Tarantoad, cont.

John Davies asks:

I admit, I am opposite of you politically. But today you completely suprised me. How can a little twerp such as yourself physically threaten someone? I mean, do you really consider yourself a threat in a dark alleyway? Maybe to Marvin Hamlish or Stephen Hawkins.

"Little twerp"? How do you know if I'm little, big, or medium?

James Taranto, America-Hating Coward

This isn't the first time that the Wall Street Journal's most far right editorial writer has targeted me as un-American because I respect the Constitution, decency and U.S. as well as international law--unlike the lunatic Bushites whose ass his tongue gracelessly graces. Now, as part of a retrospective of his heinous "Best of the Web" column--nothing more than a poorly-written cover for his neo-fascist rants--he casually dashes off this gem:

On Oct. 23, 2001, we started a feature called "Stupidity Watch" chronicling such nonsense; it began with contributions from America-hating cartoonist and commentator Ted Rall...

I've said this before and I'll say it now: that turd Taranto had better hope he never encounters me in a dark alley, poorly policed subway station or New York media party, because casually smearing someone as "America-hating" is some serious fucking shit that I won't sit still for. It's wrong, it's libelous and, as my readers well know, it's exactly the opposite of the truth.

By the way, letters to the Wall Street Journal go to: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com.

Some People Don't Remember Clinton—MY Clinton

William writes:

Dear Ted,

I hate America.
I know that you likely get many letters prefaced with that. I don't care. In fact, I'm close to not giving a fuck about a lot of stuff,
given that a) history repeats itself, and b) things move in cycles. Both of these rules give me little cause for comfort, especially when I keep an eye on political matters.
I suppose as a concerned citizen who occasionally speaks out, which is better than average, I could consider myself a participant in a democracy. Yet we both know we live in a de facto oligarchy where only the well-connected (read: rich) may participate in running for candidacy. We both know that machines, not citizens, win elections. We both know that southern Democrats and Northern Republicans are the same species. And we both know that the American Experiment has been dead since Washington died and the two party system took its place.
That said, I'm disappointed in you. You're obviously smart and funny. I agree with you more times than not. Yet as I continued
to read your articles and cartoons, I must admit you make a better cartoonist than a columnist. Your stuff on Tillman was dead on.
But then I had a friend die in Iraq. And suddenly it wasn't funny anymore.

Of course not. There's nothing funny about it, really. Absurd, yes, but it's not really the same thing. Still, I wonder--why did it only hit home after William's friend died? Why didn't the deaths of previous US troops affect him the same way? Why not the far greater number of Afghan and Iraqi deaths? Humanity's inability to empathize is staggering.

I'm not trying to one-up you in moral outrage. I'm sure you know tons more people who are dead now. I know you think about it a lot. But I'm afraid that in hunting for Ann Coulter and Karl Rove, you have become part of the problem, not the solution. You have engaged in partisan hackery. Please do not deny it, Mr. male Ann Coulter. Yes, Bush has done pretty shitty things. But then again, so did Clinton. So have a lot of Democratic presidents. What makes Bush different? Party affiliation?

Long-time readers of my work know that I'm an equal opportunity politician basher, and that I've paid a high price for that. I called for Clinton's impeachment while my peers were defending him, I attacked his response to the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa, I declared his presidency the greatest example of squandered opportunity in American history. But these things do have a scale. It's not partisan to note that Bush is the first American leader to have seized power by coup d'état. Right there, that makes him the most evil man to have ever participated in our political system. Previous presidents have started wars, even wide-scale conflicts, but few have done so with such glee or callous disregard for the loss of life and limb caused by their actions. Previous presidents have failed to defend America, but few have refused to do anything about an attack as large and monstrous as 9/11--yet that's exactly what George W. Bush has done: nothing.

Bush has built a network of concentration camps to house thousands of Muslims kidnapped off American streets, where they are routinely tortured and murdered under direct sanction by the White House. He has transformed our record surplus into a record deficit.

Have other presidents fucked up? Sure. But none as spectacularly or with such abandon as Bush. So yes, he is different--and I'd be saying that if the dude were a Democrat. Count on it.

Can you forgive all of Clinton's sins, yet scream non-stop about Bush? Granted, he deserves nearly all of it...just like TV, each successive president provides a new low standard of behavior. But then again, you're not the Daily Show. You don't make fun of EVERYONE. You don't tell the truth about EVERYONE. So I can't trust you anymore. You're selective, just like any Beltway insider. I could quote Pogo or Neitchzie [sic] here, but you get the picture.

I get the picture, but I don't recognize myself in it. And neither, I suspect, do people who were reading my work before 2000. Why don't I go after the dumbass Dems as much as Bush? Because, quite frankly, they're not responsible for most of what's going on nowadays. They're out of power. They're impotent. Me, I attack those in power because they're the ones to blame.

Besides, I've written an ENTIRE BOOK talking about what's wrong Democrats. It's called "Wake Up, You're Liberal!" I suggest you pick up a copy before you accuse me of hackery. Besides, I do tackle dumbass Dems quite frequently.

Argue all you want about how the Republican party is evil and deserves to be destroyed. And what about the Democratic party? For example, what the hell has the Democratic party done for blacks? They get the black vote, but do they deserve it? No more than the Republicans deserve the religious right vote. It's all pandering and half-promises which are not fulfilled.

True. But it hardly compares with the systematic slaughter of 200,000 innocent people, now does it?

So in the end, save some of your venom for Ted Kennedy, who surely deserves it. Or the entire Democratic party, which has done a fair impersonation of a convulsing, headless snake. In the meantime, please try to convince me that Northern Democrats aren't as insane as Southern Republicans.

Ted Kennedy is worthy of criticism, sure, but he's not a neo-fascist fuckhead like Bush and his gang of traitors. So, given the three cartoons and one column I have to draw and write each week, where do you think I should focus my attention? Fox news et al., moreover, already have the TK-bashing well in hand.

PS oh and also, referring to the subject title which made you open this message, don't print anything about Roberts. See her [sic] most recent article for more details.

Thanks, but I'll write what I like.

On Roberts, though:

We would be well-advised to give John Roberts a quick confirmation since he's going to get one anyway. Focus on Rove, Libby, and the other White House traitors--they're the key to bringing down the whole shebang.

Prepenultimate

Walt provides today's vocabulary lesson:

The word for third from the last is prepenultimate (at least in linguistic circles). Keep fighting the good fight. You're a voice of sanity in a country that's become a madhouse.

An Anagram, a Little Forced

Steve writes:

Put a leg on the "P" in "patriot." Scramble up the word. Sooner or later
You'll make "traitor." Isn't that absurd?

Stewart, Maher, TV

Charley writes:

Looks like I'm a bit late writing this (I see you have a new related entry on your blog), but I wanted to add
something: isn't the point of the Daily Show to bring on people that Stewart can argue with / expose, rather than like-minded individuals? That's precisely why they bring you on Fox.

That may in fact be the case. Only their bookers know.

I don't watch TDS daily, so I don't know, I'm just asking: Has Stewart ever invited Michael Moore, etc.
etc., or is it always conservative popular pundits? If the latter, then it doesn't seem like an insult, but a compliment, that you haven't been invited on. I'm glad you made the Goldberg list! ;) Not sure why John Edwards had the honor though! As a sellout to GOP non-values, Edwards is not even in the same league.
Now, hopefully Bill Maher has had you on Politically Incorrect. Not sure what venue he has now (since his free speech was unceremoniously taken away), because I've been an expat for several years, but if he is doing anything similar with guest mixing, that would be the spot I would expect to see you on, more likely.
At any rate, continued good luck with the exposure.

Bill Maher, who wrote the introduction to "To Afghanistan and Back" a few years ago, had me on PI and his current show "Real Time with Bill Maher" (on HBO) a few times, most recently several years ago. During my last appearance, the subject of Bush's military "service" prompted me to refer to the C-in-C as a "fucking pussy." Maher's eyes got really, really big when I said that, and I haven't been invited back since. On the other hand, maybe they just lost my phone number.

I don't watch the show since I refuse to pay for HBO, so I don't have any insight as to the sort of guests who appear on "Real Time" now.

Worse Than a Horror

Judge Roberts seems so...reasonable. As a fellow Midwesterner with bad hair, I even sort of empathized. On the other hand, there he was, next to Piehole. Anyone who has anything to do with That Man, as American women call him, can't be all good. Or good at all. Thing is, we don't know exactly how he's evil.

Bush has brilliantly nominated a cypher. With hardly a record to look at, the one thing we can sure of is that Bush is sure that Roberts is a right-winger. Which should be reason enough to oppose him. One reason Democrats suck, by the way: they view a justice to the left of Hitler as a success for their side. If they knew dick about bargaining, though, they would have demanded a liberal Supreme Court nominee. That's right, from Bush. And why not? During countless Democratic presidential administrations, right-wing Republicans have been named as federal judges and cabinet members as symbols of their boss' bipartisan spirit. If the GOP wanted to send a similar message beyond their usual empty propaganda, Dems might have argued, the court could have been balanced out by a nice, normal liberal.

"Balanced"? Yes, balanced. Because Sandra Day O'Connor cast the deciding vote in Bush v. Gore, because she did it only to retire under a Republican president, because that decision installed an illegitimate wannabe dictator where President Gore rightfully deserves to preside. That decision alone makes her the most right-wing, and most dangerous Supreme Court justice in U.S. history. Surely a liberal should have replaced her, if for no reason other than to set things right again.

Obviously, I like to dream.

Roberts will probably be confirmed, which is sad because, as a young man, we'll be stuck with him a pretty long time. My only advice is: if you're a woman, now might be the time to get that abortion you've been putting off.

Jon Stewart

Paul writes:

First of all, I love the work that you do, and I have been a big fan of your cartoons and essays for a long time. You obviously push all the right buttons (no pun intended!)
I need to defend Jon Stewart though. You say:
“Still think Jon Stewart's cool? Consider this: he invited Goldberg to publicize his neo-McCarthyite tripe on "The Daily Show." He's never asked me. Or, to my knowledge, Aaron McGruder. Nor Jeff Danziger (the third cartoonist) referenced and slagged in the book.”
The one thing that you neglect to add is that, and this is just purely a subjective view, Stewart trashed Goldberg for the tripe that he published in his book, and basically pointed it out to be irrelevant, and clearly misdirected at the wrong people. You can see by Goldberg’s body language that he was obviously angered by Stewarts comments, and I think that goes a long way in pointing out the “with us or against us” mentality of those that would like to keep the public under their intellectual lock-and-key. I do agree with you that I would like to see more Ralls, Klien’s, and Chomsky’s on the show.
Thanks Ted! Keep fighting the good fight!

Word has it that Stewart went fairly easy on Goldberg, but that's not the point. The point is that he gave a hatemonger a forum that will help him sell many more books than he would have otherwise. A few insults aside, Goldberg should be pleased that he appeared on "The Daily Show." Meanwhile, books by progressives—far more intelligent books—die a dog's death due to poor sales.

Matthew wrote:

Still think Jon Stewart's cool?
Well, yes.
Consider this: he invited Goldberg to publicize his neo-McCarthyite tripe on "The Daily Show."
And then, in the deftly teasing manner that makes Jon so "cool", completely ridiculed Goldberg and demonstrated what a tripe-hyping fool the guy is. (Did you see the show?)

Again, all publicity is good publicity. Which is part of the reason I go on Fox. Liberal ideas languish in obscurity largely due to lack of good promotion and distribution.

Grayson says:

Hey man,

I love your cartoons and all your books (I have all of them exceptt "Latchkey Kids") and check your site daily to read the Rallblog. Before I knew about your website, I religiously read your column in MRR as well. I read your "Goodies" whenever I need to laugh my ass off, which is about twice a day. I swear, Roach Motel and Fatal Defenestration crack me up every time. Keep it up.

I do, however, disagree with you on John Stewart. I try to catch the Daily Show whenever I can between changing diapers and passing out from exhaustion after work. I agree that he tosses a lot of softballs to his guests (Colin Powell, Ed Gillespe AND Bernard Goldberg, especially). But overall, he does go places other "news" shows won't dare to. He's probably the only person on television who has actually said that Bush, McClellan and their cronies "we're lying" when they denied Rove, Abrams and Libby were involved in the leak of Valerie Plames identity. And he did slam Tucker Carlson and his crew of morons for not living up to their profession's standards on Crossfire that time. And you can't argue with his permanent labeling of Bob Novak as "The Douchebag of Liberty."
I think the fact that his audience is made up of mostly stoner lefties and NYC tourists detracts from the overall effect of his show. And after all, it's on Comedy Central so no one is going to take it seriously.
You gotta admit though, the Daily Show is fucking hilarious sometimes.
Anyway, keep up the good work. I'll keep reading it as long as you keep writing it. You're an inspiration to amateur journalists like myself.

I admit it. "The Daily Show" is hilarious sometimes...though not nearly often enough. And thanks!

Bush's Pick

The smart money says that Piehole will pick a female Supreme Court nominee. I'm still betting on Alberto Gonzalez, because he knows it'll drive people like me up the wall. But I really have no idea. We'll see what we see...prepare to shudder in horror.

America Does Not Equal the President

GI points out the attitude that afflicts many conservatives, namely that they equate the presidency with the nation itself. This is a distinctly antidemocratic idea, worthy of Stalin, but they don't get it. Besides, Bush isn't the president anyway:

Ted - regarding your recent column- ignore that previous email (it was sent by accident)
Anyway- here's an excerpt from a Sermon that Nixon aide Chuck Colson gave to prisoners in his prison ministry- it's in the new bio of him by fellow felon Aitken (who wrote a glowing bio of Nixon) This is about loyalty:
---
"Jesus had Judas. Nixon had John Dean. Because of both of those betrayals, twelve men came under pressure. Those of us around Nixon at that time could have been called twelve of the most powerful people in the world. But we twelve powerful men couldn't hold a lie together for two weeks... But none of them snitched. None of them copped a plea by confessing to thier tormentors."
-----
Ted -as you can see, Chuck's crew had a better record than Jesus's (Jude betrayed, and Peter denies, and Thomas doubted, etc) But you can see Colson does not mention loyalty to America- but to Nixon, who he equates with God and Country.

The Full Monty: I Reply to Tailgunner Bernard Goldberg

Bernard Goldberg's new book "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (and Al Franken is #37) lists me as #15. Here's the full list for your edification.

I'm fascinated by the fact that I obviously annoy the neofascists and McCarthyites so much. I mean, all I do is type words into a keyboard and splatter ink across white paper. And yet, to hear Goldberg et al. tell it, I'm destroying America—which is to say, their vision of America. Which is weird. They control the three branches of the federal government, most of the mainstream media (when's the last time you saw Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky on the tube, sitting next to Ann Coulter?) and most state governments as well, yet a cartoonist and essayist can nevertheless drive them nuts.

Well, whatever.

Goldberg, as if this comes as a shock, is intellectually dishonest. In his entry for "Boondocks" cartoonist Aaron McGruder (Goldberg has a hard-on for cartoonists, including three of them in his top 100 list), he references a speech McGruder gave at which he insulted Condi Rice and other right-wing extremists. Thing is, that speech—delivered at a party for center-left magazine The Nation—is famous for the way McGruder savaged liberals. Some of them even got up and left while he was talking. Sure, he tossed off a few anti-Condi slags, but leaving out the fact that McGruder is an equal-opportunity disser is, well, plainly the work of a liar.

Al Sharpton (#17). John Edwards (#16).

Which brings us to the Ted Rall section.

Even on the furthest fringes of the America-bashing Left, distinctions have to be made: there is loathsome and there is beneath loathsome. And then there's Ted Rall. [itals Goldberg's]

Bear in mind that Goldberg's thesis behind his book is that the Evil 100 contribute to the coarsening of American culture. As if an enemies list isn't coarse. As if Courtney Love's one-word entry ("Ho.") put the English language through its most rigorous paces. Most notably for this intro, though: Goldberg is a bit of a plagiarist. Much of what he writes about me is lifted from my website or other online sources, and he starts out with "loathsome." Regular Rallblog readers will recall that the right-wing New York Press listed me as #2 Most Loathsome New Yorker" a couple of years ago. Gee, I wonder where he got that.

Rall is the editorial cartoonist, columnist, radio commentator, and all-around creep, whose work often borders on the psychopathic. He is to reasonable debate what hyenas are to opera.

Goldberg's local opera company must be an interesting one. Also: how can cartoons be "psychopathic"? Then he goes on to discuss my Pat Tillman cartoon, conveniently leaving out the fact that Tillman was killed by "friendly fire"—an incident the government covered up and repeatedly lied about.

And though his diatribe against Tillman was so offensive that most outlets refused to run it, it was by no means an aberration. [Rants about my comments about Reagan, and then Bush 43, follow.] Rall obviously doesn't see himself as the aformentioned all-around creep that he so obviously is.

And so on. If you want more, check out the "beach reads" table (yes, really) at your local Barnes & Noble.

Still think Jon Stewart's cool? Consider this: he invited Goldberg to publicize his neo-McCarthyite tripe on "The Daily Show." He's never asked me. Or, to my knowledge, Aaron McGruder. Nor Jeff Danziger (the third cartoonist) referenced and slagged in the book.

Keep fighting the coarsening, Bernie.

Attitude Presents: Stephanie MacMillan!

Coming December 2005:

Attitude Presents: Stephanie McMillan!

Pre-order the third volume in the "Attitude Presents" series and you'll be the first to receive your copy. Not only that, you'll be encouraging a brilliant up-and-coming cartoonist at a critical time in her career. Advance orders are very influential on bookstore buyers, so please click and click often!

More on this very cool book later, but you can check out her work online at www.minimumsecurity.net.

Third to Last

JJ informs us:

Hey Ted. You might have already gotten an email(s) 'bout this, but the word you were looking for is "antepenultimate." Keep up the good work.

Your faithful sesquipedalian reader--

Awesome, and thanks for sending that in.

Why?

Joshua asks, reasonably enough:

I read the transcript of Hannity and Colmes that was referred to on your blog. I don't understand why you go on those Fox News shows, Ted. To me, it is similar to trying to have a scientific argument with creationists; it simply legitimizes them and gives them a forum to spout their lies. Sean Hannity and his ilk are masters of spin, logical fallacy and lies. It doesn't matter that you're smarter than them; they're masters of their medium.
And Colmes; what a sniveling worm. Is he afraid Sean is going to hit him or something?

Re: Colmes - I feel sorry for him, having to work next to that psychotic mook Hannity every day. Hannity never turns it off. He's REALLY like that, even off the air--trash-talking, insulting, downright rude. Unsurprisingly, staff turnover for H&C is high; you hardly ever see the same person working there twice. Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, is decent when the cameras are off. It's not like all right-wingers are like Hannity, thank God.

So why bother? It's a question I've often asked myself. Mainly because, now that I've lost my outlet as a talk radio host, it's the only way to convey my ideas in the broadcast medium. I also think it's important for thinking Americans to show the neofascists that they're fast on their feet and aren't afraid of them. On the other hand, as Joshua says, it's their show and they control it.

Few viewers are aware, for instance, that "The O'Reilly Factor" is taped a few hours in advance. Liberal zingers tend to get "lost" during the editing process. Fox's guest chairs are lower, smaller and less comfortable than the host--and you don't get a table to lean on (something that media trainers will tell you is a must for a TV appearance). "Hannity" is live but the guest's mike is turned on while Sean runs off his mouth about nothing of importance.

There are other sins: Hannity's show likes to book you to discuss a topic only to have the subject change to an unrelated ad hominem attack once you're there.

Unsurprisingly a lot of first-rate liberal personalities, resentful of sandbagging tactics, have stopped appearing on Fox. I don't blame them. But until Air America or Clear Channel calls to offer me the kind of access to America's eyes and ears offered by those shows, I'm not quite ready to follow suit.

Subject Line was: "Get a Useful Life."

Hate mail from Sidney:

I am sorry to be yet another to inform you, but you have not a clue. You have made a life for yourself by chanting ignorance amongst the masses. In the end, when you look back, you will pat yourself on the back for the absolute nothing you stand for. You are a terminal whiner. Don't breathe so much. It is a waste.
How vain is this, 'This permits me to spend more time doing something constructive, like corresponding with people who understand and appreciate what I do.' Let me translate...if you don't agree with me, why should I listen to you. Moron!!!!! I know you might feel this correspondence is validation for what you do. I have to tell you though that I read one editorial of yours, was disgusted, went to your archives and read two more with the same result. Crawl back under your rock buddy, you missed the boat.

Penultimate is the word for second to last. Is penultimate penultimate third to last? if so, that's the sentence in this email I agree with.

Ted Rall Merchandise

Karl (no, not THAT Karl) writes:

Just was curious about why the Generalissimo El Busho merchandise segment of your website consistently comes back with the message "the page can not be displayed." (at least on my personal computer) Perhaps you might
know if this is a glitch in your website, involved servers, or something odd in my computer. Or at worst, is this yet another government attempt to somehow block our freedom of expression? Any daylight that you might shed on the above given situation would certainly be appreciated.

Not even the evildoers at 1600 Penn can prevent patriotic Americans from getting their fix of TR merchandise! My former merchandise provider, Agitproperties, appears to have gone under. So I've created a new site at www.cafepress.com/tedrall that has all the TR merch your capitalistic heart will ever desire. I'll change it from time to time, so if you want something now's the time to get it.

Karl Rove, Traitor

Derek writes:

You are beginning to demonstrate a pattern of disregard for pesky facts in your ravings.
As the facts are developing, Ms Plame was no longer a covert operative of the CIA at the time of Mr. Rove's statements to the reporter. She had been stateside for over 5 years, working at a desk in the CIA headquarters building. Sorry, Ted, but you don't go to work everyday parking in the CIA lot and remain covert. That just doesn't work.
Identifying someone as a CIA employee (there are hundreds of CIA employees that are NOT covert operatives) when that person blatantly passes through the doors of the CIA building every day can't possibly be considered crossing any lines, legal or ethical.

First: neither the CIA nor Plame nor Wilson can or will comment on what covert actions she may have been involved in during the previous five years...because they're covert. So we won't find out, yes? The point is, Rove didn't care about the national security of the nation which employs him and grants him top security clearance. If no one was endangered as a result of his treasonous actions (and there are doubtlessly others), that's just dumb luck--like driving through a schoolyard full of kids and not hurting anyone. But he should still be taken off the road.

Once again, the liberal (I'm sorry, "progressive") community has come up with a dry well. The more you scream and wail, the more foolish you look as the objective facts of the situation come into focus.
Too bad for you that there are dozens of news outlets these days that still offer the public unbiased facts in their reporting.

Heh, heh. Right.

By the way, I hope you've gone back to Dayton recently to update your impressions of the culinary offerings available there. Even if you think the people of the Miami Valley are fools and rubes, there are at least a few decent places to eat.

So I hear. Can't wait to check 'em out soon.

Future Speaking Gigs

Dan asks:

I read with joy, a whole year after the fact, the transcript of your appearance on Hannity & Colmes from June 2004. Do you have any other appearances scheduled? I'm a big fan and have never seen you speak.

I post media appearances here on the Rallblog if and when there's sufficient advance notice. I also speak in person, usually at universities and before various groups, when invited. Anyone interested in inviting me to talk about my cartoons and contemporary politics should drop me a line at chet@rall.com. (Please note: I request an honorarium.)

McCarthyite on "The Daily Show"

Brian writes:

Goldberg was the guest on The Daily Show tonight. Jon Stewart gave him a moderately hard time. I thought he did a decent job challenging the premise of the book, and Golberg was clearly frustrated by Stewart's silliness. Still, I was hoping he would rip into Goldberg like he did Tucker Carlson on Crossfire. He's generally too deferential to his guests - the interview with Colin Powell a few weeks ago was nauseating. Maybe they should let Lewis Black sit in on interviews. Goldberg spent most of his time discussing the "coarsening" of the culture as though he was doing a public service by identifying the culprits. I thought that was elegantly rebutted by the footage of Jimmy Carter building a house
overlaid with a graphic showing him as #6 on Goldberg's list which they ran before going to commercial.

As if Goldberg's blacklist wasn't coarsening the culture! Honestly, I don't really understand why so many Bush-bashers like "The Daily Show" so much. I find much of it dull. And it's hardly balanced: the guests run from centrist Dems to right-wing Republicans, as if the third of the country to the left of that spectrum doesn't count. In that respect it's indistinguishable from most other media outlets. Jon Stewart is a smart, funny and talented guy, but his show could be more interesting.

Good luck moving up in the ranking. Maybe you can do something to get him to juggle the order prior to the paperback release. It's a really obvious idea now, but some person or group should write a book listing the people
who really are screwing up America. Of course you and several other people on Goldberg's list have already written about some genuine scoundrels, just not in the same format.

Various progressive blogs have done that already. As for moving up in the ranking, the trouble is that I barely have time to screw up America as it is. Between cutting the lawn, drawing cartoons and figuring out why my car is making that funny whirring sound, by the time I get around to screwing up America I can't even do a half-decent job.

Was Bush Crossing His Fingers?

Garrett writes:

Just read your Treasongate: It's Not Just Karl Rove on commondreams.com
Check out video of Bush's 2001 inauguration. When he's asked if he'll uphold the Constitution, note his body language.
It's eerie.

There is, indeed, a strange shift in Bush's body movements at that point.

Radio Interview

I'll be on Michael Medved's radio show today (check local listings) at 4 pm East Coast time today.

Editor & Publisher Piece About Goldberg Book

Editor and Publisher notes my inclusion in Goldberg's Bushian enemies list.

Complete Text of This Week's Column

A computer glitch caused the accidental deletion of a substantial portion of this week's column. Here, therefore, is the whole thing:

TREASONGATE: IT'S NOT JUST KARL ROVE
National Security Compromised by White House
NEW YORK--Since Karl Rove surfaced last week as the White House official who probably unmasked a covert CIA agent, new developments appear to confirm that the deputy chief of staff and chief Bush political strategist has committed treason:
--Newsweek has published, and Time has authenticated, a Time reporter's notes about his crucial conversation with Rove. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two [minutes] before he went on vacation," Matt Coopers' notes read. Rove told Cooper that "[former ambassador and Iraq war critic] Joe Wilson's wife...apparently works at the [Central Intelligence] Agency on WMD issues."
--In the past Bush Administration officials have repeatedly denied that Rove was involved and promised to fire whomever outted Plame. Now, rather than proclaim his innocence, Bush and his PR flacks are stonewalling. "This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation," his press secretary repeats to an increasing torrent of journalists' pointed questions.
--Denizens of official Washington invariably issue a powerful, categorical denial--sometimes accompanied by the threat of libel litigation--whenever an allegation is untrue. Rove's silence on Treasongate can't convict him in a court of law. That comes later. Still, it speaks volumes.
Imagine, for a few paragraphs, that you were the U.S. Director of Central Intelligence. Rove's seditious behavior requires you to wonder about the possible extent of his inside job against U.S. national security. Did Rove act alone? Probably not. His Plame operation, no doubt conceived in league with Dick Cheney and other high-ranking scoundrels, may merely represent the tip of a huge iceberg of duplicity. How else did "Bush's brain" subvert our intelligence community? Are Rove's intimates, who include Bush himself, running interference for him out of personal loyalty, or are they trying to cover up their own treasonous acts? Someone at Langley provided highly classified personnel information to Rove, a dirty tricks specialist and pollster. Who?
In 1985 CIA traitor Aldrich Ames sold the KGB the names of every U.S. spy in the Soviet Union in return for $2 million. Arrests and executions soon wiped out America's human assets in the Soviet Union. As they were caught unprepared by one shocker after another--glasnost, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the implosion of the USSR--intelligence professionals suspected a well-placed mole as the culprit. But Ames wasn't caught for another nine years.
Karl Rove, on the other hand, has already been found out as a likely traitor to the United States. Now we must work backwards. Does his exposure help to explain some of the Administration's most baffling foreign policy blunders?
No matter how remote, we must now consider the possibility that Karl Rove may in the employ of, and/or receiving money from, a terrorist organization such as Al Qaeda. Alternatively, could he be in the employ of a hostile foreign government? If he betrayed a CIA agent, Rove is a traitor and therefore capable of anything. Only an exhaustive investigation of his and his associates' anti-American activities, up to and including those committed by George W. Bush, can resolve these questions.
Internal sabotage offers a tempting explanation for the fact that so much has gone wrong for the United States since 2001. After 9/11 Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan--which had financed the Taliban and trained the hijackers at its camps--but Bush shocked analysts by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq instead. Was Bush's refusal to search for bin Laden in his nation of residence the result of spectacular incompetence--or a continuing alliance with the same Islamists his father's presidency had armed and funded? Are we losing the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq because of Rumsfeld's stubborn insistence on understaffing the military? Or are our leaders intentionally dragging out combat to accomplish their masters' aims: increasing the popularity of radical Islam and the recruitment of terrorists? Even Bush's domestic policies, from tax cuts paid to the rich people least likely to stimulate the economy to his attack on Social Security, seem designed to undermine U.S. stability and prosperity. Was Bush crossing his fingers when he swore to preserve and defend the constitution?
Maybe. Maybe not. The point is: we don't know. But we must find out.
National security is bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans may be divided over various ideological conflicts, but all patriotic Americans should be able to agree on a zero-tolerance policy for treason. Rove, those who worked with him and anyone who protected him must go.
(Ted Rall is the author of "Wake Up, You're Liberal!: How We Can Take America Back From the Right" and "Generalissimo El Busho: Essays and Cartoons on the Bush Years.")
COPYRIGHT 2005 TED RALL

Not at Comic Con

Tina asks:

Will you be at [San Diego] Comic Con this year?  If so, what day?  It's a big place and I'd like to avoid last year's fruitless search.  And I promise to buy a book.

Smart move to write. No, I won't be at Comic Con this year. It's an expensive show to attend, my stuff doesn't sell all that well there, and I don't have any new books to flog this year. It would be different, of course, were they to invite me to speak or be on a panel or something, but since they never have I'm not holding my breath. I can always sell you my books directly, of course.

I'm #15!

It's a bit of a comedown from being named "America's Most Annoying Liberal" by Right Wing News and #2 "Most Loathesome New Yorker" by the right-wing NY Press, but #15 will have to do for today.

Neocon writer Bernard Goldberg ("Bias") has named me #15 in his new book "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America: (and Al Franken Is #37)" [yeah, that's the real title].

Word has it (via MyDD) that the top 20 runs as follows, in order:

Michael Moore
Arthur Sulzberger
Ted Kennedy
Jesse Jackson
Anthony Romero
Jimmy Carter
Margaret Marshall
Paul Krugman
Jonathan Kozol
Ralph Neas
Noam Chomsky
Dan Rather
Andrew Heyward
Mary Mapes
Ted Rall
John Edwards
Al Sharpton
Al Gore
George Soros
Howard Dean

Right-wingers love their Nixon-style enemies lists! When I was a kid back then, I used to be jealous of the brave, patriotic Americans who made Nixon's list. Now here I am, listed alongside people I admire, like Al Gore, Noam Chomsky and Howard Dean, on a list compiled by a neofascist.

Mom would be so proud.

London Bombings Carried Out by Bush?

I don't think so. Or, more accurately, I don't have reason to think so. Nevertheless, I've been receiving numerous emails from people like FOR P.K., who wrote:

How fortunate for the Republicans that in the middle of Rovegate, the
Downing Street Memos and Bush's lowest approval rating yet some "terrorists"
decide to put a bomb or six into the London tubes. If I didn't know better,
I'd say this was the handywork of the CIA. Naw.

I may not agree with it, but it's hardly a nutty theory. The Bush Administration employs Karl Rove, a probable traitor who, since he betrayed a CIA agent, may even be working for Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. These people are capable of literally anything, from lying about WMDs to con us into war to setting up concentration camps to legalizing torture to disappearing thousands of people.

That said, until there's evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to believe the official story. After all, the neocons' logic for attacking Saddam came down to Saddam=evil, 9/11 by evildoers, thus Saddam must go. Thinking Americans shouldn't follow the same logic by substituting "Bush" for "Saddam."

More on Karl Rove

Joseph writes:

I read your story about Karl Rove, and even though I'm a conservative, if Rove did indeed give over Wilson's info to Time for political reasons, I absolutely agree with you. I think Rove is a dangerous fellow. He cares about winning, not people or principles, he cares about winning. If there were two drawbacks to enjoying the presidency of George W. Bush (which I do), it's that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are reprehensible.

Apparently losing two out of two wars isn't a drawback. I'm afraid, though, that plausible deniability isn't going to work here. Acting President Cheney is too much of a control freak to allow Rove to act on his own, and Bush isn't smart enough to know that there are some things he's better off not knowing about.

In my opinion, and this is purely opinion and guessing, Karl Rove is to George Bush what Ollie North is to Ronald Reagan. I'm pretty sure Reagan had no clue what North was doing, other than some slight sense of making deals. I have the same opinion of Bush and Rove. It's not so much that I don't think Bush can make mistakes, it's just that Bush's leadership style seems to give way to a guy like Rove doing something like this. Reagan trusted people to do their job and if he didn't like the job, he'd just fire them, not try and run the program himself. Bush seems to be the same way, which means someone can hide a number of facts from him for quite a while before he ever finds out. Some people have tried to categorize this as stupidity, to me it's just one style of leadership.

If Karl Rove did indeed jeopardize the life of an American agent, I agree with your column that execution might be justified. Not out of malice, but principally, it would be my head if I had done it, so why not his?

Well, just so. Though, as I've written before, I oppose capital punishment in general.

JF writes:

As to your comments on Rove, I spent the 4th protesting the president at West Virginia University. My mind was on Rove and of course Bush's impeachment. There were a number of signs calling for Rove to be investigated both legally and through the press. I can't go with you on the death penalty but the prick deserves to spend a ton of time behind bars if guilty...which I believe he is.

What is it going to take for thinking republicans...of which I'm sure there are many...to finally admit Bush and most of his cabinet are simply bad people and even worse leaders?

A good question. There are, of course, many thinking Republicans although it's hard to imagine exactly how they can continue to justify supporting an institution run by racists, homophobes and other assorted bigots and thieves after they've exposed themselves as such time after time. It's difficult to accept that one has been snookered, but you've got to do it eventually.

Finally, I love how republicans site newsweek as a bad source, as though the Koran story was ALL bullshit. Save for a few errors in practice, THE STORY TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE!!!

Yes.

If the press has anything of value left...the investigation of Rove in both contexts should begin today.

Yes again.

Keith writes:

In your article you mentioned you couldn't think of
anyone on the left who had been convicted of aiding a
terrorist, what about Lynne Stewart?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15444-2005Feb10.html

Convicted of passing messages for the Sheik who
masterminded the first World Trade Center bombing.

The article even describes her as "the leftist
lawyer".

Got me there, sorta—she's a lawyer with liberal views, not a Michael Moore type leftie personality. I guess the reason I didn't think of Ms. Stewart is because she so very clearly got railroaded. I don't believe for an instant that she's guilty, but of course I wasn't on the jury so I don't have all the facts.

Eric says:

I recall that Richard M. Nixon went kicking and screaming, kneeling in prayer and drinking heavily, before he submitted his resignation. Nixon never admitted any wrongdoing, and his cabal of treasonous supporters came out of the woodwork recently when Deep Throat revealed himself.
I correctly referred to the Bush regime as carpetbaggers years ago. In fact, all the words I used to describe Bush's gang of thieves and cutthroats have ultimately found their way into mainstream journalism. I wonder why a simple dumbass Veteran of Vietnam, with only my experience, gut and average intelligence, knew at the start what the 'experts' are discovering now? Maybe it's that great American tradition called 'process.' 'They' screw us at their whim, then the investigative and legal systems wait until the criminals find a wheelchair and an oxygen bottle as an excuse not to go to trial and the slammer.
George W. Bush will flee the country, Karl Rove not far behind. In an age of unprecedented in-your-face arrogance from the Bush misadministration, America will stand aghast at Bush's self-imposed exile. Fifty percent of American voters, the Bush apologists, will lament, "Whoda thunk?" Jeb Bush will wage a Crusade to become president in 2008 in order to give George W. a presidential pardon.
George W. Bush will be able to receive e-mail at an undisclosed location in Saudi Arabia.

Eric's email makes me warm and tingly.

And finally, from Steve:

"Karl Rove is pond scum on the gene pool."

Let's be fair to pond scum here, Ted and Pat. At least pond scum (much of it anyway) photosynthesizes, thereby removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and replacing it with oxygen. What has rove done for us lately?

Well, his propaganda has certainly been good for the environment. Thanks to him and Bush, 1,700-plus US soldiers and 180,000-plus Muslims are decomposing into fertilizer.

Karl Rove: Worse Than Osama

Americans are returning from the Independence Day holiday (and what a glorious day it was here in the northeast!) and are catching up on the outing of Karl Rove as the probable source of the treasonous leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative as White House retaliation against her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, for debunking Bush's lie about Saddam Hussein's fictional attempt to buy uranium from Niger. Now the mail is coming in in response to my column:

Henry sez:

Will be pardoned by President Bush before he leaves office, probably a general pardon like the one given to Nixon. The timing will be determined by...Karl Rove, probably when there is good and distracting news from Iraq or on the War on Terror such as the capture/death of Osama or the conviction and sentencing of Saddam. At that point, Rove will be spun as an American patriot who, by his actions, made all this successful fight for freedom possible.
This may happen before or after Rove is indited by a grand jury but before a trial. The problem in the past was to delay the news until after Bush's second inauguration. Now, no political harm can come to Bush. He can only be condemned for coming to the aid of a good friend who will turn out to be a national treasure in guiding our country. Rove will get clean away, always new it, still knows it, and is right. Arrogance, yes, but also careful calculation Before arrogance.

I dunno. It's not like Bush to look out for people who've devoted themselves to him. Should Rove be expendable, Bush will let him do the perp walk.

tultalk@attglobal.net sez:

Where are you located. I may just come by an whack your knees for kicks.
Don't want to wast too much gas though.
Bob Tulloch
XXXX Coon Hill Rd.
XXXX, MI XXXX

Sounds like Karl needs a cellmate.

Pat writes:

Thank you for finally publishing what I have been thinking about the Plame treason since 2003. Treason for partisan gain. The lowest form of treason. No honor. No duty. No patriotism. Greed! Personal political avarice. Karl Rove is pond scum on the gene pool.
Karl Rove, George W. Bush and Dick Chaney are a classic example of what George Washington warned us about in his farewell address as the first president of our nation. "Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally."
Partisan politics is a social disease in the body politics of America. Chronic and debilitating. Sometimes terminal. Let's hope that is not the case this time.
thanks for being you. And keep on kickin ass.

LRichar525@aol.com writes:

Time for reason is over. Fuck you, you despicable bastard. Larry C Richardson, Auburn, Ca

bgillespey@austin.rr.com writes:

Ted, you're an idiot. Simple enough?

Gee, and Republicans wonder why smart people don't take them seriously?

Jim asks:

I just read your article at:
A question. In the complete absence of facts don't you think you are being a bit precipitous with this kind of article?

What, as opposed to going to war over a complete absence of facts?

Seriously, though: I believe the Newsweek piece because it makes sense that Rove would be behind this, just as Wilson has said would be the case all along. More importantly, the White House has yet to issue a categorical denial. If Rove was innocent, they would have.

Andy asks:

Ted, Where is the public outcry concerning Karl Rove and the implicated leak? I have scanned CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews.com...and cannot find mention of the Karl Rove leak. Are you just ahead of the newsbreak, did I miss it, or is it just being ignored?

CNN has covered it, though not extensively. Today's NYT has a front cover story that dances around the identity of the leaker but revisits the Plame-Wilson story. I suspect the other MSM outlets are waiting to independently verify Newsweek's source before running with it. This sucker is about to blow.

GOR Ira writes:

“…according to Newsweek, it indicates that Karl Rove himself made the call to Novak.” So you base all of your accusations against Rove on the same outfit that printed the Koran flushing story! The joy of reading your column is how unintentionally hilarious (if not factual) it is. After Rove is absolved I’m certain you’ll be big enough to publish and apology. Looking forward to it.

If one bad story were to forever doom a media outlet to irrelevance, not one would be credible. Oh, and: the Newsweek story about flushing Korans at Gitmo was true. Or hadn't you heard?

Mike writes:

Just read it - love your work! Extremely well articulated point of view with which I am in total ageement.

Well, thanks!

Karl Rove: More anti-American Than Osama bin Laden
or, They Execute Traitors, Don't They?

I'm generally opposed to the death penalty, but in Karl Rove's case I could see my way clear to an exception.

At http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/rove-blew-cia-agents-cov_3556.html Lawrence O'Donnell reveals:

I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.
McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.
Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.

Indeed, Newsweek has this at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/:

The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between [Time reporter] Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House.

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, paragraph 2381 of the United States Code reads:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Reads a lot like the definition of someone who unmasks a CIA operative (Valerie Plame) for rank political gain, doesn't it?

Of course, if this is true, odds are that this goes straight to the top, to Piehole his own self. Can you really buy Rove acting without authorization? If so, there's no time for a lengthy impeachment process. The feds should burst into the White House, throw a bag over his head, stick him in an orange jumpsuit and drag him off to Guantánamo--or "render" him to a "friendly" country like Uzbekistan or Syria--for a lengthy session with our "humane" torturers.

The only questions now are:

Do Republicans have a shred of patriotism or loyalty to American legal principles left?

and

Do Democrats have the slightest spine left?

They released this stuff over a somnolent July 4th weekend, but if there's any sanity we won't be talking about much else during the coming days. This is huge, even bigger than Justice O'Connor's replacement and certainly worse than anything Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton ever did to merit impeachment. Rove's head isn't enough. Not that the Administration doesn't deserve prosecution on everything from war crimes to obstruction of justice, but the Rove-Plame connection ought to be enough to stop this charade of a faux government once and for all.

Ted Rall Merchandise Returns!

Enough of you fine patriotic Rallblog readers replied to my request last week to justify the roll-out of the brand-new merchandise section. I look forward to hearing your feedback.

Now It Begins

What a week--first the Bush Administration starts sabre-rattling with Iran over the possibility that their president-elect was one of the hostage-takers at the 1979 embassy seizure in Teheran. Now Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is resigning, setting the stage for a wholesale nuclear option meltdown in the Senate. No doubt about it, Bush will look to replace this moderate swing voter with a hard-line right-winger. Sadly, the Democrats will squawk loudly only to roll over in the end, as they always do...or maybe not. Either way, buckle your seatbelts. Bush never misses a chance to avoid a confrontation.

Ted Rall Subscription Service

Joe asks:

Are you still doing the email subscription service for $10 a year? I can finally afford it but lost the info, could you post the details on the blog or send it to me? Thanks.

Indeed I am. I usually do this at the end of the year to make things simple, but anyone who wants to join the Ted Rall Subscription Service here at the midway point of yon fiscal year may do so, either by sending $5 (for the last half of 2005) to:

Ted Rall
PO Box 1134
New York NY 10027

Be sure to include your email address with your payment.

or sending the dough via PayPal. For the latter drop me an email at chet@rall.com.

What you get:

3 cartoons a week plus a column, delivered in many cases up to 3-4 days prior to their official publication date directly via email--plus occasional freelance stuff that never gets posted to the website.

Stranger Reaction

Sandy from Utah writes:

My nephew Tom in Kansas sent me your article. Thanks for putting into words what many of us are feeling. I was with Quakers that held signs of peace and pleads for not invading Iraq. The fact that everything has been mismanaged and costly in terms of money and mostly lives continues to sicken me. However, you missed an important point: This is slowly becoming a Bush war with an invitation for a "Holy War". I live where Evangelicals are plentiful and their mantra remains joyful. Yes, these new age "Christians" are pleased that Muslim are dropping along with our Amreican hero/ soldiers...go figure? I fear that REAL trouble hasn't even shown its ugly face. Thanks for your well written article....please keep it up.

Reading the above makes me shudder in fear that many Americans are clinically insane. Could it be true? Does anyone really want a holy war between the Christianists and Islam? What good could possible come out of it? Still, it's obviously a phenomenon that we need to keep track of.