Skip to content


June 6, 2006

[Published at 10:10am. Timestamp altered for the fun of it.]
1. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Salon’s Farhad Manjoo go toe to toe over whether the election in Ohio was stolen or not. “Stolen” is a subjective term. To me, Kenneth Blackwell’s antics, voter suppression efforts, and the use of non-verifiable voting systems amount to “stealing” the election. In the United States, Our elections should be beyond question. Why aren’t they?
2. Pentagon to omit Geneva ban from new army manual: reportThe directive on interrogation, a senior defense official said, is being rewritten to create safeguards so that all detainees are treated humanely but can still be questioned effectively, according to the report. — Read: …treated humanely but can still be humiliated and degraded.
3. What does “waging the war on terror” really mean?
4. US rebukes Iran over human trafficking
5. In Brazen Roundup, 56 Vanish From Baghdad
6. Colbert Tells College Graduates: Get Your Own TV Show

  1. June 6, 2006 2:56 PM

    I am at a loss to explain our electoral system. Why this doesn’t piss people off is beyond me. I mean, if you can’t be relatively certain your vote will be counted properly, what’s the point in participating? I suppose that’s the ultimate outcome the Neocons are hoping for; make voting so painful and controversial that motivated Americans (read: Black Democrats) will just give up.

  2. June 7, 2006 10:40 AM

    Re: “war on terror” – I didn’t register to read the article, but I hope it addressed the inherent hypocrisy of the phrase (as witnessed in, say, “let’s fight the war on those living in terrified confinement at Guantanamo” or the “war on terror in Darfur” and so on. Re: Colbert: that man is FUNNY. “God wrote the Bible in English for a reason…” Oh man, that killed me.

  3. June 7, 2006 11:12 AM

    Shorter Judis (TNR ‘war on terror’ article): The Democrats should campaign on this message: the war against al Quaeda is now a police and intelligence operation, and there are more urgent factors that should define our foreign policy than the Republicans’ disingenuous, broader ‘war on terror.’

    But, the article is not especially critical of the ‘inherent hypocrisy’ of the term, per se, though there may be an undercurrent of that…

    Ever since September 11, the administration has continued to make the “war on terror” the rhetorical centerpiece of its foreign policy. George W. Bush featured it in the 2002 and 2004 campaigns and Karl Rove has already intimated that it will play a major role in the 2006 elections.


    Rhetoric aside, the administration has never been at war with a tactic, but rather with a specific group and set of groups that target Americans and American allies.


    Bush’s evocation of the war on terror helped the Republicans win in 2002 and aided his own re-election in 2004, but it also blinded Americans, and perhaps Bush himself, to what was and wasn’t really at stake in Iraq.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: