General Boykin: Soldier for Christ

Lying Liars Watch

Here is an extensive list of links and quotes concerning the phantom Al Qaeda/Iraq lovefest which was always false (his Chimperial Majesty just admitted as much a month ago - but the press didn't seem to notice) but which the public seems to believe in anyway. The quotes show why. There are also quotes from sources at the time refuting the link. It's very telling. Here is one from September, this one carefully couched with weasel words to scare, but not straying from Bush's scary fantasy of them "working together":

U.S. President George W. Bush, along with other senior U.S. officials, yesterday alleged possible connections between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist network (see GSN, Aug. 2). Bush said he was concerned Hussein and al-Qaeda could decide to work together, adding that the two were already almost indistinguishable. The danger is, is that they work in concert, Bush said during a White House meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. The danger is, is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddams madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

Tinfoil Hat Watch

Joe Conason (you have to go through the "day pass" mechanism to read it unless you subscribe to Salon, but it's usually pretty painless) weighs in a bit on the electronic voting machine controversy, and asks this very provocative question: "Why aren't Republicans more disturbed by the threat of computer cheating?" Hmmm. Why indeed? An excerpt:

The sickening irony of this situation is that it developed from congressional efforts to preclude another fiasco like Florida 2000. Now Rep. Rush Holt, D.-N.J., has proposed legislation that would require a separate printed record of every computerized vote so that recounts can be audited with a paper trail. But Rep. Bob Ney, the committee chairman, opposes Holt's Voter Confidence Act. Ney happens to be a Republican from Ohio. But why aren't Republicans -- many of whom fret incessantly about "ballot security" in black and Latino neighborhoods -- more disturbed by the threat of computer cheating?

Pundits Watch

Liberal Oasis had an excellent breakdown of the Sunday morning pundit shows this week, where both sides of the aisle had to admit that Iraq was a huge mess. (What a surprise!) The most amazing thing is Democrat Jay Rockefeller, who supported this war wholeheartedly (say "Arf" Jay! Rollover! Good boy.), actually said, "If I suspected that there might have been a predetermination to go to war, regardless of the United States, United Nations Security Council, I probably would have voted differently." Uh, Jay? Most of us had figured out that there was a "predetermination" to go to war years ago. Maybe Senator Rockefeller isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, if you know what I mean.

What Liberal Media? Watch

Eric Alterman's debut column on the new website of the Center for American Progess, a progressive think tank modeled after the Heritage Foundation (except sane), is great. He notes that Democrats are getting flak in the press for opposing the $87 billion spending we need to bail Chimpy McFlightsuit out in Iraq. Why? In many cases, the Democrats just want a little more accountability about where the money is actually going (for example, is it just going straight into Halliburton's pockets, with no benefit to anyone? - that's a pretty important question). But many in the media want to tar and feather the democrats anyway. An excerpt:

But it was all of the Democrats fault. They didnt hatch the war plan, didnt plan it, and they didnt launch it. They didnt lie and they didnt screw up the occupation, infuriate the rest of the world, or create a situation where U.S. taxpayers will need to fork over hundreds of billions for years on-end, without any currently credible plan to make the U.S. or the world any safer. Remember, they dont have access to the levers of power in the House, Senate, or White House, so they cant effectively fix the quagmire. And even conservative Republican Chuck Hagel is worried that Congress gave President Bush too much latitude in conducting foreign policy after the Sept. 11. Still, the pundits demand they refrain even from questioning whos going to pay for it, how much, and where the moneys going.

The column also contains some interesting information about the way the California labor troubles are being covered.

Howler Watch

Monday's Daily Howler was a tour de force. In it, Somerby takes a look at the religious nutcase general who is an important player in Iraq. (He might not be the best person to improve our relations with Muslims in that country, let's just put it that way). He also takes a look at potential smears of Wesley Clark now forming in the media, including one which is blatantly fraudulent. He ALSO examines "Bush hatred" with respect to Clinton hatred and Gore hatred in the media. Not bad for a single column.

Also on the topic of General Boykin, thank you to Paul for this link, in which a Christian with both a brain and a heart helps the general along with his theology a bit.

Conservative Idiots Watch

This week's Top Ten Conservative Idiots is as great as ever. An example:

So the heady days of California's bizarre recall election are over, and now it's time to get down to business. Unfortunately it looks like Governor Groping Austrian Beefcake is about to take a shot in the gut from the phased plasma rifle of reality. According to the L.A. Times, Schwarzenegger got "a grim briefing on California's budget Thursday, and emerged appearing sobered." That's right - suddenly Arnold has realized that now he's the governor, he actually has to run the state. Bummer. "The problem was created over the last five years," said Arnie, "and so you can't expect that - even though I've played very, very heroic characters in the movies, but you can't expect me to walk into his office and all of a sudden come out with the answers." What? But surely during the campaign, Arnold kept going on and on about how he was going to swoop in and fix California's problems in the blink of an eye. I mean, I know he didn't explain how he was going to do it, but I got the impression that the fact he played "very, very heroic characters in the movies" was going to be an integral part of his governing technique. Does this mean that we can no longer expect him to pump up Sacramento? What a letdown. I was looking forward to that.