team in DC (and a good one, at that) is taking up a lot of space in the paper.
Washington, D.C.: Not DCU related, but have you heard any rumors as to where the Panama qualifier will be held?
Steven Goff: No decision yet. Because the USA is on the brink of qualifying, I would guess that the Panama qualifier in November will be played at a small or medium stadium. Perhaps Dallas's new complex will be used.
Arlington, Va.: Why are we pursuing a South American defender when 0-0 is the norm for United? Perhaps a forward would help?
Steven Goff: Good point.Nowak, Kasper and perhaps Payne are headed to Argentina next week. We'll see what they find. However, it would be difficult for any foreign player to join DCU before mid-August because of various restrictions.
Washington, D.C.: I really liked when we brought aboard GK Clint Baumstark a couple of years ago. How come we couldn't hold on to this guy?
Steven Goff: United has two quality goalkeepers: Rimando and Perkins. The purpose of a third keeper is for developmental purposes only, so whether it's Clint or anyone else, they're probably not going to get into a real game right away.
Washington, D.C.: What do you think would be a good age for Freddy Adu to pack up and move to a european league? I'd guess he could play in a lower level league -- i.e. the dutch eredivision, by 18. Any thoughts? Thanks
Steven Goff: Technically, Freddy can't play as a pro in Europe until he turns 18 (June 2, 2007). So unless something strange happens, I would expect him to be in a DCU uniform for at least another 1 1/2 years. After that, he could end up anywhere in Europe. Holland would certainly make some sense.
Takoma Park, Md.: Have you ever eaten a hotdog at RFK?
Steven Goff: No, but those Pronto burritos are mighty fine!! (um, kidding)
Would you pass along to Mr. Garcia-Ruiz my thanks, and I am sure the thanks of many others who are fans of both United and the Nationals, that The Post has enough money (and is spending it) to cover both teams as deeply as they do.
Steven Goff: Thanks for the kind words.<br/><br/>We're doing the best we can. Post.com has also become a great forum for news and discussion.You can reach Emilio at [email protected]
Thanks for the info on the league denying D.C. United's appeal of a loss to the Revolution in a reserve game. As you know, D.C. United complained that the winning goal was scored by a player that exceeded the total 90 minutes allowed to be played over the regular and reserve games that weekend. But the league denied the appeal, according to you, because D.C. United also used players that exceeded the 90 minute rule. Did D.C. United not know they had also violated the rule? It seems silly that they would make an appeal on the theory that the other team broke a rule when they broke the rule themselves. It just seemed odd. Does D.C. United dispute the league's contention that they used a player too much? If not, why did they even appeal and how often is this 90-minute rule exceeded anyway?
By the way, I have in-laws that live in Denver that we visit a lot. And while the Sports section there rivals what The Post does in almost all sports, there is no comparison when it comes to soccer coverage. The Post coverage of D.C. United far exceeds the coverage the Rapids get in Denver, and you are the number 1 reason why this is the case. Great job, Steve!
Steven Goff: Again, thanks for the kind words. It means a lot to me.As for the reserves, DCU apparently thought it had pulled Namoff off the field before his 90 minutes were up. But, from what I hear, a tape of the game shows he was out there a little longer. At least DCU made the effort; NE did no such thing. The lesson learned by all MLS teams is to make sure you keep track of the minutes.
Arlington, Va.: Where are MLS' likely expansion targets, now that Toronto has flamed out?
Steven Goff: Houston, Rochester, Seattle, St. Louis.....I'm sure I'm missing some other candidates.First, MLS needs to figure out what to do with San Jose and Kansas City. Local investors are needed to keep those teams in their respective cities.
Washington, D.C.: I have a question that's puzzled me for several years now: why has the United States been disproportionately strong in producing goalkeepers? We've been able to have a few European-caliber keepers starting overseas on a consistent basis for a decade or so now.
Is there something about our style of play, or our sports culture, that makes us stronger in this area, or is it just coincidence? I just find it odd that Americans are so much better represented in that position in European leagues.
Steven Goff: The common theory is that the USA produces world-class goalies because athletes are brought up here with perhaps stronger hand-eye coordination (through baseball, basketball, etc). I'm not sure if you could prove that, however. Perhaps just a coincidence. The USA goalie list is impressive: Keller, Friedel, Howard, Hahnemann, as well as some quality MLS guys (Cannon, Hartman, Reis, Busch, etc.)
Did that 5-0 humiliation upset anyone else besides me?: This probably won't get posted, but comments like that remind me some people need to get a grip. I played on a organized team in an organized league -- soccer, incidentally. It can be long season. Player reactions are not subject to your approval. If the poster was that "upset" than saying something to the team while on the plane would be more appropriate that posting anonymously here. I'm sure the team would have responded with the appropriate emotion.
Rockville, Md.: Where do you think the MLS ranks in terms of quality with respect to European leagues? Personally, I think the MLS is miles behind, but interested in your view. Thanks.
Steven Goff: At best, MLS is 12th in the world. Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, England, France, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Netherlands, Japan, maybe others. It's going to take time (and a lot of salary money) before MLS can compete with other leagues that have been around for many decades. Not a slap against MLS, just the reality of starting a new league in the world arena.
Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.: Is it just me or did the whole midfield control (which led to our shooting 28 shots) come from Wilson's confidence on the ball and his ability to drive deep into Metro territory and dump off good passes?
Also, We should sign Wynne. He's brilliant and wasting his time at college.
Steven Goff: Agreed, Wynne should be a pro -- now. MLS would love to have him, but the Euro clubs are also watching him at the under-20 championships. Yes, Wilson was outstanding. His ability to go forward with the ball (and to do it confidently) opened a lot of opportunities for DCU.
Washington, D.C.: With D.C. United struggling to score, isn't it time for Novak to allow Freddie Adu more time on the field upon his return from Under 20 international play? I have been watching him play for the USA Under 20 team and it is clear that his skill and creativity would be valuable to any MLS team. Especially, United who is struggling to score. It's time to let him blossom. Any thoughts?
Steven Goff: Tough question. Different team, different coach, different teammates.If Freddy ends up having a very good tournament, he should probably be playing for DCU. But then again, he will have been away for many weeks. If DCU is still struggling offensively by the time he returns, he's got to play, right? But if United turns things around this week, it would be difficult for him to step right into the lineup. Another tricky situation for Nowak.
U Street NW: I was just wondering if you were lucky enough to attend the Greatest Game Ever Played ... Ever! European Cup Final 2005.
Who is more god-like, Rafa the Gaffer or Stevie Gerrard? Can Liverpool win the Premiership next year? When will I get "Ring of Fire" out of my head?
Steven Goff: Unfortunately, I wasn't there.Had a nice view of a television screen, though.Liverpool should contend in the Premiership this coming season, but Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal will be strong as usual.
Washington, D.C.: I was thrown off a couple of weeks ago when The Post said United tried to get rid of Dema in the offseason. I read about Nowak's comments but I don't know what to believe. Is Dema still on the block? Is his future uncertain with DC United? I know he has had his fair share of bookings, but is this justification for his departure?
Steven Goff: I was told by several people in the league that DCU was shopping Dema during the offseason. When trade gossip started again a few weeks ago, Dema's name came up. Nowak adamantly stated that Dema would not be traded. Soccer America reported that Dema was offered to Columbus for Ante Razov. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but I never heard that.
Liverpool, U.K.: Steven, an observation on European soccer: Until recently it was assumed that the strongest and most successful clubs in the European Champions' League formed a monolithic entity, and that no other teams would loosen the grip held by the "elite." Last year saw a major upset when Porto, from Portugal, and Monaco got to the Final. Both teams were minnows among the big fish. This year, another unfancied team, Liverpool, won the Final against Milan in circumstances which have already passed into soccer folklore round these parts. What the last two years appear to suggest is that some of the "elite" are losing their dominance of the European soccer scene. Real Madrid have had what they would see as a poor season. They also finished someway behind their arch-rivals, Barcelona, who won the Spanish League. Manchester United will also feel disappointed with their English League position and lack of success in Europe. What both teams have in common is that they have ageing squads, the oldest players being the ones who have been so instrumental for them over the last few years. Real Madrid's Zidane and Manchester United's Roy Keane are now over 30 and their best days are long gone. For Manchester United, there is also the Malcolm Glazer takeover to deal with. It is far from certain that Glazer will provide the money that United need in order to buy replacements for the old guard. The monolith is starting to show cracks -- it is the right time for Liverpool to re-emerge as a force in European soccer.
Steven Goff: Greetings, Liverpool! Thanks for your comments...
I'm wondering about your thoughts on the Confederation Cup that starts today? Who do you like to win the tournament? How will the host country, Germany, play?
Steven Goff: Playing at home, Germany needs to win it. It will be interesting to see how players perform, considering most are coming off very long club seasons.
Steven Goff: That's all, folks. Thanks for your questions. Obviously, I couldn't get to all of em. Feel free to reach me anytime at [email protected]. Cheers!
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate. | 125.926829 | 0.731707 | 0.878049 | high | low | abstractive | 4,895 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/08/DI2005060801780.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/08/DI2005060801780.html | Ask The Post | 2033-07-15T17:30:19 | Belle Elving: Hi everyone. It's great to get this chance to hear from you directly. I'm eager to know what you like about the section, what you're not so fond of, what kind of stories and columns you'd like to see more of. We have some changes in the works, set to begin with our next issue, including a new question-and-answer approach to our do-it-yourself coverage, and a long-promised feature showing photos of readers' problem rooms and suggesting a few quick changes.
From the weekly online chats hosted by Home reporters Annie Groer and Jura Koncious, we know that color ranks high on our readers' list of questions, so let me admit to a lifelong bias for green, in almost any shade. (My car is a lime green VW Bug, the best thing I've ever bought!) So if you ask what color to paint your family room, don't be surprised if my reply is sage or lemongrass or bok choy.
Annapolis, Md.: I enjoy the Home section, especially Mike McClintock's Home Sense column. However, I am disappointed that so many of the lead articles feature homes of the wealthy and/or the famous. These articles provide no advice or ideas for those of us in the middle class who are trying to make our homes beautiful and comfortable, but who don't have the means to buy things like the Chinese wedding bed featured in last week's article or to restore a home in Kalorama like that of Juleanna Glover Weiss. Why not provide articles geared to the rest of us out there?
Belle Elving: Hi Annapolis. Your question goes right to the heart of our weekly challenge here at the Home section: balancing readers' interest in seeing great homes -- which usually take great amounts of money -- with practical advice we can all use and relate to. We try to have a mix, and hope that even when stories focus on high-end projects, there are ideas to adapt for more modest budgets. For example, we covered the Kips Bay Showhouse in New York early this spring, and while that is truly rarified territory, there were totally adaptable ideas, like painting a ceiling melon yellow. I hope readers can find the accessible amid the over the top.
Washington, D.C.: I love to read the Home section, but sometimes I wonder how it differs from the Saturday Real Estate section. Could you explain the differences? Thanks. P.S. Love that Home front page.
Belle Elving: There is definitely some overlap between Thursday Home and Saturday Real Estate, and I think that's fine, because there is a lot of interest in all things relating to where we live. The simplest distinction is that Real Estate is about homes being bought or sold, and Home is about how best to take care of and enjoy the home you have.
Baltimore, Md.: In agreement with the Annapolis writer's comments. Seems to me the issue is effort - it's cheaper and easier to report on someone who is wealthy than to search for successful designs done by an average homeowner.
Another thought: guidance on working with designers for the typical householder - 2 jobs, kids, killer schedule, expense - might encourage their use.
Belle Elving: Hi Baltimore. I do understand your frustration. So much of the coverage of homes and gardens in newspapers, and certainly glossy magazines, is like looking through a plate glass window at things most of us can never afford. And your follow up question really highlights the problem: design help can get very pricey. We have written about stores that offer design advice when you buy furniture there, and designers who will charge by the hour and help clients use what they have, but even that level of help gets out of range for many.
I love the home section - even if you do showcase more expensive and expansive homes than my own. It's fun to see what those people do and figure out ways to adapt it to my own home.
Whatever happened to the idea that Jura had discussed for the column on problem rooms? I've got a great living room with an awkward flow and ugly fireplace for you all to tackle!
Belle Elving: We're planning to start that feature next week. We got a lot of response when we asked readers to send in problem rooms, and once the feature is launched, I'm sure many more will come our way. Look for it next week, on Page 2, and let us know what you think.
Washington D.C.: I really enjoy reading your section and like the range of articles. One thing I'd like to see is more about the traditional D.C. row house and what I can do to improve the inside and outside of my home. Thanks!
Belle Elving: Having lived in a row house, I know exactly what you mean about the challenges of those long, narrow (often dark) spaces. Lots of the photos readers sent in for our planned makeover column was of row house living rooms, where even arranging furniture can be a major frustration. I appreciate the reminder to do more with these.
Washington, D.C.: There has been such a surge of interest in this area (renovation, building, interior design, landscaping) in the past few years. Hard to tell if it has fed or been fed by the boom in shows on channels like HGTV and TLC. Do you think this trend will fizzle out and people will get tired of constantly comparing their home to the images they see in The Post and on TV?
Belle Elving: The 24/7 popularity of those shows has been astonishing, to people inside the media and out. Who would have thought that watching folks paint rooms and re-landscape their yards would prove so entertaining! Part of it is the current fascination with so-called reality TV, and part is an avid interest out there in ideas for making the most of where we live. I see no evidence that the phenomenon is fading.
Washington, D.C.: Hi Belle. Do you remember the old "Apartment Life" magazine that used to have a feature on how to duplicate an expensive room on the cheap? Would you ever do anything like that in Home?
Belle Elving: I love that idea, and definitely remember how well Apartment Life did it. We have talked many times of how to duplicate that, even if we have to do it on a smaller scale and fewer resources than magazines can devote to it. With your encouragement, we'll talk about it again.
Arlington, Va.: Hi Belle! Love your section. Did you ever think about doing an occasional feature on cool celebrity homes, like the N.Y. Times does sometimes? Assuming there -are- any cool celebrity homes in D.C., and not all colonials.
Belle Elving: We do homes of prominent local people. The Cheney's come to mind, after the terrific redesign of the Vice President's Mansion. Not exactly Brad and Jennifer's (former) house , but it was great looking, and very Washington.
Silver Spring, Md.: Love the Home section but how about having more pictures? I would like to see more of what is being described. Pictures during the chats would be nice too. Thanks
Belle Elving: We would like nothing more than being able to publish more pictures and bigger pictures. And while we're at it, we'd love to be able to publish on white glossy paper, like all those magazines! But like every section of the newspaper, we have limits on space that will always be a challenge. One hope is that we'll be able to get more photos displayed with our stories online.
Washington, D.C.: Hi, Belle. What are some of your favorite online sources for furniture and cool house stuff?
Belle Elving: I've only bought furniture online once--a chair that turned out to be too big and not very comfortable. We still have it, years later, and I've been reluctant to go the online route again for such big purchases. If I were to buy furniture online, I'd probably stick with stores I know pretty well, like Pottery Barn and Crate & Barrel. But I scout the Web for smaller stuff a lot. I love MOMA store (Museum of Modern Art) and am partial to a small but terrific site called www.wisteria.com.
Arlington, Va.: A suggestion for you -- can we see some crossover between the Home and Tech sections? I'd like to see some joint coverage of home electronics to deal not just with features and bugs, but also with fitting them into decor. Ditto for home automation, new lighting technologies, etc. Thanks!
Belle Elving: I think this is very smart suggestion. One story I very much want to do is about high-tech home security systems, including advances in do-it-yourself installation.
Alexandria, Va.: What's your own house look like? What's your favorite style of decorating?
Belle Elving: My house is sort of odd. We bought it two years ago, and have been dealing with the oddness ever since. For one thing, it was constructed of unpainted concrete block. Looked a little like a prison, actually, and our new neighbors threw us a party when we painted it. My decorating style, I would say, relies a lot on color. Green, for instance.
Capitol Hill Row House, D.C.: My husband and I are starting to look into an addition to our Capitol Hill Row house. Any suggestions with finding an architect and determining what is feasible? And if that's not too much to ask, how do we keep the costs down? Thanks for your advice.
Belle Elving: The very best thing is a standard answer, but it's true: ask friends or neighbors who've worked with an architect. Go to open houses in your area and when you see improvements you like, ask who did them. And the second truth is: Never be shy about making it clear at the outset what kind of budget you want to work with.
Washington, D.C.: I need help with art! What about a story/special issue/whatever devoted to where to find good art, if you're beyond posters but can't afford top-gallery type of stuff?
Belle Elving: I'm going to make sure our reporter Annie Groer sees this question, because she is an energetic advocate for living with original art, and has been wanting to do a story on it for a long time. Sounds like it's time to plunge on that one.
Los Angeles, Calif.: Hello - I love your home section! And compared to The LA Times, you do a great job of compromising between mansions and budget decorating.
My suggestion relates to my geography. With the advent of the web, many of your readers are located all over the country. I realize you have a commitment to your local readers (your bread and butter) but it would be nice if while including local resources, you'd recommend web or nationwide resources as well. For example, I'd love to take part in ASID promotion to talk to designers at discounted rates, but I have no idea if there's a similar program in LA (web search was no help.) Or, some of the great local home decorating stores you mention don't have Web sites, could you also mention some similar national outlets?
Please keep your far-flung fans in mind!
Belle Elving: did you call the local chapter of the ASID (Association of Interior Designers)? The annual program run by the chapter here is very popular. I'd sure think they'd have a similar program in LA. So glad to hear from far-flung readers!
Washington, D.C.: Can you recommend any home decorators who do window treatments for condos, but not at an extravagant price? Mother used to do that with every one of my moves, but now she's retired and and tired of coming to D.C. every time I move homes.
Belle Elving: We did a story a few months ago about how many more sources there are for curtains and shades than there used to be, online and locally. One good new source in this area is a store called Curtain Exchange, that carries custom-look curtains at ready-made prices.
How does someone get a job like yours? What background do they need? It seems like a fun job to have!
Belle Elving: This is a good question to close with. You're right, this is a very fun job. My background is definitely journalism, not design, but I gravitated from the news side to a weekly section when my daughter was born, because the rhythms of a weekly feature section are more predictable and family-friendly. And I've found it to be a very good fit with my abiding interest in home and garden.
Thanks for checking in with me today. Your views and suggestions are very helpful, and we're glad to hear from you anytime.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. | Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate. | 63.243902 | 0.658537 | 0.804878 | high | low | abstractive | 4,896 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060902000.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060902000.html | Pre-9/11 Missteps By FBI Detailed | 2033-07-15T17:26:59 | The inability to detect the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacking plot amounts to a "significant failure" by the FBI and was caused in large part by "widespread and longstanding deficiencies" in the way the agency handled terrorism and intelligence cases, according to a report released yesterday.
In one particularly notable finding, the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine concluded that the FBI missed at least five chances to detect the presence of two of the suicide hijackers -- Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar -- after they first entered the United States in early 2000.
"While we do not know what would have happened had the FBI learned sooner or pursued its investigation more aggressively, the FBI lost several important opportunities to find Hazmi and Mihdhar before the September 11 attacks," the report said.
Although many of the missteps surrounding Alhazmi and Almihdhar have become well known, Fine's report adds significant new details about the FBI's role in fumbling the case. Previous reports, including the best-selling tome by the independent Sept. 11 commission, focused more heavily on the CIA's failure to track the men after a pivotal terrorist summit meeting in Malaysia.
The FBI said in a statement that it agreed with many of Fine's conclusions but "has taken substantial steps to address the issues presented in the report."
"Today, preventing terrorist attacks is the top priority in every FBI office and division, and no terrorism lead goes unaddressed," the FBI said. "Stronger centralized management has strengthened accountability, improved information sharing, facilitated coordination with outside partners and guided a national counterterrorism strategy."
The 371-page report is the latest in a stream of assessments from Congress, the Sept. 11 panel and other investigators documenting serious shortcomings in the performance of various U.S. government agencies in the months leading up to the hijackings. It also comes amid a wave of criticism of the FBI in recent months over a scrapped $170 million software program and its continuing struggle to attract qualified analysts, translators and other intelligence personnel.
"We believe that widespread and longstanding deficiencies in the FBI's operations and Counterterrorism Program caused the problems we described in this report," Fine's investigators wrote, including a shoddy analytical program, problems sharing intelligence information and "the lack of priority given to counterterrorism investigations by the FBI before September 11."
Jamie S. Gorelick, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who served as a member of the Sept. 11 panel, said the "litany of reports" documenting FBI problems in recent months "has to be a wake-up call" for Director Robert S. Mueller III and other FBI officials.
"I think they believe they have made significant progress, but there is still quite a bit of work to be done," she said.
Fine's investigation was requested by Mueller shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, but it has been held up for 11 months over classification and legal issues. It focuses on three major episodes before the Sept. 11 attacks: the missteps in tracking Alhazmi and Almihdhar, the failure to connect al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui to the hijacking plot, and the handling of a July 2001 memo theorizing that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden might be sending operatives to U.S. flight schools.
Although the memo from Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams was proposed as "a theory rather than a warning or a threat," the report concludes that the bureau "failed to fully evaluate, investigate, exploit and disseminate information related to" the memo because of shortcomings in the way its analysis and intelligence programs were set up and run. "Even though it did not contain an immediate warning and was marked routine, Williams's information and theory warranted strategic analysis from the FBI," the report says.
Fine's conclusions about Moussaoui are less clear, because most references to the case have been blacked out by court order. U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who is presiding over Moussaoui's prosecution in Alexandria, blocked release of the full report because of objections from defense attorneys.
Some hints of Fine's conclusions are still evident in the censored version of the report, however. In one paragraph that clearly pertains to the Moussaoui case, the report says agents "did not receive adequate support . . . from the field office or from FBI headquarters" and criticizes the FBI for "disjointed and inadequate review" of requests for secret warrants.
Previous investigations have found that Moussaoui's laptop computer and other belongings were not searched in the weeks after his arrest in Minneapolis because the FBI mistakenly believed it did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant.
In the case of Alhazmi and Almihdhar, the report said the FBI missed at least five opportunities to possibly locate the pair after Almihdhar was first identified in connection with a Malaysian meeting of al Qaeda operatives.
Even after the FBI learned that the pair had reentered the United States in August 2001, "the FBI did not pursue this as an urgent matter or assign many resources to it," the report found, noting that "it was given to a single, inexperienced agent without any particular priority." Agents within the bureau were also hampered by disagreements over the hazy rules governing the separation between criminal and intelligence investigations.
In the end, the report concludes, "the FBI was not close to locating Mihdhar or Hazmi when they participated in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001." | Justice Department Inspector General's review notes bureau's role in fumbling case, including at least five missed chances to detect the hijackers. | 41.56 | 0.96 | 2.72 | high | high | mixed | 4,897 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060901127.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060901127.html | Congressional Barnburner | 2033-07-15T17:26:59 | You could Google Matt Gogel's name and discover that he once met Mother Teresa in Calcutta back in his playing days on the Asian Tour, that he's made a decent living on the PGA Tour over his first five years and even won the 2002 Pebble Beach Pro-Am. But after scorching Congressional yesterday with an 8-under-par 63, he'll also be identified as the man who set a course record to take a three-shot lead going into the second round of the steamy Booz Allen Classic.
Gogel was in the first group off the 10th tee at 7 a.m., when greens were at their softest and smoothest and breezes were minimal. He took full advantage of those conditions with a run of six birdies over eight holes in the middle of his round. For a player who failed to qualify for the U.S. Open on Monday at Woodmont and had missed the cut in nine of his 13 events this year, Gogel's rousing round seemed to come from out of the blue.
To everyone, perhaps, but Gogel himself.
"I really kind of hit rock bottom about a month and a half ago," Gogel said. "I've just had the most disappointing year I've ever had in professional golf. . . . I switched irons about four tournaments ago and went back to a set of Ping irons, not the same set, but Ping irons I played for 17 years. That's helped me put the ball on the green with a little more confidence. I'm driving it better. I've always been a pretty good putter. It's kind of my time."
Most of the event's biggest names didn't challenge for the lead during the sweat-soaked and eventually rain-delayed first round. Eight of the world's top 10 are here this week, and with Congressional set up to be far more user-friendly than during the '97 U.S. Open, tournament officials thought they would get far more star power atop the leader board.
Ernie Els, the '97 Open champion and No. 3 in the world rankings, was at 1 under through 17 holes when a thunderstorm rumbled in at about 5:45 p.m., and play was stopped at 6:20 p.m., with 42 players set to finish their first rounds this morning starting at 7. Vijay Singh, at No. 1 despite missing the cut at Memorial last week, was at par 71, the same score posted by No. 4 Phil Mickelson. No. 5 Retief Goosen finished at 1-under 70.
"I played well enough to be 4, 5, 6 under," Mickelson said. "We have three rounds, and hopefully I'll make some putts. . . . It only takes one low round to get right back in there."
Brett Wetterich, who missed the cut in his two previous appearances in this event at TPC at Avenel, Englishman Lee Westwood, who has never played in this tournament, and Sweden's Fredrik Jacobsen, who has never played in Washington, posted 66s in the morning to share second place.
Gogel's 63 is the lowest round recorded at Congressional, a shot better than Fred Couples (1986), Bobby Clampett (1986) and George Burns (1983) all with 64s in Kemper Opens. Congressional played to a par of 72 back then, and all three were 8 under, the same under-par total Gogel had on a par-71 course this week. Tommy Jacobs also shot a 64 at Congressional in the second round of the U.S. Open.
Though he missed the cut in two of his last three events and is 170th on the money list, Gogel began to see progress when he opened with 66 and 68 in the first two rounds of the St. Jude Classic in Memphis two weeks ago before fading on the weekend to a tie for 24th.
"What comes first, good scores or confidence?" he wondered out loud. "Good scores are what breeds confidence, I think. So finally, I put some scores up. You can relax, you're more patient, you don't hit it at every flag and you don't make as many mistakes. I really feel like things have turned around. I don't feel like I'm over the hump, but I certainly feel like I'm playing better and looking forward to the next half of the season."
Gogel played his first five holes in even par before his round caught fire at the 579-yard 15th with a 12-foot birdie putt. | You could Google Matt Gogel's name and discover that he once met Mother Teresa in Calcutta back in his playing days on the Asian Tour, that he's made a decent living on the PGA Tour over his first five years and even won the 2002 Pebble Beach Pro-Am. But after scorching Congressional yesterday with... | 14.245902 | 0.983607 | 59.016393 | low | high | extractive | 4,898 |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060901843.html | https://web.archive.org/web/2005061219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060901843.html | Michael Eisner, Going Out Like a Mouse | 2033-07-15T17:26:59 | This is how we like our illusions in America: The avuncular corporate chieftain towers over a bevy of cute children wearing Mickey Mouse ears. His benign smile signals that all is right in the Wonderful World of Disney, whose mythmaking machinery was celebrated yesterday at the National Museum of American History. Yes, Michael Eisner, the Walt Disney Co. CEO himself, came to donate two gleaming pieces of vintage Disneyland rides -- a Dumbo the Flying Elephant car and a big cup from the Mad Tea Party.
"Thank you, guys," Eisner said to the kiddie-props at his feet, who giggled and crunched gold streamers into little piles of Mylar treasure. In his heavy, dark suit and Mickey-pattern tie, the 6-foot-3 Eisner looked just slightly impatient, like a father who's been forced into yet another happy family photo moment in an interminable, sweaty line at Disneyland.
And lest anyone forget, that's what bought Eisner to Washington: the 50th anniversary of Disneyland, the original park in Southern California that ol' Uncle Walt himself called "this happy place" upon its opening. The donation of two iconic ride vehicles to the Smithsonian coincides with what Disney PR people trumpet as the "happiest celebration on Earth."
Once the highest-paid CEO in America, Eisner ruled the Mouse House for more than 20 years. His reign was marked by major expansion, but marred by a reputation for bullying and belittling others. "The Disney empire was rife with pain, confusion, lying and wasted opportunities," as Bob Woodward wrote in a Washington Post review of James Stewart's new book, "DisneyWar." "How did anyone tolerate the lack of charity, or the unending intrigue, ridicule and bad-mouthing?"
But never mind: Yesterday morning Smithsonian staffers seemed to feel privileged, excited and happy indeed to lay eyes upon Eisner. True, he was ousted as Disney chairman by his board of directors last year in a remarkable rebellion, and will leave the company this fall, but all that only seems to make him more of a corporate legend. Whatever his faults, he still pulled in $8.25 million in fiscal 2004.
There was a piped-in flourish of "When You Wish Upon a Star" as Eisner took to the podium in the exhibit hall's west corridor. The chief exec offered platitudes such as: "At Disneyland, everything is possible -- just like America." The park speaks to "the spirit of this country."
It's all about optimism and imagination: An elephant that glides through the air on outstretched ears! A twirling Mad Hatter's tea cup that might cause you to toss your cookies but is still such dizzying fun to ride! According to Eisner, they represent "what is fantastic about Fantasyland."
"It's really an honor to have you here," Brent Glass, director of the museum, told Eisner after they signed documents deeding over the artifacts, which will be on display through Labor Day. Then Eisner introduced the always-ebullient Mickey, calling him the real boss of the Disney operation. There were booms and flying streamers as Mickey tugged a tasseled cord to part the royal blue curtains and officially unveil the exhibit. For a moment, one side refused to drop -- the only glitch in a perfectly stage-managed event.
Eisner, 63, is now on a sort of farewell tour, also flacking a book about his childhood summer camp experiences. He said one of his final corporate duties will be opening a Disney park in Hong Kong in September.
"Yes, it's a bit nostalgic," he said after the ceremony, but pledged he wouldn't disappear entirely from the Magic Kingdom. "I still have a great interest in the company. Therefore I'm not actually leaving in my heart." As for such ceremonial events, "I'll probably be at them forever," he said.
During his time at Disney, Eisner may have made enemies by somewhat infamously (and allegedly) calling Steve Jobs, chairman of Pixar, "a Shiite Muslim," and saying of rival Jeffrey Katzenberg, "I think I hate the little midget." But it's only business, after all. History marches on.
In the museum, "Disneyland: The First 50 Years" sits near the "Engines of Change" exhibit and another devoted to clocks. In a few months Dumbo and the Tea Party cup will go into storage, but they'll remain in the national memory, like the promise of a happier world. | This is how we like our illusions in America: The avuncular corporate chieftain towers over a bevy of cute children wearing Mickey Mouse ears. His benign smile signals that all is right in the Wonderful World of Disney, whose mythmaking machinery was celebrated yesterday at the National Museum of... | 16.314815 | 0.962963 | 48.185185 | medium | high | extractive | 4,899 |
Subsets and Splits