| |
 |
Friday, October 01, 2004 |
The Allawi speech controversy -- the fallout
The Allawi speech controversy -- the fallout: "The apparent fact that Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's speech was written by Bush campaign and White House aides, isn't going away quietly. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said in a letter to Bush that the report in Thursday's Washington Post raised doubts about Allawi's optimistic assertions on Iraqi reconstruction efforts and the prospect for elections. "To learn that this was not an independent view, but one that was massaged by your campaign operatives, jaundices the speech and reduces the credibility of his remarks," Feinstein said. "I hope..."
(Via The Carpetbagger Report.)
As if it wasn't obvious on the face of it, from the speech he gave when he was here, it's looking more and more like Allawi is just another arm of the Bush re-election campaign. And Bush had the gall to call him a brave man in the debate last night. Allawi knows what hand feeds him.
3:20:12 PM Permalink
|
|
Who Won the Debate: Polls
Who Won the Debate: Polls: "
| CNN: | 78-18
| | MSNBC: | 70-30
| | ABC: | 45-36
| | CBS: | 43-28
| | Gallup: | 53-37
|
"
(Via Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004).)
Bush really put on an amazing performance. I guess he thought Al Gore did such a great job with the sighing and stuff in 2000, he decided to try it this year. He looked frustrated, bored, petualnt, tired. He even wanted to break the "rules" they had set up a couple times, and once said "let me finish" when he had plenty of time, and no one was trying to stop him. And that's not the substantive stuff, on which he was clearly inferior to Kerry -- see Brad DeLong's nice summary of Bush "misstatements." I was prepared to turn it off in disgust at any time, but instead I was pretty elated. And the talk today is even better; as these numbers show the consensus now is that Kerry was the winner. I can't see how Bush can possibly do better than Kerry in the upcoming debates, and the vice presidential debate should be loads of fun.
1:01:23 PM Permalink
|
|
A Vote for Bush Is a Vote for Torture
A Vote for Bush Is a Vote for Torture: " Harsh words, yes, but how else to describe this atrocity?
The Bush administration is supporting a provision in the House leadership’s intelligence reform bill that would allow U.S. authorities to deport certain foreigners to countries where they are likely to be tortured or abused, an action prohibited by the international laws against torture the United States signed 20 years ago. …
The provision, human rights advocates said, contradicts pledges President Bush made after the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal erupted this spring that the United States would stand behind the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Hastert spokesman John Feehery said the Justice Department “really wants and supports” the provision.
For background please see Voting Republican This Year = Voting for Torture . "
(Via Discourse.net.)
12:50:02 PM Permalink
|
|
Mooney on Fire
Via Evolutionblog comes a pointer to this excellent piece about how the right is using bogus "science" to shore up their various positions. A must read.
Instead of simply lecturing about the moral evils of abortion, they've increasingly depicted the procedure as damaging to women's health. And on a range of other issues, Christian conservatives have similarly adopted the veneer of scientific and technical expertise instead of merely asserting their heartfelt beliefs. Their claims--that abortion causes mental problems in women, that condoms aren't very effective in preventing HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, that adult stem cells have more research promise than embryonic ones, and so on--now frequently comprise the right's chief arguments on these issues. Granted, the Christian right's new “science” generally remains on the fringe of the scientific community. But since conservative funders have managed to underwrite a variety of think tanks and advocacy groups that push these arguments, it has nevertheless influenced policy at the state and federal level.
And:
All told, Christian conservatives have gone a long way towards creating their own scientific counter-establishment. Indeed, the religious right's “science” represents just the most recent manifestation of the gradual conservative Christian political awakening that has so dramatically shaped our politics over the past several decades. “They're saying that their faith is not just a pietistic private exercise, but that it has implications in the world of education, or politics, or the world of science,” notes Michael Cromartie, an expert on the religious right at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. And by providing a scientific cover--albeit a thin one--for religiously-inspired policies, this appropriation of science has at least temporary benefits for groups seeking to promote them. After all, the scientific method is inherently open to abuse. Because it encourages open publication, continual challenges to the conventional wisdom, and a presumption of good faith on the part of researchers, those who would deliberately slant their interpretations or cherry-pick their facts find plenty of running room.
9:46:58 AM Permalink
|
|
© Copyright 2004 Steve Michel.
|
|
|
|
|
