Muslims make a practice of killing Iraqi citizens who are Muslim

Bush went to a renewable energy conference today. I believe there was a coronation ceremony.


He explained with his accustomed eloquence the importance of reducing reliance on oil: “we get oil from some countries who don’t particularly care for us. They don’t like what we stand for. They don’t like it when we say, for the sake of peace, let us work in a way that we don’t develop nuclear weapons, for example.” “We”?

Bush failed to mention conservation or public transportation, indeed suggested that technology alone will solve all our energy problems, and came out in favor of every possible form of energy production: hybrids, coal, nuclear plants (“You might remember, we’ve had a time in our country where people liked nuclear power, thought it was a strong solution to energy independence, and then we just shut her down because of engineering concerns”), off-shore oil drilling, solar, wind, ethanol, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas...

A protester made it into the conference, to tell Bush that “Soldiers are not renewables!”

Yesterday Rumsfeld held a briefing along with Gen. George Casey, whose title is Commander of Multi-National Force – Iraq, or COMFI, as in, “Are you comfy? Good, because you’ll be stuck in Iraq at least through 2010.” Casey said that “violence and progress coexist in Iraq, and we shouldn’t be distracted from the positive things that are going on there amidst all the violence.” “Distracted,” he calls it. Also, how do violence and progress coexist? It can’t be peaceful coexistence, so it must be either violent coexistence or progressive coexistence. Or progressively violent coexistence.

Actually, General COMFI says that “we and the Iraqi government are not comfortable with the levels of sectarian violence in the center of the country”. He didn’t say what level of sectarian violence he would be comfortable with.

Gen. COMFI says that the bad reputation of the police in Iraq is “undeserved,” and says there is a reform program now, which will give each police brigade “three weeks of police training and loyalty training.” That’s what they were missing: loyalty training.

Gen. COMFI disputed the Lancet estimate of 655,000 dead Iraqis, which he doesn’t “give that much credibility at all.” What figure does he give credibility? 50,000. Where did he see this credible figure? “I don’t remember, but I’ve seen it over time. ... It’s either from the Iraqi government or from us, but I don’t remember precisely.” Well, I’m convinced.

At this point Rummy interjected to clarify, as only Rummy can clarify: “I think it’s important to appreciate that the insurgents and al Qaeda make a -- Muslims make a practice of killing Iraqi citizens who are Muslim. And it is a -- they do it aggressively, they do it purposely, and they do it successfully.”

Give me your tired, your poor, your chubby masses...

The AP reports that a group of Mexicans trying to reach the United States via storm drains were caught when one man got stuck. Too fat to make it to America? That guy is already such an American.

Stephen Colbert’s sage advice to the parties.

Bush press conference: I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life

Bush held a press conference this morning.


The problem with North Korea is that it also has a Decider: “And my point to you is that it’s the intransigence of the North Korean leader that speaks volumes about the process. It is his unwillingness to choose a way forward for this country -- a better way forward for his country. It is his decisions.”

But Bush is responding with strong, aggressive... phone calls: “And I thank the leaders of -- listen, when I call them on the phone, we’re strategizing.” “And so in my phone calls that I recently made right after the test I lamented the fact that he had tested to Hu Jintao and also lamented the fact that Hu Jintao had publicly asked him not to test.” Er, what?

And more phone calls: “I talked to the South Korean president, and I said, It ought to be clear to us now that we must continue to work together to make it abundantly clear to the leader in North Korea that there’s a better way forward; when he walks away from agreement he’s not just walking away from the table with the United States as the only participant. He’s walking away from a table that others are sitting at.” Maybe he just had to pee.


On Iraq: “There are extreme elements that use religion to achieve objectives.”

For weeks he’s been talking about “achieving objectives” constantly. 10 times in this press conference alone. Another: “And one way to make sure that we’re able to achieve our objective is to have other people join us in making it clear to North Korea that they share that objective.”


“I like to tell people we’re in an ideological struggle.” That’s nice; everyone should have a hobby.

“And I firmly believe that with North Korea -- and with Iran -- that it is best to deal with these regimes with more than one voice.” Yes, if the Edward G. Robinson voice doesn’t work, try the Clint Eastwood voice. Although I understand Kim Jong Il likes Daffy Duck, so that might be worth a try.

Using one of his voices, he explains the diplomatic process: “Because I understand how it works. What ends up happening is that, you know, we say to a country such as North Korea, Here’s a reasonable way forward. They try to extract more at the negotiating table or they’ve got a different objective. And then they go and say, Wait a minute; the United States is being unreasonable. They make a threat. They could -- you know, they say the world is about to fall apart because of the United States’s problem. And, all of a sudden, we become the issue.”


He rejects as not “a credible report” the study which says that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion (he says the report has been out before and its methodology is discredited, which I take to mean that he’s confusing it with the earlier, unrelated Lancet study), adding, “I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to -- you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate.” Asked whether he still stands by his own guestimate some time back of 30,000 dead civilians, Bush says, “I, you know, I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life.”

Says Democratic assertions that they plan to raise taxes only on the rich are “just codeword.” At least, according to his Karl Rove Secret Decoder Ring.

On Mark Foley, he implies, I think for the first time, a Democratic plot (a response Will Durst describes as the best defense being a ludicrous offense): “You know, we want to make sure what we understand what Republicans knew and what Democrats knew in order to find the facts.”

Says the border is difficult to close: “I don’t know if you’ve ever been down there. But it’s a pretty vast part of the country down there.”

We cannot tolerate the intolerable

At the end of yesterday’s school safety conference mentioned in the previous post, Bush seemed rather anxious to get away. He had, what else, a fundraiser to go to, in Georgia. He generously said of the Democrats, who he described as not being “willing to do the hard work necessary to protect the American people”, that he doesn’t question the patriotism of those who voted against renewal of the Patriot Act. So I guess he’s questioning their PatriotActism.

So North Korea’s Central News Agency really isn’t going to say anything more about the nuclear test. Their announcement of that event is shorter than their news story “Floral Baskets Placed before Statues of Kim Il Sung” (“Placed before the statue amidst the playing of floral basket-laying music were floral baskets in the name of party and power organs, public organizations, ministries, national institutions, scientific, educational, cultural, art, public health and media organizations, factories, enterprises, farms and schools and bouquets and flowers.”) (Also, the President of Senegal sent a floral basket to the statue.) (Which, I’m assuming, was promptly eaten by starving North Koreans.) (Including the actual basket.) (’Cause they’re really, really hungry.) (Say it with flowers. Delicious, delicious flowers.) (Also, they have special floral basket-laying music in North Korea?)

When I wrote about the South Dakota abortion referendum a couple of days ago, I didn’t really get around to castigating the pro-choice side for the tepidness of their campaign, which concedes the whole concept that bodily autonomy is a right in favor of a “we hate abortion and think it’s icky too, but rape and incest, people, what about the rape and incest victims?” approach. This is right out of the Lakoff/Saletan playbook I’ve criticized before. By the way, this YouTube video of a news report on a press conference which made the point that rape victims might like to have the option of abortion shows an anti-abortion crasher, some kid in a... Cat in the Hat costume. I’m still cogitating on the relevance of the Cat in the Hat to Referred Law 6, and my attempts at writing anti-abortion slogans in the style of Dr. Seuss have been frankly too grotesque to share, although you’re welcome to try your own.

In Italy, a satirical/investigative tv show was pulled before airing this week. The show had done fake interviews of Italian members of parliament for the purpose of having a makeup girl take swabs of their sweat, which were tested for drugs. Of 50 tested, 12 were positive for marijuana, 4 for cocaine.

John McCain called for an independent investigation of the House page scandal, saying, “We cannot tolerate the intolerable.” Since when?

Reaching out to say to somebody who is lonely, I love you

The White House sponsored a conference on school safety. Bush didn’t attend all of it, but got the notes from one of the stoner kids: “I got a firsthand report on one of the panels from Laura, who said that -- I think if I could summarize your words, it was like really interesting and very important.”


There was a lot of talk about watching children for signs of having a personality suspicious behaviour. Said EdSec Margaret Spellings, “Another way that we can kind of be alert for behavioral patterns and the like is to make sure that we have as many grown-ups in schools as we possible can.” Former Congressman Mark Foley immediately volunteered.

What? Too soon?

Other participants talked about the need to teach “character” in schools, and one suggested that all the focus on testing took away from that. Bush immediately leapt to the defense of testing: “I happen to believe that self-esteem comes when a child realizes he or she can read early at grade level.” In fact, “I’m concerned about a system that socially promotes children, because I think that at some point in time, that begins to affect a child’s vision of the future, and a grim vision of the future may be that which triggers a response that is negative.” Guns don’t kill people, social promotion kills people. Also, he warns, “it’s really important... that people not think government is a loving entity.” That’s the Republican motto for the mid-term elections, isn’t it? Rather, it should be up to people like Craig Scott, a participant whose sister was killed at Columbine: “what Craig is doing is -- he doesn’t realize it -- he’s a social entrepreneur. He is inspiring others to continue to reach out to say to somebody who is lonely, I love you.” Former Congressman Mark Foley immediately volunteered.

Still too soon?


Also, parents: “And the truth of the matter is, if we really think about it, the primary responsibility, the primary teacher of character is the parent. That is the front line of enabling our society to be a compassionate, decent place.” Trust Bush to use a war metaphor when discussing compassion and decency.

A great leap forward for North Korea and a great day for Iraq

Happy Indigenous People’s Day (Berkeley only)!

North Korea is the first country which has fought a war with the US since the start of the nuclear age to acquire its own nukes. According to the official statement, this is “a great leap forward in the building of a great, prosperous, powerful socialist nation... a historic event that brought happiness to our military and people... The nuclear test was conducted with indigenous wisdom and technology 100 percent.”

Bush has handled this issue ineptly, alternating neglect and bluster, but I don’t know that ept handling would have made much of a difference. North Korea is not only paranoid, but everyone really is out to get them. Bush had to issue a response before thorough confirmation of the NK claim could be made, so he said that whether or not they have a nuke, “such a claim itself constitutes a threat to international peace and security.” Now, George, are these possibly fake nukes as much of a threat as the completely fake Iraqi nukes were? “Threats will not lead to a brighter future for the North Korean people,” he threatened.

Bush also issued a statement saying that the murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovoskaya is a bad thing. He says that Politkovoskaya’s work “challenged her fellow Russians - and, indeed, all of us - to summon the courage and will, as individuals and societies, to struggle against evil and rectify injustices.” So how does Bush summon that courage and will? “We urge the Russian Government to conduct a vigorous and thorough investigation to bring to justice those responsible for her murder.” Yup, that should do it.

The Iraqi police are replacing their old uniforms with spiffy new ones – with camouflage! – which they claim cannot possibly be counterfeited by death squads. Sez Gen. Joseph Peterson (not an Iraqi) of what the BBC calls a rebranding, “This is a great day for Iraq.” They thought about dressing like London bobbies, but went another direction:


Speaking of camouflage, the LAT has an article about South Dakota’s referendum on abortion. Anti-abortionists have adopted a softer, pseudo-feminist approach with the slogan “Abortion Hurts Women.” So women are to be protected from themselves.


The campaign features women who have had abortions and now regret it. According to the one of those women, speaking in a radio ad, “we weren’t designed to abort our babies.” And here’s a slogan that warms the heart: “I love my baby who was conceived by rape.” The LAT focuses on Leslee Unruh, head of the campaign, without bothering to do any background research, such as this, on her.

Every day is just a hoot

I watched the California gubernatorial debate tonight, and let’s just say I don’t think I have to worry about developing an Angelides impersonation to match my breathtakingly mediocre Schwarzenegger. Angelides, despite being a shitload of points behind, decided to play it beige. Nothing much was said so there’s no point in blogging it as I’d planned. Angelides is the son of immigrants, Arnie is an immigrant, Arnie wants to cut taxes, Phil wants to “close corporate tax loopholes,” blah blah blah. I tried to amuse myself by putting a name to the weird color of the governator’s oddly unskinlike skin, but could come to no conclusion. Every so often the moderator tried to get them actually to converse with each other or not to drone on, or informed them that a focus group watching the debate in the basement was “tired of this topic,” to no avail. At the end, they were allowed to ask each other a question. Arnie asked Phil what was the funniest moment of the campaign for him. Angelides couldn’t, or wouldn’t, rise to the occasion, but did say that “Every day is just a hoot.” Arnie said it was very gratifying to go to a supermarket in China and see the customers “grab our vegetables, grab our strawberries.”


More feeble fun was to be found in Saturday’s NYT, editing quotations to make them more accurate, as follows: Rep. John Shimkus, chairman of the board that oversees the Congressional page program, said of his handling of the complaint against Mark Foley, “I did nothing wrong.” And deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino, responding to John Warner’s claim that Iraq is “drifting sideways,” said “I don’t believe that the president thinks that way.”

Honoring our dad

At the christening of the USS George H. W. Bush, a nuclear aircraft carrier (does that mean the aircraft is nuclear or the carrier is nuclear?) (and if it’s Chimpy who christens it, do all the sailors have to pronounce it nucular?), Shrub reveals that Laura is in fact his sister! “Laura and I are honored to be here to honor our dad.” All that mutual honoring seems kind of incestuous too.

Speaking of unnatural unions, Chimpy told the story of how his father, when he was a pilot, flew over a traveling circus, starting an elephant stampede. And that’s how he met...


And now a picture of George Bush with a goofy expression on his face, but wait, there’s a difference...

Stalled

A Reuters headline that, as I stare at the screen, seems to morph from sublime to ridiculous and back again every 2 seconds. See if it doesn’t do the same for you: “Bush Anti-Terror Message Stalled by Sex Scandal.”

So Condi went on one of those famous “surprise” visits to Iraq, “Wearing a helmet and a flak jacket and flanked by machine-gun-toting bodyguards to defend against insurgents,” in the words of the New York Times. I’ve looked and I’ve looked and I’ve looked, but I just can’t seem to find a photo. Funny, that.

For your captioning pleasure:

Seeing, almost literally, what the other person means

The Daily Kos informs us that Republicans are closing ranks around Denny Hastert. Insert your own fat joke here (I’m feeling lazy).

Although Putin terrified Georgia into returning the four spies, he gave nothing in return, continuing to attempt to strangle its economy through road and postal blockades. And in Russia, schools are expelling Georgians and the police are persecuting Georgian-owned businesses (claiming the Georgians send money home to be used to buy weapons), work permits are being denied, and Putin keeps talking ominously about how Georgia is threatening and blackmailing Russia. Of course this is all about domestic politics, a cynical attempt to unite Russians around nationalism and a rather ridiculous sense of victimization by an ethnic scapegoat. The Jews (how many are left in Russia, anyway?) must be feeling relieved it ain’t them this time.

I’m still feeling lazy, so make up your own clever segue from Putin, whose soul Bush read by looking into his eyes, to Jack Straw, the former British home & foreign minister, who has taken to asking Muslim women who visit his constituency office to remove their veils, which he says is important “so that you can - almost literally - see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say.” The London Times continues, – see if you can spot the ironical part: “He later told BBC Radio Lancashire that this ‘needs to be discussed because in our society, we are able to relate, particularly to strangers, by being able to read their faces, and if you can’t read people’s faces, that does provide some separation’.” Straw wrote about that in a column not available online in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph (update: the Guardian has it), whose news article about the column features this picture, which I include so that you can almost literally see what he means.


A recent (March 2006) no-fly list includes Saddam Hussein, Bolivian President Evo Morales, and 14 of the 9/11 hijackers.

It can have a future or it can have these weapons

You know what must feel pretty insulting? When a US threat of complete annihilation is issued not by the preznident but by a lowly assistant secretary of state. Yesterday, Lowly Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill made this response to North Korea’s announced plans to test its nuclear weapons: “it can have a future or it can have these weapons but it cannot have them both.”

The Republican Senator’s Psalm.

New “Get Your War On.”

Redoubling

In the West Bank during her thoroughly pointless trip to the Middle East, Condi promised to “redouble our efforts to improve the conditions of the Palestinian people.” Let’s see: 2 X 0 = ?

For the safety of the United States of America

Bush, in yet another of his nauseating fundraising speeches, says that unlike The Enemy, “We believe in dissent in the public square.” Unless of course you do it in hearing of Bush or Cheney, in which case you’re arrested for “assault.”

He also said, “vote Republican, for the safety of the United States of America.” Not surprisingly, he seems to forget the difference, subtle though it may be, between Al Qaida and the Democratic Party: “I’m optimistic we will prevail in the great ideological struggle of the 21st century. You are witnessing historic times, and this is a historic election. You’re witnessing a struggle between moderation and extremists, tyranny and freedom. You’re witnessing a struggle between those who would impose their dark vision on others and people who just want to live in peace.”

Or possibly that’s the Republican Party he’s describing.

Anyway, this morning he also signed the appropriations bill for the Dept. of Homeland Security, which for some reason he did outside in Arizona, sitting behind what looks suspiciously like my cheap IKEA table.

This may be the day when, at long last, reading Bush speeches makes my head explode

Rep. Tom Reynolds, who tried to get ABC to suppress the Foley emails, held a press conference today to deny any responsibility. Naturally, he had all his Republican friends bring their little children, then dared reporters to ask about sexual predation. Even when they’re not trying to use minors for sex, they’re trying to exploit them for something.

The black & white picture is by the Buffalo News’s Harry Scull Jr. The video you may have already seen at Firedoglake or elsewhere.



(I just noticed: is that kid wearing an Attica t-shirt?)



Bush went to a fundraiser last night in Reno (Mott: “We have the biggest little hookers in the world”) for Dean Heller, running for Congress, and another today in Stockton for Richard Pombo. I don’t know who they are, but it’s not like Bush does either.

He did his world famous Dave Barry imitation, saying the enemy “want to establish a caliphate that ranges from Indonesia to Spain. I’m not making this up.”

Bush enumerated the lessons he’d learned from 9/11: “Now, the lesson I have learned from September the 11th was two -- one -- many, but two of the most notable ones were, if you find somebody harboring a terrorist, they’re equally as guilty as the terrorists and must be held to account.” That’s not actually a lesson per se... and he never said what the second one was.

He also wasn’t so good at counting the number of members of Congress. Hint: it’s more than one. “And I want the people of this district to know, plain and simple, that if Richard’s opponent wins, your taxes will go up. Make no mistake about it.”

He worked on his punctuation again: “Ultimately, when this chapter of history will be written, however, it’s going to be a comma -- the Iraqis voted, comma, and the United States of America understood that Iraq was a central front in the war on terror and helped this young democracy flourish so that a generation of Americans wouldn’t have to worry about the extremists emanating from that country to hurt the American people.”

Again he said that the D’s are “the party of cut and run.” “They talk tough on terror, but when the votes are counted, their softer side comes out.” “If you don’t think we should be listening in on the terrorist, then you ought to vote for the Democrats.” It’s not his contempt for Democrats that irritates me so much, but his contempt for the electorate, his idea that this level of discourse is the sort of persuasive rhetoric that we deserve.

Note how he talks about key votes: on warrantless surveillance: “they consistently oppose giving our personnel the tools they need to protect us”. On the Patriot Act renewal: “Senate Democrats filibustered it -- that means, tried to talk it to death. That’s what filibuster means up in Washington-speak. ... They voted for it before they voted against it.” On the Detainee Detention Act: “Almost 80 percent of the House Democrats want to stop a program that has provided invaluable intelligence that’s saved American lives.” There is no intellectual engagement, no real argument, he doesn’t refute the Democrats’ reasoning on these bills because he does not acknowledge that they have reasons. A visitor from Mars hearing this could only conclude that these people called Democrats must be insane or want Americans to die.

In the middle of that, he did actually say something wise. By accident, of course. During the debate on the Detainee Detention Act, one Democrat he said (he means Leahy) “compared the brave Americans who question these terrorists to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. This exposes a dangerous mind-set on the part of Democrats in Congress. You can’t defend America if you cannot tell the difference between the CIA officers who protect their fellow citizens and brutal dictators who kill their fellow citizens.” Yes, that was precisely our point in opposing indefinite detention without trial and torture: you cannot defend America if you can’t tell the difference between CIA officers and brutal dictators.

He also visited... wait for it... the George W. Bush Elementary School in Stockton. Its motto seems to be “Where Eagles Soar.” That doesn’t seem like quite the right slogan for the George W. Bush Elementary School. Let’s see, “The Literacy Rate of Our Children Are Appalling”? “No Child Left Behind” – no, that’s former Congressman Foley’s motto... Any suggestions?

Duped and deceived

Denny Hastert explains that Mark Foley “deceived” and “duped” him. The swine! With those words, Hastert admits his own laziness and ineptitude: his entire exhaustive investigation consisted of asking Foley if he’d done anything wrong, and accepting his word.

(Could be worse: Condi Rice falsely denied having been briefed two months before 9/11 by speaking of Condi 2001 as if she were an entirely separate person, saying that it was “incomprehensible” she could have heard that and ignored it; she shouldn’t have to “comprehend” it, she should be able to “remember.” Schizophrenic much?)

The NYT article says that the St Petersburg Times didn’t follow up because the page didn’t wish to go on record. The paper’s initial statement was actually rather more creepy: they said they didn’t publish because he wasn’t willing to tell them how the emails “made him feel.”

Stories on AP and in the NYT today about Rumsfeld and commander of the Southern Command Gen. Bantz Craddock (I swear I do not make up these names) accusing Venezuela of destabilizing the entire hemisphere by acquiring weapons more advanced than a pointy stick. Rummy can hardly figure why Venezuela needs a military at all: “I don’t know of anyone threatening Venezuela, anyone in this hemisphere.”

The NYT article also quotes Craddock welcoming a Nicaraguan offer to help with landmine removal in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, noting the country’s vast experience with landmines. It fails to mention who gave the Contras all those landmines.

Gossip flows freely about members

I received a letter from my bank today, which says that they’re been underpaying interest in certain accounts and have credited my account with $0.21. They advise me to keep the letter for my records and regret any inconvenience or concern this may have caused me.

In California, Gov. Terminator vetoed a bill restoring journalists’ access to prisoners, and another bill allowing condom distribution in prisons. And journalists having safe sex with prisoners is right out. He also vetoed a bill to require the state’s delegates to the Electoral College to vote however the national popular vote for president went (a clever idea but quite unenforceable, because one of the problems with the Electoral College is that the electors can vote however they want). Bills he did sign into law included one allowing domestic partners to file joint tax returns and one requiring people subject to restraining orders to give up their firearms.

Evidently the brother of Segolene Royal, a candidate for the French presidency, was the one who planted the bombs on the Rainbow Warrior (killing one crew member).

I like Predatorgate. It’s a sex scandal with no actual sex. If there’s any semen on a blue Gap dress in this scandal, then Foley will have been wearing it while IMing.

Today we are in the attempted-misdirection phase of the scandal: Foley checked himself into rehab, and Hastert is demanding, in morally outraged tones, that the Justice Dept investigate who leaked the story, preferably by subpoenaing reporters, which is the surest known way to delay facts coming out. I can’t help but notice that Hastert said the instant messages “reportedly between Congressman Foley and a former page sent in 2003, are vile and repulsive to me” and also referred to “this vile instant message exchange” – statements which imply, no doubt unconsciously, that both sides of the exchange are equally vile.

Tony Insert-Snow-Related-Pun-Here, trying to make up for calling those messages “naughty emails,” today said “Gossip flows freely about members.”

By the way, if my comment about Al Capone in the last post wasn’t clear, what I meant is that it would have been better for the republic (if less entertaining) if Hastert fell because of his political positions.

Remember when it was Bush’s father who was considered not to speak well? He was described, I forget by whom, as the sort of man who calls a spade a shovel thing. Anyway, here are some pictures of Bush with a shovel thing, digging for Lincoln’s gold. And – who would have guessed – he does know which end is which.


If you think he’s a little over-dressed, you should see the tuxedo and top hat he wears to clear brush.


Reuters’ caption says Bush “gestures with a shovel as he speaks”. “And another thing, Laura. Laura?”

An act of state terrorism with hostage-taking

Josh Narins, temporarily unable to post on his own blog, points to the findings of a Program on International Policy Attitudes poll taken in Iraq, showing that support for attacks on American forces is now 61% (92% among Sunnis), but that only 37% want those forces to withdraw within the next 6 months. Josh comments that you’d think 100% of the people who want to attack us would want us out now, but in fact 24% want us to stay and be attacked.

He also points out that in today’s print NYT, the article on Mark Foley goes most of the way down the right-hand column on page one, but doesn’t mention the fact that the page Foley was emailing is male until after the jump to page 18, in the 10th paragraph.

Condi Rice will be visiting Israel this week. She will discuss with Olmert “creative means” to undermine Hamas and strengthen Abbas. You know what’s sure to strengthen Abbas’s position? Having everyone know that Olmert and Rice will discuss “creative means” to strengthen his position.

Since Abbas’s position is to be strengthened at the expense of the elected parliament, this plan sounds an awful lot like a coup.

Russia is directing a major, and I mean major, hissy fit at Georgia, which just arrested 4 alleged spies – or as Russia put it, committed “an act of state terrorism with hostage-taking.” What’s fun is that Putin is accusing Georgia of acting like Stalin and Beria (both of them Georgians), and thinking they’d be protected by “foreign sponsors,” meaning the US. No, I’m not sure how we got in the middle of this thing either. Russia still hasn’t pulled all its troops out of Georgia, which has only been independent since 1991. Putin is now threatening to continue its occupation, and has ordered those troops to “shoot to kill” if their bases are threatened.

Hastert and Boehner are admitting that they might have been told something about Mark Foley months ago, but they can’t remember exactly what, because accusations of sexual predation are so darned unmemorable. I suspect Hastert’s career as a Republican leader is over, and the R’s may lose a House seat or two more than they’d expected, which is kind of unsatisfying, like Al Capone being jailed for tax evasion.

In an interview with CNN, Secretary of War Rumsfeld says of intra-Muslim violence that “[t]he overwhelming majority are not violent extremists” and indeed that “the overwhelming majority in that faith are getting tired of it and don’t like it and are tired of seeing their families killed by extremists.” I could see how that would be tiresome.

Much of the interview seemed to consist of Rummy trying to say that there was no proper measurement of success for anything he’s been trying to do for the last five years. How convenient for him. His reforms of the Pentagon? “I would say that it’s attitude and culture as much as anything else.” Are we, as he famously asked, creating more terrorists than we’re killing? “[T]here aren’t metrics for it. It’s not knowable. The answer is not knowable, so I don’t ask it overtly.” How do we measure if we’re winning in Iraq?

SEC. RUMSFELD: You can look at the things that are on the plus side. You can look at the things that are on the minus side.

MR. SESNO: But take it as a whole.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Each person has to look at it in the aggregate and say what they think about it.

So it’s all subjective. He may not know anything about war, but he knows what he likes.

Cruising

Unfortunate sentence of the day, from the WaPo: “[Mark Foley] was a respected House member cruising toward a seventh term when...”

By the way, it is ridiculous that votes for Foley, who cannot be removed from the November ballot, will be interpreted, according to Florida law, as votes for whatever candidate the R’s (or possibly NAMBLA) pick to replace him. We vote for individuals not parties in this country (counting the votes in Florida, as we know, is another matter entirely).

A contest I know I’m gonna regret

Delhi, which hasn’t had an execution for a while, now has one scheduled for next month, and no executioner. It is considering calling its 84-year old former executioner out of retirement.


Contest: what are the drawbacks or benefits of using an octogenarian executioner?

Nov. 2006 California proposition recommendations

California proposition time. Time to make decisions we are not qualified to make based on commercials paid for by evil corporations, ballot arguments written by crackpots, and shiny-object provisions designed to make us treat each proposition as a popularity contest (Oil companies, booo! Tobacco companies, booooo! Sex criminals, booooooo!) while ignoring the fine print. Lucky you have me, I guess. Now I’m going to tell you why you should vote no on everything, and in favor of, well, oil companies, tobacco companies and sex criminals. I’m not happy about it either. Sometimes participatory democracy just works out like that.

(Updated with results in purple. 1A through 84 all won, 85 through 90 all lost, which gives the no doubt mistaken impression that Californians simply got bored half-way through the ballot book.)

Prop. 1A. Gas tax only for transportation. I’m not generally in favor of hypothecated taxes (where the revenue from one tax goes exclusively to one purpose): what the appropriate gas tax should be, and what the appropriate transportation funding should be, are two very different debates. It’s even worse when they’re locked in. Also, like all California transportation measures, too little goes to public transportation, too much for cars. No. Yes, 76.6%.

I am opposed to bonds, all bonds, 1) on pragmatic grounds because they’re an expensive form of funding, and the interest is money just flushed down the toilet, 2) on fairness grounds because they are regressive, allowing bond purchasers undeserved tax deductions, and 3) on principled grounds because they place tax obligations on the future generations that have to pay them off, which amounts to taxation without representation. So that argument is why I’m recommending a no on these five props.:

Prop. 1B. Bonds for various transportation-related things, mostly highways but including port security against terrorism, which seems a tad manipulative, a sweetener to sell yet another highway bond. No. Yes, 61%.

Prop. 1C. Bonds for shelters for battered women, housing assistance, wheelchair ramps and the like for poor old people, veterans, the disabled and possibly big-eyed puppies. No. Yes, 57.5%.

Prop. 1D. Bonds for schools. No. Yes, 56.6%.

Prop. 1E. Bonds for levees. No. Yes, 64%.

Prop. 84. Bonds for levees, drinking water, and – hey, didn’t we just see one exactly like this? No. Yes, 53.8%.

Prop. 83. Sex offenders. Lifetime GPS, increased prison terms, bans on living near schools or parks, indefinite commitment without trial to mental facilities. It requires prison sentences rather than probation for crimes including marital rape, where it’s mostly appropriate, but not always, which is why we have judges, and lewd or lascivious acts, where it’s probably appropriate less often. Appropriate, and proportionate, are precisely the concepts the authors of this initiative have left behind. The state (or possibly local government, the authors forgot to specify that detail) would be required to divert significant resources to monitor people many of whom are no particular danger to society, until the day they die. And the idea of committing people to mental facilities after they finish serving prison sentences is a Kafkaesque concept and an abuse of both prisons and mental facilities, the former being misused to house the mentally ill, the latter as a form of punishment rather than treatment. I read the whole text (and very icky it was too), and there are other questionably phrased sections, such as punishing people who communicate over the internet for purposes of sex with someone they “know or reasonably should know” is a minor. And what does it mean that their definition of child porn says that “it is not necessary to prove that the matter is obscene”? The poor drafting of this initiative (it’s not even clear whether it applies to existing registered sex offenders) means we have no idea which parts of it will survive judicial scrutiny, or what they will mean. Also, there will be a sequel: in addition to not being allowed to live near schools or parks (which eliminates most of LA and San Francisco), local governments can, and of course will, add other residency restrictions. No. Yes, 70.5%, but the residency restrictions were immediately suspended by a judge.

Prop. 85. Parental notification of abortion and a 48-hour waiting period. Speaking of waiting periods, we just voted this down one year ago. In fact, the ballot arguments seem to be the same, so there’s no reason I shouldn’t repeat what I wrote a year ago: I’d be against this anyway: parents should no more be able to force their daughters to carry a pregnancy to term than to force them to abort against their will. But this version also has problems with the way the judicial-bypass alternative is set up: it can take so long that parental notification might become, well, redundant; and if there is any sort of abuse, including “emotional abuse,” the court must inform Protective Services, a provision which seems less about protecting abused pregnant minors than it is a “nuclear option” designed to raise the stakes for girls opting for abortion. The prop’s agenda of punishing the little trollops is made even clearer in the ballot argument: “When parents are involved and minors cannot anticipate secret access to free abortions they more often avoid the reckless behavior which leads to pregnancies.” Also, the prop. requires doctors to report abortions performed on minors to the state, which is creepy and worrisome. No. No, 54.1%. Last year’s nearly identical proposition lost by 52.8%.

Prop. 86. Cigarette tax to pay for various health services, including ERs, insurance, nursing training, cancer research, and smoking-prevention programs. The tobacco companies are actually running ads warning darkly about money going to the evil hospitals. This is another hypothecated tax, and since the majority of the price of a pack of cigs would go to the state, California would be in the tobacco business in a big way. Nicotine addicts would have to find well over $1,000 more per year to support their habit. And the only representation that goes with this taxation is this vote, which will lock in spending priorities for all time, with the legislature unable to change them if the state’s medical needs change over time. So look at how it will be spent: some of it we don’t know, because it will have to make up the money lost to previous tobacco taxes, and the rest of it, well, do you feel qualified to say that 1.75% for prostate cancer treatment, 0.75% for rural emergency health services, 4.25% for colorectal cancer, 7.75% for obesity and diabetes, etc, are the appropriate way to divide up this pie, and that they still will be 20 years from now? I know I don’t. And I don’t know who sat down in a room and came up with this deal, but we pay for a government and for public health officials precisely to make these decisions. No. No, 52%.

Prop. 87. A tax on oil drilled in California, which we’re to believe is entirely free money because the oil companies would be prohibited, forbidden and banned from passing the cost on to consumers. Yeah, that’ll work. Money goes to researching alternative energies, alternative-fuel vehicles, energy education, with funding decisions made by an unelected board exempt from conflict of interest laws. Uh oh. I would actually support a tax on drilling, like other states have, but I don’t trust that the revenue from this one would be properly spent, and some of the things it would fund should really be funded at the national rather than the state level. No. No, 54.7%.

Prop. 88. Parcel tax for schools. I’m not fond of parcel taxes, where every parcel is taxed a flat amount. They’re an unfair substitute for property taxes based on the value of the property, or better yet, progressive income tax. But this one is worse than the parcel tax measures you normally see, because it’s at the state level, spending money on things the authors think are important, rather than priorities set locally. Presumably this is considered necessary because parcel taxes have been increasingly rejected by voters at the school-district level in recent years. No. No, 77%.

Prop. 89. Campaign contribution limits, public financing of some candidates (who raise money in $5 contributions, or something), limits campaign spending by corporations (while taxing corporations to pay for the public financing $200m/yr), but not un-incorporated companies (or unions, or Indian tribes, or individuals). First, limiting spending on initiatives (as opposed to spending for candidates, where spending limits serve the purpose of stopping corruption) has no chance of surviving the courts. Second, $200m seems like a lot of money to me. Third, if the authors of this thing had the courage of their convictions that elections belong to the people and should not be corrupted by corporate money, they should have financed it through the general fund; using taxes on corporations seems a little sneaky, a little cynical. In principle I do favor spending limits and public financing, but only if it’s done really carefully. This prop. strikes me as sloppy, and since some of it would be struck down by the courts, we’d be left with fragments of it, rather than a fully fledged system. No. No, 74.5%.

Prop. 90. Bars the use of eminent domain to seize property for private projects like shopping centers. Which would probably be fine, if California actually used eminent domain that way, which it doesn’t. That part of the prop. is therefore just cover for the rest of the proposition: “compensating” land owners for supposedly reduced property values as a result of new zoning, environmental and other regulations (including “limitations on the use of private air space”). No. No, 52.5%.

Comments welcome.

Protecting the rights of terrorists

Denny Hastert said about the vote on warrantless wiretapping: “For the second time in just two days, House Democrats have voted to protect the rights of terrorists.” There are two problems with that statement: 1) the assumption of guilt, 2) he could have just said that D’s voted to protect terrorists, but instead went out of his way to denigrate the whole concept of “rights.” These people are less interested in attacking terrorists than in attacking rights. Indeed “rights” is a nastier word in their vocabulary than “terrorist.”

Bush welcomed to the White House “president” Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, which he called “a free nation.” The CIA World Factbook calls it a republic with “authoritarian presidential rule, with little power outside the executive branch.”


Earlier this morning, Bush spoke to the Reserve Officers Association, saying that “Iraq is not the reason the terrorists are at war against us. ... They can’t stand the thought that people can go into the public square in America and express their differences with government.” Yes, terrorists hate the fact that we can disagree with George Bush.

They must love Kazakhstan, where people who criticize the government have been known to, for example, commit suicide by shooting themselves repeatedly in the chest and head.

They all look the same to me

It’s the pretense of pragmatism that irritates me. The pro-war spin on the semi-declassified NIE focuses on the sentence, “Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.” I’ll concede that premise, which seems common sensical enough, but, even putting aside the countervailing number of jihadists created every day the war continues, how does this add up to a case for continuing the war to make us safer from terrorism? Have they never heard of cost-benefit analysis? Let’s say that pulling out of Iraq would mean 1,000 fighters “inspired to carry on the fight.” Hell, let’s say 10,000. If we dealt with them through traditional means – intelligence, security, phone-tapping, satellites, etc – we could spend $100 million to combat each fighter, and still come out ahead.

At a fundraiser today, Bush said that the war is not increasing the risk of terrorism. “History tells us that logic is false.” How come he gets to invoke History on the same day Congress is doing his bidding in undoing centuries of legal protections on the grounds that history is irrelevant because we are fighting a totally new type of war against a totally new type of enemy?

This morning, Bush met with Republican senators. He said of the meeting, “I’m impressed by the caliber of people that serve our country.” One such person is Sen. Trent Lott, who again demonstrated his caliber by shooting himself in the foot. Several times. Asked by reporters afterwards if any of the senators had brought up the subject of Iraq with the chimperor, Lott said, “You’re the only ones who obsess on that. We don’t and the real people out in the real world don’t for the most part.” He said of the Iraqis, “It’s hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what’s wrong with these people... Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me.”

So if they didn’t talk about Iraq or have a seminar on Sunni-Shiite differences, what did they discuss? According to Bush, “Our most solemn job is the security of this country. People shouldn’t forget there’s still an enemy out there that wants to do harm to the United States. And therefore a lot of my discussion with the members of the Senate was to remind them of this solemn responsibility.” So another productive and informative meeting, then.

I think we spent about half a minute on this issue

Condi Rice was interviewed a few days ago by the editorial board of the NYT.

She set out a goal for Lebanon: “transport moderation with a coalition of states that might be - might have great interest in doing that.” I don’t know what that means either, or whether bubble wrap is involved.

On why the invasion of Iraq did not create terrorists: “They attacked us on September 11th before anybody had even thought of overthrowing Saddam Hussein.” Before anybody had even thought...? Ever heard of the first Gulf War, Condi? Ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Condi? Ever heard of the Project for the New American Century, Condi?

She laid out a standard for success in Iraq: “And I think they’re going to be able to move to a place where they continue to have violence, but it doesn’t threaten the stability of the government.” Always the dreamer, is our Condi.

This sentence I like because it has a verb I haven’t heard before: “Hezbollah lives among the population and can easily human shield anything that you go after.”

Are torture and secret prisons hurting America’s reputation? “I can tell you I just spent a whole lot of time with Europeans. I think we spent about half a minute on this issue.”


Caption contest:

Let’s bring justice before the eyes of the children and widows of Sept. 11

I’ve commented on Bush’s recent use of the term “extremists” to describe The Enemy, but I think I missed the point, which is actually the other half of the dyad, “moderate.” In a week when General Musharraf (did anyone else notice how Jon Stewart called him “president” when they were together, and “general” after he left?) and Kazakhstan’s Nazarbayev are being welcomed to the White House, he needed a term for the Good Guys that didn’t involve, you know, democracy. Thus, moderates, or even “the moderate world.”

Sillier than the NYT article on Rumsfeld’s squash game? Lawrence Di Rita’s letter in rebuttal.

I think it was when Alberto Gonzales’ nomination vote was being described as a referendum on torture that I said I’d be really curious what the outcome of an actual Congressional vote on torture would be. 253-168: sorry I asked. It wasn’t even close. And the Democrats’ wussiness on the issue suggests that they either believe in torture, indefinite detention on presidential orders, etc or they think that the voters believe in those things. Greg Saunders asks, “Is it really worth all this effort to replace people who support torture with people who tolerate torture?” The British journalist Henry Nevinson said in 1921, à propos the actions of the Black and Tans in Ireland, “It is a terrible thing to feel ashamed of the country one loves. It is like coming home and finding one’s mother drunk upon the floor.”

Molly Ivins points out that the language requiring a defendant to be able to “examine and respond to” the evidence against him has been changed: he won’t be able to how what it is, but he can still respond to it. So that’s okay then.

On denying detainees the right of habeas corpus, James Sensenbrenner: “Let’s bring justice before the eyes of the children and widows of Sept. 11.” A few days I was complaining when Rumsfeld spoke as if the 9/11 victims were all Americans. It seems revealing, though I’m not sure of what, that Sensenbrenner talks as if only husbands and not wives were killed.

London Times: “Hungary’s beleaguered Prime Minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany, apologised yesterday for his speech in which he admitted lying to the nation.”

“Tokyo Rose” has died, at 90.

The US military wants to hire a company to poll Iraqis “to assess the effectiveness of operations as they relate to gaining and maintaining popular support”. The interviewers would have to disguise who they were working for, in order not to be killed. You know, once you admit that that is the case, maybe you know all you really need to know about gaining and maintaining popular support, and can just skip the waste of taxpayer dollars, to say nothing of risking the lives of some poor schmucks with clip-boards?

That article also says that the Lincoln Group, last spotted paying to plant stories in the Iraqi press, has just been given another contract, for $12.4 million, to do... exactly the same thing.

US military types have been bad-mouthing Iraq’s prime minister and blowhard-in-chief Maliki for not having the will to take on Shiite militias (the WaPo and NYT don’t say it, but they’re frustrated because the Iraqis have recently cancelled several planned operations). The WaPo says, “The questions about Maliki are being posed only privately”. That is, if you consider page A19 of the Washington Post to be private.

Russia may reintroduce a tax on couples who don’t have children. Says the deputy head of the Duma’s health committee, “If people don’t want to think about their debt to the motherland, they must pay.” According to the Guardian, Putin “has announced a 10-year plan to tackle the crisis.” Possibly involving actual tackling.

Tony Blair: without mercy or limit

Follow-up: the guy Bush attacked as an “obscure” spokesman for an “obscure organization” turns out to be Gijs de Vries, the counter-terrorism coordinator for that obscure organization, the European Union. Still not sure what it was he said Tuesday.

Condi claimed today, “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight Al Qaida. For instance, big pieces were missing, like an approach to Pakistan that might work”. They had to come up with the idea of threatening to bomb Pakistan into the Stone Age all by themselves. (Also, Condi is lying, as Raw Story proves, just in case you didn’t already assume Condi is lying, or know that she’d made this claim before and been shot down before; it’s bad enough that she’s portraying the Clinton admin as being as incompetent and ill-prepared as she is, but that she assumes we are too).

Divine retribution of the day: “A man who bred fighting cocks died after contracting the H5N1 bird flu virus, bringing the human death toll in Thailand to 17.” (AP)

The WaPo is late posting Wednesday’s A Section, so I’m still seeing yesterday’s top story, “Detainee Measure to Have Less Restrictions.” Fewer, goddammit, the correct word is fewer! I blame it on Bush, the man who doesn’t know a comma from a quagmire. He just lowers lingual standards for the entire nation. In 2008, we need to make all presidential candidates pass a strict test on grammar. Of grammar? Oh dear God it’s getting to me now! Or is it “its getting too me now”? Aaaaaayyyyy!!!!!

In truth, there isn’t much more meaning in a Blair speech (yesterday he gave his very last address as party leader to a Labour party conference) than in a Bush one, it’s just that his nothing is better expressed than Bush’s nothing. “But believe me there are no half-hearted allies of America today”. I believe you, I just don’t know what you’re talking about.


He also said, “We can only protect liberty by making it relevant to the modern world. ... Let Liberty stand up for the law-abiding.” His idea of liberty: identity cards with biometric technology and a national DNA database, which I believe John Stuart Mill called for in chapter 23 of On Liberty.


“The new anxiety is the global struggle against terrorism without mercy or limit.” Notice how it isn’t quite clear which side he’s saying is without mercy or limit.


He said that looking for any explanation for terrorism other than that they hate us for our freedom is “wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy... This terrorism isn’t our fault, we didn’t cause it. It’s not the consequence of foreign policy, it’s an attack on our way of life.” Yes, they’re definitely more concerned with what we eat and watch on tv than with our support of Israel and military invasion of their countries.

Speaking of our way of life, he said that Labour must tailor its policies for the “Google generation.” (There wasn’t any reason for that hyperlink; I just thought it was amusingly meta.)

Blair: “I know I look a lot older. That’s what being leader of the Labour Party does to you. Actually, looking round some of you look a lot older. That’s what having me as leader of the Labour Party does to you.”

Actually, it’s worse than that. In this picture, doesn’t he look a lot like Bush, sort of the way dogs and their masters start to look alike?

Bush and Karzai: I don’t have enough time to finger-point

Bush had a photo op & press conference with Karzai today.

He told Karzai, “I know there’s some in your country who wonder or not -- whether or not America has got the will to do the hard work necessary to help you succeed. We have got that will, and we’re proud of you as a partner.” Karzai replied, “Wonderful. Great,” because he had to say something, but it was an odd sort of statement to have to formulate a response to.


“We discussed different agencies in your government and how best to make them accountable to the people. We’re going to help you build roads.” Er, accountable roads?

“The President gave me a very direct assessment of successes in eradicating poppies and failures in eradicating poppies.” Guess which part was longer?


Bush said he will have dinner Wednesday with Karzai and Musharraf, which he says is “going to be an interesting discussion amongst three allies”. Considering all the sniping between Karzai and Musharraf recently about bin Laden and intelligence-sharing, it should indeed be “interesting”: “Pass the rolls, please.” “I would be delighted to pass the rolls, but you have yet to tell me where I might find the rolls.” “I told you exactly where the rolls are.” “Ah, but that is where the rolls were ten minutes ago. How am I to know where the rolls are now? Why, they might not even be on my side of the table...” Etcetera.


Karzai said of an American soldier he’d just met, a woman with six children, “There’s nothing more that any nation can do for another country, to send a woman with children to Afghanistan to help.” Um, right.

Bush says, contrary to the NIE, that the Iraq war isn’t fueling terrorist growth: “My judgment is, if we weren’t in Iraq, they’d find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.” “They’ve used all kinds of excuses,” he says, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Funny, I thought just a few days ago we were supposed to be taking the words of the terrorists seriously. “We’re not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense. ... We’re not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.”


He adds that the NIE is old news, and has the nerve to suggest that it was leaked just now to affect the elections, “to create confusion in the minds of the American people, in my judgment, is why they leaked it.”



A Reuters reporter asked if Clinton was right that the Bush administration had no meetings on bin Laden for the 9 months before 9/11. With a near certainty that he would be asked that very question, this is how well prepared he was:

You know, look, Caren, I’ve watched all this finger-pointing and naming of names, and all that stuff. Our objective is to secure the country. And we’ve had investigations, we had the 9/11 Commission, we had the look back this, we’ve had the look back that. The American people need to know that we spend all our time doing everything that we can to protect them. So I’m not going to comment on other comments. But I will comment on this -- that we’re on the offense against an enemy that wants to do us harm. And we must have the tools necessary to protect our country. On the one hand, if al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates are calling somebody in the country, we need to know why....

And so on.

“I don’t have enough time to finger-point,” he added. Because of all the, you know, terrorists he has to deal with: “They’re out there, they’re mean, and they need to be brought to justice.”


Stupid reporter meets stupid preznident:

Q If I may, Mr. President, do you agree with the analysis from the counter chief European -- counterterrorism chief European spokesman who said today that the international support for terrorism has receded. ...

PRESIDENT BUSH: It’s a four-part question. First of all, I didn’t -- what was this person a spokesman for?

Q Counterterrorism chief in Europe.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Some obscure spokesman?

Q No, actually, he has a name.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Okay, he’s a got a name. (Laughter.) Well, no, I don’t agree with the spokesman for the obscure organization that said that the international commitment to fighting terror is declining.

I’ve googled, and I still don’t know what the reporter was talking about, but then neither did the reporter and neither did Bush, and Bush completely misinterpreted what the reporter said the guy said, but it didn’t stop him getting pretty darned belligerent.

Then Bush started talking again about that dinner (which I read after I wrote my little dinner roll sketch above): “It will be interesting for me to watch the body language of these two leaders to determine how tense things are.”

Venezuelan street theater review

John Bolton calls the Venezuelan foreign minister’s protests at attempts by airport security people to frisk him “Venezuelan street theater,” saying, “He did not request the courtesies we would have extended to get him through the airport. He purchased his ticket at a time and in a manner and with funding such that he was asked to go to secondary screening and he objected to that. And the first thing he did was call the press and speak to them in Spanish, so this is propaganda.” Yes, if it’s in Spanish, it must be propaganda. I had to read that quote a second time before I realized that Bolton was accusing Maduro of deliberately behaving suspiciously (paying cash for a one-way ticket) in order to provoke an international incident. A cunning plan indeed.

Well, that’s a lie

The British Labour party is having its annual conference. Gordon Brown gave a speech today, and just as he was saying what a privilege it’s been to work with Tony Blair, Cherie Blair was overheard commenting, “Well, that’s a lie.” So that’s all the British newspapers are talking about today. Cherie, by the way, denies having said anything of the kind, and the Labour party machinery suggested that she’d actually said macaca “I need to get by.” No one believes the denials, but no one believes Brown’s praise of Tony Blair either.

I’m not sure how many Americans know that Cherie Blair’s father Tony Booth, a lefty actor along Rob Reiner lines, played the long-haired lefty son-in-law of a cockney bigot in the tv show that was adapted in America as All in the Family. And that the Booths are an old acting family, one of whose members once intervened rather significantly in American politics.

At a press conference with visiting Afghan puppet Karzai (who failed to bring any of his nation’s journalists with him), Rumsfeld was asked whether he would resign, as three retired generals (all of whom served in Iraq) have been calling for:

Q Are you considering resigning at all --

SEC. RUMSFELD: No.

Q -- and if so, why not?

SEC. RUMSFELD: I’m not.

And about the Army chief, Gen. Schoomaker’s, refusal to submit a budget because he is not being given enough money to do the job, the Pentagon transcript quotes Rumsfeld thusly: “(Inaudible) -- the Army for some weeks. (Inaudible) -- the Army -- (inaudible) -- it will continue -- (inaudible) -- if not, the budget will then go to the president, and then the president will send it to Congress and -- (inaudible).” How an inaudible bill becomes an inaudible law, Rummy-style.

Reset

The Lebanese are saved! Rescue is at hand! Well, for Lebanese puppy dogs, anyway. Lebanese humans are still screwed.

Thailand’s Gen. Thawip, spokesmodel for the coup leaders (who are calling themselves the Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy in the hope that they’ll be mistaken for Swedes), explains the necessity for the military overthrow of the elected government: “Just like when your computer is hung and you cannot do anything about it, what you’re going to do is push the reset button or unplug it and that’s the only way to solve it.”

Nodding their heads and voting with their feet

Rumsfeld on why it’s entirely coincidental that the current civil war in Iraq followed the American invasion and occupation: “Now, we talk about the violence that’s going on in that country, and there is violence in that country; let there be no doubt....” Was someone doubting that? “...But there was violence before. I mean, there are -- hundred thousands of people are in mass graves all over that country. Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, his own people, as well as his neighbors. So violence is not something that’s new to Iraq. Indeed, it’s a pattern in that country.” A pattern. He makes it sound like wallpaper. I’m not sure what sort of a “pattern” it is that encompasses both the repressive violence of a dictator and a sectarian civil war. They seem to me to be quite distinctive phenomena, having in common only a “pattern” of a high body count. Or possibly he’s saying Iraqis are just inherently violent.


Rummy adds that the war won’t be won militarily (on that much we can agree), but on the “political front and the governance front... when people say, ‘Okay, it’s going to make it,’ and they start nodding their heads, and they vote with their feet, and the economic circumstance improves.” I’m a little unclear on whether they’ll be nodding their heads at the same time as they vote with their feet, or they’ll nod and then voting with their feet, but I’ll definitely keep an eye out for the nodding and the foot-voting.

Pulp fiction

In his weekly radio address, Bush praises Pakistan’s “President” Musharraf for “working to build modern democratic institutions that could provide an alternative to radicalism.” Yeah, Musharraf is all about the building of modern democratic institutions.

It may not mean anything, but in his most recent speeches, Bush has been backing away from describing the enemy as Islamofascist or indeed as Islamic anything, in favor of the more generic, basically content-free term “extremist.” In today’s five-minute address, he referred to “extremism” twice and “extremists” five times. Extremists are the bad guys in Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq. “All civilized nations, especially those in the Muslim world, are bound together in this struggle between moderation and extremism.”

Note that in that version of reality, Bush is a moderate.

Metaphor of the day, from Capt. Phil Waddingham of the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants at Guantanamo, about the possibility of releasing detainees: “I think what we have here is an orange. What we’re doing is squeezing out the juice and what we’re left with at the end of the day is pulp that will just stay here.”