Josh Marshall has this example of the Bush Administration’s latest screwup in Iraq :

As we noted yesterday, Bush family fixer James A. Baker has been given the task of cajoling states that are owed money by Iraq into either forgiving or generously restructuring Iraq’s debts.

Near the top of that list of state creditors are France, Germany and Russia.

Now we hear that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has just signed a directive barring French, German and Russian companies from competing for the $18.6 billion of Iraqi reconstruction contracts for “the protection of the essential security interests of the United States.”

D’oh!

Y’know, Bush and his allies rightly get a lot of credit for being deft politicians. For all their successes on the domestic front, you’d think they’d apply some of those lessons internationally. For example, if you want somebody to do you a favor (like, say, forgiving billions of dollars in debt), wouldn’t it be a good idea to not piss them off by doing something petty (like not allowing them to compete for reconstruction contracts)?

Uber-conservative Bill Kristol has a piece in yesterday’s New York Times that serves as a good outline of how Bush is going to lose to Howard Dean next November :

Could Dean really win? Unfortunately, yes. The senate presidential candidate has, alas, won the popular presidential vote three times in a row — twice, admittedly, under the guidance of the skilled Bill Clinton, but most recently with the hapless Al Gore at the helm. And demographic trends (particularly the growth in Hispanic voters) tend to favor the Democrats going into 2004.

But surely the fact that Bush is now a proven president running for reelection changes everything? Sort of. Bush is also likely to be the first president since Herbert Hoover under whom there will have been no net job creation, and the first since Lyndon Johnson whose core justification for sending U.S. soldiers to war could be widely (if unfairly) judged to have been misleading.

And President Bush will be running for reelection after a two-year period in which his party has controlled both houses of Congress. The last two times the American people confronted a president and a Congress controlled by the same party were in 1980 and 1994. The voters decided in both cases to restore what they have consistently preferred for the last two generations: divided government. Since continued GOP control of at least the House of Representatives seems ensured, the easiest way for voters to re-divide government would be to replace President Bush in 2004.
. . .
And how liberal is Dean anyway? He governed as a centrist in Vermont, and will certainly pivot to the center the moment he has the nomination. And one underestimates, at this point when we are all caught up in the primary season, how much of an opportunity the party’s nominee has to define or redefine himself once he gets the nomination.

Thus, on domestic policy, Dean will characterize Bush as the deficit-expanding, Social Security-threatening, Constitution-amending (on marriage) radical, while positioning himself as a hard-headed, budget-balancing, federalism-respecting compassionate moderate. And on foreign and defense policy, look for Dean to say that he was and remains anti-Iraq war (as, he will point out, were lots of traditional centrist foreign policy types). But Dean will emphasize that he has never ruled out the use of force (including unilaterally). Indeed, he will say, he believes in military strength so strongly that he thinks we should increase the size of the Army by a division or two. It’s Bush, Dean will point out, who’s trying to deal with the new, post-Sept. 11 world with a pre-Sept. 11 military.

It seems that prominent conservatives confidence in Bush seems to be fading pretty quickly. And the nice thing about this is that it’s way too late for any other Republicans to challenge him (not that they would anyways).

Jeez. Today’s debate was complete crap. There were very few zingers and the moderation by Ted Koppel was awful. Rather than give you the standard “greatest hits” treatment that I usually do, I’m just going to reprint the two most memorable moments of the debate :

KUCINICH: But let me say, Ted, let me say — let me say that some of the best talent in American politics is on this stage right now. And with all due respect to you, Ted Koppel, who I’ve admired over the years greatly…

KOPPEL: There’s a zinger coming now, isn’t there?

KUCINICH: Yes. To begin this kind of a forum with a question about an endorsement, no matter by who, I think actually trivializes the issues that are before us. For example, at this moment there are 130,000 troops in Iraq. I mean, I would like to hear you ask during this event what’s the plan for getting out. This war is not over. I have a plan, which is on my Web site at kucinich.us, to get the United States out of Iraq. I want to talk about that tonight, and I hope we have a substantive discussion tonight and that we’re not going to spend the night talking about endorsements.
. . .
DEAN: You know, I just did something that George Bush’s father did, I looked at my watch during the debate. We have about 12 minutes left. We’ve spent almost all our time on Iraq. Now, Iraq and national security are important, but it’s not what this debate’s about.
. . .
What this election is about is taking back this country for ordinary people. And we can argue all we want about Iraq but average people can’t send their kids to college. Average people have health-care payments every month that are more than their house payments.
. . .
So that we do something for small businesses in this country that create 70 percent of the jobs in America and keep their jobs in their community.

What this election is about — yes, national security is important, but I don’t think it’s an hour and a quarter out of an hour and a half debate.

When I was watching the C-Span stream of the debate, every candidate that was interviewed afterward had the same complaints. It seemed like the only things Koppel wanted to talk about was Gore and Iraq. What a bore…

Well, here’s a brilliant idea :

Mass assaults by covert squads of soldiers to confound guerrillas and swoops by troops posing as Arabs are among Israeli tactics U.S. forces are studying for use in Iraq, Israeli security sources said Tuesday.

Israeli measures have been honed against a three-year-old Palestinian revolt in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Washington is watching, and recently sent military brass to consult with its chief Middle East ally.

“The Americans now realize their forces are in Iraq for the long haul, and are reorganizing accordingly,” a senior Israeli security source said.

“Israel has been providing advice on how to shift from a reliance on heavy, armored occupation troops to mobile forces that are more effective in quelling urban resistance and cause less friction with the general populace.”

Call me naive, but should we really be taking advice on how to fight Iraqi guerillas from Israel??

Okay, I don’t know anything about the current San Francisco mayoral race, but I think it’s very promising that the Green Party might win. All things being equal, I think it’s nice that a liberal third party has a chance to win a big race. One of my big complaints about the Green Party is that they’re, well, too green. They need to hold some major offices if they ever want to have the clout to seriously seek the presidency. The SF mayoral race is a great start. Hopefully, if they win, they can use this to try to win a Congressional seat or two in some safe, liberal districts.

And while I’m on the subject of the Greens, lemme just use this space to respond to an issue that was brought up in comments. As far as Al Gore’s loss in 2000, here are three big reasons he lost, in order :

Like most sensible people, I hate smalltalk. More often than not, it’s awkward and inconsequential. Since I’ve worked in the same office for about five years now, I’ve become pretty good at avoiding conversations that I don’t want to be in. For those of you who aren’t conversational ninjas like me, here’s a few helpful tips :

One thing I’ve seen on a few blogs today is references to Newt Gingrich’s recent public attacks on Bush’s handling of Iraq. Oddly enough, the last thing I read last night before going to bed was this passage from James Carville’s excellent new book :

I was recently speaking to a bunch of executives with Newt Gingrich, and he said that by the middle of 1942, we had a four hundred-page plan of what we’d do in Europe after World War II was over. He was stunned — stunned — that there seems to have been no similar thinking in Iraq. This is Newt Gingrich we’re talking about here.

If you think that’s bad, then Gingrich’s interview in the latest issue of Newsweek will make your jaw drop :

Gingrich argues that the administration has been putting far too much emphasis on a military solution and slighting the political element. ?The real key here is not how many enemy do I kill. The real key is how many allies do I grow,? he says. ?And that is a very important metric that they just don?t get.? He contends that the civilian-run CPA is fairly isolated and powerless, hunkered down inside its bunker in Baghdad. The military has the money and the daily contact with the locals. But it?s using the same tactics in a guerrilla struggle that led to defeat in Vietnam.

?The Army?s reaction to Vietnam was not to think about it,? he says. Rather than absorb the lessons of counterinsurgency, Gingrich says, the Army adopted ?a deliberate strategy of amnesia because people didn?t want to ever do it again.?
. . .
Gingrich faults the Americans for not quickly establishing some sort of Iraqi government, however imperfect. ?The idea that we are going to have a corruption-free, pristine, League of Women Voters government in Iraq on Tuesday is beyond naivete,? he scoffs. ?It is a self-destructive fantasy.?

There seems to be a chorus of conservatives voices making their complaints about the Bush Administration louder and louder. With Gingrich’s complaint about the war joining many conservatives complaints about the massive increase in government spending, am I the only one who feels like the stage is being set for another Perot-style, third-party conservative spoiler in this election?

Wow. It looks like Dean is getting one of the biggest endorsements possible :

Former Vice President Al Gore intends to endorse Howard Dean for the senate presidential nomination, a dramatic move that could tighten Dean’s grip on the front-runner position.

Gore, who lost to President Bush in the disputed 2000 election, has agreed to endorse Dean in Harlem in New York City on Tuesday and then travel with the former Vermont governor to Iowa, site of the Jan. 19 caucuses which kick off the nominating process, said a senate source close to Gore.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Dean will return from Iowa in time for Tuesday night’s senate debate in New Hampshire.

That faint sound you hear in the background is Lieberman crying his eyes out. I imagine that this puts the final nail in the coffin of the Lieberman campaign, which has been surviving solely on name recognition for months. I’m surprised he’s lasted this long. He’s such a weak-ass centrist, I have yet to hear somebody say something positive about the guy other than “Well, at least he’s better than Bush.”

What would you say if I told you that the constitutions of seven different states forbid anyone who is a Christian from holding public office? You’d probably be pretty shocked and angry. Okay, maybe you wouldn’t be, but you know what I mean.

Well, there really is religious bigotry in state constitutions. Well, except that it’s not against Christians, it’s against atheists. Here’s a sample, courtesy of the group Nebraska Atheists :

Article 6 Section 8 of North Carolina’s State Constitution
“Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”

Article 1 Section 4 of Pennsylvania’s State Constitution
“No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.”

Article 4 Section 2 of South Carolina’s State Constitution
“No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; …”

Article 9 Section 2 of Tennessee’s State Constitution
“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.”

Article 1 Section 4 of Texas’ State Constitution
“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”

I wish we lived in a country that didn’t automatically associate “atheist” with “immoral”, because then maybe we could see an end to this kind of crap.

Looks like some grateful Afghanis were on the recieving end of our (as Bill Maher puts it) cowardly military tactics :

Nine children were found dead Saturday after an American air raid in eastern Afghanistan (news – web sites), and the military was investigating whether U.S. forces were responsible, a spokesman said.

An American A-10 aircraft struck a site south of Ghazni, 100 miles southwest of the capital, Kabul, where a “known terrorist” was believed to be hiding at about 10:30 a.m. Saturday, Army Maj. Christopher E. West told The Associated Press.

“At the time we initiated the attack, we did not know there were children nearby,” he said.

The target was a suspected militant believed responsible for the killing of two foreign contractors who were working on an Afghan road, West said. He did not identify the contractors and had no information about their deaths, but two Indian engineers were reported kidnapped while working on the road Saturday.

It’s funny that whenever we hear about the military blowing shit up there’s always a statement that references “where a known terrorist was believed to be hiding” with the emphasis on “known”. Maybe if they spent more time emphasizing the “believed” part, there would be less people out there who want to hijack planes and crash them into our buildings because we killed their family.

I really don’t understand why conservatives insist on worshiping Reagan. Every time I see a homeless person, I’m reminded what an asshole he was. Here’s the latest attempts to honor the anti-Robin Hood :

Conservative Republicans angry over an unflattering television movie about Ronald Reagan want to put his image on the dime in place of senate icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Democrats are just as determined to keep FDR’s profile in coin purses.

“If they want to find another way to honor Ronald Reagan, I’m happy to join with them, but leave the dime alone,” said Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.

Supporters of the “Ronald Reagan Dime Act” said Roosevelt and his government-expanding New Deal represented decades past, while Reagan’s conservative, anti-communist administration ushered in society as it exists today.
. . .
“I believe he represents conservative values as we would see them implemented through a president better than anybody else we’ve had in American history,” Souder said. “He, to conservatives, represents kind of the reverse of FDR, who is kind of the liberal icon. Ronald Reagan is the conservative icon.”
. . .
The dime has borne Roosevelt’s profile since 1946, a year after his death, in part commemorating his support for the March of Dimes campaign to fight polio.

It’s bad enough that the conservatives want to dismantle the New Deal completely, but now they want to add insult to injury by getting rid of the most recognizable tribute to FDR that we have?? It’s worth noting that FDR also won WW2, which is more than Reagan ever did.

But I don’t want to shut out the conservatives completely. They love Reagan (for same damn reason), so maybe he should be on money. My suggestion is that they put Reagan on the $100,000 bill, that way he’ll still be honored and as a bonus, he’ll be in circulation among the only people he ever really cared about.

Inspired by lists by Charles Kauffner and Ted Barlow, here’s my list of the worst (and/or overrated) movies I’ve ever seen :

Battlefield Earth – I went to this movie expecting to have a good time watching a movie that’s “so bad it’s good”. Little did I know that this movie would suck so much that it would give me a stomach ache. Seriously.

Independence Day/Armageddon - These movies are so shitty, they don’t even deserve their own places on this list. They have to share the “jingoistic sci-fi movie where the only people that can save the Earth from an outer space threat are Americans” slot.

Flawless - Joel Schumacher is King Midas in reverse, because everything he touches turns to shit. This movie in particular stands out for a number of reasons. (1) It’s got great actors (DeNiro & Hoffman) putting in awful performances. (2) Schumacher wrote and directed it. (3) It’s climax is so awful (the gay man really wants to be a woman) that I walked out of the theater.

The Matrix Reloaded - I hated the first Matrix movie for a variety of reasons : trite “philosophic” mumbo-jumbo, retarded character names that sound like they were coined by a twelve-year-old (Neo, Morpheus, Trinity), lame-ass special effects that looked a lot better in the Chili’s commercial they were stolen from, and script so weak that you’d think it was written by a computer programmed to write like George Lucas. The sequel is 100-times worse in every possible way. I feel asleep for a half hour in the middle and didn’t feel like I missed a thing.

Dr. Suess’ How The Grinch Stole Christmas – Ummm…wasn’t the Grinch the bad guy in the book? I’m convinced that Ted Geisel’s widow would sell pieces of her husband’s corpse if the potato chip people paid enough.

Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band – An obvious choice, but an important one. Unless we study bad movie history, we’ll be doomed to repeat it.

Planet of the Apes – Take all the wit, charm, and observations about human nature out of the original, and you get the worst movie Tim Burton has ever made.

A Night at the Roxbury – It’s pretty common for crappy one-joke Saturday Night Live skits to be turned into movies, but this didn’t even have a whole joke. The whole “bobbing their heads to music” thing was a half-joke at best. The fact that this stars Will Ferrel and Chris Kattan, two actually funny people, makes this movie even more tragic.

Moulin Rouge - Take away the good art direction and cinematography and tell me how this is a better movie that “Sgt. Pepper…” At least the Bee Gees are better singers than Ewan McGregor.

Shrek - With Mike Myers doing his Scottish Voice™ that he does in every movie and Eddie Murphy reprising his role from Mulan as a trash-talkin’ dragon donkey, how could this movie fail? Well, apparently the only way people can make movies that appeal to adults and children these days is by adding humor that’s totally inappropriate for children, so this movie gives us a bunch of shit, snot, and penis jokes as well as a character named Lord Fuckwad. Then, in keeping with the theme of bashing Disney formulas, they end this movie with a generic ending wherein the two main characters fall in love. The big twist here is that she turns out to be an ugly ogre too. I hope you kids are paying attention, because the moral of this story apparently is that ugly people and beautiful people cannnot love each other. Great….

This story (via Atrios, via The Right Christians) is so wrong that it makes my head spin.

A seventh-grade social studies teacher in Presque Isle who said he was barred from teaching about non-Christian civilizations has sued his school district, claiming it violated his First Amendment right of free expression.

Gary Cole of Washburn, a teacher at Skyway Middle School, sued School Administrative District 1 in U.S. District Court in Bangor.

Cole alleged that complaints by “a small group of fundamentalist Christian individuals” led to the creation of a curriculum “which never mentions religions other than Christianity and never teaches the history of civilizations other than Christian civilizations.”

“He can’t even teach the history of anti-Semitism (or the) history of ancient Greece,” said Cole’s lawyer, A.J. Greif of Bangor.

“How can you explain the evolution of democracy in the Western world without talking about ancient Greece? He can’t talk about all the influences of the Indian, Japanese or Chinese cultures.”

This is so damn ignorant it makes “creation scientists” look like enlightened geniuses. I really don’t have much more to add that doesn’t involve spitting out an endless string of profanities.

I find it incredibly pathetic that there are people whose faith is so weak that hearing anything that challenges their viewpoint will somehow corrupt them. It’s bad enough that they want to live their lives in a bubble but they insist on trying to make the rest of the world live the same way! It’s hard to not conclude that crap like this and the injection of Biblical creation myths in science classes are just the first steps in an overall goal of turning America into a Christian nation.

And by “Christian” I mean right-wing, fundamentalist, xenophobic zealots who have no tolerance or understanding for any cultural forces that they don’t control.

While finding articles for my last post, I came across this bizarre picture.

Here’s a little background for those of you who haven’t been following the story (which I haven’t followed that closely either. Lemme know if I make any mistakes here). Last year, in an effort to woo the steel industry, the Bush Administration levied some heavy tariffs against foreign steel. Understandably upset at this obviously protectionist crap (It’s not exactly “free trade” if you cripple your competition), the EU appealed to the WTO to have the tariffs lifted and threatened to impose heavy tariffs against key industries in swing states during next year’s election. So as of last week, it was pretty much a done deal that the tariffs were going to get lifted.

Cut to this week. When the Bush Administration pretty much has its mind made up, they remember that they have a big fund-raiser with the people they’re about to screw

Pittsburgh, America’s “Steel City,” is hosting an anticipated $1 million fund-raiser this week for President Bush as he faces a deadline to decide whether to keep steep tariffs on steel imports.

Bush is expected to decide on the tariffs before the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement body meets Dec. 10. His campaign travels over the next two days take him to Michigan and Pennsylvania ? two battleground states where voters are fiercely divided on the tariffs Bush imposed in March 2002 to give the beleaguered steel industry breathing room from foreign competition to consolidate and restructure.

The European Union, Norway and Japan have set a Dec. 15 deadline for threatened retaliation on billions of dollars of U.S. exports if the tariffs are not eliminated. The WTO last month upheld its earlier ruling that the tariffs, currently set to expire in March 2005, violate global trading laws.
. . .
The Washington Post reported Monday that the administration has decided to drop the tariffs, with the decision is likely to be announced this week.

Richard Mills, a spokesman for U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, said Monday that the administration has made no final decision yet and is still reviewing various options.

And so, since this whole tariff thing threatened to interfere with his primary job as president (that is, to rake in millions of dollars), the president has been dragging his feet for a few days.

Well, I guess the campaign donation checks have all cleared the bank, because the tarrifs are gone now.

Facing the threat of a trade war, President Bush on Thursday lifted 20-month-old tariffs on foreign steel, a move that will hurt steelmakers in states critical in next year’s election.

Now, I can’t blame Bush for dropping the tariffs (they were a pretty crappy idea in the first place), but the timing with his fund-raiser is a pretty low blow. He can kiss his chances of winning Pennsylvania’s electoral votes next year goodbye.