Tulsa: 1921
CNN.com - Extension sought in 1921 race riot lawsuit - Feb. 13, 2004
What this article doesn't say is that Tulsa was the first city to be firebombed from the sky (scroll down--or search the article for the word 'Tulsa'). This was done as an attempt to terrorize the African-American population, who had rioted in protest over the arrest of a black man who had been accused of hitting a white woman. Sixteen years before Guernica, African-Americans in Tulsa had the dubious distinction of being the first victims of this modern form of warfare. Sure, the planes were primitive--but the damage they caused was significant. Additionally, the indiscriminate violence inherent in this type of campaign resonates through the modern age as an ugly example of of our capacity for brutality.
Whether or not the extension is granted, I hope that the families of the victims will eventually receive some sort of apology and/or compensation for their suffering. And I hope that one day we will all remember Tulsa just as we remember Guernica: as an event that should never happen again.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Friday, February 13, 2004
Update: ALL Means SOME
CNN has more information regarding the release of George W. Bush's military records:
There are still some gaps in the information, especially regarding his service between May 1972 to May 1973, after Bush asked for a transfer from Texas to Alabama so he could work on the Senate campaign of family friend Winton Blount.
[snip]
Reporters were also allowed to review Bush's medical records from 1968 to 1971 but not to remove them from the Roosevelt Room.
How many times have I heard something akin to "The record will exonerate [x]--but we won't release it." And how many times has "the record" EVER exonerated [x]?
Something tells me there's a piece of the puzzle that NO ONE in the Bush Administration wants to see the light of day. There's not always fire where there's smoke, but it would be a foolish firefighter who ignored its presence. As for this being a "thirty-year old" issue: as I've posted below, IT ISN'T, not when you take into consideration things like Bush's biography (I read somewhere that Karen Hughes is the actual author, hence no "auto" prefix), or his militaristic policies. Hell, if it WAS a thirty-year old issue, why WOULDN'T Bush just publish it all and get it over with?
My guess is it has something to do with drugs. This would be of utmost embarrassment to Bush, who has, to date, made only oblique references to using anything other than alcohol. Funny--I recall Pat Screen, former Mayor of Baton Rouge, very publically admitting to alcohol problems not long after his initial election. Screen was found dead in 1994 in a seedy New Orleans motel, apparently victim of a drug overdose.
This story won't die, and shouldn't die, until ALL the facts come out.
CNN has more information regarding the release of George W. Bush's military records:
There are still some gaps in the information, especially regarding his service between May 1972 to May 1973, after Bush asked for a transfer from Texas to Alabama so he could work on the Senate campaign of family friend Winton Blount.
[snip]
Reporters were also allowed to review Bush's medical records from 1968 to 1971 but not to remove them from the Roosevelt Room.
How many times have I heard something akin to "The record will exonerate [x]--but we won't release it." And how many times has "the record" EVER exonerated [x]?
Something tells me there's a piece of the puzzle that NO ONE in the Bush Administration wants to see the light of day. There's not always fire where there's smoke, but it would be a foolish firefighter who ignored its presence. As for this being a "thirty-year old" issue: as I've posted below, IT ISN'T, not when you take into consideration things like Bush's biography (I read somewhere that Karen Hughes is the actual author, hence no "auto" prefix), or his militaristic policies. Hell, if it WAS a thirty-year old issue, why WOULDN'T Bush just publish it all and get it over with?
My guess is it has something to do with drugs. This would be of utmost embarrassment to Bush, who has, to date, made only oblique references to using anything other than alcohol. Funny--I recall Pat Screen, former Mayor of Baton Rouge, very publically admitting to alcohol problems not long after his initial election. Screen was found dead in 1994 in a seedy New Orleans motel, apparently victim of a drug overdose.
This story won't die, and shouldn't die, until ALL the facts come out.
Does All Mean ALL--or just SOME?
Re: the Bush decision to release ALL his military records:
Timshel is where I first saw this, but then quitting time finally arrived--and, being a good bureaucrat, I made the logical decision: go home.
Since it's STILL raining and generally shitty outside (fourth day in a row for rain) I'll see what else is out in the blogosphere before commenting further. Then, it being Friday night and all, I'll commune with the BR public, at least that element that hangs out near LSU.
Still--you've gotta wonder why Bush would one, hold stuff back for so long, and two, whether or not ALL really does mean ALL this time...
Re: the Bush decision to release ALL his military records:
Timshel is where I first saw this, but then quitting time finally arrived--and, being a good bureaucrat, I made the logical decision: go home.
Since it's STILL raining and generally shitty outside (fourth day in a row for rain) I'll see what else is out in the blogosphere before commenting further. Then, it being Friday night and all, I'll commune with the BR public, at least that element that hangs out near LSU.
Still--you've gotta wonder why Bush would one, hold stuff back for so long, and two, whether or not ALL really does mean ALL this time...
John Kerry Sightings
I started out at Atrios, whose guest poster now has an altered copy of an altered copy of a Kerry photo debunked by Snopes--Jane Fonda has been replaced by WTC Waldo. Meanwhile, Washing the Blog has some additional photos of the Senator, indicating he present at a number of important events, including the assassination of Oswald (or his blues debut, depending on your point of view), the crash of the Hindenburg, etc. etc.
About the only place Kerry hasn't yet been seen at is The Last Supper and/or the Crucifixion, although at this point I wouldn't be surprised at all if Ed Gillespie claims to notice a surprising resemblence between the junior Senator from Massachusetts and a certain convicted felon named Barabas who is furloughed by a certainMassachusetts' Governor Dukakis, um, certain Roman Procurator Pilatus.
I started out at Atrios, whose guest poster now has an altered copy of an altered copy of a Kerry photo debunked by Snopes--Jane Fonda has been replaced by WTC Waldo. Meanwhile, Washing the Blog has some additional photos of the Senator, indicating he present at a number of important events, including the assassination of Oswald (or his blues debut, depending on your point of view), the crash of the Hindenburg, etc. etc.
About the only place Kerry hasn't yet been seen at is The Last Supper and/or the Crucifixion, although at this point I wouldn't be surprised at all if Ed Gillespie claims to notice a surprising resemblence between the junior Senator from Massachusetts and a certain convicted felon named Barabas who is furloughed by a certain
Meanwhile, Elsewhere in the Midwest
CNN.com - 'Climax' shirt too sexy for school - Feb. 13, 2004
CLIMAX, Minnesota (AP) -- Showing town spirit in Climax is cause for punishment in this Minnesota town.
Shirley Moberg, superintendent of Climax-Shelly schools, said T-shirts bearing the town's slogan "Climax -- More than just a feeling," are inappropriate because of the sexual innuendo.
About a dozen students wore centennial T-shirts to school this week in protest, and one girl was sent home Wednesday for refusing to turn her shirt inside out.
This gives me some hope for the future--at least a few folks still have a sense of irony. Well, at least the students--can't really speak for the idiot school admins who fail to understand.
Happy Mardi Gras, Climax!
CNN.com - 'Climax' shirt too sexy for school - Feb. 13, 2004
CLIMAX, Minnesota (AP) -- Showing town spirit in Climax is cause for punishment in this Minnesota town.
Shirley Moberg, superintendent of Climax-Shelly schools, said T-shirts bearing the town's slogan "Climax -- More than just a feeling," are inappropriate because of the sexual innuendo.
About a dozen students wore centennial T-shirts to school this week in protest, and one girl was sent home Wednesday for refusing to turn her shirt inside out.
This gives me some hope for the future--at least a few folks still have a sense of irony. Well, at least the students--can't really speak for the idiot school admins who fail to understand.
Happy Mardi Gras, Climax!
Speaking of Hedonism
I've decided to stay away from the Kerry/Intern story until I see more beyond slimemongers like Matt Drudge (I purposely provide no link to clowns like him). I will, however, link to Al Giordano, not the least because he provides a quaint Louisiana reference in his own take on the matter:
I once asked [James] Carville about [the Gennifer Flowers incident in 1992]. I mentioned that he had been a student of T. Harry Williams - author of the biography "Huey Long," at LSU. Williams had a revealing passage in that book about Long's attitude toward his own "sex scandals." Every time the pro-oil company newspapers ran another front page story about Governor Long being seen speeding down the highway at six in the morning with one hand on a flask and the other around a young lady, his aides would coming running to him, panicked, and he'd say something like, "this is good press! It shows the voters that I'm a cracker just like them!" (Carville didn't say a word in response, by the way.)
I'll admit I went to Drudge to see what he had to say this morning about all this: apparently, on the Don Imus show (yet another creep who looks like he never got away from his Beavis and Butthead years), Kerry is denying all. Does that mean I believe him? No. Does that mean this is over? No. But if this remains the realm of quacks like Drudge and the right-wingnuts, this will do little to harm the Senator's reputation, and, oddly, could enhance it--see Giordano's article. Teflon has no party loyalty.
I've decided to stay away from the Kerry/Intern story until I see more beyond slimemongers like Matt Drudge (I purposely provide no link to clowns like him). I will, however, link to Al Giordano, not the least because he provides a quaint Louisiana reference in his own take on the matter:
I once asked [James] Carville about [the Gennifer Flowers incident in 1992]. I mentioned that he had been a student of T. Harry Williams - author of the biography "Huey Long," at LSU. Williams had a revealing passage in that book about Long's attitude toward his own "sex scandals." Every time the pro-oil company newspapers ran another front page story about Governor Long being seen speeding down the highway at six in the morning with one hand on a flask and the other around a young lady, his aides would coming running to him, panicked, and he'd say something like, "this is good press! It shows the voters that I'm a cracker just like them!" (Carville didn't say a word in response, by the way.)
I'll admit I went to Drudge to see what he had to say this morning about all this: apparently, on the Don Imus show (yet another creep who looks like he never got away from his Beavis and Butthead years), Kerry is denying all. Does that mean I believe him? No. Does that mean this is over? No. But if this remains the realm of quacks like Drudge and the right-wingnuts, this will do little to harm the Senator's reputation, and, oddly, could enhance it--see Giordano's article. Teflon has no party loyalty.
Hey Kids, It's Anti-Mardi Gras Day
CNN.com - Teens promote abstinence with 'Day of Purity' - Feb. 13, 2004
[Melissa] Millis, a high school senior in Michigan, and thousands of other students across the nation plan to wear white T-shirts to school Friday, the day before Valentine's Day, to publicly show their commitment to not having sex outside marriage. They're calling their effort the "Day of Purity," and they will distribute pro-abstinence pamphlets to their peers.
Pro-abstinence pamphlets? No floats, no beads, no hedonistic wandering through the French Quarter? Throwme up something, mister...
Seriously, though, does anyone REALLY think that teenagers can, uh, THINK their way out of sexual situations? Excuse me, but far better that we provide the following to teens:
Realistic Sex Education taught by health professionals who can shatter myths and explain the benefits of responsible sexual health.
Access to birth control, particularly condoms--but any and all forms of birth control.
If someone REALLY wants to throw a hissy fit, sexual abstinence until one reaches the age of majority should be encouraged, but done so with the understanding that human sexuality isn't something that can be turned off like a lightswitch.
Al Franken, of all people, said in his most recent book much the same thing. As a father, he notes that his kids have NEVER seen any contradiction between encouraging abstinence until reaching the age of majority, and the idea that, if you REALLY want to have sex, to take precautions, particularly by using condoms as a prophylactic against pregnancy and sexual disease.
Festivals like Mardi Gras, the Bacchanalian rites of ancient Greece, the Saturnalian rites of ancient Rome, etc. etc., are part and parcel to the human experience. That's why they've lasted as long as--well, as long as humans have collectively organized and chronicled their history. "Purity Days" are a joke: they will no more keep basic urges in check than pulling down the shade will keep the sun from rising.
That doesn't mean that people should be entitled to engage in the human equivalent of the rutting season. I'm simply saying that hedonism is a natural component of human existence, just as piety is--and balancing these and other components of human existence, with the perspective of an adult--or, in the case of a teen, a young adult--is at least my idea of "the good and proper life."
OK, so much for hedonism and new age. Back to poltics...
CNN.com - Teens promote abstinence with 'Day of Purity' - Feb. 13, 2004
[Melissa] Millis, a high school senior in Michigan, and thousands of other students across the nation plan to wear white T-shirts to school Friday, the day before Valentine's Day, to publicly show their commitment to not having sex outside marriage. They're calling their effort the "Day of Purity," and they will distribute pro-abstinence pamphlets to their peers.
Pro-abstinence pamphlets? No floats, no beads, no hedonistic wandering through the French Quarter? Throw
Seriously, though, does anyone REALLY think that teenagers can, uh, THINK their way out of sexual situations? Excuse me, but far better that we provide the following to teens:
Realistic Sex Education taught by health professionals who can shatter myths and explain the benefits of responsible sexual health.
Access to birth control, particularly condoms--but any and all forms of birth control.
If someone REALLY wants to throw a hissy fit, sexual abstinence until one reaches the age of majority should be encouraged, but done so with the understanding that human sexuality isn't something that can be turned off like a lightswitch.
Al Franken, of all people, said in his most recent book much the same thing. As a father, he notes that his kids have NEVER seen any contradiction between encouraging abstinence until reaching the age of majority, and the idea that, if you REALLY want to have sex, to take precautions, particularly by using condoms as a prophylactic against pregnancy and sexual disease.
Festivals like Mardi Gras, the Bacchanalian rites of ancient Greece, the Saturnalian rites of ancient Rome, etc. etc., are part and parcel to the human experience. That's why they've lasted as long as--well, as long as humans have collectively organized and chronicled their history. "Purity Days" are a joke: they will no more keep basic urges in check than pulling down the shade will keep the sun from rising.
That doesn't mean that people should be entitled to engage in the human equivalent of the rutting season. I'm simply saying that hedonism is a natural component of human existence, just as piety is--and balancing these and other components of human existence, with the perspective of an adult--or, in the case of a teen, a young adult--is at least my idea of "the good and proper life."
OK, so much for hedonism and new age. Back to poltics...
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Misogyny 101
Mary posted this earlier today and it almost made me hurl. Here's a quote from the AP story that she referenced:
'When we're considering an innocent life, the health of the mother is not a substantial enough justification to take the innocent life,' said Republican Rep. Matt McCaulley, chief sponsor of the bill.
I recommend following the links that Mary references.
If there is any justice in the world, Matt would have to limit his romantic liasons to bovines or ovines (and perhaps the occasional goat) after a statement like that. My position, and the position of those who I support is simple: Termination of a pregnancy is a woman's choice. Period. If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, it is her right. End of story. A woman, in consultation with her physician, has the right to make her own decisions as to her health--physical (which includes reproductive--duh), and mental. If you can't handle that, too bad, so sad, find a tissue to cry into.
Those who say they're merely "advocates" for the "unborn child" are full of shit. It's NOT an unborn child. It is a fetus. It is NOT an independent life.
Like Bill Hicks said, if the anti-abortion idiot fucks really hold life to be sacred, why don't they lock arms and block cemetaries. Until then, count me in the corner of those who hold the position that a woman's rights are more important than the requirement that she carry a fetus to term if she does not want to--and that's for ANY reason she so deems.
End of story. Enjoy the cows, Matt McCaulley.
Mary posted this earlier today and it almost made me hurl. Here's a quote from the AP story that she referenced:
'When we're considering an innocent life, the health of the mother is not a substantial enough justification to take the innocent life,' said Republican Rep. Matt McCaulley, chief sponsor of the bill.
I recommend following the links that Mary references.
If there is any justice in the world, Matt would have to limit his romantic liasons to bovines or ovines (and perhaps the occasional goat) after a statement like that. My position, and the position of those who I support is simple: Termination of a pregnancy is a woman's choice. Period. If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, it is her right. End of story. A woman, in consultation with her physician, has the right to make her own decisions as to her health--physical (which includes reproductive--duh), and mental. If you can't handle that, too bad, so sad, find a tissue to cry into.
Those who say they're merely "advocates" for the "unborn child" are full of shit. It's NOT an unborn child. It is a fetus. It is NOT an independent life.
Like Bill Hicks said, if the anti-abortion idiot fucks really hold life to be sacred, why don't they lock arms and block cemetaries. Until then, count me in the corner of those who hold the position that a woman's rights are more important than the requirement that she carry a fetus to term if she does not want to--and that's for ANY reason she so deems.
End of story. Enjoy the cows, Matt McCaulley.
A Faith Based Initiative
Cursor links to this story from Reuters:
MONTREAL (Reuters) - Crossing the U.S.-Canada border to go to church on a Sunday cost a U.S. citizen $10,000 for breaching Washington's tough new security rules.
The expensive trip to church was a surprise for Richard Albert, a resident of rural Maine who lives so close to the Canadian border the U.S. customs office is right next door to his house.
[snip]
Albert says did not expect any problems three weeks ago when he returned home to the United States after attending mass in Canada, as usual.
The local U.S. customs station is closed on Sundays, so he just drove around the locked gate, as he had done every weekend since the gate appeared last May, following a tightening of border security.
Two days later, Albert was summoned to the customs office, where an officer told him he had been caught on camera crossing the border illegally.
Ottawa has granted special passes to some 300 U.S. citizens in that region so they can enter the country when Canadian customs posts are closed, but the United States canceled a similar program last May.
That forces local residents to make a 200-mile detour along treacherous logging roads to get home via the nearest staffed border checkpoint.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection would not comment specifically on Albert's case because of privacy laws.
"Since 9/11, we've enhanced our security and, yes, some of the situations require inconvenience to people, so we have to go along with what the regulations are," said Janet Rapaport, a public affairs officer with the bureau. She added that local residents had been told about the stricter controls.
Albert has appealed the fine, but he has not attended a Sunday mass since.
"I feel like I'm living in a jail," he said.
Of course, protestants routinely allege that Catholics aren't really Christians, so perhaps this is simply Asscraft's way of getting the word out.
Cursor links to this story from Reuters:
MONTREAL (Reuters) - Crossing the U.S.-Canada border to go to church on a Sunday cost a U.S. citizen $10,000 for breaching Washington's tough new security rules.
The expensive trip to church was a surprise for Richard Albert, a resident of rural Maine who lives so close to the Canadian border the U.S. customs office is right next door to his house.
[snip]
Albert says did not expect any problems three weeks ago when he returned home to the United States after attending mass in Canada, as usual.
The local U.S. customs station is closed on Sundays, so he just drove around the locked gate, as he had done every weekend since the gate appeared last May, following a tightening of border security.
Two days later, Albert was summoned to the customs office, where an officer told him he had been caught on camera crossing the border illegally.
Ottawa has granted special passes to some 300 U.S. citizens in that region so they can enter the country when Canadian customs posts are closed, but the United States canceled a similar program last May.
That forces local residents to make a 200-mile detour along treacherous logging roads to get home via the nearest staffed border checkpoint.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection would not comment specifically on Albert's case because of privacy laws.
"Since 9/11, we've enhanced our security and, yes, some of the situations require inconvenience to people, so we have to go along with what the regulations are," said Janet Rapaport, a public affairs officer with the bureau. She added that local residents had been told about the stricter controls.
Albert has appealed the fine, but he has not attended a Sunday mass since.
"I feel like I'm living in a jail," he said.
Of course, protestants routinely allege that Catholics aren't really Christians, so perhaps this is simply Asscraft's way of getting the word out.
Books A'WOL
Others have done the heavy lifting on this issue--Calpundit seems to be taking the lead, and I've been linking from the items that Atrios pens, but I hope I'm not stating the obvious--or missing something that someone has already written--sorry if I don't reference everything, but I'll bet anyone starting at the two above can find them.
Republicans have been spinning like mad: as recently as last night, after surviving my Microsoft brainwashing session (and I've managed to come through with flying colors--my opinion of Bill Gates has not appreciably increased, either), I watched the most boring hour in television, according to Alexander Cockburn--The News Hour--it only SEEMS like an hour and a half.
David Brooks and Mark Shields have gotten themselves a nice gig blathering away on said hour--particularly Shields, who is the Alan Colmes of PBS. But it's Brooks here that I want to focus on: he's memorized his RNC spin lines like the second rate actor he is. Anyway, the spin points seem to be:
It was thirty years ago.
Bush should be judged on the basis of his three years in office.
It was thirty years ago.
Look at the pay records.
It was thirty years ago.
My guess is that anyone interested has done their own research, but the point I've wasted so many lines making is that it was NOT thirty years ago: you see, Dubya "wrote" an autobiography just a FEW years back--and he lied about his service record. He made no mention of his missing year, his "transfer" to Alabama, and at best makes only an oblique reference to leaving early to attend Harvard Business School (tell THAT to the present Guard personnel, whose own tours of duty--in a combat environment--have been extended via a cynical "stop loss" order that is a more truthful reflection of the policy disaster that is Iraq than almost anything). So, Republicans, please stop saying this is a "thirty year old" issue, because it is a PRESENT issue, one that reflects upon the character of George W. Bush.
And, as anyone with a few functioning brain cells can see, it's not a complimentary reflection. In summary: Bush as a young man was perfectly willing to let others fight and die overseas--in a war he says he supported--while he used his father's political connections to land a state-side post that posed far less danger than a tour in Southeast Asia. And, in spite of his incredible good fortune to land this position, he cared so little for almost anything--except the non-stop partying that comes with being the scion of an elite family--he blew off his committment to the military.
Quite honestly, if he'd said that he simply wasn't interested, that would be fine by me. I'm the child of a career military officer (a naval aviator), but that life doesn't suit me either. But at least I'm honest about it.
So, we have a young man who blows off his very envious position in the military, at least at the time, and who lies about it later because he feels it's potentially embarrassing now that his political career requires him to "look tough." THAT'S THE ISSUE. And it reflects profoundly upon the character of George W. Bush: he is an individual who sees no problem with lying to further his career--and, his destructive political agenda. His lies regarding his time in the National Guard are simply a reflection of this broader pattern of behavior. And, if you saw his television interview last Sunday, it's clear that he hasn't STOPPED lying, either about Iraq or his domestic agenda In fact, he'll lie about almost everything.
Bush's National Guard service--or lack of service--is relevant today, indeed.
Others have done the heavy lifting on this issue--Calpundit seems to be taking the lead, and I've been linking from the items that Atrios pens, but I hope I'm not stating the obvious--or missing something that someone has already written--sorry if I don't reference everything, but I'll bet anyone starting at the two above can find them.
Republicans have been spinning like mad: as recently as last night, after surviving my Microsoft brainwashing session (and I've managed to come through with flying colors--my opinion of Bill Gates has not appreciably increased, either), I watched the most boring hour in television, according to Alexander Cockburn--The News Hour--it only SEEMS like an hour and a half.
David Brooks and Mark Shields have gotten themselves a nice gig blathering away on said hour--particularly Shields, who is the Alan Colmes of PBS. But it's Brooks here that I want to focus on: he's memorized his RNC spin lines like the second rate actor he is. Anyway, the spin points seem to be:
It was thirty years ago.
Bush should be judged on the basis of his three years in office.
It was thirty years ago.
Look at the pay records.
It was thirty years ago.
My guess is that anyone interested has done their own research, but the point I've wasted so many lines making is that it was NOT thirty years ago: you see, Dubya "wrote" an autobiography just a FEW years back--and he lied about his service record. He made no mention of his missing year, his "transfer" to Alabama, and at best makes only an oblique reference to leaving early to attend Harvard Business School (tell THAT to the present Guard personnel, whose own tours of duty--in a combat environment--have been extended via a cynical "stop loss" order that is a more truthful reflection of the policy disaster that is Iraq than almost anything). So, Republicans, please stop saying this is a "thirty year old" issue, because it is a PRESENT issue, one that reflects upon the character of George W. Bush.
And, as anyone with a few functioning brain cells can see, it's not a complimentary reflection. In summary: Bush as a young man was perfectly willing to let others fight and die overseas--in a war he says he supported--while he used his father's political connections to land a state-side post that posed far less danger than a tour in Southeast Asia. And, in spite of his incredible good fortune to land this position, he cared so little for almost anything--except the non-stop partying that comes with being the scion of an elite family--he blew off his committment to the military.
Quite honestly, if he'd said that he simply wasn't interested, that would be fine by me. I'm the child of a career military officer (a naval aviator), but that life doesn't suit me either. But at least I'm honest about it.
So, we have a young man who blows off his very envious position in the military, at least at the time, and who lies about it later because he feels it's potentially embarrassing now that his political career requires him to "look tough." THAT'S THE ISSUE. And it reflects profoundly upon the character of George W. Bush: he is an individual who sees no problem with lying to further his career--and, his destructive political agenda. His lies regarding his time in the National Guard are simply a reflection of this broader pattern of behavior. And, if you saw his television interview last Sunday, it's clear that he hasn't STOPPED lying, either about Iraq or his domestic agenda In fact, he'll lie about almost everything.
Bush's National Guard service--or lack of service--is relevant today, indeed.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
PC-Less Again Today
At least until lunch--and maybe until 5 o'clock. I'm holding out as much as I can against the relentless Microsoft brainwashing techniques, but not easy. I find myself occasionally mumbling things like "Active Directory," "Enhanced Cluster Services," "Kerebos," "FQDN," etc. Actually, I noticed that "FQDN," or Fully Qualified Domain Name in geek speek, could be modified to produce a geek insult: "F-Q, and the server you logged onto!" Or, even "F-Q and die!" (F-Q-N-D?)
I'm not yet to the point where I'm blinking my eyes in Morse Code yet--although, I guess in my case, it'd have to be ASCII...
At least until lunch--and maybe until 5 o'clock. I'm holding out as much as I can against the relentless Microsoft brainwashing techniques, but not easy. I find myself occasionally mumbling things like "Active Directory," "Enhanced Cluster Services," "Kerebos," "FQDN," etc. Actually, I noticed that "FQDN," or Fully Qualified Domain Name in geek speek, could be modified to produce a geek insult: "F-Q, and the server you logged onto!" Or, even "F-Q and die!" (F-Q-N-D?)
I'm not yet to the point where I'm blinking my eyes in Morse Code yet--although, I guess in my case, it'd have to be ASCII...
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Baghdad Blanco
Correction: Looks like Governor Blanco is actually spending her evenings in Amman, Jordan, and not in Baghdad. I stand by my opinion regarding her bravery compared to the Resident.
It would be the one day when I have no access to the internet until evening.Timshel has the details. You can go directly to the story by clicking on the previous link, or go to his main page for more information on this and other happenings of note.
One thing I'll say about our Governor: she's apparently a LOT braver than still-was-AWOL-from-everything-I've-read-thus-far George W. Bush. It looks like Ms. Blanco will be spending two days in the war zone. Like Timshel said, stay safe Governor.
Correction: Looks like Governor Blanco is actually spending her evenings in Amman, Jordan, and not in Baghdad. I stand by my opinion regarding her bravery compared to the Resident.
It would be the one day when I have no access to the internet until evening.Timshel has the details. You can go directly to the story by clicking on the previous link, or go to his main page for more information on this and other happenings of note.
One thing I'll say about our Governor: she's apparently a LOT braver than still-was-AWOL-from-everything-I've-read-thus-far George W. Bush. It looks like Ms. Blanco will be spending two days in the war zone. Like Timshel said, stay safe Governor.
Damn Training Class
Kept me busy all day. No internet, hell, not even a PC in the conference room. The chairs were uncomfortable, and the material made Joe Lieberman seem charasmatic. Didn't even get a chance to look at any news during the lunch break.
Ah, the wonders of Windows--server version 2003. By the time we implement it, it will be 2005.
Am going to try to catch up--heard about a bombing in Baghdad on the drive home. Go figure. Also heard something about Bush, AWOL, and pay stubs. Will check that out as well.
Sorry for no posts until now.
Kept me busy all day. No internet, hell, not even a PC in the conference room. The chairs were uncomfortable, and the material made Joe Lieberman seem charasmatic. Didn't even get a chance to look at any news during the lunch break.
Ah, the wonders of Windows--server version 2003. By the time we implement it, it will be 2005.
Am going to try to catch up--heard about a bombing in Baghdad on the drive home. Go figure. Also heard something about Bush, AWOL, and pay stubs. Will check that out as well.
Sorry for no posts until now.
Monday, February 09, 2004
Miranda Gets the Riot Act Read to Him
Nah--he didn't--no such luck. Manuel DID however, find himself in what I believe is known as an untenable position as aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill "bell the cat" Frist. Bad Attitudes has been looking at this, and what they have to say is worth reading. You can do so here, and here.
Atrios links over to Jeff at pornlitics with more information on who actually retrieved the documents.
Summary: Republican Senate staffers pored over a number of documents Democratic staffers inadvertantly left unsecured on a common server. The bottom line is that there is definitely a question of legality here, and certainly an utter lack of ethics on the part of the Republicans. Not that the latter is actually news, but just as there's a difference between potential and kinetic energy...well, you get the picture.
Nah--he didn't--no such luck. Manuel DID however, find himself in what I believe is known as an untenable position as aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill "bell the cat" Frist. Bad Attitudes has been looking at this, and what they have to say is worth reading. You can do so here, and here.
Atrios links over to Jeff at pornlitics with more information on who actually retrieved the documents.
Summary: Republican Senate staffers pored over a number of documents Democratic staffers inadvertantly left unsecured on a common server. The bottom line is that there is definitely a question of legality here, and certainly an utter lack of ethics on the part of the Republicans. Not that the latter is actually news, but just as there's a difference between potential and kinetic energy...well, you get the picture.
Beating a Hornet's Nest With a Baseball Bat
I don't really know what to make of this story from today's Washington Post, but regardless of whether or not it's true, it's a pretty damning indictment of the Bush "policy," if we can actually dignify his actions with the term, towards the Middle East.
BAGHDAD, Feb. 9 -- Insurgents in Iraq sought the help of senior leaders of the al Qaeda terrorist network for a plan to spark a "civil war" that would pit the country's religious and ethnic groups against each other and prevent a transfer of sovereignty from U.S. occupation authorities to Iraqis, U.S. officials said today, citing a document seized from an al Qaeda courier.
[snip]
The U.S. officials said the disk was in the possession of a courier who was trying to leave the country, possibly to go to Afghanistan and to deliver the letter to Osama bin Laden, the head of the al Qaeda network. The existence of the document was first reported in today's New York Times.
In the document, which was described at a press briefing here today, the author brags about already having accomplished 25 operations and proposes more attacks that would push the country toward civil war.
"Their strategy is to provoke sectarian warfare in an effort to tear this country apart," said Dan Senor, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition occupying Iraq.
More and more Dubya is beginning to look like a rookie cop in the slum--at once feeling like the ubermensch, while actually so far behind the curve that he doesn't get that "Starsky" and "Hutch" are terms of derision.
Al Qaeda most likely has some sort of presence NOW in Iraq, thanks to the bumbling that has gone on virtually from the first moments the tanks and heavy equipment began to roll across the border--just in time to get caught up in one of the heavier dust storms of the season. In the chaos that followed the "liberation" of the country, it is all but certain that some Al Qaeda operatives took advantage of the situation to infiltrate. Indeed, the suicide bombings of both the UN Compund and Ayatollah Mohammed Bakir Hakim have the look and feel of an Al Qaeda-type operation. However, it won't require Al Qaeda's presence for civil war in Iraq--hell, considering the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to consolidate power once the US leaves (and, one day, we WILL leave--I'm betting with our tail between our legs)--anyone aspiring to political power would almost be foolish to sit on the sidelines. Unfortunately for the Iraqi people, the jockeying for position will not be with words, but with bullets.
At this point, I think the only consideration now is how long and bloody the Iraq Civil War will be. CheneyBushRoveRummyWolfo, the five-headed monster, will eventually blame the Iraqi people for this, either in their official capacity as second-term lame ducks, or, hopefully, as "semi-retirees,' living off the yahoo lecture circuit while seeking positions on various corporate boards. Their minions will bleat the same tune, even if it's 180 degrees removed from their present bleat that expresses a false concern for "the Iraqi people."
My guess is that the conflict will either be quite bloody, or, the conflict will end quickly with the creation of a theocratic state. Either way, it won't be good for the long term interests of the United States.
I don't really know what to make of this story from today's Washington Post, but regardless of whether or not it's true, it's a pretty damning indictment of the Bush "policy," if we can actually dignify his actions with the term, towards the Middle East.
BAGHDAD, Feb. 9 -- Insurgents in Iraq sought the help of senior leaders of the al Qaeda terrorist network for a plan to spark a "civil war" that would pit the country's religious and ethnic groups against each other and prevent a transfer of sovereignty from U.S. occupation authorities to Iraqis, U.S. officials said today, citing a document seized from an al Qaeda courier.
[snip]
The U.S. officials said the disk was in the possession of a courier who was trying to leave the country, possibly to go to Afghanistan and to deliver the letter to Osama bin Laden, the head of the al Qaeda network. The existence of the document was first reported in today's New York Times.
In the document, which was described at a press briefing here today, the author brags about already having accomplished 25 operations and proposes more attacks that would push the country toward civil war.
"Their strategy is to provoke sectarian warfare in an effort to tear this country apart," said Dan Senor, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition occupying Iraq.
More and more Dubya is beginning to look like a rookie cop in the slum--at once feeling like the ubermensch, while actually so far behind the curve that he doesn't get that "Starsky" and "Hutch" are terms of derision.
Al Qaeda most likely has some sort of presence NOW in Iraq, thanks to the bumbling that has gone on virtually from the first moments the tanks and heavy equipment began to roll across the border--just in time to get caught up in one of the heavier dust storms of the season. In the chaos that followed the "liberation" of the country, it is all but certain that some Al Qaeda operatives took advantage of the situation to infiltrate. Indeed, the suicide bombings of both the UN Compund and Ayatollah Mohammed Bakir Hakim have the look and feel of an Al Qaeda-type operation. However, it won't require Al Qaeda's presence for civil war in Iraq--hell, considering the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to consolidate power once the US leaves (and, one day, we WILL leave--I'm betting with our tail between our legs)--anyone aspiring to political power would almost be foolish to sit on the sidelines. Unfortunately for the Iraqi people, the jockeying for position will not be with words, but with bullets.
At this point, I think the only consideration now is how long and bloody the Iraq Civil War will be. CheneyBushRoveRummyWolfo, the five-headed monster, will eventually blame the Iraqi people for this, either in their official capacity as second-term lame ducks, or, hopefully, as "semi-retirees,' living off the yahoo lecture circuit while seeking positions on various corporate boards. Their minions will bleat the same tune, even if it's 180 degrees removed from their present bleat that expresses a false concern for "the Iraqi people."
My guess is that the conflict will either be quite bloody, or, the conflict will end quickly with the creation of a theocratic state. Either way, it won't be good for the long term interests of the United States.
Moral Absolutism
Here are some excerpts from a New York Times editorial about BeelzaTim's interview with Shrub--the link is courtesy of Today in Iraq:
Yesterday, in an interview with NBC's Tim Russert, after a week in which it became obvious to most Americans that the justifications for the war were based on flawed intelligence, Mr. Bush offered his reflections, and they were far from reassuring. The only clarity in the president's vision appears to be his own perfect sense of self-justification
[snip]
Average Americans are also asking themselves whether invading Iraq would have seemed like the right decision if we knew then what we know now. Mr. Bush doesn't seem willing to even take on this critical question. He repeatedly referred to Saddam Hussein as a dangerous madman, without defining the threat that even a madman, without any weapons of mass destruction, posed to the United States. At one point, his reasoning seemed to be that even if the dictator did not have the feared weapons, he could have started manufacturing them on a moment's notice. To bolster his position, he cited David Kay, the American weapons inspector, as reporting that "Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons." In fact, Mr. Kay said that Iraq's weapons program seemed to have ground to a halt under the pressure of the United Nations inspections and sanctions that Mr. Bush and his staff disdained last year. Mr. Kay said Saddam Hussein retained only the basic ability to restart weapons programs if that pressure were removed.
At other times, the president seemed to argue that the invasion was necessary simply to demonstrate that Americans did not back down from a fight. "In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences," he said. Although Mr. Bush tried to portray himself as a man who exhausted every peaceful solution, the "serious consequences" were threatened in a United Nations resolution in late 2002 that Mr. Bush was forced to seek to mollify nervous allies after the decision to have a war was essentially made.
Mr. Bush's explanation of how he reconciled the current activities in Iraq with his 2000 campaign rejection of "nation building" was simply silly. (American troops are building a nation in Iraq, he said, but they are also "fighting a war so that they can build a nation.") And it's very hard to take seriously Mr. Bush's contention that he was not surprised by the intensity of the resistance in Iraq.
The president was doing far more yesterday than rolling out the administration's spin for the next campaign. He was demonstrating how he is likely to think if confronted with a similar crisis in the future. The fuzziness and inconsistency of his comments suggest he is still relying on his own moral absolutism, that in a dangerous world the critical thing is to act decisively, and worry about connecting the dots later.
Meanwhile, on 60 Minutes, CBS pointed to a dramatic increase in the number of people who call themselves Evangelical Christians--people who literally believe in the Apocalypse, the Rapture, and that such destruction will happen soon:
An estimated 70 million Americans call themselves evangelicals, and their beliefs have already reshaped American politics. In the last election, 40 percent of the votes for George W. Bush came from their ranks, and now those beliefs are beginning to reshape the culture as well -- thanks to a group of best-selling novels known as the “Left Behind” series.
[snip]
These are heady times for evangelicals: an election year, with one of their own in the White House, the final book in the “Left Behind” series to be published in March, and, of course, always the chance, even hope, of that greatest of events, the Rapture.
And, finally, again from Today in Iraq, a link to Jerry Falwell, the man who said the September 11th attacks were god's punishment for gays--not surprisingly, there's something about a war that makes him tingle all over:
If one depends on the Bible as a guidepost for living, it is readily apparent that war is sometimes a necessary option. In fact, just as there are numerous references to peace in the Bible, there are frequent references to God-ordained war.
The evangelical right is doing their level best to self-fulfill their perverse prophesies, if you ask me. As I noted last week, they're able to do so by entering into an unholy alliance with racists--unsurprising--and Wall Streeters, of all people. I think someone better wake up the business folks and let them know that while war can be good for the bottom line, it comes at a pretty steep price--especially when you consider that there are non-war options that are also good for the bottom line.
It's time we told the Bible thumpers to keep their fantasies in the realm of metaphysics...
Here are some excerpts from a New York Times editorial about BeelzaTim's interview with Shrub--the link is courtesy of Today in Iraq:
Yesterday, in an interview with NBC's Tim Russert, after a week in which it became obvious to most Americans that the justifications for the war were based on flawed intelligence, Mr. Bush offered his reflections, and they were far from reassuring. The only clarity in the president's vision appears to be his own perfect sense of self-justification
[snip]
Average Americans are also asking themselves whether invading Iraq would have seemed like the right decision if we knew then what we know now. Mr. Bush doesn't seem willing to even take on this critical question. He repeatedly referred to Saddam Hussein as a dangerous madman, without defining the threat that even a madman, without any weapons of mass destruction, posed to the United States. At one point, his reasoning seemed to be that even if the dictator did not have the feared weapons, he could have started manufacturing them on a moment's notice. To bolster his position, he cited David Kay, the American weapons inspector, as reporting that "Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons." In fact, Mr. Kay said that Iraq's weapons program seemed to have ground to a halt under the pressure of the United Nations inspections and sanctions that Mr. Bush and his staff disdained last year. Mr. Kay said Saddam Hussein retained only the basic ability to restart weapons programs if that pressure were removed.
At other times, the president seemed to argue that the invasion was necessary simply to demonstrate that Americans did not back down from a fight. "In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences," he said. Although Mr. Bush tried to portray himself as a man who exhausted every peaceful solution, the "serious consequences" were threatened in a United Nations resolution in late 2002 that Mr. Bush was forced to seek to mollify nervous allies after the decision to have a war was essentially made.
Mr. Bush's explanation of how he reconciled the current activities in Iraq with his 2000 campaign rejection of "nation building" was simply silly. (American troops are building a nation in Iraq, he said, but they are also "fighting a war so that they can build a nation.") And it's very hard to take seriously Mr. Bush's contention that he was not surprised by the intensity of the resistance in Iraq.
The president was doing far more yesterday than rolling out the administration's spin for the next campaign. He was demonstrating how he is likely to think if confronted with a similar crisis in the future. The fuzziness and inconsistency of his comments suggest he is still relying on his own moral absolutism, that in a dangerous world the critical thing is to act decisively, and worry about connecting the dots later.
Meanwhile, on 60 Minutes, CBS pointed to a dramatic increase in the number of people who call themselves Evangelical Christians--people who literally believe in the Apocalypse, the Rapture, and that such destruction will happen soon:
An estimated 70 million Americans call themselves evangelicals, and their beliefs have already reshaped American politics. In the last election, 40 percent of the votes for George W. Bush came from their ranks, and now those beliefs are beginning to reshape the culture as well -- thanks to a group of best-selling novels known as the “Left Behind” series.
[snip]
These are heady times for evangelicals: an election year, with one of their own in the White House, the final book in the “Left Behind” series to be published in March, and, of course, always the chance, even hope, of that greatest of events, the Rapture.
And, finally, again from Today in Iraq, a link to Jerry Falwell, the man who said the September 11th attacks were god's punishment for gays--not surprisingly, there's something about a war that makes him tingle all over:
If one depends on the Bible as a guidepost for living, it is readily apparent that war is sometimes a necessary option. In fact, just as there are numerous references to peace in the Bible, there are frequent references to God-ordained war.
The evangelical right is doing their level best to self-fulfill their perverse prophesies, if you ask me. As I noted last week, they're able to do so by entering into an unholy alliance with racists--unsurprising--and Wall Streeters, of all people. I think someone better wake up the business folks and let them know that while war can be good for the bottom line, it comes at a pretty steep price--especially when you consider that there are non-war options that are also good for the bottom line.
It's time we told the Bible thumpers to keep their fantasies in the realm of metaphysics...
Bark if You're AWOL
Atrios provided the link.
Calpundit says that Bob Fertik has a copy of the infamous "torn document" that appears in George W. Bush's military file. Fertik's copy is NOT torn, but that might be the least of Dubya's worries:
[Drum] asked Bob Rogers, a retired Air National Guard pilot who's been following this for some time, and what follows is his interpretation of what happened.
ARF stands for Army Reserve Force, and among other things it's where members of the guard are sent for disciplinary reasons. As we all know, Bush failed to show up for his annual physical in July 1972, he was suspended in August, and the suspension was recorded on September 29. He was apparently transferred to ARF at that time and began accumulating ARF points in October.
ARF is a "paper unit" based in Denver that requires no drills and no attendance. For active guard members it is disciplinary because ARF members can theoretically be called up for active duty in the regular military, although this obviously never happened to George Bush.
Read the post and the comments. If this has legs, we could see the unraveling of the Bush administration...
Atrios provided the link.
Calpundit says that Bob Fertik has a copy of the infamous "torn document" that appears in George W. Bush's military file. Fertik's copy is NOT torn, but that might be the least of Dubya's worries:
[Drum] asked Bob Rogers, a retired Air National Guard pilot who's been following this for some time, and what follows is his interpretation of what happened.
ARF stands for Army Reserve Force, and among other things it's where members of the guard are sent for disciplinary reasons. As we all know, Bush failed to show up for his annual physical in July 1972, he was suspended in August, and the suspension was recorded on September 29. He was apparently transferred to ARF at that time and began accumulating ARF points in October.
ARF is a "paper unit" based in Denver that requires no drills and no attendance. For active guard members it is disciplinary because ARF members can theoretically be called up for active duty in the regular military, although this obviously never happened to George Bush.
Read the post and the comments. If this has legs, we could see the unraveling of the Bush administration...
Sunday, February 08, 2004
The Pacemaker in His Brain is Still Functional
I managed to awaken long enough this morning to watch the Dubyaview on Meet the Press. My overall reaction is expressed in the title of this post, which refers to something I read a few years back in Salon, although the first link can be accessed without a subscription. Russert's behavior was akin to that of an indulgent parent; he asked a few "uncomfortable" questions--though neglecting to even mention Valerie Plame's name--but failed to follow up. In other words, Bush's word was good enough for BeelzaTim.
Plenty of bloggers have put their own thoughts down--I've read Timshel, Mary, Matt, Kos, RudePundit, Billmon, Atrios, so far, and I'll be checking out more during the day, along with comments.
One item though, though has made it onto my own radar screen. It's in regards to the whole canard about "building democracy" in the Middle East. Bush plays this much like he's played the question of his military service: he's been so obviously coached that he might as well be reading from an index card--BTW: on that, he is now on record as saying he'll release his military records, so let's push for this (on that note, Trapper John over at Kos nicely points out the disengenousness of Bush getting an early release to attend business school while today issuing stop-loss orders on our present guardsmen). Anyway, I've digressed, but here's my point:
If we REALLY want to build democracy in the Middle East, why not start with countries that are our FRIENDS, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? It seems as if we'd have a LOT more success promoting democracy without simultaneously engaging in military occupation with a population which, in spite of what Bush says, hasn't exactly welcomed us with open arms. But something tells me that democracy isn't really part of the plan...something like our history vis-a-vis the region for the last seventy odd years or so.
Still, all in all, I think the Administration should be worried--all the flaws that make the Dubya such a terrible candidate were evident this morning. He was, at times, petulant, testy, cranky--and these were his good moments. In particular, he was obviously out of touch with reality when it came to questions regarding our loss of life and wounded soldiers in Iraq--shit, Bush's blank expression and poor choice of words were akin to watching someone fail a field sobriety test.
Rove, Gillespie, et al, will try to put as much lipstick on this pig as they can, but it still goes "oink" and wallows in the mud...
I managed to awaken long enough this morning to watch the Dubyaview on Meet the Press. My overall reaction is expressed in the title of this post, which refers to something I read a few years back in Salon, although the first link can be accessed without a subscription. Russert's behavior was akin to that of an indulgent parent; he asked a few "uncomfortable" questions--though neglecting to even mention Valerie Plame's name--but failed to follow up. In other words, Bush's word was good enough for BeelzaTim.
Plenty of bloggers have put their own thoughts down--I've read Timshel, Mary, Matt, Kos, RudePundit, Billmon, Atrios, so far, and I'll be checking out more during the day, along with comments.
One item though, though has made it onto my own radar screen. It's in regards to the whole canard about "building democracy" in the Middle East. Bush plays this much like he's played the question of his military service: he's been so obviously coached that he might as well be reading from an index card--BTW: on that, he is now on record as saying he'll release his military records, so let's push for this (on that note, Trapper John over at Kos nicely points out the disengenousness of Bush getting an early release to attend business school while today issuing stop-loss orders on our present guardsmen). Anyway, I've digressed, but here's my point:
If we REALLY want to build democracy in the Middle East, why not start with countries that are our FRIENDS, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? It seems as if we'd have a LOT more success promoting democracy without simultaneously engaging in military occupation with a population which, in spite of what Bush says, hasn't exactly welcomed us with open arms. But something tells me that democracy isn't really part of the plan...something like our history vis-a-vis the region for the last seventy odd years or so.
Still, all in all, I think the Administration should be worried--all the flaws that make the Dubya such a terrible candidate were evident this morning. He was, at times, petulant, testy, cranky--and these were his good moments. In particular, he was obviously out of touch with reality when it came to questions regarding our loss of life and wounded soldiers in Iraq--shit, Bush's blank expression and poor choice of words were akin to watching someone fail a field sobriety test.
Rove, Gillespie, et al, will try to put as much lipstick on this pig as they can, but it still goes "oink" and wallows in the mud...
Parsing the War
William Safire totes water for Team Bush:
[Here's] the difference between immanent and imminent. The one with the "a" means "inherent," rooted in the Latin for "remaining within"; you can believe that God is immanent in humans. Imminent means something else entirely, rooted in the part of a mountain that projects overhead, threatening those below. "Overhanging" is its essence -- an immediate threat, a sinister event close at hand -- unlike impending, which is not so near in time.
Thanks for clearing that up, Bill.
William Safire totes water for Team Bush:
[Here's] the difference between immanent and imminent. The one with the "a" means "inherent," rooted in the Latin for "remaining within"; you can believe that God is immanent in humans. Imminent means something else entirely, rooted in the part of a mountain that projects overhead, threatening those below. "Overhanging" is its essence -- an immediate threat, a sinister event close at hand -- unlike impending, which is not so near in time.
Thanks for clearing that up, Bill.
Weapons of Mass Deception
What the hell is this supposed to mean?
But it should be noted that the idea that Saddam Hussein both had and sought WMD was conventional wisdom in this town for at least 10 years.
And, if you don't immediately understand what that's supposed to mean, the Herald spells it out even more plainly:
Bill Clinton and his wonks talked about Saddam Hussein and the threat his chemical and biological weapons posed during much of their eight years in office. It became an article of faith. Given that Saddam had actually used poison gas to kill a whole town full of Kurds, no one had trouble believing he still had the stuff and was working to get other, deadlier weapons, including nukes.
Blame Clinton. LOL. Speaking of that, I like the line "I'd be glad to share with them knowledge." Thus spake Dubyathustra, apparently in response to a question about whether he would appear before his handpicked commission on Iraq intelligence failures.
Update: Here's another great quote from our CIC (regarding Saddam Hussein): "He had the ability to make weapons, at the very minimum." L.A. Times link (requires subscription).
Man, I hope I can wake up long enough to watch him fail miserably tomorrow. Miserable Failure should be the title of his autobiography.
What the hell is this supposed to mean?
But it should be noted that the idea that Saddam Hussein both had and sought WMD was conventional wisdom in this town for at least 10 years.
And, if you don't immediately understand what that's supposed to mean, the Herald spells it out even more plainly:
Bill Clinton and his wonks talked about Saddam Hussein and the threat his chemical and biological weapons posed during much of their eight years in office. It became an article of faith. Given that Saddam had actually used poison gas to kill a whole town full of Kurds, no one had trouble believing he still had the stuff and was working to get other, deadlier weapons, including nukes.
Blame Clinton. LOL. Speaking of that, I like the line "I'd be glad to share with them knowledge." Thus spake Dubyathustra, apparently in response to a question about whether he would appear before his handpicked commission on Iraq intelligence failures.
Update: Here's another great quote from our CIC (regarding Saddam Hussein): "He had the ability to make weapons, at the very minimum." L.A. Times link (requires subscription).
Man, I hope I can wake up long enough to watch him fail miserably tomorrow. Miserable Failure should be the title of his autobiography.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)