A Whitewash That Won't Wash?

Well, Lord Hutton has issued his report -- full excoriation of the BBC, and full exoneration of 10 Downing Street. Blair and the warfloggers are ecstatic, and the right is attacking the BBC all-out. The rank and file of Aunt Beeb, however, are up in arms, and a full half of the British people aren't buying it:

A poll found yesterday that a majority of people thought Lord Hutton's report was wrong to lay all the blame at the BBC's door. The poll, by NOP, showed 56 per cent thought the peer was wrong to blame only the BBC; 49 per cent said the report was a whitewash, with 40 per cent disagreeing.

A whitewash. Not just unfair, or imbalanced, or biased. A whitewash.

It's important to remember that we're talking about Britain here, not America, where our use of both language and rhetoric are more free-wheeling. This is nothing less than a stunning rebuke of both Hutton's inquiry and Blair's presumptuous crowing. And the fisking of the Hutton report has already begun (the irony of the term's origins -- right-wing bloggers dissecting British reporter Robert Fisk's articles -- are particularly epic in this case). While the Blair administration and BBC try to put an end to the mess, battle lines are already being drawn, and not just on line. News organizations around the world are rallying around vulnerable Aunt Beeb, while Alastair Campbell and News Corp. (owner of Fox and Sky News) go for the jugular.

The row over Dr. Kelly, Hutton, and the BBC isn't over. Not by a long shot. In fact, I'd argue that thanks to Lord Hutton's one-sided report, the battle has just begun.

(/) Roland X
Save Aunt Beeb!

You Never Can Tell

Whoa. First Iowa, and now this.

And I've gotta be honest. I'd mentally put Kerry in the coffin with Lieberman, who will (mercifully) soon lag with the other fringe candidates. How wrong I was. (Although I have to say that perhaps the best thing to come out of Iowa and New Hampshire is that maybe, finally, the Freepers will stop ranting about how Hillary is really honest-and-for-true going to run this year.)

Don't count anyone (other than Lieberman) out yet, though, Dean least of all. First of all, the Doctor's managed a neat bit of political jiujitsu with that "Dean scream" nonsense, and managed a solid second place showing. Remember, General Clark looked like he might nab that spot out from under Dean for a while there. Second, he's still got the money, the organization, and the support. This race is by no means over.

Clark and Edwards, meanwhile, both survive with their effective tie for third. Edwards may have to win South Carolina, but he just might manage it. Clark, for his part, can survive just by doing well through February, and has enough of the Dean equation -- money, organization, support -- to last through Super Tuesday.

In fact, this might prove to be one of the most exciting primaries in recent memory, resulting in the first brokered convention in decades. This could hurt the Democrats if they revert to mudslinging, but if the campaign stays relatively clean, there's nothing like a nice long primary to get that free press (as many bloggers more observant than myself have observed 8^).

Still, whatever anyone -- including Kerry, apparently -- may say, there's no question that we have a new front-runner. Against all odds, his initials are JFK. Personally, I think Edwards has more legitimate Kennedy-in-1960 mojo than Kerry does. Nevertheless, I have to say that Kerry has done what is almost certainly the most important thing a Democratic candidate can do right now: prove that he's up to the challenge of beating George Dubya Bush. He's the first named Democrat (as opposed to Bush vs. The Unknown Dem) to win outright in a "if you voted today" poll. (Ignore the article's gratuitous Dean-bashing.)

Overall, 52 percent of those polled by NEWSWEEK say they would not like to see Bush serve a second term, compared to 44 percent who want to see him win again in November. As a result, Kerry is enjoying a marginal advantage over Bush, a first for the poll. Forty-nine percent of registered voters chose Kerry, compared to 46 percent who re-elected Bush.

No matter how you slice it, that's some pretty potent mojo. And since the talking heads do have some influence left, expect them to begin blathering about how Kerry has been anointed, with the smarmy implication that they are doing the anointing. Which, for some strange reason, will probably help Kerry.

They can be safely ignored. While Kerry would unquestionably make for a tremendous improvement over the Resident, so would any of the others (even Kucinich and Lieberman). Most of Kerry's momentum comes from his ability to convince voters that he's the man to beat Bush in November. Dean, you're my guy, but here's a hint: the movement is important, but Beating Bush Comes First!!! Telling people that they can choose anyone to change presidents isn't going to get you the nomination. Once the Republicans are run by sane people instead of the Legion of Doom, then we can talk about Democrats running on changing America. Right now, changing presidents will demonstrably change America, and only the farthest fringes of the Green party (and Ralph Nader) say otherwise.

(/) Roland X
Go, ABBA, go!

Is Andrew Sullivan Leaving The Dark Side?

This article starts out with the usual rah-rah cheerleading for Bush's rah-rah spinning of the "death and conquest" policy. Yawn. As Sullivan continues, however, he hits Bush hard on some glaring weak points:

But, more profound, the president revealed his deep suspicion of human freedom. Yes, he says he supports it. But in every instance--even charitable and religious institutions--he believes that government needs to get involved. He wants to maintain the Patriot Act intact; he wants to extend the war on drugs to steroids; he wants to prevent gay couples from having the ability to form their own families and be treated equally under the law. He suggests not a single government program to be cut. On social issues, he shifted to the hard right: abstinence programs rather than contraception; an assault on gay couples and families; and millions of dollars in order to subject children to mandatory drug testing in schools. This is not Reaganism. It isn't Gingrichism. It's Big Government Moral Conservatism: fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

Emphasis mine in both cases.

With the back-breaking deficit the Bush Regime's economic Voodoo II is creating, I wouldn't do them the honor of calling them fiscally liberal. Fiscally insane is more like it. That aside, Sullivan (for once) hits the mark firmly. Ironically, a man who was one of Bush's biggest boosters has outlined most of the reasons the Resident shouldn't be elected dogcatcher, let alone Commander-in-Chief: he has no concept of true liberty or justice, he wants to involve the government in almost every aspect of our personal lives, he wants to spend money we don't have and give most of it to his rich buddies, and he wants everyone to shut up about it and do as they're told.

Sure. Bush as more bad things going for him, but most libertarian conservatives want to pretend that problems like poverty and the environment aren't the government's problem. So all in all, this is an excellent start.

Can the Reactionary Right now stop pretending that Bush is freedom's Great White Hope? Probably not. But at least sane conservatives are waking up to the threat his regime poses to our future. Let us hope they stay awake long enough to kick the Mayberry Machiavellis out of the White House.

(/) Roland X
"Our lives are remembered by the gifts we leave our children."
--Preston Whitmore, "Atlantis: the Lost Empire"

Sorry, Dubya, they're not even good fake WMDs

Remember those shells the Danes found? The ones with the chemical warfare agents in them? Guess what? Via Calpundit, we learn that they were just another wild goose chase:

Four initial tests by British and Danish experts came up positive for blister agents, Danish spokesman, Capt. Kim Vibe Michelsen, told The Associated Press.

But later tests by U.S. experts from the Iraq Survey Group on five of the shells have shown no trace of chemical weapons, the Danish military said.

Of course, buried twelve year old battlefield munitions aren't WMDs anyway, even if they do have some chemical agents in them. And to the warfloggers' credit, most of them didn't jump on this one as a justification for the war. Also something to keep in mind is that the "final verdict" isn't in yet, so stay tuned. All things considered, however, it looks like another Great Blight Hope turned into another wild goose egg -- Truth a thousand, Bush zero.

(/) Roland X
At least they were more dangerous than the two "trailers of doom."

Those ACLU Fascists Defend...Rush Limbaugh?!?

Y'know, I'm probably going to regret this, but I'm actually going to give props to *sucks it in* Rush Limbaugh, for showing good grace as the ACLU comes to his aid:

Here's a quote from Howard Simon, the executive director of the ACLU of Florida in a statement. "It may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh but we've always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights and we will continue to safeguard the equality, fairness and privacy of everybody regardless of race, economic status or political point of view." [AP:] "The organization said it wanted to vindicate every Floridian's privacy by making sure they complied with the law. There is a specific right to privacy enumerated in the Florida constitution. The elected state attorney had no comment with the ACLU's involvement. Spokesman Mike Edmondson said that prosecutors who protected stay laws have protected my rights throughout the investigation."

How many other suspects have had the list of medications that they have had prescribed for them at a pharmacy leafed through on worldwide television? We know who this Edmonson guy is. He is the informant in the elected state attorney's office for the Palm Beach Post as my attorney stated in the medical records hearing. So the ACLU is in on the case now. We welcome the ACLU.

Link his, emphasis mine.

Sure, I'm tempted to use this to take a shot at Limbaugh for hypocrisy. But I'm not going to. Sometimes, you need to see things for yourself to have your eyes opened to them.

Instead, I'm going to use this opportunity to take a shot at Bill O'Reilly. <EG>

I've written an article for DMY spotlighting Mr. "O'Really" and his penchant for calling the ACLU "fascist." (It isn't up as of this writing, but should be soon.) After all, there are those evil libruls they defend, they fight to separate church and state, they promote smut -- how dare they!

Yeah. They're defending the privacy rights of Rush freakin' Limbaugh. Hard to get more fascist than that, huh?

(/) Roland X
Ahhh. Irony, sweet irony.