Author Archives: Bob

Cheney now seven points behind the public beating of children

Posted on by

Bush’s approval rating has fallen to 35. 
Maybe America is starting to realize that secret prisons and endless
war aren’t really the best government we can possibly hope for.

Dick Cheney, in the same poll, has a 19 percent approval rating.


19 percent.

That’s two points less popular than cheating on your spouse and seven points behind corporal punishment in schools (scroll down).

That’s down in what can be politely called lunatic territory.  As I’ve been pointing out for years, twenty or thirty percent of Americans believe any insane thing you can imagine.

Dick Cheney is now 18 points behind the number of people who believe alien beings have secretly contacted the U.S. government.

Bush, similarly, now trails the number of people who think astrology is scientific by five points.

Scottie McClellan, however, can still spin things: Bush only trails the aliens by two points.

PS — I notice that this piece is getting a lot of traffic from Australia, thanks to The Contrarian, a fairly new blog at the Sydney Morning Herald, which is one of my favorite papers on Earth.

So, welcome, O visitors from a beautiful land of strikingly sane people.  Two quick notes:

First, congrats on the cricket win over the West Indies.  I
watched almost every minute on satellite.  (I’m a novice, but I truly
love it.)  I thought Bracken and Watson both looked promising (at least
if the latter still has both shoulders attached) although the Windies
looked so demoralized by the end that I wasn’t sure one could measure
how good the team really was.  Your thoughts?

Second, I’m rather keen on moving to Oz long-term.  So, if you’ll forgive my directness: if anybody has reason to hire a decently-traveled American with almost twenty years’ experience at the banging of amusing words together for broadcast, print, and live performance — or if you know someone who does — by all means, say hello by email.  (And feel free to send the link around, incidentally, if you’re of a mind to help a brother out.)

I’m committed to finishing and promoting my next book here in the U.S., but after that, I’m hoping to make it Down Under in time for the next Ashes.

When I finally do get down there, I’ve got the first shout.

Fitzgerald: reading the carefully-chosen words

Posted on by

Been meaning to mention: one thing that seemed clear during Patrick Fitzgerald’s press
conference on Friday — and which is even clearer if you review the transcript — is how careful the man is to stay within the limits of what he is legally allowed to say.  For example:

I can’t give you answers on what we
know and don’t know, other than what’s charged in the indictment.  It’s
not because I enjoy being in that position.  It’s because the law is
that way.  I actually think the law should be that way.

Let’s look, though, at what he also said, quite plainly:

[A]ll I’ll say is that, look, we have
not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a
covert agent.  We have not charged that.  And so I’m not making that
assertion.

Notice the "and so" part, which, given the confines of the situation, is explanatory: I am not making that assertion because we have not charged that.

Add the word "yet" (which of course may not apply), and you see the point.  In no way is this the same as saying they won’t.

If and when they do, there will be plenty of assertions appropriate to that indictment.

Fitzgerald: reading the carefully-chosen words

Posted on by

Been meaning to mention: one thing that seemed clear during Patrick Fitzgerald’s press
conference on Friday — and which is even clearer if you review the transcript — is how careful the man is to stay within the limits of what he is legally allowed to say.  For example:

I can’t give you answers on what we
know and don’t know, other than what’s charged in the indictment.  It’s
not because I enjoy being in that position.  It’s because the law is
that way.  I actually think the law should be that way.

Let’s look, though, at what he also said, quite plainly:

[A]ll I’ll say is that, look, we have
not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a
covert agent.  We have not charged that.  And so I’m not making that
assertion.

Notice the "and so" part, which, given the confines of the situation, is explanatory: I am not making that assertion because we have not charged that.

Add the word "yet" (which of course may not apply), and you see the point.  In no way is this the same as saying they won’t.

If and when they do, there will be plenty of assertions appropriate to that indictment.

More secret CIA prisons, one in Soviet-era compound

Posted on by

Today’s Washington Post is a must-read if you want to understand why America’s reputation as a defender of human rights is in shreds.

It is illegal for the government to
hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United
States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several
former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government
officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA’s
internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of
several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or
to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing.

Host countries have signed the U.N. Convention Against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as has the
United States. Yet CIA interrogators in the overseas sites are
permitted to use the CIA’s approved "Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques," some of which are prohibited by the U.N. convention and by
U.S. military law. They include tactics such as "waterboarding," in
which a prisoner is made to believe he or she is drowning.

Some detainees apprehended by the CIA and transferred to foreign
intelligence agencies have alleged after their release that they were
tortured, although it is unclear whether CIA personnel played a role in
the alleged abuse. Given the secrecy surrounding CIA detentions, such
accusations have heightened concerns among foreign governments and
human rights groups about CIA detention and interrogation practices.

Keep in mind how many of the people have turned out to be innocent. 
Check out this report on two guys who were among what Rumsfeld called
"the worst of the worst" — recently released after three years in Guantanamo simply for writing a misunderstood piece of satire.

Incidentally, UN human rights investigators want to talk with the remaining Gitmo prisoners.  Rumsfeld told them, basically, to screw themselves.

The longer these people are in power, the more enemies we will have.