Couple of people have sent this transcript in, from an
August press conference. To answer the obvious question, no, I’d never seen it when I wrote this one.

Q: You’ve talked on a couple of occasions on philosophically perhaps the need to preemptively strike a nation — not necessarily Iraq, just somewhere. And I’m wondering if you have a litmus test or a set of conditions that you would need to see in order to make the call for a preemptive strike? What has to be in place? Is it a nuke? Is it complicity with al Qaeda? Have you considered any of those things?

Rumsfeld: I have considered a lot of those things. And the problem is, if I answer your question, someone’s going to think I’m talking about Iraq.

Q: Let’s say you’re definitely not talking about Iraq. (Laughter.)

Rumsfeld: We’ll go to Dick Myers’ “the moon.” (Laughter.) Remember? Were you here for that when he — theoretically, the —

Q: What makes a preemptive strike legal under international law, in your eyes?

Rumsfeld: Well, I’m not a lawyer, Pam. You know that. Don’t give me that —

Q: Okay, skip the international law part. What makes a preemptive strike okay, acceptable?

Rumsfeld: Well, I would make the case that there are a whole series of things that ought to be looked at, and that there isn’t a single one that’s determinative, and that what one would have to do is to evaluate those and weigh them.

And the construct I would suggest would be what are the benefits — what are the advantages and disadvantages of not acting? And of course, the advantage of not acting against the moon would be that no one could say that you acted; they would say, “Isn’t that good, you didn’t do anything against the moon.” The other side of the coin, of not acting against the moon in the event that the moon posed a serious threat, would be that you’d then suffered a serious loss and you’re sorry after that’s over. And in weighing the things, you have to make a judgment; net, do you think that you’re acting most responsibly by avoiding the threat that could be characterized — X numbers of people dying, innocent people — and it’s that kind of an evaluation one would have to make.

Astroturf (as in “fake grassroots”) campaigns are nothing new. It’s just that the internet makes it harder to get away with these things.

You’ve probably seen this story already, but if you’ve missed it, here’s a rundown.

IF YOU DO A SEARCH on the truly marvellous Google on the phrase Bush “demonstrating genuine leadership”, like the Three Bears song goes, you’re in for a big surprise.

The search engine reveals three pages of results which list letters to the editors of august publications including the Boston Globe, the Star Press, the Suburban Chicago Courier News, and many many more.

They all have a similar form, starting: “WHEN IT COMES to the economy, President Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership. The growth package he has proposed takes us in the right direction by accelerating the….”

Amazing, that so many Republicans across the country were independently inspired to write nearly identical letters to the editor. Where are Mulder and Scully when you need them?

Atrios has been on this as well.

And if you go here, you can sign up to become a GOP team leader and help keep an eye on their clumsy attempts at manipulating public opinion.

ABC News looks at the Bush tax plan:

What the president said: “92 million Americans will keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money when this tax plan goes through…”

What we found:

If you look at the average for all taxpayers, this is correct.

However, this average is derived from all income levels and all estimated savings. This skews the number upward.

According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institute, 80 percent of all tax filers would receive less than the $1,083 average the president mentioned.

Meanwhile, half of all tax filers would get less than $100.

More.

These remixed propaganda posters are amazing. Click on any of them to start the slide show, but be sure that you don’t have anything to do for the next twenty or thirty minutes.

This is the cover of Ann Coulter’s next book.

Look, I know she’s a clown. I know she’s an opportunist who says outrageous things to provoke a response, draw attention to herself. But Roy Cohn was also a clown and an opportunist. The messenger may be an idiot, but it doesn’t mean that the message is harmless.

But of course, we never do seem to learn from the lessons of history. They’ve got a word for you, if you stand up and say hey, I think we’ve been down this road before, and it didn’t really work out so well the last time. And that word is not “thoughtful,” or “concerned.” That word is “alarmist.” As if alarms are a bad thing. As if we should wait until the flames are consuming the first floor and the hallways are filled with smoke before we respond, because raising a hue and cry any earlier would be, well, you know. Alarmist.

(Heads up on the book via Carl of anti-Coulter. He’s kind of on hiatus right now, but I think he’ll be back.)