Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Playing offense. Greg Sargent posts this anti-George Allen ad from the anti-war veterans group Vote Vets, harshly criticizing Allen's vote against supplemental appropriations for troops in Iraq (including funds for body armor). It's one of the most aggressive political ads I have ever seen, but it is extremely effective, and does not come off as dirty. And it appears to be accurate; the roll call is here. Don't be misled by the "Yea" next to Allen's name; the vote was for a motion to table (i.e. kill) a supplemental appropriations bill proposed by Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana for "an additional amount for National Guard and Reserve Equipment, $1,047,000,000." The brief text of Landrieu's amendment is here (scroll to the bottom).
Ironically, the very next amendment (SA 453) is one proposed by Senator Allen, which would make it easier for victims of "a foreign state's act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, or hostage taking" (or their families) to sue the foreign state for money damages. Barn doors and horses. Way to keep your eye on the ball, Senator.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Everything that is wrong with the hard-war right, distilled into a single person. Suppose you hear a story about a terrible thing that happened in the Middle East. Two journalists for a major American network are kidnapped by Islamic terrorists, and are eventually forced at gunpoint to participate in a ceremony wherein they purport to convert to Islam. This ceremony is videotaped, and the tape makes its way into the Arab media. The two are eventually released.
Pop quiz! Your reaction to this is:
(a) It's meaningless. Anyone observing the tape would have to be an idiot to think that the conversion was anything other than utterly coerced.
(b) It's an unfortunate media image of Western weakness, but understandable. These men have families.
(c) I am a useless fucking douchebag.
UPDATE - Make that distilled into two people.