Earlier I had a post noting that the reports of WMD from old programs noted in the latest batch of Wikileaks documents does nothing to support Bush’s argument to rush to war. Media Matters makes this argument in far more detail.
Earlier I had a post noting that the reports of WMD from old programs noted in the latest batch of Wikileaks documents does nothing to support Bush’s argument to rush to war. Media Matters makes this argument in far more detail.
Using the nonexistent threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to go to war was among the worst of many blunders during the Bush years.Even after government reports admitted that the search was about as successful as O.J. Simpson’s search for the “real killer,” some conservatives continued to defend Bush on this. The conservative blogosphere has presented an alternative reality on many matters, including spreading a myth of meaningful discoveries WMD.
Conservatives are so desperate to find justification for this myth that they are suddenly drawn to Wikileaks. They ignore the fact that the issue was never whether there was any evidence that there had ever been WMD in Iraq. We know that Iraq had WMD. After all, as the old joke went, we have the receipts. The question at the onset of the war was over whether Saddam possessed such a terrible arsenal of WMD that he could wipe out the western world within minutes, as supporters of the war claimed, requiring an immediate attack by the United States. Nothing presented in the leaked documents shows justification for the rush to war.
Update: More at Media Matters.
Razor, a made for television movie prequel to Battlestar Galactica, included a Bill Odama who is older than the child in Caprica but younger than the one in the main series. SyFy had planned on developing an on-line series entitled Battlestar Galactica: Blood & Chrome about Odama during the first Cylon War. They have now decided to order it to be made as an actual spin-off television show to air in 2011 or 2012.
While a decision on renewing Caprica isn’t due until early November, I take this as a bad sign, suspecting they are ordering this show as a replacement. This is all pure speculation, but I would think that the obvious time to run a show on the first Cylon War would be after Caprica concludes, unless SyFy really thinks that two simultaneous Battlestar Galactica spin-offs would be successful.
I think they made a serious mistake with Caprica setting up so many cliff-hangers and then returning months later. The show returned with far too many plot lines, making it very difficult for any new viewers to get interested in the show. It isn’t even all that easy for returning viewers to remember all the details that went on before in each plot line. Fortunately some were wrapped up last week as Daniel Graystone regained control of his company and the number of characters to keep track of were reduced by some recent deaths.
Things don’t look any better for V than for Caprica to survive. The show was postponed until winter, and now has bee cut from thirteen to ten episodes. The show is still in production and can adjust the storyline based upon the reduced episodes. Hopefully they are writing a good conclusion for the series.
The BBC has decided to “fast track” the Doctor Who Christmas episode so that it will be seen in other markets within days after broadcasting on the BBC. The hope is that this will reduce the number of people who download the show, as commonly happens when there is a delay. I think that the only way to really prevent international fans from downloading episodes is to broadcast shows with large international followings such as Doctor Who the same day. The difference in time zones makes it especially easy for BBC shows to be available on line by prime time in the United States. As long as time permits me to watch, I intend to watch the episode on December 25.
Speaking of downloaded BBC shows, Sherlock began to air tonight in the United States. I will not review a show this soon after airing to avoid spoilers, but for those interested there is a review available here.The final season of Friday Night Lights also premiers this week on Dish Network, with NBC to air it next year.
Ausiello reports that Penny’s dad on Big Bang Theory will be played by Keith Carradine–Frank Lundy from Dexter. Ausiello also has some speculation on who will have roles in Torchwood. One possibility is that Enver Gjokaj from Dollhouse will get the role of FBI agent Rex Matheson.
Fred Johnson is a candidate for Congress in Michigan’s Second Congressional District, fighting an uphill battle for the seat being vacated by Pete Hoekstra. Flipping this district would be a great way to tell those who are predicting a Republican wave that they are wrong. Here is his latest ad:
Getting all those who voted Democratic in 2008 to turn out this year is a good message for any Congressional district.
Johnson has also had an ad directly criticizing the Tea Party agenda. While I’m not sure that was the best way to advertise, as opposed to directly challenging the views of his Republican opponent, you still have to respect a candidate who takes on the Tea Party:
If the vote turns out as predicted in the polls, the Republican Party should take control of the House and possibly the Senate. There are some factors which might keep this from coming about, including the facts that even those saying they plan to vote Republican have a very low view of the GOP and so many of the Republican candidates are bat-shit crazy.
Many of the candidates are extremists who hold views which no thinking, rational person should support. The Republican candidates often hold views denying evolution, denying the scientific consensus on climate change, denying our heritage of separation of church and state, and opposing abortion even in cases of rape or incest. While such extremist views have become commonplace as the GOP has moved increasingly far to the right, some of their candidates continue to make statements which a few years ago might have been surprising, and which fortunately are not yet held by all Republicans. Here are two examples of Republicans who advocate extreme measures if they do not get their way, demonstrating hostility towards our system of separation of powers and hostility towards the democratic process.
One Republican candidate advocates defunding the Supreme Court if they don’t approve of its decisions:
CONSTITUENT: Keith, I have a question concerning the courts. It seems that the courts are having the final say on these matters, the Supreme Court. But isn’t it the Congress that can ultimately override the Supreme Court, the checks and balances?
ROTHFUS: Yeah, there are different checks and balances you can do. Congress’s ultimate weapon is funding. If the Supreme Court rules you have to do something, we’ll just take away funding for it. You can always pass a constitutional amendment. I myself have several amendments I’m thinking of. One is to tell the Supreme Court that when you consider American constitutional principles, American constitutional rights, you cannot rely on foreign law to adjudicate those. We have certain members of the Court who want to draw from Europe, and draw from Europe, Europe, and Europe. They’ll never want to draw from Saudi Arabia or something. They talk about these international evolving standards of decency, and they’re always talking about western Europe, which is dying. They want to incorporate really socialist principles into our constitutional regime.
Another Republican candidate even called for violent overthrow of the government:
Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership.
In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising “is not the first option,” but it is “on the table.” That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks “inappropriate.”
Comments from the current leadership are not this extreme, but serious voters might still have qualms about voting for Republicans when a membership of the leadership states that compromise is not on the table:
Republicans aren’t interested in compromising with President Obama on major issues if they retake the House or Senate, a senior GOP lawmaker said.
“Look, the time to go along and get along is over,” said Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), the chairman of the House Republican Conference. “House Republicans know that. We’ve taken firm and principled stands against their big government plans throughout this Congress, and we’ve got, if the American people will send them, we’ve got a cavalry of men and women headed to Washington, D.C. that are going to stand with us.”
Pence said his party wouldn’t compromise on issues like spending or healthcare reform, two of the weightiest items on Congress’s agenda next year, when the Republicans could control one or both chambers.
With Republicans holding views such as these, hopefully once they get into the voting booth voters will have second thoughts about voting for Republicans. Perhaps the prospect of such people taking control of Congress will even get some of those unenthusiastic Democrats to turn out to vote.
A Harvard Institute of Politics poll of 18-29 year-old voters (via Political Wire) shows that “less just 27% say they will definitely be voting in November, a drop of nine points from eleven months ago.” The poll also shows that they would prefer that Congress remain controlled by Democrats by 53 percent to 42 percent.
If this is what they want, they need to get out to vote. If young voters stay home, the chances of a GOP controlled Congress is much higher. Promoting apathy has always been part of the Republican strategy. They know that the right wing rhetoric which fires up their base will not appeal to all. They balance this with their dishonest attacks on Democrats, knowing that even if they can’t get some groups of voters to vote for them, they can still win if they can keep more potential Democratic voters from turning out.
Juan Williams was fired as a news analyst by NPR for comments taken as anti-Muslim while appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s show:
The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”
Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.
He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”
Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Mr. Williams said.
There has already been considerable debate on line over these comments. Taken by themselves there is a lot of room for discussion and disagreement, but if we are solely looking at these comments alone I personally do not believe they were sufficient to fire Mr. Williams.
Things get more complicated when looking at the specific duties of Williams’ position and the long history of problems. Williams really should have been removed as a news analyst long ago. If he had an show where it was more appropriate for a host to express their own opinions it would be a different matter, but a news analyst should be held to a higher standard. I believe Williams should have been removed as a news analyst long ago, just as I agreed with NBC in removing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as anchors of debate and election coverage. Williams should not appear on Fox for the same reasons other NPR correspondents have been instructed that they should not attend Jon Stewart’s upcoming rally.
At best Williams is a second rate journalist and his removal will be to NPR’s benefit. Williams cannot reliably serve as an objective news analyst if he also works for Fox. Fox has repeatedly been exposed as an operation formed to promote extremist right wing views and support the Republican Party and is not a legitimate news outfit. Williams’ work at Fox has long been an issue at NPR. It was naive to think that Williams could fill his roles at both networks. Williams was moved from correspondent to analyst due to the credibility problems raised by his work at Fox but such bias is not appropriate for either position. NPR should have given Williams the choice long ago of either discontinuing his work at Fox or leaving his role as a new analyst at NPR.
It was a mistake to fire Williams over specific comments as opposed to the overall problems created by Williams working for both a legitimate news organization and a right wing propaganda outfit. I might feel sorry for Williams if his career and livelihood had been ruined over these comments alone but his income will actually increase tremendously from both an expanded role at Fox and potentially elsewhere in the right wing noise machine.
Unfortunately most of the discussion has centered on Williams’ latest comments as opposed to his overall suitability to remain at NPR. The reasons are better clarified in this memo to the stations:
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:05 PM Subject: Juan WilliamsDear AREPS,
Thank you for all of your varying feedback on the Juan Williams situation. Let me offer some further clarification about why we terminated his contract early.
First, a critical distinction has been lost in this debate. NPR News analysts have a distinctive role and set of responsibilities. This is a very different role than that of a commentator or columnist. News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts.
Second, this isn’t the first time we have had serious concerns about some of Juan’s public comments. Despite many conversations and warnings over the years, Juan has continued to violate this principal.
Third, these specific comments (and others made in the past), are inconsistent with NPR’s ethics code, which applies to all journalists (including contracted analysts):
“In appearing on TV or other media . . . NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows . . . that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.”
More fundamentally, “In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.”
Unfortunately, Juan’s comments on Fox violated our standards as well as our values and offended many in doing so.
We’re profoundly sorry that this happened during fundraising week. Juan’s comments were made Monday night and we did not feel it would be responsible to delay this action.
This was a tough decision and we appreciate your support.
Thanks,
Vivian
Vivian Schiller
President & CEO, NPR