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 micahth@chartermi.net.

Holmquist's full archives are listed here.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

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)

Aljazeera.Net English
AlterNet (War on Iraq)
Alternative Press Review
Always Low Prices -- Always
Another Irani online
antiwar.com (blog)
Asia Times Online
Axis of Logic
Baghdad Burning (riverbend)
BBC News
blogdex.net ("track this weblog")
bobanddavid.com
BuzzFlash
The Christian Science Monitor (Daily Update)
Common Dreams
Cryptome
Cursor
Daily Rotten
DefenseLINK
Democracy Now
The Drudge Report
Eat the Press (Harry Shearer, The Huffington Post)
Empire Notes (Rahul Mahajan)
frontpagemag.com (HorowitzWatch)
globalsecurity.org
greenandwhite.com
Guardian Unlimited
Haaretz
The Independent
Information Clearing House
Informed Comment (Juan Cole)
Iranians for Peace

Iraq Dispatches (Dahr Jamail)
Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation
Iraq Occupation and Resistance Report (Psychoanalysts for Peace and Justice)
MetaFilter
MLive
Mr. Show and Other Comedy
The Narco News Bulletin (blog)
NEWSMAKINGNEWS
The New York Times
Occupation Watch
Political Theory Daily Review
Press Action
Project Syndicate
Raed in the Middle (Raed Jarrar)
random-abstract.com
Reuters
Salon
The Simpsons Archive
Simpsons Collector Sector
Slate
Sploid
Technorati ("search for mth.blogspot.com")
thi3rdeye
United States Central Command
U.S. Embassy Baghdad, Iraq
venezuelanalysis.com
War Report (Project on Defense Alternatives)
The Washington Post
Wildfire (Jo Wilding)
wood s lot
www.mnftiu.cc (David Rees)

Blogs that for one reason or another Holmquist would like to read on at least something of a regular basis (always in development)

Thivai Abhor
As'ad AbuKhalil
Ken Adrian
Christopher Allbritton
Alli
Douglas Anders
Mark W. Anderson
Aziz Ansari
Atomic Archive
Bagatellen
James Benjamin
Elton Beard
Charlie Bertsch
alister black
Blame India Watch
Blixa
Blog Left: Critical Interventions Warblog / war blog
Igor Boog
Martin Butler
Chris Campbell
James M. Capozzola
Avedon Carol
Elaine Cassel
cats blog
Jeff Chang
Margaret Cho
Citizens Of Upright Moral Character
Louis CK
Les Dabney
Dack
Natalie Davis
Scoobie Davis
The Day Job
Jodi Dean
Dominic Duval
Steve Earle
Eli
Daniel Ellsberg
Tom Engelhardt
Lisa English
Faramin
Barbara Flaska
Brian Flemming
Joe Foster
Yoshie Furuhashi
Al Giordano
Glovefox
Rob Goodspeed
Grand Puba
Guardian Unlimited Weblog
Pete Guither
The Hairy Eyeball
Ray Hanania
Mark Hand
harveypekar.com
Hector Rottweiller Jr's Web Log Jim Henley Arvin Hill Hit & Run (Reason) Hugo Clark Humphrey Indri The Iraqi Agora Dru Oja Jay Jeff Lynne d Johnson Dallas Jones Julia Kane Blues Benjamin Kepple Ken Layne Phil Leggiere Brian Linse Adam Magazine Majority Report Radio Marc Maron Josh Marshall Jeralyn Merritt J.R. Mooneyham Michael Scott Moore Bob Morris Bob Mould Mr. Show and Tell Muslims For Nader/Camejo David Neiwert NewPages Weblog Aimee Nezhukumatathil Sean O'Brien Patton Oswalt The Panda's Thumb Randy Paul Rodger A. Payne Ian Penman politx Neal Pollack Greg Proops Pro-War.com Pure Polemics Seyed Razavi Rayne Simon Reynolds richardpryor.com Clay Richards Mike Rogers Yuval Rubinstein
Steven Rubio
Saragon Noah Shachtman Court Schuett The Simpsons Archive Amardeep Singh Sam Smith Soundbitten Jack Sparks Ian Spiers Morgan Spurlock Stand Down: The Left-Right Blog Opposing an Invasion of Iraq Aaron Stark Morgaine Swann Tapped (The American Prospect) tex Matthew Tobey Annie Tomlin Tom Tomorrow The University Without Condition Jesse Walker Warblogger Watch Diane Warth The Watchful Babbler The Weblog we have brains Matt Welch
Alex Whalen
Jon Wiener
Lizz Winstead
James Wolcott
Wooster Collective
Mickey Z

Tuesday, January 13, 2004
 
"Where do you think you're going Mr. President?"

In a better world Scott McClellan would be fired for dishonesty by people who cared. In this world, he is a "respected" minister of propaganda who, like he does many days, took questions from reporters yesterday.

Asked about whether Paul O'Neill had made "false claims or accusations," McClellan said:

David, you've heard me say repeatedly that we're not in the business of doing book reviews. I don't get in the business of selling or promoting or critiquing books. I would say that you all are well aware of a lot of these facts on issues that have been raised over -- that some of you raised over the weekend.

But this -- I think it appears to be more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people. And the President is someone who is always forward looking, and he's going to continue to be forward looking. He's going to continue to focus on the results that we are achieving and building upon those results, to strengthen our economy even more and to make our world -- continue to make our world a safer and better place.

That's logical, if not exactly intelligent since looking at the past is one of the best ways to decide what actions to take for the sake of the future, but then David and McClellan get into this exchange:
Q You're declining to take on specific assertions, such as --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, you didn't make any -- you didn't ask a specific question. But again --

Q I asked you if you if he made false accusations -- like on Iraq, he claims at the very first national security meeting, there was a discussion about targeting Saddam Hussein and that it was his impression and interpretation that, essentially, the President wanted to find a way to make that happen. Is that --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me remind you of a few of the facts. First of all, the President exhausted all possible means to resolve this -- resolve the situation in Iraq peacefully. You will recall that he went to the United Nations Security Council and they passed a 17th or 18th resolution giving Saddam Hussein one final opportunity to comply. He was given a final opportunity to comply. He continued to defy the international community and was in material breach of Security Council Resolution 1441, which called for serious consequences.

And the President believes, in the aftermath of September 11th, that it's important to confront threats before it's too late. And, certainly, I think everyone recognizes that Saddam Hussein has been a dangerous man for a long time, and his regime -- the international community recognize that his regime was a threat for a long time.

Leaving aside the bizarre statement that Bush "exhausted all possible means to... resolve the situation peacefully," it should be noted that when McClellan attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq he does so by looking at the past, so apparently Bush wasn't aware of Saddam's record in the past and he has never attempted to use any of that to justify the invasion and in fact has never attempted to use the past to justify anything. Bush always keeps his eye on the prize, you could say about that great visionary.

***

Also from yesterday, Bush responded to a question about whether or not his administration had planned to remove Saddam before September 11, 2001:

First, let me say, I appreciate former Secretary O'Neill's service to our country. We worked together during some difficult times. We worked together when the country was in recession, and now we're coming out of recession, which is positive news. We worked together when America was attacked on September the 11th, which changed how I viewed the world. September the 11th made me realize that America was no longer protected by oceans, and we had to take threats very seriously no matter where they may be materializing.
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that if Bush is saying he was unaware that the United States could, with relative ease, be attacked before September 11, 2001? Maybe he is an idiot.

Bush continues:

And, no, the stated policy of my administration towards Saddam Hussein was very clear. Like the previous administration, we were for regime change. And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with Desert Badger, or fly-overs and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines. And then, all of a sudden, September the 11th hit. And as the President of the United States, my most solemn obligation is to protect the security of the American people. That's my -- to me that's the most solemn thing an American President -- or any president -- must do. And I took that duty very seriously.

And as you know, not only did we deal with the Taliban, we gave -- working through the United Nations and working through international community, we made it clear that Saddam Hussein should disarm. And like he had done with a lot of previous resolutions, he ignored the world's demands. And now he's no longer in power, and the world is better for it. The Iraqi people are better for it; America is better for it; Mexico is better for it. The world is more peaceful as a result of Saddam Hussein not being in power.

Bush seems to be looking backwards, which confuses me. Perhaps what McClellan meant was that Bush is "forward looking" only when looking to the past doesn't help him politically. And thanks for protecting me from Saddam Mr. President!

Bush would add a few more words but nothing of consequence before saying, "[t]hank you very much" and leaving. "That was too close for comfort," Bush is rumored to have muttered once he got to safety.

***

It has become evident that asking the Bush Administration legitimate questions is pointless now as they will just refuse to answer them. Most of the reporters covering the White House don't seem to mind but if, as a group, they ever decide to act as if they have a little bit of self-respect, I recommend that when Bush wants to leave, they run to the door and block it. Bob Dylan's "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere" will play on the loudspeaker and the prez will be informed that he's staying in the room till he answers some real questions. What's he going to do? Explain that he doesn't have to answer questions about his beloved "war on terror"?

Actually Mr. Holmquist that is exactly what he'd do and it would play well amongst Americans who believe that they love their country more than people who don't support Bush

You are probably right, but mth.blogspot.com is my blog and this is my dream.