"Reasonably Accurate"

Tom Kean Sr is a legendary figure in New Jersey politics.  He's not a particularly good man, having been elected through race-baiting and voter-suppression.  He wasn't a particularly good Governor, since he left a huge debt for New Jersey to clean up.  For some reason he's been canonized, which helped his son get the Republican nomination for Senator, since name recognition is incredibly expensive in the Garden State.  

It's far past time that the Kean's be called on their dishonest reputation.  Aside from engaging in corruption to fundraise for Tommy Junior, Kean is now a critical piece of the partisan disinformation offensive around 9/11, sacrificing the reputation of the 9/11 Commission to further his son's electoral chances in New Jersey.

As for that campaign, here's what you need to know. Tom Kean Jr is a light-weight politician who dropped the 'Jr' from his name in the hopes that no one would notice that he's not his Dad.  2006 is obviously a very anti-Republican year, so Junior can't run fast enough from Iraq and Bush.  At the same time, he really needs money from the Republican establishment, as well as a big distracting push centering on 9/11 to have any hope of skilled anti-war incumbent Senator Bob Menendez.  His Dad will do anything to help him.

As for Kean Sr, he's well-liked in New Jersey.  Like Lieberman, Kean is one of those old wisemen who are incredibly cavalier about power and honesty, since they see themselves as above the fray even as they engage in partisan sniping.  Though there are several choice quotes that undercut Kean's supposed integrity, I'm a fan of this quote about the fabricated scene in the docudrama in which Sandy Berger refuses to order an attack on bin Laden.  Keep in mind that this scene is entirely made up.

Neither Berger nor Ben-Veniste was consulted on the film. Kean, however, is an official adviser; he says the incident was a fictionalized composite. It was "representative of a series of events compacted into one," he replied to Ben-Veniste at the time. In a phone interview a few days later, he added, "It's reasonably accurate."

I get it now.  Apparently invading Iraq is fine.  Saddam didn't quite attack us on 9/11, but he's in the Middle East, so it's reasonably accurate to attack him instead.

I know it's late in the season, but I wonder if Atrios would approve of a new category, super-wanker.



Display:


Re: "Reasonably Accurate" (none / 0)

Where's Bill Bradley?  He should step forward to counter this Kean assault; he has the skill and authority necessary.


by lutton on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 08:56:40 PM EST

Re: "Reasonably Accurate" (none / 0)

I would suggest "meta-wanker" as being more chic.


by fwoolz on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:30:08 PM EST

Re: "Reasonably Accurate" (none / 0)

Nah, "uber-wanker," don't you think?

Because a meta-wanker would be wanking about wanking, and whatever Kean is doing, it's not that.

Incidentally, there's a key word buried in the post:

Disinformation.

Isn't it clear this is part of a disinformation campaign in the run-up to election 2006?

Just as the White House Iraq Group ran a disinformation campaign for election 2002.


by lambert on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:46:37 PM EST

Re: "Reasonably Accurate" (none / 0)

Kean has a chance to win here because Menendez comes out of the Hudson County political machine(I grew up in his home town of Union City) and is open to attack on ethical grounds.Kean is also busy running like crazy away from Bush. Gov.Corzine should have chosen either Rep.Frank Pallone or Rep.Rob Andrews to replace him in the Senate. Against either man,the weak sister Kean would have had no chance.


by Litvak36 on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:13:54 PM EST

I Don't Get you Matt (none / 0)

I completely agree with you Matt that Kean is a hack and it's no wonder why he was picked to be a consultant for the ABC mockumentary.

Here's what I don't get though Matt:  Why do you still trust the 9/11 Commission Report when he was one of the Chairs?  Why do you still trust the 9/11 Commission Report when Philip Zelikow (who was on Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board) controlled the direction of the Commission?

Other members had conflicts of interest too.

I just don't get why you would trust him on the 9/11 Commission, but not for the ABC movie?


by Ian Campbell on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:32:18 PM EST

Karl Rove owns Thomas Kean Jr (none / 0)

Tom Kean Sr isn't clueless -- he's a dirty GOoPer who's managed to maintain a sqeaky clean image, despite having a closet full of skeletons.

Tom Kean Sr was the beneficary of a Republican Vote Suppression scheme, that led to a DNC vs RNC lawsuit. The suit was settled in 1982, with the RNC promising never to use the Ballot Security Task Force scam ever again -- the very same year Karl Rove used it in Texas.

Short answer -- Karl Rove has Tom Kean Sr by the short hairs.

See Rachel Berry's:

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE V. EDWARD J. ROLLINS:

POLITICS AS USUAL OR UNUSUAL POLITICS?

Section C. Prior Attempts At Vote Suppression By The Republican National Committee

The lawsuit filed by the DNC against Rollins was not the first time that the DNC accused the Republican Party of targeting black voting for "suppression" in New Jersey.(40) In 1981, Democratic gubernatorial candidate James Florio lost to Republican Thomas Kean in an election that produced the narrowest margin of victory in the history of the state.(41) ...

According to the DNC, the BSTF's tactics were part of a conspiracy designed to intimidate, harass and coerce black and Hispanic voters not to vote.(70) The DNC charged that the BSTF acted with the intent to deprive the voters -- targeted because of their race -- of their rights of equal protection under the law and their right to vote.(71) Two voters joined as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, alleging that the BSTF had intimidated and harassed them at voting sites.(72) One voter claimed that she did not vote because of the actions of the BSTF.(73) The DNC requested that the court issue an injunction ordering the RNC to refrain from undertaking similar ballot security measures across the country.(74)

The lawsuit filed by the DNC produced a 1982 settlement agreement between the parties and a consent order from Federal District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise binding the RNC on a national level to refrain from further use of ballot integrity programs. ...

Excerpt and link from The Texas Blueprint for the Stolen Election.


by ck on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 11:07:19 PM EST

Re: "Reasonably Accurate" (none / 0)

Anti-Iraq War, please.


by 1dave11 on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 11:08:48 PM EST

Re: "Reasonably Accurate" (none / 0)

As you probably know, Scholastic has produced materials for teachers to ``teach'' the docudrama.  I have scrutinized them all--they can be downloaded at this site.  

You can write the VP for Investor Relations (hit em in the pocket book) for Scholastic about this--the email address is  investor_relations@scholastic.com
The idea is to hit them on their wallet.  

Here are some of the most objectionable items I gleaned:

First handout: This provides what at first glance is a reasonable geographic/demographic overview of the middle east for the most part.  But if you look at the second paragraph you find the sentence

``Following are short descriptions of some of the countries and groups that
were involved in some way with the terrorist attacks.''

If you guess that this list includes Iran, Iraq, and Syria (as well as Yemen, Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan) you would be right.  If you guess that it includes Saudi Arabia you would be wrong.

Student Resource Sheet 2:
This discusses organizations in the government mentioned
by the 9/11 commission report and involved in investigating 9/11.  It is a bunch of benign looking bullet points.  But, amongst them-
*The Department of Homeland Security is described as created by Pres. Bush in 2002.  Uh,
didn't this actually require an act of congress? Didn't Bush drag his ass until Rove realized how to use this for political gain? Sheesh.  
*The CIA, FBI, and NORAD are correctly slammed for the problems on 9/11.  Curiously, the NSA is
only benignly praised and their failure to translate some key messages is ignored.
*No mention is made of the failures of the NSC to respond.  Again, benign praise.
*The office of the president itself is absent completely, as though there is no reason to look there.

Debate questions: Here is a groaner:

``The 9/11 Commission Report affords us hindsight.
Knowing what we know now, do you think the
attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented? Back up
your argument with examples from the miniseries or
The 9/11 Commission Report.''

This question tacitly puts the docudrama on the same footing as the report.  And where do you think the target audience of 9-12 graders will go to back up their arguments?  Right! Those massive free downloads of this bloody travesty of a docudrama.  

There is more to object to of course.  But this offers a good start.
 


by calscientist on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:52:52 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.