August 26, 2003
A Dream Come True
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Pentagon hatched the plan that it needed to be prepared to fight two "nearly simultaneous major military conflicts". Thus was it able to "cash in" the "peace dividend" by retaining the military's share of the budget very near to 50%.
A military contractor's wet dream, this perhaps self-fulfilling prophecy is coming true.
According to the war's planners, the military was supposed to be completing its Iraq makeover by the end of the summer, with Ahmad Chalabi safely installed on the throne, and the world's second-largest oil reserves gushing into veep Cheney's awaiting pockets.
Instead, Iraq has become a "magnet" for terrorists bent on ejecting the United States from the region, while the home-grown, anti-Saddam resistance -- whose fallen practicioners are celebrated as martyrs by the general population -- becomes more organised and sophisticated.
Oh yeah, lawlessness in Baghdad is growing, pipelines are under attack, corruption thrives, there is still no electricity, women are afraid to go outside, unemployment sits at roughly 60%, and so on.
All told, it is now estimated that half-a-million troops would be required to bring Iraq "under control" (AKA "fully liberated", or some such-like). But while the U.S. military is already considered to be "bogged down" and "stretched too thin"; Japan, Poland, Germany, Spain, India, and Australia are reluctant to provide the "coalition" with additional forces.
Meanwhile, as the Afghan resistance takes shape -- bolstered by a "ready supply of recruits" -- the justice system is (according to Amnesty International) failing, the Karzai Administration is pleading for help in stemming the "security crisis" -- which has become particularly acute in the last few weeks, and the Taliban has retaken control of some portions of the country. Soldiers and analysts both fear a "Vietnam Redux" is developing.
If all this weren't enough, Donald H. Rumsfeld has opted to resume "drug-interception" flights over Colombia, where the two main rebel groups have decided to set aside their differences to jointly take on the U.S.-backed (to the hilt) Uribe Presidency.
On top of which, Senator Lugar thinks the time will soon come that the United States will have to undertake an overt military deployment to "bring stability" to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Senator Feinstein agrees, asserting that, "You have to have some military entity that is going to be able to control the terror." Judging by the U.S. track record in "controlling the terror" thus far, one couldn't imagine a finer "military entity" to take on the job in the Holy Land.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:05 PM
| Comments (5)
The heart of rock 'n' roll, once posited Huey Lewis, is still beating. But rock's indomitable heart was stilled a few days ago.
Wesley Willis, a chronically schizonphrenic, chronically obese, occasionally homeless black man from Chicago turned street-troubadour-for-the-masses quite simply was rock and roll.
There will never be another like him.
Whip a llama's ass, Wesley!
August 24, 2003
Rest In Peace
The heart of rock 'n' roll, once posited Huey Lewis, is still beating. But rock's indomitable heart was stilled a few days ago.Wesley Willis, a chronically schizonphrenic, chronically obese, occasionally homeless black man from Chicago turned street-troubadour-for-the-masses quite simply was rock and roll.
There will never be another like him.
Whip a llama's ass, Wesley!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:52 AM
| Comments (0)
As for the "extremists from outside", simply turn the meaning around and you have a succinct description of the current occupiers who, unprovoked, attacked a defenseless sovereign country, defying the United Nations and the opposition of most of humanity.
Using weapons designed to cause the maximum human suffering -- cluster bombs, uranium-tipped shells, and firebombs (napalm) -- these extremists from outside caused the deaths of at least 8,000 civilians and as many as 30,000 troops, most conscripted teenagers. Consider the waves of grief in any society from that carnage.
August 22, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0008
As for the "extremists from outside", simply turn the meaning around and you have a succinct description of the current occupiers who, unprovoked, attacked a defenseless sovereign country, defying the United Nations and the opposition of most of humanity.
Using weapons designed to cause the maximum human suffering -- cluster bombs, uranium-tipped shells, and firebombs (napalm) -- these extremists from outside caused the deaths of at least 8,000 civilians and as many as 30,000 troops, most conscripted teenagers. Consider the waves of grief in any society from that carnage.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:03 PM
| Comments (29)
On June 22, this blog noted the disappearance of a Boeing 727 from Luanda Airport in Angola -- and that U.S. officials feared that it "may be in the hands of terrorists".
Two months later, the big old jet airliner is still at large, prompting today's Quote, from State Department Spokesman Phil Reeker: "Basically, we don't know where it is. But we really need to find out. This is a serious matter."
Yeah, no shit!
A new report ranking the United States as "the fourth most likely of 186 countries to be the target of a terrorist attack within the next 12 months" might, er, heighten the urgency.
Of course, there's still that other option for reducing the likelihood of continued attacks upon U.S. "interests" -- most recently propounded here a few weeks ago: stop fucking over the Third World, and its inhabitants will stop using the methods available to them to hit back.
Killing Hope author and former State Department employee William Blum put this option rather eloquently last week in a piece on the Counterpunch website:
As I've written elsewhere: If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce that America's global military interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions, and sanctions. There would be enough money. One year of our military budget is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House.
On the fourth day, I'd probably be assassinated.
August 18, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0007
On June 22, this blog noted the disappearance of a Boeing 727 from Luanda Airport in Angola -- and that U.S. officials feared that it "may be in the hands of terrorists".
Two months later, the big old jet airliner is still at large, prompting today's Quote, from State Department Spokesman Phil Reeker: "Basically, we don't know where it is. But we really need to find out. This is a serious matter."
Yeah, no shit!
A new report ranking the United States as "the fourth most likely of 186 countries to be the target of a terrorist attack within the next 12 months" might, er, heighten the urgency.
Of course, there's still that other option for reducing the likelihood of continued attacks upon U.S. "interests" -- most recently propounded here a few weeks ago: stop fucking over the Third World, and its inhabitants will stop using the methods available to them to hit back.
Killing Hope author and former State Department employee William Blum put this option rather eloquently last week in a piece on the Counterpunch website:
As I've written elsewhere: If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce that America's global military interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions, and sanctions. There would be enough money. One year of our military budget is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House.
On the fourth day, I'd probably be assassinated.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:00 PM
| Comments (0)
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, speaking of the $50 Billion worth of needed upgrades to transmission systems in the aftermath of the Big Blackout, has declared that, "Rate-payers, obviously, will pay the bill because they're the ones who benefit. And that's where most of the responsibility, ultimately, will be assigned."
Obviously. Indeed, what could be more logical? The electrical grid is unilaterally deregulated, allowing private corporations with close connections to the White House to reap huge profits, while passing on associated costs to their customers. You know, it's right there on page one of the Free Market Bible:industry the public shall assume all the risks and costs of private property ownership, so is thus entitled to all none of the profits.
Yet Another "Free Market Miracle"
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, speaking of the $50 Billion worth of needed upgrades to transmission systems in the aftermath of the Big Blackout, has declared that, "Rate-payers, obviously, will pay the bill because they're the ones who benefit. And that's where most of the responsibility, ultimately, will be assigned."
Obviously. Indeed, what could be more logical? The electrical grid is unilaterally deregulated, allowing private corporations with close connections to the White House to reap huge profits, while passing on associated costs to their customers. You know, it's right there on page one of the Free Market Bible:
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:17 PM
| Comments (0)
The Pentagon's latest brilliant idea is to paste up all 'round Tikrit parody posters of Saddam. See him now dressed up as Elvis, now as Billy Idol, now as Zsa Zsa Gabor.
Explains Lt. Colonel Steve Russell: "Most of the locals will love 'em, and they'll be laughing. But the bad guys are going to be upset, which will just make it easier for us to know who they are."
So there it is. Never mind that they're under a patently illegal military occupation, that they've no electricity, that thousands upon thousands were murdered in cold blood, that chaos still rules the streets, that the country's resources have been sold off to Bush Administration cronies, that hospitals are barely functioning, that historical artefacts covering millennia were destroyed, that uranium particles and unexploded munitions litter the country, etc., etc.: as soon as the posters go up, the "locals" will be laughing. Or if they're not laughing, they can be safely shot on sight.
With the "bad guys" thus out of the way, the "Provisional Authority" should have the country back to normal by the end of the month, one would expect.
Why Didn't They Think Of This Sooner?
The Pentagon's latest brilliant idea is to paste up all 'round Tikrit parody posters of Saddam. See him now dressed up as Elvis, now as Billy Idol, now as Zsa Zsa Gabor.
Explains Lt. Colonel Steve Russell: "Most of the locals will love 'em, and they'll be laughing. But the bad guys are going to be upset, which will just make it easier for us to know who they are."
So there it is. Never mind that they're under a patently illegal military occupation, that they've no electricity, that thousands upon thousands were murdered in cold blood, that chaos still rules the streets, that the country's resources have been sold off to Bush Administration cronies, that hospitals are barely functioning, that historical artefacts covering millennia were destroyed, that uranium particles and unexploded munitions litter the country, etc., etc.: as soon as the posters go up, the "locals" will be laughing. Or if they're not laughing, they can be safely shot on sight.
With the "bad guys" thus out of the way, the "Provisional Authority" should have the country back to normal by the end of the month, one would expect.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:43 PM
| Comments (0)
"This is freedom and freedom can mean different things, and in this case freedom means we are going to have to enforce our values on them."
August 12, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0006
"This is freedom and freedom can mean different things, and in this case freedom means we are going to have to enforce our values on them."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:25 AM
| Comments (9)
Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003 I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
I hereby order:
Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:
(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and (b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.
...
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:
(a) The term "person" means an individual or entity; (b) The term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; (c) The term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; (d) The term "Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products" means any petroleum, petroleum products, or natural gas originating in Iraq, including any Iraqi-origin oil inventories, wherever located; and (e) The term "Development Fund for Iraq" means the fund established on or about May 22, 2003, on the books of the Central Bank of Iraq, by the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority responsible for the temporary governance of Iraq and all accounts held for the fund or for the Central Bank of Iraq in the name of the fund.
Quote Of The Moment #0005
Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003 I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
I hereby order:
Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:
(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and (b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.
...
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:
(a) The term "person" means an individual or entity; (b) The term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; (c) The term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; (d) The term "Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products" means any petroleum, petroleum products, or natural gas originating in Iraq, including any Iraqi-origin oil inventories, wherever located; and (e) The term "Development Fund for Iraq" means the fund established on or about May 22, 2003, on the books of the Central Bank of Iraq, by the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority responsible for the temporary governance of Iraq and all accounts held for the fund or for the Central Bank of Iraq in the name of the fund.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:12 AM
| Comments (0)
In the early days of the war, both the Sydney Morning Herald and CNN reported that the United States had deployed Napalm against Iraqi positions. CNN reporter Martin Savidge, referring to the assault on Safwan Hill, cheerily informed viewers that
It is now estimated the hill was hit so badly by missiles, artillery, and by the Air Force, that they shaved a couple of feet off it. And anything that was up there that was left after all the explosions was then hit with napalm. And that pretty much put an end to any Iraqi operations up on that hill.
The Pentagon quickly issued a denial of the Herald's story, which was added to its Web incarnation:
Your story ("Dead bodies everywhere", by Lindsay Murdoch, March 22, 2003) claiming U.S. forces are using napalm in Iraq, is patently false. The U.S. took napalm out of service in the early 1970s. We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001, and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm. -- Jeff A. Davis, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense.
Four months later, the Pentagon has acknowledged having used "Mark 77 firebombs" , whose function is "remarkably similar" to Napalm.
A retired Marine Lt. General says, of Napalm, "I used it routinely in Vietnam. I have no moral compunction against using it. It's just another weapon." Now, if the Pentagon had taken this attitude, then it wouldn't have felt compelled to have issued its initial denial (if only for PR purposes).
In one sense, though, the Lt. General is correct: given that the war itself was illegal, unjustifiable, and screamingly immoral; then the killing and maiming of thousands of civilians and unknown numbers of soldiers -- regardless of the weapons used -- is a study in unmitigated barbarism.
However, those scoring at home may note the interesting juxtaposition now presenting itself to those with eyes to see. The United States' invasion of Iraq was, as we know, justified on the grounds that Saddam was "undeniably" in possession of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons -- the "most destructive weapons ever devised", according to the murderer-in-chief. Yet several months later, no such weapons or programmes are in evidence.
Those who dared point up that the United States was sitting on top of the largest stockpile of such weapons ever seen were reminded that this was okay because the United States was not a "rogue nation", but a responsible, civilised member of the world community. "We see farther into the future," to use Madeleine Albright's words.
What, then, to make of the reality that the United States has used low-level nuclear weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is seeking to develop a "new generation" of "useable" nuclear weapons? What to make of the use of Napalm-like "firebombs" (or the continued assault upon Colombian peasants with another incredibly destructive bio-chemical weapon, the so-called "Agent Green")? What to make of the destruction of Iraqi electricity grids -- and the concomitant disabling of water treatment facilities?
Just another weapon -- at least, when we're using it to slaughter tens of thousands of niggers.
August 11, 2003
"Just Another Weapon"
In the early days of the war, both the Sydney Morning Herald and CNN reported that the United States had deployed Napalm against Iraqi positions. CNN reporter Martin Savidge, referring to the assault on Safwan Hill, cheerily informed viewers that
It is now estimated the hill was hit so badly by missiles, artillery, and by the Air Force, that they shaved a couple of feet off it. And anything that was up there that was left after all the explosions was then hit with napalm. And that pretty much put an end to any Iraqi operations up on that hill.
The Pentagon quickly issued a denial of the Herald's story, which was added to its Web incarnation:
Your story ("Dead bodies everywhere", by Lindsay Murdoch, March 22, 2003) claiming U.S. forces are using napalm in Iraq, is patently false. The U.S. took napalm out of service in the early 1970s. We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001, and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm. -- Jeff A. Davis, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense.
Four months later, the Pentagon has acknowledged having used "Mark 77 firebombs" , whose function is "remarkably similar" to Napalm.
A retired Marine Lt. General says, of Napalm, "I used it routinely in Vietnam. I have no moral compunction against using it. It's just another weapon." Now, if the Pentagon had taken this attitude, then it wouldn't have felt compelled to have issued its initial denial (if only for PR purposes).
In one sense, though, the Lt. General is correct: given that the war itself was illegal, unjustifiable, and screamingly immoral; then the killing and maiming of thousands of civilians and unknown numbers of soldiers -- regardless of the weapons used -- is a study in unmitigated barbarism.
However, those scoring at home may note the interesting juxtaposition now presenting itself to those with eyes to see. The United States' invasion of Iraq was, as we know, justified on the grounds that Saddam was "undeniably" in possession of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons -- the "most destructive weapons ever devised", according to the murderer-in-chief. Yet several months later, no such weapons or programmes are in evidence.
Those who dared point up that the United States was sitting on top of the largest stockpile of such weapons ever seen were reminded that this was okay because the United States was not a "rogue nation", but a responsible, civilised member of the world community. "We see farther into the future," to use Madeleine Albright's words.
What, then, to make of the reality that the United States has used low-level nuclear weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is seeking to develop a "new generation" of "useable" nuclear weapons? What to make of the use of Napalm-like "firebombs" (or the continued assault upon Colombian peasants with another incredibly destructive bio-chemical weapon, the so-called "Agent Green")? What to make of the destruction of Iraqi electricity grids -- and the concomitant disabling of water treatment facilities?
Just another weapon -- at least, when we're using it to slaughter tens of thousands of niggers.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:06 PM
| Comments (1)
Time and again, Tony Blair and George W. Bush respond to questions concerning the whereabouts of Iraq's WMD by claiming that they're confident the weapons will at some point turn up. Or at least (they're now arguing) that evidence of a weapons programme -- capable of producing, deploying, and delivering within 45-minutes an attack upon Washington and London -- will turn up.
Dubya seems now to have entered full-on backtrack mode, judging by last week's Press Conference: "And I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program."
Now, this would be the same man who in January bemoaned that, "One thing is for certain, he's not disarming." The same man who in March bemoaned that, "Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied." The same man who in December bemoaned that, "We have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."
The "certainty", the "facts", the "every reasons" have turned into "strong belief". And, as has been the case from the outset, the evidence upon which thse "strong beliefs" are based is not forthcoming. Why do Bush and Blair "strongly believe" that Iraq posed a threat so emergent that we needed to destroy the country and its people, including with radioactive weapons (whose use has Iraqi doctors warning that "the consequences could be devastating")?
Unless we're just expected to assume that the "strong belief" was based on a "bureaucratic decision" that a war could best be "marketed" to a skeptical public by playing the WMD card, then where the fuck is the evidence upon which the "strong belief" (nee "certainty", "fact", "every reason") is based?
On September 24, 2002, Tony Blair claimed that Saddam's
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programme is not an historic leftover from 1998. The inspectors aren't needed to clean up the old remains. His WMD programme is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The WMD programme is not shut down. It is up and running.
He further "concluded"
that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes...
What evidence led him to these conclusions? Is there some reason that this very obvious question has never been posed either to Bush or to Blair?
August 04, 2003
We Gotta Have Faith, Faith, Faith
Time and again, Tony Blair and George W. Bush respond to questions concerning the whereabouts of Iraq's WMD by claiming that they're confident the weapons will at some point turn up. Or at least (they're now arguing) that evidence of a weapons programme -- capable of producing, deploying, and delivering within 45-minutes an attack upon Washington and London -- will turn up.
Dubya seems now to have entered full-on backtrack mode, judging by last week's Press Conference: "And I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program."
Now, this would be the same man who in January bemoaned that, "One thing is for certain, he's not disarming." The same man who in March bemoaned that, "Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied." The same man who in December bemoaned that, "We have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."
The "certainty", the "facts", the "every reasons" have turned into "strong belief". And, as has been the case from the outset, the evidence upon which thse "strong beliefs" are based is not forthcoming. Why do Bush and Blair "strongly believe" that Iraq posed a threat so emergent that we needed to destroy the country and its people, including with radioactive weapons (whose use has Iraqi doctors warning that "the consequences could be devastating")?
Unless we're just expected to assume that the "strong belief" was based on a "bureaucratic decision" that a war could best be "marketed" to a skeptical public by playing the WMD card, then where the fuck is the evidence upon which the "strong belief" (nee "certainty", "fact", "every reason") is based?
On September 24, 2002, Tony Blair claimed that Saddam's
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programme is not an historic leftover from 1998. The inspectors aren't needed to clean up the old remains. His WMD programme is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The WMD programme is not shut down. It is up and running.
He further "concluded"
that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes...
What evidence led him to these conclusions? Is there some reason that this very obvious question has never been posed either to Bush or to Blair?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:07 PM
| Comments (5)
"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are. ... The burden is on the critics to explain where the weapons of mass destruction are." -- Ari Fleischer
August 02, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0004
"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are. ... The burden is on the critics to explain where the weapons of mass destruction are." -- Ari Fleischer
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:32 PM
| Comments (6)
The Shrub, in his first Press Conference in three aeons has taken "personal responsibility" for the infamous "16 words".
Okay, and...you have chosen to resign the office in ignominy? Okay, and...you have chosen to issue a personal apology to the families of each and every person killed and maimed in your execrable "war"? Okay, and...you're getting to work immediately in cleaning up the radioactive particles and unexploded munitions now lodged throughout Iraq? Okay, and...you're paying reparations to the people of Iraq for having destroyed their country? Okay, and...you're turning yourself in to the World Court to stand trial as a war criminal?
Er, not quite. "I analyzed a thorough body of intelligence -- good, solid, sound intelligence -- that led me to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We gave the world a chance to do it."
The obvious question of how his "analysis" of the "good, sold, sound intelligence" could have drawn him to the opposite conclusion to that of the professionals who had gathered the intelligence notwithstanding, the striking thing here is the openly totalitarian nature of Dubya's worldview.
I analyzed the intelligence, I came to the conclusion, we gave the world a chance. There's the basis for an operation entitled "Iraqi Freedom": six billion people are opposed to his war, but he alone decides the good. Being the benign dictator that he is, he "gives the world a chance" to, uh, ratify his decision to unilaterally "disarm" Iraq...otherwise, he unilaterally "disarms" Iraq without the warm-fuzzy imprimatur of world approval.
The assembled media's response? "Democracy kicks ass, dude!"
Okay...And?
The Shrub, in his first Press Conference in three aeons has taken "personal responsibility" for the infamous "16 words".
Okay, and...you have chosen to resign the office in ignominy? Okay, and...you have chosen to issue a personal apology to the families of each and every person killed and maimed in your execrable "war"? Okay, and...you're getting to work immediately in cleaning up the radioactive particles and unexploded munitions now lodged throughout Iraq? Okay, and...you're paying reparations to the people of Iraq for having destroyed their country? Okay, and...you're turning yourself in to the World Court to stand trial as a war criminal?
Er, not quite. "I analyzed a thorough body of intelligence -- good, solid, sound intelligence -- that led me to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We gave the world a chance to do it."
The obvious question of how his "analysis" of the "good, sold, sound intelligence" could have drawn him to the opposite conclusion to that of the professionals who had gathered the intelligence notwithstanding, the striking thing here is the openly totalitarian nature of Dubya's worldview.
I analyzed the intelligence, I came to the conclusion, we gave the world a chance. There's the basis for an operation entitled "Iraqi Freedom": six billion people are opposed to his war, but he alone decides the good. Being the benign dictator that he is, he "gives the world a chance" to, uh, ratify his decision to unilaterally "disarm" Iraq...otherwise, he unilaterally "disarms" Iraq without the warm-fuzzy imprimatur of world approval.
The assembled media's response? "Democracy kicks ass, dude!"