"A report to the UN human rights commission in Geneva has concluded that Iraqi children were actually better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now. This, of course, comes as a bitter blow for all those of us who, like George Bush and Tony Blair, honestly believe that children thrive best when we drop bombs on them from a great height, destroy their cities and blow up hospitals, schools and power stations."
"It now appears that, far from improving the quality of life for Iraqi youngsters, the US-led military assault on Iraq has inexplicably doubled the number of children under five suffering from malnutrition. Under Saddam, about 4% of children under five were going hungry, whereas by the end of last year almost 8% were suffering."
"In the UK there may now be 3.6 million children living below the poverty line, and 12.9 million in the US, with no prospect of either government finding any cash to change that. But surely this is a price worth paying, if it means that George Bush and Tony Blair can make any amount of money available for bombs, shells and bullets to improve the lives of Iraqi kids. You know it makes sense." Terry Jones of Monty Python in The Guardian
This is not an argument for Saddam Hussein!!! This is an argument for taking some of the gadzillions in US taxpayer dollars and feeding the children! Can't we do this one simple thing right?
June 19, 2005
Ignoring the Questions
Here is an update to my previous post about White House Press Briefings and Gaggles.
At the White House Press Briefing of June 16, two more questions were asked about the Downing Street memo, bringing the grand total of questions asked at White House Press briefings since May 1, 2005 (when it was first released) to four questions. These are the first since May 23.
******************
Q Scott, on another topic, has the President or anyone else from the administration responded to the letter sent last month by Congressman John Conyers and signed by dozens of members of the House of Representatives, regarding the Downing Street memo? Has the President or anyone else responded?
MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of.
Q Why not?
MR. McCLELLAN: Why not? Because I think that this is an individual who voted against the war in the first place and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed. And our focus is not on the past. It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq.
These matters have been addressed, Elaine. I think you know that very well. The press --
Q Scott, 88 members of Congress signed that letter.
MR. McCLELLAN: The press -- the press have covered it, as well.
Q What do you say about them?
Q But, Scott, don't they deserve the courtesy of a response back?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this has been addressed. Go ahead.
Stonewalled
But then there was a followup by another reporter.
Q Scott, on John Conyers, John Conyers is walking here with that letter again, as you have acknowledged from Elaine's comment. But 88 leaders on Capitol Hill signed that letter. Now, I understand what you're saying about him, but what about the other 88 who signed this letter, wanting information, answers to these five questions?
MR. McCLELLAN: How did they vote on the war -- the decision to go to war in Iraq?
Q Well, you have two -- well, if that's the case, you have two Republicans who are looking for a timetable. How do you justify that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I already talked about that.
Q I understand, but let's talk about this.
MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said --
Q Well, just because -- I understand -- but wait a minute, that's not -- if leaders from Congress -- if you're talking about unifying and asking for everyone to come together, why not answer, whether they wanted the war or not, answer a letter where John Conyers wrote to the President and then 88 congressional leaders signed? Why not answer that?
MR. McCLELLAN: For the reasons I stated earlier. This is simply rehashing old debates that have already been discussed.
Another question effectively stonewalled.
The basic White House position is that anyone who voted against the war in the first place is discredited and does not deserve any response.
At the White House Press Briefing of June 16, two more questions were asked about the Downing Street memo, bringing the grand total of questions asked at White House Press briefings since May 1, 2005 (when it was first released) to four questions. These are the first since May 23.
******************
Q Scott, on another topic, has the President or anyone else from the administration responded to the letter sent last month by Congressman John Conyers and signed by dozens of members of the House of Representatives, regarding the Downing Street memo? Has the President or anyone else responded?
MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of.
Q Why not?
MR. McCLELLAN: Why not? Because I think that this is an individual who voted against the war in the first place and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed. And our focus is not on the past. It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq.
These matters have been addressed, Elaine. I think you know that very well. The press --
Q Scott, 88 members of Congress signed that letter.
MR. McCLELLAN: The press -- the press have covered it, as well.
Q What do you say about them?
Q But, Scott, don't they deserve the courtesy of a response back?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this has been addressed. Go ahead.
Stonewalled
But then there was a followup by another reporter.
Q Scott, on John Conyers, John Conyers is walking here with that letter again, as you have acknowledged from Elaine's comment. But 88 leaders on Capitol Hill signed that letter. Now, I understand what you're saying about him, but what about the other 88 who signed this letter, wanting information, answers to these five questions?
MR. McCLELLAN: How did they vote on the war -- the decision to go to war in Iraq?
Q Well, you have two -- well, if that's the case, you have two Republicans who are looking for a timetable. How do you justify that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I already talked about that.
Q I understand, but let's talk about this.
MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said --
Q Well, just because -- I understand -- but wait a minute, that's not -- if leaders from Congress -- if you're talking about unifying and asking for everyone to come together, why not answer, whether they wanted the war or not, answer a letter where John Conyers wrote to the President and then 88 congressional leaders signed? Why not answer that?
MR. McCLELLAN: For the reasons I stated earlier. This is simply rehashing old debates that have already been discussed.
Another question effectively stonewalled.
The basic White House position is that anyone who voted against the war in the first place is discredited and does not deserve any response.
June 18, 2005
Can You Impeach the NY Times?
It was March 31, 2003 and Time magazine disclosed that in March of 2002 George Bush walked into Condoleeza Rice's office while she was meeting with three senators about Iraq and said "F**k Saddam, we're taking him out." It would have been nice for Bush and Condi to have told the American people as early as March of 2002 that war with Iraq was a fait accompli. Apparently, the mainstream press knew it (didn't everyone?), but they failed to share it with the American people, too. Can you impeach the NY Times?
The Final Fix
Let's cut through, finally and once and for all, the semantic drivel that is being fed the American people by right-wing apologists trying to explain away the word "fix" in the Downing Street Memo. We now have it unambiguously from British sources that the word "fix" in the memo was used precisely the way Bush fears it was used in the first place -- meaning that the evidence was being contrived, made up, juryrigged, falsified, faked, put-on, stacked, rigged, manufactured, counterfeited. In the immortal words of Monty Python, it was a "dead parrot."
What Worries Me Most
The Downing Street memo and other evidence is piling up and proving Bush et. al. lied their way to war. The heat is getting turned up on them.
American generals in Iraq are saying that we cannot defeat the insurgency, while the administration continues to say otherwise. The insurgency continues unabated and more American soldiers are killed and maimed daily.
Afghanistan, the war that everyone in the world supported because we went directly after the terrorists, is a basketcase, forgotten, ignored, and increasingly under the sway of warlords and a resurgent Taliban.
American military recruiters are experiencing significant reductions in monthly recruitment targets.
The price per barrel of oil continues to leap upward, just as all the experts have said it would.
The cost of our military adventures, homeland security, and "fighting terrorism" has become such a burden that we cannot sustain it without substantial disruptions in those areas that affect Americans the most: wages, taxes, benefits, social services, travel, heating costs, and retirement benefits.
American opinion is turning against Bush and his war. The people are waking up. George Bush's legacy is on the way into the toilet, along with Karl Rove's, unless something happens. And that is what worries me most.
While no American could imagine (except for a few military and intelligence people who concentrate on this stuff all the time) that 19 men could gain control of American airliners and crash them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is not difficult for me now to imagine what might happen to reinvigorate support for George Bush and help preserve his legacy.
Here is all it would take:
an eighteen-wheeler, filled with the same ingredients Timothy McVay used in Oklahoma City to blow up the federal building, driven into the middle of a crowd of July 4th fireworks spectators in Anytown USA and exploded. In hundreds and hundreds of small towns and cities across the country, on July 4, there are crowds of 3000, or 5000, or more, watching fireworks, usually in places readily accessible by truck, on streets that are blocked by flimsy wooden roadblocks and guarded by some local sheriffs or police who are watching the fireworks themselves. 5000 people might easily be killed.
I bet we can all imagine many other scenarios equally horrible.
I can also imagine some international event or crisis that would propel America into yet another situation wherein our national security was threatened and we needed to respond.
In either case, domestic or foreign, a new draft would be implemented immediately. In fact, the plans are already in place.
Bush needs something to get him off the slippery slope. Otherwise, his presidency is doomed.
*******************
Postscript
"Happy Saturday" is the comment made to me by my daughter after I read this to her and my wife. She meant it sarcastically, and both of them were upset that I would write such a thing. They asked me, why can't I imagine peace, instead of something so horrible? Why is it that men have to think about and write about such terror?
They are right, of course. I wish I was imagining peace, instead of this. I wish we were living in a peaceful world, led by peaceful humans, and by an American President who cared about peace, social justice, democracy, and charity at home and abroad. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world led by American corporatist ideologues who believe in American dominion, who seek it through an imperialist military and the marriage of government and corporations. We live in world dominated by men who feed on terror and fear. I can only hope that once the American people realize what an awful world these people have built, that we can finally get rid of them and elect women and men who can build that other world that my wife and daughter want.
American generals in Iraq are saying that we cannot defeat the insurgency, while the administration continues to say otherwise. The insurgency continues unabated and more American soldiers are killed and maimed daily.
Afghanistan, the war that everyone in the world supported because we went directly after the terrorists, is a basketcase, forgotten, ignored, and increasingly under the sway of warlords and a resurgent Taliban.
American military recruiters are experiencing significant reductions in monthly recruitment targets.
The price per barrel of oil continues to leap upward, just as all the experts have said it would.
The cost of our military adventures, homeland security, and "fighting terrorism" has become such a burden that we cannot sustain it without substantial disruptions in those areas that affect Americans the most: wages, taxes, benefits, social services, travel, heating costs, and retirement benefits.
American opinion is turning against Bush and his war. The people are waking up. George Bush's legacy is on the way into the toilet, along with Karl Rove's, unless something happens. And that is what worries me most.
While no American could imagine (except for a few military and intelligence people who concentrate on this stuff all the time) that 19 men could gain control of American airliners and crash them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is not difficult for me now to imagine what might happen to reinvigorate support for George Bush and help preserve his legacy.
Here is all it would take:
an eighteen-wheeler, filled with the same ingredients Timothy McVay used in Oklahoma City to blow up the federal building, driven into the middle of a crowd of July 4th fireworks spectators in Anytown USA and exploded. In hundreds and hundreds of small towns and cities across the country, on July 4, there are crowds of 3000, or 5000, or more, watching fireworks, usually in places readily accessible by truck, on streets that are blocked by flimsy wooden roadblocks and guarded by some local sheriffs or police who are watching the fireworks themselves. 5000 people might easily be killed.
I bet we can all imagine many other scenarios equally horrible.
I can also imagine some international event or crisis that would propel America into yet another situation wherein our national security was threatened and we needed to respond.
In either case, domestic or foreign, a new draft would be implemented immediately. In fact, the plans are already in place.
Bush needs something to get him off the slippery slope. Otherwise, his presidency is doomed.
*******************
Postscript
"Happy Saturday" is the comment made to me by my daughter after I read this to her and my wife. She meant it sarcastically, and both of them were upset that I would write such a thing. They asked me, why can't I imagine peace, instead of something so horrible? Why is it that men have to think about and write about such terror?
They are right, of course. I wish I was imagining peace, instead of this. I wish we were living in a peaceful world, led by peaceful humans, and by an American President who cared about peace, social justice, democracy, and charity at home and abroad. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world led by American corporatist ideologues who believe in American dominion, who seek it through an imperialist military and the marriage of government and corporations. We live in world dominated by men who feed on terror and fear. I can only hope that once the American people realize what an awful world these people have built, that we can finally get rid of them and elect women and men who can build that other world that my wife and daughter want.
Journalists At War
Overheard at the editorial board meeting of the Washington Post.
"Ok, listen folks, if we don't want to look pretty silly on this Downing Street thing, how can we smoke and mirror our way out of it"?
"Well, let's just say we knew about it all along, so what's the big news? Didn't everyone know"?
"That's good. Because everyone knew that Bush had already decided to go to war back then, and we all knew it, duhhhh, then this Downing thing is just fluff, right"?
"Exactly, but there is one little problem."
"What's that?"
"Weren't we all reporting at that time that Bush was working hard on the diplomatic front, and that he was saying war is a last resort, and that we had to solve Saddam's WMD problem with the UN? I recall we were also reporting most everything the administration was giving us back then, including all that phony intelligence?"
"Yeah, someone might claim we weren't simply embedded with the administration, but that we were more like embowelled, huh?"
"Yes, but we can't let that discussion make any headway or we're sunk."
For another view on the press cover-up, whitewash and head-in-the-sand behavior, here is a piece from Joe Conason in Salon
"Ok, listen folks, if we don't want to look pretty silly on this Downing Street thing, how can we smoke and mirror our way out of it"?
"Well, let's just say we knew about it all along, so what's the big news? Didn't everyone know"?
"That's good. Because everyone knew that Bush had already decided to go to war back then, and we all knew it, duhhhh, then this Downing thing is just fluff, right"?
"Exactly, but there is one little problem."
"What's that?"
"Weren't we all reporting at that time that Bush was working hard on the diplomatic front, and that he was saying war is a last resort, and that we had to solve Saddam's WMD problem with the UN? I recall we were also reporting most everything the administration was giving us back then, including all that phony intelligence?"
"Yeah, someone might claim we weren't simply embedded with the administration, but that we were more like embowelled, huh?"
"Yes, but we can't let that discussion make any headway or we're sunk."
For another view on the press cover-up, whitewash and head-in-the-sand behavior, here is a piece from Joe Conason in Salon
June 17, 2005
Talent On Loan From God
No, I am not talking about how Rush Limbaugh describes himself.
I am talking about an essay found on the website of the Center for Christian Statesmanship, an organization dedicated to "ministering to those serving on Capitol Hill." The organization's mission urges "statesmen", in this case, those serving on Capitol Hill, to subscribe to the Center's principles by laying "aside your personal and political agenda... (and) reestablish the principles and practices of Christian statesmanship so prevalent at the birth of our nation."
In an "editorial" released by the Executive Director, George Roller, J.D., he clearly states that the Bible comes first in making legislative decisions -- and the US Constitution comes second.
"These men and women," he says, "govern by using two primary criteria in shaping their policy decisions. First and foremost, obviously, is the Bible. When a bill is up for review a statesman should ask, "Is this biblical?" If the bill passes the biblical test, the next question is "Is this constitutional?" The constitutional aspect should never supercede the biblical aspect of forming and shaping law."
This is a call to arms. Roller is essentially calling for the overthrow of civil law in our nation and replacing it with a biblical one narrowly defined by him and his organization, based on his narrow interpretation of early American history. The organization justifies its position using quotes, liberally sprinkled throughout the website, which, according to them, proves that our founding fathers actually intended that the United States be ruled by Christian law.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, two of our founding fathers, were among the most vocal about why church and state should be kept separate. An essay on the site of Americans United for Separation of Church and State outlines the early history of America and why that separation was needed.
While the Center for Christian Statesmanship describes itself as non-partisan, one look at the list of recipients of their Distinguished Christian Statesman Award, is a revealing who's who of the Christian right on Capitol Hill including, among others, Senator John Ashcroft (1996), Majority Leader Dick Armey (1999), Rep. Tom Delay (2002), Senator Sam Brownback(2000), and most recently Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (2005) whose drumbeat in Congress has been a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as between one man and one woman, period.
The Center for Christian Statesmanship is only one of many organizations working to destroy the separation of church and state and construct a purely Christian government in Washington DC. This large and very active movement is working to rewrite history and force all Americans to live under Christian biblical laws as written and interpreted by them.
I will be writing about more of these groups on a regular basis in this blog.
I am talking about an essay found on the website of the Center for Christian Statesmanship, an organization dedicated to "ministering to those serving on Capitol Hill." The organization's mission urges "statesmen", in this case, those serving on Capitol Hill, to subscribe to the Center's principles by laying "aside your personal and political agenda... (and) reestablish the principles and practices of Christian statesmanship so prevalent at the birth of our nation."
In an "editorial" released by the Executive Director, George Roller, J.D., he clearly states that the Bible comes first in making legislative decisions -- and the US Constitution comes second.
"These men and women," he says, "govern by using two primary criteria in shaping their policy decisions. First and foremost, obviously, is the Bible. When a bill is up for review a statesman should ask, "Is this biblical?" If the bill passes the biblical test, the next question is "Is this constitutional?" The constitutional aspect should never supercede the biblical aspect of forming and shaping law."
This is a call to arms. Roller is essentially calling for the overthrow of civil law in our nation and replacing it with a biblical one narrowly defined by him and his organization, based on his narrow interpretation of early American history. The organization justifies its position using quotes, liberally sprinkled throughout the website, which, according to them, proves that our founding fathers actually intended that the United States be ruled by Christian law.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, two of our founding fathers, were among the most vocal about why church and state should be kept separate. An essay on the site of Americans United for Separation of Church and State outlines the early history of America and why that separation was needed.
While the Center for Christian Statesmanship describes itself as non-partisan, one look at the list of recipients of their Distinguished Christian Statesman Award, is a revealing who's who of the Christian right on Capitol Hill including, among others, Senator John Ashcroft (1996), Majority Leader Dick Armey (1999), Rep. Tom Delay (2002), Senator Sam Brownback(2000), and most recently Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (2005) whose drumbeat in Congress has been a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as between one man and one woman, period.
The Center for Christian Statesmanship is only one of many organizations working to destroy the separation of church and state and construct a purely Christian government in Washington DC. This large and very active movement is working to rewrite history and force all Americans to live under Christian biblical laws as written and interpreted by them.
I will be writing about more of these groups on a regular basis in this blog.
June 16, 2005
Congress Gets Richer, Working Poor Get Poorer
It is a national disgrace, but Congress basically doesn't give a damn. It gives itself a raise 7 times since 1997, but doesn't increase the minimum wage once.
Again, thanks to ThinkProgress.org, here are the facts behind minimum wage in America:
4.3 million: Number of Americans who have fallen into poverty since President Bush took office
$5.15: Federal minimum wage
26%: How much the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage has eroded since 1979
0: Number of times minimum wage has increased since 1997
7: Number of times Congress has increased its own pay since 1997
$0: How much more a year people earning minimum wage earn today compared to 1997
$28,500: How much more a year members of Congress make today compared to 1997
$10,700: Amount a person making minimum wage will earn in a year
$5,000: Amount below the poverty level working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year at minimum wage will leave a family of three
7,300,000: Number of workers who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage
72%: Percentage of adult workers who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage
1,800,000: Number of parents with kids under the age of 18 who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage
11 million: Number of jobs added to the economy in the four years after the last minimum wage hike
$8.70: Amount minimum wage would have to be today to have the same purchasing power it had in 1968
2.5 years: Amount of health care for two children which could be bought by raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25
86%: Percentage of Americans who support raising the federal minimum wage
Again, thanks to ThinkProgress.org, here are the facts behind minimum wage in America:
4.3 million: Number of Americans who have fallen into poverty since President Bush took office
$5.15: Federal minimum wage
26%: How much the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage has eroded since 1979
0: Number of times minimum wage has increased since 1997
7: Number of times Congress has increased its own pay since 1997
$0: How much more a year people earning minimum wage earn today compared to 1997
$28,500: How much more a year members of Congress make today compared to 1997
$10,700: Amount a person making minimum wage will earn in a year
$5,000: Amount below the poverty level working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year at minimum wage will leave a family of three
7,300,000: Number of workers who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage
72%: Percentage of adult workers who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage
1,800,000: Number of parents with kids under the age of 18 who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage
11 million: Number of jobs added to the economy in the four years after the last minimum wage hike
$8.70: Amount minimum wage would have to be today to have the same purchasing power it had in 1968
2.5 years: Amount of health care for two children which could be bought by raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25
86%: Percentage of Americans who support raising the federal minimum wage
Taxpayers Paid For Oil Industry Employee at White House
On June 9, I wrote about Philip A. Cooney, the White House shill for the oil industry, who simply rewrote or edited out parts of scientific reports on global warming and on June 11, I wrote about how the Bush administration thanked ExxonMobil for its support on the Kyoto global warming treaty. Now it all comes home to roost. Corrupting government, for them, has become a common occurence. These people are so brazen in their sleaze and greed that they simply don't care how they behave.
Cooney has decided to leave the White House and, according to the New York Times, has been hired immediately by ExxonMobil.
According to Judd on ThinkProgress.org:
"The headlines will read that Cooney was hired by Exxon today. The reality is he never stopped working there. The taxpayers were just taking care of his salary for the last few years."
Cooney has decided to leave the White House and, according to the New York Times, has been hired immediately by ExxonMobil.
According to Judd on ThinkProgress.org:
"The headlines will read that Cooney was hired by Exxon today. The reality is he never stopped working there. The taxpayers were just taking care of his salary for the last few years."
June 15, 2005
Right-wing Verbal Acrobatics
Does anyone remember Bill Clinton's contortions: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is?"
Now we have Tod Linberg in the Weekly Standard squirming his way through the definition of the word "fix", as used in the Downing Street Memo. He wants us to believe that the meaning implied in that memo was not as in the fix is in (as in influencing the outcome), but rather that the evidence was being fixed or solidified or made firm, an entirely different meaning.
He rhetorically asks the question why no one in the room said anything about what he calls a "bombshell." He wonders why no one was surprised that Bush would be doing such a dastardly thing. And he concludes that because no one was outraged, the meaning of the word "fix" in this case must not be the pejorative, but rather the innocent. He simply can't imagine raised eyebrows or knowing glances, or the idea that this was not news to them. He sloughs it off with a slur against British liberals.
And now that we have even further validation that the fix was in from a report about the meeting of Bush and Blair two months before the Downing Street memo, it makes Lindberg's tortured logic look even that more silly.
Linberg even lamely suggests that because the Brits invented English, he trusts them to know how they are using words better than American liberals. Impressive and vellicated logic (look it up, Tod, in the Oxford English Dictionary).
Here's the phrase in the memo: But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. Don't you get it? Linberg has it entirely backwards. When you are planning a war, you don't fix the intelligence around the policy, you fix the policy around the intelligence!! If you fix the intelligence around the policy, you are, indeed, as the dictionary says, " influencing the outcome or actions of by improper or unlawful means ." You are fixing a decision to wage war and then "fixing" whatever evidence you need to make that war happen. The Brits clearly understood what Lindberg cannot possibly accept (his house of cards would collapse).
For Tod Lindberg, the fix has been in way before he wrote this arduous piece of irrationality. If George Bush walked up to him naked, he would continue to see Emperor Bush in his fine regalia.
Another hat tip to Rhoda
READ IT HERE
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/719ltdun.asp?pg=1
Now we have Tod Linberg in the Weekly Standard squirming his way through the definition of the word "fix", as used in the Downing Street Memo. He wants us to believe that the meaning implied in that memo was not as in the fix is in (as in influencing the outcome), but rather that the evidence was being fixed or solidified or made firm, an entirely different meaning.
He rhetorically asks the question why no one in the room said anything about what he calls a "bombshell." He wonders why no one was surprised that Bush would be doing such a dastardly thing. And he concludes that because no one was outraged, the meaning of the word "fix" in this case must not be the pejorative, but rather the innocent. He simply can't imagine raised eyebrows or knowing glances, or the idea that this was not news to them. He sloughs it off with a slur against British liberals.
And now that we have even further validation that the fix was in from a report about the meeting of Bush and Blair two months before the Downing Street memo, it makes Lindberg's tortured logic look even that more silly.
Linberg even lamely suggests that because the Brits invented English, he trusts them to know how they are using words better than American liberals. Impressive and vellicated logic (look it up, Tod, in the Oxford English Dictionary).
Here's the phrase in the memo: But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. Don't you get it? Linberg has it entirely backwards. When you are planning a war, you don't fix the intelligence around the policy, you fix the policy around the intelligence!! If you fix the intelligence around the policy, you are, indeed, as the dictionary says, " influencing the outcome or actions of by improper or unlawful means ." You are fixing a decision to wage war and then "fixing" whatever evidence you need to make that war happen. The Brits clearly understood what Lindberg cannot possibly accept (his house of cards would collapse).
For Tod Lindberg, the fix has been in way before he wrote this arduous piece of irrationality. If George Bush walked up to him naked, he would continue to see Emperor Bush in his fine regalia.
Another hat tip to Rhoda
READ IT HERE
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/719ltdun.asp?pg=1
Bolton's Avatar
Sending John Bolton to the United Nations to make patty-cake with the world is bad enough, but take a look at who Bush has named to replace Bolton in his old position. The new Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, Robert G. Joseph, is an advocate of the offensive use of nuclear weapons while he is nominally in charge of "arms control" issues for America's diplomatic efforts. How charming. Why doesn't George Bush simply recruit Osama bin Laden to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security? It makes about as much sense.
Tip 'o the Hat to a great poet and artist, Rhoda Carroll
READ IT HERE
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/joseph/joseph.php
Tip 'o the Hat to a great poet and artist, Rhoda Carroll
READ IT HERE
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/joseph/joseph.php
June 13, 2005
Make It So, Rummy
If the facts are inconvenient, if reality doesn't fit your fondest hopes and dreams, what do you do? You change the facts, you make your own reality. Can't you just hear Bush, with his legs up on the corner of the presidential desk and his cowboy boots shining, say to Cheney and Rumsfeld: "Dickey, Rummy do whatever you have to do to make it ok for me to blow that Saddam to hell...make it so, men!"
With the Downing Street memo we had the smoke, now we have the gun (from the Times of London). Hat tip to PJB.
The Times of London has just released a story detailing how UK ministers were told that Prime Minister Blair had already promised Bush the UK would support the American drive to oust Saddam, but that an "excuse" would have to be fabricated to make it all "legal", so that the UK cooperation, in any form, would not contravene international law. "Regime change", in and of itself (in other words, simply because George Bush wanted to kick out Saddam), was not enough. In fact, it was illegal. So the US and the UK had to find some legal reason to do what they had already decided they were going to do, almost a year before they actually did it.
How is it not clear that for all those months (from April 2002 to March 2003 when the Iraqi invasion began) Bush was lying about his intentions? How is it not clear that Bush was merely using this period to fix his facts? How is it not clear that Bush was lying to the American people, lying to the Congress, and lying to the world?
Bush was lying to the men and women who would eventually be maimed and die in Iraq. Bush was lying to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who have been "collateral damage" in a war that was trumped up, had absolutely nothing to do with fighting the war on terror, and which has created a stinking quagmire of Vietnam proportions.
READ IT HERE
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html
With the Downing Street memo we had the smoke, now we have the gun (from the Times of London). Hat tip to PJB.
The Times of London has just released a story detailing how UK ministers were told that Prime Minister Blair had already promised Bush the UK would support the American drive to oust Saddam, but that an "excuse" would have to be fabricated to make it all "legal", so that the UK cooperation, in any form, would not contravene international law. "Regime change", in and of itself (in other words, simply because George Bush wanted to kick out Saddam), was not enough. In fact, it was illegal. So the US and the UK had to find some legal reason to do what they had already decided they were going to do, almost a year before they actually did it.
How is it not clear that for all those months (from April 2002 to March 2003 when the Iraqi invasion began) Bush was lying about his intentions? How is it not clear that Bush was merely using this period to fix his facts? How is it not clear that Bush was lying to the American people, lying to the Congress, and lying to the world?
Bush was lying to the men and women who would eventually be maimed and die in Iraq. Bush was lying to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who have been "collateral damage" in a war that was trumped up, had absolutely nothing to do with fighting the war on terror, and which has created a stinking quagmire of Vietnam proportions.
READ IT HERE
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html
June 12, 2005
The Story of O (BL)
O stands for Osama, Osama bin Laden, that is.
In this outstanding piece of journalism, Der Spiegel Online paints a picture of a less than innocent bin Laden family. This far-flung family, with businesses, bank accounts and internecine links throughout the world, has basically been out of bounds for investigators of 9/11. And I doubt that the reason Bush allowed so many Saudis, including many members of the bin Laden family, to leave the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 will be answered any time soon.
One of the astonishing figures in this piece is the fact that Osama was his father's 17th child in 1956, but that ten year's later, his father sired his 54th child, his last. If one believes that blood is, indeed, thicker than water, it is hard to believe at the same time that the entire bin Laden family has "disowned" Osama and repudiated al-Queda.
PART I
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,359690,00.html
PART II
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,359831,00.html
In this outstanding piece of journalism, Der Spiegel Online paints a picture of a less than innocent bin Laden family. This far-flung family, with businesses, bank accounts and internecine links throughout the world, has basically been out of bounds for investigators of 9/11. And I doubt that the reason Bush allowed so many Saudis, including many members of the bin Laden family, to leave the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 will be answered any time soon.
One of the astonishing figures in this piece is the fact that Osama was his father's 17th child in 1956, but that ten year's later, his father sired his 54th child, his last. If one believes that blood is, indeed, thicker than water, it is hard to believe at the same time that the entire bin Laden family has "disowned" Osama and repudiated al-Queda.
PART I
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,359690,00.html
PART II
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,359831,00.html
June 11, 2005
GOP is Big Tent
OK, and the pope is Jewish.
It really is stunning how white the GOP really is.
99% of all Republican legislators across the country and in Congress are white.
Bush's home state is particularly impressive -- "Texas, with a minority population of 47 percent, has 106 Republicans in the state legislature, but there are 0 blacks and 0 Hispanics among them."
Anyone got statistics on how many of them come out of the corporate world or are born-again Christians? Now, while I have nothing against corporatists and born-again Christians (well, that's probably a little white lie), those statistics would probably be equally revealing.
READ IT HERE
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/oops-gop-really-is-all-white-study.html
It really is stunning how white the GOP really is.
99% of all Republican legislators across the country and in Congress are white.
Bush's home state is particularly impressive -- "Texas, with a minority population of 47 percent, has 106 Republicans in the state legislature, but there are 0 blacks and 0 Hispanics among them."
Anyone got statistics on how many of them come out of the corporate world or are born-again Christians? Now, while I have nothing against corporatists and born-again Christians (well, that's probably a little white lie), those statistics would probably be equally revealing.
READ IT HERE
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/oops-gop-really-is-all-white-study.html
Bush Thanks ExxonMobil for National Energy Policy
Of course, they did not put out a press release, nor could they level with the American people once the truth was out (deny, deny), but ExxonMobil was a decisive factor in influencing the Bush administration's approach to the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. I suspect there were many private meetings and conversations, and I further suspect that language was provided. It's always the language that is important. The Bush administration thrives on obfuscation, prevarication, deflection, interpretation, and flat out lying, and it knew beforehand that it would oppose Kyoto. ExxonMobil is expert at spinning energy issues and making it sound like they work in the best interests of humanity. So it's perfectly natural for Bush to seek guidance and direction from ExxonMobil (no doubt from other oil behemoths, as well). None of this is surprising, of course, but it ought to be just one more nail in the Bush coffin, once the American people wake up.
In its denial, ExxonMobil is asking people to believe that it had no interest in the US rejection of the Kyoto protocols. You gotta give it to 'em, they are pretty brazen liars.
ORIGINALLY FROM OUR FRIEND MARK MILLER AT PUBLIC DOMAIN PROGRESS
http://publicdomainprogress.info/
READ ABOUT THE REVEALING DOCUMENTS IN TRUTHOUT
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060805Y.shtml
In its denial, ExxonMobil is asking people to believe that it had no interest in the US rejection of the Kyoto protocols. You gotta give it to 'em, they are pretty brazen liars.
ORIGINALLY FROM OUR FRIEND MARK MILLER AT PUBLIC DOMAIN PROGRESS
http://publicdomainprogress.info/
READ ABOUT THE REVEALING DOCUMENTS IN TRUTHOUT
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060805Y.shtml
Coal is Clean
We all worry about the price of oil which could hit $80 to $100 per barrel soon. Responsible scientists are seeking and have offered alternative methods to produce energy. And the President of the United States has said that the future clean energy for us all is.....coal. Coal, you say, with an astonished look on your face. The Bush government is now projecting that energy derived from coal will increase in the US by 25% in the next 20 years. This is our "alternative" energy plan. And to that effect, Bush is providing $250 million in clean coal subsidies.
READ IT HERE
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/05/clean_coal.html
READ IT HERE
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/05/clean_coal.html
June 10, 2005
Oversight is Orwellian
Fox News asks the question on its website "Are Rules Strangling the Market?" and then provides the answers from two different perspectives: Jonathan Hoenig, managing member of a hedge fund, and Jonas Max Ferris, co-founder of a mutual fund advice website.
In Hoenig's answer to the question, he paints corporate corruption as a "small minority of fraudsters", and claims that "regulation punishes innocent businesses." But the clincher is his characterization of "oversight" as "Orwellian." It's always interesting when a defender of the corporatocracy uses the words of the left in describing any attempt to limit unfettered corporate control and exploitation.
Hoenig goes on, saying: "It (regulation) holds them to completely arbitrary standards, set not by the marketplace but by an unelected pseudo-lawmaker who is often totally ignorant to industry practice. And because regulators’ whims can shift like a weathervane, corporations become fearful of long-range planning and investment. Rightly so, they’re unsure if their acquisition plans or business model will be the next target of the “public servants” who are so apt at making up the rules as they go along."
Where does Hoenig draw the line on regulation? Would he oppose child labor laws? the minimum wage? the 40-hour work week? the right to strike? equal employment laws? securities regulations? unemployment compensation? workplace safety regulations? disability laws? Not surprisingly, he never mentions them.
He actually says: "Onerous government regulation, however, has lessened the need for companies to establish a sound reputation among investors and analysts. " He never points out, as Ferris does, that in an atmosphere of total non-regulation it was this kind of corporate behavior that brought us the Great Depression.
How does he explain his claim that, on the one hand, the vast majority of companies are clean, upstanding self-regulators with the best of intentions, and yet, on the other, that in the face of regulation, they lose their way, and become emboldened to cheat and lie in the face of too much regulation? Now that is Orwellian thinking.
READ HOENIG HERE
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158942,00.html
READ FERRIS HERE
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158977,00.html
In Hoenig's answer to the question, he paints corporate corruption as a "small minority of fraudsters", and claims that "regulation punishes innocent businesses." But the clincher is his characterization of "oversight" as "Orwellian." It's always interesting when a defender of the corporatocracy uses the words of the left in describing any attempt to limit unfettered corporate control and exploitation.
Hoenig goes on, saying: "It (regulation) holds them to completely arbitrary standards, set not by the marketplace but by an unelected pseudo-lawmaker who is often totally ignorant to industry practice. And because regulators’ whims can shift like a weathervane, corporations become fearful of long-range planning and investment. Rightly so, they’re unsure if their acquisition plans or business model will be the next target of the “public servants” who are so apt at making up the rules as they go along."
Where does Hoenig draw the line on regulation? Would he oppose child labor laws? the minimum wage? the 40-hour work week? the right to strike? equal employment laws? securities regulations? unemployment compensation? workplace safety regulations? disability laws? Not surprisingly, he never mentions them.
He actually says: "Onerous government regulation, however, has lessened the need for companies to establish a sound reputation among investors and analysts. " He never points out, as Ferris does, that in an atmosphere of total non-regulation it was this kind of corporate behavior that brought us the Great Depression.
How does he explain his claim that, on the one hand, the vast majority of companies are clean, upstanding self-regulators with the best of intentions, and yet, on the other, that in the face of regulation, they lose their way, and become emboldened to cheat and lie in the face of too much regulation? Now that is Orwellian thinking.
READ HOENIG HERE
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158942,00.html
READ FERRIS HERE
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158977,00.html
Learn the Lexicon
Doublespeak is not a word out of an Orwell novel or essay, even though it sounds like one, and has all the characteristics of one. But it is a perfect word to describe what politicians, corporate spokespeople, PR hacks, advertising executives, corporate lobbyists and people like White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan do every day of their lives.
For an excellent lexicon of doublespeak words, I refer you to the Sourcewatch section of the website for the Center for Media & Democracy. Knowing these words will help in deciphering what these people actually mean when they say things like "aerial ordnance", "food police", "free speech zone", and my favorite "servicing the target."
THANKS TO PROF. WILLIAM LUTZ OF RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, READ IT HERE
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Doublespeak
PERUSE THE CENTER FOR MEDIA & DEMOCRACY HERE
http://www.prwatch.org/
For an excellent lexicon of doublespeak words, I refer you to the Sourcewatch section of the website for the Center for Media & Democracy. Knowing these words will help in deciphering what these people actually mean when they say things like "aerial ordnance", "food police", "free speech zone", and my favorite "servicing the target."
THANKS TO PROF. WILLIAM LUTZ OF RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, READ IT HERE
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Doublespeak
PERUSE THE CENTER FOR MEDIA & DEMOCRACY HERE
http://www.prwatch.org/
June 09, 2005
The Bush Ministry of Truth "Employee of the Month" Award
In the words of Stephen Colbert on The Daily Show, "Is global warming for real, or are you just wearing too many layers"?
Well, if one Bush administration official has his way, we'll never know the facts of scientific research on this matter because he has taken it upon himself to add language more to his liking, and delete language he doesn't like. This guy happens to be Philip A. Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Before that he worked as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, known throughout Washington for its environmentally friendly policies.
READ THE STORY HERE
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?incamp=article_popular
Well, if one Bush administration official has his way, we'll never know the facts of scientific research on this matter because he has taken it upon himself to add language more to his liking, and delete language he doesn't like. This guy happens to be Philip A. Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Before that he worked as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, known throughout Washington for its environmentally friendly policies.
READ THE STORY HERE
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?incamp=article_popular
Let Them Eat Bullets
Global arms spending has topped $1 trillion, according to this story from the Independent (U.K.). Almost half of that is by the United States.
READ IT HERE
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=645335
Meanwhile, when you look at statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development http://www.oecd.org/home/ , the United States trails industrialized nations when it comes to sharing its wealth with the world's poor by a large margin. As a percentage of Gross National Income (GNI), the US ranks at the bottom (0.16%), only one step up from Italy (0.15%), while the UK (0.36%), France (0.42%), Portugal (0.63%), Netherlands (0.74%), Sweden (0.77%), Denmark (0.84%), Luxembourg (0.85%), and Norway (0.87%) make us look stingy.
Special thanks to Rolling Stone and AmericaBlog.
READ IT HERE
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=645335
Meanwhile, when you look at statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development http://www.oecd.org/home/ , the United States trails industrialized nations when it comes to sharing its wealth with the world's poor by a large margin. As a percentage of Gross National Income (GNI), the US ranks at the bottom (0.16%), only one step up from Italy (0.15%), while the UK (0.36%), France (0.42%), Portugal (0.63%), Netherlands (0.74%), Sweden (0.77%), Denmark (0.84%), Luxembourg (0.85%), and Norway (0.87%) make us look stingy.
Special thanks to Rolling Stone and AmericaBlog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)