Month: May 2004

It’s been pretty well covered in the blogosphere already but I can’t resist the Washington Post article on the Bush team’s amazing run of negative campaign ads.

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush’s campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads — or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

Pandagon does the math for us (emphasis added):

An interesting thing about that number – if 13,336 is the number of negative ads Kerry has run and it’s 27% of his total, then Bush has run about as many negative ads (49,050) as Kerry has ads total (49,392). By any standard, that’s just ridiculous.

And it’s only Memorial Day. What’s the picture going to look like in September?

Morning tip of the hat to Rude Pundit for this followup on Bush’s Saddam firearm:

Exactly how may laws, federal and D.C., might the President be breaking with his possession of that firearm? Did he receive a background check for the transfer of ownership? Is Bush licensed to possess a firearm in a federal facility? The District of Columbia prohibits firearms to be gifts. How many people are implicated in Bush’s firearm possession?

It’s like they think the laws don’t apply to them.

Is there anyone left in the Bush administration that is not a proven liar?

Liar of the Day: Dick Cheney.

A Pentagon e-mail said Vice President Dick Cheney coordinated a huge Halliburton government contract for Iraq, despite Cheney’s denial of interest in the company he ran until 2000.

In previous administrations, this would be the stuff of resignations and impeachments. Now it’s just business as usual.

Seen on MSNBC‘s site today:

A handgun that Saddam Hussein was clutching when U.S. forces captured him in a hole in Iraq last December is now kept by President Bush at the White House, Time magazine reported Sunday.

Aside from the obvious phallic subtext, there’s nothing particularly bad about that. However, the article goes on to point out that said gun:

is kept in a small study off the Oval Office where Bush displays memorabilia. It is the same room where former President Clinton had some of his encounters with former intern Monica Lewinsky.

It’s like some sort of sick reflex. No matter that our economy is shaky, millions of Americans are out of work, and our soldiers are dying in a nearly unwinnable war in Iraq. People just can’t stop themselves from slipping in a comment about Clinton getting blowjobs.

I’m going to watch George Stephanopolis on TiVo and see if my mood improves.

I frequently find that Atrios’s perspective on events is similar to mine, but I think he’s a little off base with his latest take on the Allawi situation. This may be one time where dislike of the Bush administration is coloring his analysis.

Looking at the Washington Post article he cited, as well as some of the extensive reporting on the issue over at Talking Points, it seems clear from all accounts that Allawi was a main, if not the top, candidate for the PM slot. Since this was known to the UN, the US, and to the Iraqi Governing Council, it’s not so surprising that the Governing Council would use this information in an attempt to look relevant and/or independant by naming Allawi.

In other words, it’s not that nobody was at the helm. It’s that the Iraqi Governing Council – possibly egged on by Allawi himself – decided to try steering.

Whether Allawi is a good choice, I am undecided. Some of the info coming out about him – like his tie to now-disproven memos about Saddam’s WMD capability – is troubling. I’d like to see some more information before making up my mind though.