If this is a topic of interest, you absolutely must read this great review of three books on how China has dealt with its Moslems in the west. The critic makes some brilliant points about how China deals with troublesome minorities. Even scarier, however, is how the US has abetted this oppression by giving it legitimacy under our “war on terror.”

Susan Estrich, a Fox commentator and former manager of the Dukakis presidential campaign, just said there is no way Kerry can choose anyone but Edwards for his VP. Her arguments are good: So many of Kerry’s followers (like me) will be devastated if he chooses anyone else, and Kerry knows it. Gephardt just doesn’t cut it for these people, and Kerry knows it. Edwards will give the ticket an infusion of Southern charm and youthful energy, and Kerry knows it. It’s already a done deal, she said on tonight’s O’Reilly Factor.

This was music to my ears, but it has to be remembered that just a few days ago pundits were predicting it would be Gephardt. So I’ll hold back my enthusiasm until I hear it from John Kerry’s mouth. But I sure feel a lot more upbeat today than I did last week.

These guidelines for talking about the Iraq war in a manner that associates it with 9/11 were prepared by Republican pollster/strategist Frank Luntz. It’s a pdf file so I can’t cut and paste, but some of these points are quite revealing.

Remember, I’ve always said the Republicans are masterful when it comes to singing from the same songbook and staying “on-message.” That’s thanks to documents like this. I don’t like the Republicans’ messages, which are based on deception, but I admire their organization and their appreciation of coordinated communication. The Democrats need to learn to do the same: idenitfy your key messages, articulate them with compelling and powerful language, and never waiver from them.

The notes were discovered by Atrios — thanks.

He sure gives a great interview — and it brought back all sorts of nostalgic memories of a president who could actually hold a conversation without leaning on platitudes and talking points.

From Patriotboy:

Klinton dishonors Our Leader

Like many of you, I watched Klinton’s disgraceful acceptance of responsibility for the Lewinsky Scandal last night on 60 Minutes. He did not try to lie his way out of it or blame it on an underling. It’s as if he believes that it’s acceptable for a President to admit to making mistakes.

If Our Leader had been in Klinton’s position, he’d have done the honorable thing and blamed the White House cigar provisioner. He’d do so with the knowledge that today, Rush would back him up by railing against tobacconists, O’Reilly would be calling for a boycott of wrapper leaf from the Dominican Republic, and Coulter would have killed some elderly Cuban cigar roller in Tampa with a homemade shiv. By next week, no patriotic American would dare voice the slightest doubt about presidential infallibility. That’s Bush Era leadership–the kind of leadership we missed during the Klinton years.

“Presidential infallibility” — now that is priceless.

It’s the 10-year anniversary of the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman and needless to say the airwaves are jammed with stories about “the trial of the century.”

I watched all the usual suspects on Larry King last night — Goldman’s father and sister, Lt. Vanatter, LA detective Lange, Nicole’s sister — telling all the usual stories about what a circus the trial was and how poorly Judge Ito and Marcia Clark handled things, what a theatrical grandstander Johnny Cochrane was, how Clark didn’t let the jurors see the most damning evidence, how Cochrane shamelessly played the race card, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Let me say right up front that I tend to believe all of these things. We all do. It is simply a matter of fact that OJ Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole — or at least it is a matter of fact that this is what we all believe. There was no one on King’s cozy little panel, or on any of the other rehash shows on TV I’ve seen, who stand up for OJ and say he was innocent.

This is exactly why you should take a look at Joseph Bosco’s article on this subject. His conclusions are diametrically opposed to those we’ve been fed by the media and the victims’ families. It’s a long piece with lots of names you’ve never heard before, and it isn’t always easy reading. But Joseph does have unique credentials to tell this story: he was one of the tiny handful of journalists selected to sit in the courthouse and cover the story every day. He has met and interviewed all of the characters. And he has a long history of forensic journalism.

I admit, I am not convinced by Joseph’s argument becuase I don’t yet understand it well enough. After “knowing” that OJ did it for 10 years, it is very hard to re-adjust your thought patterns even to entertain the possibility that this might not be so. And I haven’t done it yet. But if what Joseph is saying is true, we may be forced to do exactly that, because this case may not be over yet.

Joseph has a lot of courage to come out with a story that flies in the face of everything we know and believe. Some critics have slammed his book on the trial (A Problem of Evidence), claiming the Cochrane crowd hijacked him and managed to convince him their BS story was true. (Knowing Joseph personally, I find this just about impossible to swallow.)

[UPDATE: See Joseph’s comment below for clarification of his book’s conclusions.]

Not having read Joseph’s book yet, I have to say I’m in a holding pattern right now, still believing that OJ did it, but willing to listen if new evidence surfaces to show otherwise. But before you start insisting that everything the Larry King panelists say is true (as I tend to do), keep an open mind and see what Joseph has to say in his article. I was definitely surprised.

Thomas Friedman explores why this is so important to so many students, and just how far they’re willing to go to make their dream come true.

If anti-Americanism is on the rise around the world, no one told the kids in the student visa line at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. The quest among Chinese students for visas to study in America, say U.S. Embassy officials, has become so intense that it has spawned Internet chat rooms, where Chinese students swap stories about which arguments work best with which U.S. consular officials and even give them names like “Amazon Goddess,” “Too Tall Baldy” and “Handsome Guy.”

Just how closely Chinese students strategize over the Internet on how to get visas to America — at a time when fewer are being given for security reasons — was revealed to the embassy recently when on one day one consular officer had scores of students come through with the same line, which some chat room had suggested would work: “I want to go to America to become a famous professor.” After hearing this all day, he was surprised to get one student who came before him and pronounced, “My mom has an artificial limb and I want to build a better artificial leg for my mom and that is why I want to study in the U.S.” The consular officer was so relieved to hear a new line that he told the young man: “You know, this is the best story I’ve heard this morning. I really salute you. I’m going to give you a visa.”

You guessed it. The next day every other student who showed up at the embassy said he or she wanted to go to America to learn how to build “a better artificial limb for my mother.” Said one U.S. official: “We have to be so careful what we say, because it gets into the chat rooms right away.”

Friedman also explores an obvious dichotomy: Anti-Americanism is at an all time high thanks to our “president,” and yet more students than ever are passionate about wanting to come here. Of course, under Bush we have made it all but impossible for these students to get their wish, and Friedman says that under a smarter, more forward-thinking president this wretched situation would and should be corrected.

I’m completely serious. Danwei’s got the scoop, as usual.

More of the same, as China’s rulers seek to stem the tide of materials that could lead to “social instability.”

China’s Internet police stepped up an ongoing campaign to control the web by issuing new measures to crackdown on “unhealthy” Internet content, state press said.

A circular issued by the Ministry of Information Industry has unveiled a series of measures to regulate content, crackdown on unregistered Internet bars and step up controls over online bulletin boards and chatrooms, Xinhua news agency said.

The measures will also ensure that Internet information providers refrain from spreading “information threatening national security or social stability,” or containing superstitious or erotic content, it said….

Chinese websites, Internet service providers (ISPs) and other Internet-related organizations were also urged to sign an agreement setting up principles of “self-discipline” and self-policing of the Internet, Xinhua said in a separate article.

Censorship, fear and repression, the golden rule for the CCP to hold onto power, even in the age of great reform. Sorry if that sounds polemical, but it’s just the way it is.

Funny, how one idiotic suggestion from the US Defense Department can spark a frenzy of angst and debate.

China should withdraw its undertaking on no first-use of nuclear weapons should Taiwan try to blow up the Three Gorges Dam, according to some parliamentary delegates.

The call was made by them – as well as some who sit on the country’s top political advisory body – in the wake of a recent US Defence Department report which suggested that Taiwan could target the dam in a pre-emptive strike.

That study sparked off a public debate in Taiwan on developing a military offensive strategy. In response, delegates to China’s National People’s Congress, the de facto parliament, and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference wrote to the central government in Beijing, calling for it to revise its no-first-use pledge on nuclear weapons.

Their argument is that the undertaking needs to be changed now that the country is facing hostile forces planning attacks against its densely populated regions and the dam, the world’s biggest hydroelectric project.

They feel that such strikes should be viewed as terrorist attacks and that China should use nuclear weapons as a deterrence.

Talk about opening a can of worms. Next time I hope we can be a bit more discreet when we make recommendations that, if ever carried out, would result in the deaths of untold millions of civilians.

Right now we’re watching the Bush people do the same two-step they’ve done before when they get caught in their bullshit.

The last time it was the weapons of mass destruction which, we were all told prior to the invasion, the Iraqis had amassed in lethal stockpiles. When this turned out not to be the case, Bush could have been honest and said we were wrong. He could have said a mistake was made. Instead, he played wordgames. We had found “weapons of mass-destruction-related program activities” (whatever the hell that means, and that is an exact quote from his last SOTU address). And that justified things. A shift in language, a bit of parsing and re-adjusting, and he squirmed off the hook.

Would you have sacrificed your loved ones for “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities”? Of course not, and that’s not what he said before the attack. It was deadly stockpiles posing a threat that needed to be dealt with at once.

Now it’s whether or not he ever led us all to believe there was a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam. Same thing all over again — Bush and Cheney never really said that, what they really said was parse parse parse….

But we all know that drawing a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam was a major factor in the administration’s convincing the American people that this was a war worth fighting, a war worth sacrificing the blood of their children and husbands and fathers. Bush needed to wrap it in the immediacy of September 11, as a centerpiece of his imaginary war on terror.

But today, with the bipartisan commission’s statement that there was no connection of any significance between Saddam and al Qaeda, Bush has to move the furniture around again. The new line is we never said Saddam was involved in 911 — and while that’s technically true, they definitely embarked on a disinformation campaign to foment the idea and then did nothing to set the record straight.

This is all documented by Spencer Ackerman, sitting in for Josh Marshall and doing a great job. He gives Bush’s and Cheney’s exact quotes with the dates and the links. There is simply no argument. These two shysters consciously and consistently campaigned to convince the man on the street that Saddam was a terrorist threat with deep and meaningful ties to al Qaeda.

Now that it’s many months later, they’re trying to say we never really said that, just like we never really said Saddam’s weapons posed an imminent threat. They could prove in court they didn’t actually say the precise words — but the record shows that they did indeed say it, though they chose their words with legalistic care. These guys are good. They’re smooth — especially Cheney. I admire them, even as I’m repulsed by them.

Whatever you do, check out the actual record of what was said, both by Cheney/Bush and the 911 Commission. It’s all in the TPM post, which is essential reading for those who really want a sense of perspective. The record speaks for itself: Bush and Cheney are liars and scoundrels.

Update: As Billmon mulls over the same topic of Bush-age doublespeak, he offers this quote, that says it all:

George Orwell
1984

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.