Posted by Mary Mancini on December 25, 2006 under Uncategorized | 
Merry Christmas to you and yours!
“Fellow Christ-birth celebrators,
During these holiday times of peace and gifting, it is important to remember that we are at war. Violence and terror lurk around every corner. As our fighting men and women defend our country in Iraq, we must be mindful of the fact that other enemies plot to attack our cherished freedoms here at home.
In the Weekly Radio Address today, I talk about our ongoing efforts to protect the homeland, and my administration’s latest strategy for identify those who would threaten our country. Clickify below to listen. Here is an idea—listen with your loved ones around the holiday table.
http://weeklyradioaddress.com/WRA20061223.htm
Let me close this holiday letter with a special Christmas message to all the terrorists who may subscribe to these weekly emails—you cannot hide and terrorize our country forever. We will find you and kill you.
God bless,
George W. Bush”
Posted by Mary Mancini on December 24, 2006 under Uncategorized |
Summary:
“Now Vilsack! now, Edwards! now, Obama and Clinton!
On, Brownback! on, Romney! on McCain and Thompson!
To go to the White House! Will they heed the call?
Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!”
Listen to: Liberadio(!) Daily: “‘Twas The Year Before the Election” (17:46 16.3MB)
Posted by Freddie on December 22, 2006 under Uncategorized |
So a few weeks ago, the Iraq Study Group (honestly, I didn’t even know there was a congressionally funded U.S. Institute of Peace before the ISG) issued its report and recommendations
(which, like the 9/11 Commission Report
and the Financial Report of the United States
is worth a read by any public citizen) to much fanfare, not all of it good. Shortly thereafter, the New York Post ran a fairly obnoxious cover story calling the ISG “surrender monkeys”. Fast forward just a few more days, and we’re hearing a new buzzword for sending more troops to Iraq: “surge”.
Is it really this easy for the Bush administration to control political media marketing? Is there some ridiculous PR firm working behind the scenes to ensure that no major media outlet can discuss the fact that we’re on the verge of sending more troops to Iraq rather than discussing the fact that we’re on the verge of a surge? Are they really hoping that by rebranding a troop increase as a “surge” that it will somehow be more acceptable to the American public? Sadly, Harry Reid seems to have had his Senate Seltzer Water spiked with some Kool-Aid from Dick Cheney’s desk.
So while the neocons feel the urge to surge, I encourage less breathless readers to go check out William Arkin’s Early Warning, an excellent review of military and security issues that is not quite as irrationally exuberant as John McCain, surge monkey.
Photoshop credit: Mary Mancini
Posted by Mary Mancini on December 21, 2006 under Uncategorized |
The New York Times is reporting on its front page today: “The United States and Britain will begin moving additional warships and strike aircraft into the Persian Gulf region in a display of military resolve toward Iran that will come as the United Nations continues to debate possible sanctions against the country, Pentagon and military officials said Wednesday.” God help us, everyone.
Posted by Mary Mancini on under Uncategorized |
Over the past several months, Bush administration officials have been consistent in their talk of “winning” in Iraq. We are winning. We must win. We can’t leave until we win. A couple of days ago I asked someone - anyone - to explain what “to win” in Iraq means. Crickets (except for this discussion which didn’t answer my question).
In sports, the definition of a “win” is clear - one team gets more runs, points, goals, etc. than the other team. This definition is what a coach uses to create a strategy. Is it different in war or is the definition of a “win” what generals use to create their strategies? If so, then why, with all their talk of winning, hasn’t anyone in the Bush administration been able to define what “winning” in Iraq means?
If you watch interviews with coaches and general managers on ESPN they talk alot about “winning.” It pumps up their team, their fans, and themselves. Is that what the president is doing? Is his talk of winning simply a way to get the American people psyched for another two years of war? Is his strategically-challenged Iraq policy all fluffy rhetoric and no substance?
In the year’s last news conference yesterday, President Bush said he remains confident of victory in Iraq and vowed the United States would not be “run out of the Middle East” by extremists and radicals. So maybe a “win” means that we stand our ground indefinitely? So now the questions becomes, how long do we stand our ground? If winning doesn’t involve scoring more points and there is no final buzzer to signal the end of the game, then when do our troops get to come home?
“The fact that there is still, you know, unspeakable sectarian violence in Iraq, I know that’s troubling to the American people. But I don’t believe most Americans want us just to get out now,” Mr. Bush said yesterday, even though polls show that support for the war is at an all time low. We know that Mr. Bush is stylistically a “Father Knows Best”-type of president, but if Daddy thinks he knows what’s best for us, then are we to blindly follow without a plan? Without a strategy? Without a clear definition of what it means “to win”?
The new Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, is currently in Iraq meeting with the generals. Without defining what it means “to win,” he has said that if we fail in Iraq it could lead to a wider regional conflict in the Middle East. How? Why? When, what and just where, exactly?
Richard Holbrooke, a former ambassador to the United Nations, said “I think you could say that so far, in this reevaluation process, he is only dressing up stay the course.” Any coach worth a damn will tell you that if y ou’re losing, “stay the course” is not a strategy for “winning” the game.
Posted by Mary Mancini on December 19, 2006 under Uncategorized |
According to New America Foundation Middle East and Energy Policy expert and former government official Flynt Leverett, the white house has “forced the CIA to heavily censor a 1000 word op-ed” he planned for the New York Times titled “Dealing with Tehran: Assessing US Diplomatic Options Toward Iran.”
Leverett asserts that the White House is now politicizing the “secrets review” process - “a process that is supposed to be about the protection of classified information, and nothing else” - and is “rewarding those who support Bush’s policies and punishing those don’t.”
He has cheerfully submitted everything’s he’s written before to the review board and not a word has ever been censored. Until now.
Much of what was in his piece was also in a piece written by administration supporter, Kenneth Pollack, another former CIA employee, cleared by the review board, and published.
“It would seem that,” Leverett writes, ” if one is expounding views congenial to the White House, it does not intervene in prepublication censorship, but, if one is a critic, White House officials will use fraudulent charges of revealing classified information to keep critical views from being heard.”
Posted by Mary Mancini on under Uncategorized |
No, really. I’m asking. When Robert Gates, new Secretary of State Defense Secretary, says that failure in Iraq is not an option, what does he mean exactly? Others have said we need to stay until we “win.” What would constitute “a win?” Can someone please tell me? Thanks.
Posted by Freddie on December 17, 2006 under Uncategorized |
Though Mary and I co-host a show (and are seldom seen in the same place at the same time), we are not, in fact the same person. On a weekly round-up of what Nashville was talking about this week, Brittney Gilbert from WKRN and Nashville Is Talking misattributed a quote to me. Here’s what I was alleged to have said:
In Nashville alone right-wing conservative talk show have 34 hours a day in which to spout their hate…that’s 170 housr per week.
See for yourself.
I did a double take when I first saw this. “I didn’t mention anything about spouting hate, did I?” I said to myself.
This journalistic mishap bugs me in part because Brittney was familiar with my testimony, which she had quoted on NIT. But it also bugs me because the FCC public hearing was such an important event. I generally try to avoid name-calling (unless it’s funny), and my testimony to the FCC was not an attack on conservative talk radio or any particular hosts; it was an illustrative case study in a local media market partly controlled by a media conglomerate and serving to contrast available political perspectives in talk radio.
Perhaps she was thinking of something Mary said? Again: same show; different people and, often, different perspectives. Otherwise, Mary would never be able to call me an ignorant slut.
UPDATE: Brittney apologized (as well as in the comments on this post), and I subsequently stepped in it in the comments on her blog. Let’s call it even!
Posted by Freddie on December 16, 2006 under Uncategorized |
As an unmarried person in a long-term, different-sex, committed relationship, I was pleased to see the Alternatives to Marriage Project publish a guide of etiquette for successful interactions with the unmarried members of a family just in time for the holidays.
While I’m in sync with same-sex couples who are suffering from discrimination at the hands of those seeking to “protect marriage”, my position is somewhat different. As an unmarried individual, I’m often surprised at how much discrimination there is levied against unmarried couples in America, regardless of sexual preference. I’ve experienced frustrating episodes in both government bureaucracies and private corporations that would not have existed if I had simply been married. So while same-sex couples around the country are lobbying for marriage rights, I’m lobbying simply for rights.
When we were supporting the (sadly unsuccessful) Vote No on 1 campaign in Tennessee this year, Randy Tarktington, who was leading the campaign, told us that marriage confers more than 1100 rights upon many couples. I can already establish beneficiaries of any sort for my life insurance policy and retirement accounts; why can’t I be considered to have insurable interest in a car I don’t own or retitle it with no fee just because I’ve elected not to get married? Many of the rights provided only to married Americans involve basic decisions involving mutual consent. These rights ought to be available to all consenting adults.
So this holiday season, as you’re thinking about giving and generosity, especially if you’re married, be mindful of Americans who have fewer rights than you do and ask yourself how you can help give all Americans the rights they deserve.
Posted by Mary Mancini on under Uncategorized |
Summary: What’s that we hear in the hallowed Senate halls? “Don’t Tell Mama, I’m for Obama!” Plus, President Bush’s procrastination policy, Senators Reid and Frist get a little cozy, a whistle-blower in Britain whistles an unhappy “we knew there were no WMDs” tune, and finally, “Hey, FCC, give us a chance to make money with a 50,000 watt signal and some balanced programming.”
Listen to: Man-Hugs All Around (33:10 15.2)
