April 20, 2004 by s.z.

5 Years Ago Today Dave Cullen, a fellow Salon blogger (at Conclusive Evidence of Dave Cullen's Existance, an excellent writer, and a nice guy, has a very interesting article about the Columbine killers over at Slate; It shows that what we think we know about the young killers' motiviations is actually not true -- and the truth is scarier.    You should check it out, despite the fact that Insty also recommended it. 5:06:24 PM

One More Pundit Weighs in On "Oil for Votes" It's Mr. Kerfuffle! Kerry: Don't Lower Gas Prices John Kerry "quickly seized on [Bob] Woodward's assertion on Sunday that the Saudi ambassador to the United States had agreed that his country would make sure that oil prices did not get too out of hand and would lower them to boost the American economy prior to the election--a decision that would presumably help Mr. Bush politically," reports the New York Times: "That is outrageous and unacceptable to the American people," Mr. Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, declared during a campaign stop in Florida. Why would lower gas prices be "outrageous and unacceptable"? Well, let's actually read that NY Times article and see Kerry's reason, Jimmy (bolding mine, to help the mentally handicapped): Mr. Kerry, who has come under attack from the Bush campaign for a past proposal to raise gas taxes, said Americans were now paying billions of dollars more for gas due to a "secret White House" deal to manipulate prices for political reasons. So, the lower gas prices would be unacceptable because they had previously been raised, due to a secret deal with a foreign country, so that the later lowering of prices would benefit Bush politically.  It's not that hard to understand unless, like Mr. Kerfuffle, you think that a cold day in winter invalidates the theory of global warming. And why was Kerry warning of this prospect on the same day that, as Reuters reports, "the national price for motor fuel hit a record high for the fourth straight week"? That's like giving a speech about global warming on one of the coldest days in decades. Yes, if motor fuel prices are high on the day when Bush is accused of plotting with the Saudis to keep fuel prices articially high until shortly before the election, then this proves that Kerry is a doofus and Bush is our savior.  At least, in Tarantonia. 4:48:29 PM

BushCo Wants You to Read Woodward's Book Even More Than Karen's or Frum's So, even though Plan of Attack does say that Bush made plans to invade Iraq earlier than what the Administration said previously, shifted "War on Terror" funds to the Iraq invasion plans without informing Congress, dissed Colin Powell, and plotted with the Saudis to have oil prices lowered before the election, Bush's people still like it, because it portrays Bush as a strong, resolute leader.  A strong, resolute leader who has a mandate from God to remake the Middle East, so he doesn't need to worry his pretty head with actual planning for how the remaking gets done.  Oh, and because the book blames George Tenet for the WMDs thing -- unidentified source Dick Cheney made sure Woodward knew that it was all Tenet's fault.  From the NY Times: On the Bush campaign's Web site, georgewbush.com, there is a link to a "georgewbush.com Suggested Reading List.'' At the top of that list - above the new book by Karen Hughes, Mr. Bush's trusted aide, and others by such Bush loyalists and admirers as Mary Matalin, Lynne Cheney and David Frum - is "Plan of Attack.'' 3:55:56 PM

Bush's Brother Betrays Him? While I'm not convinced that Bob Woodward's "Oil for Votes" revelation is 100% accurate, I'm willing to entertain the idea that there's something to it.  I do, however, wonder who provided the into to Bob.  David Frum does too, and plays Hercule Poirot in order to unravel the whole shocking mystery! APR. 19, 2004: CONSPIRACY THEORY After 24 hours, it’s agreed that the biggest news to emerge from Bob Woodward’s book is the allegation that the Saudis promised to manipulate the price of oil to help President Bush’s re-election. John Kerry had this to say yesterday in Florida: “If what Bob Woodward reports is true — that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election, then tied to a secret White House deal — that is outrageous and unacceptable.” But is it true? Ask yourself this: Who could have been Woodward’s source for this claim? Only one person: the canny Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States and a frequent purveyor of titillating items to selected journalists. Why is Bandar the only person who could have been the source for this claim?  Because everyone else who knew about it is dead!  Or something.  Anyway, even though the White House, the Department of State, etc. is full of potential suspects to my mind, let's see where David is going with this theory that Bandar provided the info to Woodward. Next question: If such a deal existed, what motive could Prince Bandar have for revealing it? The revelation could only hurt Bush, the candidate Bandar was allegedly trying to help. Logical next thought: If, however, Bandar wanted to hurt Bush, then the revelation makes a great deal of sense. So, the bitch set him up, promising Bush lowered oil prices right before the election just so he could reveal the scheme to Woodward, and thereby hurt Bush by revealing him as somebody who would make under-the-table deals with foreign powers in order to helps his political prospects.  Gad, Prince Bandar is the devil himself!  But isn't Bandar an old Bush family friend?  Why is he turning on his brother like this?  I suspect a romantic triangle, but let's see what David has to say about it: But why would Bandar want to hurt Bush? Don’t a hundred conspiracy books tell us that the Bush family are thralls of Saudi oil money? Perhaps the Saudis don’t think so. Perhaps they see President Bush’s Middle East policy as a threat to their dominance and even survival. What could after all be a worse nightmare for Saudi Arabia than a Western-oriented, pluralistic Iraq pumping all the oil it can sell? So, per David, the Saudis want Kerry to win in November, because otherwise Bush will turn Iraq into a happy, stable, America-loving democracy which sells all its oil to the U.S. for cheap.  Thus, per David, the Saudis are delusional, probably due to opium. In other words, if what Bob Woodward reports is true, then the Saudis are meddling to defeat Bush, not elect him.  But if what Woodward reports is true, then Bush is still guilty of conniving with foreign governments to manipulate the oil market for his personal benefit, which sounds WAY worse than what Martha Stewart is going to jail for.  I don't see how we have any choice BUT to vote for Kerry.  And we must also punish the Saudis by refusing to make any more secret deals with them -- THAT will teach them! 3:24:00 PM

I wonder If Condi Knows Her Husband is Seeing Another Woman From a review of Karen's Hughes' Ten Minutes from Normal by Jena Heath: Hughes' most intense language is reserved for two men — Jesus Christ and George W. Bush. She invokes them again and again, and neither man experiences a Garden of Gethsemane moment of doubt or even a second thought. [...] Nearly two years after trading her pressure-cooker days in Washington, D.C., for a life in Austin more "attuned to the school and church calendar," Hughes remains Bush's proclaimer, his wide-eyed acolyte, his biggest fan. That will satisfy the converted but madden anyone interested in understanding how the White House and this president function, especially in a time of international upheaval. [...] Where Hughes does satisfy is when she writes of the pull between her role as high-ranking White House adviser and her role as wife and mother. And just what kind of a mother is Karen?  Here's a hint from her book: I have a very normal family: a teenage son who thinks that I am totally annoying, especially when I ask intrusive questions like “how was your day?” or even try to talk to him when he gets in the car after school because he’s tired (tired of talking, I wonder? How is that possible since he doesn’t?) [...]  Jerry ended up taking care of the last dog, a ditzy cocker spaniel named Fritzi, who was sweet but kind of stupid and while I was fond of her, I never really bonded in the way that you bond with a real dog, a large and intelligent one. Karen is fond of her son, but has never really bonded with him the way you bond with a REAL son, a large one with laser-sharp vision. 3:39:26 AM

Sad News For Sully A couple of days ago Andrew Sullivan wrote about a poll which indicated that a majority of evangelicals don't support the Federal Marriage Amendment: [A]long comes a real and comprehensive poll of over 1600 evangelicals that finds a majority opposed to amending the constitution to ban civil marriage for gays. The poll was commissioned by PBS and US News and World Report. 52 percent of evangelicals said they preferred the matter to be handled by the states. So they are conservatives after all! Sullivan saw this as proof that the evil Karl Rove had led the compassionate conservative (and manly War President) Bush into backing a measure that not even evangelicals support. However, it seems that true evangelicals would rather not be conservative if it means they can't be anti-gay.  Here's part of a report from The Baptist Press: Pro-family leaders are questioning a new poll that suggests evangelicals -- the core of American social conservatism -- are opposed to a constitutional marriage amendment. [...] It has also caused some to ask: Are these true evangelicals? In response to one question, roughly half of evangelicals said that Christians aren’t the only ones going to heaven. [...] Russell D. Moore, dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says the survey is off-target in assuming self-professing evangelicals are true evangelicals. Incredibly, 45 percent of the evangelicals in the survey disagreed with the statement that “only born-again Christians go to heaven.” Forty-eight percent agreed. [...] Sociologists and pollsters .. persist in labeling as ‘evangelical’ anyone who likes the term ‘born again’ -- regardless of whether he is a committed Christian, a New Age guru who thinks he saw Jesus in a cloud of marijuana smoke, or a middle-aged Southern Baptist who hasn’t been to church since junior high youth camp,” Moore said. [Genevieve Wood of the Family Research Council] said that even if the poll’s question on marriage is leading, it points to the need to inform people about the debate over same-sex “marriage.” Eighty-three percent of evangelicals in the poll are opposed to same-sex “marriage” -- 65 percent strongly opposed. “The question is,” Wood said, “‘OK, does that translate into people supporting a constitutional amendment?’ That’s where I think a lot of the work needs to be done. I think once people understand that if they’re opposed to same-sex ‘marriage’ [and that] the only way we’re going to keep marriage the way it is is to pass a constitutional amendment, I think [then] you’ll see those numbers grow.” One of these days, Sullivan is just going to face up to the fact that he has tried to make common cause with a party and a political movement that has basically told people like him to go to hell (where, per the true evangelicals, they will spend eternity in a lake of fire, along with the Jews, Hindus, atheists, and the New Age guru who thinks he saw Jesus in a cloud of marijuana smoke). 1:59:04 AM