licentious radio

Tuesday, September 16, 2003
[4:12:41 PM]

Bob Novak launched a pre-emptive attack on Clark today on Crossfire. He said Clark was about to be forced out of the army when Clinton intervened to give Clark a promotion.

I don't know about the episode yet, but the most obvious thing is that it seems pathetic to attack anything about Clark's military career when he would be running against Bush -- whose military career was dodging the draft by taking advantage of family ties to get into a special Air National Guard unit for sons of the elite. And *then* Bush deserted -- AWOL for a year. And *then* Bush just resigned. Worse, Bush went through the expensive training to become a fighter pilot, but never served the duty expected of him -- apparently because he knew he would fail the new mandatory drug test. And then the whole thing got covered up, and Bush recently appointed the leader of the cover-up to be the head of the Air National Guard for the entire country.

I don't think right-wing extremists should try to smear Clark. The mistake would haunt them like Bush's costume-party carrier landing.

[3:39:35 PM]
Another point about Hillary Clinton as VP versus Clark as VP....

Clark must run for president if he's going to be a strong voice against Bush, and he must run to prove that he is worthy to be the VP.

Clinton, on the other hand, must stay out of the race for nomination, so she doesn't anger the people who will eventually decide on a VP.

[12:29:15 PM]
"Enough is enough!"

That should be our rallying cry about Bush crony lies, *especially* about a link between Iraq and the infamous September 11 attacks.

It's not just that there's no evidence of a link. It's that they've hyped every conceivable bit of evidence of a link, and all of their evidence has turned out to be phony. And if you start from the other side, we more or less know who did those attacks, and we know how they did it, and who supported them -- Saudis and Pakistanis.

So the continuing lies serve not only to connect the innocent, but also to disconnect the guilty. And it turns out that the guilty are business partners of the Bush family, and *supposedly* "close allies" in the so-called "war on terror".

The message should be: "Enough is enough! Stop the lies! Stop with the propaganda! Stop the secrecy! Tell the truth!"

[12:19:02 PM]
Hillary Clinton for VP?

The case for her to want to be VP is that if the Democrats win, the VP is first in line to run in 2012. If Democrats win and she *isn't* the VP, it might be 2020 before she could run.

The case against.... 1) She wouldn't want a failed run as VP on her record in 2008. 2) The (winning) VP might not get such a big headstart in 2012.

I think the headstart a sitting VP gets is big enough.

I also think losing a close race to Bush/Cheney as VP would not hurt her in principle. The election is almost certain to be very close unless Bush completely self-destructs. Losing a very close race is likely to raise a VP candidate's stature. For Clinton, it would be a big resume boost, since her only real experience is failing on health care and a few years in the Senate. She can ride Bill's coattails, but that's not the same as real experience.

In practice, though, a run as VP-nominee would bring out the Clinton-haters and any mistake would be more serious than for most nominees. In general, though, people should bet on themselves -- that they will not make disasterous mistakes. She might be better prepared in 2008, but if she had a decent shot at winning as VP in 2004, would she really turn down the chance?

As for whether Hillary as VP would be good for Democrats, I would say it would. We would offer a clear choice: Bushes against Clintons. Clintons are for peace, prosperity, justice, and improving the environment, while Bushes stand for the opposites. Only dirty tricks put Bushes in the White House, and the Democratic voters are tired of letting Bushes get away with high crimes to steal the White House.

I'd say Clinton would bring out the vote, and the Democrats would win because of that, and because the increased women's vote would more than offset the number of stupid men who would change their vote in order to vote against Clinton -- especially since she would only be the VP.

It might also be that if she's VP for eight years, the right-wing extremists would get over some of their most violent hatred. And then, when she runs for president in 2012, she gets better Secret Service protection, so she's even less likely to get killed.

Dean might be better off with Clark, but most candidates could get a big bump with Clinton.

The other issue is that Graham as VP might help win Florida, and winning Florida is likely to be the best hope if Bush doens't self-destruct. But could even Graham overcome JEB Bush's voter fraud? Considering that Bush got away with massive fraud in 2000 *and* 2002, I'm not terribly optimistic about winning Florida in a tight campaign, but I don't think you can give up, and Graham may be the best shot we have at Florida.

All in all, I'd put Clinton in the top three for VP, and I think she'd have a hard time turning down the offer.

[11:45:37 AM]
Edwards made his formal announcement. In fact, he *first* announced on The Daily Show, apparently because he promised to do so during an interview months ago.

Edwards deserves some credit for keeping his word. He also deserves credit for being a good sport, and even having the funniest line of the show. (Stewart asked why Edwards would make a formal announcement when he's been running for a long time, and Edwards replied that if you look at the polls, most Americans don't seem to know that. The way he said it, it was funny.)

On the other hand, The Daily Show then ridiculed Edwards. They probably meant well, and the humor was partially aimed at themselves, but it was was a bad day for The Daily Show, nonetheless. It's too bad, because it could have been a good day.

[11:09:53 AM]
Dad! Scott McClellan's 'poppy' slips a knife in the back? Turns out Scotty is getting married (congratulations!) -- on the anniverserary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Now, I'm sure other henchmen/flunkies of Kennedy opposers have gotten married on the anniverserary of JFK's assassination, and I presume that Scott didn't choose the date *because* it was the day Kennedy was murdered. But, ouch! What do you say when your father messes with things that way?

[10:54:39 AM]
Are the Bush cronies *really* lying scum?

Consider Rumsfeld: "And I said, 'We know they're in that area.' I should have said, 'I believe they're in that area.'"

Rumsfeld claims he wasn't lying, but rather that he is incompetent. Such incompetence is dangerous in the man who has veto power over the conquest and occupation plans... as we've seen.

But was he lying? We say "yes". Why would we say that? Because in pretending to be an idiot, he lied again:

"And they were sites that the inspectors had been in the process of looking at when they concluded that the inspection process really wasn't working, because of lack of cooperation on the part of Saddam Hussein's regime."

The inspection process was working. Saddam resisted somewhat, but the resistance was overcome. And Saddam finally even agreed to show the inspectors that all (or the bulk) of the so-call WMD had been destroyed. And *that's* when Rumsfeld & Co. quick launched the invasion before the inspections process could demonstrate that the weapons had been destroyed.

So we conclude that Rumsfeld is vilest of lying bastard scum. We hope that he is now desperate to save his sorry ass from being fired, and even more desperate to get Bush elected so there won't be an investigation of Rumsfeld's malfeasance.

[8:48:29 AM]
Americans should stop with the massacres in Iraq.

How can we get them to stop, if the military doesn't count the bodies they kill, doesn't report its own massacres, and covers up -- even from themselves -- that the massacres occurred?

Maybe bringing the rest of the 3rd Infantry Division home will help a little. People who learned to slaughter Iraqis like flies during the war shouldn't have been forced to stay as peace-keepers. Those guys need counseling, not extended duty.

If the military won't clean this up themselves, they surely risk war crimes trials -- if not in Iraq, then in some future situation. At some point the massacres will break into the news, and then we'll all be in a tough spot.