July 27, 2005
Actions Louder Than Words
"The inmates in Guantanamo have never eaten better, they've never been treated better...the idea that we are somehow torturing people in Guantanamo is absolutely not true, unless you consider eating chicken three days a week is torture," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said during a press conference Monday, handing out copies of inmate menus -- which feature meals such as lemon chicken -- to reporters. -- June 14, 2005
The Senate's Republican leader yesterday derailed a bipartisan effort to set rules for the treatment of enemy prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and other military-detention camps by abruptly stopping debate on a $491 billion defense bill.
The unusual move came after senators, including several leading Republicans, beat back an effort by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to block amendments setting standards for interrogations of military prisoners and delaying base closings scheduled for approval later this year. The White House had threatened to veto the defense bill if it contained either of those provisions.
Rather than risk debate and votes on those amendments, Frist simply pulled the bill from consideration. -- July 27, 2005
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:34 PM
| Comments (2)
If it works like it's supposed to (as if), it's certainly better than the current shoot-first-and-lie-later MO, in that it will save many civilian lives. It presumably will not turn the electricity back on, or hasten the termination of the occupation. But, better than nothing anyway.
However, if it's to be utilised against oncoming vehicles of "uncertain intent", it'll probably cause civilian drivers to crash their motors in large numbers. And if you thought that the "Multinational Force" was trigger happy already, how eager is it going to be to fire at will with its new toy, thereby exposing many more civilians to an "intolerable" burning sensation? Again, better than being shot down with live ammo. But not exactly a "liberation" that dreams are made of.
Moreover, the supposition that it will "repel insurgents" seems flat-out wacky. What're they gonna do, beam it 24/7 at all Iraqi police stations and every foot of exposed pipeline? Just think about it for half-a-second: if lethal force against Iraqis of "uncertain intent" has not been able to "repel insurgents", why in hell would non-lethal force be able to do so?
Ah well, so long as the taxpayers are paying for it...
July 25, 2005
"Smart" Bomb: The Next Generation
Troops in Iraq will soon be shooting an experimental weapon that fires an invisible beam of energy instead of bullets to repel insurgents without killing civilians. [...]
Troops guarding checkpoints, bases and convoys regularly face oncoming people or vehicles of uncertain intent. Troops open fire rather than risk a bomb attack.
If it works like it's supposed to (as if), it's certainly better than the current shoot-first-and-lie-later MO, in that it will save many civilian lives. It presumably will not turn the electricity back on, or hasten the termination of the occupation. But, better than nothing anyway.
However, if it's to be utilised against oncoming vehicles of "uncertain intent", it'll probably cause civilian drivers to crash their motors in large numbers. And if you thought that the "Multinational Force" was trigger happy already, how eager is it going to be to fire at will with its new toy, thereby exposing many more civilians to an "intolerable" burning sensation? Again, better than being shot down with live ammo. But not exactly a "liberation" that dreams are made of.
Moreover, the supposition that it will "repel insurgents" seems flat-out wacky. What're they gonna do, beam it 24/7 at all Iraqi police stations and every foot of exposed pipeline? Just think about it for half-a-second: if lethal force against Iraqis of "uncertain intent" has not been able to "repel insurgents", why in hell would non-lethal force be able to do so?
Ah well, so long as the taxpayers are paying for it...
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:26 PM
| Comments (2)
Chenoweth says the therapy, paid for by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), has helped pull him back from thoughts of suicide and other self-destructive acts in a life scarred by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) -- a war injury that ranks among the most common and the most difficult to heal.
Starting in July, Chenoweth's sessions with Aberdeen therapist Jack Dutro have been reduced from twice to once a month, a cut that comes as thousands of Iraq war veterans join those of previous wars in seeking treatment from the strained VA.
"I can understand that the new veterans need to be dealt with," said Chenoweth, 56. "But it's going to be tough. Jack has been a lifesaver."
Fuck The Troops
Chenoweth says the therapy, paid for by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), has helped pull him back from thoughts of suicide and other self-destructive acts in a life scarred by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) -- a war injury that ranks among the most common and the most difficult to heal.
Starting in July, Chenoweth's sessions with Aberdeen therapist Jack Dutro have been reduced from twice to once a month, a cut that comes as thousands of Iraq war veterans join those of previous wars in seeking treatment from the strained VA.
"I can understand that the new veterans need to be dealt with," said Chenoweth, 56. "But it's going to be tough. Jack has been a lifesaver."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:05 PM
| Comments (0)
Those are fucking laser-beam eyes if ever laser-bean eyes existed! The only question is when the motherfucker will use them (and upon whom).
As for the other dude in the photo, he is most surely not a cyborg -- merely a lard-assed son of a bitch.
Cyborg Watch
Those are fucking laser-beam eyes if ever laser-bean eyes existed! The only question is when the motherfucker will use them (and upon whom).
As for the other dude in the photo, he is most surely not a cyborg -- merely a lard-assed son of a bitch.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:01 PM
| Comments (3)
EASTON [Pennsylvania] -- Police told anti-war protesters they could not hand out leaflets Sunday at Heritage Day denouncing the Iraq war, members of the Lehigh-Pocono Committee of Concern said.
July 11, 2005
Freedom On The March
EASTON [Pennsylvania] -- Police told anti-war protesters they could not hand out leaflets Sunday at Heritage Day denouncing the Iraq war, members of the Lehigh-Pocono Committee of Concern said.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:08 PM
| Comments (0)
The "apples and oranges" plea is complete bullshit, as this blog has argued before now: just apply the new methodology to previous years' events, and we'd be able to easily track the trend. But the Bush Administration can't do that, because it would demonstrate that its methods are having the opposite affect to their supposed intent.
But even the news of the day, without the historical context, amply demonstrates either the Administration's incompetence, or its lies regarding its intentions.
First stop, Arabia:
So while the Bush Administration is busy "spreading freedom" in Iraq, and possibly getting ready for same in Iran; its closest "War-On-Terror" ally is busy spreading nuclear technology right next door. Well, at least we've long-since abandoned the WMD pretexts for the Bushwars.
But for those scoring at home, that makes North Korea, Iran, Arabia, and Brazil that have since the launching of the "GWOT" either acquired the bomb or are thought to be awfully close to having done so. You know, there must have been a less dangerous means of accomplishing the goal of redirecting U.S. tax dollars into Dick Cheney's pockets.
Next stop, Afghanistan:
So the Administration has known since January that there would be a "spring resurgence", yet is completely unable to prevent it? As we've asked here many times before: is the general trying to inspire confidence in his military's ability to prevent violence?
And if, as Scottie is so fond of pontificating to the effect of, increasing violence in Afghanistan and Iraq is a sign that the Administration is "succeeding" in its mission of bringing "freedom" to those lands, does it not logically follow that "freedom" and security are inversely related? That the maximum "level" of "freedom" will be coincident with the maximum level of violence? And if the Administration is, by its own admission, utterly powerless to alter this relationship, shouldn't it maybe turn the reins over to somebody else?
Funny thing about "everything": it seems it be rather in plentiful supply, even after having been thrown.
Next stop, the "Homeland":
Again, doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it? The Administration is doing such a bang-up job of "fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" that it's worried about the National Guard being "overwhelmed".
And yet, Bush's "leadership" of the "War On Terror" is the one component of his poll ratings that has retained its lofty image in the public imagination. It's a crazy, fucked-up World, it is.
Update, 7/7/05: Next stop, London:
It also speaks well to the futility of trying to maintain a global empire by violence. Which is not to say that Thursday's bombings were not deplorable acts. But they were no less deplorable, and incalculably less devastating (incalculably because the "Multinational Force" "doesn't do body-counts", and because the full impact of the United States' toxic weaponry will be felt over the course of decades) than, for example, the blitz of Fallujah (to take just one out of the panoply crimes perpetrated by the "liberators" in Iraq and Afghanistan).
You'd never know that reading the third in a five-part series of Seattle Times editorials (concluding, coincidentally, to-day) "criticising" the U.S. presence in Iraq:
Compare this analysis with Tony Blair's:
Got that? If we "want" to help the Big Dog invade your country and slaughter 100,000 people, while maiming and torturing god-knows how many others; then we are "entitled" to do so. Given British history, it's no great wonder that Blair should think so.
But if the course of our "going about our business as normal" necessitates the creation of the "normal" conditions seen in the Third World to-day, Blair's rhetoric is no more than a "damp squib". Here's hoping the British will follow the Spaniards' lead, and compel their government to pull out of the "coalition" -- not because they fear more bomb-blasts in their future, but because they've finally connected the dots between their "business as normal" and others' "business as normal":
July 06, 2005
Keystone Kops
There were nearly 3,200 terrorist attacks worldwide last year, a federal counterterrorism center said yesterday, using a broader definition that increased fivefold the number of attacks the agency had been counting.
The National Counterterrorism Center's interim director, John Brennan, called a new database that was to go online today "the most comprehensive U.S. effort to date to track terrorist incidents worldwide." But he cautioned that comparing the new tally to previous ones was comparing apples to oranges.
The "apples and oranges" plea is complete bullshit, as this blog has argued before now: just apply the new methodology to previous years' events, and we'd be able to easily track the trend. But the Bush Administration can't do that, because it would demonstrate that its methods are having the opposite affect to their supposed intent.
But even the news of the day, without the historical context, amply demonstrates either the Administration's incompetence, or its lies regarding its intentions.
First stop, Arabia:
Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf's June 25-26 unscheduled trip to Arabia has raised many an eyebrow in Islamabad's diplomatic circles, where it is believed the visit was meant to seek the assistance of the kingdom to circumvent the ongoing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigations into reports that the Saudis might have purchased nuclear technology from Pakistan.
So while the Bush Administration is busy "spreading freedom" in Iraq, and possibly getting ready for same in Iran; its closest "War-On-Terror" ally is busy spreading nuclear technology right next door. Well, at least we've long-since abandoned the WMD pretexts for the Bushwars.
But for those scoring at home, that makes North Korea, Iran, Arabia, and Brazil that have since the launching of the "GWOT" either acquired the bomb or are thought to be awfully close to having done so. You know, there must have been a less dangerous means of accomplishing the goal of redirecting U.S. tax dollars into Dick Cheney's pockets.
Next stop, Afghanistan:
Q: General, if you could take a step back and provide a little bit of context on Afghanistan. Do you see the situation deteriorating? Is it deteriorating, in particular in Kunar Province? Could you give us a little bit of context for this?
GEN. CONWAY: I would actually say the opposite. You know, our intelligence folks were predicting in January, in the middle of winter, that this heaviest of snowfalls in some time is going to melt and go away; that they will come out of the caves, and there will be a spring resurgence, if you will, leading up to the election that we see now in September. So all of this is along a very predictable path.
So the Administration has known since January that there would be a "spring resurgence", yet is completely unable to prevent it? As we've asked here many times before: is the general trying to inspire confidence in his military's ability to prevent violence?
And if, as Scottie is so fond of pontificating to the effect of, increasing violence in Afghanistan and Iraq is a sign that the Administration is "succeeding" in its mission of bringing "freedom" to those lands, does it not logically follow that "freedom" and security are inversely related? That the maximum "level" of "freedom" will be coincident with the maximum level of violence? And if the Administration is, by its own admission, utterly powerless to alter this relationship, shouldn't it maybe turn the reins over to somebody else?
MR. DI RITA: But I will note -- to just kind of follow on your first question, but it's relevant to yours, too, Charlie, and that is General Abizaid, at the testimony the other day, acknowledged that his anticipation is that they're going to throw everything they can -- meaning the bad guys -- at the election in September. So it's just -- it's a window on his own thinking, but he has not -- I mean, there will be additional forces available, if he says he needs them.
Funny thing about "everything": it seems it be rather in plentiful supply, even after having been thrown.
Next stop, the "Homeland":
A new Pentagon strategy for securing the U.S. homeland calls for expanded military activity not only in the air and sea -- where the armed forces have historically guarded approaches to the country -- but also on the ground and in other less traditional, potentially more problematic areas such as intelligence sharing with civilian law enforcement. [...]
The document does not ask for new legal authority to use military forces on U.S. soil, but it raises the likelihood that U.S. combat troops will take action in the event that civilian and National Guard forces are overwhelmed. At the same time, the document stresses that the primary responsibility for domestic security continues to rest with civilian agencies.
Again, doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it? The Administration is doing such a bang-up job of "fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" that it's worried about the National Guard being "overwhelmed".
And yet, Bush's "leadership" of the "War On Terror" is the one component of his poll ratings that has retained its lofty image in the public imagination. It's a crazy, fucked-up World, it is.
Update, 7/7/05: Next stop, London:
British authorities were apparently aware of the presence of suspected al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the Muslim diaspora in the UK, and had been closely monitoring their activities for nearly a year. The fact that despite this, the perpetrators of the blasts managed to carry them out speak well of their motivation and ability to plan and execute terrorist strikes in total secrecy.
It also speaks well to the futility of trying to maintain a global empire by violence. Which is not to say that Thursday's bombings were not deplorable acts. But they were no less deplorable, and incalculably less devastating (incalculably because the "Multinational Force" "doesn't do body-counts", and because the full impact of the United States' toxic weaponry will be felt over the course of decades) than, for example, the blitz of Fallujah (to take just one out of the panoply crimes perpetrated by the "liberators" in Iraq and Afghanistan).
You'd never know that reading the third in a five-part series of Seattle Times editorials (concluding, coincidentally, to-day) "criticising" the U.S. presence in Iraq:
With 1,731 U.S. troops killed and more than 13,000 wounded, the human toll from the war in Iraq is painfully apparent. [...]
It is time to face this reality: The lives and dollars paying for the war are coming from America.
Compare this analysis with Tony Blair's:
I think we all know what they are trying to do -- they are trying to use the slaughter of innocent people to cower us, to frighten us out of doing the things that we want to do, of trying to stop us going about our business as normal, as we are entitled to do, and they should not, and they must not, succeed.
Got that? If we "want" to help the Big Dog invade your country and slaughter 100,000 people, while maiming and torturing god-knows how many others; then we are "entitled" to do so. Given British history, it's no great wonder that Blair should think so.
But if the course of our "going about our business as normal" necessitates the creation of the "normal" conditions seen in the Third World to-day, Blair's rhetoric is no more than a "damp squib". Here's hoping the British will follow the Spaniards' lead, and compel their government to pull out of the "coalition" -- not because they fear more bomb-blasts in their future, but because they've finally connected the dots between their "business as normal" and others' "business as normal":
Don't Americans know that this vast wasteland of terror and terrorists otherwise known as "Abroad" was home to the first civilizations and is home now to some of the most sophisticated, educated people in the region?
Don't Americans realize that "abroad" is a country full of people -- men, women, and children who are dying hourly? "Abroad" is home for millions of us. It's the place we were raised and the place we hope to raise our children -- your field of war and terror.
The war was brought to us here, and now we have to watch the country disintegrate before our very eyes. We watch as towns are bombed and gunned down and evacuated of their people. We watch as friends and loved ones are detained, or killed or pressured out of the country with fear and intimidation. [...]
Three decades of tyranny isn't what bombed and burned buildings to the ground. It isn't three decades of tyranny that destroyed the infrastructure with such things as "Shock and Awe" and various other tactics. Though [Bush] fails to mention it, prior to the war, we didn't have sewage overflowing in the streets like we do now, and water cut off for days and days at a time. We certainly had more than the 8 hours of electricity daily. In several areas they aren't even getting that much. [...]
We're so "free", we often find ourselves prisoners of our homes, with roads cut off indefinitely and complete areas made inaccessible. We are so "free" to assemble that people now fear having gatherings because a large number of friends or family members may attract too much attention and provoke a raid by American or Iraqi forces. [...]
Why aren't the Americans setting a timetable for withdrawal? Iraqis are constantly wondering why nothing is being done to accelerate the end of the occupation.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:38 PM
| Comments (1)
Take a look at these two men.
The man on the right is considered, by the vast majority of the World's population, the very embodiment of evil-on-Earth. In reality, though, he's more cyborg than man; he's incapable of eating pretzels and watching teevee at the same time; he doesn't comb his hair before Press Conferences; he's wacked out on anti-depressants, in order to "control his erratic behavior"; he's probably less involved in policy-formulation than was Ronald Reagan -- he's only really permitted to chop wood at his ranch, or spew on about god now and then. A pretty pitiful figure, really: you almost have to feel sorry for the guy. Almost.
The man on the left, however, apparently suffers no such debilitations. And yet his public statements are more less identical to those of his "good friend". Rather than feeling sorry for him, then, we can only feel the most profound and utter contempt.
One would think that, knowing what we now know, Bush and Blair would, when trotting out this particular lie, throw in a "to the best of our knowledge" to help wash down the medicine. But, just as with the "Saddam didn't let the inspectors in" argument, Bush and Blair continue to employ the "Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions" lie in the (presumably, and so-far correct) assumption that they'll not be called upon it.
But this lie is especially insidious coming from Tony "I have never told a lie" Blair as (even though the "sanctions will be there until the end of time" policy was driven by Clinton and Albright, with Blair a willing accomplice) Blair was well aware as far back as the fading days of UNSCOM -- not to mention during the run-up to the 2003 invasion -- that Iraq had by then been more less completely disarmed, and that the sanctions were being kept in place owing only to political chicanery.
Ergo, we must "draw a line in the sand here".
Not with the United States, which Blair was aware was planning to use Depleted Uranium and Cluster Bombs in Iraq (as it had previously done in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan) -- and was presumably aware of the United States' intent to use Napalm in Iraq, though the UK government now claims to have had the wool pulled over its eyes concerning this last. Blair must surely have also been aware that the United States, having, with Blair's aid, during the '90s allowed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to die, didn't "care" how many more Iraqis it would kill. (And even if he hadn't been aware at the time, for him to use the argument to-day, 100,000-and-counting Iraqi civilians later, is astonishingly disingenous. Okay, well, it'd be astonishing coming from anyone other than Blair.)
Not with Pakistan or Israel, two fundamentalist states in flagrant violation of the NPT. Not with Russia, which for some time during the 1990s couldn't even account for all of its nukes.
No, we'll start with Iraq, even though we know that Saddam and Osama are bitter rivals and that Iraq is the most secular state in the region. And, oh yeah, that Iraq doesn't have any WMD to give to "these people".
By the way, shouldn't Blair have concluded that the "balance of risk" would have been lessened by the events of September 11th? That the likelihood of being caught flat-footed a second time is vanishingly small? Sure, if "these people" are able to get hold of and employ WMD, they'll probably do so, resulting in an even more catastrophic event than was September 11th -- but that was also true before September 11th, and the fact of September 11th didn't make it any more or less likely that they'd be able to do so. (Of course, if Bush and Blair had been truly interested in not only lessening, but even eliminating the "balance of risk", they might have addressed the -- legitimate -- grievances of the bin Laden-ites, rather than pouring salt in the wounds. But let's not put the cart before the horse, shall we?)
Speaking of "astonishing", here's Blair's response to the Downing Street Memo:
In other words, he doesn't dispute the memo's authenticity. But he also appears not to have read it, because it explicitly states that the case for war would have to be made by hook or by crook, as the basis for war was weak-to-non-existent. Even worse, Blair must take us all for complete and total slobbering idiots (maybe because of having spent so much time hanging out with G.W.): does he really expect us to not recall that he and Bush went to war after having failed to gain approval from the United Nations?
I mean, what the fuck? Is he saying that if I go ask my local sheriff if it's okay to blow up my neighbours, and the sheriff tells me that I may not do so, that my having asked makes it okay for me to do so anyway? Sure, at least he's not arguing that it's not only okay, but also proves that the sheriff's office needs to be "reformed". But, again, we expect that sort of reaction from the nitwits comprising the Bush Administration. For someone of Blair's supposed intellect to use this argument is fairly remarkable.
But, what else is he gonna do? Tell the truth? Admit that he was wrong? Apologise for his role in facilitating the mass slaughter in Iraq? Bring the British troops home? Nah, homey don't fuck around with those games.
July 02, 2005
Tony! Toni! Tone!
Take a look at these two men.
The man on the right is considered, by the vast majority of the World's population, the very embodiment of evil-on-Earth. In reality, though, he's more cyborg than man; he's incapable of eating pretzels and watching teevee at the same time; he doesn't comb his hair before Press Conferences; he's wacked out on anti-depressants, in order to "control his erratic behavior"; he's probably less involved in policy-formulation than was Ronald Reagan -- he's only really permitted to chop wood at his ranch, or spew on about god now and then. A pretty pitiful figure, really: you almost have to feel sorry for the guy. Almost.
The man on the left, however, apparently suffers no such debilitations. And yet his public statements are more less identical to those of his "good friend". Rather than feeling sorry for him, then, we can only feel the most profound and utter contempt.
I thought it right that we went back into the international community and said, "No, we are going to draw a line in the sand here," and the country to do it with was Iraq, because they were in breach of UN resolutions going back many years."
One would think that, knowing what we now know, Bush and Blair would, when trotting out this particular lie, throw in a "to the best of our knowledge" to help wash down the medicine. But, just as with the "Saddam didn't let the inspectors in" argument, Bush and Blair continue to employ the "Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions" lie in the (presumably, and so-far correct) assumption that they'll not be called upon it.
But this lie is especially insidious coming from Tony "I have never told a lie" Blair as (even though the "sanctions will be there until the end of time" policy was driven by Clinton and Albright, with Blair a willing accomplice) Blair was well aware as far back as the fading days of UNSCOM -- not to mention during the run-up to the 2003 invasion -- that Iraq had by then been more less completely disarmed, and that the sanctions were being kept in place owing only to political chicanery.
After Sept. 11, I took the view if these people can ever get hold of nuclear, chemical, or biological capability they'd probably use it because they don't care if they kill. People who kill 3,000 people don't care if they kill 30,000 or 300,000 people ... The balance of risk for me changed.
Ergo, we must "draw a line in the sand here".
Not with the United States, which Blair was aware was planning to use Depleted Uranium and Cluster Bombs in Iraq (as it had previously done in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan) -- and was presumably aware of the United States' intent to use Napalm in Iraq, though the UK government now claims to have had the wool pulled over its eyes concerning this last. Blair must surely have also been aware that the United States, having, with Blair's aid, during the '90s allowed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to die, didn't "care" how many more Iraqis it would kill. (And even if he hadn't been aware at the time, for him to use the argument to-day, 100,000-and-counting Iraqi civilians later, is astonishingly disingenous. Okay, well, it'd be astonishing coming from anyone other than Blair.)
Not with Pakistan or Israel, two fundamentalist states in flagrant violation of the NPT. Not with Russia, which for some time during the 1990s couldn't even account for all of its nukes.
No, we'll start with Iraq, even though we know that Saddam and Osama are bitter rivals and that Iraq is the most secular state in the region. And, oh yeah, that Iraq doesn't have any WMD to give to "these people".
By the way, shouldn't Blair have concluded that the "balance of risk" would have been lessened by the events of September 11th? That the likelihood of being caught flat-footed a second time is vanishingly small? Sure, if "these people" are able to get hold of and employ WMD, they'll probably do so, resulting in an even more catastrophic event than was September 11th -- but that was also true before September 11th, and the fact of September 11th didn't make it any more or less likely that they'd be able to do so. (Of course, if Bush and Blair had been truly interested in not only lessening, but even eliminating the "balance of risk", they might have addressed the -- legitimate -- grievances of the bin Laden-ites, rather than pouring salt in the wounds. But let's not put the cart before the horse, shall we?)
Speaking of "astonishing", here's Blair's response to the Downing Street Memo:
I am a bit astonished at how this has received such coverage in the U.S. because the fact is after the memo was done we went to the United Nations.
In other words, he doesn't dispute the memo's authenticity. But he also appears not to have read it, because it explicitly states that the case for war would have to be made by hook or by crook, as the basis for war was weak-to-non-existent. Even worse, Blair must take us all for complete and total slobbering idiots (maybe because of having spent so much time hanging out with G.W.): does he really expect us to not recall that he and Bush went to war after having failed to gain approval from the United Nations?
I mean, what the fuck? Is he saying that if I go ask my local sheriff if it's okay to blow up my neighbours, and the sheriff tells me that I may not do so, that my having asked makes it okay for me to do so anyway? Sure, at least he's not arguing that it's not only okay, but also proves that the sheriff's office needs to be "reformed". But, again, we expect that sort of reaction from the nitwits comprising the Bush Administration. For someone of Blair's supposed intellect to use this argument is fairly remarkable.
But, what else is he gonna do? Tell the truth? Admit that he was wrong? Apologise for his role in facilitating the mass slaughter in Iraq? Bring the British troops home? Nah, homey don't fuck around with those games.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:52 PM
| Comments (0)
But this national change of heart prompts the question: Why did you fuckers change your minds?
Surely it's not the staggering mass murder of more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians. That shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone. That's what happens when the world's best-equipped military bombs a nation incapable of fielding a single jet to defend itself.
July 01, 2005
Quote Of The Moment
But this national change of heart prompts the question: Why did you fuckers change your minds?
Surely it's not the staggering mass murder of more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians. That shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone. That's what happens when the world's best-equipped military bombs a nation incapable of fielding a single jet to defend itself.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:05 PM
| Comments (0)
So that's what our fucking budget priorities have bought us: scores of billions for permanent war, tax breaks for the rich, and schools in such a shambles that parents will turn to self-mutilation to provide for their children's (pre-college) educations.
And is there now any space that cannot be commodified?
The Horror
For $10,000, Kari Smith has had her forehead tattooed with the Web address of a gambling site.
Smith, 30, who sold her unusual advertising space on eBay, said the money will give her 11-year-old son a private education, which she believes he needs after falling behind in school.
So that's what our fucking budget priorities have bought us: scores of billions for permanent war, tax breaks for the rich, and schools in such a shambles that parents will turn to self-mutilation to provide for their children's (pre-college) educations.
And is there now any space that cannot be commodified?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:01 PM
| Comments (2)
This is the same argument advanced by Colin Powell a coupla weeks before the invasion ("I think I have better information than the inspectors. I think I have more assets available to me than the inspectors do.")
Complete hogwash, of course. But regular readers of this blog know that it's often fun to play, "What if he's [or, in the case of Condi Rice, "she's"] not lying?"
So, what if Hayes is not lying? That means that legislators have access to "evidence" that Bush Administration executives -- i.e., those in charge of formulating and implementing policies, and who've acknowledged on many different occasions that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 -- do not have access to.
It means that the investigators -- i.e., those in charge of determining how those tasked with protecting against such attacks failed to do so, and how it can be prevented from happening again -- don't have access to all relevant information needed to perform these duties.
It means that hundreds of other legislators, with access to the same "clear" evidence, have failed to notify the public of the existence of this evidence -- even Republican legislators, whom one would think could derive some decent PR mileage out of such evidence.
And it means that our legislators are as secretive as our executives when it comes to the sharing with the public that pays its salaries information that might be of public interest.
Yeah...it's probably better that he's lying.
Inside Information
A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said.
Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."
Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not.
This is the same argument advanced by Colin Powell a coupla weeks before the invasion ("I think I have better information than the inspectors. I think I have more assets available to me than the inspectors do.")
Complete hogwash, of course. But regular readers of this blog know that it's often fun to play, "What if he's [or, in the case of Condi Rice, "she's"] not lying?"
So, what if Hayes is not lying? That means that legislators have access to "evidence" that Bush Administration executives -- i.e., those in charge of formulating and implementing policies, and who've acknowledged on many different occasions that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 -- do not have access to.
It means that the investigators -- i.e., those in charge of determining how those tasked with protecting against such attacks failed to do so, and how it can be prevented from happening again -- don't have access to all relevant information needed to perform these duties.
It means that hundreds of other legislators, with access to the same "clear" evidence, have failed to notify the public of the existence of this evidence -- even Republican legislators, whom one would think could derive some decent PR mileage out of such evidence.
And it means that our legislators are as secretive as our executives when it comes to the sharing with the public that pays its salaries information that might be of public interest.
Yeah...it's probably better that he's lying.