If our definition is no more suiciders, you’ve just basically said to the suiciders, go ahead

Bush gave a speech and q&a at Tippecanoe High School in Tipp City, Ohio. It was a long speech, and photographers got a little fascinated by one burly Secret Service agent with no neck.


He said, “You know, it’s a -- there is -- the President spends time at disasters.” Trying to look innocent.

Okay, okay, he was actually talking about Virginia Tech, that disaster. But a disaster in which Bush finds a silver lining: “And the amazing thing is, though, when you go down to a scene like Virginia Tech, you can’t help but be buoyed by the spirit that out of the tragedy comes a certain sense of resolve.” So that’s okay, then.


Bush does stick with his little phrases with a steely persistence long after they’ve become a laughing stock. “My job is a job to make decisions. I’m a decision -- if the job description were, what do you do -- it’s decision-maker.” And you know what “deeply affected” his decision-making? Would you believe 9/11? “I realized that there is an enemy of the United States that is active and is lethal.” What was your first clue?

“I also know full well that it’s important for us if we’re facing an ideology, if we’re facing ideologues, if we’re confronting people who believe something, that we have got to defeat their belief system with a better belief system. Forms of government matter, in my opinion.” And ours is a reverse meritocracy.

“And now we’re involved in -- I call it a global war against terror. You can’t call it a global war against extremists, a global war against radicals, a global war against people who want to hurt America; you can call it whatever you want, but it is a global effort.” I think we know what I want to call it, but who, one wonders, prefers to call it a global war against people who want to hurt America (GWAPWWTHA)?


In fact, Bush was unusually permissive about vocabulary today: “The question was, do we increase our -- I call it, reinforce, you can call it, surge, there’s all kind of words for it...”

On Iraq: “It’s easy to forget the elections because of all the violence.” How true. “People often ask me, what are we seeing on TV? What’s happening with the violence? Here’s my best analysis: One, the spectaculars you see are al Qaeda inspired. They claim credit for a lot of the big bombings.” Really, that actually is his best analysis. Also: spectaculars? But we should all just ignore the violence and maybe it will go away: “If the definition of success in Iraq or anywhere is no suicide bombers, we’ll never be successful. ... Think about that: if our definition is no more suiciders, you’ve just basically said to the suiciders, go ahead.”


Reading the transcript, I was actually impressed that Bush used “whom” correctly in a sentence. This, however, was the next sentence: “And yet they -- and yet, the enemy -- and the enemy -- when I say, enemy, these are enemies of free societies, primarily al Qaeda inspired -- blew up the great religious shrine in ‘06, a year ago -- all aiming to create a sense of sectarian violence, all aiming to exacerbate the religious tensions that sometimes were exacerbated under Saddam Hussein, all aiming at preventing this young democracy from succeeding. And they succeeded.” “All aiming” or “all aimed,” by the way, is his new favorite phrase.

“Interesting” made something of a come-back: “It’s interesting here in Tipp City, the first thing that happened was a moment of silence”. “It’s an interesting war, isn’t it, where asymmetrical warfare is... not only, obviously, kills a lot of innocent people, like which happened yesterday in Iraq, but also helps define whether or not we’re successful.” “Isn’t it interesting, when you really take a step back and think about what I just said, that al Qaeda is making serious moves in Iraq, as is surrogates for Iran.” “Isn’t it interesting that it’s the democracies of the Middle East that are having the most problem with the extremists? I think it is.” “It’s an interesting force posture to be in.”

COMMITMENT ISSUES: “[If we withdraw from Iraq] It would confirm their sense that the United States is incapable of long-term commitments, incapable of -- it would confirm their commitment that they think we’re soft, let me put it to you that way. That’s what they think. I didn’t necessarily mean that the United States has to kind of muscle up for the sake of muscling up. That’s not what I’m trying to say. But I do believe it is risky to have an enemy that has attacked us before to not take the United States seriously for the long run.”

SENTENCES I’M QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT, JUST BECAUSE: “I would call these times consequential times.” Or possibly Susan. “If you’ve got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I’m talking about.” “The reason I brought up the rug was to not only kind of break the ice, but also to talk about strategic thought.”

On Virginia Tech: “One of the lessons of these tragedies is to make sure that when people see somebody, or know somebody who is exhibiting abnormal behavior, to do something about it, to suggest that somebody take a look”. Well, there’s this dude, in like a suit, with like a microphone, at Tippecanoe High School, and he’s like talking really funny...

Asked the difference between Iraq and Vietnam, he said that Iraq voted for a constitution and that there was a North Vietnam and a South Vietnam. But if we leave Iraq, there will be something like the Khmer Rouge.

IN OTHER WORDS ROUND-UP: On the Iraq spending bill: “I submitted what the Pentagon thinks it needs. In other words, the process works where I ask the Pentagon, how much do you need? What do you need to do the job?” On immigration: “it’s in the interest of the country that people who are here be assimilated in a way that -- with our traditions and history. In other words, those who eventually become citizens be assimilated. In other words, one of the great things about America is we’ve been able to assimilate people from different backgrounds and different countries.” Yes, that was one of his death-defying Double In Other Words. Here’s another: “In other words, if what happens overseas matters to the United States, therefore, the best way to protect us is to deal with threats overseas. In other words, we just can’t let a threat idle”. On Medicare: “We gave seniors choices. In other words, we created more of a marketplace.” On immigration again: In other words, the law that we have in place has created an entire underground system of smugglers, inn keepers, and document forgers. And that’s not the American way, by the way.” Un-American innkeepers. On – oh who cares what it’s on: “In other words, one of my concerns is that there is a gap.” In less than an hour and a half, there were 18 in other wordses. Er, in other words’s. In other wordsi. In other wordsae. Or, as the kids would pluralize it, in other wordz.

A dropped microphone provided Bush and the local chamber of commerce president to enact the slapstick comedy stylings of Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.

Gonzales v. Carhart (the “partial-birth” abortion case)

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 yesterday to uphold the Congressional ban on “partial-birth abortions.”

Much of the decision, written by Anthony Kennedy, hinged on whether there should be a health exemption to the ban. Congress made some factual “findings,” including that a “moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion ... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.” Gonzales argued that these findings should be taken by the Court as the only dispositive statement of facts. The Court rejected this, in part because some of the facts were blatantly wrong (such as that the procedure is not taught in any medical schools), but made real-world facts irrelevant to its decision by claiming that there is “medical uncertainty” about whether the procedure is ever medically necessary (in the same way that the Bush admin claims there is scientific uncertainty about global warming or the tobacco companies about whether nicotine is addictive), and ruling that “the Act can survive facial attack when this medical uncertainty persists.”

Kennedy also pretended that there was no need for a health exemption because there are perfectly good alternatives. For example, the fetus can still be torn apart and removed in pieces; Kennedy is cool with that. But that procedure is much more invasive and dangerous: more poking around with instruments, greater possibility of fetal tissue remaining inside the body and of damage when sharp broken fetal bones are removed. If it’s really necessary, Kennedy says, to remove the fetus intact, the doctor can simply kill it with an injection before extraction, a totally unnecessary medical procedure which would be performed only for the purpose of complying with the law and which poses a risk (how great a risk I’m not sure) to the mother.

And really, the doctors, who Kennedy suggests only do this procedure out of “mere convenience,” need only get off their lazy asses and “find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand.” No problemo.

Or, Kennedy says, if it’s really really really medically necessary (which he has to admit is a possibility because of that “medical uncertainty” he’s hanging this ruling on), the woman can simply take some time out from her medical crisis and go to court. No problemo.

One danger of this ruling for the future is that it blurs the line established by previous abortion rulings between viability and non-viability, and allows a line that is arbitrary and unrelated to medical science. The standard in this law is what the Court calls “delivery to an anatomical landmark,” that is, if the fetus is delivered head-first, the landmark at which the procedure becomes illegal is when “the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother” and if delivered feet-first, the landmark is the belly button.

Kennedy affirmed the legitimacy of Congress using the regulation of a medical procedure to make a moral statement: “the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman.” And he accepts Congress’s “findings” that (in the words of the Act) “Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life” and that the procedures have a “disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant.” This is a similarity not so much in the medical sense as in the aesthetic or moral sense. He also says that “It was reasonable for Congress to think that partial-birth abortion, more than standard D&E, undermines the public’s perception of the doctor’s appropriate role during delivery, and perverts the birth process.”

Perverts the birth process.

Then Kennedy rather abruptly... well, see if you can follow what Kennedy clearly thinks is some sort of logical argument: “The Act also recognizes that respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in a mother’s love for her child. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision, which some women come to regret. In a decision so fraught with emotional consequence, some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the abortion procedure to be used. It is, however, precisely this lack of information that is of legitimate concern to the State.” So I guess he’s saying that this “ultimate” expression – his mother’s a saint, a saint I tell you! – leads doctors to fuzz over some of the details, so better just to ban the procedure altogether.

What details does Kennedy think the mother should be told before making a decision? That “she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.” He evidently thinks that a true mother, with that ultimate expression of respect for human life thing going on – she’s a saint, a saint I tell you! – would and indeed should go through with the pregnancy no matter the risk to her health. Kennedy is much more concerned with the supposed emotional consequences to the mother than the physical ones. “While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.” And it’s “self-evident” that such women would be really upset to find out later about the whole brain-vacuuming thing.

Justice Ginsburg in her dissent notes: “The Court’s hostility to the right Casey and Roe secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists not by the title of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label ‘abortion doctors.’”

A degree of regret that could be equated with an apology

We must award the medal of excellence for non-apology apologies to British Defense Minister Des Browne, who said of his decision to allow the servicemembers captured by the Iranians to sell their stories, “It seems clear to me that I have expressed a degree of regret that could be equated with an apology.”

Maybe Alberto Gonzales can try that one in his testimony today. One reason I’d like to see him forced to resign is that the confirmation hearings of his successor would focus attention on certain policies of the Justice Dept (torture, eavesdropping, habeas corpus, etc etc). This, as much as loyalty to a loyal Bushie and a wish not to be seen as losing a battle with Democrats, is precisely why Bush wants him to stay. Also, who would want the job of cleaning up Gonzo’s mess in a lame-duck administration? This will be a problem for every slot that falls vacant or is created, as we’ve seen with the unwillingness of anyone to be “war czar” (new tactic to win in Iraq: Cossacks!).

The US and Australia have agreed to a refugee swap: Australia will take in Haitians and Cubans who have been captured at sea trying to reach the US and are currently held at Guantanamo, while the US will take refugees from Burma, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and elsewhere trying to reach Australia by boat (Australia has been bribing Nauru to operate as Australia’s Guantanamo). Both countries thus get to prevent refugees reaching their shores and then claiming asylum, while deterring refugees by treating them like shit (think how badly you have to treat people to stop them leaving hell-holes like Haiti, Burma and Afghanistan) in places where there will be little scrutiny of the conditions under which they’re held. It’s extraordinary rendition for refugees.

Philip Morris wants the LAPD to investigate counterfeit cigarettes. So the police chief asked it for a $50,000 “donation” to pay for it. Which Philip Morris has gladly provided. Evidently it is LAPD policy that corporations can pay for police operations that benefit their interests.

Wherein this blogger becomes drunk with advisory power

Bush met with Congressional leaders today to talk about the Iraq spending bill. Er, why is Harry Reid asleep and why does Nancy Pelosi have the same vacant smile as Laura Bush? They didn’t actually drink the “water” they were given, did they?




Anyway, the WaPo reports that Congressional D’s may make the timetables for withdrawing troops from Iraq “advisory.” Congress thus lays claim to exactly as much power as a lowly blogger, the power to give impotent advice.

But maybe I should look at it the other way around. Let’s give it a try: I, WIIIAI, hereby advise that we get the fuck out of Iraq.

Dude, that was awesome! I’m totally as powerful as Congress now!

Protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life

The big story in Japan is toilets bursting into flames. You could see how this would be a concern. These are expensive toilets with a bidet function and heated seats and a remote control (?!), and sub-standard electrical parts made in China. And there’s an English-language website. Check out the videos and the FAQ section, which includes such existential FAQs as “Does anything touch me?” and “How do I know when I am clean?”

(Only $912.12 from Amazon.com)

While Bush was in Virginia saying let’s not get all crazy and enact gun control just because one guy legally bought some guns and killed 32 people, one of his Secret Service agents shot two other agents right outside the White House in what the White House is calling an “ironic accidental discharge of a firearm.”

Harriet Miers is returning to the private sector, rejoining her old law firm of Locke Liddell & Sapp. Which is a great name for a law firm.

Bush says that the Supreme Court decision allowing a ban on “partial-birth abortions” even where necessary to prevent serious damage to the health of the pregnant woman is “an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life.” Because if there is one thing the Bush administration will be known for, it is protecting human dignity and uphol... excuse me, I just threw up. He added, “We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.” Forcing women to give birth to unwanted children will ensure that they are welcomed in life how exactly?

Really, how exactly can Bush ensure that every child is welcomed? Does that phrase mean anything at all?

I just thought of an atrocious joke involving the words “welcome mat.” I will take it with me to my grave. Consider that my personal contribution to making progress in protecting human dignity.

The Japanese contribution to protecting human dignity may or may not involve $1,000 toilets.

You give it your best shot on the words

The Virginia Tech slaughter has given Bush the opportunity to use the phrase “a loving God” over and over. And to get himself interviewed over and over talking about how he, himself, W, the Decider, was dealing with the process of trying to comfort the victims and survivors. “You give it your best shot on the words,” he told ABC with his usual deft choice of metaphors. Asked if there were policy implications, he said that we should immediately invade Iran, just in case they were behind it. No, sorry, he said, “Now’s not the time to do the debate until we’re absolutely certain about what happened and after we help people get over their grieving.” Because Bush never rushes into any decision until he’s absolutely certain about the facts.

Sad-monkey face

Shocked and saddened

McCain on the Virginia Tech shootings: “Obviously we have to keep guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.” Oh, obviously. It is the very quintessence of obviousness, the Platonic ideal of obviousticity.

Hillary Clinton also made a statement, but I tuned it out after “As a parent...”

The key words of the day seem to be shock and sad. George Bush, who once excitedly unleashed what he called shock and awe on Iraq, says the whole nation (the US, not Iraq) is shocked and saddened. Queen Elizabeth is not inconsiderably shocked and saddened. Personally, I can’t say I’m particularly shocked. Indeed, anyone who can be shocked by someone in America getting hold of a firearm and shooting a bunch of random strangers simply hasn’t been paying attention.

I haven’t analyzed the peanut storage issue

On Face the Nation yesterday, Dick Cheney described the meeting on the Iraq spending bill to which Bush summoned Congressional leaders as a “heart to heart.” Then he licked his lips and said, “Mmm, hearts.” Dick Cheney is an intensely creepy man, is what I’m saying.


Cheney said he’s “willing to bet” that Dems will back down and pass a “clean” bill once they’ve “gone through the exercise and it’s clear the President will veto the provisions that they want in”.

He explained the “last throes” comment: “Well, partly we have to respond to questions from the press, and we do the best we can with what we know at the time.” Also, he will be proven right “in the broad sweep of history.”

He denied that he or Bush have become isolated, although he chose to term his denial in entirely non-political terms: “I spend as much time as I can, get out and do other things -- at home in Wyoming, or yesterday I managed to go shopping with my daughter for a birthday present for granddaughters.” See? Not isolated at all.

Bush gave yet another little speech today demanding that Congress give him his war money, backed yet again by the families of living and dead soldiers (or as he put it, “the families of those whose loved one has given their life to the country”) and by leaders of organizations that give support to military families, which he thanked for “your tireless work to send a clear signal that many in the United States of America support our troops.” Beyond the none-too-subtle implication that there are certain others who don’t support the troops, those organizations don’t work to send a signal of support, they work to do actual support. Some people, George, do things in order to do things, not in order to send signals.


He said of the family members, “They have come here to Washington with a message for their elected leaders in our nation’s capital: Our troops need the resources, equipment and weapons to fight our enemies.” Funny how the only family members or survivors of military personnel that he ever sees are the ones who agree with his policies. I’d like to know more about the process by which these people are chosen. Bush said of them, “The families gathered here understand that we are a nation at war.” They know this because they have email. “Families here know what our troops are seeing and hearing on the ground, they get instant feedback as a result of modern technologies.” Instant feedback. Oy.

He told us what else his props guests understood: “The families gathered here understand that our troops want to finish the job. ... Families gathered here understand that America is not going to be safe until the terrorist threat has been defeated.”

Are you my new daddy?

On Wednesday, he reminded us, he will meet with Congressional leaders. “That’s what we’re supposed to do. We’re supposed to talk out our differences.” Funny, because the White House has said rather pointedly that this will not be a negotiation, and Bush has said, “At this meeting, the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk.” Just doesn’t sound like talking out differences to me. Neither does this: “I hope the Democratic leadership will drop their unreasonable demands for a precipitous withdrawal.” But it’s not like he’s completely inflexible: “I am willing to discuss any way forward that does not hamstring our troops, set an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and spend billions on projects not related to the war.”


And speaking of unreasonable Democratic demands, again with the fucking peanuts: “And the idea of putting, you know, peanut storage -- which may be necessary at some point in time; I don’t know, I haven’t analyzed the peanut storage issue, but I do know it doesn’t have much to do with about making sure your loved ones get what’s needed to do their job.” Unless the insurgents all have peanut allergies...

And remember, “If we do not defeat the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they won’t leave us alone -- they will follow us to the United States of America.” Possibly by following the smell of peanuts.

To my knowledge

Halfway through a LAT story about a bill to require schools in Texas to offer an elective class on the history & literature of the Bible, after hearing the twaddle about how the classes wouldn’t be religious indoctrination but actual larnin’, we find that the bill states that the primary textbook would be the Bible itself. Other books could be used, but it wouldn’t be required, because, sponsor Warren Chisum, the chair of the Texas House Appropriations Committee who does not believe in evolution or that the earth revolves around the sun, explained, it’s just convenient: “It’s the most available book in the world.”

While John McCain says he has “no Plan B” for Iraq, he admits that if he became president the force of public opinion might force him to end the war: “I do believe that history shows us Americans will not continue to support an overseas engagement involving the loss of American lives for an unlimited period of time unless they see some success.” I don’t know the tone in which he said this, having read it but not heard it, but I suspect McCain, like Bush, considers it a moral failing that Americans won’t support an overseas engagement involving the loss of American lives for an unlimited period of time unless they see some success.

Alberto Gonzales has an op-ed piece in the WaPo about the US attorneys scandal, in advance of his testimony before Congress this week. He says four times that nothing improper occurred (it is also the headline of the piece). One looks forward to seeing congresscritters pin down his definition of improper, assuming they can get Joe Biden to shut the hell up. Gonzo says, “During those conversations [with Kyle Sampson], to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.” Interesting qualifier. To his knowledge he didn’t make decision. If he made decisions, it was without his own knowledge.

They have been waiting for this money long enough

Bush’s radio address today again hectors Congress for failing “to meet their responsibilities and provide our troops with the funding they need.” Several times, he falsely implied that the money had already run out and, perhaps, that the troops weren’t even getting their paychecks, but were begging for small change and scraps of old bread on Baghdad street corners: “the House is still on its Easter recess. Meanwhile, our troops are waiting for the funds. ... They have been waiting for this money long enough.”

Again, he interpreted the meaning of the 2006 elections for us: “When Americans went to the polls last November, they did not vote for politicians to substitute their judgment for the judgment of our commanders on the ground. ... The American people voted for change in Iraq, and that is exactly what our new commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is working to achieve.” So they voted all those Democrats into office but didn’t actually want them to do anything in office (except, of course, support our troops). Hell, they didn’t even really want Democrats, they wanted David Petraeus. Indeed, in this scenario, no voters actually wanted to end the war.

Actually, this accords perfectly with Bush’s idea of the constitution: since he sees Congress as functionless and vestigial, like an appendix, or nipples on men, votes cast for members of that body are purely symbolic, sending a message to the only branch of government that actually matters, the decidertive branch.

A superior alternative to ideologies of violence, anger, and resentment

Dick Cheney spoke to the Heritage Foundation in Chicago today, possibly the last place on earth where repeatedly accusing the Democrats of returning to the policies of McGovern and the “hard left in the early ‘70s” would have any sort of traction. However, he insisted, “America will not again play out those old scenes of abandonment, and retreat, and regret. Thirty-five years is time enough to have learned the lessons of that sad era. When the United States turns away from our friends, only tragedy can follow”. So Cheney not only wants never-ending war in Iraq, he thinks we should still be fighting the Vietnam War.

He returned to the attack against Nancy Pelosi: “No member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has any business jetting around the world with a diplomatic agenda contrary to that of the President and the Secretary of State.” Dude, the president and the secretary of state have a diplomatic agenda?


He calls that demand that congresscritters refrain from talking to foreigners “a basic constitutional principle.”

On the Iraq spending bill, he said, “Rarely in history has an elected branch of government engaged in so pointless an exercise as Congress is now doing.” I was going to ask if it was as pointless as the war in Iraq that the executive branch is engaged in, but then I realized he said elected branch of government...

He accuses the Congressional Democrats of “endlessly shifting positions” on Iraq, but how consistent is Cheney himself? He said, “We offer a vision of freedom, justice, and self government as a superior alternative to ideologies of violence, anger, and resentment.” Dick Cheney was for violence, anger and resentment before he was against them. I’m pretty sure “Violence, Anger and Resentment” was the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign slogan.

Defiance!

In a gesture of defiance following yesterday’s bombing of the Iraqi parliamentary cafeteria, the parliament met in special session today and defiantly ate sloppy joes.

The deputy US commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, said, “Frankly yesterday was a bad day, a very bad day. But we’re going to come back from that.” Some people took that literally: two of the three MPs who were announced as having been killed in the blast yesterday, plus 5 other victims, are evidently no longer dead. Now that’s defying the terrorists!

Wherein is revealed the true strength of our nation, and I get kind of hungry for some reason

Durst: “Mitt Romney bragging about being a lifelong hunter, then admitting he’s only been hunting twice. ... Same kind of thinking qualifies George Bush as a lifelong reader.”

This morning George Bush attended the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. He totally killed, or they were totally drunk: “I noticed that this year’s breakfast was the Friday after Lent -- (laughter) -- you can eat your bacon in good conscience. (Laughter.) And the priests can relax. (Laughter.)” That’s a lot of laughing. Is there such a thing as a bacon high?

He told the National Catholics, “Prayer breakfasts show the true strength of our nation.” That strength: delicious bacon.

He came out in favor of Catholic schools, a “culture of life,” and immigration reform, and concluded, “And I ask that you pray that in a troubled world, America may always remain a beacon of hope and of freedom.” Or possibly a bacon of hope and of freedom.

Caption contest!



If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands

Good days and bad days

The bombing of the Iraqi parliament building’s cafeteria killed one MP each from the National Dialogue Front and the Sunni Accordance Front, which tells you as much as you need to know about the state of national dialogue and Sunni accordance (what does that even mean?) in Iraq. The security scanner that should have detected this bomb was not operating today, which I will wildly speculate indicates an inside job. The head of the parliament’s media department was in the cafeteria at the time and later made the sort of statement that is not in the job description of the heads of media departments other countries’ legislatures: “I saw two legs in the middle of the cafeteria and none of those killed or wounded lost their legs — which means they must be the legs of the suicide attacker.”

Bush had some comments. “First of all, I strongly condemn the action.” Was it strictly necessary to say that? He went on: “It reminds us, though...” I’m interrupting to point out that tell-tale word “though,” which indicates that, for George, there is a positive side to the bombing, which is that he can make use of it for his own propaganda purposes: “It reminds us, though, that there is an enemy willing to bomb innocent people in a symbol of democracy. In other words [!], this assembly is a place where people have come to represent the 12 million people who voted.” However, while the Iraqis might foolishly think that this incident is about them, it’s not: “There is a type of person that would walk in that building and kill innocent life -- and that is the same type of person that is willing to come and kill innocent Americans.”

Condi had some comments: “we’ve said there are going to be good days and bad days concerning the security plan.” I’m guessing this would be one of the bad days; I’m also guessing there have been no actual good days. “I don’t think anybody expected that there would not be counterefforts by the terrorists to undermine the security progress that we’re trying to make.”

John McCain, who was next to her (see the not at all awkward pictures below), had some comments, calling the bombing “tragic and yet... not unexpected” and said it shouldn’t “change the larger picture, which means that we are achieving some small successes already”. So it’s, you know, too bad that two Iraqi MPs were blown up, but at least it wasn’t, say, a visiting American senator.




I made it through this entire post without a single joke about cafeteria food.

Why Dick Cheney is a very bad man

Kurt Vonnegut has died. So it goes. From Dead Eye Dick: “It may be a bad thing that so many people try to make good stories out of their lives. A story after all is as artificial as a mechanical bucking bronco in a drinking establishment. And it may be even worse for nations to try to be characters in stories. Perhaps these words should be carved over doorways of the United Nations and all sorts of parliaments, big and small: LEAVE YOUR STORY OUTSIDE.”

Oh, and will everyone stop using the word “counterculture” about him. Whether it’s intended as praise or insult or condescension, it’s simply wrong: Vonnegut was the epitome of American culture.

Almost immediately after hearing that news, I read something that Vonnegut would surely have had something to say about: some of those BYU students protesting Dick Cheney being their commencement speaker are evidently upset only at his use of profanity when he told Patrick Leahy to go fuck himself.

Also, I hear he sometimes indulges in the Demon Caffeine.

Adding to quality of life

Media Matters points out that while Bush in his immigration speech this week claimed that the decrease in arrests of illegal border-crossers proved that his policies have been effective – “When you’re apprehending fewer people, it means fewer are trying to come across” – in a November 2005 speech he cited increased arrests as proof of his policies’ effectiveness.

If you’re wondering, yes, if arrests neither increased nor decreased, that would also show that his policies were working.

Secretary of War Robert

and the always alliterative Peter Pace held a press conference about extending deployments from their current 12 months to 15 months, effective immediately. Gates explained that this policy would “give greater clarity and fairness.” Assuming your idea of clarity and fairness is to be stuck an additional 3 months in Iraq or Afghanistan while hostile locals shoot clearly and fairly at your ass. Pace says that the increased length of combat will also increase quality of... quality of... quality of what now? “[T]hey will have a predictable life; that they can sit there around the dinner table and know that on calendar month so- and-so, daddy’s going to leave, and on calendar month so-and-so, mommy’s going to come home, and those kinds of things, which add to quality of life.”

And yes, that’s assuming mommy doesn’t come home a little bit earlier in a body bag. And that the Pentagon doesn’t change its mind again, as Gates pointed out with clarity and fairness: “That does not mean that something could not happen tomorrow that would cause our nation to need more of our armed forces to go do something different.”

Maverick John “Maverick” McCain the Maverick gave a speech about Iraq at the Virginia Military Institute today (Note: link is to the prepared remarks). He said of his trip to Baghdad, “Unlike the veterans here today, I risked nothing more threatening than a hostile press corps.” That explains the body armor and military escort: he was afraid of an attack by Helen Thomas. Well, fair enough.

He tried to portray himself as a realist about Iraq. He distanced himself from “false optimism,” saying that he preferred to offer “ersatz optimism.” Okay, he didn’t. He said, “I took issue with statements characterizing the insurgency as a few ‘dead-enders’ or being in its ‘last throes.’” Sure you did, John.

You’ll notice he’s willing to criticize the false optimism of Rumsfeld or Cheney but not that of Bush.


Much of the speech was spent impugning the motives of politicians who oppose the war for seeking “the expediency of easy but empty answers,” “the allure of political advantage,” and “the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll,” and for engaging in “fanciful and self-interested debates” and “giddy anticipation of the next election.” Someone needs to ask him if it’s only Democratic politicians who are being base and cynical, or if that also applies to the majority of Americans who oppose the war. “Before I left for Iraq, I watched with regret as the House of Representatives voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission. Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted. What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender? In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering.”

He did say one thing that I entirely agree with: “If fighting these people and preventing the export of their brand of radicalism and terror is not intrinsic to the national security and most cherished values of the United States, I don’t know what is.” I agree: you don’t know what is.

Bad Reporter.

That’s a doctrine

McCain says he’d have been happy to go to the Baghdad market without any protection at all, but Petraeus insisted.

The Iranians taunted captured sailor Arthur Batchelor by saying that he looks like Mr. Bean. Now that’s just cruel.


George Bush has generously extended an offer to congresscritters to come to the White House to be pissed on. “At this meeting, the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk. We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground.” That last part is just kinky.

If this weren’t condescending enough, White House spokesmodel Dana Perino said this would not be a negotiation, adding “Maybe they need to hear again from the president about why he thinks it is foolish to set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal.” Yes, that’s probably exactly what they need.

At that speech, to an American Legion post, Bush says that our era was “defined” on 9/11. “See, that’s a date that reminded us the world had changed significantly from what we thought the world was.” How dare reality contradict what George Bush thinks the world is! You can see why he’s so pissed off.


“I vowed that if you harbor a terrorist you’re equally as guilty as the terrorist. That’s a doctrine.”

Okay, this one is the transcriber’s fault, not Bush’s. Still: “it’s in our interest to spread an alternative ideology to their hatful ideology.” So that would be a hatless ideology.

IN OTHER WORDS: “And in the face of the violence -- in other words, there was reprisal...” “In sending more troops -- in other words, in sending troops in...” “Our troops are also training Iraqis. In other words, part of the effort is not only to provide security to neighborhoods, but we’re constantly training Iraqis so that they can do this job.”

A DOUBLE DOSE OF OTHER WORDS: “[At Fort Irwin] I tried to put this war into a historical context for them. In other words, I told them that they’re laying the foundation of peace. In other words, the work we’re doing today really will yield peace for a generation to come.”


He says of the“surge,” “I made the decisions after -- to reinforce. But I didn’t do it in a vacuum.” So you didn’t do it your own head. (Little-known fact: the space between George Bush’s ears is the most perfect vacuum known to science.)

Says if we let the bad guys win, “They would have been able to more likely recruit.” And “If we retreat -- were to retreat from Iraq, what’s interesting and different about this war is that the enemy would follow us here.” Interesting. And “If this scenario were to take place, 50 years from now people would look back and say, ‘What happened to those folks in the year 2007? How come they couldn’t see the danger of a Middle East spiraling out of control where extremists competed for power, but they shared an objective which was to harm the United States of America?’” Dear god, is he saying that if we lose in Iraq, 50 years from now everyone will speak just as badly as George Bush? “That’s what went through my mind as I made a difficult decision, but a necessary decision.” And it went through his mind quickly because of the lack of wind resistance. Most perfect vacuum known to science.

It worries me that I’ve read so many of these transcripts that I actually know what he means by this: “They understand that when we said we were going to send more troops in, you need to send more troops into Baghdad, that we expect them to, and they have.”

A clear need

The US military is putting a positive spin on the demonstrations in Najaf (which the BBC says involved hundreds of thousands and the Pentagon says was 5,000 to 7,000) marking the 4th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. Spokesmodel Rear Admiral Mark Fox said, “That is their right in the new Iraq. And, it’s only fair, however, to note that they exercise that right because coalition forces liberated them from a tyrannical, barbaric regime that would never have permitted such freedom of expression.” Oh, I think Saddam wouldn’t have objected too strongly to a protest against American occupation of Iraq. In Baghdad, the anniversary of the advent of freedom, liberty and democracy was celebrated with a curfew and a complete ban on motor vehicle traffic.

Today George Bush re-visited a section of the border with Mexico in Arizona which he visited last year, explaining, “We have come back to this spot because it’s where I was the last time.” At the end of the photo op he answered just one question:

Q What most impresses you, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: The hard work being done.


Later he gave a speech. “The Border Patrol is really an important agency. I know some people are wondering whether or not it makes sense to join the Border Patrol.” I will not leave you in suspense: he does in fact think it makes sense to join the Border Patrol.

He went to the border to promote immigration reform, pardon me, comprehensive immigration reform, the issue he thinks will restore his effectiveness as president. He said, “I hope by now the American people understand the need for comprehensive immigration reform is a clear need.” If they don’t understand that the need is a clear need doesn’t it pretty much by definition mean that the need is not a clear need?

Illegal immigration, he said, is a problem. It “puts pressure on public schools and the hospitals,” he said, and putting pressure on public schools and the hospitals is a job that Americans are actually willing to do (George is, anyway).


Furthermore, he continued, “It drains the state and local budgets. I was talking to the governor about how it strained the budgets.” Which is it George? Drains or strains? Or... ohmigod, could it be both?

The rest of this speech was the same old boiler plate, which drained and indeed strained my patience, so how ‘bout we just skip it and see what Laura was up to today?


Or maybe not.

I view that as a sign of progress

John McCain on 60 Minutes conceded that the majority in the US opposes the Iraq war but said, “I disagree with what the majority of the American people want.” He was not asked why, then, the majority of the American people would want to vote for him. I’d actually be interested to hear how he’d answer that one. He also acknowledged the heavy security for his trip to the market, but said, “I can tell you that if it had been two months ago and I’d asked to do it, they would have said, ‘Under no circumstances whatsoever.’ I view that as a sign of progress.” Or a sign that, given his call for never-ending war, they no longer care whether he lives or dies.

Wait a minute. Why does the “kevlar” in this vest smell exactly like Velveeta?

(I just spent two minutes trying to decide whether Velveeta was more or less comical than Cheez Whiz, and I’m still just not sure. This is another of those choices which confront the owner of a blog every single day. It is not for the faint of heart.)

We are living in a dying situation

Yesterday I heard what sounded like fireworks around here. Is this some sort of Easter thing I don’t know about? Are people booby-trapping Easter eggs? Because that would be awesome, I mean terrible.

Anyway, happy Sopranos Easter! Woke up from the dead this morning, got yourself a gun. Mama always said you’d be the Chosen One...

Bush and family went to church for Easter services at Fort Hood, where “I had a chance to reflect on the great sacrifice that our military and their families are making.” Yes, the soldiers died for your sins, George.



The father, son and holy spirit

The NYT reports “Hunger Strike Breaks Out at Guantánamo.” What they actually mean is that 1) a new outbreak of hunger striking began in December that they’re just finding out about now, 2) hunger striking has been continuous for several years now, but they haven’t reported on it in a while. Since prisoners now cannot communicate with each other, hunger striking seems (from the glimpses that make it past military censorship) to be less an organized resistance tactic than the product of despair and isolation-produced insanity. Said one hunger striker to his lawyer, “My wish is to die... We are living in a dying situation.”

Non-follow-up: there is still no news out of Iraq about those policemen arrested, released and possibly re-arrested for participating in massacres in Tal Afar. Or about the policemen who allegedly gang-raped that woman back in February.

Theatrics, why one of those sailors deserves £70,000, exuberance with the holy water, a dead rat in an old guy’s mouth, and of course John McCain

The US has called the accusations of Jalal Sharafi, a functionary in Iran’s embassy in Iraq who was kidnapped by people he claims were CIA and that they interrogated him with the, you know, torture and stuff, “theatrics.” Theatrics! “Hey, kids, let’s put on a show! Joe’s uncle has a barn we can use, and I can borrow a cattle prod from my dad...”

One of the purposes of the mission those 15 British sailors were on was indeed to spy on Iranian activities. Which the Iranians knew because British television had broadcast an interview with the crew in which one of the guys who was captured a few days later said as much. The 15 are being given permission (which is irregular for serving members of the military) to sell their stories to the tabloids. The Sunday Times notes that some of them will earn more than the compensation if they had, for example, lost an arm. One of them says that he wants at least £70,000, reasoning “I am worth it because I was one of only two who didn’t crack.”

The archbishop of Chicago has been hospitalized with a hip injury after slipping on some spilled holy water. I believe that’s what is called a negative job review. A spokeswoman for the archdiocese blamed the fall on “his exuberance with the holy water.”

So a lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a 90-year old man against an old persons’ home in Mission Viejo, California, asserting that it “so literally ignored the needs of their residents ... as to allow vermin in the form of a rat to become lodged in the mouth of Sigmund Bock and die therein”. You have to go to law school for years to be able to write a sentence like that. One of the points of contention is whether the trap that killed the rat used glue or poison (since they put it in the room of a demented man known to put things in his mouth). The spokesmodel for the company, Dr. Melody Chatelle, complained that the “negative publicity” about the dead rat in the 90-year old guy’s mouth was a “disheartening affront to our professional caregivers”. It turns out, when I googled her, that Dr. Chatelle is not a medical doctor but has a doctorate in communication studies, and doesn’t actually work for that nursing home, but rather runs a PR firm operating out of Texas which handles PR for these places all over the country. Further googling shows that Chatelle (who used to work in the Texas state legislature, which readers of Molly Ivins will not be surprised to hear) turns up to do spin control like this whenever a patient dies of infected bedsores in one of these facilities, or a patient with dementia wanders away, or a patient is allowed to die because they thought she had a DNR but didn’t, or is raped by a nurse’s assistant, etc etc.

I am now going to write about John McCain’s happy talk about Iraq, and at this point I’d normally try to insert a clever segue from the last item, but I can’t decide if McCain is analogous to 1) the person putting a positive spin on the facility where a demented 90-year old guy was found with a dead rat in his mouth, or 2) the demented 90-year old guy with the dead rat in his mouth, or 3) the dead rat in the demented guy’s mouth. When you have a blog, this is the sort of choice you are faced with every single day.

Anyhoo, McCain (who will appear on 60 Minutes tonight with footage of his trip to that Baghdad market), has an op-ed piece in the WaPo, about the wonderful progress in Iraq. He’s decided that the way to deal with the criticisms of and revelations about that trip is to ignore them. What else can he do? He can’t pretend that when he said that his little shopping excursion proved that everything is now much safer he was simply unaware of the fact that he was wearing body armor and guarded by a small army (complete with air cover). So, like Bush, he just blunders grimly forward. Here’s as close as he comes to reality: “Today the market still faces occasional sniper attacks, but it is safer than it used to be.” Maybe they can make that into a banner or something.

McCain laments that “most Americans are not aware [of progress] because much of the media are [sic, but at least he recognizes that “media” is plural] not reporting it or devote far more attention to car bombs and mortar attacks that reveal little about the strategic direction of the war.” Is “down the toilet” a strategic direction?

I recognize that Democrats are trying to show their current opposition to the war in Iraq

Bush’s weekly radio address segued with all the grace we’ve come to expect from the master of graceful segues from celebrating Easter and Passover (which “remind us of the presence of a loving God who delivers His people from oppression, and offers a love more powerful than death”) to celebrating the war and the people fighting it: “we give thanks for the many blessings in our lives. One of our greatest blessings as Americans is that we have brave citizens who step forward to defend us.” See how he did that?


So clearly, I mean clearly, the proper way for Congress to celebrate Passover and/or Easter is to give George all the money he wants to fight his little war. It’s what Jesus would want. “I recognize that Democrats are trying to show their current opposition to the war in Iraq.” See that little dig: “their current opposition.” “They see the emergency war spending bill as a chance to make that statement. Yet for our men and women in uniform, this emergency war spending bill is not a political statement, it is a source of critical funding that has a direct impact on their daily lives.” It’s a dessert topping, it’s a floor wax!

“We have our differences in Washington, D.C., but our troops should not be caught in the middle.” I think many of our troops would be happy to be caught in the middle between Democrats and Republicans in D.C. rather than caught in the middle between Shiites and Sunnis in Baghdad.

And he ends with a sincere plea to put partisan politics aside.


Mr. Fish

John McCain likes fishing, chocolate ice cream, pizza with pepperoni and onions, and self-delusion

Headline of the day, from the BBC: “Lost Frenchmen Ate Jungle Spiders.”

The latest email from the McCain McCampaign informs us of these “fun facts” about the Maverick: he is an avid fisherman, he likes chocolate ice cream and pizza with pepperoni and onions. Hold the anchovies and jungle spiders (which, by the way, the BBC informs us are “hairy.”)

It also quotes him on the “early progress in Iraq” (he means early in the “surge,” not stuff that happened in 2003): “You read every day about suicide bombings, kidnappings, rocket attacks and other terrible acts. What we don’t read about and what is new is a lot of the good news - the drop in the murders in Baghdad etc etc”. That’s not really good news so much as bad news, but somewhat less of it.

A great reluctance to engage in happy talk

Headline of the week, from the Press Association: “Slavery Shame of Easter Eggs.” However, don’t click on the link unless you want to feel depressed about eating chocolate, which will just make you want to eat more chocolate.

Moronic right-wing talk show question, Laura Ingraham interviewing Secretary of War Robert

Wednesday on the consequences of Congress cutting off funding:

SEC. GATES: Well, if there were a complete cut off of the funds, I mean, there’s no question that that would bring an end to the war. We would have to come home if there were no funds at all.

INGRAHAM: Would you even have money to come home at that point? I mean, coming home costs money. I mean, really.

SEC. GATES: Well, I think we’d find the money to bring them home...

Ingraham’s interrogation also extracted from him vital information on his barbeque preferences (pork ribs).

And in a press conference today Gates said that it will be impossible to make “any real evaluation” about the “surge” for several more months, and “there is a great reluctance to engage in ‘happy talk’ about this.”

Happy hour, on the other hand...

Bad behavior

In a true meeting of the repellant minds, Dick “Dick” Cheney was interviewed by Rush Limbaugh, who invited him to attack the Democrats about Iraq. Cheney laudably refrained from doing so for several long microseconds: “I’ve got some friends on the other side of the aisle, and I don’t want to question everybody’s motives -- I do believe that a significant portion of the Democrats, including, I think, Nancy Pelosi, are adamantly opposed to the war and prepared to pack it in and come home in defeat, rather than put in place or support a policy that will lead to victory.”

Support a policy. But what else must they support? It’s on the tip of my tongue... “You cannot pursue this fiction that some of them like to pursue, that they ‘support the troops,’ but they’re opposed to everything the troops are doing. That’s just a non-sensical statement.” Again, supporting the troops means everything they’re ordered to do. Anything else is just non-sensical. Also non-sensical: Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to mediate between Israel and Syria: “It was a non-statement, non-sensical statement and didn’t make any sense at all”.

You know, Cheney pretends to despise Nancy Pelosi, but he reveals his true feelings when he describes a visit from her as a reward: “She’s not entitled to make policy. In this particular case, by going to Damascus at this stage, it serves to reinforce, if you will, and reward Bashir Assad for his bad behavior. ... This is a bad actor, and until he changes his behavior, he should not be rewarded with visits by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.” He just seethes with jealousy. Nancy never rewards him with a visit. “I’m obviously disappointed. I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part.”

I leave it as an exercise for the reader whether Cheney thinks Assad’s “bad behavior” is worse than Pelosi’s “bad behavior.”

[P.S. Incidentally, when I originally wrote this, I left out, from a perhaps misplaced sense of fairness, every instance where Limbaugh said repugnant things (the D’s are devoted to the concept or American defeat, the Senate Judiciary Committee is Stalinist for objecting to the illegal recess appointment of Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium, etc), and Cheney merely expressed his complete agreement.]

I’ve been waiting all day to say, Hoo-ah!

Some of our brave troops made the ultimate sacrifice today: listening to a speech by George Bush. They listened to him over there (in Fort Irwin, California) so that you don’t have to listen to him here.

He opened his remarks thus: “I’ve been waiting all day to say, Hoo-ah!” What a rich, full, rewarding life he leads.


He thanked the troops for joining the army, which evidently people don’t do in other countries: “Ours is a remarkable country when people volunteer to serve our country in a time of war.”

He thanked the families of the troops who joined the army: “I understand that when a loved one is deployed, it creates anxiety.” Actually, now that I read that sentence again, it sounds kind of dirty. “You’re an integral part of making sure this volunteer army is as successful as it is today.” Dude, you’re blaming them for that?


He says that on 9/11 “my attitude about the world changed that day”. Really? Wasn’t his attitude about the world pretty much always that it revolves around him? “Like many Americans, we struggle with understanding with what this attack meant.” Duuur, big buildings fall down boom. “See, what changed on September the 11th is oceans can no longer protect the people in the United States from harm.” I think the Indian Ocean just hasn’t been pulling its weight. Stoopid Indian Ocean.


Oh, let’s just skim quickly through the rest of the speech: “make no mistake about it, these extremists believe things -- for example, they don’t believe you can worship freely; they don’t believe you should speak your mind; they don’t believe in dissent; they don’t believe in human rights.” I don’t think you need me to MST3K that sentence for you.


If we pull out of Iraq, “The enemy that had done us harm would be embolden.”

On Iraq: “it’s not a civil war; it is pure evil.” He’s not the messiah; he’s a very naughty boy.

On Congress: “Then, instead of sending an acceptable bill to my desk, they went on spring break.” And didn’t invite him. DIDN’T INVITE HIM!

“The enemy does not measure the conflict in Iraq in terms of timetables.” They probably use the metric system, those bastards! Stoopid metric system.

At Fort Irwin, they let him play with the bomb detonation robot,


and they let him play with a surveillance aircraft,


but all he really wanted to do was rub that big old bald head.

Meet the loser lesser Republican candidates

Thomas “Tommy” Thompson announced his candidacy this weekend. To be president. Just thought I’d mention it because, well, someone has to. TomTom says that he is the “reliable conservative” candidate, as opposed to a wild and wacky conservative, and predicts that he will win the Iowa caucus because “I’ve been in Iowa every single week since the first week in December.” John McCain spent five years in a Vietnamese prison camp, and even he’s not willing to do that. Also, McCain has a job that he occasionally shows up to, and TommyTom is unemployed, which brings up the question: if you have to put that much work into winning the Iowa caucus (not that he will), does it still count? Also, shouldn’t he be saying that Iowans will vote for him because they like his policy positions, not just because he spent a lot of time in their state?


Nativist swine Tom “Please ignore the vowel at the end of my name” Tancredo also announced. “The melting pot is cracked, and our Founding ideals are leaking through,” he said, instantly proving his unfitness for political life, because if there is one person who should not be using the words “cracked” and “pot” in close proximity to each other...

Bush press conference: cauldron of chaos

This morning Bush castigated the “Democrat leaders” for being “more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq,” and suggested sending the troops to fight political battles in Washington and the Democrat leaders to Iraq. Okay he didn’t, but you know he was thinking it.

(Fun with perspective, from Reuters photographer Larry Downing)

He went on: “If Democrat leaders in Congress are bent on making a political statement, then they need to send me this unacceptable bill as quickly as possible when they come back. I’ll veto it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without delay... and we go about our business of winning this war.” See what he’s doing here? He’s suggesting that the Democrat leaders are acting childish and he’s the mature, responsible one.

He repeated the assertion, previously made by others, that Nancy Pelosi is sending “mixed signals” in Syria: “photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they’re part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they’re a state sponsor of terror”. I always get those two confused myself.

Continuing about Assad, Bush lets loose with an “in other words”: “There have been a lot of people who have gone to see President Assad -- some Americans, but a lot of European leaders and high-ranking officials. And yet we haven’t seen action. In other words, he hasn’t responded.”

And another, about former aide Matthew Dowd’s criticism of his policies: “Matthew’s case, as I understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words, he’s got a son in the U.S. Armed Forces”.

And another: “Again, Plante mentioned that people don’t think we can succeed -- in other words, there’s no chance of succeeding.” There were 5 more “in other words”’s during the press conference.


Things that would happen if we withdrew from Iraq: “watching the country go up in flames,” “Iraq becomes a cauldron of chaos which will embolden extremists, whether they be Shia or Sunni extremists; which would enable extremists to have safe haven from which to plot attacks on America.” So they’d be emboldened by the cauldron of chaos, and they’d have safe haven in the cauldron of chaos.

Ken Herman of Cox asks him if he knows the current price of gas. $2.60, he says. Herman asks where he’s shopping.

Asked if the, how you say, Democrat leaders aren’t simply doing what they were elected to do in November, Bush interprets: “I think the voters in America want Congress to support our troops who are in harm’s way. They want money to the troops.”

You know, I hear people equate supporting this war with “supporting our troops” twenty times a day, but every so often it just pisses me off all over again.

Asked about Peter Pace and the gays (sounds like a bedtime story) (which I suppose, in a way...): “I will not be rendering judgment about individual orientation. I do believe the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is good policy.”

In case you were wondering why we have a Department of Homeland Security: “We do everything we can here at the homeland to protect us. That’s why I’ve got a Homeland Security Department.”

That’s also why we have an Iraq, there in the, you know, uncivilized world: “Iraq is a very important part of securing the homeland, and it’s a very important part of helping change the Middle East into a part of the world that will not serve as a threat to the civilized world, to people like -- or to the developed world, to people like -- in the United States.”

(More fun with perspective, from AP photog Gerald Herbert)

No one asked him about the naked chocolate Jesus, which was disappointing.

And no one asked him about “comfort women,” a subject he evidently discussed today with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has denied that women were forced into brothels for Japanese soldiers. Bush evidently told Abe that he appreciated his “candor” and that Japan today is not the Japan of World War II.