micah holmquist's irregular thoughts and links
Welcome to the musings and notes of a Cadillac, Michigan based writer named Micah Holmquist, who is bothered by his own sarcasm.
Please send him email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Holmquist's full archives are listed here.
Sites Holmquist trys, and often fails, to go no more than a couple of days without visiting (some of which Holmquist regularly swipes links from without attribution)
Blogs that for one reason or another Holmquist would like to read on at least something of a regular basis (always in development)
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked on Friday if Saddam Hussein was still in control of Iraq, he replied, "I don't know."
"Day by day, Saddam Hussein is losing his grip on Iraq," President George W. Bush said today.
Since Rumsfeld has never said that he now knows that Saddam is in charge of Iraq, these two statements are irreconcilable since Bush's makes it clear that Saddam is in charge of Iraq to the extent anybody besides the U.S. is in charge while the Rumsfeld's says that it is not known if Saddam is in control of anything.
There are a few explanations for these two statements. Bush and Rumsfeld might have access to different sources of information. They may have drawn different conclusions from the same information. Or they could simply be presenting the situation in the light that serves their needs at the time regardless of what the facts are. By questioning Saddam's control, Rumsfeld may have been trying to encourage the collapse of Saddam's government by discouraging people in that government from fighting for a leader that they would not think was in control. Similarly, having Saddam in control of the Iraqi government served Bush's point today as placed the Uncle Sam The Great Liberator against the long demonized Saddam, which has better ring to it than Sam vs. whoever is in charge now. Saying that Saddam is in control also allows Bush to blame Saddam for the Iraqi military's immoral practices of unnecessarily endangering Iraqi civilians, as Bush did today.
If the last explanation I gave is in fact the case, and I believe it most likely is, this once again demonstrates that Team Bush is not interested in the truth when politics makes it inconvenient.
"I'm sorry I didn't get to hear Toby Keith and Daryl Worley," Bush also said today.
I think the record will show that I haven't said Bush is an idiot with certainty before. But if he actually likes the music of Keith and Worley, I feel pretty confident in saying he is an idiot. And if he just said he regretted not hearing their music to be diplomatic and actually does know their music, Bush has no self-respect.
UPDATE: Somebody asked White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer this question today:
Q Ari, a week ago, President Bush was saying that Saddam was losing his grip on power. In a way, this seemed to indicate he believed Saddam was alive. Now the message from the administration is one of doubt that Saddam is alive. Has something happened in the last week, or are you just -- are you trying to sow doubt among the Iraqi leadership?For the rest of my life I plan to talk about Bush whenever a president does something that I don't like. 9:10 p.m. 04/01/03