June 28, 2004
Didn't He Receive The Memo?
American soldiers on the ground in Iraq continue to speak to the situation in a much more realistic manner that their leaders, living in the Fantasyland known as the "Green Zone".
The northern part of Sadr City, that's where we get attacked every night.
Guess what? That's the place that's got the worst sewers, that's the place that doesn't have potable water, that's the place that doesn't have electrical infrastructure, that's the place where there's raw sewage on the ground. There's solid waste every place.
And, oh by the way, that's the place where 50 to 60 percent of the people are out of work. It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to say that these people want something other than fighting. They want some of those basic things fixed in that city.
They thought the "Coalition" would do it, and for the first year we really haven't attacked that portion of the problem. -- Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, 1st Cavalry Commander
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:06 PM
| Comments (0)
Some political analysts say [Michael] Moore won't make many converts. Moore "communicates to that far-left sliver that would never vote for Bush, even if there was an election on the moon," says Scott Reed, a Republican strategist who managed Bob Dole's 1996 campaign.
Uhhhhh...can't seem to think up a snappy rejoinder that does justice to the complete inanity of this remark. Well, it helps explain Bob Dole's showing in the '96 election, anyway.
Quote Of The Moment #0060
Some political analysts say [Michael] Moore won't make many converts. Moore "communicates to that far-left sliver that would never vote for Bush, even if there was an election on the moon," says Scott Reed, a Republican strategist who managed Bob Dole's 1996 campaign.
Uhhhhh...can't seem to think up a snappy rejoinder that does justice to the complete inanity of this remark. Well, it helps explain Bob Dole's showing in the '96 election, anyway.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:01 PM
| Comments (0)
From the horse's mouth, a refutation of Mark Kimmit's absurd contention that Iraqis are going to help the "coalition" by snitching each other out:
"They're [the Resistance] very good at information operations," said Capt. Travis Van Hecke, an artillery commander here. "People are reluctant to help us."
Quote Of The Moment #0059
From the horse's mouth, a refutation of Mark Kimmit's absurd contention that Iraqis are going to help the "coalition" by snitching each other out:
"They're [the Resistance] very good at information operations," said Capt. Travis Van Hecke, an artillery commander here. "People are reluctant to help us."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:54 PM
| Comments (0)
McClellan:
And I think everybody recognizes the -- how the terrorists will continue to become more desperate the more -- each step of the way as we make progress toward a free and democratic and peaceful Iraq. And there is simply no justification for the kind of barbaric acts that they carry out against innocent civilians. They will not prevail. They will be defeated. And I think that the coalition stands firm in our resolve to see a free and peaceful Iraq.
Bush:
Nobody cares more about the deaths than I do. I care about it a lot. But I do believe the world is a safer place and becoming a safer place. I know that a free Iraq is going to be a necessary part of changing the world. Listen, people join terrorist organizations because there's no hope and there's no chance to raise their families in a peaceful world where there is not freedom. And so the idea is to promote freedom, and at the same time protect our security. And I do believe the world is becoming a better place, absolutely.
So, as we promote freedom, fewer people will join terrorist organizations, but there will be more terrorist attacks. And when Iraq reaches a state of absolute freedom, democracy, and peace; there will be no members of terrorist organizations, and an infinite number of terrorist attacks.
Or something like that.
June 26, 2004
Bush vs. McClellan
McClellan:
And I think everybody recognizes the -- how the terrorists will continue to become more desperate the more -- each step of the way as we make progress toward a free and democratic and peaceful Iraq. And there is simply no justification for the kind of barbaric acts that they carry out against innocent civilians. They will not prevail. They will be defeated. And I think that the coalition stands firm in our resolve to see a free and peaceful Iraq.
Bush:
Nobody cares more about the deaths than I do. I care about it a lot. But I do believe the world is a safer place and becoming a safer place. I know that a free Iraq is going to be a necessary part of changing the world. Listen, people join terrorist organizations because there's no hope and there's no chance to raise their families in a peaceful world where there is not freedom. And so the idea is to promote freedom, and at the same time protect our security. And I do believe the world is becoming a better place, absolutely.
So, as we promote freedom, fewer people will join terrorist organizations, but there will be more terrorist attacks. And when Iraq reaches a state of absolute freedom, democracy, and peace; there will be no members of terrorist organizations, and an infinite number of terrorist attacks.
Or something like that.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:19 PM
| Comments (0)
Time was, Condoleezza Rice was admonishing the North Koreans -- who were offering to dismantle their nuclear programme in exchange for food aid -- that the United States would not be victimised by Korean bribery.
Condi and friends are now whistling a different tune:
Seeking to persuade North Korea to abandon its threat to produce nuclear weapons, the Bush administration yesterday for the first time handed the North a detailed proposal promising an aid package and a guarantee not to attack in exchange for a commitment to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
Now, any reason the Bush Administration couldn't have offered to lift Iraq's sanctions had Saddam "in exchange" offered a "commitment to abandon its nuclear ambitions"?
Well, maybe because the Bush Administration (like the Clinton Administration before it) was well aware that Saddam had long since abandoned his nuclear (and other banned weapons) ambitions, not to mention the weapons themselves -- if only because he knew that it was a fool's game to try to out-gun the Israelis and the Americans.
Given the Bush Administration's latest about-face, can there be any doubt whatsoever that the Administration had absolutely zero expectations of finding any sign of an extant banned weapons programme in Iraq?
Good ol' Scottie McClellan is keeping a stiff upper-lip, anyway: "One way to look at this is to look at the Libya model. Good-faith action on North Korea's part will be met with good-faith response by the other parties."
No doubt the U.S. will soon be making a similar "good-faith" offer to Iran -- which, it was reported a few months ago, "could be unstoppably on its way to producing nuclear material for its own bombs" as soon as this summer. (Update, 6/25/04: Right on schedule, Iran now appears to be proceeding toward production of nuclear weapons.)
So if the Bush Administration can offer "good-faith" negotiations with two of the three charter members of the Axis Of Evil club, why not with the third? (Of course, it's probably now wishing it had done.)
Simple: it saw Iraq as entirely defenceless. In other words, having disarmed at least eight years prior to Bush's merry war, it had nothing of value to offer in return -- save perhaps an oil concession, which the Bush Administration preferred to take outright.
Given that it was a country with a military budget 400 times smaller than the United States', with no weapons of mass destruction to its name, and reeling from a decade of the most punitive sanctions regime in history; stealing Iraq's oil should have been as easy as the proverbial taking of candy from an infant.
Instead, the battered, bruised, and beleaguered Iraqis have stalemated and crippled the U.S. military. (Retired General Barry McCaffrey goes even further: "The Army is accelerating downhill at the moment, and if the course isn't changed, we could damage it significantly or even break it in the next five years.")
The "good-faith" offer to Iran is thus probably a foregone conclusion. Begging the question, how soon 'til the United States makes a "good-faith" offer to bin Laden, marking the official collapse of the "War On Terror" (a topic to which this blogger will return in the near future)?
And, natch, how deftly will Limbaugh and McClellan be able to spin the ignominious grovelling at the feet of the gooks and the towel-heads?
June 24, 2004
The Agony Of Defeat
Time was, Condoleezza Rice was admonishing the North Koreans -- who were offering to dismantle their nuclear programme in exchange for food aid -- that the United States would not be victimised by Korean bribery.
Condi and friends are now whistling a different tune:
Seeking to persuade North Korea to abandon its threat to produce nuclear weapons, the Bush administration yesterday for the first time handed the North a detailed proposal promising an aid package and a guarantee not to attack in exchange for a commitment to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
Now, any reason the Bush Administration couldn't have offered to lift Iraq's sanctions had Saddam "in exchange" offered a "commitment to abandon its nuclear ambitions"?
Well, maybe because the Bush Administration (like the Clinton Administration before it) was well aware that Saddam had long since abandoned his nuclear (and other banned weapons) ambitions, not to mention the weapons themselves -- if only because he knew that it was a fool's game to try to out-gun the Israelis and the Americans.
Given the Bush Administration's latest about-face, can there be any doubt whatsoever that the Administration had absolutely zero expectations of finding any sign of an extant banned weapons programme in Iraq?
Good ol' Scottie McClellan is keeping a stiff upper-lip, anyway: "One way to look at this is to look at the Libya model. Good-faith action on North Korea's part will be met with good-faith response by the other parties."
No doubt the U.S. will soon be making a similar "good-faith" offer to Iran -- which, it was reported a few months ago, "could be unstoppably on its way to producing nuclear material for its own bombs" as soon as this summer. (Update, 6/25/04: Right on schedule, Iran now appears to be proceeding toward production of nuclear weapons.)
So if the Bush Administration can offer "good-faith" negotiations with two of the three charter members of the Axis Of Evil club, why not with the third? (Of course, it's probably now wishing it had done.)
Simple: it saw Iraq as entirely defenceless. In other words, having disarmed at least eight years prior to Bush's merry war, it had nothing of value to offer in return -- save perhaps an oil concession, which the Bush Administration preferred to take outright.
Given that it was a country with a military budget 400 times smaller than the United States', with no weapons of mass destruction to its name, and reeling from a decade of the most punitive sanctions regime in history; stealing Iraq's oil should have been as easy as the proverbial taking of candy from an infant.
Instead, the battered, bruised, and beleaguered Iraqis have stalemated and crippled the U.S. military. (Retired General Barry McCaffrey goes even further: "The Army is accelerating downhill at the moment, and if the course isn't changed, we could damage it significantly or even break it in the next five years.")
The "good-faith" offer to Iran is thus probably a foregone conclusion. Begging the question, how soon 'til the United States makes a "good-faith" offer to bin Laden, marking the official collapse of the "War On Terror" (a topic to which this blogger will return in the near future)?
And, natch, how deftly will Limbaugh and McClellan be able to spin the ignominious grovelling at the feet of the gooks and the towel-heads?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:48 PM
| Comments (0)
In response to its failure to gain immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court for American nationals, the Bush Administration is threatening to pick up its pieces and go home.
"We will have to take into account the lack of this resolution as we look at our various obligations and the way we proceed overseas. We'll be doing that in the coming days," sulks State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher.
Gee, do you think there's anything the world would love more that the United States closing all its overseas bases and refusing to "liberate" any more Third World countries?
Do You Promise?
In response to its failure to gain immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court for American nationals, the Bush Administration is threatening to pick up its pieces and go home.
"We will have to take into account the lack of this resolution as we look at our various obligations and the way we proceed overseas. We'll be doing that in the coming days," sulks State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher.
Gee, do you think there's anything the world would love more that the United States closing all its overseas bases and refusing to "liberate" any more Third World countries?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:13 PM
| Comments (0)
The San Francisco Chronicle has raised the issue of a complete withdrawal from Iraq -- the first mainstream media outlet to do so?
Most of those in positions of power, however (including John Kerry) don't consider it a possibility. Democrat representative Ellen Tauscher's position is pretty typical:
I'm deeply concerned about a precipitous withdrawal of troops, for whatever reason, in the short term, if we don't achieve a political end state that is satisfactory to the American people. If we cut and run in the next few months, none of this will work for the long-term stability of the region and certainly not for the people in the United States.
Notice that a "political end state" satisfactory to the Iraqi people -- most of whom want the occupation army to leave forthwith -- is not even a consideration.
June 23, 2004
Withdrawal?
The San Francisco Chronicle has raised the issue of a complete withdrawal from Iraq -- the first mainstream media outlet to do so?
Most of those in positions of power, however (including John Kerry) don't consider it a possibility. Democrat representative Ellen Tauscher's position is pretty typical:
I'm deeply concerned about a precipitous withdrawal of troops, for whatever reason, in the short term, if we don't achieve a political end state that is satisfactory to the American people. If we cut and run in the next few months, none of this will work for the long-term stability of the region and certainly not for the people in the United States.
Notice that a "political end state" satisfactory to the Iraqi people -- most of whom want the occupation army to leave forthwith -- is not even a consideration.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:07 PM
| Comments (1)
In the 2000 presidential election, 1.9 million Americans cast ballots that no one counted. "Spoiled votes" is the technical term. The pile of ballots left to rot has a distinctly dark hue: About 1 million of them -- half of the rejected ballots -- were cast by African Americans although black voters make up only 12 percent of the electorate.
Not Counting Niggers' Votes
In the 2000 presidential election, 1.9 million Americans cast ballots that no one counted. "Spoiled votes" is the technical term. The pile of ballots left to rot has a distinctly dark hue: About 1 million of them -- half of the rejected ballots -- were cast by African Americans although black voters make up only 12 percent of the electorate.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:38 PM
| Comments (0)
Here's Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmit, speaking the other day about the "Coalition"'s latest plan to snuff out the Iraqi Resistance:
"The sooner we get every person in this country understanding their responsibility to provide us intelligence on those people in their neighborhoods who they believe to be participating in these attacks," the sooner they will stop, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Friday. "We need to get that intelligence from them so we can pre-empt these attacks before they happen."
Obvious followups:
• Why the hell would anyone think that "every person" in the country wants the attacks to end? According to the polls commissioned by the "Coalition" itself, most everyone wants the occupiers to go home, now.
• Why should anyone believe that individual cells would tip off their neighbours in some way, if they didn't trust them to keep quiet? The Resistance has avoided penetration up until now -- maybe that's because it knows what it's doing. More likely, their neighbours are part of their support network, so obviously aren't going to go snitching them off.
• What was the "Coalition" doing with its thousands of prisoners, besides torturing them? Wasn't that the whole point of the grisly methods: to "get that intelligence from them"? (A question this blog has previously addressed.)
• Is the "Coalition" really so desperate that it's pleading with Iraqis to turn each other in, even knowing full well how those turned in will be treated, once apprehended?
Questions so obvious, the mainstream media hasn't even bothered to ask them.
June 22, 2004
Obvious Followup #0006
Here's Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmit, speaking the other day about the "Coalition"'s latest plan to snuff out the Iraqi Resistance:
"The sooner we get every person in this country understanding their responsibility to provide us intelligence on those people in their neighborhoods who they believe to be participating in these attacks," the sooner they will stop, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Friday. "We need to get that intelligence from them so we can pre-empt these attacks before they happen."
Obvious followups:
• Why the hell would anyone think that "every person" in the country wants the attacks to end? According to the polls commissioned by the "Coalition" itself, most everyone wants the occupiers to go home, now.
• Why should anyone believe that individual cells would tip off their neighbours in some way, if they didn't trust them to keep quiet? The Resistance has avoided penetration up until now -- maybe that's because it knows what it's doing. More likely, their neighbours are part of their support network, so obviously aren't going to go snitching them off.
• What was the "Coalition" doing with its thousands of prisoners, besides torturing them? Wasn't that the whole point of the grisly methods: to "get that intelligence from them"? (A question this blog has previously addressed.)
• Is the "Coalition" really so desperate that it's pleading with Iraqis to turn each other in, even knowing full well how those turned in will be treated, once apprehended?
Questions so obvious, the mainstream media hasn't even bothered to ask them.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:59 PM
| Comments (0)
...at The Boeing Co., where they're "looking forward to a little hooting and hollering tonight", after having been awarded a $3.9 Billion contract (which could potentially "soar to more than $40 Billion over 25 years") to build the "Navy's next generation of anti-submarine aircraft, known as Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA)."
The Seattle Times notes, in its story's lead sentence, that the "huge defense contract...will add 1,200 mostly engineering jobs in the Puget Sound region over the next two years," among 1,600 new jobs "companywide".
The Jobs! angle echoes a recent Washington Post report (entitled "Across U.S., War Means Jobs"): "It is impossible to know how many of the 708,000 jobs created in the past three months are defense-related since the Labor Department does not track defense contractor employment. But anecdotal evidence suggests the contribution is significant."
So now that we know one way to stimulate the economy (viz., a government jobs programme), you think maybe those $4 Billion taxpayer dollars could put 1,200 engineers to work doing something better that building war machines?
How if they figure out how to tap clean, renewable energy sources -- wind, solar, lightning, tidal, et al. -- to replace the antiquated method of ripping open the Earth and burning the polluting, non-renewable sources found inside?
How if they figure out how to build a mass rapid-transit grid?
How if they figure out how to deliver affordable health care and housing? (Maybe not a job for an engineer. But, given how difficult it's proven to be to-date, maybe so.)
How if they figure out how to reverse Global Warming, or the AIDS crisis?
This blogger has refused, since nineteen hundred and ninety-five, to pay Federal Income Taxes, for the precise reason that 50% of those tax dollars are wasted away on programmes such as the "Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft" (which aren't, of course, only jobs programmes: these implements are put to destructive use all too often). But he would happily pay taxes if put toward socially useful ends.
A side-note:
This blog frequently pokes fun at Multinational Corporations' absolute mortification at the thought of being exposed to the Free Market. The Times article offers us another example of this most widespread phenomenon.
Carolyn Corvi, head of the plant at which the MMA will be built, notes that had The Boeing Co. not merged its civilian and "defense" wings in 1997, it "wouldn't have had this win." Corvi further enthuses that, "One of the reasons we brought these companies together was to minimize the effects of commerical airplane cycles in our business."
Would that we could all call upon Uncle Sam to lend a $40 Billion helping hand to help smooth out the down-cycles in each of our businesses!
June 15, 2004
It's All Smiles...
...at The Boeing Co., where they're "looking forward to a little hooting and hollering tonight", after having been awarded a $3.9 Billion contract (which could potentially "soar to more than $40 Billion over 25 years") to build the "Navy's next generation of anti-submarine aircraft, known as Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA)."
The Seattle Times notes, in its story's lead sentence, that the "huge defense contract...will add 1,200 mostly engineering jobs in the Puget Sound region over the next two years," among 1,600 new jobs "companywide".
The Jobs! angle echoes a recent Washington Post report (entitled "Across U.S., War Means Jobs"): "It is impossible to know how many of the 708,000 jobs created in the past three months are defense-related since the Labor Department does not track defense contractor employment. But anecdotal evidence suggests the contribution is significant."
So now that we know one way to stimulate the economy (viz., a government jobs programme), you think maybe those $4 Billion taxpayer dollars could put 1,200 engineers to work doing something better that building war machines?
How if they figure out how to tap clean, renewable energy sources -- wind, solar, lightning, tidal, et al. -- to replace the antiquated method of ripping open the Earth and burning the polluting, non-renewable sources found inside?
How if they figure out how to build a mass rapid-transit grid?
How if they figure out how to deliver affordable health care and housing? (Maybe not a job for an engineer. But, given how difficult it's proven to be to-date, maybe so.)
How if they figure out how to reverse Global Warming, or the AIDS crisis?
This blogger has refused, since nineteen hundred and ninety-five, to pay Federal Income Taxes, for the precise reason that 50% of those tax dollars are wasted away on programmes such as the "Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft" (which aren't, of course, only jobs programmes: these implements are put to destructive use all too often). But he would happily pay taxes if put toward socially useful ends.
A side-note:
This blog frequently pokes fun at Multinational Corporations' absolute mortification at the thought of being exposed to the Free Market. The Times article offers us another example of this most widespread phenomenon.
Carolyn Corvi, head of the plant at which the MMA will be built, notes that had The Boeing Co. not merged its civilian and "defense" wings in 1997, it "wouldn't have had this win." Corvi further enthuses that, "One of the reasons we brought these companies together was to minimize the effects of commerical airplane cycles in our business."
Would that we could all call upon Uncle Sam to lend a $40 Billion helping hand to help smooth out the down-cycles in each of our businesses!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:29 PM
| Comments (0)
"American voters want fact, not fiction, when determining their vote."
June 11, 2004
Quote Of The Moment #0058
"American voters want fact, not fiction, when determining their vote."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:17 PM
| Comments (0)
This man is either a cyborg, or has been lobotomised. It's apparent not only in pictures, but also in his speech patterns.
Okay, okay. It's probably more likely that all his years of booze and cocaine have permanently impaired him. But isn't it more fun to think of him getting ever closer to an Ash-styled meltdown?
June 09, 2004
Here's My New Theory:
This man is either a cyborg, or has been lobotomised. It's apparent not only in pictures, but also in his speech patterns.
Okay, okay. It's probably more likely that all his years of booze and cocaine have permanently impaired him. But isn't it more fun to think of him getting ever closer to an Ash-styled meltdown?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:15 PM
| Comments (0)
The U.S. military appears to be softening its tough tactics -- keeping combat operations to a minimum -- in a shift designed to avoid alienating its Iraqi allies who take power at the end of the month.
...
One top U.S. military official in Iraq, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. goals in Fallujah and Najaf haven't been dropped, just delayed long enough to accomplish them without unnecessary loss of life.
Obvious followup: if it is now possible for the military to accomplish its goals "without unnecessary loss of life", why was it not possible before now?
The military was to ignorant/incompetent to realise it then? The military is fooling itself now? The anonymous source is talking out its ass? The military didn't give a fuck about "unnecessary loss of life" until it became politically expedient to do so?
Questions so obvious the mainstream media couldn't even be bothered to ask.
June 08, 2004
Obvious Followup #0005
The U.S. military appears to be softening its tough tactics -- keeping combat operations to a minimum -- in a shift designed to avoid alienating its Iraqi allies who take power at the end of the month.
...
One top U.S. military official in Iraq, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. goals in Fallujah and Najaf haven't been dropped, just delayed long enough to accomplish them without unnecessary loss of life.
Obvious followup: if it is now possible for the military to accomplish its goals "without unnecessary loss of life", why was it not possible before now?
The military was to ignorant/incompetent to realise it then? The military is fooling itself now? The anonymous source is talking out its ass? The military didn't give a fuck about "unnecessary loss of life" until it became politically expedient to do so?
Questions so obvious the mainstream media couldn't even be bothered to ask.