Lagniappe: Rummy Toast, part II - Peter Bienart, of The New Republic chimes in on the subject. His verdict: TOAST.

Laginappe: Is Rumsfeld Toast? - I've seen this feeding frenzy before. Fair or not, the end result is always the same: TOAST. The only question is when. And it doesn't help that the Economist, a generally Conservative-friendly venue, is leading the charge calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib - Episode 2 continued - To reveal or not to reveal. That is now the question. Donald Rumsfeld has admitted to the existence of evidence of even more prisoner abuse that "can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman." Sounds like unabashed torture to me. Those are some strong words, words which not long ago Rumsfeld and Bush and all of us used to describe Saddam Hussein and his regime. I'm not sure these photos/videos should be released; but what can be done now that the world knows of their existence? The voyeurism of American pop culture, and the need for transparency in front of the world, will demand their release. But the safety of America and American soldiers demands they stay under wraps. What to do? What to do? How did we ever get into this mess?

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib - Episode 2 - From this AP Newswire report:

Referring to photos of sexual and physical abuse that have drawn worldwide condemnation, Rumsfeld warned there are "a lot more photographs and videos" that haven't yet been seen. "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

He said he had not seen the videos, and did not describe them.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience." He did not elaborate.

I think liberals and conservatives alike are finally getting some answers to the question of "why they hate us." This whole situation is embarrassing, shocking, and numbing. The Bush Administration needs to find a way to contain the bleeding. The future of the Middle East, Iraq, and the honor of all those soldiers who died for the cause depends on it. For the sake of America, I desperately want Bush to succeed. And I like what he's done so far, but it's not enough, especially if the ominous warnings of Rumsfeld and Graham come to pass.

The "Weak" in (National) Review: Nordlinger's Zingers - Jay Nordlinger took a snide potshot at John Kerry recently for his formal salutation in the 1980s of Nicaragua's Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega, as "Dear Comandante." Nordlinger write:

Canny or not, Kerry has a record on Latin America ? a substantial one. You will recall the 1980s, and that decade's fierce debates over Central America policy. At the heart of these debates was Nicaragua: the Sandinistas, Castro, and the Soviet Union versus the Contras and the United States (or rather, not all of the United States: the Reagan administration, in particular). Kerry was an important player in all this. He was part of a group derided by Republicans as "'Dear Comandante' Democrats," for they would address letters to Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista No. 1, "Dear Comandante."

Well, I wonder what he'd have to say about George Bush's recent salutation and address to King Abdullah of Jordan:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Your Majesty, welcome once again to the White House. I appreciate your friendship, and I appreciate the opportunity to hear your thoughts on a range of issues that face your country, and mine, at this time of challenge and opportunity in the Middle East.

Check out the entire address Bush made. I think he fawns over "His Majesty" at least 50 times. Perhaps Nordlinger should take a close look at King Abdullah's ties to Middle East terrorism and see if such fawning is justified.

Lagniappe: Tom DeLay Just Doesn't Get It - I've been reading all the reports on Bush's continued support for Rumsfeld in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal. They generally quote some of the reactions by Congressmen and women about whether Rumsfeld should stay or go. Only this AP story, among the stories that I have read so far, contains the following quote by Republican Congressman Tom DeLay:

Democrats, shot back House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, "want to win the White House more than they want to win the war" on terror.

Begging pardon, Mr. DeLay, but Democrats believe that, given the abject failures of the Bush/Rumsfeld war plan to date, their winning the White House IS necessary to win the war on terror. Seems to me that DeLay's Texas hip-shooting big mouth only reveals that DeLay would rather defend an incompetent GOP administration rather than to win the war on terrorism.

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib and the Taguba Report - You've seen the pictures. Now read it from the lips of those involved. Here are some of the more relevant excerpts from the Taguba Report on abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison facility (please be advised that these excerpts contain some graphic descriptions that you may find objectionable). [The Taguba Report may be viewed in its entirety here]

6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

(ANNEXES 25 and 26)

7.(U) These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements. In reaching my findings, I have carefully considered the pre-existing statements of the following witnesses and suspects (ANNEX 26):

a. (U) SPC Jeremy Sivits, 372nd MP Company - Suspect

b. (U) SPC Sabrina Harman, 372nd MP Company – Suspect

c. (U) SGT Javal S. Davis, 372nd MP Company - Suspect

c. (U) PFC Lynndie R. England, 372nd MP Company - Suspect

d. (U) Adel Nakhla, Civilian Translator, Titan Corp., Assigned to the 205th MI Brigade- Suspect

(Names deleted)

8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee. ...

...

11. (U) I reach this finding based on the actual proven abuse that I find was inflicted on detainees and by the following witness statements. (ANNEXES 25 and 26):

a. (U) SPC Sabrina Harman, 372nd MP Company, stated in her sworn statement regarding the incident where a detainee was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and penis, “that her job was to keep detainees awake.” She stated that MI was talking to CPL Grainer. She stated: “MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Grainer and Frederick’s job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk.”

b. (U) SGT Javal S. Davis, 372nd MP Company, stated in his sworn statement as follows: “I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section, wing 1A being made to do various things that I would question morally. In Wing 1A we were told that they had different rules and different SOP for treatment. I never saw a set of rules or SOP for that section just word of mouth. The Soldier in charge of 1A was Corporal Granier. He stated that the Agents and MI Soldiers would ask him to do things, but nothing was ever in writing he would complain (sic).” When asked why the rules in 1A/1B were different than the rest of the wings, SGT Davis stated: “The rest of the wings are regular prisoners and 1A/B are Military Intelligence (MI) holds.” When asked why he did not inform his chain of command about this abuse, SGT Davis stated: “ Because I assumed that if they were doing things out of the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something. Also the wing belongs to MI and it appeared MI personnel approved of the abuse.” SGT Davis also stated that he had heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: “Loosen this guy up for us.” Make sure he has abad night.” “Make sure he gets the treatment.” He claimed these comments were made to CPL Granier and SSG Frederick. Finally, SGT Davis stated that (sic): “the MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Granier compliments on the way he has been handling the MI holds. Example being statements like, “Good job, they’re breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They’re giving out good information, Finally, and Keep up the good work . Stuff like that.”

c. (U) SPC Jason Kennel, 372nd MP Company, was asked if he were present when any detainees were abused. He stated: “I saw them nude, but MI would tell us to take away their mattresses, sheets, and clothes.” He could not recall who in MI had instructed him to do this, but commented that, “if they wanted me to do that they needed to give me paperwork.” He was later informed that “we could not do anything to embarrass the prisoners.”

d. (U) Mr. Adel L. Nakhla, a US civilian contract translator was questioned about several detainees accused of rape. He observed (sic): “They (detainees) were all naked, a bunch of people from MI, the MP were there that night and the inmates were ordered by SGT Granier and SGT Frederick ordered the guys while questioning them to admit what they did. They made them do strange exercises by sliding on their stomach, jump up and down, throw water on them and made them some wet, called them all kinds of names such as “gays” do they like to make love to guys, then they handcuffed their hands together and their legs with shackles and started to stack them on top of each other by insuring that the bottom guys penis will touch the guy on tops butt.”

e. (U) SPC Neil A Wallin, 109th Area Support Medical Battalion, a medic testified that: “Cell 1A was used to house high priority detainees and cell 1B was used to house the high risk or trouble making detainees. During my tour at the prison I observed that when the male detainees were first brought to the facility, some of them were made to wear female underwear, which I think was to somehow break them down.”

Satirical Lagniappe: Bush Appearing on Arab TV - In a wily effort to coax angry Arabs to shoot their GE television sets in fits of blind rage, while at the same time seeming to be reaching out humanely and apologetically to the Arab world, President Bush has decided to appear on Arab TV to discuss the prisoner abuse situation. Bush's hope in his two ten-minute appearances is both to show the Arab world that he really, really, really is on their side, even against his own fellow American troops, and also to boost the U.S. economy by increasing demand for more GE television sets to replace the ones that will inevitably be used as target practice by those Arabs he fails to convince with his Texas twang, his folksy cowboy charm, and his affected humility. Some think that this little bit of genius is really the work of Karl Rove, who is not convinced that the "red, white, and blue" Bush campaign bus tour through the outsourced Midwest battleground states is likely to generate enough voter enthusiasm. A little bit of war distraction, gripping stories of torture and sexual abuse, all glossed over by the congeniality and warmth of an effusive, but apologetic, President Bush to the Arab world will make all the difference. If nothing more, it's guaranteed to get Bush good TV ratings, which, as research has shown, clearly means a bump up in the pre-election polls. An all-around winning scenario -- that is, if you want to win the U.S. Presidential election and not the war on terror.

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib and the International Criminal Court of Justice - Hmmm... I wonder ... will the penalties for war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers be simply a "reprimand" and a possible dishonorable discharge with no jail time? Well, there's some evidence to indicate that this might be the case. Maybe that's why so many people didn't want to subject U.S. soldiers to some kind of international tribunal. If we did so, these soldiers actually might get the punishment they deserve for their crimes against humanity.

Liberal Lighthouse: Abu Ghraib and Where the Buck Stops -- Apparently not with President Bush or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In fact, it seems that Bush and Rumsfeld are playing "Pass the Buck" like a game of hot potato, hoping that one or the other doesn't get stuck with the steaming tuber when the music stops.

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib and the U.S. "Republican" Guard - Here's a bit of tit-for-tat for those who like to give such nicknames to prominent liberals like "MuqTeddy" Kennedy, or John "F'n" Kerry, or "Baghdad" Jim McDermott ... let's just call those members of the George Bush/Don Rumsfeld military serving in Iraq and overseeing Saddam's Abu Ghraib prison, you know ... America's finest ... the new "Republican" Guard, who seem to have managed Iraq's most notorious torture chambers and prison consistent with its other "Republican" Guard legacy -- all under the watchful eye of our Republican President and his illustrious Republican cabinet.

Lagniappe: Where y'at, man? - Well, I've been AWOL from the Blog for a couple of weeks. End of April/Beginning of May is hell-time for college professors (and college students, too, to be fair!). I'm sure to return to the fray with more regularity probably by mid-May at the latest. Stay tuned and come back every so often to see where I am with this thing. Peace.

Lagniappe: Responsibility for 9/11 - After sifting through and thinking about all the information that is out there concerning the Bush Administration's response (or lack of one) to the perceived al-Qaeda threats emanating up through the intelliegence bureaucracy, I have come to the conclusion that, when you sort through the piles and piles of rhetoric, there is really nothing there to pin on GW. Listen, I'm a die-hard, pacifist, unapologetic left-leaning liberal. I'm voting for Kerry in November. And I don't have any fondness for Bush at all. None. I will be elated when he joins his daddy as a one-termer. But I like to think that I'm fair. And when it comes to responsibility for 9/11, there's enough blame to go around for everyone. It is unfair to single out the Bush Administration. Sure, I believe, given the benefit of hindsight, that the Bush Administration could and should have done things differently. But, I can't really find fault with the Bush Administration's handling of the intelligence it had. I'm sure that intelligence briefings on terrorism always portend ominous things and that the information Bush had was, in many respects, very much consistent with the tone of other types of similar briefings and reports. Who would ever have suspected such an attack on the U.S. of the magnitude of 9/11? For the life of me, I can't see how the Bush Administration could have known this. Bush should be blamed for 9/11 about as much as Clinton should, which is really not much at all. It is just one of those tragic, unfortunate, wake-up calls from the way we conducted anti-terrorist intelligence gathering business. I don't think the same mistakes will ever be made again, or at least I think any President worth his salt will do his best to see that it doesn't happen again. What is important, I think, is to stop looking for blame and to start working on fixing the holes in our system that made it possible. It is as unfair to blame Bush, or Ashcroft, as it is to blame Clinton, or Gorelick. Liberals can and should oppose Bush on his ill-advised policies of the past that led us to war with Iraq and that threaten civil liberties. Liberals can and should criticize Bush for his penchant for secrecy and vendetta-like character assassinations of his critics, even his Republican critics. Liberals can and should question the wisdom of Bush's tax cuts and his unwillingness to curb spending. Liberals can and should question Bush's Iraq strategy and its utter failure. But Liberals, true American Liberals, should not blame Bush and his administration for 9/11. There's just nothing at all in the evidence to indicate any single person, administration, or bureaucratic entity is to blame. 9/11 just happened. It's tragic. Maybe things could have been done to prevent it from happening, maybe not. We've all got to get beyond seeking blame where there is none, or recognizing that we all share in the blame if blame has to be assigned. Liberals, in spite of the temptation to want to lay on Bush's shoulders the crushing weight of responsibility for 9/11, should, in this one matter, just lay off.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Racism in LA Electoral Politics - Do you think Louisiana is beyond the issue of race in its electoral politics? Think again. As Stephanie Grace reports in the Times-Picayune, the white Democrat woman candidate for governor beat the conservative Republican man of color because the folks who had a penchant for voting for David Duke and usually support more conservative candidates opted for the white woman against the dark man -- even though the dark man was clearly the more conservative of the two. In certain parts of Louisiana, apparently race matters much more than ideology in voting behavior. Sad.

Lagniappe: Bush Admits His Ignorance - As this AP news report indicates, Bush, declaring that he would have done anything within his power to prevent the 9/11 attacks had he known they were coming, is planning to tell the 9/11 commission that he really had no clue. Duh! Of course, Georgie. What person in his right mind who knew such an attack was likely would just turn away from it and do nothing? That's not the problem, nor the issue, Mr. President. The real issue is WHY DIDN'T you know? Did you close your ears and eyes? Were you distracted by Iraq to hear the warning bells of your anti-terrorism security teams? Did they themselves somehow fail to gain good intelligence warning of such an attack? These are the important questions. Why won't you answer them?

Lagniappe: WoT Bush Watch - From President Bush's April 2, 2004, speech on Strengthening Economy and Job Training. Opening statement:

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming. Please be seated. I wish Dan had said, a friend of longstanding -- (laughter) -- as opposed to "an old friend." I knew him when he lived in Texas. You've got a good one running Marshall University here. He's a fine fellow. He's doing a fine job. (Applause.)

I'm proud to be back in Huntington. We're going to have an interesting discussion about how to make sure people have an opportunity to get the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. That's really what we're here to talk about. We're going to talk about how to make sure everybody's life is optimistic and hopeful, as this economy of ours grows and changes. [Emphasis added.]

A perfect place to do so here is at this community college, and I'm so honored to have been invited. Thank you for opening up your fantastic facility, and thank you for giving me a chance to come and talk.

How nice, we're going to be talking about good old bread and butter issues. But, wait, first we need to discuss 9/11, the War on Terror, and Saddam Hussein, just in case anybody missed it. Even before Bush gets into the stated subject of his speech, lo and behold, we hear:

And then, as we were recovering from the recession, the enemy hit us. They attacked us. And it affected us. It affected our way of thinking, for starters. See, when most of us were growing up, we thought oceans could protect us, and we found out that wasn't the case. We found out that America could be harmed by people who hate what we stand for. We suffered for those who lost life. I vowed then and there that the best way to protect America was to get on the offense and stay on the offense and bring people to justice. (Applause.) We resolved, as a nation, not to allow terrorists to cause us to lose our optimism and our spirit. That's what we resolved. And we still have that spirit and resolve, by the way.

And then we found out we had some corporate citizens who didn't tell the truth. That affected our economy. It kind of shattered our idealism about people in positions of responsibility. We passed tough laws, by the way. We're not going to tolerate dishonesty in the boardrooms of America. There will be consequences if you lie to your shareholders and your employees. (Applause.) But it affected us. It was a hurdle we had to cross. It was a challenge to our economy.

And then, as you know, I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Let me tell you -- (applause.) One of the important -- one of the important lessons of September the 11th, and it's important for people to understand, is that when we see a threat, we cannot let it materialize. That's an important lesson. I saw a threat -- I looked at intelligence and saw a threat. The United States Congress looked at the same intelligence and it saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence and it saw a threat. People were worried about Saddam Hussein because of his past behavior. Remember, he had used weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and his own people. I remembered the lesson of September the 11th as I looked at the data. I had a choice, either to trust a madman or defend the country. Given that choice, I'll defend America every time. (Applause.)

We've still got hard work in Iraq. The reason we do is there's killers there who want to shake our will. They want the American people to forget what it means to promote freedom. They want us to retreat. See, a free Iraq is an historic opportunity. A free Iraq will change a neighborhood that needs to be free. A free Iraq will make the world more peaceful. But a free Iraq is something that the terrorists fear. They hate freedom. They can't stand the thought of a free society. So they're willing to kill. And they're trying to shake our will. But they don't understand this country. We will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. (Applause.)

When will the irrelevant reference to the WoT ever end? Probably never. It's all Bush has.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Sins of the Catholic Voter - Recently, the Catholic Archbishop of the New Orleans diocese went on a campaign to criticize Catholics who happened to vote for a pro-choice candidate for public office. Essentially, Archbishop Hughes called into question the moral integrity of such Catholics, and offended these faithful members of the Church by contending that those who voted for pro-choice candidates should refrain from the sacrament of communion because of their sinful, base voting behavior. Of course, Mary Landrieu, a devout Catholic Democratic Senator, is one of these pro-choice candidates that Alfred Hughes so despises. But recently, in the Archdiocese's own newspaper, The Clarion Herald, none other than Moon Landrieu, Mary Landrieu's father and a former mayor of New Orleans, wrote a brilliant letter to the editor showing the absolute lack of logic in the Archbishop's position and even the hypocrisy of this selective emphasis on voting for pro-choice candidates. Moon Landrieu's letter can be accessed online here. But it's such a good letter that I need to reprint it in full for you in this blog:

There appears to be no shortage of devout Catholics who rejoice in denying the saving grace of Christ in the Holy Eucharist to those of us who have allegedly sinned by voting differently than they did. Quite orthodox, but not very Christ-like.

I am not surprised, but I am curious as to how they voted and how they justify receiving Communion because not one major presidential or gubernatorial candidate in my memory passes the test of acceptability on all the following issues: abortion, physician-assisted suicide, homicide, the destruction of human embryos in artificial fertilization, stem-cell research, cloning, artificial insemination, contraception, adultery, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, divorce, capital punishment and preemptive war.

I am not referring to the personal moral beliefs of the candidates, but rather to their positions with respect to the criminalization of these sins.

It would be interesting to know how the church hierarchy voted in past elections. We know Archbishop Hannan actively supported Edwin Edwards over David Duke, who claimed to be pro-life, but clearly neither of them met the test.

President Bush? On abortion - he favors exceptions for rape, incest and threat to the life of the mother. Remember - no exceptions. He also flunks the test on most of the other life issues. Pro-life? Hardly!

I have never met a politician who is for abortion, and I have never met one who is willing to put a woman in jail for taking a morning-after pill after being raped, nor have I met one recently who is willing to make a crime of adultery, pre-marital sex, contraception, or divorce. That does not mean they are for those sins. If you should find a candidate who is perfect on criminalizing life issues, and that candidate also meets your concerns on poverty, environment, race, peace and justice, by all means vote for him or her, but I doubt that you will find one.

The Louisiana bishops supported a bill in the Louisiana Legislature that provided exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, even though their lobbyist was called a baby killer by those who insisted on no exceptions. The United States bishops opposed a United States Senate amendment that would have made illegal all abortions after viability except where "the continuation of a pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health." In both instances, the bishops were faced with difficult political choices. I trust that they did not sin.

We live in an imperfect, pluralistic society in which voters, too, are faced with difficult choices. A vote for an imperfect candidate that is not intended to reward or further the imperfection, but rather is intended to advance the good that the candidate offers in preference to another candidate, surely cannot be sinful. If the archbishop is correct, the only safe thing for a Catholic to do is not to vote, but then the failure to do one's civic duty is also a sin.

MOON LANDRIEU

Go get 'em, Moon. Let's see how the single-issue anti-abortion Catholic voters respond to this.

Lagniappe: PETA Terrorists Planning Next Strike - Well, it looks like PETA is up to no good again. Their next target is apparently KFC, and their "protest" strategy of course involves lots of fake blood and unsuspecting children. The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has a great, short editorial on this latest PETA nonsense; and I agree with the editors' sentiments completely. How can any group of people who supposedly care for animals go to such conscious extremes to terrorize children?

Liberal Lighthouse: The "Imminent Threat" Meme and Rumsfeld Caught with His Pants Down - For a long time, the Bush Administration has claimed that it never made statements or even implications to the effect that the Saddam Hussein regime posed an "imminent threat" to the security of the United States as one of its justification for engaging in a preemptive war against Saddam's Iraq. And even though the entire world knows that the Bush Administration MEANT this, regardless of the words it used, the Bushies continue to insist that precise language matters, and that it never used the "imminent threat" meme.

Well, as The New Republic reports in the "Notebook" section of its March 29, 2004, issue (Pages 10-11):

FACE THE MUSIC

For months, the Bush administration has insisted it never said the threat from Iraq was imminent. So we were gratified to see Donald Rumsfeld stumble and fall when confronted by Bob Schieffer and Thomas Friedman on “Face the Nation” this Sunday. In response to a straightforward question—Schieffer asked, “If [Iraq] did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, . . . why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?”—Rumsfeld said:

Well, you’re the—you and a few other critics are the only people I’ve heard use the phrase ‘immediate threat.’ I didn’t. The president didn’t. And it’s become kind of folklore that that’s—that’s what’s happened. . . . If you have any citations, I’d like to see ’em.

Then, like a gift from the Gods of Nex-is, Friedman produced such a citation:

Friedman: We have one here. It says “some have argued that the nu”—this is you speaking—“that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.”

Rumsfeld: And—and—

Friedman: It was close to imminent.

Rumsfeld: Well, I’ve—I’ve tried to be precise, and I’ve tried to be accurate. I’m s—suppose I’ve—

Friedman: “No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”

Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm. It—my view of—of the situation was that he—he had—we—we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that—that we believed and we still do not know—we will know.

Perhaps that will put the “imminence” debate to rest—once and for all.

[NOTE: Full transcript of the Rumsfeld appearance on Face the Nation on March 14, 2004, can be found here]

Ahem ... conservative defenders of Bush and Rummy ... do you have anything to say about this? Andrew Sullivan? Right Wing News? JunkYardBlog? ... The silence is deafening.

Lagniappe: WoT Bush Watch - From President Bush's Jan. 26, 2004, speech in Little Rock, Arkansas, on Medical Liability Reform. Bush opens with:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thanks for coming. Thanks for having me. Thanks for the warm welcome. I appreciate the fact that a Texan is being treated so well here in Arkansas. (Laughter.) It's nice to be -- it's nice to be in this part of the world again. Arkansas is full of really good people, decent, caring people. And so is this hospital. I'm honored that you would have allowed me and my rather significant entourage -- (laughter) -- to come to Baptist Health Medical Center.

I'm here to talk about health issues. I'm here to talk about one of the reasons why health care costs are going up. And that's the fact that we've got too many darn lawsuits, too many frivolous and junk lawsuits that are affecting people. (Applause). I'm here to make sure that we talk in a way that says to the people of Arkansas and America that we need medical liability reform to make sure that medicine is affordable and available.

Six paragraphs later ...

Before I get into the issue of health, I do want to remind you that our country still faces big challenges. And we're rising to meet the challenges. The most important job of my administration is to protect the American people; is to chase down those who would do us harm and bring them to justice; is to never forget the lessons of September the 11th; is to stay on the offensive -- and that's what we're doing. (Applause.)

We're spreading freedom, and as we do so, the world becomes more peaceful. Freedom is not America's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to each man and woman in the world. (Applause.)

I appreciate so very much the contribution of the Arkansas Guard. Over 4,000 troops are part of our effort to not only make America more secure, but to make the world more free. I know that the Governor informed me that these troops are ready to go. They understand the mission. They're proud to serve our country. I'm proud to call them -- I'm proud to be their Commander-in- Chief. And I want their families to know how much we are grateful for their sacrifice, as well. Arkansas ought to be proud of the men and women who wear the uniform. And they're going to make this nation proud and more secure in their sacrifices. (Applause.)

I told everybody the other night at the State of the Union that we're going to stay on the offensive against al Qaeda, and we're making good progress. We're on an international manhunt. We're in a different kind of war. It used to be in the old days, you could measure progress based upon the number of airplanes that the enemy had or the number of ships in a flotilla. And the big battles of the past were clashes of equipment that were visible for people to see. And this is the kind of war where sometimes you see action and sometimes you don't. Sometimes progress is being made and it's hard to tell it, because in order to dismantle the al Qaeda terrorists network, we've got to be on a manhunt, and we've got a lot of people on the manhunt.

Just yesterday -- not yesterday -- just last week, we made further progress in making America more secure when a fellow named Hassan Ghul was captured in Iraq. Hassan Ghul was a -- reported directly to Khalid Shaik Muhammad, who was the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks. He was a killer. He was moving money and messages around South Asia and the Middle East to other al Qaeda leaders. He was a part of this network of haters that we're dismantling.

Our intelligence officers did a good job. He was captured in Iraq where he was helping al Qaeda to put pressure on our troops. There is one less enemy we have to worry about with the capture of Hassan Ghul. Our people are doing great work. (Applause.)

And John Kerry supposedly replays ad nauseam his service in Vietnam? Health Liability reform and Hassan Ghul? Yeah. That connection is about as clear as the one between Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, and 9/11.

Lagniappe: WoT Bush Watch - From President Bush's remarks on health access. In usual fashion, Bush starts off like he always seems to -- telling us what the speech is going to be about:

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming. Please be seated. Thanks for the warm welcome. What you're about to hear is a discussion about how to make sure America's economy continues to grow, and practical ways to help employers and employees to grow the economy, make the right decisions. That's what we're here to discuss. It's an economic lesson. But we're not using Ph.D.'s. Well, we're using Ph.D.'s in the sense that we're talking to entrepreneurs who are on the front lines of making capital decisions every day, and decisions of -- big decisions for each person they hire. That's what we're here to discuss.

So there we have it. What follows? Well, of course, some three paragraphs later, there's this:

And we've got a lot of small business owners here today and I want to thank you for following your dreams. I want to thank the local community leaders who are here. I hope you're as optimistic as I am about the future of this country. The reason I am is because I know what we've overcome. We've overcome a lot. We've overcome a recession. We've overcome an attack on our country, an attack which, by the way, not only affected our spirit, it affected our economy. They estimate over a million jobs were lost after the attacks of September the 11th. We overcame that, those attacks, because of the resolve of the American people. The American people refused to be intimidated by cold-blooded killers. We refused then to be intimidated; we refuse now to ever be intimidated by cold-blooded killers. ...

And then, as you know, I made a tough decision about keeping our word and about making this country secure and the world more peaceful. And we went to war. And I committed, along with other nations, brave sons and daughters of our respective countries to deal with the tyrant that refused to yield to the demands of the world. And now he sits in a jail cell, and Iraq is free.

We marched to war, which affected the economy. It's hard to be confident about the future when you look on your TV screens, and you see the banner, "March to War". As decision-makers and entrepreneurs, it had to be an unsettling time to plan for the future, when you've got a country marching to war. And now we're marching to peace. We're marching to peace. A free Iraq is going to help change the world. A free Afghanistan is changing the world. The world is becoming more peaceful. In other words, we've overcome a lot.

And then, some eleven paragraphs later:

And finally, to the point we're here to discuss. In order to make sure America remains a competitive place, in order to make sure that we can expand the job base, where people can find work, in order to make sure the entrepreneurial spirit remains strong, we need to address the issue of the cost of health care.

George Bush? Discussing the 9/11, the war in Iraq, and the war on terror in a speech about "health access"? No, it can't be. Can it? Not straight-shootin' Georgie, who NEVER mentions such things out of their proper context.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Another Bush Lie Revealed - In a bit of ironic honesty, Andres Oppenheimer catches the Bush Administration in its lie about the importance of Latin America to U.S. foreign policy. Oppenheimer writes:

You may remember that, during the 2000 presidential campaign, President Bush said, ''Should I become president, I will look south, not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental commitment of my presidency.'' And as recently as Sept. 9, Powell stated, ``There is no region on Earth that is more important to the American people than the Western hemisphere.''

But the fact is that Latin America is the only region in the world that will suffer foreign aid cuts in Bush's proposed 2005 fiscal year budget. While planned U.S. aid for Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia will be either increased or maintained at current levels, economic aid to Latin America will drop from $757 million in 2004 to $721 million in 2005.

'So much for being a `buen amigo,' '' Rep. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., the ranking democrat on the House Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, said in a telephone interview Friday. ``It is shocking that these cuts have been made at a time when Latin American democracies are threatened, and extreme poverty is growing.''

Latin America never was as important to the Bush Administration as Bush led on; but what's new about that? I guess Bush should get a pass on this lie, because it seems to have been the same story under all U.S. Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike. What a shame.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Jorge G. Castaneda Enters Mexico's 2006 Presidential Race as an Outsider - Andres Oppenheimer has a good piece on the likely success of Castaneda's quest for the Mexican Presidency as an independent candidate without any formal ties to Mexico's three main political parties. My thinking is that Castaneda can win. He is articulate, smart, and experienced. He will also be entering the race at a time when popular disillusionment with traditional parties is at an all-time high. Regardless, I agree with Oppenheimer that Castaneda's candidacy will bring another breath of good, clean, fresh air to Mexico's ever-more-consolidating democracy.

Lagniappe: WoT Bush Watch - Let's see what GW had to say in his Conversation on Homeownership. [For an exact copy of this speech from the White House website, click here.] ...

First, GW starts by telling his audience what he's going to be talking about. He says:

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for the warm welcome. Thanks for coming today. You're probably wondering what we're doing here. I'll tell you what we're going to do, we're going to talk about one of the most exciting things that can happen to a person, and that is the purchase of a home. That's what we're here to discuss: homeownership and how best to help people buy a home; and what is it like to be someone who wonders about homeownership and the struggles of trying to figure out all the fine print and how to get something done. That's what we're really here to talk about.

But, before Bush ever gets to the questions of Homeownership, what do you think he feels the need to mention? Well, let's see, after recognizing a few dignitaries, fellow politicians, and personal friends in attendance, Bush says (and remember, this is supposedly about Homeownership) ...

I hope you can tell that I'm an optimistic fellow, because-and one reason why is because I've seen what this country has been through. We went through a recession and a stock market decline, we went through an attack. We got attacked by a bunch of cold-blooded killers. And the attack hurt. It hurt our psyche because we thought oceans could protect us. It hurt the fact-we lost a million jobs after September the 11th. ...

And then, as you know, I made a very difficult decision, but the right decision, to secure our country by holding Saddam Hussein to account. But nevertheless, we had the-if you remember, we had on our TV screens the phrase, "March to war." Any time a nation is marching to war, it's not conducive for confident thinking. Nobody wants to march to war. It's a negative thought. Now we're marching to peace, by the way. We're on our way to --(applause.) ...

One thing we're not going to do is get ourselves isolated from the world. I will fight off economic isolationism, which would be bad for job creation here in the state of Pennsylvania. But we've overcome a lot. And that's why I'm optimistic. We've overcome a lot because we've got people who refuse to be intimidated by terrorists. We've overcome a lot because of a tax policy that left money, more money in the hands of the people that earned it.

Hmmm ... now can anyone tell me what in the world any of these references to 9/11, the war in Iraq, and the war on terror have anything at all to do with "Homeownership?"

Lagniappe: The George WoT Bush Watch - Lots of folks on the right who are critical of Kerry, like to think that John Kerry cannot speak about any subject without mentioning his Vietnam service. Take, for instance, Conservative Blogger Bryan Preston of JunkYardBlog. In one of his posts entitled PSSSSSST, Preston writes:

Did you know that he served in Vietnam?

No lie--he's a decorated veteran. Oh, he's too modest to tell you about it himself. Unless you ask. And then he'll sit you right down and talk your ear off about it. He's got a million stories from his 120 days in country. He'll even show you home movies he shot during his arduous four months preliving Apocalypse Now on his swift boat.

In fact, he'll tell you all about it even if you don't ask. Ask him about health care--he'll tell you about Vietnam. Ask him about taxes--he'll tell you about Vietnam. Ask him the air speed velocity of a laden swallow--he'll tell you about Vietnam. Modest chap, that John Kerry, so reluctant to tell you what a hero he is. Unless you ask him any conceivable question about any topic.

So the secret is--John Kerry has done nothing with his time in the Senate that qualifies him for the presidency. So ask him any question about anything under the sun--and he'll tell you about Vietnam. Because that's all he's got.

Of course, this is all nonsense. I tried to call Bryan on this silliness by making a similar kind of exaggerated claim in the very same spirit about Bush's constant references in his speeches and interviews to the war on terrorism/war in Iraq. For instance, in the comment board to this post at the JYB, I wrote:

Here’s another little secret. Ask Bush about education, and he’ll tell you about terrorism. Ask him about jobs, and he’ll talk your ear off about Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Ask him about trade, and he’ll tell you about the atrocities of Udai and Qusai. Ask him about pretzels and he’ll tell you about Al Qaeda’s continuing threat to world peace and the everlasting war on terror. What differentiates Bush from Kerry, though, is that Bush doesn’t have to wait for the obligatory question — he will talk your ear off about this even when you just want, for once since 9/11, to eat your dinner in peace.

What was Bryan's response? Well, he called me a liar about Bush. Now, I admit to a bit of exaggeration about Bush, but the gist of the subsequent exchanges we had on his blog posting comment board is that Bryan really believes all Kerry talks about is his Vietnam service, and that Bush never talks about the war on terror out of context.

So, I've decided to take Bryan's whine as a challenge. Let's see how frequently Bush talks about the war on terror in his speeces and interviews, and let's see specifically how often Bush does so out of context. I'll start tracking all of Bush's speeches and interviews (or as many as I can) as part of my George WoT Bush Watch. I think you'll find that Bush is more of a single issue campaigner with the War on Terror than Kerry ever could possibly be on his Vietnam service record. First up, George Bush's recent Conversation on Homeownership. I'll be back soon with a detailed breakdown of this speech; but first I've got to feed the kids. Stay tuned!

Lagniappe: Georgie's Resolve - GW, as part of a speech supposedly on the retraining of laid-off workers, couldn't stay away from his favorite subject ... drum roll ... the war on terror. In this speech, GW huffed and puffed and blustered the following: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." Of course, Georgie ... Who in his right mind wouldn't have done likewise? The issue is not whether you knew about the attacks beforehand, Georgie, but rather WHY you didn't know about them.

Lagniappe: The TRUE Christian Values and Liberty-Loving Patriotism of the Religious Right - My wife received this choice little email from her ultra-conservative, Christian Coalition, Southern Baptist father and step-mother. It speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of the so-called tolerance and charity of "devout" Christians and "patriotic, freedom-loving" Americans:

I was asked to send this on if I agree or delete if I don't.Forward if U agree, if not, delete

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a
very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having
"In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of
Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!

If you agree, pass this on, if not delete. . . I AGREE !!!
[NOTE: If the graphic doesn't show, you can check it out here.]


How Christian! How American! This is typical, mainstream right-wing behavior. It's abhorrent and sickening for its pure maliciousness and hypocrisy at so many levels. And right-wingers have the gall to complain about radical lefty protesters and their "anti-American" signs and slogans at relatively infrequent protest marches. All one needs to do to see right-wing anti-American signs and slogans is to check his email inbox.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Analysis of El Salvador's Presidential Election - Just having come back from a weeklong trip to El Salvador, I have been very interested in the results of that country's electoral process and its Presidential election, which just took place yesterday, Sunday, March 21. The results are in, and it seems as if the conservative ARENA party has handily won the race in what seems to have been a pretty fair election by procedural standards (i.e. minimal voting fraud or complaints of a tainted electoral process). The ARENA party has pretty much ruled the country since the 1980s and has been linked to right-wing death squads that were responsible for some of the worst human rights violations and war crimes during El Salvador's bloody civil war of the 70s and 80s. I must admit to some shock and disappointment at the showing of the leftist FMLN party. I really expected the race to be closer (and I think even internal Salvadoran polls showed as much until recently).

I have been wondering about how this election could have turned out so lopsided, and I think it is because of two reasons. First, Salvadorans are generally reluctant to turn to an unknown and untested party in the midst of economic uncertainty. As one voter put it (and I'm paraphrasing from memory): it's better to trust the devil you know, than the devil you don't know. So, the fear of change propels moderates to stay with ARENA. Understandable at one level. But the other reason is more bothersome and it is linked to the Damocles Sword hung over the heads of Salvadorans by the Bush Administration of the United States. There is no question that the conservative Bush Administration is partial to the ARENA. That is also understandable; but the degree to which the U.S. government exercised what I think is decisive influence over the elections does not bode well for the consolidation of a democratic political culture. The U.S. should have been as neutral as possible in this contest; but it wasn't. On any number of occasions, high-ranking members of the Bush State Department basically informed the Salvadoran electorate that an FMLN victory could translate into trouble for the Central American nation in its relations with the United States. There was even the question raised of how an FMLN government, openly critical of U.S. foreign policy, might influence the U.S. government to somehow put a clamp on Salvadoran migrant remittances from the U.S. back their families in El Salvador. Whether or not this is true, the ARENA party used the clear and public signals from the U.S. to instill a sense of fear in the Salvadoran populace of punitive U.S. action in case of an FMLN victory. There is no doubt in my mind that this international dimension of U.S. policy towards El Salvador and its preference for the ARENA played a role in convincing on-the-fence voters to swing into ARENA's corner. For a good summary of this election, Tim Weiner of the New York Times has a nice report on the initial returns and a fairly good, short analysis of the backdrop of this election.

Lagniappe: Back in the Saddle - Well, folks, I've been pulling a GW Bush and have not shown my face around this blog for a while. But people can vouch for me! I've still got opinions and haven't been shy about them! In any case, I'm back and plan to be a bit more regular since I've gotten my head above the water since I left for El Salvador. Lots to say about El Salvador, but I'll save it for another day.

First things first ... this past week, it appears that Al Qaeda terrorists struck a devastating and tragic blow in Spain. I don't think the timing was coincidental. It was election time in Spain, it was exactly 1000 days from 9/11, and it occurred on 3/11 instead of 9/11. It cost the pro-US, pro-Iraq war Conservative Regime in Spain its control over the country's machinery of state and thrust the Socialists back into power. Spain's new Socialist leader has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. He also sounds like a man leading his country out of "coalition of the willing." It seems as if the terrorists have scored a victory here. But it is also clear, to me at least, that the heavy hand of warmongering led by the U.S. is also partly responsible for this occurrence. GW's war in Iraq is coming home to roost. And my big fear is that Al Qaeda will do to the U.S. what it did to Spain. Remember, we too are in an election year; and though I want Bush out of office, I don't want to see his ouster come at the expense of American citizen lives. We've got to be on our guard this election year and people will be all jittery. It only promises to polarize this election even more.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Happy Mardi Gras! - As the Big Easy winds its way down to another festive Fat Tuesday, I wish all of you a safe and happy Mardi Gras. Have fun, but be smart. As for me, I'll be doing my own little Social Justice trip down to El Salvador to expose a group of my students to the realities and consequences of the injustices that the majority of the people of El Salvador face as a result of the brutal civil war that gripped that country throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Que les vaya bien y que tengan buen carnaval!

Lagniappe: Outsourcing!! - Best comment I've read yet on the whole subject of outsourcing. Reprinted in full from the "Letters to the Editor" Section of the New Orleans Times-Picayune for your convenient review. [Original can be accessed at the following link.]

"Let's outsource the politicos"

Tuesday February 17, 2004

I was stunned by the comments of Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, on the "offshoring" of U.S. service jobs.

"Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," he told reporters. "More things are tradable than were tradable, in the past and that's a good thing."

After considering this for awhile and allowing myself to calm down, I realized that there were many places where we could save money. Take, for instance, the government.

Chirac of France makes about $117,000 a year, Blair from England makes about $122,000 a year. The U.S. president pulls in $200,000. Salaries for representatives are proportionally cheaper in other countries as well. We could save significant bucks by hiring an overseas president, perhaps one from India or China.

Our sons and daughters need decent jobs and a chance at being a stakeholder in this great country. The gentleman who made that calloused comment should have earned a trip to the proverbial woodshed.

John Sarradet

Gretna

I love it! Unrestricted and unmitigated Free Trade at work!! Viva el Mercado Libre! Viva! Viva!

The 'Weak' in (National) Review: John Derbyshire's Trillion Dollar Deficit Blame Game - So, here's what apparently passes as an equal opportunity critique of federal government spending. That is, when looking at the Congressional Budget Office's adjusted forecast of a trillion dollar deficit over the 2003-2014 decade, Derbyshire seems to be implying that his criticism is of GOP and Democratic big-spenders in Washington. But I just want to point out an interesting little observation. In the entire piece, the only Republican legislator that Derbyshire mentions is Newt Gingrich. On the flip side, Derbyshire peppers his rant with references to a multitude of Democrats. What one gets out of this is that Derbyshire's frustration with the CURRENT GOP administration and GOP-controlled Congress's fiscal recklessness is taken out on the powerless Democrats. He can't bring himself to name GOP names as part of this irresponsibility, though ostensibly that is what one thinks he is also implying. Derbyshire needs to grow some balls. If he's going to bring MINORITY Sen. Kerry, MINORITY Rep. Kucinich, MINORITY Sen. Edwards, MINORITY Sen. Kennedy, and WASHED-UP Presidential hopeful Wesley Clark in the fray by name, where are the likes of PRESIDENT Bush, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER Frist, VICE-PRESIDENT AND FORMER SENATOR Cheney, and SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE Hastert? Why can't he bring himself to call out these folks on the carpet by name - you know, the ones ACTUALLY with the POWER to curb spending and support a balanced budget? Well, I think it is so for two reasons: (1) Derbyshire's simply blinded by his partisan loyalty and cowed by his political cowardice to take similar direct shots at his own; and (2) he can't fathom a world where the democrats may really be better deficit hawks than republicans. I just can't help but think this guy is nutty and imbalanced. I feel sorry for the guy's children, who will have to live with their dad's embarrassing and wierd eccentricities.

Liberal Lighthouse: MoDo's MoJo - Maureen Dowd's latest column is another testament to her absolute genius as a writer. She can be acerbic and she is certainly unabashedly partisan and anti-Bush; but one has to admit that she is as clever, sharpwitted, and funny as they come. I just loved this short little introduction of her piece:

I think President Bush has cleared up everything now.

The U.S. invaded Iraq, which turned out not to have what our pals in Pakistan did have and were giving out willy-nilly to all the bad guys except Iraq, which wouldn't take it.

And the rest of the piece follows suit. It's classic MoDo ... brilliant and a pure pleasure to read.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Here We Go Again ... Bush and the Anti-Democracy Agenda in Latin America - Well, there are some signals that the U.S. government is positioning itself to support another anti-democracy coup in that troubled Republic of Haiti. First, it was the ill-advised U.S. support for the undemocratic ouster of democratically-elected demagogue and populist Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Now, the U.S. appears to be heading in the same direction in Haiti ... only this time, appearing ready and willing to support the ouster of the man we almost invaded Haiti to restore to office after another military coup kicked him out of the country.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Mexican Maritocracy? - Andres Oppenheimer has an interesting take on Mexico's trading of the authoritarian process of the current President hand-picking his successor. Apparently there's talk about Mexican President Vicente Fox's wife running for President. Is maritocracy what we'd call a successful Hillary Clinton run for the Presidency in 2008?

Lagniappe: One Soul with Two Heads? Or Two Souls Sharing One Body? - This story about a little baby girl born with two heads is sad and tragic. Although the story of this person has reached its sad conclusion with the baby's post-surgery death, I just can't get the picture of the abnormality out of my mind and I wonder if this is a case not of one baby with two heads, but rather two babies, two souls, sharing one body. The implications that such a determination would have on the ethics of performing surgery to remove the not-fully-developed "twin" are baffling. What would pro-lifers think about this situation? I'm not predisposed to make a judgment in any particular direction, but I am curious to hear what people think of the ethical/moral dimensions of this situation.

Lagniappe: Bush's BIGGEST Deception -- and it ain't WMD claims! - Well, I'm working on my tax return right now and I must say that the supposed "child tax credit" refund that we received over last summer was more a farce than an actual return of my hard-earned income to my own bank account. I consider myself to be a pretty bright fellow and fairly well-attuned to debates in Washington about tax relief plans, so if I was caught by surprise by the way this tax refund actually works, I can only imagine how those who just normally go with the flow will react. And I know for a fact that all of my siblings with kids were caught by surprise, too. Bush will have a heavy price to pay for this misleading tax refund plan. What am I talking about? Well, let me try to explain ...

Last summer, after the big budget battle in Washington in which President Bush seemed to have won his tax cut/tax relief plan, all we kept hearing was that if we had earned over a certain amount of income and if we had children/dependents in our household, then we were likely to get a refund in the amount of $400 per child/dependent. And sure enough, we received a letter stating as much which was followed shortly thereafter by a check from the US Treasury in the amount of $800 ($400 for each of my two children). It was also my understanding that this was a retroactive refund of what we had already previously paid in higher taxes before the tax relief plan went into effect. But how misleading this was. Apparently, this was merely an advance on our upcoming tax return to be filed for 2003. This advance effectively negated the supposed refund that we received.

By my calculations, there was indeed some tax relief, but not as much as was sold to us. If I've done the math right, this is what I come up with. The child tax credit for 2002 was $600 per child. This was increased to $1000 per child over the course of 2003, and the $400 difference between what we claimed in 2002, and what the 2003 plan called for, as I understood it, was to be remitted over the summer of 2003. So, what we were seeing when we received our $800 check in the summer was, so we thought, an augmented refund of $800 on our 2002 tax return. And our thinking was that when we filed for 2003, we would be able to take the full $1000 per child tax credit against our 2003 earnings. But, not in the deceptive world of George W. Bush. No way. That $800 which we received in the summer of 2003 was simply an advance on our 2003 tax return. So, when I sit down now, in February of 2004, to calculate my tax return, I am surprised with the need to count the $800 against 2003's tax return. So, in essence, my effective per child tax credit for 2003 is still only $600 per child after the $400 per child refund is deducted from the new higher $1000 per child tax credit. Next year, presumably, I'll be able to take the full $1000 per child tax credit without having to deduct any previous refund amount. So, I understand that the tax credit is real and will have an positive impact on the amount of money I'll end up keeping in my own pocket; but that doesn't remove the feeling that I was somehow duped into thinking that the refund was for 2002 instead of 2003. Many people spent their refund over the summer under the false assumption that they would still be able to take the higher per child tax credit when filing their 2003 taxes. And the fact that this isn't the case will, I think, make a lot of people upset just becuase they will feel misled and caught unawares after having prepared for a bigger refund check or a smaller tax liability that just isn't going to materialize. Now, in fairness, both democrats and republicans alike in Washington, DC, bear some responsibility for not adequately clearing up this misunderstanding that many people had in their minds about the nature of this summer child tax refund; but George Bush is the most visible target and he will bear the brunt of whatever misgruntled ill-will that is generated. And, I must say, it comes at a very, very bad time for Bush, given that this year is an election year and we won't have the opportunity to knowlingly feel the benefits of the larger child tax credit until next February, by which time the Presidential election would be long behind us.

It's sneaky and deceptive and will hit people hard and shockingly; and in this economic/electoral environment, Bush can't be having his tax-cut-loving, middle-class, suburban families feel misled and somehow bamboozled without paying, I think, a high price.

I can't say that I'm all that disappointed because I want to see Bush go down to defeat in November; and I really can't see how we can end the out-of-control deficit-spending without rolling back some major parts of his tax cut program; but, man, this was a stupid move on Bush's part. If I were a democrat who can't be tarred with supporting this last tax plan, I'd make this a central issue of my campaign, and I'd start hammering this point home right now.

This is the real scandal of the election year, and the most potent weapon against Bush that the democrats can mount. I hope it doesn't escape notice.

Kingfishery and Kingcakery: The Times-Picayune on Wes Mix's Racism - Good for the Times-Picayune's Editorial Crew. They end their criticism of the unconscionable treatment of a female Iraqi high school student by her world cultures (world cultures, of all things!) teacher with:

Students of all backgrounds deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Someone who can't at least treat a member of another faith -- or anyone else who is different -- decently shouldn't be teaching children.

Amen!

Kingfishery and Kingcakery: Unabashed Racism in Jefferson Parish - An astounding article in the Times-Picayune about a teacher's abuse of a female Iraqi muslim high school student. You've got to read it to believe it. Here's part of it:

Sitting in Wes Mix's 10th-grade world history class at West Jefferson High School in Harvey, Maryam Motar said she had become used to the "jokes."

First, there were the times when she said her teacher thought she was of Indian descent and called her "Little Curry One."

Then came jabs about how Motar, an Iraqi, hailed from a Third World country, she said. Thursday's tease, the 17-year-old sophomore said, was about how she would "bomb us" if she ever went back to her country.

Motar said the final straw came Friday as Mix was passing out tests. After pulling back her religiously mandated head scarf, or hijab, Motar said Mix told her, "I hope God punishes you. No, I'm sorry, I hope Allah punishes you."

Motar said the teacher later told her, "I didn't know you had hair under there."

Read the whole thing. What to make of this? I don't know. But, I DO know that Jefferson Parish is a Republican bastion - home of David Vitter and Bob Livingston - with sympaties for the likes of David Duke. You make up your own mind.

Lagniappe: Democratic Primaries - Post-Tuesday Predictions - Kerry looks strong and likely to win the nomination. Dean is toast. Edwards has some surprising life. I'm pleased on the whole. My thinking is that we'll have a Kerry/Edwards ticket.

If this comes to pass, conservatives should be worried. Gore lost the last election partially because he couldn't carry his home state of Tennessee. Edwards has proven his mettle in the South. If he's on the ticket, he'll carry the two Carolinas plus a couple of other Southern states that have a strange tendency to tilt democratic under the right conditions (maybe Arkansas and Louisiana). We folks in the South like the young, folksy, good-looking, and populist-leaning-but-moderate types of politicians like Edwards. This profile worked well for Bush in the South during the last election to a degree. Gore, in spite of his Tennessee roots, didn't fit the mold. But Edwards most certainly does.

Kerry is a lock on the liberal Northeast. And I would venture that a Kerry/Edwards ticket would suffice in the traditionally liberal west coast enclaves - which I would imagine find more connection with Dean. And the working-class and protectionist tendencies of Edwards will sit well in the midwest motor states.

I've been a pessimist about democratic chances this fall; but I can feel the liberal base energizing while the conservative base is lethargic (at least in Louisiana), if not disillusioned with Bush's performance on the domestic front. It strikes me as very bad timing for Bush that the Conservative Blogosphere is going negative on Bush and his recent domestic agenda. Even the most die-hard of Bush fans on the right are more prone to speak critically of Bush these days than supportive of him. And this observation leads me to think that Bush is more vulnerable than I thought.

A Kerry/Edwards ticket will resonate among the wide variation of liberals in this country -- Moderate/Conservative Southern Democrats, ethnic minorities, union workers, social and enviro liberals, and even military moderates because of Kerry's experience, etc. Conservatives better look out for this combination.

The Weak in (National) Review:Byron York's Own Cave-Blindness - In his latest piece on the current status of the investigation into how internal Democratic Judiciary Committee Member memos were leaked to the public calls for tit-for-tat. York, in his admirable quest for equal justice, thinks not only that the GOP should pay a price for its indiscretion, but also that the Democrat collusion exposed in the memos should also lead to a price that the Democratic Party should pay for its antics. York says it best himself:

"If the memos leak merited the intense investigation that has been going on for months, then certainly the behavior described in the memos deserves scrutiny as well.

It's only fair."

York's naivete here is a bit surprising. What York fails to consider is that the GOP is also likely protecting itself by not going after the Democrats here. I would bet the farm that Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are just as guilty of the type of "collusion" with their own special interest lobbies that York wants the Democrats investigated for. To go after the Democrats for their admittedly less-than-admirable collusion with special interests regarding the judicial nominee and approval process that these memos exhibit would make it acceptable for the GOP and its collusion with special interests to be likewise put on exhibit by the Democrats. And if the Democrats have similar dirt on the GOP, its revelation would make the GOP out to be actually more reprehensible in their duplicity and hypocrisy. I happen to think such dirt on the GOP exists (whether the Democrats have it or not), and the GOP thus can't risk having its own dirty behavior potentially exposed in retaliation for an attack on the behavior described in the Democrat memos -- otherwise, why wouldn't the GOP demand the fairness that Byron York calls for?

Lagniappe: I'm going with Edwards - Well, I've finally come off the fence and decided that my primary vote will be for Edwards. I don't think it will matter all that much, because it seems like Edwards is a respectable 3rd/4th, and unlikely to catch up with Dean and Kerry. Not that I have any major problems with either Dean or Kerry, and I can comfortably vote for either in November; but I just can't get enthused by Kerry and, though Dean gets me enthused, he's also a bit too much of a loose cannon for my tastes. I find Edwards very likable and positive; and I count myself among the numbers that believe that neither Kerry nor Dean can beat Bush in the South, whereas I think Edwards can give Bush a run for it down here. In any case, I'll cast my lot with Edwards come Louisiana primary voting time; and wherever the chips fall, I hope Edwards is somewhere on the Democratic Ticket come November.

Lagniappe: The Ugly Right Rears its Head - I enjoy reading and participating in Rightwign blogs. It keeps me honest and helps me both to question and to sharpen my own liberal thinking on a variety of issues. A theme that has made the rounds on such blogs recently is the ad campaign run by MoveOn.org. Apparently, two of the more than 1500 ads submitted in this grass roots, web-based competition unfortunately equated Bush with Hitler and found their way onto the organization's website for public viewing (as did every other submission). MoveOn.org recognized that allowing these ads to run on its site was improper and should not have happened. The organization issued a formal public apology. Not only could conservatives bring themselves to accept MoveOn.org's contrition, they also, for the most part, blew their collective stacks. The bitterness and viciousness of their reaction and attacks on MoveOn.org for the Bush=Hitler comparison were beyond the pale, but to a certain extent justifiable. I myself publicly condemned these ads, but I pointed out that both the left and the right were culpable of this type of nastiness. Conservatives generally argued with me that liberals were much more prone to such incivility. Well ... NOT. For example, John Hawkins posted on his blog, RightWingNews a cute little satirical lampoon of Hillary Clinton as a witch with broom engine trouble. Check out his little blurb and the picture. Now, in his comment board for this post, a nice RightWing fellow wrote:

Wait a minute everyone.....

That object in the photograph isn't her airplane. Her crashed plane was a Cessina Citation (not shown) which crashed due to pilot error. The pilot error was miscalculating the weight and balance properly. Hillary left the center of the fusilage to hit the toilet and the plane augered in. (that's aviation lingo for crashed).

THE OBJECT IN THE PHOTO IS ACTUALLY HILLARY'S SEX TOY. She has named it "Wombbroom Willie". Thank goodnesss it was properly strapped IN unlike Hitlerly!

by eddie on 2004-01-31 08:32:18

I think I'll let that speak for itself. Clearly, the left does not have a monopoly on incivility. At least in the case of the Bush=Hitler ads on the MoveOn.org website, MoveOn.org had the decency to issue an apology and a retraction. This is what I got from "eddie" after I called him on the carpet for his out-of-line comments about Hillary:

My dearest huckupchuck,

I'm not the least bit sorry to have offended your sensitive wittle bitsy liberal ego. As a matter of fact I purposely withheld my more acerbic comments regarding Der Furherina und her pleasure plunger. What are you her personal valet? She's a dirtbag no question about it.

If, and it's highly unlikely, she is elected president they better remove all the mirrors from the White house!

by eddie on 2004-01-31 14:27:05

Give me the "liberal" MoveOn.org and its apology any day of the week over "conservative" eddie and his filth mouth/mind.

Lagniappe: My Travels - As you can see by the following map of my travels through the U.S., I am definitely a Southerner/East Coaster:



create your own visited states map.

And my travels across the world as indicated in the tidy little map below belie my Western Civilization propensities:



create your own visited country map.

Where have you been?

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Bush Campaign Headquarters at the Archdiocese of New Orleans - Reading the Archdiocese of New Orleans's publication, the Clarion Herald, and especially the political commentary of Fr. William Maestri, it becomes painfully clear that the Archdiocese is a "de facto" campaign headquarters for George W. Bush. First, we have Maestri, in his comment on the "virtues of truth, respect, faith, trust, compassion and justice" comparing GW Bush to Howard Dean. His "unpartisan" thoughts regarding this comparison are the following:

The political world (narrowly defined as those addicted to cable TV news channels) remains abuzz at the verbal meltdown of Howard Dean. We can be forgiven for missing the State of the Union speech, having been drowned out by the "Dean Screech."

Next to the spectacle of Dean making a spectacle of himself was the president offering plain speaking sense about moral values. Yes, Bush's State of the Union speech offered a mini-course on the fundamental virtues which are required of a free people. Liberty requires moral truth, or so the Founders believed. So does Bush - and a good many of his fellow Americans.

When you see such obvious partisanship emanating out of an organization that supposedly represents ALL CATHOLICS (Anti-Bush Democrats among them), you begin to lose faith in your Church leadership. The Catholic Church, as presented by Maestri, is NOT a home for those who don't agree with Bush. Moreover, it really seems like Maestri doesn't want to welcome us Catholic Democrats who think the Bush Administration is against the Social Justice teachings of the Catholic Church in the communion of faithful believers. And when you add Maestri's obvious partisanship to the Archbishop's recent edict that any Catholic who supports or votes for a political candidate who happens to be pro-choice should refrain from communion, you can't help but be disillusioned by the politicization of the Catholic Church. And this is all the more poignant when one realizes that, at the same time the Archbishop is effectively ex-communicating most Catholic Democrats, he's giving a pass to anyone who votes for a pro-death penalty, anti-life Republican. If he ex-communicates those of us who vote for a "pro-choice" candidate who more completely embodies the Catholic Social Justice Teachings in his or her other politics, he is effectively privileging one measure of a Catholic citizen's social and political obligations over another. Furthermore, he's also privileging one measure of respect for life over another.

Lagniappe: Amending the Constitution regarding Marriage - All the recent bluster about the "constitutional process" to codify marriage as exclusive to the relationship between a man and a woman is absolutely incredible. Regardless how people feel about the issue of gay versus straight marriage, is this somethine we want to enshrine in our CONSTITUTION? Imagine, next to all those worthy amendments that seek to outline universal and equal rights relating to liberty and justice for all, we have an amendment about marriage that is "prohibitive" and "exclusive." I think sullying the Constitution with something so clearly partisan and divisive is not the right way to deal with this issue. Bush is foolish for even suggesting as much; and I can only take his SOTU address as nothing more than a pandering to the intolerant fringe of his party.

Lagniappe: Bush's Aversion to Humility - Well, now that David Kay, the WMD inspector-darling of the Conservatives, has tilted pretty decisively towards the No WMD in Iraq position, the rightwing war-mongers are spinning, spinning, spinning, in order to try to salvage something worthwhile out of Bush's clearly false pre-war rhetoric that relied heavily on the WMD argument.

Now, I don't think that Bush LIED about the whole WMD thing; but it is fairly clear that he acted out of what we now know to be seriously flawed intelligence gathering. Moreover, Bush does need to take some responsibility for irresponsibly over-downplaying the available intelligence that did question the accuracy of the WMD claim and presented such claims as sketchy. But that still does not make Bush a liar. He chose to emphasize the flawed intelligence that gave him his justification for war, and he chose to marginalize any (apparently correct) intelligence that raised questions about this justification for war. He got it wrong ... and this is what chafes me most about this whole issue as it relates to Bush.

For whatever reason (and I think it is his hubris), Bush refuses to even acknowledge even the possibility that he got it wrong. There's no shame in admitting this fact. Indeed, 99.9% of all of us, Dems and Repubs alike, got it wrong. The virtue is in accepting this truth, and not trying to spin it away. The more Bush holds out, the worse he appears. And I think this will show up in the polls come November.

Lagniappe: Blister Bombs a Bust - Well, I'm not disappointed that Saddam is gone. That is a good thing. But the WMD claim is getting thinner and more desperate all the time. Folks who supported the war should just fess up and admit that, no matter the justice of the war, the hyped-up WMD threat (potential threat ... whatever) is just that: hyped-up. Sure, based on deplorable intelligence, but still hyped-up nonetheless. I just don't get what the Bush administration and conservative war supporters have to lose by admitting what is obvious.

The "Weak" in (National) Review: Nordlinger's Zingers - Jay Nordlinger, uber-conservative columnist for the National Review, writes glibly in his most recent "Impromptus" column:

Guys, I know I keep calling leading Democrats crazy — or implying such a condition — and I feel a little sheepish about it, because I hate to sound Soviet. But, according to The Drudge Report, Al Gore said to advisers, "The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes." This apparently is what he is also telling MoveOn.org (speaking of crazy).

Look, is it my fault that leading Democrats — including former vice presidents — are saying lunatic things to groups happy to link Bush to Hitler? [Emphasis added.]

I mean, come on!

Imagine this! And from the man who has written a number of times for the New York Post, a supposed "news" outlet that likes to say "lunatic things" that "link Dean to Goebbels." I mean, come on!

Liberal Lighthouse: Matt Bivens and his 'Daily Outrage' - Bush=Hitler vs. Dean=Goebbels - I am a fierce critic of those on my side of the ideological divide who would stoop so low as to equate Bush with Hitler. It is just reprehensible and uncalled for. I am by no means a Bush supporter. I didn't vote for him in 2000 and rest assured that I won't vote for him this year. But I do, at least, think we should be 'civil' in our disagreements and debates. The Bush=Hitler comparison has no place in a civil debate. But Matt Bivens has a great little blurb in his blog at The Nation, an ultra-liberal magazine. This is what Bivens has to say about the hypocrisy of the rightwing outrage over the Bush/Hitler clips run on MoveOn.org's website as part of a Bush in 30 Seconds Contest:

As The Nation's John Nichols reports, MoveOn.org is being pounded upon hysterically by the Republican Party over two ad contest entries -- mailed in from the public, not endorsed by MoveOn and even apologized for and pulled from the website -- ads that compared George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler.

MoveOn notes sourly, however, that none of this indignation was around when Democratic Senator Max Cleland -- a decorated veteran who lost both legs and an arm serving in Vietnam -- was smeared by the Republican leadership with television advertisements comparing him to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

And Timothy Karr at MediaChannel.org observes, even as the mainstream media has raised cries of shame at the Bush-Hitler ads -- which were mailed in to a "Bush in 30 Seconds" ad contest and promptly rejected -- there's been silence about the still-truculently defiant decision by The New York Post to run a column devoted entirely to comparing Howard Dean supporters to Hitler's Brownshirts, and Dean himself to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

Kerr suggests you ask your favorite news outlet to explain the double- standard: Two citizens send in speech comparing the Bush Administration to Hitler -- speech that's promptly rejected by progressives, even apologized for, out of embarrassment to even be briefly associated with -- and it's a sordid national news event. But leading citizens and editors at a major metropolitan newspaper craft and print a detailed comparison of Howard Dean to Hitler -- they don't apologize -- they don't back down or disavow -- and there's smug silence.

While you're at it, ask them how it wasn't a national disgrace that a man who left three of his limbs on the battlefield in Vietnam could be called, in Republican Party-sponsored ads on television, an al-Qaeda lover -- just because Republican operatives coveted his Senate seat, and becase he had dared question the president's war in Iraq. That was probably the closest thing we've seen yet to a Goebbels moment -- where was The New York Post's crack Goebbels-watching team then? Maybe if the Republicans policed their own ranks, a minority of the American public wouldn't be entertaining dark fears about homegrown fascism. [Emphasis and links are in the original citation. -- JH]

Reprinted in full for your benefit; but check it out at The Nation anyway. Is Bivens being unfair? Is he trying to fight fire with fire? Not at all. He's not defending MoveOn.org nor is he in any way supporting the Bush=Hitler comparison. What he is doing, however, is pointing out the hypocrisy of the right. What is really ironic is that on the comment boards of some conservative blogs that I visit regularly, this Bush=Hitler subject is met with outrage at the same time that The New York Post's article referenced above is either praised or ignored. Just to give one example ... If you go to conservative blogger John Hawkins's blog entry on the subject, and if you link on the comments section of this blog, and scroll down to my entry at time 2004-01-05 15:07:05, in which I write:

As a leftist liberal, I repudiate such trash no matter where it comes from. Comparing Bush to Hitler is flat-out wrong. For God's sake, the man is our president - agree with him or not, at least give him some respect for his office.

and if you compare this to a response I got on the very same comment board at time 2004-01-06 17:35:12 by a sincerely nice fellow (nom de web: decypher):

huckupchuck, you should read the editorial. It actually makes sense and wasn't in bad taste and made sense. The TWO ads that appeared on moveon.org were trashy and tasteless. They used the holocuast as a political prop. And if Howard Dean doesn't want to be compared to Hitler, he should stop adopting his political methods.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/4965.htm

Give it a read. I don't see anything that was untrue. And I don't see where in this editorial it says something anywhere near as bad as "What were war crime in 1945 is foreign policy in 2003."

Also, The NY Post is a newspaper, a minor media outlet. It does not raise money for the DNC and is not actively campaigning for a president.

Sorry, kiddo, but you got duped. And now you're doing their deflecting for them. Moveon.org is beneath contempt.

Also, I find it interesting that the left is still residing to typical deflection, trying to detract from their own horrific behavior by pointing out what they perceive to be other bad behavior.

you can see what I mean and to what Bivens is accurately referring. Partisanship blinds even the best of us ... that is, if we let it. Conservatives should see the hypocrisy of their outrage over the Bush/Hitler ad while at the same time giving the Dean=Goebbels article a pass, if not a thumbs up.

The "Weak" in (National) Review: Deroy Murdock's Defense of Marriage - Actually, I have to say this piece by Deroy Murdock on the question of gay marriage and the sanctity of the institution of marriage is actually quite strong. I find myself agreeing with Murdock in spite of myself. A rare occurrence for anything published at the National Review Online. Sample this by Murdock:

Whatever objections they otherwise may generate, gay couples who desire marriage at least hope to stay hitched. Britney's latest misadventure, in contrast, reduced marriage from something sacred to just another Vegas activity, like watching the Bellagio Hotel's fountains between trips to the blackjack tables.

Consider David Letterman. His hilarious broadcasts keep Insomniac-Americans cackling every weeknight. Last November 3, he got a national standing ovation when his son, Harry Joseph, was born. Those who rail against gay marriage stayed mum about the fact that Harry's dad and mom, Regina Lasko, shack up. What message is sent by this widely hailed out-of-wedlock birth?

And then there's Jerry Seinfeld. This national treasure's eponymous TV show will generate belly laughs in syndication throughout this century, and deservedly so. The mere sound of those odd bass notes on Seinfeld's soundtrack can generate chuckles before any dialogue has been uttered.

But while Seinfeld boasts millions of fans, Eric Nederlander is not among them. Shortly after the Broadway theater heir and his then-wife, Jessica Sklar, returned from their June 1998 honeymoon, she met Seinfeld at Manhattan's Reebok Club gym. He asked Sklar out, she accepted and, before long, she ditched her new husband and ran off with the comedian.

Where was the social-conservative outrage at Seinfeld's dreadful actions? Can anyone on the religious Right seriously argue that the real risk to holy matrimony is not men like Seinfeld and women like Sklar but devoted male couples who aim neither to discard one another nor divide others?

Read the whole piece. It's very good.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: The Rising Tide of Latin American Assertiveness -- The Latin American countries are demanding that the United States treat them with respect. Moreover, they're not only talking this talk, but they're acting the part, too. I think this is good for the L.A.-U.S. relationship. It will force "Big Brother" to finally recognize that "Little Sister" is now a grown woman.

Lagniappe: The Sanctity of Marriage and the Civil Rights that Go with It - Andrew Sullivan really nails it regarding the whole conservative Defense of Marriage movement that really seeks not to "defend marriage" but rather to exclude gays from the institution. First it was convicted parent-killer Lyle Menendez who got to enjoy and parse out the legal benefits of marriage from his prison cell, and now it's Britney Spears who gets married and has the marriage annulled all within 48 hours. What's better for the institution of marriage? What do you think will "defend" the insitution of marriage more? Sanctioning the institution for the whims of people like Menendez and Spears, or counterbalancing their damage to the institution by brining committed homosexual partners into the institution who really seem to actually VALUE the institution seriously. More and more, I see the folly and the hypocrisy of the anti-gay marriage cause.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: The Bush Immigration Plan - Good for President Bush. He's doing the right thing by working towards legalizing undocumented workers. Not only will this be a way for hard workers from other countries to meet the demand for their services without having to slink around and hide from Immigration Authorities, but it will bring billions more dollars of legitimate tax revenues to the federal treasury. It's good for America all-around, both as a domestic and a foreign policy issue. I hope to have more detailed analysis of this latest development in an upcoming blog posting.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: LSU! - I am a die-hard Tulane fan, who always wants Tulane to whip up on LSU whenever they play in any sport. But, when the two aren't playing against each other, I pull for both ... And so, I can say with the full pride of a Louisianian: "Congratulations, Tigers!" National College Football Champions. It's a shame that the Tigers have to share the honors with USC, because I think LSU is the better team; but splitting the title doesn't demean at all LSU's incredible accomplishment. Geaux, Tigers! We're all happy for you!