January 8, 2005 by s.z.

News From The Stupidsphere! First, from WorldNetDaily: Why hasn't Osama bin Laden's terror network executed an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11? Simple, says Dr. Jack Wheeler, creator of an acclaimed intelligence website dubbed "the oasis for rational conservatives": The U.S. has threatened to nuke the Muslim holy city of Mecca should the terror leader strike America again. [...] Writes Wheeler in his members-only column: "There has been a rumor floating in the Washington ether for some time now that George Bush has figured out what Sword of Damocles is suspended over Osama bin Laden's head. It's whispered among Capitol Hill staffers on the intel and armed services committees; White House NSC (National Security Council) members clam up tight if you begin to hint at it; and State Department neo-cons love to give their liberal counterparts cardiac arrhythmia by elliptically conversing about it in their presence. I'd love to hear how the State Dept. neocons torment their liberal coworkers by "elliptically" mentioning how George Bush will nuke Mecca if bin Laden attacks the U.S.  Maybe they stay stuff like, "Well, Percy, that policy paper on the China trade balance is all well and good, but you know nothing will matter when we're all dead, right?" But back to the Indiana Jones of the Mentally Impaired: "Osama would have laughed off such a threat, given his view that Americans are wussies who cut and run after a few losses, such as Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. Part of Bush's rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq – obviously never expressed publicly – was to convince Osama that his threat to nuke Mecca was real. Osama hates America just as much as ever, but he is laughing no more." Wheeler says bin Laden is "playing poker with a Texas cowboy holding the nuclear aces," so there's nothing al-Qaida could do that could come remotely close to risking obliterating Mecca. Why does the idea of George Bush, Texas Cowboy from Kennebunkport, playing poker with nuclear weapons seem so scary? Anyway, the WorldNetDaily readers LOVED the idea of nuking Mecca.  Here are the results of a poll taken last Saturday: What would you think of threatening to nuke Mecca if terror attack made on U.S.? The threat should include lacing the bomb with pig's blood 43.79% (3669) The Islamist mentality is so extreme, only a threat of this magnitude is likely to be effective 39.74% (3330) It would be scary but perhaps necessary 4.15% (348) The U.S. would never make such a threat 3.62% (303) The U.S. might make such a threat, but it would never carry it out 2.10% (176) It would be immoral 1.81% (152) It would make the U.S. the worst terrorist nation in history 1.69% (142) It would be an obscene over-reaction 1.42% (119) Other 1.13% (95) It would be overkill 0.54% (45) TOTAL VOTES: 8379 So, 90% of those taking the poll think that such a threat is a good idea.  Yup, that's how you win the hearts and minds of the Middle East. Our next nuttiness comes from a transcript of Thursday's Scarborough Country.  It's from JACK BURKMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: BURKMAN:  Well, Joe, the issue, look, with the Geneva Conventions, we all they were never intended to prohibit torture under any circumstance. The framers of the Geneva Convention could not contemplate a circumstance where there would be something like a dirty bomb or a smallpox epidemic or some type of terrible thing that could kill millions of people.  Yeah, because back in the primitive days of 1949, nobody had ever DREAMED of, say, a bomb that could use the power of the atom to kill millions! But I would take it even further.  Why does it have to be something so extreme, as Senator Specter laid out today?  What if 10,000 or 5,000 lives?  Do you mean to tell me the president of the United States should refrain from—not killing someone or even maiming someone. Well, as we know from the Simpsons, every President gets three secret murders.  (If you don't use them by the end of the term [smack], they're gone!)  So, I guess if George wants to use his three secret murders to save 10,000 lives, or 100 lives, or a really cute puppy, I guess he can.  But he should have to carry them out with his own hands. BURKMAN:  Look, Joe, I think Gonzales did a good job today.  I think the one thing he should have done, he should have stuck by his guns and said yes.  He should have said clearly, yes, there are circumstances where torture is OK.  We have a three and a half million vote conservative mandate.  I don‘t think we should be coddling Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Pat Leahy.  Those guys should be steamrolled.  Basically what Burkman is saying is that the Republicans won the election, so they should damn well be able to torture whomever they please!  Isn't that what a mandate means? P.S.  I did a little research on Mr. Burkman, and learned that not only is he a frequent guest on Scar's show, but he's also a trial attorney and a lobbyist ("Mr. Burkman's governmental relations and advocacy practice is based on his extensive experience on the Hill").  Per America Review, he was the Senate Republican counsel on the Whitewater Committee "where he coordinated questioning of Webb Hubbell.' Fiercely pro-Starr, anti-Clinton." Here are a few choice quotes from him, from the past year or so. First, on the topic of teaching creationism in schools: Why do you oppose a local school district determining what is science for itself? Isn‘t that what America is about? Second, on the death penalty: If the reason the death penalty is not the deterrent it could be, it's because, A, it's not visible when it's done, and, B, it's not painful. And third, on how to deal with Iran: If the Iranians don‘t come to the table soon on the nuclear issue, the United States has no choice but to issue a final warning and then to be prepared to use military force.  We cannot allow a barbarian—we cannot allow a barbarian state to become a nuclear state in the heart of the Middle East. ... The reality is, we‘re probably going to have to draft, because incentives won‘t bring it up.  We‘re heading for a draft in this country.  The choice for the United States is this.  Do we have the guts as a people to lead the world?  World leadership is not easy.  What we have to do is.  You have to issue a final ultimatum to the Iranians on the nuclear issue.  If they don‘t respond, we need heavy airstrikes.  Now, why won‘t Bush do that?  Yeah, let's start up the draft and invade Iran, because, as Mr. Burkman said on a Scar show from a couple of weeks ago, the Iraq war has been a "brilliant success" (and it's only gloomy gusses and Democrats who keep focusing on Abu Ghraib). And if our drafted armed forces have any trouble with the Iranians we take prisoner, they can damn well torture them -- because that's what winning an election means. 5:21:04 AM

Wounds and Heels Crooks and Liars, which I just added to the Blog Roll, has very good coverage of  Armstrong Williams-gate (which I first learned of from Atrios), so I suggest you check it out if you're interested in learning what Deparment of Education funds are spent on these days. The lastest is that Tribune Media Services terminated its contract with Armstrong.  Armstrong is now going to self-syndicate himself like Judson Cox and all those other pundits who write for Renew America, so he should do just fine. This was my favorite part of the Editor & Publisher story on the matter: How many of his nearly 50 newspaper clients does he think will keep the feature? "That remains to be seen," Williams replied. "But I always feel I can sell my product better than anyone else." He added: "I'm wounded now, but, guess what, wounds heel." So let's all say a prayer tonight for poor Armstrong, in hopes that his wounds from accepting $240,000 of tax payer money to sell people on a Bush adminstration program and not telling his readers about this, heel quickly (and maybe learn to beg and sit too). Anyway, you may recall that this isn't the first time that the Department of Education has been caught spending tax payer money in dubious endeavors related to selling the public on No Child Left Behind.  Here's most of a NY Times story from October: An essay written by a third-grade teacher and published in The Portland Oregonian that criticized the federal No Child Left Behind law got one of  the lowest ratings: a negative 60. An article in The Akron Beacon Journal that credited No Child Left Behind with driving schools to close the achievement gap was praised, earning a score of 55 points. The gold medal? That went to a piece that ran in The Seattle Times, signed by Education Secretary Rod Paige himself, who "specifically credits President Bush for championing" No Child Left Behind. It got a near-perfect 95. "The article would have rated an ideal 100 points if it had appeared in a more prominent newspaper," said the evaluation of newspaper coverage commissioned by the federal Education Department. The department paid $700,000 to Ketchum, a public relations and marketing firm, to rate newspaper coverage of the education law in 2003 and to produce two video press releases in the format of news articles. The videos were reminiscent of videos about Medicare that were sent to television stations around the country and criticized by federal budget monitors this year as violating the federal law barring the use of Congressional appropriations "in a general propaganda effort designed to aid a political party or candidate." The articles were ranked by how frequently and favorably they mentioned 11 features of the new law, and according to the company's written description, whether or not they portrayed "the Bush administration/the G.O.P. as committed to education." [...] Susan Aspey, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, said the videos were done before the Government Accountability Office issued its ruling and were no longer in use, but she defended them as an effort to publicize the new law. Guess where at least one of these videos was aired before GAO decided that this was illegal?  Yes, on Armstrong Williams' show! She said, however, that the rankings did not influence the department's treatment of reporters.  However, those reporters who were given money by the department seemed to write more favorable stories about NCLB than those who weren't, it was noted. She also defended the rating of reporters in part on their friendliness to the Bush administration and the Republican Party, saying, "The fact of the matter is that this president and this administration championed and led the No Child Left Behind Act." "Our general counsel reviewed everything that we have done," said Ms. Aspey. She rejected criticism of the contracts as "purely politics." So, having a PR firm rating reporters on how well they say that George Bush has come up with the Bestest Educational Policy EVER is just a matter of seeing which reporters are able to discern the truth.  You know, as an acadmic exercise, or to help Santa Claus or something.  And it had nothing to do with politics OR manipulating the public via the media. If somebody pays me $240,000, I will say that I believe that. 1:48:41 AM