Another story about the long-term effects of war on individual lives: in Britain, a 93-year old has finally won a pardon for her father, Priv. Harry Farr, a shell-shock victim executed during World War I for “cowardice” after a 20-minute trial. The daughter was 7 days old when her father was sent to the front, 2 when he was killed; she and her mother were evicted because they received no pension, and she wasn’t told the manner of his death until she was 40.
You know how you avoid generational effects of war? Child soldiers, at least if you kill them before puberty. A spokesmodel for Sri Lanka’s military says it was legitimate that a bombing raid yesterday killed children because they were conscripted (i.e., kidnapped) Tamil Tiger child-soldiers. “If the children are terrorists, what can we do?” asked Brig. Athula Jayawardana. What indeed.
Germany will send troops to the Lebanese-Israeli border. Um, right.
John Spencer, the Republican sacrifice to the unstoppable killing machine that is Hillary Rodham Clinton, has an ad out: “Islamic facists [sic] still hate us....”, Hillary would “leave us vulnerable...”, but Spencer “won’t play politics with our security.” I suspect there will be a lot more of this sort of not playing of politics.
Adblock
Adblock
Adblock
Adblock
Adblock
An ape park in the Netherlands is setting up webcams so its orangutangs (or as George Allen, who is familiar with Krusty’s “comical K sounds,” calls them, “makakas”) can communicate with, and possibly pick out potential mates from, residents in an orangutang center in Borneo. These long-distance relationships never work out.
George Walker Bush, who has already displayed a new-found sophistication by reading one of the, well, shortest works of European literature, astonished and delighted the staff of the National Counterterrorism Center when he burst into song during a visit today.
Best headlines of the day, a tie: “Federal Government Takes Control of a Huge Cross” (WaPo), and “Frozen Sperm ‘Could Bring Mammoths Back to Life’” (Daily Telegraph).
Speaking of headlines, the BBC currently has two: “Dell Recalls 4m Laptop Batteries” and “US Recalls 300 Soldiers to Iraq.” What do these recalls have in common? They both tend to blow up.
I’m going to hell for that one.
I mean I am so going to hell for that one.
Speaking of going to hell, those 300 soldiers had just finished a one-year tour and were literally en route home when they were turned around and told they were serving another 4 months (in Baghdad, yet). Another 301 who made it all the way home to Alaska now have to go back. This is no way to run a war.
Syrian President Assad says that Hezbollah’s, um, victory, has resulted in a “new Middle East.” There’s something he agrees with Condi about: the “old” Middle East was crap.
After the Danish cartoon crisis, Iran threatened to have a competition for cartoons about the Holocaust.
Pardon me, about the Holocust. I’ve noted before that the language of choice for Iranian anti-Semitism is English.
And now they have held the competition, staged by the Iran Cartoon Association, which is a hell of a concept in and of itself (update: it has a website. It doesn’t seem to have the cartoons, though there is a better image of the poster.) Most of the pictures I’ve seen are too small to make out, although I saw Hitler dressed as Uncle Sam (or I suppose arguably, the other way around),
and the Statue of Liberty with a book on the Holocaust, giving a Nazi salute (sort of a mixed message, really). Said one 23-year old attendee, “I came to learn more about the roots of the Holocaust and the basis of Israel’s emergence.” Doesn’t this tell you everything you need to know?
Bush says “We live in troubled times, but I’m confident in our capacity to not only protect the homeland, but I’m confident in our capacity to leave behind a better world.” Leave behind? Are we (gulp) going somewhere?
The Pentagon website has an example of damage-control entitled “Pace Focuses on Human Dimension of Iraq War.” What that means is that the alliterative Peter Pace was confronted in Iraq by a lieutenant who had lost two men to an IED and who told him, “I have no doubt, that if they were in an RG-31 [armored vehicle], they would still be alive today.” Especially if the RG-31 wasn’t in Iraq. So Pace found a tame interviewer, so he could talk about how he knows the cost of battle because he was in Vietnam blah blah blah, never forget the names blah blah, “Lance Corporal Guido Farinaro, then I lost Lance Corporal Chubby Hale.” Yeah, focus on that human dimension, Petey.
Chubby Hale?
After meetings at the State Dept and the Pentagon, Bush had a press conference, in which he described Lebanon as one of the “fronts of the global war on terror.” He says that Hezbollah is completely responsible for all the suffering in Lebanon and Israel, as people will understand when they “take a look-see, take a step back, and realize how this started.” In a month of violence, he was still found nothing done by Israel worthy of criticism.
But, as ever, there was something he found “interesting”:
What’s really interesting is a mind-set -- is the mind-sets of this crisis. Israel, when they aimed at a target and killed innocent citizens, were upset. Their society was aggrieved. When Hezbollah’s rockets killed innocent Israelis they celebrated. I think when people really take a look at the type of mentality that celebrates the loss of innocent life, they’ll reject that type of mentality.
Other bloggers have also been considering the possible meaning of Bush’s adoption of the vocabulary of fascism and totalitarianism to describe insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Hezbollah. Juan Cole has, and I’ve seen talk on a couple of linguistics sites, and most recently this discussion on Daily Kos. No one, including me, seems very certain, which is no doubt the idea: Bush doesn’t use language to make a subject clearer, now does he? More simplistic, but not better understood. We know from Peter Galbraith’s book that as late as 2002 Bush didn’t know that there were Shiites and Sunnis. The fascist/totalitarian vocabulary lets him forget it all over again, not just so he can conflate Sunni Al Qaida and Shiite Hezbollah, as MarkC suggests at Kos, but so that no one will notice that the Bushies are using exactly the same “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here / these are the guys responsible for 9/11” rhetoric about Iraq despite the fact that they’re now principally concerned with Shiite militias rather than Sunni “rejectionists.”
A couple of months ago I noted that Bush kept alternating, sometimes in the same week, between saying that the enemy “has a philosophy” and saying they have no philosophy. At least he’s finally made a decision; fascism counts as a political philosophy, doesn’t it?
Al Kamen answers the question how government employees, in this case Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor Karen Czarnecki, can legally appear as a Republican strategist on tv (for pay on PBS, which means the taxpayers are giving her two paychecks), given the Hatch Act: well, she is never identified as a government employee, or as a Republican, only as a “conservative strategist/analyst,” which means that in the case of Czarnecki, Fox and PBS are forced to inaccurately identify one of their talking heads. Also, she takes an official leave of absence – for a few hours. Somehow I don’t think that’s what the law intended.
The White House denies the Seymour Hersh report that the US collaborated with Israel in planning the war on Lebanon. Tony Insert-Snow-Related-Pun-Here scoffed, “The piece abounds in fictions.” Say what you will about Tony Insert-Snow-Related-Pun-Here, but neither Ari nor Scottie would have used the phrase “abounds in fictions.”
Turkmenistan’s President-for-life Niyazov had a melon named in his honor today to celebrate national Melon Day. According to the AFP, “The Turkmenbashi melon is said to be very big and tasty.” Niyazov sez: “All Turkmens celebrate this holiday. The Turkmen melon is the source of our pride, its taste has no equals in the world, the smell makes your head spin.”
Iranian President Ahmadinejad has started a blog (that link’s for the English version). So far it’s just got an autobiography of the great leader, some photos of the great leader, some Battlestar Galactica fanfic, and a poll: “Do you think that the US and Israeli intention and goal by attacking Lebanon is pulling the trigger for another word [sic?] war?”
According to Seymour Hersh, the Israelis got their green light from Washington (they went to Cheney first) for a massive bombing campaign in Lebanon, targeting infrastructure, in advance, to start “in response” to whatever the next Hezbollah action was. Cheney and others view it as a test-run for their very similar contingency plans for how to conduct war against Iran, mostly through air strikes. Which gives Ahmadinejad the answer to his poll question. When Iran sees the Israeli attack on Lebanon as an Israeli-American proxy war on Iran, it is merely seeing it the same way the Americans and Israelis do.
The alliterative Peter Pace again says of the various atrocities committed by American troops in Iraq, “It’s not who we are as a nation; it’s not who we are as an armed force.” Says we’ve sent “between 1 million and 1.5 million Americans” to the Gulf (shouldn’t the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs know how many troops he’s deployed with just a little more accuracy than plus or minus 500,000?), and only “A small fraction of them have done things that we know for sure were wrong.” Pace says atrocities are “unacceptable,” and says that because most of them (except the Haditha massacre) were reported through the chain of command, the system... wait for it... works.
Pace adds that any failure in Iraq is not his fault: “The problem is not so much how much combat power you have in a country, it’s more how is the governance going. How are the people doing? What is getting better about their economic situation, what is getting better about their trust for each other? What is getting better about the education system and roads and the like? What gives them hope for a better future? This drives you to the understanding that to have a better future, you need to stop killing one another.”
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the alliterative Peter Pace, says, twice, that “if we were to come home, the war would simply follow us home.” Well, maybe it would go away again if you just didn’t feed it.
Bush in his weekly radio address claims that the rather nebulous alleged terrorist plot (RNATP) “is further evidence that the terrorists we face are sophisticated”. Yup, blowing up planes is the height of sophistication. He is deeply disappointed that “some have suggested recently that the terrorist threat is being used for partisan political advantage.” I don’t know who this Sum guy is, but why does he always say those things about our leaders? And what sort of a furrin name is Sum, anyway?
He goes on, “We can have legitimate disagreements about the best way to fight the terrorists, yet there should be no disagreement about the dangers we face.” What a guy, he’ll allow you disagreements, as long as you confine yourself to legitimate disagreements and allow him to define all the facts. In his world, of course, there are no real opinions, there are only facts; everything else follows from those facts. There are facts on the ground in Iraq which will determine, like a mathematical formula, the correct number of American troops. There are facts like the existence of terrorists, of which we have just had a “stark reminder,” but which Sum “forgets.” Or worse, Sum denies the fact that we are at war; Bush “respectfully disagrees.” Bush’s speeches are filled with the facts that he “understands” or “realizes” and which he “reminds” people of, rather than trying to persuade them.
He repeated the line that the US is safer than it was before 9/11, which seems to be giving hostages to fortune and which will run endlessly (except on Fox) if there is another terrorist attack. Did he learn nothing from “Mission Accomplished”?
For better or worse, Bush has largely kept out of the Middle East crisis, speaking to Olmert once (Olmert called him) and Siniora twice over the last month, once this morning. Here’s the photo the White House released of that phone call.
“Hey Fouad, guess what I’m wearing. What’re you wearing?”
The Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesmodel, explaining why Olmert ordered the offensive to begin, while recommending that his cabinet approve the UN ceasefire resolution: “if you hand over to the Lebanese army a cleaner south Lebanon, a south Lebanon where you have Hezbollah removed from the territory, that makes their troubles a lot easier”. See, they’re like house-guests, cleaning up after themselves. Do you suppose “a cleaner south Lebanon” sounded better in the original German Hebrew?
Maybe I should take a vacation and read French novels too: I can’t think of anything to say about the unlikely news that George Bush is reading Camus’s L’Étranger (by the way, the linked AFP story gets the year of the novel wrong and notes that Bush quoted Camus once in a speech while neglecting to mention that he took the quote completely out of context). I think at the next press conference the reporters should only ask questions about the book.
Holding a contest over the weekend is usually a losing proposition, but I’ll give you a choice: 1) what French novel should Bush read next? 2) Let’s assume it was a mistake: when he picked up the book, what did Bush think The Stranger was, or who did he think Camus was?
Some Muslims have expressed displeasure at Bush’s use of the term “Islamic fascists,” arguing that there can be no Islamic fascism because Islam is antithetical to fascism. And also that Bush doesn’t pronounce his sibilants well, and “fascists” has two of them. Bush started using “Islamic fascists” just a couple of weeks ago, I believe (update: a search of the White House website shows single usages on May 25 and June 14). Originally it was Islamo-fascism, which to me sounds more obnoxious and yet a little bit comical at the same time, that “o” giving it a touch of buffoonery (see also: Defeat-ocrats, David O. Selznik). It took him some months to move from a “Some call this evil Islamic radicalism, others, militant Jihadism, still others, Islamo-fascism” formulation last October to adopting the term without qualifiers by March. He’s also taken recently to describing their ideology as “totalitarian.” I always get a little nervous when I try to discern meaning in these shifts of terminology, given that Bush probably can’t define the words he’s using. Or spell them. These words define the enemy by their goals and philosophy (i.e., telling other Muslims to grow beards and not fly kites) rather than methods (i.e., terrorism), perhaps recognizing that most Americans no longer see much linkage between the war in Iraq and protecting Americans from 9/11-type terrorism.
One of the reasons I started blogging was to clarify my own thinking through the act of writing. Didn’t really work in the previous paragraph. Anyone else have any ideas, or is it just better for the sake of all our sanities not to pay too close attention to the words that come out of George’s chimp-like mouth?
Günter Grass was in the Waffen-SS! What would Oskar Matzerath have said?
For your captioning pleasure, a picture from yesterday’s preznidential tour of Metal-Tech in Wisconsin:
I dunno. On the White House website I see the phrase “President’s Statement on Kleptocracy,” naturally I have to click on it, but it’s not the pure comedy gold I was hoping for. “Today, I am announcing a new element in my Administration’s plan to fight kleptocracy, The National Strategy to Internationalize Efforts against Kleptocracy”. More chuckle-funny than laugh-out-loud funny.
Bush also made a statement about the rather nebulous alleged terrorist plot (RNATP) to do something or other with airplanes, which for some reason requires mothers to drink their own breast-milk, which sounds like the sort of thing you could sell videos of to a niche market of perverts (and if any of you sets up that business now, I want my share) (of money, not breast milk). I seem to have lost my train of thought. Oh yes, Bush made his statement at the Austin Straubel International Airport in Green Bay, Wisconsin, standing in front of his own personal airplane, which he can board without being strip-searched, taking off his shoes, or drinking breast-milk, unless of course he wants to.
He said that this RNATP is “a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom”. So he’s safe. He thanks Tony Blair and British officials for “their good work in busting this plot.” Busting this plot? Has he been watching Starsky & Hutch reruns again?
As expected, the number one Republican talking point the day after the CT primary is that it just shows that the D’s are soft on terror. My cat received an email from Ken Mehlman with the charming and so very clever subject line “Weak and Wrong: Today’s Defeat-ocrats.” Do you suppose they focus-grouped “Defeat-ocrats”? I wonder what the runners-up were like. And Cheney was wheeled out to speak about the sad decline of the D’s from their glory days when Lieberman was their choice (as opposed to Al Gore’s) for veep, and how this just made America look weak in the eyes of “Al Qaida types.” Mehlman and Cheney both say that Holy Joe was “purged” from the party, as if by a politburo. However, Holy Joe was not purged by a politburo but by CT’s registered Democrats at the ballot box, which is how such things are done in a democracy. R’s pushing this line should be asked just who it is they are accusing of softness and “pre-9/11 thinking,” Ned Lamont, or the citizens of Connecticut.
Cheney, by the way, accused D’s of wanting to “retreat behind our oceans”. Behind? Of course with the Cheney energy policy, global warming may well mean that those of us on the coasts will be not so much behind but under our oceans.
Speaking of lack of respect for the voters, the opposition in Venezuela decided to call off its presidential primary, 7 candidates agreeing to step down in favor of Manuel Rosales, a state governor. Can’t say I know anything about him yet.
What I like about YouTube: within a minute after seeing a character in a series on BBC America mentioning “Laurel and Hardy dancing in front of the saloon,” an old favorite scene of mine, I was watching it on my computer. And now you can too.
I can remember when the British political scandal was a thing of beauty, with fascinating salacious details. Headline from the Indy: “Lib Dem Leader Admits He Uses Wasteful Lightbulbs.”
This next paragraph is a bit of pedantry, and I write it really only for myself: this past Sunday NYT’s Week in Review section has a correction to an article on the history of hunger strikes in the previous Sunday’s Week in Review. 1) The correction is closer to the truth, but still wrong. 2) There were at least 3 other mistakes in the (short) article. 3) Don’t get me started on the quality of their delivery service lately.
So let’s move on to their story about Lamont’s victory, which says his “candidacy... soared from nowhere on a fierce antiwar message”. First, “soared from nowhere” is just crap writing. Second – and yes, I didn’t switch from my pedantic mode after the last paragraph; it’s never a good sign when I start numbering my points – the place where people are tired of the war or never approved of it in the first place or don’t trust George Bush’s handling of it, is not “nowhere,” it’s not the Twilight Zone, as spooky as the Times might find it, it’s America. If Lamont’s win seemed to you to come out of nowhere, you just weren’t paying attention.
Lieberman, in his post-defeat speech, henceforth to be known as the “Sore Loserman Speech,” called his side, the losing side, Team Connecticut, which is just kind of sad and pathetic, really. He accused Lamont of running a campaign of “partisan polarizing,” which is a telling phrase, because this was a primary election and so any polarizing was intra-partisan, unless Lieberman is admitting that he’s been a Republican all this time. (Update: Billmon caught that too.) Sez His Holy-Joe-ness, “For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot, I will not let this result stand.” Suggesting that the election results are a danger of some sort to the state, the country and his (former) party, implying that they are not legitimate, is just an insult to the citizens of Connecticut and to democracy itself.
A WaPo article on Tom DeLay’s difficulties getting off the ballot in Texas mentions something I hadn’t thought about: the new touch screen polling machines make write-in campaigns very difficult.
In May, the American ambassador to Armenia was fired, probably for the crime of referring to the Armenian genocide of 1915 as a genocide. Some senators are holding up, or will vote against, the next nominee, Richard Hoagland, because he refuses to use the word.
Far worse than the comfy chair: something or someone, possibly the Mystical Lords of Irony, has crashed Joe Lieberman’s website, which currently reads: “This account is under construction. Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you.” Joe is pointing fingers.
See? See how he points fingers? He suspects the worst, a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. That’s DoS, which rhymes with Kos, which stands for Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, True Tsar of All the Internets.
By the way, a word to both Lieberman and Lamont: Go home. This is election day and candidates are not supposed to campaign on election day. It’s bad electoral etiquette.
Forgot to link to George Monbiot’s excellent summary of Israeli-Lebanese relations over the last few years, which should, but won’t, put to rest the claim that everything bad in the Middle East began less than 4 weeks ago with an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah.
More testimony today about the... unpleasantness... in Mahmudiya. Honestly, I don’t know what to call it. There was a gang-rape, it was of a 14-year old, they burned her body, killed her and her family. There’s not really a word that sums all that up. Speaking of summing up, let’s look at the headlines. The Guardian headline to an AP story focuses on the preliminaries: “Soldiers ‘Hit Golf Balls Before Going out to Kill Family.’” Other headlines mention whisky (mixed with an energy drink) and gin rummy. The Daily Telegraph focuses on the after-party: “Troops Ate Chicken Wings after ‘Killing Rape Girl, 14.’” The BBC notes that the “Troops ‘Took Turns’ to Rape Iraqi,” CNN that “U.S. Soldier Poured Kerosene on Raped, Slain Iraqi.” So many ugly, ugly details to focus on. May I stop focusing on them now? Please?
Bush & Condi had a press conference this morning. Possibly because he was standing next to Condi, Bush was very much in his faux-Thomas Jefferson mode
– you all got that was a Sally Hemings reference, right? – talking about creating democracies in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Cuba, and using the exact same narrative and the same vocabulary for each. Reading Bush’s speeches and press conferences reminds me of the old joke where someone is reading Romeo and Juliet and exclaims, “Why it’s just like West Side Story.”
When you’re a Hez, you’re a Hez all the way.
His latest grandiose phrase is that it’s the “great challenge of the 21st century” to protect fledgling democracies against the onslaught of the terrorists.
The contradiction there, which he is blind to, is that self-determination in those countries is undercut at every turn by his own ham-handed efforts to run the world. The past couple of days Bush & his various underlings have been repeatedly asked about the Lebanese government’s utter rejection of the big smelly turd that is the proposed UN Security Council resolution, and have always sidestepped it. Bush usually goes off on a tangent about supporting democracy in Lebanon blah blah blah, with the implication that they should be grateful and keep their little quibbles to themselves. The message is that Lebanon should be a democracy, but the world is very much not one, it is the personal fiefdom of George W. Bush. He proclaimed that “The people on the island of Cuba ought to decide... their form of government” and “The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box,” but I forget, who was it he said was The Decider in this country?
Hezbollah rockets killed a record number of Israelis today, 15, of whom 3 were civilians. So Israel is going to bomb Lebanese infrastructure (which Ha’aretz claims it hasn’t done up until now, except for Beirut’s airport, evidently forgetting about all the roads and bridges) and, just to be obnoxious, “symbols of the Lebanese government.” All the talk about being at war with Hezbollah but not the Lebanese people? Always purest bullshit, of course, but now they’re explicitly making war on the Lebanese people. Someone on the IDF General Staff said to Ha’aretz, “It could be that at the end of the story, Lebanon will be dark for a few years.”
Yesterday I commented about the use of the term “offensive military actions” in the draft UN resolution. Today Stephen Hadley was asked about that very thing, and said that Israeli air strikes and ground operations are indeed offensive military actions, but Israel wants the phrase removed from the draft altogether because it claims, as I said, that it is only defending itself.
Sgt. Milton Ortiz, Jr. of the Penn. National Guard plead guilty to obstructing justice by planting an AK-47 near an unarmed Iraqi, Gani Ahmed Zaben, killed by his buddy in Ramadi in February because he was believed to be walking in a “tactical” manner and carrying a gun, which he wasn’t. Charges were dropped against the shooter last month. Ortiz also faced a separate charge of beating up another Iraqi. He was reduced in rank. Not even discharged from the military.
The US is pressing forward on getting a UN Security Council vote, because if there’s one thing that’s influential in the Middle East, it’s a UN Security Council resolution. But while the US and Israel keep talking about the need for the Lebanese government to displace Hezbollah from what they like to call a power vacuum (how can it be a vacuum when Hezbollah is there? In the vacuum of space, no one can hear you scream “Death to Israel”), they’re treating the rejection of their resolution by the Lebanese government as irrelevant. Condi said today that they may not like it now, but “I suspect that after this resolution is passed that you will see an understanding on the part of both parties that the time to have an abatement in this violence is now.” She’s a great one for telling people that it’s “time for” this or that.
And what a busy Condi she was today, appearing on ABC and NBC, and holding a press conference. I’ll take them together.
When did “that’s a hypothetical question” become an acceptable reason not to answer it? Lieberman refused to answer a question about running as an independent on that ground, and Condi refused to talk about the possibility of civil war in Iraq: “I’m not going to deal with a hypothetical.” Yes, heaven forbid we plan for stuff before it happens; worked so well for us in Iraq up until now. She did, however, say that “The Iraqi people and the Iraqi government have not made a choice for civil war.” Did Bosnia hold a referendum first, “Civil war: yea or nay”? Or any other country? Imagine what the campaign ads would be like. I mean I’ve heard of attack ads... Condi admitted that sectarian violence is at its height, but she offered a helpful solution: “The Iraqis need to get a handle on that.” Yeah, they should really get to work on that.
After all the talk about how a ceasefire only made sense if it were lasting, enduring, permanent, stable, eternal, etc., she does rather seem to be trying to lower expectations, saying “these things take a while to wind down” and “there could be skirmishes of some kind for some time to come.” However, “The violence that we are all seeing every day on our screens has simply got to stop” – oh, won’t someone think of the real victims in this: Americans watching CNN – “so that the Lebanese people have an opportunity to begin to return to a normal life.” Under Israeli military occupation, living as refugees amidst piles of rubble, without food, shelter or electricity. Normal for Lebanon, I suppose.
And while at times she treated the UN resolution as a magical incantation, at others she downplayed it. She called it a “first step” 3 times on NBC, 5 times on ABC, and 7 times in the press conference, including, “a good first step,” “a very good first step,” “the best first step,” “the right first step.” Beyond moving in international forces, she was a little unclear about what the second step would be, but that’s probably one of those – how you say? – hypothetical questions.
Her other favorite phrase, all this week, has been “status quo ante,” (5 times on ABC, 6 times on NBC, 4 times in the press conference) the thing to which we cannot return.
Replying to a question from Russert about the rise in support for Hezbollah in Lebanon in reaction to the invasion, she said, “Well, first of all, it is quite understandable that there is a lot of emotion in Lebanon about what is going on there.” Oh, thank you for being so very understanding.
Today’s WaPo Style Invitational contest is pretty good. Compare or contrast two words that differ by one letter:
Osama and Osaka: Given five years, the CIA might find Osaka.
Whores and chores: My wife has never given me a list of whores to do on my day off.
The difference between global warming and global arming is W; actually, that's also what they have in common.
Bush and bust: The difference between a president and his presidency.
Bush and blush: One of them demonstrates self-consciousness and the capacity for embarrassment.
Fast supper and Last Supper: One involves a happy meal.
A late entry was provided today by tiny anchor George Stephanopoulos, who asked Joe Lieberman about the perception that he was “too willing to buck your own party.”
Holy Joe insisted that Lamont is actually a center-right Democrat disguising himself as a liberal, adding “You don’t really know this other guy,” the cry of every incumbent who the voters know all too well.
Actually, though, Joementum seems worried that voters might think he’s someone else, asserting, without offering any evidence, “I ain’t George Bush.” Speaking ungrammatically ain’t going to bolster that case. If he ain’t George Bush, who does he claim he is? Not Joe Lieberman, of course, because no one wants to vote for that guy. No, like every other losing candidate for the last 50 years, he’s Harry Truman. Who he says won in 1948 because the “regular people” turned out to vote. I suppose it’s too late for the Lamont people to put out “Another irregular person for Ned Lamont” bumper stickers.
