Obama and His Big Blue Paintbrush

Last night, Barack Obama won an election of tremendous historical and political significance. As an Obama supporter, I'm certainly very pleased with the victory as well as the positive reception his election has received around the world.

But my celebratory exterior belies the nerd within. I must have spent 18 out of the last 24 hours staring at that electoral map, trying to uncover the secrets behind Obama's lopsided drubbing of John McCain. Certainly, if you are one to believe the pre-election polling, this kind of performance was expected of Obama. In spite of these polling data, McCain's claims of a comeback and the so-called "Bradley Effect" left many on both sides of the aisle uncertain about what would happen on November 4th. As it turns out, the election went almost exactly according to the pre-election polling. Obama even stands to add icing to the cake if he wins either of the two remaining undecided races in Missouri and North Carolina.

So how did he do it? I'll save the hard analysis for another day, but studying the electoral map and comparing it to the 2004 election geography, some very telling facts arise that help tell the story of Obama's victory:

• If you give North Carolina to Obama and Missouri to McCain (as it appears it will go), Obama will end up winning 364 electoral votes, 94 more than is needed to win and 78 more than Bush's 286 electoral votes won in 2004. It is also 26 more than Karl Rove predicted.



• In addition to holding every blue state from 2004, Obama won nine states in 2008 that John Kerry lost: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.



• In addition to the newly acquired blue states, Obama pushed McCain in other traditionally red states. Obama got within ten percentage points of McCain in seven states carried by Bush in 2004: Missouri (-1 point), Montana (-3 points), Georgia (-5 points), North Dakota (-8 points), South Dakota (-8 points), Arizona (-9 points) and South Carolina (-9 points). Bush carried these states by an average of 16.3 points.



• In the 2004 "Bush States," Bush beat Kerry by an average margin of victory of 18.2 percent. In these same states in 2008, McCain beat Obama by an average of only 9.5 percent.



• Obama won his home state of Illinois by 25 points, while McCain won Arizona by only 9 points. (Obama also won his former home state of Hawaii by 45 points.)



• In 2004 Kerry won six states by 3 or fewer points: Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Obama won these same six states by an average of 12.3 points.



• Compared to Bush in 2004, McCain performed better in only two states, Louisiana and Arkansas. McCain did roughly the same in Alaska and Tennessee, and worse than Bush in the remaining 46 states.

The Evolution Debate Rages On (for some reason)

What other evidence do you need?

As if it isn't bad enough that American teens can't find Iraq on a map and think drinking bleach prevents the spread of HIV, the fundamentalist wing of the Republican party is still insisting on teaching children incorrect information about the origin of species. And it seems as though there is a very concerted effort by many Americans to personally disprove the theory of evolution. This effort is not spearheaded by any scientific rigor, mind you, but by rejecting evolution, thus remaining intellectually ignorant to the point where we might stop evolving altogether.

Today, the Wall Street Journal published an article detailing a new round of efforts by Christian Conservatives aimed at "encourag[ing] or requir[ing] public-school teachers to cast doubt on a cornerstone of modern science." From the look of things, it would seem that these efforts are unnecessary. Several recent surveys have indicated that about half of all Americans reject the theory of evolution altogether. In addition, the percentage of those who believe evolution is strictly a natural occurrence (i.e. no influence from a "higher power") is somewhere in the area of 15 percent. These data exist despite the fact that evolution is taught in nearly every public school system, and is regarded by scientists as a near scientific certainty. When I first saw the results of these surveys, I had one of those "oh that's right, I live in a blue state" moments. You know, like "Why is that liquor store closed at 5 pm?" or "Wow, I didn't know they still made Buicks."

National Geographic did a cover story on evolution a few years ago. The article is a brilliant and concise look at the theories Darwin proposed in his On the Origin of Species, the mountains of supporting evidence that has surfaced since, and the nature of the Creation-Evolution debate. The most brilliant part of the article in my opinion was the title,"Was Darwin Wrong?" It suggested that perhaps some new evidence had arisen recently that would cast doubt on Darwin's claims. Of course, if you read the article, you learn that, as most evidence suggests, Darwin was right. The title likely lured in many evolution skeptics looking for validation of their skepticism, only to learn how utterly complete and satisfying the theory is after nearly 150 years. A key passage comes from the first paragraph, showing that evolution is not functionally different from other routinely accepted scientific theories:

If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence.

So what makes evolution such a controversial subject? Why do we not see similar views when it comes to other well-established, rigorously tested theories like gravity, electricity, relativity, the round Earth, the heliocentric solar system? Is it because evolution is too slow as to be observable? Perhaps, but so is the aforementioned continental shift, and you don't see "stationary land mass" advocates pressuring school boards or state legislatures. Evolution is extremely complex, and maybe this complexity accounts for people's unwillingness to accept it. Of course, one does not need to understand a scientific theory to embrace it. Theories of chemistry, physics, neurology and medicine are often quite complex, yet these disciplines do not contain a theory as mystifyingly shunned as evolution. Perhaps the theory of evolution, just 150 years old, is still too new to be fully embraced. However, the idea that the dinosaurs were the victims of an asteroid or meteor colliding with the Earth is now the prevailing extinction theory, yet one that has been around for less than 30 years. So maybe it is a combination of these characteristics that explains all the skepticism. Or maybe it's something else....

If the theory of evolution were laid out on the first page of the best-selling book in the world, the number of people espousing this idea would likely approach 100%. Of course, this book instead begins with the story of creation. I call it a "story" because creationism is not a "theory," and it always bothers me to hear it referred to in that manner. A "theory," according to the common definition, is "a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable." Creation is not predictive, testable, nor is it any formalized expression of observations. So to include it alongside evolution as a valid explanation of the origin and diversity of species is absurd. But I digress.

If someone tried to tell you the sun revolved around the earth or that babies come from storks, they would be immediately fitted for a straight jacket. Yet evolution has some very powerful and vocal opponents who would like to see creationism taught in public schools, as if creation and evolution were somehow two sides of the same coin. President Bush has himself stated that he believes "the jury is still out" on evolution and that Intelligent Design (the euphemism Christians Conservatives have adopted to make creationism sound at least somewhat legitimate) should be taught alongside evolution.

So with the United States being a predominantly Christian nation, and Christian conservative activists and even the president fighting for against evolution, it is not difficult to imagine that so few Americans believe in it. Interestingly, the percentage of people who believe that evolution is a strictly scientific process is very close to the percentage of people who identify themselves as non-religious. The fact is, evolution and creationism are two explanations of the same phenomenon: one is a scientific explanation and the other is a religious one. One could even argue that creationism is not even a religious belief, but simply a belief that the people who wrote the bible held at the time. I think that creationism should be kept out of the public schools, not out of a conflict with the First Amendment, but because it is no longer the prevailing scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. I've never been to medical school, but I'm pretty certain they don't teach the theory of the humours alongside Grey's Anatomy. Therein lies the problem with the form of Christianity that exists throughout much of the United States. It is seen by many as an "all or nothing" religion, meaning if you are to believe in anything contained in the Bible, you have to believe everything. While I am not religious, there are many parts of the Bible that I recognize as useful tools in leading a full, moral existence. The Bible, however should not be seen as a means to explain the unknown. Our society has entrusted the institutions of science to explain worldly phenomena, and that trust has been highly successful in achieving an understanding of our lives.

The Freedom-hating Muslim: A Reality Check

I have dedicated many of these pages to the political polling data of Americans. However, in a time when our leaders are telling us that the greatest threat our country has ever faced comes from the Arab world, wouldn't it be interesting to examine what Arabs think?


In fact, this week the 2008 Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll was published, containing some very telling data. The survey (which interviewed subjects in six different Arab countries) found that 83% of the Arab public views the United States unfavorably. That finding alone is not particularly surprising. However, the study also found that Arabs' attitudes of the United States are overwhelmingly influenced by U.S. foreign policy as opposed to "American values."

Only 12% of Arabs indicated that their attitudes towards the U.S. were determined by American values. This is an overwhelmingly low percentage when you consider people often use "religion" and "values" interchangeably, and compared to the predominantly Muslim Arab world, Muslims in the U.S. make up a mere 0.6% of the population. For years we have been told that the 9/11 attacks and "The Great Satan" rhetoric coming from the Arab world was a direct assault on American values. However, as polling data (and, well, common sense) suggest, perhaps the best way to determine the attitudes of people in the Middle East is to actually ask them.

Of course, these data allow us to view the erroneous statements and beliefs of prominent Republicans in a whole new light.

George W. Bush

Perhaps the most famous example of this fallacy was the post-9/11 "analysis" of President Bush: "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world....They hate our freedoms," Bush proposed. "Our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

As ridiculous as the notion of someone hating freedom may sound, most Americans bought into this idea at the time.

Rev. Jerry Falwell

When he wasn't busy outing children's TV characters, the reverend chimed in with his own analysis of the 9/11 attacks:

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'

While Falwell later apologized for the remarks, placing the blame for the death of 3,000 innocent civilians squarely at the feet of the American Left hardly seems like a slip of the tongue.

Rudy Giuliani vs. Ron Paul

In a May 2007 Republican debate, Ron Paul asserted that the United States was attacked on 9/11 in part as blowback from of an interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. Giuliani took exception, calling Paul's hypothesis "absurd." The pro-war Fox News audience erupted in applause, as it appeared Giuliani had easily bested the unpatriotic Paul. Paul didn't back down, however, responding with what rational-thinking Americans know to be the truth:

If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us cause we're rich and we're free. They attack us cause we're over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

As it turns out, Ron Paul was right. While Giuliani got the applause, Paul's campaign has raised more money and won more delegates than Giuliani's, and Paul is still technically in the race, compared to Giuliani, who dropped out three months ago.

John McCain

Certainly it is still very possible for a Republican to run a successful campaign while still making this error. In fact, John McCain's error is no slip of the tongue either - it's in writing on his official campaign website, http://www.johnmccain.com/. McCain states that:

The [9/11] tragedy highlighted a failure of national policy to respond to the development of a global terror network hostile to the American people and our values.

Why have these politicians repeatedly made this specious error in spite of it's utter implausibility? Simple. Because it is easier to comprehend than decades of American meddling in the Middle East, supporting a coup in Iran, defending Israel, bombing Lybia, establishing bases in Saudi Arabia, as well as this latest Iraq debacle. And it's easier on the conscience for Americans to tell themselves, "Oh, terrorists are just crazy" or "They just despise our values" rather than accept that their own country's reckless imperial foreign policy decisions have created dangerous enemies abroad.

Let's just examine exactly how idiotic is the notion of the Freedom-Hating Terrorist. Take, for example, an Arab prisoner at Guantanamo. I would seriously doubt he would prefer captivity to freedom, let alone be willing to kill for his right to remain imprisoned. That is absurd. I'm also fairly certain he would be very pleased to be afforded the right of habeus corpus (which we Americans frequently enjoy). The right to practice religion freely and the opportunity to prosper economically are also likely to appeal to both Americans and Arabs alike.

Even if you could assume that all of these values didn't appeal to the majority of the Arab world, lack of appeal simply isn't enough to justify horrific terrorist acts perpetrated against the West. If people are willing to kill or be killed, it almost always accompanies the promise of reward or heroism. It's hard to see how killing an innocent person because you don't like their values is particularly rewarding or heroic. Yes, I know about the 72 virgins, or whatever the number is. But you can't conflate religious fundamentalism with terrorism. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. The religious aspect and the promise of martyrdom makes committing suicide attacks easier for the attackers to go through with, but it is not the motivating factor behind the attack. If it were, wouldn't radical Islamic terrorism be raining down on all of the non-Muslim world? Instead, nearly every Islamic terrorist attack on record - from Munich, to Pan-Am 103, to the London and Madrid subway bombings and the Iraqi insurgency - was motivated not by religious fanaticism, but by what the attackers saw as retaliation for unjustified acts committed against them.

The motives behind the 9/11 attacks are no different. The 9/11 Commission Report found that even Osama bin Laden, as ideological as any Muslim, claimed the 9/11 attack was not motivated by disdain for American values, but in retaliation for American foreign policy. In a 2004 video, bin Laden traced the genesis of the attacks as far back as the 1982 U.S.-led attack on Lebanon. And rather than being an enemy of freedom, bin Laden asserted that the attacks were meant to "restore freedom to our nation." Certainly the 9/11 attack was a reprehensible act for which no justification exists, but that doesn't mean those responsible were acting out of sheer lunacy. Making up fables like "They hate our freedoms" is not only untrue, but dismissing the real motivations behind the attack only serves to make another attack more likely.

We know that the idea that "they hate our freedoms" is preposterous, so why do people still believe it to be true? To better understand the post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy debacle, we need to examine a little social psychology. The incorrect belief that Arabs hate American values stems from a broader social phenomenon known as the Fundamental Attribution Error. Psychologists define the error as "the tendency to overestimate the internal and underestimate the external factors when explaining the behaviors of others." In other words, people (normal people, for this is not a cognitive disorder) tend to believe the behavior of others is more a function of the type of person they are rather than what situations may have contributed to the behavior. Most of us have been in the situation where someone driving in the car in front of us has made a questionable driving maneuver, after which we thought (or said aloud) "What a dumb asshole!" Chances are the driver is neither dumb nor an asshole, but was rather influenced by children in the car, a phone call, another driver, stress, or some other external factor or factors.

So as it relates to the analysis of terrorist acts, United States politicians and pundits have over-emphasized the personality-based explanation (these guys are crazy freedom-haters) and under-emphasized the external factors (U.S. intervention in the Middle East). In fact, as Patrick Rael of the Bowdoin Orient illustrates, Osama bin Laden and others have not only claimed to be acting in retaliation for U.S. military intervention, but have also stressed that they are themselves "freedom fighters." Thus any idea that Muslim terrorists "hate freedom" is preposterous because they feel that is the very goal for which they strive. More than just an exercise in relativism, the inability of both the United States and Muslim extremists to view each other with objectivity has had disastrous consequences.

The Times They Are A-Changin'

This week, cable news channels severed ties with two right-wing hosts when Tucker Carlson and John Gibson were let go by MSNBC and Fox News, respectively.

Tucker Carlson is an annoying media figure for several reasons. First, he's the kind of newsperson that claims to be non-partisan, while at the same time referring to himself as "the most right-wing person I know." Secondly, that stupid bowtie. After years of being known essentially as "that douchebag with the bowtie," Carlson felt the need to announce on his show in 2006 that he was moving to the more conventional necktie. Now, his choice of neck apparel is no longer a high priority. Carlson will be replaced by David Gregory, MSNBC announced this week.




John Gibson has a long history of bigotry. Among his most notable outlandish remarks are his statement that non-Christians were "following the wrong religion," and that Hillary Clinton had made "a deal with Al Qaeda." He defended his network's incessant coverage of the Anna Nicole Smith story, accusing journalists who covered real news like the Iraq War of "news-guy snobbery." Recently, Gibson got into hot water for mocking the death of actor Heather Ledger. On March 12, 2008, Fox News Channel announced it was replacing Gibson's "The Big Story" in favor of "election-year programming." That could very well be the case, as for the first time in years, CNN's election coverage has garnered more viewers than Fox, continuing a general ratings slide indicative of Fox's alignment with the floundering Republican Party.


I found the following to be an interesting observation on how things are going in this country politically. After September 11th, Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect on ABC, and That's My Bush, a satire of formulaic sitcoms starring the current President airing on Comedy Central, were both taken off the air. While Bush got the axe due mainly to financial concerns, it would have been difficult to imagine a show lampooning the White House to be successful in late 2001. On the other hand, Maher's program was cancelled almost entirely due to comments Maher made about U.S. foreign policy in the aftermath of 9/11.

Today, roughly six years later, Bill Maher is back on the air in a similar format on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher. The show is currently in it's sixth season and has been nominated for seven primetime Emmys.

Similarly, Comedy Central is airing a new Bush-centered comedy, Lil' Bush. The show has received mixed reviews, but is now airing it's second season of episodes. While the show is lighthearted in nature, the light in which the title character and his "pals" are painted is quite scathing.

So making fun of Bush in America has been a real roller-coaster ride:

2001 (pre-9/11): Acceptable

2001 (post-9/11): Not Acceptable

2002 through 2007: Criticism of Bush appropriate, but not exactly comical

2007 to the present: Acceptable. He's a horrible president and we've just accepted it.

"Oh Dana"

"It's okay, Dana. You're still a lot smarter than me."

I certainly don't envy the life of a White House Press Secretary. You basically get in front of a microphone everyday and spew administration propaganda and lies. It's a lot like the Rush Limbaugh show, but without the convenient physical anonymity radio provides. George W. Bush is on his fourth press secretary in 7 years. His latest, Dana Perino, is a refreshing change of pace from the quick-witted, smooth-talking styles of Ari Fleischer, Scott McClelland and Tony Snow, Bush's three previous press secretaries. No, Ms. Perino kind of just seems lost up there. Instead of simply spewing out the pre-approved administration lies, which she does frequently enough, she often appears as if she's making stuff up on the fly.

Last week, Dana Perino drew the ire of Democratic lawmakers by labeling the 110th U.S. Congress as the "Do-nothing Congress." Perino made the statement to explain President Bush's marked decline in the use of controversial signing statements in 2007. In fact, in 2007 Congress passed 11 more bills than the Republican-controlled Congress of 2006. And the Democrats were able to get all this done in spite of the fact that seven out of the eight vetoes issued during the Bush presidency were issued in 2007.

So was this moniker dropped by Perino part of a concerted effort by the GOP to smear the Democrats in Congress? Certainly Dems have been accused (unjustly) of not supporting the troops and aiding terrorists, but the "Do-nothing" comment appears to be a creation of Perino herself. And if she had done her homework, she would have realized what an inappropriate and ill-informed comment it was. Despite intense opposition from the White House, this Congress still passed more bills into law than the more aptly named "Rubber Stamp Congress" of 2006.

Of course this was not the first time Ms. Perino embarrassed herself in such a fashion.

• In a January 2008 press conference, Perino eschewed a reporter's question about the looming recession and budget crisis, claiming simply that "math is not my strong suit.”



• Despite graduating college with a minor in political science, Perino admittedly does not know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was. On a December 2007 edition of NPR's game show, "Wait, Wait . . . Don't Tell Me," Perino retold the story of how she was flustered by a reporter's question about the historic event, saying she thought it had to do with "Cuba and missiles, or something." She later told her husband about her "deer in headlights" experience, to which he replied, "Oh, Dana." Perhaps we might not expect the President to know pertinent U.S. history, or be able to find Namibia on a map, but his official mouthpiece should be able to.

• Following the Virginia Tech school shooting in 2007, Perino was asked about the administration's stance on current gun laws. Perino said the best solution for combating gun violence is for people to just obey the existing laws:

The President believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. And certainly bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting,...that would be against the law and something that someone should be held accountable for.

• Downplaying the value of the Army Field Manual (which expressly forbids waterboarding as an interrogation technique), Perino said the manual is really only appropriate for "young GIs, some so young that they’re not even able to legally get a drink in the states where they’re from." The rationale, then, is that CIA interrogators (average age of 40) shouldn't be governed by the same code as the Army, essentially a bunch of rowdy teenagers. In fact, the average age of Army soldiers is 28, and the age of Army interrogators likely much higher. So Perino believes that two U.S. intelligence outfits should be governed by different codes of ethics because of perhaps an age difference of a few years.

I mean, come on Dana. Just come out and say you want to waterboard people, and we'll have at least some respect for you. But again, this isn't just smooth-talking propaganda, but some seriously bizarre ad libbing that makes you think "Wow. If she's getting this creative with her spin, she must really be hiding something." See, the Tony Snows of the world are cool customers. Snow was like a pre-programmed robot who never really got flustered and never deviated from the administration talking points, no matter how ridiculous they might have been. Perino on the other hand, seems to want to make her case stronger by going off the page with her answers, and we've seen the results of that.

I guess I prefer the Perino approach to the Snow approach. I guess it comes down to a personal preference for honesty over competence. While Americans have gotten used to both dishonesty and incompetence since 2001, it's refreshing to see someone who is woefully unqualified giving it their all for the team. And when being a good liar is the main qualification for the job, I guess I don't mind Perino's incompetence all that much.

A Wolf in Elephant's Clothing?

Last week, a Mark Deli Siljander, a former Michigan congressman and Reagan appointee to the United Nations, was indicted on charges he helped raise funds and lobby for an organization with financial ties to Al-Qaeda.

Siljander, a Republican, served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1981 until 1987. He then served as a U.S. representative to the United Nations General Assembly for one year. In his private career, Siljander worked for a Christian Conservative Non-profit Organization, a Washington DC Lobbying Firm, and later for the Islamic American Relief Agency, the organization charged with aiding a known Al-Qaeda terrorist.

Clearly it is a shocking development when a former U.S. congressman is indicted for aiding a terrorist organization. However, if you have been paying attention to the right-wing talking heads and occasionally the mainstream media, the real surprise in this story might have been: "Shouldn't this guy have been a Democrat?"

For years, Republicans, as well as the right-wing media have been obsessed with telling the American people that the Democratic Party is the "Al-Qaeda Party." Presumably based in very reasonable Democratic objections to the Iraq War, The Patriot Act, Guantanamo, torture, domestic spying, and other questionable Republican anti-terror endeavors, right-wingers have scored political points perverting the Democrats' desire to preserve basic constitutional freedoms with some Democrat-Al-Qaeda alliance. Since Republican policies run in contrast to most Americans' best interests, the party decided after September 11th that one of the few winning issues they had left, national security, would be exploited at all costs. According to a July 2007 poll, when rating the political parties on different issues, Republicans were rated higher than Democrats on just three of 20 issues: moral values, a strong military, and national security. Even then, Republicans were viewed as stronger on national security by a mere 3 to 2 margin over Democrats, whereas Americans favored Democrats on their "strong" issues - global warming and health care - by a margin of about 5 to 1.

The point is, that Republicans will beat the drum of national security for as long as they are seen as strong in that area. As Americans became disenchanted with "staying the course" in Iraq, for example, Republicans largely stopped campaigning on that issue. To keep from losing their grip on one of their few remaining selling points, Republicans must:

A) Continually remind Americans that we are under attack from radical Islam, and

B) Make themselves appear stronger than Democrats on fighting Islamic terrorism.

One component of this strategy has been the effort to link Democrats and other liberals with radical Islam. Below are a few (actually a lot of) examples of this going on in the media:

• Just this week, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton suggested that "mullahs" in Iran are hoping for a Democratic victory in 2008 because a Democrat would allow Iran to continue it's supposed nuclear weapons program. According to Bolton, Iran is "thinking about...the Democratic nominee winning. I think they’re going try and string this thing out in hopes that they’ll find some more pliable administration in the White House." While it would certainly be to the benefit of Iran to not have a sabre-rattling lunatic that has talked openly about preemptive war, Iran halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003, so a Democrat in the White House would be irrelevent in this regard.

• Conservative author and newspaper columnist Dinesh D'Souza attacked liberals in his book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. I guess the title pretty much sums it up, but yes, he claimed that 9/11 would not have happened if not for liberals.

• John Gibson, on his radio program in August of 2007, claimed that certain Democrats may have bargained with Al-Qaeda before the November 2006 elections, presumably because an Al-Qaeda attack would benefit Republicans in the election. Gibson went as far as to announce, "Hillary makes a deal with Al Qaeda."

• Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh had this photoshopped picture of Osama Bin laden posted on his website (notice Bin laden's party affiliation):
  

• In 2006, Glenn Beck told newly-elected congressman Keith Ellison, a Democrat and practicing Muslim, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." As outrageous as that statement might be, at least Beck called the congressman "Sir."



• A 2006 New York Post editorial regarding the Senate confirmation hearings of controversial U.N. ambassador John Bolton, claimed that, "Democrats have an obligation to demonstrate conclusively to America's enemies that they don't have allies on Capitol Hill." The editorial also claimed that terrorists "were rejoicing last week and feeling emboldened in the wake of the Dems' victory."



• Weeks before the 2006 Congressional Election, Rush Limbaugh claimed that "The key voters...in this year's election are the terrorists, the Islamofascists, the jihadists," and that increased violence in Iraq at the time meant that "the terrorists around the world, and particularly, those in Iraq, are voting Democrat today."



• In 2006, after President Bush exploited the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to drum up support for the unrelated Iraq War, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) said of those critical of the Bush speech, “I wonder if they’re more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.”



• After the death of Iraq insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June 2006, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) issued a statement suggesting Zarqawi was only a "mere sliver" of the Iraqi violence and that anti-U.S. violence will continue as long as U.S. troops are in Iraq. Radio host Don Imus responded by suggesting Kucinich might take Zarqawi's place as leader of the anti-U.S. insurgency.



• Leading up to the 2006 Congressional Election, VP Dick Cheney suggested that voting for Iraq War critic Ned Lamont over the hawkish Joe Lieberman would embolden "the al Qaeda types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."



• In a posting at GOP Bloggers, contributor Jon Roth cited a disputed article in the far right Wall Street Journal opinion page in leveling serious accusations on Democrats opposed to the warrantless surveillance program. According to Roth, critics of the illegal program, who sought to hold the government and telecommunications companies accountable for violating Americans' privacy rights, were "Aiding al-Qaeda against America" and had the nerve to label any criticism of the surveillance program "treason." (An interesting side-note to this blog post. Roth later suggested that President Bush went after the leaker of Valerie Plame's identity with "gusto." Seriously. That's his word, not mine. I suppose if with "gusto" means making sure no one involved with the leak ever has to testify or spend one night in jail, while no charges are ever brought against the people who actually leaked Plame's identity, then yes, "gusto" works just fine.)



• Following the March 2004 bombings in Madrid, and subsequent regime change in Spain, media figures started suggesting that terrorists might seek to use violence to oust George W. Bush in 2004. Chris Matthews claimed this put Democratic candidate John Kerry in a pickle: "Doesn't it put your party in a terrible position of having Al Qaeda rooting for you?"



• Rush Limbaugh asserted that al Qaeda terrorists "want Kerry, they want the Democrats in power. They'd love that -- I mean, based simply on what they're saying and how they're reacting to what happened in Spain. I'm not guessing."



• Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said before the 2004 Presidential Election that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry."



• Ray Kraft of Family Security Matters, still undaunted by the lack of any Iraq-al Qaeda link, suggested that the Democrats' April 2007 effort to set a timetable for the withdrawl of U.S. troops in Iraq was tantamount to surrender. Kraft suggested that supporters of withdrawl were giving aid to the enemy, thus being guilty of treason. Kraft also stated that if the U.S. withdrew troops from Iraq, the world would "incrementally surrender to the religious totalitarianism of Jihad." It is unclear how the United States could surrender from a conflict we have already claimed to have won:

• And while not directly asserting any ties between the Democratic Party and al-Qaeda, no discussion of the politicization of Islamic terrorism would be complete without the infamous GOP attack ad of 2006: (video here)
  

First of all, no one is celebrating the fact that a former United States congressman has ties to al-Qaeda. I'm just waiting for the Rush Limbaugh's and Dick Cheney's of the world to apologize for all the innuendo, inference, and outright suggestion that the Democratic Party is in allegiance with al-Qaeda terrorists. I'm not getting my hopes up.


Of course, these claims are so utterly ridiculous for one main reason: When it comes to who they want to kill, Islamic Jihadists do not differentiate between Republicans and Democrats.

Jihadists have said for years that they will kill any and all Americans. Osama Bin Laden himself addressed the American people in a tape released before the 2004 election, saying, "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands." The idea that al-Qaeda would be "rooting" for Democrats or that Democrats seek to give "aid and comfort" to the terrorists is so ludicrous that it's amazing the notion has persisted as long as it has.


The real irony of this alleged Democrat-al-Qaeda partnership is that during the few times Islamic terrorists have discussed U.S. political parties, it has been the Republicans they have sided with. Remember the Madrid bombings? The group widely thought to be responsible for the attacks "endorsed" Bush in 2004:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you [Bush] to be elected."

But because Democrats seek to preserve constitutional freedoms and global credibility, as well protect the lives of U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens, they are seen as being in league with al-Qaeda, when the goals of the two organizations could not be more disparate. Yet you continue to hear these connections made among the right-wing media and some of the mainstream media as well. In reality, 9/11 occurred under a Republican President and a Republican Congress. Osama Bin Laden, supposed public enemy number one and poster boy for the GOP's "Get Tough On Terror" campaign, has not been captured in over six years since the 9/11 attacks. Compared to the relatively easy capture of Saddam Hussein, Bush's failure to apprehend the founder of al-Qaeda with a $50 million bounty on his head is almost beyond comprehension.

The only real link you ever hear between al-Qaeda and the Republican Party is among 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and while these theories are probably inaccurate, the movement has been branded by the mainstream media as complete folly.

If there is a silver lining in the Mark Deli Siljander saga, it is this: One would hope that the next time a politician, pundit, or member of the mainstream media alleges some link between Islamic terrorism and the Democratic Party, he/she stops and remembers that Mark Deli Siljander was a Republican.

Bush: Hot is Cold, Up is Down

We all know George W. Bush has said some idiotic things during his presidency:

"They misunderestimated me."

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?"

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

"I think we agree, the past is over."

Ok, so this is not going to be a post poking fun at Bush's War on English (although that can be fun). These quotations are innocently stupid. Yet there is a whole other class of perplexing Bushisms that really cut to the core of what an insincere and evil tyrant the man really is. They paint Bush as either completely out of touch with reality, or a sadistically compulsive liar. The following quotations are not as much funny as they are disturbing:

"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that."

"Heck of a job, Brownie."

"Bring 'em on."

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

(to hear many of these Bushisms, go here)

This week, Bush continued to lose his grip on reality after a National Intelligence Estimate (NEI) confirmed an international intelligence finding that Iran, next in line to be pre-emptively attacked by the U.S., had shut down it's nuclear weapons program in 2003. (story here) The Bush administration has relied heavily on Iran's supposedly active nuclear weapons program to fuel public support for war on Iran:

"Apart from few very sophisticated uses for uranium metal by the most advanced nuclear programs in the world, the only real use for uranium metal is a nuclear weapon." - John Bolton, United States ambassador to the UN

"We've made our choice. We will continue to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution, but there must be consequences for Iran's defiance and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon." - President Bush

"Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." - President Bush

Before we delve into the latest NEI finding regarding Iran, here are a few items of note:

1. The UN has never believed Iran had an active nuclear weapons program. The US report is consistent with what the international community and Iran have been saying for years.

2. Iran has never directly threatened the United States.

So it would appear that the pre-existing notion (or near-certainty in Bush's mind) that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is pretty flimsy to begin with, and the further conclusion the Bush administration is hoping we all come to, that Iran is planning a nuclear attack on US soil is completely without merit. The NEI report further erodes this idea, putting a serious dent in the Bush administration's effort to start a new war before his term expires.

So what did Bush have to say in response to the "Good" news that Iran's nuclear weapons program was dormant? Well, as any great warmonger would do, Bush went right back on the offensive. While your average radical, peace-obsessed hippie might see this news as a sign that another large-scale war in the Middle East is not necessary, our fearless leader remained ever vigilant. In another break with reality, Bush actually used the news of Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program as a launching pad for more saber-rattling. He called the news a "warning signal," and in grand fear-mongering fashion, resorted to outrageous denials and ominous hypotheticals.

"What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program," Bush suggested. "I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world."

So once again, we have seen the President make ludicrous and contradictory statements for the purpose of advancing his agenda. This time, the agenda is war. In the above examples, the agendas Bush was driving were slightly less destructive. The mother working three jobs ("The economy is just fine") or the gushing endorsement of Brownie ("My government appointees are neither corrupt nor incompetent") are sinister enough. But when Bush starts lying to lay the groundwork for another war, Americans should be alarmed, especially in light of the fact that the very same tactic of targeting a boogieman (Saddam/Ahmadinejad), cooking up intelligence and exaggerating a threat worked on Congress and the American people in 2003.

Frighteningly enough, to this point, the President's Iran PR campaign has worked. According to an October 2007 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 77% of Americans believed that the government of Iran is attempting to develop its own nuclear weapons. Hmmm...Where have I seen numbers like this before? Oh yes, the Iraq War! After an intense and dishonest propaganda campaign aimed at conflating Iraq and 9/11, approval of the Iraq situation peaked at 75% in April, 2003 polling. That percentage has since dropped to the 30% range, as, you guessed it, doubts about both the necessity of the war and the ability to succeed have swayed public opinion 180 degrees.