bustardblog

Edwards: Coulter, Couric & Limbaugh

Watching the Edwards' press conference and the ways in which people have reacted to the sad news has deepened my dedication to all things liberal.

A week ago today was the 8th and last chemotherapy session for Mme Bustard, who has ovarian cancer.  In a few weeks she'll have a CT scan, and we're being confident that the doctor will declare her officially in remission.

When we first learned of her cancer, the surgeon thought it imperative to operate, and to do it quickly. He didn't rush to the table in a matter of hours, or even in a few days. But he was not about to wait for weeks or months to go by. Immediately after our meeting with him, his nurse reserved the operating room and a spot in his calendar for the surgery. We then met with a scheduler who was to organize the CT scan, the blood work, and another physical exam as well as the anesthetist.  While he was trying to juggle all this on his computer, he received a message that the reservation for the operating room was canceled. Her insurance was not acceptable. We were told to leave the hospital, and come back when we had proper insurance. It turned out that there was a "problem with communication" between the two insurers over who would be stuck with most of the bill. Many hours on the phone, faxing and fighting, exchanging  letters between the companies and her employer, the surgery was delayed - but only by a few days.  Her insurance is actually considered top notch, and has picked up virtually all of the tab, well over $100,000 and mounting. We're also lucky to live in N.Y, where there are top specialists available. The fact that the lower middle class is without insurance in this country is unconscionable. Fighting cancer is hard enough; there's no excuse for making patients fight to obtain treatment There is no question in my mind that the "luxury" of health insurance adds years to lives.

Watching the news conference reminded me of how much less hypocrisy is demanded of me as a liberal - I don't have to live in that gutter surrounded by human filth which the conservative  inhabit. It was just a few weeks ago that Ann Coulter was causing conservatives to double over in laughter when she called Edwards a "faggot." Both McCain and Giuliani used the same word to criticize Coulter's speech.  They both called it "inappropriate."  Attending the Bat Mitzvah in your bathing trunks is inappropriate; Coulter's modus operandi occupies a whole different level of evil than "inappropriate."

This was the second time in two years that John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth have held a news conference to announce cancer. When Republican icon New Gingrich found that his wife had cancer, he filed for divorce. To be fair, when front runner Rudy Giuliani found out he had cancer, he did hold a news conference. With his mistress at his side, he announced to the City that he had cancer. He used the same news conference to announce to his wife and children that he wanted a divorce.

I'm curious: will Rush and his friend Gerstein at the N.Y Sun still have fun calling Edwards the "Breck Girl?" What if Elizabeth has to undergo chemotherapy that renders her "bald as bowling ball?"  (the phrase Mme Bustard has chosen to describe herself)

If it had been Mme Bustard that Rush Limbaugh criticized for returning to work rather "turning to God," his flaccid bloat would have been wondering what smashed it like the rotten pumpkin still oozing on the nation's stoop that he is.  Like that putrifying pumpkin, Rush has no clue that Halloween is long gone. The vast majority of Americans have no choice but to return back to work right away - they need the money, and if they even get it, the insurance.

Perhaps worse than Rush are the "main stream media" types who appear independent but are in fact his enablers.  After Ben Smith of The Politico reported in error before the news conference that Edwards would be suspending his campaign, Limbaugh suggested that the false story had been planted by Edwards to increase the attention he'd receive. As of this posting, Smith has done nothing to clear the air of this nasty allegation. His mistake in his report created an opportunity for Rush to slime the Edwardses, and he clearly has no plan to stop it. In fact, the "error" raised the visibility of The Politico and Smith much more than it benefited Edwards.  Katie Couric persisted in pestering the Edwardses with utterly unfair questions.  "Some say it's irresponsible of you to continue the campaign?," "Some say it's a result of your unbridled ambition?," "Some day you eat your young?" Couric, who basically continued working when she had two young children and a husband dying of cancer, asked such questions. Well aware that echoes of her performance will reverberate in the damaged ear canals of wingnuttia for days, Couric went ahead and betrayed herself.

Thank God I'm a liberal. I can see the need for Universal Health Care. I don't have to hesitate to condemn what I think is wrong.  Hypocrisy is not a prerequisite for admission to  my club. And I don't have to slime anyone to be a member.  It's a nice group.

Gonzales Headlines

The implication of posts by both BrilliantatBreakfast and AtLargely is anger at the M.S.M.'s euphemisms when dealing with the latest document drop from the Department formerly known as Justice. They seem to prefer words like "lie."  Even guys on the Republican side, such as Captain Ed, think lie is more accurate, and if a softer phrase is required choose an evasion like Goldberg's  which describes A.G. Abu as "deeply, deeply, confused, out of touch and unprepared."  (h/t memeorandum)

I much prefer the wonderful understatement of the New York Times headline:

GONZALES MET
WITH ADVISERS
ON DISMISSALS
    ---------
Record Seems at Odds         
With Past Comments.

I just think that there is something hilarious and charming about descrbing blatant lies and distortions as 'seemingly at odds."

P.S. I also have this theory that there is a headline writer at the N.Y. Times, one who takes charge on Saturdays, that delights in this kind of a joke. It seems to me to happen with much greater frequency on the day that the paper is read the least.

The Politico: Liars, Already?

Following a most disappointing roll out, The Politico may have attempted to use the old adage that any publicity, even bad publicity, is a good thing.

In an attempt to jump-start interest in their moribund publication, Ben Smith et al may have intentionally posted the incorrect announcement that Edwards was going to suspend his campaign. It makes me think that the "error" that Smith confessed to was in fact purposely wrong to create surprise and attract attention to the little noticed launch.

One of the defenses made by Smith supporters is that it was just a blog. But in fact Smith was well aware that his piece was being picked up by writers of all stripes - Drudge of course being one of the first. And if it was just a blog, why did Smith change the title of the piece AFTER it was posted, breaking a cardinal rule of bloggers. In a recent incarnation the headline reads "Edwards Campaign Goes On" only to be followed by the original first sentence which begins "John Edwards is suspending his campaign." In order to see this yourself, you must go here, the current link on The Politico has kept the new title, but has changed the body of the work to read only "ZDFHzgnh" (sic).  Changing previous posts is  as is a flagrant violation of blogging ethics 101.

No doubt the astute editors at The Politico have noticed that Rush Limbaugh has speculated that the Edwards campaign intentionally deceived Smith, even though Limbaugh offered  no evidence whatsoever. (h/t Media Matters)

If Ben Smith and The Politico have any hope of ever being taken seriously, they must immediately address Mr. Limbaugh's assertions. To leave such accusations hanging out there can only cause more pain for Mr. and Mrs. Edwards who have already endured enough.

IPDATE: The WaPo's Kurtz quotes Politico editor Harris implying the "it's just a blog" defense as well. He notes that blogs "share information in real time" - but doesn't offer any excuse for the transformations that the post went through - in defiance of the "real time" standard.

Dumping and Paper

Recently, the White House dumped 3,000 pages of documents concerning the attorney general firings. An astute reader at Talking Points Memo noted that e-mails from many important dates were not included, which is now called a lull by the DOJ.

It's helpful to see what administration spokesmen have said in the past about document dumps:

1. Sometimes one of the best ways to hide or to deceive is to come out with such a voluminous document that it makes people miss the things that aren't in there.

2. It would be a great surprise if the 12,000 pages they filed yesterday did not amount to one 12,000 page, 100 pound lie.

Both refer to Iraq's delivering 12,000 pages of documents to the U.N. in December of 2002, in an attempt to prove that they did not in fact have any W.M.D. 

The first was stated by Ari Fleischer, and the second by Senator Joe Lieberman  - both shills for this administration.

Clearly, neither the House nor the Senate intend to be "lulled."

(The title has nothing to do with "A Year Without Toilet Paper" which seems to be a litmus test for those anti-environmentalists  looking for something to mock)

Eyes on the Lies at Nat'l Review

The April 2nd National Review continues in its great tradition of tolerance and accuracy:

In a piece on diabetes and the United Arab Emirates, it describes the "traditional Arab diet" as "center[ed] on figs, dates and sheep's eyeballs."

The same edition notes the death of Senator Thomas Eagleton, McGovern's first pick as an anti-choice, vice presidential candidate in 1972. It goes on to say that Democrats prevented the anti-choice Governor Casey from even speaking at their convention. It completely fails to note that the anti-choice son of Casey was the democratic party's, and Pennsylvania's, choice for the U.S. Senate last year.

Captain's Drek

For a blogger on the right, Captain Ed is occasionally reasonable.  Today just isn't one of those occasions.

He writes about Soros' article in the New York Review of Books, about which I wrote yesterday, without actually discussing any of the arguments that Soros carefully made. Instead, he simple-mindedly insists that no one should ever negotiate with terrorists, and that all Democratic candidates must refuse any money from Soros.

Did anyone remind Captain Ed that the governing party in Israel is a direct descendant of a terrorist organization? Is he aware that former Prime Minister Begin was credited with the bombing of the King David Hotel, killing 91? That the Brits declared him a terrorist? Would someone please advise the good Captain that Shamir was responsible for the assassination of a U.N. envoy to the Middle East? I could go on, but this be sufficient to put a stop the "never talk to a terrorist" meme.

Even sillier is the demand that Democrats take no money from Soros. Since when does a candidate have to agree with every position that a donor takes? Do you think that Bush refused to accept money from people opposed to the privatization of Social Security? Did Bush return every check from any supporter who also supports stem cell research?

Sorry Cap'n, but your post today could have been written by any old hack.- even a drug free Dan Riehl could have produced such drek.

Bastards

H/T to Rising Hegemon for this one:

You or Cheney or Rumsfeld will never know the anguish, the worry, the sleepless nights, the waiting for the loved one who may never return. If the soldiers were able to do their jobs and the ego’s of politicians like you, your “cronies” and some commanders had their heads on straight, we would be out of this mess which we should not be involved with in the first place.

 

My family and I deserve and explanation directly from you……not some assistant who will likely read this and toss it. This war is wrong.

 

I want you to look me and my wife and daughter directly in the eye and tell me why my son died. We should not be there, but because of your ineptness and lack of correct information I have lost my son, my pride and joy, my hero!

 

Again, you, Cheney and Rumsfeld will never understand what the families of soldiers are going through and don’t try to tell me you do. My wife, my daughter and I cannot believe we have lost our only son and brother to a ridiculous political war that you seem to want to maintain. I hope you and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the other people on your band wagon sleep well at night….we certainly don’t.

 

Richard Landeck

Attaturk notes that the letter was sent six weeks ago, and no response has been received.
This is an administration of shameless, heartless bastards.

But in a way maybe the Landeck family is fortunate not to have heard back from the White House. What would they have heard?

From Richard Perle: "At this point, that's just an academic issue."

From Abu Gonzalez: "Mistakes were made."

From Tony Snow: "The difference between having one child and two - well It's just a number."

Donald Rumsfeld would probably suggest that they cheer up, and then quote himself: "Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war."

From the Commander in Chief himself: ""Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." (Washington December 7, 2006)

Cheney's most likely response would be to repeat his comment to Sen. Leahy: "Go fuck yourself."

So maybe it's better if the family gets no reply from these bastards.

Bet on Soros

AIPAC is having a bad week. Sort of.

George Soros' piece on the lobbying group is accurately devastating. (He must have been reading some of my recent posts!) He begins his piece:

The Bush administration is once again in the process of committing a major policy blunder in the Middle East, one that is liable to have disastrous consequences and is not receiving the attention it should. This time it concerns the Israeli–Palestinian relationship.

Soros continues with a detailed analysis of the recent foreign policy blunders by both the U.S. and of Israel.  He clearly demonstrates the damage such mistakes has done - with the result being a more fragile, less secure future for Israel than ever.

The current policy is not even questioned in the United States. While other problem areas of the Middle East are freely discussed, criticism of our policies toward Israel is very muted indeed. ... This is all the more remarkable because Palestine is the issue that more than any other currently divides the United States from Europe. ..

One explanation is to be found in the pervasive influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which strongly affects both the Democratic and the Republican parties.

Like Kristof in his recent op-ed, Soros underscores how dangerous the lack of debate has become for Israel, and then asks:

How did Israel become so endangered? I cannot exempt AIPAC from its share of the responsibility.. While the other architects of the Bush administration's failed policies have been relentlessly exposed, AIPAC continues to be surrounded by a wall of silence...

One reason, he believes, is because just as an American who criticizes the decision to invade Iraq is called anti-patriotic, so too is one who criticizes Israel is called anti Israel or anti-Semitic.

Soros concludes with what might seem to be an obvious, uncontroversial solution: that thoughtful, liberal American Jews must find a way to restrain and rebuild AIPAC.

Thus in the last couple of days there have two very critical, prominent pieces strongly critical of AIPAC. The reason that this can only be called a "sort of" bad week for AIPAC has been the quiet reaction to these pieces, which can only be called muted, or perhaps muzzled.

Kristof's piece in the Times seems to have created a somewhat bigger stir. There were lots of comments on his blog, and today's paper printed four letters to the editor.  (If you need to understand how AIPAC does it, be sure to read the accidentally honest fourth letter, where the method for dealing with those who are critical of Israel is detailed: "Most of those political figures who have used such language...backtracked once reminded, by the force of public condemnation, that such comparisons are unacceptable."

Memeorandum's link to Soros' piece had only two links. One agreed with Soros' analysis, but was angry that he was not going to play the knight on a white horse and solve the problem himself. (Soros' contention that he is "not sufficiently engaged in Jewish affairs to be involved in the reform of AIPAC" works for me.) The other link contained an entirely predictable attack, with all the requisite ranting comments, on what an evil, utter fool Soros is.  It's really an awful post - first outlining horrible crimes committed by Palestinians, as if this were an argument against trying to find a path to peace. Proof for her is the Palestinian attempt to rearm, because "A group intent on a peace agreement has no need to arm itself and train its troops." She never responds to a single of Soros' argument.

The relative silence in response to these two pieces (and of course my blog posts) is curious.Is it a sign that criticizing AIPAC, and Israeli policies, are now acceptable parts of our common discussion?  Or is it a sign of just how powerful AIPAC is? 

Perverted Anniversaries

A piece from Anothy Arnove, is to be found by scrolling down through a great article which I got to thanks to the guidance of Juan Cole, sums up the perversity of how both the  "left" and the right discuss Iraq:

In a much-lauded speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Sen. Barack Obama couched his criticism of Bush administration policy in a call for "no more coddling" of the Iraqi government: The United States, he insisted, "is not going to hold together this country indefinitely." Richard Perle, one of the neoconservative architects of the invasion of Iraq, now says he "underestimated the depravity" of the Iraqis. Sen. Hillary Clinton, Democratic frontrunner in the 2008 presidential election, recently asked, "How much are we willing to sacrifice [for the Iraqis]?" As if the Iraqis asked us to invade their country and make their world a living hell and are now letting us down.

There is also real depravity in the comfort we take in the "We're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" argument.  Iraq never, ever was a threat to the U.S.  It harbored no terrorists who threatened the U.S.  Neither its government, nor a single individual Iraqi - committed a terrorist act against the U.S.

As Arnove pointed out, approximately  650,000 Iraqis are dead, and millions rendered refugees, because we invaded their country.  It's their fault.

"Talking About Israel"

There is much to appreciate in Nicholas Kristof's op-ed about Israel in today's N.Y. Times.  He correctly identifies a huge problem when he indicates that Mr. Bush's "embrace" is "crushing" Israel. He notes that:

There is no serious political debate among either Democrats or Republicans about our policy toward Israelis and Palestinians.

He describes the results of Bush's "crushing" perfectly:

Hard-line Israeli policies have profoundly harmed that country's long-term security by adding vulnerable settlements, radicalizing Young Palestinians, empowering Hamas and Hezbollah, isolating Israel in the world and nurturing another generation of terrorists in Lebanon. The Israeli right's aggressive approach has only hurt Israeli security, just as President Bush's invasion of Iraq has ended up harming U.S. interests.

But when Kristof offers his analysis of the cause for that lack of debate in the U.S., he can only display symptoms of the disease he would hope to cure.

He speculates that the silence of those who might criticize current policies could be caused by two reasons:

• "American politicians have learned to muzzle themselves." He points out how Dean four years ago, and Obama a few weeks ago, were "blasted for being hostile to Israel" when they made some pretty innocuous comments
• "A second reason may be that American politicians just don't get it", writes Kristof before explaining how important the Palestinian issue really is in the Arab world, and how miserable the Palestinians actually are.

But Kristof  knows full well that no American politician voluntarily muzzles himself, and most of them are smart enough to  get it.  They are actively silenced by being called anti-Israel and/or anti- Semitic. They can read the numbers of Palestinian dead as well as Kristof can.

Like Kristof, himself, the politicians are afraid of the organized outrage that will be choreographed by organizations and lobbyists such as the A.D.L. and A.I.P.A.C. over the slightest criticism of the Israeli government. The voices of the neo-cons added to traditional Zionists are pretty tough to shout over.

But kudos to Kristof for at least bringing the topic up.