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)
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.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 --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.
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.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.