We killed people back, and that’s the story

Hillary Clinton says that when she’s president, Bill will be a roaming ambassador. I’ll bet he will, I’ll bet he will.

What, too obvious? Then we’ll just skip “Nigerian Elections Marred by Fraud.” (Except to note that the governor of Bayelsa State, a vice presidential candidate, is named Goodluck Jonathan. Not surprisingly, he just escaped an assassination attempt.) (Let me rephrase that: Jonathan is the next vice president; to call him a candidate implies that there is a possibility of the ruling party failing to “win” the elections.)

The WaPo reports that when Gen. Petraeus, M.M., gets depressed, he likes to go out in a helicopter searching for signs of progress down below. “‘He’s actually watering the grass!’ Petraeus said with a laugh, peering down at a man tending a soccer field, with children playing nearby. ... Directing the pilot to ‘break left’ or ‘roll out,’ he scanned the landscape for even tiny improvements -- a pile of picked-up trash, an Iraqi police car out on patrol, a short line at one gas station -- as if gathering mental ammunition for the next wave of Baghdad carnage. An amusement park, its rides lit up, merited a full circle.” Says Petraeus of these taxpayer-funded jaunts, “You see some police stations and you see people just sort of driving on, people getting on with their lives, and it sort of reassures you. ‘Hey, these people are survivors.’”

In an article on the leaked report on the Haditha massacre, from which there were no survivors, the NYT quotes spokesmodel Capt. Jeffrey Pool defending his decision to claim that the Iraqi civilians were killed by a roadside bomb despite knowing from the start that that was a lie (months later he tried to dissuade Time magazine from reporting on the incident, calling stories of a massacre Al Qaida propaganda): “The way I saw it was this: A bomb blast went off, or was initiated, that is what started, that is the reason they’re getting this, is a bomb blew up, killed people. We killed people back, and that’s the story.” The NYT notes that Pool has been promoted and is in charge of PR for Anbar province (and indeed, there he is in another story , informing us that the assassination of the fourth straight chair of the Fallujah City Council was “designed to cause fear and to intimidate the populace to cow them into submission.” He was for causing fear and intimidating the populace to cow them into submission before he was against it.

Speaking of causing fear and intimidating etcetera, a WaPo article about American military operations in Diyala tells of a 3 a.m. raid on a house, “expecting to find a half-dozen al-Qaeda in Iraq members in a meeting.”

Instead they found a crying mother and her terrified 13-year-old boy.

“Tell him, since he’s the oldest one in the house, he’s the man of the house, he needs to man-up and stop hiding behind his mother,” 1st Lt. Christopher Nogle, 23, of Orlando, instructed his interpreter.

The boy covered his face and sobbed. It was 3 in the morning. He said he didn’t know where his father had gone.

“Does he love his father?” Nogle asked. “Does he want to see him again?”

The small barefoot boy shook with fear and said nothing.

“Ask him where his father hides his weapons,” Nogle demanded.

“I swear to God I don’t know,” the boy said.

“He is not a man, he is scared,” said his mother, who was also wailing.

“He needs to quit crying. He’s responsible for everybody in here right now since his father left; his father abandoned everybody else,” Nogle told the boy through his interpreter. “Tell him when his father comes back later tonight or tomorrow that he needs to have a talk with his father, that his father is doing very bad things and it’s getting the whole family in trouble.”

Before the soldiers left, an Iraqi police officer brandished two large buck knives in front of the boy’s face. Nobody was arrested.

Shocking ourselves with the predictable

Anyone else notice Dick “Shot a Guy in the Face” Cheney has been invisible this week? He could certainly offer an interesting perspective on the Virginia Tech shootings.

It’s been noted that the only restriction on Seung Hui Cho in Virginia was that without a license he could only buy a single solitary gun a month. Does anyone remember how that law was finally enacted? Virginia was embarrassed into it after a Batman comic book showed Gotham City gang members driving down to VA to exchange drugs for guns.

The Guardian’s Gary Younge makes a point I also made the Virginia Tech shootings, but more eloquently: “America’s innocence is one of its few eternally renewable resources. Its ability to shock itself with the predictable is itself predictable.”

The WaPo’s Michael Fletcher, writing about Bush’s speech yesterday, notes that Bush quoted “an unnamed Middle East scholar” who said that the mood in Washington is gloomier about Iraq than is the case in Baghdad. Fletcher, dude, when I read that line I checked it out using this thing we have now called Google. You might want to look into that.

Must-reads on Iraq today: 1) the WaPo on an army report kept secret for the last 10 months on Haditha and the systematic disregard within the military of civilian Iraqi deaths, 2) quotes from the report, 3) McClatchy’s Nancy Youssef on how the US has quietly backed away from the “when they stand up, we’ll stand down” thing.

The Guardian has an extract from a book by Clive Stafford Smith, a British lawyer, about trying to act for Guantanamo prisoners. The book comes out next week in Britain, but 6 months from now in the US.

It just, poof

Bush gave another speech about The War Against Terror (TWAT) at another high school today, rather more coherent than yesterday’s until it got to the Q&A section, when the drugs kicked in. Something about the setting seemed familiar to me:



“My purpose of coming is to instruct,” he said. Hopefully not in the use and misuse of prepositions.

He continued to insist that the real source of all the trouble in Iraq is Al Qaida, and his evidence is just so compelling: “Here is a photo of the destruction caused by a car bomb at a bus stop in Baghdad on Wednesday. ... It has all the hallmarks of an al Qaeda attack. The terrorists bombed the buses at rush hour, with the specific intent to kill as many people as possible. This has been long a pattern of al Qaeda in Iraq; this is what they do.” I’m pretty sure Al Qaida doesn’t have a patent on “trying to kill as many people as possible.” But really, who needs evidence, when you can... speculate: “Remember, we believe most of the spectaculars, like the ones you saw -- I can’t tell you for certain Wednesday’s bombing was al Qaeda. In other words, I don’t have the -- I can speculate. But I can tell you a lot of the spectacular bombings have been al Qaeda.”

“It’s important,” he insisted, “for all Iraqis -- Sunnis and Shia alike -- to understand that al Qaeda is the greatest threat to peace in their country.”

And, of course, for Americans to “understand” the same. He insisted that TWAT is indivisible: “When we debate the war on terror, it can be convenient to divide up the fight by location -- and so we hear about, ‘the war in Afghanistan,’ and ‘the war in Iraq’ [as] if they were something separate. This is a natural way to talk about a complicated subject -- I don’t think it’s accurate. Our enemies make no distinctions based on borders.” Although they do like duty-free shops.

“The Iraqi security forces are growing in maturity and gaining trust, and that’s important.” Growing in maturity? What does that mean? They make fewer fart jokes?

Also growing: Nouri al-Maliki. “I’ve watched a man begun to grow in office.” Well, they water him every day.

“Precisely what happened in Afghanistan -- it’s really important for our memories not to dim. At least it’s important for my memory not to dim, because my most important job is to protect the American people.” Dim...


In the Q&A, he was asked something inaudible about the Democratic Congress and responded: “We have fundamental disagreements about whether or not helping this young democracy is -- the consequences of failure or success, let’s put it that way. It’s also very important in this debate to understand that even though we have our policy differences -- particularly as the young lad that you are -- that we don’t think either of us are not patriotic citizens, okay?” Yes, it’s very important to understand, um, what he said. You all understand, right? Because it’s very important to understand.

He trotted out once again the claim that everything was going swimmingly until a year ago: “And then what happened was, the Samarra bombing took place by al Qaeda, which caused there to be a sectarian outrage. And because the government was ill-prepared to provide enough security in the capital, people began to use militias to provide security. And the sectarian outrage, the killing started to get out of hand.” So there were no militias until 2006, and the killing wasn’t “out of hand” until then. What was that thing about memories dimming? He continued: “And I had a decision to make: withdraw from the capital and just kind of hope for the burnout theory -- as you know, I was worried about chaos, and into chaos comes more extremists”.

“And it’s also important for you to know that my thinking was deeply affected on September the 11th, 2001.” Yes, we could really really tell.


CONDESCEND MUCH? “One such democracy is Lebanon, a wonderful little country.”

IF YOU LIKE IT SO MUCH, WHY DON’T YOU MARRY IT? “and just so you know, I spend a lot of time listening to our military. I trust our military, I like our military, I’m impressed by our military.”

On the surge: “It was after this considered judgment that I made that decision, all aiming at some point in time. Now, the problem is, the Congress, many of whom think that it’s a good idea, however are unwilling to allow conditions on the ground to make the decisions as to when we can ever get there. I don’t have that luxury. I must allow conditions on the ground to dictate our position in order to make decisions.” And that’s his considered judgment.

On why we should never talk with Syria: “What happens when people go sit down with Bashar Assad, the President of Syria, he walks out and holds a press conference, and says, look how important I am; people are coming to see me; people think I’m vital.”

Ditto Iran: “Diplomacy works when people sit down at the table and need something from you. That’s how diplomacy works.” Normally, you’d spend years at diplomat school to learn that.

However, “the Iranian people.... must know that our beef with Iran is not with the people of Iran, it’s with the government of Iran that continues to make decisions that isolates you from the opportunities of a fantastic world.”


On disregarding public opinion: “There weren’t opinion polls when Abraham Lincoln was the President... but I just don’t think a President like Abraham Lincoln made a decision about whether all men were created equal based upon an opinion poll....” No, it was Jefferson who made a decision that all men were created equal based on an opinion poll. “...Nor do I make an opinion about my strong belief that freedom is universal, and there’s no debate. ... the guy asked a question the other day, you don’t like the opinion polls and all that stuff -- I said, any politician who says they don’t want to be popular, you know -- you can’t win if, like, 50-plus-one don’t like you for a moment.” I forget, who won the popular vote in 2000? “You can’t make your decisions, however, based on something that just changes; it just, poof.” So to reiterate, he has principles that are steady and unchanging, but the American people do not: “it just, poof.” We must really be such a disappointment to him.

On his “freedom agenda” in the Middle East (though warning, “it’s not like, I expect Jefferson democracy to be blooming in the desert”), he bragged, “I do have a good, very close relationship with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and I’m proud of that relationship.”


He praised the recent unfree Egyptian election as “quite modern and different,” said “there are women now serving in Kuwait parliament” (wrong), and claimed that in last year’s Palestinian elections (which he takes credit for: “I was criticized by some that upon insisting that the Palestinian elections go forward”), the Palestinian people were saying, “we’re sick of it. Arafat has let us down” (presumably by having been, you know, dead for over a year). He thinks the Palestinians will vote the right way next time, at least that’s what I think he said: “And hopefully, at some point in time, the situation will get clarified, if the people have another right to express themselves, and that right ought to be, are you for a state or not for a state? Are you going to have people that prevent a better future for emerging from you?” Clarified, he said.

Does anyone else have a headache?

A day like that can have a real psychological impact

Russia is building a floating nuclear power plant. Gee, what a good idea, why didn’t we think of that? Russia plans to sell them to other countries.

Secretary of War Robert Gates (I’m officially dumping the little pictures of gates – live with it), on a “surprise” visit to Iraq, visited Fallujah, the city on which the US shat from a great height, to gush about the “really good news story” in Anbar province: “It’s a place where the Iraqis have decided to take control of their future. The Sheiks have played a key role in making good things happen out here, along with the Iraqi police and the Iraqi army and with our help.” That “decided to take control of their future” line is the perfect combination of condescending paternalism and empty-headed corporate-management-speak.

Gen. Petraeus admits that Wednesday, with its “sensational attacks,” was “a bad day.” It’s that sort of realism that makes him such a breath of fresh air. He adds, “And a day like that can have a real psychological impact.” Yes, because if you were to characterize the sort of impact made by the deaths of 200 to 300 people in bombings, you would definitely say “psychological.” He said that Al Qaida is “trying to reignite sectarian violence,” although he did not say when it was ever unignited (disignited?)

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.