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.
Archives
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 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 |
Friday, April 30, 2004
Micah Holmquist's off the top of his head words to end April Both Democrats and Republicans are likely to say whatever works to make the partisan point they want to make at the moment without regard for consistency or principles. (Many of other affiliations or non-affiliations do the same, FWIW.) Yesterday's edition of Sean Hannity's radio show provided three examples of Republican partisans doing this... -Sean Hannity frequently criticizes Democrats for engaging in "class warfare" whenever they mention economic inequality in the U.S. or that the bulk of the savings from Bush's tax cuts go to the very wealthy. And yet yesterday Newt Gingrich and Hannity were making fun of John Kerry for having a personal assistant who made sure Kerry had access to water, aspirin and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and because Kerry preferred strawberry jelly to grape and whole wheat bread to white. If that's the best they got on Kerry's blue blood ways, they don't have anything. -Ted Nugent was on and, amongst other things I won't get into, said Karl Marx and Mao Tse Tung were responsible for coming up the phrase "redistribution of wealth." That's idiotic in and of itself. Marx died in 1883 and Mao wasn't born till 1893. Nugent went on to ask, "what right" does one "man" have to take what "another man" has "earned"? Fair enough, except that he went on to praise the U.S. Armed Forces for defending "freedom", even though the last time I checked they were, for better or worse, the product of taxes and redistributing wealth in other countries. -Those were nothing compared to Hannity saying Saddam "couldn't wait" to give WMDs to terrorists. If that is the case, and I have no doubt that it is because Hannity is a big star and I'm not, then what took Saddam so long? *** The guest host on yesterday's edition of Mike Reagan's radio show was complaining about a piece written by University of Massachusetts grad student Rene Gonzalez in his university's student newspaper that said Pat Tillman "got what was coming to him." Think what you want about that, but this guest host went on to say that Gonzalez was probably getting most of his education paid for by others, be it his parents or taxpayers, and didn't know anything about sacrifice. The host had no evidence of this but was just assuming it to be the case. What is known, and yet went unsaid, is that Tillman received a scholarship to play college football at school that is publicly funded and without this experience he almost certainly never would have been able to earn millions in the NFL. First football, then a government job, damn I hate people who just sponge off of hard working American tax payers their entire adult life. The guest host also said that he had attended a recent speech by Karen Hughes at Santa Barbara City College and outside of the speech there was a protest that we listeners were told was organized by "professors." The guest host was mad that his tax money went to pay these people's salary. It apparently never occurred to him that they might be mad that their tax dollars help to pay for speeches by the likes of Hughes. *** Bush isn't too keen on U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners: A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier, saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we'd accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein. And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq. As a result, a friend of terror has been removed, and now sits in a jail. I also said on that carrier that day that there was still difficult work ahead...I'm shaking my head in disgust [please note that the previous link contains some horrific images and looking at them won't do a whole lot of good, unless you doubt that "the men and women who defend our freedom" are capable of torture] and disbelief. Note that Bush has to be asked about this. Decency doesn't come naturally, I guess. Thursday, April 29, 2004
My latest Press Action piece argues that many people "believe" and support the Bush Administration's narrative regarding the "war on terror" because they want to believe it and that any effective response will have to present an argument that these people would rather believe. *** It feels good to be appreciated by Indri and Avedon Carol. *** And I was happy forgetting that Tom and Tommy were different people. *** The CDT on "What's Wrong With the Patriot Act and How to Fix It" ugh *** Wednesday, April 28, 2004
In what is a non-development, the world remains a depressing place. My advice, which I don't follow, is to ignore the terrifying things, and the intellectual stuff like that linked to in yesterday's entry, and just go download this mp3 from David Cross and read some fairly new get your war on strips, The Onion and Neal Pollack. Have something good to drink while you are at it. Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Monday, April 26, 2004
Funny world Just a few of the things I find hilarity in... *** There was a big pro-choice demo in Washington D.C. yesterday. There was also a big NASCAR race in Talladega, Alabama. I think it is safe to say there was nobody who had to decide which event to attend, or watch on the telly. *** *** The U.S. is getting rid of Chalabi and other cronies. Here's the conversation between Bremer and Bush that lead to this: Bremer: Did you hear that Chalabi guy complained abut us allowing formerly evil people back into Iraq's government.*** The world's most advanced and powerful military is complaining that anti-occupation forces in Iraq have ammo and aren't fighting fair. Sunday, April 25, 2004
Way back before anybody had the misfortune of knowing about instapundit... I was blogging. April 20, 2001 was the date of my first post. *** I suppose this is as good a time as any to mention this November 16, 2003 Traverse City Record-Eagle story by Marta Hepler-Drahos on blogging and bloggers in northern Michigan. I haven't written about it because there were a number of mistakes related to my interview that I found infuriating, particularly this one: Holmquist heard about blogging two years ago while participating in e-mail discussion groups...What I actually said was that I wasn't sure when I had first heard of "blogs" because the content of blogs seemed like a natural extension of some of the email lists I have been on since the mid-1990s and so when I first ran across them I didn't think of them as something completely new, but rather as a modification of another form and not one that stood out as particularly significant. *** *** There are many pages on the web that are worth a visit. If only it were possible to link to each and every one of them. Saturday, April 24, 2004
"Freedom" Jackson Browne's "Lives in the Balance" holds up at least as well as any other pop song from the mid-1980s. The chorus is awful but the verses are cool and make the understated song into something of a "Straight to Hell" for the adult contemporary crowd. And the lyrics' focus on how the U.S. oppresses people around the world and uses manipulation of the U.S. public's natural inclinations in order to get support for such policy even as the policies themselves breed resistance seems as relevant as ever. The following lines seem particularly relevant at the moment: On the radio talk shows and the T.V.Bush announced on Monday that he wants Death Squad John Negroponte to be Ambassador to Iraq. As if to show that Bush has a disgusting sense of humor, a few days later it came out that the U.S. was employing some Saddam's former thugs. Even U.S. stooge Ahmad Chalabi sees something wrong with this and has in fact compared this move with putting the Nazis back in charge of Germany. (What a foolish statement! Everybody knows Nazis had far more important things to do than run Germany.) I, however, prefer to look at it as a mentorship program. And, it should go without saying, that America will use Saddam's former buddies in evil (so evil we had to invade goddamnit) in order to further freedom, just has we have done in Afghanistan. As Ms. News writes in an April 22 story: Female performers in an Afghan province have been banned from performing on television and radio. According to Reuters, female entertainers have been declared un-Islamic in the Southeastern province. The provincial government, according to Radio Free Europe, ordered state-run television in Jalalabad to stop broadcasting Afghan women singer’s performances.Good for the Afghans. They don't need some slut prancing around for men to see and "women" to emulate. I mean I'm still suffering from early exposure to Cyndi Lauper. Friday, April 23, 2004
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Since "God Bless the USA" is long past tired... Perhaps Randy Newman will write songs entitled "I Love Afghanistan" and "I Love Iraq." Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Monday, April 19, 2004
The April 19 edition of stuff that amuses me (amusement comes in a variety of forms) Last week Comedy Central debuted the five-part series 100 Greatest Stand-Ups of All Time, with the result being a largely predictable list: 1. Richard PryorI'm surprised that Godfrey Cambridge and Margaret Cho didn't make the list, there a few people who probably shouldn't be on it and the order is highly debatable, but all that pals in comparison to the outrage that this list doesn't recognize Carrot Top as greater than Bill Hicks even though Carrot Top has won infinitely more American Comedy Awards than Hicks. What actually interests me about this list is that it is not clear how it was put together. Who voted? What was the voting process? What criteria were they supposed to be basing their votes? None of this is made clear and yet the list is presented as authoritative. This reminds me of something else, and yes I am talking about the bane of my intellect. *** Patton Oswalt could have been on the list, but I suppose he was too busy answering questions to make an appearance. BTW the ending of Inside Out: Leah Remini is hilarious. Remini tells a fertility doctor that she wants to get pregnant, but doesn't have the energy to have sex all the time now so she just needs to know when she should have it in order to have the best shot at fertilization. Maybe it just me, but if you don't have enough energy to have sex regularly, maybe you don't have enough energy to raise kids. Just a thought. *** *** In a development directly related to the news contained in yesterday's entry, Steven R. Weisman reports in a New York Times story dated April 19 that Colin Powell is the on the outs with some members of the Bush Administration because the comments he is presumed to have made to Bob Woodward. Now this is all inside baseball, but somehow I doubt that Powell cares all that much about communication with people that left him out of the loop on the plan to invade Iraq. (I wonder if H.W. Bush has similar emotions.) *** C-SPAN is considering a delay in order to weed out one kind of content that some people don't like (dirty words), Renwick McLean reports in today's New York Times. I'm offended by displays of respect and/or support for Bush, but I'm not trying to get them banned. *** The legal division of the "war on terror" *** *** That I agree with some of what Christopher Hitchens writes in "Second Thinking: What I got wrong about Iraq." *** *** Doug Giles' April 17 townhall.com piece "Where Are God's Warriors and Wild Men?" Giles answer is not in Church, which one could be excused for thinking means they would not be "God's Warriors" but maybe I just don't understand the real situation: So why do most men avoid church? Here's the veneer stripped-away answer: going to church for the majority of men is an exercise in unwanted effeminacy. Church, for most men, has not only become irrelevant; it has also become effeminate. Hanging out in church for most extra-Y chromosomes seems unmanly and most men more than anything want to be masculine!Well that's an anti-God perspective if ever there was one. The current lack of strong men within the Church, both in the numeric and leadership sense, has crippled our cathedrals and has helped devastate our nation ethically. The masculine spirit being absent from the pulpit, the pew and subsequently the public square has not only slowed down the forward progress of the Church, it has also weakened our nation�s morality, increased our country�s secularity, and has assisted [owing to our absence] the lascivious Left�s re-definition of life, sex, marriage and law.Never once does Giles consider that maybe men are to blame for not fitting in with the church, a fact that makes perfect sense because masculinity always comes before Godliness. It is in the Bible. So how do we regain the masculine spirit in our houses of worship? How do we gird the Church to press on with that which is holy, just and good? How can we Christians fight the good fight honorably, for freedom, family and the flag? Here are a few things the Church can do.�While reasonable intelligent beings advocate that a monkey teach Giles a thing or two, there are people who agree with Giles. They also need to be educated by our primate friends. *** Condoleezza Rice saying the U.S. is worried about terrorist attacks around the time of the presidential election in November. Funny how this wasn't a big deal two years ago. One could almost think they only say these things when it benefits them to do so. Sunday, April 18, 2004
Movie idea Economics would keep it from realizing its full potential, but in theory it looks like Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack would serve as the basis for great comedy screenplay. All of this keeping Powell in the dark and "higher father" fun should provoke laughter and I would love to see it come to fruition. The film would be in the grand tradition of John Ford's The Grapes of Wrath (1940) in that it wouldn't reveal anything that wasn't obvious but could do a splendid job of stating its message. The commotion over Woodward's book is a great example of the news media covering a little scandal while ignoring the bigger picture. There is nothing shocking about powerful people getting together and deciding exactly how they are going to run the world, the idea that invading Iraq was talked about shortly after September 11, 2001 or that the Bush Administration has been extremely dishonest. What is shocking is that the Bush Administration appears to be lousy at everything but getting away with shit and how brazen they are in believing that they can say or do anything and that not enough people will care in order to prevent them from getting away with it. (The cynic -or is that realist?- in me thinks they are right about this, and that this is a real problem.) Or, to put it in campaign terms, the Bush campaign should be repeatedly asked, "do you think the dishonesty of the Bush Administration will hurt your candidate?" (For the record, I can't believe that they do believe it will have a negative impact. If those running the campaign and administration were generally worried about it, why would Woodward have gotten the access that he did?) Saturday, April 17, 2004
How many dead Iraqis does it take to "liberate" Iraq? I'm sure the U.S. aim in Iraq isn't to kill as many sand niggers, but that doesn't mean many civilian deaths are not happening, or that the U.S. shouldn't be held accountable... In today's Guardian, Ronan Bennett writes, "the evidence of the bodies alone gives the lie to the American account: at least 350 of the dead in Falluja have been women and children." (Thanks to a contributor to mailing list that I'm on.) "US snipers in Falluja shoot unarmed man in the back, old woman with white flag, children fleeing their homes and the ambulance that we were going in to fetch a woman in premature labour," Jo Wilding writes in an April 13 report from the scene. Some of the injured are being treated in Baghdad, IRIN reports in an April 14 story. The U.S. is detaining Iraqi soldiers who refuse to do what they are told, Reuters reports in a story dated April 16. Despite all this, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, says the insurgency against the U.S. is right to say "a symptom of the success that we're having here in Iraq." And CNN is right to question why any media outlet would want to report civilian deaths at the hands of Uncle Sam. Why? Because America is fighting for freedom. If you doubt that, just look at Afghanistan, where the U.S. is injuring and killing civilians in order to stabilize a place where, in the words of Anna Badkhen of The San Francisco Chronicle, "an Afghan woman... has no rights." Friday, April 16, 2004
My opinion of the stuff I write tends to go down with time but right now I very much like "How the ‘Mainstream’ Media Enables the Bush Administration ... and Why They'd Be Happy to Do the Same for Kerry and Friends." *** One might think Donald "Sometimes I overstate for emphasis" Rumsfeld shows a lot of nerve in criticizing al Jazeera for being "inaccurate." However, I think he was just overstating to hammer home the point that the U.S. is on the side of good and all others are on the side of evil. *** Trent Lott's solution is probably getting more consideration than ever right about now. *** "Seen One Killer, Seen 'em All?" *** The AP writes in April 14 story: Once again, President Bush misspoke on a weapons issue, telling the nation that 50 tons of mustard gas were found in Libya - twice the amount actually uncovered.I should have learned this lesson by now, but never think Bush is good at anything save for getting away with shit. Another AP story, this time from yesterday, says: On a rooftop overlooking Fallujah's industrial wasteland, Lance Cpl. Tom Browne pokes his machine gun muzzle out of a hole in a barrier wall, singing to himself to pass the time.Welcome to the glorious war! Thursday, April 15, 2004
"When we hear the word 'Vietnam' nowadays, we're more apt to think about our involvement in that country than about the Vietnamese themselves, whom we've never figured out a way of adequately acknowledging -- as people, as witnesses, even as spectators of Apocalypse Now Redux," Jonathan Rosenbaum of The Chicago Reader writes in a review from 2001. There's appears to be a parallel between the construction of "Vietnam" as meaning U.S. military intervention in Vietnam and "September 11" and various variations on that phrase has come to mean the attacks against the U.S. that happened on September 11, 2001 as if anything and everything else that has or could ever happen on a "September 11" is not as important as the suffering of Americans on September 11, 2001. (Yes non-Americans did die on that day, but that's something lost on Ann Coulter, amongst many others.) Then again, a similar process has occurred with "Oklahoma City" and "Waco," although to a much lesser extent. Stuff that's funny (but maybe shouldn't be) The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, saying yesterday: The intelligence that we provided our senior policy makers about the threat Al Qaeda posed, its leadership and its operational span across over 60 countries and the use of Afghanistan as a sanctuary was clear and direct. Warning was well understood, even if the timing and method of attacks were not...*** Steven R. Weisman's April 13 New York Times report on how the leader of the free world is expected to name John Negroponte as the ambassador to Iraq once "sovereignty" is turned over. Negroponte is widely known for his opposition to human rights abuses and the transfer will not largely be symbolic. (Thanks to Majority Report for pointing out the article on Negroponte's impending appointment.) *** Barry McCaffrey is still allowed to express himself. Wednesday, April 14, 2004
I'm proud to be one of President Bush's subjects I didn't watch President Bush's big event yesterday, because I figured what's the point when you can read the transcript and see actress, entertainer, Godly woman, intellectual, journalist and musical genius Kathie Lee Gifford talking about it on Fox & Friends. President Bush said: Good evening. Before I take your questions, let me speak with the American people about the situation in Iraq.Great opener! I hope all the non-American people covered their ears. This has been tough weeks in that country. Coalition forces have encountered serious violence in some areas of Iraq. Our military commanders report that this violence is being instigated by three groups: Some remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, along with Islamic militants have attacked coalition forces in the city of Fallujah. Terrorists from other countries have infiltrated Iraq to incite and organize attacks. In the south of Iraq, coalition forces face riots and attacks that are being incited by a radical cleric named al-Sadr. He has assembled some of his supporters into an illegal militia, and publicly supported the terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Al-Sadr's methods of violence and intimidation are widely repudiated by other Iraqi Shia. He's been indicted by Iraqi authorities for the murder of a prominent Shia cleric.It was very important that President Bush stress that what the enemy is doing is "illegal." They are criminals for not wanting the U.S. to dictate what happens within the borders of Iraq. It's not a civil war; it's not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable. Most Iraqis, by far, reject violence and oppose dictatorship. In forums where Iraqis have met to discuss their political future, and in all the proceedings of the Iraqi Governing Council, Iraqis have expressed clear commitments. They want strong protections for individual rights; they want their independence; and they want their freedom.Clearly President Bush is not making these terms up as he goes along, and it isn't as if the "war on terror" was inspired by something that happened on a small section of the U.S. or anything. America's commitment to freedom in Iraq is consistent with our ideals, and required by our interests.President Bush deftly differentiated between Iraq and a country like Uzbekistan, where America collectively could not care less. Iraq will either be a peaceful, democratic country, or it will again be a source of violence, a haven for terror, and a threat to America and to the world. By helping to secure a free Iraq, Americans serving in that country are protecting their fellow citizens. Our nation is grateful to them all, and to their families that face hardship and long separation.Thank you for speaking for me and all other Americans! This weekend, at a Fort Hood hospital, I presented a Purple Heart to some of our wounded; had the honor of thanking them on behalf of all Americans. Other men and women have paid an even greater cost. Our nation honors the memory of those who have been killed, and we pray that their families will find God's comfort in the midst of their grief. As I have said to those who have lost loved ones, we will finish the work of the fallen.No mention of the Iraqis who Bush presumably can't be bothered to think died for the freedom of other Iraqis by getting killed by the U.S. America's armed forces are performing brilliantly, with all the skill and honor we expect of them. We're constantly reviewing their needs. Troop strength, now and in the future, is determined by the situation on the ground. If additional forces are needed, I will send them. If additional resources are needed, we will provide them. The people of our country are united behind our men and women in uniform, and this government will do all that is necessary to assure the success of their historic mission.President Bush might want to look into this: A top US military commander has requested the equivalent of two mobile combat brigades to help the campaign to put down Iraqi insurgents.And this report from news.com.au: AN Iraqi has died of his wounds after US troops beat him with truncheons because he refused to remove a picture of wanted Shiite Muslim leader Moqtada Sadr from his car, police said today.Getting back to the equally brilliant statement by President Bush: One central commitment of that mission is the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. We have set a deadline of June 30th. It is important that we meet that deadline. As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest, as well. America's objective in Iraq is limited, and it is firm: We seek an independent, free and secure Iraq.President Bush unfortunately does not seem familiar with the work of Chalmers Johnson, but I do understand why he left out the State Department's April 9 statement about how the U.S. hopes "there would be limits, constraints, on Iraqi sovereign powers when this new authority takes over." I mean that comment has been talked about far too much. Our coalition is standing with responsible Iraqi leaders as they establish growing authority in their country. The transition to sovereignty requires that we demonstrate confidence in Iraqis, and we have that confidence. Many Iraqi leaders are showing great personal courage, and their example will bring out the same quality in others. The transition to sovereignty also requires an atmosphere of security, and our coalition is working to provide that security. We will continue taking the greatest care to prevent harm to innocent civilians; yet we will not permit the spread of chaos and violence. I have directed our military commanders to make every preparation to use decisive force, if necessary, to maintain order and to protect our troops."Responsible" translates to "does what they are told to do" in Arabic, Iraqi or whatever the hell language they speak over there. The nation of Iraq is moving toward self-rule, and Iraqis and Americans will see evidence in the months to come. On June 30th, when the flag of free Iraq is raised, Iraqi officials will assume full responsibility for the ministries of government. On that day, the transitional administrative law, including a bill of rights that is unprecedented in the Arab world, will take full effect.So Iraqi isn't free now? The United States, and all the nations of our coalition, will establish normal diplomatic relations with the Iraqi government. An American embassy will open, and an American ambassador will be posted.Who exactly will be running the country till then? What parties will be allowed to participate in the national assembly? Surely these questions will be answered by President Bush. Other nations and international institutions are stepping up to their responsibilities in building a free and secure Iraq. We're working closely with the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, and with Iraqis to determine the exact form of the government that will receive sovereignty on June 30th.This seems well-planned. The United Nations election assistance team, headed by Karina Parelli (phonetic), is in Iraq, developing plans for next January's election. NATO is providing support for the Polish-led multinational division in Iraq. And 17 of NATO's 26 members are contributing forces to maintain security.And this is important because? Iraqi's neighbors also have responsibilities to make their region more stable. So I am sending Deputy Secretary of State Armitage to the Middle East to discuss with these nations our common interest in a free and independent Iraq, and how they can help achieve this goal.See if they are "responsible" they will do what they are told and live up to their "responsibilities." Nothing problematic about that. As we've made clear all along, our commitment to the success and security of Iraq will not end on June 30th. On July 1st, and beyond, our reconstruction assistance will continue, and our military commitment will continue. Having helped Iraqis establish a new government, coalition military forces will help Iraqis to protect their government from external aggression and internal subversion.Meaning? The success of free government in Iraq is vital for many reasons. A free Iraq is vital because 25 million Iraqis have as much right to live in freedom as we do. A free Iraq will stand as an example to reformers across the Middle East. A free Iraq will show that America is on the side of Muslims who wish to live in peace, as we have already shown in Kuwait and Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan. A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America's word, once given, can be relied upon, even in the toughest times.Kosovo? Afghanistan? Peaceful? Above all, the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere; and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people. Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver.Why? The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The terrorist who takes hostages, or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali, and cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew.I know this is a first draft that won't go out to the public Mr. President but you might want to make some edits since earlier in this draft you say that there are different groups involved. None of these acts is the work of a religion; all are the work of a fanatical, political ideology.Can't it be both? The servants of this ideology seek tyranny in the Middle East and beyond. They seek to oppress and persecute women. They seek the death of Jews and Christians, and every Muslim who desires peace over theocratic terror. They seek to intimidate America into panic and retreat, and to set free nations against each other. And they seek weapons of mass destruction, to blackmail and murder on a massive scale.This is as dishonest as it is insulting. A desperate enemy is also a dangerous enemy, and our work may become more difficult before it is finished. No one can predict all the hazards that lie ahead, or the costs they will bring. Yet, in this conflict, there is no safe alternative to resolute action. The consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable. Every friend of America and Iraq would be betrayed to prison and murder as a new tyranny arose. Every enemy of America and the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and decadence, and using that victory to recruit a new generation of killers.Hey George, I only say this because I love you but CAN YOU GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT??? It might help. Now, I'll be glad to take your questions. I will start with you.This will be good. Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?If you could ask Bush anything you wanted to and you asked this question, well you aren't that bright. THE PRESIDENT: I think the analogy is false.I agree with Bush! Who would have ever expected that? Of course I have a reason, but President Bush needn't stoop to my level since he is the Leader of the Free World and it is our job to believe everything He says. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy.If only President Bush would inform us what is and isn't acceptable in the form of parameters. I mean it isn't as if he is opposed to bring up the past and I can't believe President Bush could possibly not be consistent, fair and correct. Look, this is hard work. It's hard to advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny. And, yet, we must stay the course, because the end result is in our nation's interest.Wow! Bush can memorize a few paragraphs. I bet he did good at vacation Bible school. And as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way. I fully understand the consequences of what we're doing. We're changing the world. And the world will be better off and America will be more secure as a result of the actions we're taking.Amazing. This wasn't even asked and yet President Bush responded. Q Thank you, Mr. President. What's your best prediction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to add some troops; is that a fair assessment?This is why the U.S. wants permanent bases in Iraq. The Iraqi people need us there to help with security. They need us there to fight off these violent few who are doing everything they can to resist the advance of freedom. And I mentioned who they are.Even more memorization. This is why people are wrong to say President Bush is dumb. President Bush just acts like we are dumb. Let's see here -- Terry.Funny how political expediency leads to a "lesson." Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States. That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence; that's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.Now if President Bush actually believed this stuff he would in fact be beyond dumb. I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, either you take care of him, or we will. Any time an American President says, if you don't, we will, we better be prepared to. And I was prepared to. I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something, for the sake of security in the world. See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We needed to work with people. People needed to come together to work. And, therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately.That is an answer. Elisabeth.That is not. Dave.But of course you aren't worried about this, are you President Bush? The "threat" from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq only existed so you could get a fun little war out of it. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don't think anybody can -- maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don't believe that, that they're better off with Saddam Hussein -- would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.If only Bush were smart enough to change the subject. Let's see -- Ed.It is disturbing to realize that this response was worse than the question. Let's see -- Jim.If it doesn't mean war, what's the point? John.Talk about a charade. John.Hey kids, don't learn any history, logic or political science. It will only make it harder to love President Bush. Let's see here, hold on. Michael. You're next.More evidence that this well planned operation. And, secondly, because the 9/11 Commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.I'm not sure who Michael is but I'm moderately impressed. Of course at this point Michael should have screamed, "answer the question you fucking asshole. Answer the real question! Why are manipulating the public's ignorance so that you can have your war without end?" Q Mr. President --Good to see we are back to the insignificant questions. THE PRESIDENT: I guess there have been some that said, well, we should have taken preemptive action in Afghanistan, and then turned around and said we shouldn't have taken preemptive action in Iraq. And my answer to that question is, is that, again I repeat what I said earlier -- prior to 9/11 the country really wasn't on a war footing. And the, frankly, mood of the world would have been astounded had the United States acted unilaterally in trying to deal with al Qaeda in that part of the world.Maybe he is an idiot. Your further question was, how do you justify any other preemptive action. The American people need to know my last choice is the use of military power. It is something that -- it is a decision that -- it's a tough decision to make for any President, because I fully understand the consequences of the decision. And, therefore, we'll use all other means necessary, when we see a threat, to deal with a threat that may materialize, but we'll never take the military off the table.Translation: we will only spread "freedom" if we want to. Let's see here. Judy.What a despicable asshole. John.Yeah and I wish Bush's unofficial press agency would ask some real questions so I didn't have to be so goddamn angry. John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.Who's doing this? Why don't they want the weapons so they can kill Americans? The fact that this wasn't asked just shows how trained these reporters are. But it will all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time. However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today, just like it would have bothered me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually -- not only had weapons of mass destruction -- the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them. And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to inflict harm on America, because he hated us.Hey George, I hate you and yet I have never planned to physically harm you. Talk about projection. I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.Here is an example, not that there is a lack of them, where I would think slightly more of Bush if he is not being truthful. Yes, Ann.Apparently Bush isn't too bothered by this. Q Looking forward about keeping the United States safe -- a group representing about several thousand FBI agents today wrote to your administration begging you not to split up the law enforcement and the counterterrorism, because they say it ties their hands, it's blinders -- yet, you mentioned yesterday that you think perhaps the time has come for some real intelligence reforms. That can't happen without real leadership from the White House. Will you, and how will you?Ain't democracy grand? Q I appreciate it.Somehow I don't think saying it is a tough fight but we our guaranteed a glorious victory is "somber." Q I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way? You don't have many of these press conferences, where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?I wonder if Bush gets the irony of him responding to a question that contextually includes acknowledgement that Bush uses a lot of the same phrases over and over again with a string of phrases that Bush has used repeatedly before. I look forward to the debate and the campaign. I look forward to helping -- for the American people to hear, what is a proper use of American power; do we have an obligation to lead, or should we shirk responsibility. That's how I view this debate. And I look forward to making it, Don. I'll do it the best I possibly can. I'll give it the best shot. I'll speak as plainly as I can.What a robust debate! You can't complain about that. One thing is for certain, though, about me -- and the world has learned this -- when I say something, I mean it. And the credibility of the United States is incredibly important for keeping world peace and freedom.I don't know if I could stand the non-somber version of Bush's outlook. *** This event began at "8:31 P.M. EDT" and ended at "END 9:32 P.M. EDT." I think it is just great that Bush could spend 61 minutes of his time. *** I'm sure this Iraqi democracy thing will work out just fine and that it will not be a situation where the U.S. operates in any way to make the outcome turn out the way it wants it to, unless of course John Kerry becomes prez. Then we will all be looking at hammers and sickles. Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Sublime Liberation Indeed "The Coalition will... liberate the Iraqi people," the White House on March 21, 2003 [links added]. "[I]t will be recognised that our liberation of Iraq was the most sublime act of self-sacrifice in human history," Mark Noonan of Blogs for Bush writes in a March 12 entry [links added]. Don't drink the Kool-Aid. *** I make use of Alan Wolfe's look at the influence of Carl Schmitt amongst certain segments of the right in the United States in my latest addition to horowitzwatch.blogspot.com, "If it doesn't mean more war, what's the use? (written in a hurried fashion)." Wolfe's piece has attracted a fair amount of attention, including this piece of brilliance from Jonah Goldberg of The National Review, which Adam Kotsko has responded to and I add: Wolfe’s piece is awful in that it doesn’t define “conservative” and “liberal,” but more importantly fails to see that those he deems to be “conservatives” actually win in “politics” because they have built institutions. They just don’t care about ideas, save for when it is convenient to do so.*** I don't plan to watch this. Monday, April 12, 2004
"My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing," or why you shouldn't trust those stupid Brits who need to shut the fuck up The "fog of war" of course makes it hard to tell what is going on exactly, but what the U.S. has done over the last few days in Iraq doesn't look good. From the moving but anecdotal file, there is this compilation of photos put together by Axis of Logic. Tragic, for sure, but the degree to which this damage is widespread is not discernable. It would be quite widespread if the allegation made in this April 11 AP piece is correct: More than 600 Iraqis have been killed in Fallujah since Marines began a siege against Sunni insurgents in the city a week ago, most of them women, children and the elderly, the head of the city's hospital said Sunday.Not content to say the new mass graves are better than the old ones, the U.S. military is now criticizing reporters for saying unflattering things about U.S. troops. Charges presented in an article published today by Sean Rayment of The Telegraph don't exactly back up Uncle Sam's story: Senior British commanders have condemned American military tactics in Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate.Personally I think you have to believe America, a country that would never help cause harm to civilians, be in a situation where "Six soldiers who have fallen ill since their return from Iraq said Friday that the Army ignored their complaints about uranium poisoning from U.S. weapons fired during combat," or tolerate a situation where "soldiers accused of rape and other sex crimes while serving in Iraq routinely dodged prosecution during the last year with the help of commanders who gave them light punishments such as reprimands and pay cuts." But if America did, as Freud might have said, it was because Saddam was evil! Sunday, April 11, 2004
Max Standard's Easter thoughts By Max Standard While someone of you might spend this day playing with Easter Eggs or looking for that evil Easter Bunny, but I spent my time doing the only Godly thing a person could do, going to see The Passion of the Christ for 34th time at sunrise. Then I came home to eat ham as a waying "I'm neither Jewish nor Muslim." Now I'm off to see The Girl Next Door, which I hear has a wonderful message, before looking for the Ark. Saturday, April 10, 2004
Of all justifications for invading Iraq, the most disgusting in the level at which it was disingenuous had to be that America wanted to help Iraqis out. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the welfare of the Iraqi people mattered to Americans, the details of this Aljazeera report would be far better known: Dr Rafi Hayad, the director of the main hospital supplied the figures to the Reuters news agency. The agency has given no explanation of how Hayad reached his figures.Even if you believe that this is necessary, you would feel bad about this... if you actually valued Iraqi life and didn't just view them as a "homo sacer" to be alternately brutalized and exalted so you can feel good about yourself. Why "Iraq" is not "Vietnam" and other stuff One big defense between "Iraq" and "Vietnam" is that anti-American forces in Iraq do not have anything like the Soviet Union supplying them. *** When I talk about "savages," I'm fucking joking. *** David Cross was great on Majority Report last night. *** "President Bush's August 2001 briefing on terrorism threats, described largely as a historical document, included information from three months earlier that al-Qaida was trying to send operatives into the United States for an explosives attack, according to several people who have seen the memo," John Solomon of the AP writes. "The so-called presidential daily briefing, or PDB, delivered to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001 - a month before the Sept. 11 attacks - said there were various reports that Osama bin Laden had wanted to strike inside the United States as early as 1997 and continuing into the spring of 2001, the sources told The Associated Press." *** *** *** *** *** I don't see why history needs to be recalled when it doesn't serve U.S. interests. *** *** *** We'd love to help but only if we can make a buck *** Patton Oswalt has some things to say. *** No racism or lack of logic here. *** Friday, April 09, 2004
While we still don't know how many dead Iraqis equals liberation, it is nice to know that the U.S. attempt to keep food and medicine out of Fallujah isn't going too well (Agence France-Presse, April 9). *** Iraq isn't the only place where the U.S. is having trouble. *** On a much lighter note, David Speaks! Thursday, April 08, 2004
Didn't hear, read or see Rice's testimony, but did love Neal Pollack's take on it. *** Am exhausted and don't have time to digest or comment on what has been happening in Iraq. *** Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Please tell me this is not real Yesterday the leader of the free world said: We've got tough work there [Iraq] because, you see, there are terrorists there who would rather kill innocent people than allow for the advance of freedom. That's what you're seeing going on. These people hate freedom. and we love freedom. And that's where the clash occurs. See, we don't think freedom is America's gift to the world. We know that freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. That's what we know. (Applause.)They don't know that they want "freedom" yet, but they do because that is what God wants. UPDATE: By "freedom," Bush of course means that the government have the "freedom" to crack down on depictions of consenting adults fornicating (Laura Sullivan of The Baltimore Sun, April 6, 2004). (Thanks to Matthew Tobey for the link and amusing comments.) I'm sure this is only being done in order to make "abstinence only" "sex education" work. 2:34 p.m. 04/07/04 Another very serious comment that is not meant to be comical in any way, shape or form "A spokesman says President Bush is mourning the life of each of the U-S troops killed in Iraq," the AP writes. Bush plans to attend a fund raiser for each of them. Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Apologies to Bill Hicks Talk of a civil war in Iraq is overblown. A civil war would require Iraqis fighting against the insurgents. How about this humor? On the March 26 edition of The Sean Hannity Show, Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman said those complaining about Bush's recent WMD joke "need to get a sense of humor." I'm all for funny, so I hope that Mr. Mehlman will enjoy this entry... Yesterday Bush attended a fundraising luncheon where he said, "I want to thank Ric Flair, professional wrestler. He's with us today. Big Ric, I'm proud you're here. Thank you for coming." Last week two flight attendants sued Flair and some other wrestlers for sexual harassment. Flair and the other wrestlers, they allege, subjected them to "degrading and humiliating treatment." Some might say that Bush's comments were in poor taste given these events, but what they don't know is that Bush had planned to say: I remember one time me and Big Ric were taking a flight from Atlanta GA. We drank our asses off and showed those stews a little bit of fun. Goddamn we had a good time!Say what you will about the Bush Administration, but I think they are really nothing more than a bunch of harmful jokesters. And while the comedy might not be worth the cost, so long as the world is paying it, you might as well enjoy the fun. And none of their shenanigans are more amusing than when members of the Bush Administration impeach the credibility of one another. "We've learned after September the 11th that oceans no longer protect us from an enemy," Bush said on September 19, 2002. However in a March 22 Washington Post piece, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, "The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat." The fun doesn't stop there. With Iraq appearing to be safely on the way to becoming the new Afghanistan, where the savages have this crazy idea that they should have some say in the policy of the government that rules them, there is concern from some senators that June 30 is too soon to transfer control of Iraq to some group of Iraqis or another, but Bush vows that June 30 is the date. Speaking on the necessity of the June 30 transfer, Paul Bremer, according to a CBS News report I saw this morning, said the "occupation" represented the "humiliation" of the Iraqi people. I really wish I was making this stuff up. Monday, April 05, 2004
The text of a very important interview that you must read. *** Sometimes I wonder if there is even a point to making stuff up. *** Saw Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004) yesterday. Hope to write more about it soon. *** Neal Pollack is posting again. *** A nice quiz tells me: Take the quiz: "Which American City Are You?"*** *** *** Your humble blogger collected quite a few links on the Richard Clarke Affair, some of which are now being shared. *** God Bless America!!! The land that I love! UPDATE: In yesterday's Scotland on Sunday, Brian Brady writes: SADDAM Hussein had the ability to unleash biological and chemical weapons "at short notice" on foreign nations, according to a potentially explosive new report by inspectors.I'm skeptical. 2:44 p.m. 04/05/04 Sunday, April 04, 2004
I turn 27 today. I am moderately upset that my birthday has only 23 hours this year. I don't feel like saying any more about my life. *** Boondocks is funny as is Over the Hedge, and I even want to see if the upcoming wedding in Cathy pans out, but get your war on is head, shoulders and waist above any other strip currently published. The key is that David Rees takes relatively simple, if not exactly popular, ideas and presents in an entertaining fashion. Saturday, April 03, 2004
Well allbedarned that boy does have some testoserone in that blood of his I spent this morning and a bit of the afternoon working with my unlce and grandfather on cleaning up my grandfather's lawn. If I should ever come to "own" a lawn and nobody is loyal enough to me to put me out of my misery, I'm burning it down. *** Friday, April 02, 2004
The point of life In an annoying article on "adult clothes" from this past Sunday's New York Times, Ginia Bellafante writes: In the 1990's, men and women in their early 20's, who moved their Pearl Jam collections from shared apartment to shared apartment without any five-year plan, were endearingly called slackers. Slacking was considered its own career - and not a particularly bad one as it did not preclude you from dating Winona Ryder. But that phrase has long since fallen out of vogue, the colloquialism replaced by the gravitas of psychologists' assignation.Fuck this gen X gen y hybrid rainbow party let's all be optimistic and happy shit, as any good slacker like me knows, life is supposed to hard and difficult and sad and rainy and not happy and bad and awful and you aren't supposed to smile and irony is important but not nearly as important as the one thing that makes life worth living and the dream upon which I base my life - the possibility of dating Winona Ryder. Now I know what you are thinking. Come on Micah, how can you think you have a chance of dating Ms. Ryder? Aren't you crazy? Well maybe I am crazy, but I am more optimistic about the possibility of Ms. Ryder meeting me and falling in love with me than I have been ever. Here's my impeccable logic... Atrios once linked to me and this past Wednesday Atrios appeared on The Majority Report, a show which is hosted by Janeane Garofalo and Sam Seder and Garofalo of course was a part of the greatest not really good movie ever, Reality Bites (Ben Stiller, 1994). It all makes sense. Thursday, April 01, 2004
Donkeys heart Elephants I listened to a bit of the debut of Air America yesterday. The segments I heard of Majority Report, segments with Atrios and Dave Chappelle, were excellent. While this program had nowhere near the level of reporting of Democracy Now and wasn't even close to being as intellectually interesting as Doug Henwood's show, it was entertaining and that is probably what will sell. The 30 or so minutes of Randi Rhodes' show that reached my ears were something quite different, however. If Rhodes had slightly different politics she could be just another Rush Limbaugh clone. Her "interview" with Ralph Nader was pathetic. After saying Nader had founded the Green Party and that the GP no longer wanted anything to do with Nader, Rhodes had the audacity to criticize Nader for not realizing that Rhodes is a very popular and powerful broadcaster, or some other implication that exists primarily in her head. Rhodes' primary point was *surprise, surprise* that Nader had cost Al Gore the election in 2000 and might cost John Kerry the same this year. If it wasn't for Air America, this sort of thing would never be said, of course. Rhodes did say that she agreed with Nader on a lot of things and said that if Gore had been elected in 2000 that now might be the time for Nader to run, which is just bullshit because then it would be necessary to make it 16 years of the Dems in the White House. As hard as this may be for some people to understand, unless there is a dramatic change in the politics of the United States, every four years there is going to be a chance that a Republican will be elected president. And, although they would never admit it and probably don't realize it, Democrats mostly like it this way as it allows them to use the GOP as a reference point. They don't have to believe or advocate anything. They just have to be different from the Republicans. (Republicans have the same relationship to Democrats, FWIW.) That's why they don't ever engage Nader on the issues and instead just accuse him of being a "spoiler." He is messing up their neat little sporting contest, and the Democrats don't like it. |
