Okay, so you know he's been thinking it.
Shorter Dick Cheney: 4,000 war dead were askin' for it.
Showing posts with label Bush and pals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush and pals. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
On nineteen
Okay, so 19.
Didja catch it?
Huh. It seems that that should have been more fun than it was. Go figure.
I think we can all rest assured, though, that history will prove us wrong and reveal Bush to be great president indeed.
Didja catch it?
Huh. It seems that that should have been more fun than it was. Go figure.
I think we can all rest assured, though, that history will prove us wrong and reveal Bush to be great president indeed.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
On the SOTU, down for the count
Okay, so the state of our union is strong. Not "confident and strong," as in past years; just "strong." I can see why it might be that way. "Strong" is good enough for now.
I predicted Monday that the State of the Union address would be the slightest bit lackluster, but I had no idea that it would result in such rhetorical drudgery as to deprive a worthy charity of much-needed funds. Apparently, we can't even trick George Bush into helping out wounded veterans.
(And incidentally, "economic uncertainty"? Is that like the "food uncertainty" we had back when the government decided that anyone who wasn't actively starving couldn't be hungry?)
Things that I should have thought to pledge for: inappropriate grins and winks by our president, mind-blowing departures from reality, shots of sleeping senators.
Here's the count:
bipartisan: 2
"nucular": 4
terrorist(s): 17
freedom: 10
Iran: 7
surge: 6 (at $2 a pop)
Osama bin Laden: 1 ($10)
applause: 72, and I'll confess that I completely forgot to count standing O's this time around. Shameful, I know. Last year's count was 24, so I'm going to go ahead and pay out for 25 this year just to give the WWP something to play with. If anyone has a more accurate count, let me know quick before the check hits the mail.
Pending any corrections by any far more astute SOTU viewers, the take for the Wounded Warrior Project is $86.25, or not quite one backpack. That brings the three-year total to $287.
Will the State of the Union Pledge Extravaganza and Chili Cook-Off continue in future years with future presidents? It depends on the president, I suppose, and on his/her speechwriting staff. I'm personally hoping for a little bit more sincerity, a little bit more reality, a lot more variety, and maybe just a scootch of comedy -- the intentional kind. And I'm really, really hoping that by the next time a State of the Union address rolls around, the Wounded Warrior Project won't need my donation nearly as much as they do now.
I predicted Monday that the State of the Union address would be the slightest bit lackluster, but I had no idea that it would result in such rhetorical drudgery as to deprive a worthy charity of much-needed funds. Apparently, we can't even trick George Bush into helping out wounded veterans.
(And incidentally, "economic uncertainty"? Is that like the "food uncertainty" we had back when the government decided that anyone who wasn't actively starving couldn't be hungry?)
Things that I should have thought to pledge for: inappropriate grins and winks by our president, mind-blowing departures from reality, shots of sleeping senators.
Here's the count:
bipartisan: 2
"nucular": 4
terrorist(s): 17
freedom: 10
Iran: 7
surge: 6 (at $2 a pop)
Osama bin Laden: 1 ($10)
applause: 72, and I'll confess that I completely forgot to count standing O's this time around. Shameful, I know. Last year's count was 24, so I'm going to go ahead and pay out for 25 this year just to give the WWP something to play with. If anyone has a more accurate count, let me know quick before the check hits the mail.
Pending any corrections by any far more astute SOTU viewers, the take for the Wounded Warrior Project is $86.25, or not quite one backpack. That brings the three-year total to $287.
Will the State of the Union Pledge Extravaganza and Chili Cook-Off continue in future years with future presidents? It depends on the president, I suppose, and on his/her speechwriting staff. I'm personally hoping for a little bit more sincerity, a little bit more reality, a lot more variety, and maybe just a scootch of comedy -- the intentional kind. And I'm really, really hoping that by the next time a State of the Union address rolls around, the Wounded Warrior Project won't need my donation nearly as much as they do now.
Monday, January 28, 2008
On the third annual State of the Union Pledge Extravaganza and Chili Cook-Off
Okay, so tonight's State of the Union address should be a big one, because it's the last one that President Bush will ever make.
(Pause to wait for applause to die down.)
As in past years, I'm putting together my State of the Union Drinking and Donation Game but, truth told, it's kind of a challenge this year, because Bush didn't really do all that much last year and doesn't have a whole lot going for him this year. In past SOTUs, we've had bold statements on Social Security, human-animal hybrids, immigration, the war in Iraq, war in Iran, and deficit reduction. Now, Bush is coming into his lame duck year and has spent the last six months at least without enough personal or political pull or credibility to really throw his name behind so much as a K-Mart ribbon cutting. Despite past protestations by Tony Snow that Bush would never "cease to be bold" despite plummeting poll numbers, this year's SOTU is likely to be more covers, remixes, and old standards than new material.
I'll start by flat-out pledging an additional $20 for either of the following statements: "I know we all have places we'd rather be tonight, so I'd appreciate it if you'd hold your applause until the end of the address" and "The Democrats choose to forgo their traditional response in favor of this performance by U2, live from Washington, aired without commercial interruption."
Per traditional rules, $1 will be donated to the Wounded Warrior Project, a really fantastic organization that gives aid in a variety of forms to seriously injured servicemembers and their families, for every occurrence of the following:
- "bipartisan"
- "nucular"
- "terrorists"
- "freedom" ($5 if it's used as a plural)
- "surveillance" or "interrogation" ($5 if he actually says the word "waterboarding")
- "Iran"
- "recession" ($5 if he uses "deficit" in the same sentence)
- "economic stimulus" ($5 if he refers to Ronald Reagan in this context)
- 25 cents every time he pauses for applause, 50 cents per standing ovation
As an added bonus, $2 will be donated each time one of these classics is dredged up:
- "stay the course"
- "surge"
- "benchmark"
- "hard work"
- "they hate our freedoms"
And a whopping $10 if he says, at any point, in any context, "Osama bin Laden."
As always, you're invited to watch along with me and help keep count; as always, if you choose to use the SOTU for drinking games and not donations, be sure to have a designated driver, a trash can, and an ambulance on speed dial handy. Watch this space for commentary, final numbers, and the big take for the Wounded Warrior Project (to date: $200.75). Vaya con Dios.
(Pause to wait for applause to die down.)
As in past years, I'm putting together my State of the Union Drinking and Donation Game but, truth told, it's kind of a challenge this year, because Bush didn't really do all that much last year and doesn't have a whole lot going for him this year. In past SOTUs, we've had bold statements on Social Security, human-animal hybrids, immigration, the war in Iraq, war in Iran, and deficit reduction. Now, Bush is coming into his lame duck year and has spent the last six months at least without enough personal or political pull or credibility to really throw his name behind so much as a K-Mart ribbon cutting. Despite past protestations by Tony Snow that Bush would never "cease to be bold" despite plummeting poll numbers, this year's SOTU is likely to be more covers, remixes, and old standards than new material.
I'll start by flat-out pledging an additional $20 for either of the following statements: "I know we all have places we'd rather be tonight, so I'd appreciate it if you'd hold your applause until the end of the address" and "The Democrats choose to forgo their traditional response in favor of this performance by U2, live from Washington, aired without commercial interruption."
Per traditional rules, $1 will be donated to the Wounded Warrior Project, a really fantastic organization that gives aid in a variety of forms to seriously injured servicemembers and their families, for every occurrence of the following:
- "bipartisan"
- "nucular"
- "terrorists"
- "freedom" ($5 if it's used as a plural)
- "surveillance" or "interrogation" ($5 if he actually says the word "waterboarding")
- "Iran"
- "recession" ($5 if he uses "deficit" in the same sentence)
- "economic stimulus" ($5 if he refers to Ronald Reagan in this context)
- 25 cents every time he pauses for applause, 50 cents per standing ovation
As an added bonus, $2 will be donated each time one of these classics is dredged up:
- "stay the course"
- "surge"
- "benchmark"
- "hard work"
- "they hate our freedoms"
And a whopping $10 if he says, at any point, in any context, "Osama bin Laden."
As always, you're invited to watch along with me and help keep count; as always, if you choose to use the SOTU for drinking games and not donations, be sure to have a designated driver, a trash can, and an ambulance on speed dial handy. Watch this space for commentary, final numbers, and the big take for the Wounded Warrior Project (to date: $200.75). Vaya con Dios.
Monday, November 12, 2007
On a job worth taking seriously
Okay, so if Tom Cruise and I have one thing in common, it's the fact that we both really hate the glib. (If we have three things in common, the other two are our eyebrow-sweeping bangs and the fact that we both like men.) I make it a personal priority to take myself as unseriously as possible -- there is nothing about me as a person that warrants ulcer-inducing image maintenance -- but I take my work very seriously indeed, because I recognize that a lot of other people depend on me doing my job so that they can do theirs. I show respect for others by taking seriously those things that are important to them.
That's why shit like this pisses me off:
"Gu-huck! Gu-huck! I don't know what's goin' on over there in Iraq. One of the perks of the job, I get to hire other people to know stuff for me. Stuff like what laws regulate arguably undertrained and underdisciplined military contractors we've hired to go on over an' maintain the peace using questionable methods. I don't gotta do my own laundry, either; my job is swell."
Now, I don't expect Bush to be able to name the precise statute of federal or international law that tells us precisely how Blackwater is to be supervised and regulated; that really is minutia that the commander-in-chief has every right to delegate out. But with Blackwater being such a controversial presence in the region, he needs to have some vague idea of who is responsible for keeping them in line, and he needs to respect that that is a very important question. That student didn't use her one opportunity to address the president of the United States to ask that question because the one about his favorite color was already taken; she did it because that was a significant concern to her, and out of respect for her, he should have said, at the very least, "That's a good question, and I don't know the answer to it. But I'm going to consult with my secretary of defense and find an answer for you, because it's important that you and all of the American people understand the methods we're using." Because it's important, and his not knowing is not funny.
Bush is a big fan of laughing at his own ignorance.
"Gu-huck! I don't know nothin' about the economy! I got people to know stuff about that, too. I just keep your taxes low and let some economyologist clean up the mess."
This is the man who told the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia that we are "kicking ass" in Iraq. The man who says that, when he was running for the highest office in the country, he "never really thought about the decision to put men and women in harm's way. I never thought that that would happen." The man who has so much respect for his Secretary of State that he's said, "She's the Ph.D. and I'm the C student, and just look at who's the president and who's the adviser."
"Gu-huck! Maybe you got a Ph.D. and all that, Condi, but you still ain't the president! Ain't it just a hoot that we got a moron in charge of our whole entire country?"
I know I'm not the first to observe that, while Bush does a middling-to-respectable job at scripted events that don't include the word "nuclear," he's absolute crap when let off the leash. Well, here's a tidbit for our president that might improve his skills at extemporaneous speaking: You are the only person amused by your own idiocy. You find it hilarious, and the rest of us are appalled. The rest of us are standing slack-jawed at the flippant yokel who don't know nothin' bout no military contractors/economy/war casualties and don't particularly care none.
Your job isn't just important, Mr. President, it's the most important. You are the leader of the most powerful country in the world and the commander-in-chief of a military at war. Even if you don't particularly care about any of that, we do, and out of respect for us, you need to at least pretend it bothers you that you suck noisily at every aspect of your job. Appear to take it as seriously as we do. Pretend. If you have to stand in front of a mirror for hours upon hours until you've mastered the art of simulated gravitas, then do it, because it's hard enough just knowing you're ignorant and apathetic without having to see reminders of it daily on CNN.
That's why shit like this pisses me off:
"Gu-huck! Gu-huck! I don't know what's goin' on over there in Iraq. One of the perks of the job, I get to hire other people to know stuff for me. Stuff like what laws regulate arguably undertrained and underdisciplined military contractors we've hired to go on over an' maintain the peace using questionable methods. I don't gotta do my own laundry, either; my job is swell."
Now, I don't expect Bush to be able to name the precise statute of federal or international law that tells us precisely how Blackwater is to be supervised and regulated; that really is minutia that the commander-in-chief has every right to delegate out. But with Blackwater being such a controversial presence in the region, he needs to have some vague idea of who is responsible for keeping them in line, and he needs to respect that that is a very important question. That student didn't use her one opportunity to address the president of the United States to ask that question because the one about his favorite color was already taken; she did it because that was a significant concern to her, and out of respect for her, he should have said, at the very least, "That's a good question, and I don't know the answer to it. But I'm going to consult with my secretary of defense and find an answer for you, because it's important that you and all of the American people understand the methods we're using." Because it's important, and his not knowing is not funny.
Bush is a big fan of laughing at his own ignorance.
"Gu-huck! I don't know nothin' about the economy! I got people to know stuff about that, too. I just keep your taxes low and let some economyologist clean up the mess."
This is the man who told the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia that we are "kicking ass" in Iraq. The man who says that, when he was running for the highest office in the country, he "never really thought about the decision to put men and women in harm's way. I never thought that that would happen." The man who has so much respect for his Secretary of State that he's said, "She's the Ph.D. and I'm the C student, and just look at who's the president and who's the adviser."
"Gu-huck! Maybe you got a Ph.D. and all that, Condi, but you still ain't the president! Ain't it just a hoot that we got a moron in charge of our whole entire country?"
I know I'm not the first to observe that, while Bush does a middling-to-respectable job at scripted events that don't include the word "nuclear," he's absolute crap when let off the leash. Well, here's a tidbit for our president that might improve his skills at extemporaneous speaking: You are the only person amused by your own idiocy. You find it hilarious, and the rest of us are appalled. The rest of us are standing slack-jawed at the flippant yokel who don't know nothin' bout no military contractors/economy/war casualties and don't particularly care none.
Your job isn't just important, Mr. President, it's the most important. You are the leader of the most powerful country in the world and the commander-in-chief of a military at war. Even if you don't particularly care about any of that, we do, and out of respect for us, you need to at least pretend it bothers you that you suck noisily at every aspect of your job. Appear to take it as seriously as we do. Pretend. If you have to stand in front of a mirror for hours upon hours until you've mastered the art of simulated gravitas, then do it, because it's hard enough just knowing you're ignorant and apathetic without having to see reminders of it daily on CNN.
Friday, November 09, 2007
On the good, the bad, and the Friday Random Ten
Idiot kings are only funny when they're fictional
Okay, so after the Florida victory, I said (publicly, if not online) that if we only won one game for the rest of the season, and that game was against Georgia Tech, I'd be a happy camper.
Of course, that wasn't taking into consideration the Through the Looking Glass Season of 1999, in which, despite the Bulldogs' spotty performances and ongoing tendency to play down to the level of our opponents, Georgia could still take the SEC East if we win out the rest of the season and Tennessee gets a loss. It's funny how having nothing to lose can change your outlook on things; I find myself having to swallow my breezy acceptance of a Georgia loss against Auburn this weekend and lining up all of my football superstitions in preparation for a fight. This weekend, I'm going to be in Athens with Doug, watching the game from Tent City, with Jenna, who will be wearing her Georgia sweater, and I'll be wearing my black Georgia t-shirt, which I'd be wearing anyway, because of the superstition, but it works because Geogia is planning to black out the stadium, but I'd be wearing it anyway because of the superstition, and good golly, being a football fan is more exhausting than one might think. I love it, I'm always glad to see football season roll around, but this might be the first year that I'm also glad to see the end of the season.
Too much pressure. Gah.
The good (for the week ending 11/9):
- the Blackberry 8100
- Local coffee shops that know you by sight and start pouring your skim latte before you even get to the counter
- Locomotive breakdancing:
- Monty Python and the Holy Grail screened a la The Rocky Horror Picture Show
- working together to actually accomplish something (Nice work, guys! Now let's see what you can do about stem cell research, reproductive rights, and ENDA)
The bad:
- wife-slapping as a socially redeeming quality (warning: logic-free logic may cause nausea and dizziness)
- suspending constitutional rule in the face of national security threats
The Ten:
1. U2, "Numb"
2. Sarah Brightman, "Nella Fantasia"
3. Johnny Cash, "Highwayman" (with Willie Nelson)
4. Tim McGraw, "It's Your Love" (with Faith Hill)
5. The Temptations, "The Way You Do the Things You Do"
6. Diane Schuur, "Easy to Love"
7. Portishead, "It Could Be Sweet"
8. Siouxsie and the Banshees, "Peek-A-Boo"
9. Jump, Little Children, "All Those Days Are Gone"
10. Diane Schurr, "I Can't Believe You're In Love With Me"
How about you? What's good for you this week?
Saturday, September 15, 2007
On the good, the bad, and the Friday Random Ten: YouTube Edition
Okay, so it's not even Friday anymore, and still no Random Ten. There was a hot dog lunch sponsored by the Alumni Society (and whoever came up with idea of bringing the marching band into a cavernous, all-concrete room while we all ate lunch? Brilliant. Well done), there was a buttload of rain (and I thanked God for it even as it soaked me right to the knees), there was a really interesting dance performance featuring one of my friends and proving that a guy doesn't have to do that rather disturbing spine-unhingeing-hip-swivelly thing to be a talented Latin dancer, but there wasn't a Random Ten.
I'll rectify that situation now, and I'll do it with motion and sound.
What's good (for the week ending 9/14/07):
- The next James Bond filming, starring... Tom Hanks:
- Hamster. A dentist. The Fishmaster!
- For fans of Prison Break (coming back this Monday, folks!), it's Brokeback Prison:
(And incidentally, anyone freaking out about implications of actual homosexuality on Wentworth Miller's part should know that if I've got a crush on him, chances are, yeah, he's gay. It's my curse. Sorry 'bout that.)
- The newest hot game: Count the innuendo!
(I got up to twenty; feel free to compile a list in comments.)
- And just in case there's a single person in the world with whom I've not yet shared this, it's Drinking Time at Dartmouth College:
What's not good:
- The Petraeus report:
President Bush needs a little more practice. Shari Lewis always managed to keep her lips from moving when Lambchop was talking. Note to General Petraeus: You were doing better when the mic wasn't working; we'll try to work with that in the future.
- Uppity women who don't know their place:
(And while that's bad enough, the response has piled bad on worse.)
Ugh. The Ten:
1. Franz Schubert, "In der Ferne" from Schwanengesang
2. Howie Day, "Madrigals"
3. Carmen Consoli, "Diversi"
4. Barenaked Ladies, "It's All Been Done"
5. Banx De France, "Diner Dans Le Desert"
6. Barenaked Ladies, "One Week"
7. The Surfaris, "Wipe Out"
8. 311, "Homebrew"
9. Texas, "Saint"
10. The Beatles, "I Feel Fine"
What's good for you this week? Your good, your bad, your Ten, and your naughty euphemisms go in comments.
I'll rectify that situation now, and I'll do it with motion and sound.
What's good (for the week ending 9/14/07):
- The next James Bond filming, starring... Tom Hanks:
- Hamster. A dentist. The Fishmaster!
- For fans of Prison Break (coming back this Monday, folks!), it's Brokeback Prison:
(And incidentally, anyone freaking out about implications of actual homosexuality on Wentworth Miller's part should know that if I've got a crush on him, chances are, yeah, he's gay. It's my curse. Sorry 'bout that.)
- The newest hot game: Count the innuendo!
(I got up to twenty; feel free to compile a list in comments.)
- And just in case there's a single person in the world with whom I've not yet shared this, it's Drinking Time at Dartmouth College:
What's not good:
- The Petraeus report:
President Bush needs a little more practice. Shari Lewis always managed to keep her lips from moving when Lambchop was talking. Note to General Petraeus: You were doing better when the mic wasn't working; we'll try to work with that in the future.
- Uppity women who don't know their place:
(And while that's bad enough, the response has piled bad on worse.)
Ugh. The Ten:
1. Franz Schubert, "In der Ferne" from Schwanengesang
2. Howie Day, "Madrigals"
3. Carmen Consoli, "Diversi"
4. Barenaked Ladies, "It's All Been Done"
5. Banx De France, "Diner Dans Le Desert"
6. Barenaked Ladies, "One Week"
7. The Surfaris, "Wipe Out"
8. 311, "Homebrew"
9. Texas, "Saint"
10. The Beatles, "I Feel Fine"
What's good for you this week? Your good, your bad, your Ten, and your naughty euphemisms go in comments.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
On a final observance
Okay, so this is going to be my last post on 9/11. It's sort of become a requirement among even the most vaguely political bloggers to post on September 11 and remember where we were when we heard about the attacks, whether or not we knew or thought we knew someone in the towers or the Pentagon, what happened in the immediate aftermath, what's happened since, what's happened with the families of the victims, why those attacks are such a vital (if you're blogging from the right) or ridiculous (blogging from the left) justification for our current war, and why everyone on the other side of the argument obviously hates America. And then it's pointed out that 9/11 changed everything.
Except the more I thought about it today, the more I realized: 9/11 changed nothing.
Now, don't get me wrong; there are people whose lives are deeply and irreconcilably different since those attacks. The families of these people, for instance. They had to deal with the fear to begin with, and then the pain of losing a loved one, and have since been bombarded with constant images of the attacks and been dragged around and used - by both sides - as political tools and pawns. And the workers who helped to treat survivors and clean up and rebuild, the ones who are now sick after being assured by the government that they were in absolutely no danger, many of whom are being denied affordable treatment for those same illnesses because God forbid we should have anything approaching universal health care. Those people who were directly and immediately touched by the attacks have their own unique experiential set resulting from that day, a set with which I sympathize and which I hope never to be able to fully understand. I begrudge those people no amount of grief or anger, and however they choose to mourn, publicly or privately, I offer no argument.
But for the vast majority of Americans, 9/11 changed nothing. And not just because so many of us were merely riding the grief train in the months following the attacks, manufacturing grief and fear beyond what we sincerely felt so that we could feel like a part of this national outpouring of emotion. And not because nothing changed. Our world right now is, in fact, quite different from the way it was before the attacks.
Since the attacks, Americans have become more jingoistic. We've lashed out at well-meaning allies. We've alienated just about every other country in the entire world with our foreign policy. In the co-opted name of the victims of the attacks, we've sent the men and women who've vowed to keep us safe to invade another, un-9/11-adjacent country without provocation. We're embroiled in a war seemingly without end. We've renamed "French fries" "Freedom fries" and then changed the name back. We've held up the families of 9/11 victims as justification for war, and then we've chastised them when they protested such exploitation or grieved in a government-nonapproved fashion. We've attacked Arabs for possibly being Muslims, and we've attacked Sikhs for looking like Arabs. We've decried the abuses of women in Arab countries, and then we've spat on women on our own city streets for daring to wear the hijab. We've convinced ourselves that the Iraqi people are innocent and worthy of our help and simultaneously ungrateful wretches who deserve anything that comes to them. We've made it okay, even admirable, to be xenophobic and hateful. We've normalized racial profiling. We've criminalized dissent. We've submitted to unconstitutional government invasions of our privacy. We've consented to torture. We've reduced the American flag to an item of apparel and the attacks of September 11 to a smoking-tower logo and "We'll Never Forget" suitable for t-shirt, bumper sticker, snow globe, or Commemorative Coin Forged From Genuine Ground Zero Salvaged Steel. Between American casualties in Iraq and lives lost in the attacks themselves, we're nearly 7,000 fewer than we were six years and a day ago.
But those changes aren't because of 9/11. Correlation vs. causation; those changes happened after the September 11 attacks, but not because of them. Those changes happened because someone - lots of someones - saw an opportunity to turn a tragedy into a campaign.
The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, but we're not at war with Saudi Arabia. The attacks were coordinated by Osama bin Laden, but we're no closer to capturing him than we've ever been. Our airport security is and has been weak as water, but the best efforts made for our safety involve putting our travel-sized shampoo bottles in Ziploc bags. The terrorist cells that constantly threaten our safety are holed up on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, but our troops are too bogged down in Iraq and our global diplomacy cred is so shot that we can't get into other countries to punish those responsible for the attacks. We're told that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, and all the while the government is systematically stripping those freedoms away unquestioned. We've given complete control of our lives to a man who takes vacations during natural disasters and hasn't mastered the pronunciation of "nuclear" yet and has fed us one untruth after another to justify his war, because he looks convincing in a cowboy hat, and because anyone preaching reason and moderation is far too removed from the "boot in the ass" misguided-revenge-seekers who appeal to the lesser angels of our nature.
But 9/11 didn't do any of that. We did that. We just used 9/11 as an excuse.
You know what would be awesome? If 9/11 really did change everything. If we took that feeling of global unity - "We are all Americans" - that immediately followed the attacks and ran with it. If, instead of alienating our allies and neighbors by lashing our randomly, we worked together to rout out the true causes of global terrorism. If we made it a priority to understand other cultures instead of demonizing them. If we reached out to grieving families instead of using them for our own purposes. If we stepped outside of our own personal bubbles and looked to happiness other than our own. If we reacted with compassion instead of fear. If, instead of playing directly from the terrorists' script and letting our lives turn into a reactionary chaos of fear and mistrust and hatred, we resolved to make our country, and our place in the world, stronger, safer, more welcoming, more understanding, more open. If we realized that life is precious and can be gone in an instant, and that the only way to honor that is to live life, with others, rather than cowering in fear.
We've been there. I've seen it. Right after the attacks, back before those in power set to really cultivating the fear that the attacks seeded, blood banks were overflowing with donors and state troopers were running bucket-brigade relays to get that blood where it needed to go. Anyone grieving or afraid had a set of available arms nearby. Some churches and synagogues and mosques were hosting seminars and gatherings to promote understanding and correct misconceptions between faiths. Firefighters held out boots at traffic lights, and those boots were always full to overflowing with donations. During that first flush, when news coverage showed nothing but disaster footage, for whatever reason we turned to each other in the US and in the rest of the world, and the sheer potential of it all was amazing. Back before it all got really dirty, it was the one shining hope that could arise from the rubble like the clichéd flower poking out of a crack in a sidewalk.
We can be that potential. We can choose, even at this late and seemingly immutable point, to go back and find that place where we could make a good thing out of something that seemed completely devoid of any goodness. And when we do that, you'll get another September post for me saying that I knew all along how 9/11 changed everything.
Except the more I thought about it today, the more I realized: 9/11 changed nothing.
Now, don't get me wrong; there are people whose lives are deeply and irreconcilably different since those attacks. The families of these people, for instance. They had to deal with the fear to begin with, and then the pain of losing a loved one, and have since been bombarded with constant images of the attacks and been dragged around and used - by both sides - as political tools and pawns. And the workers who helped to treat survivors and clean up and rebuild, the ones who are now sick after being assured by the government that they were in absolutely no danger, many of whom are being denied affordable treatment for those same illnesses because God forbid we should have anything approaching universal health care. Those people who were directly and immediately touched by the attacks have their own unique experiential set resulting from that day, a set with which I sympathize and which I hope never to be able to fully understand. I begrudge those people no amount of grief or anger, and however they choose to mourn, publicly or privately, I offer no argument.
But for the vast majority of Americans, 9/11 changed nothing. And not just because so many of us were merely riding the grief train in the months following the attacks, manufacturing grief and fear beyond what we sincerely felt so that we could feel like a part of this national outpouring of emotion. And not because nothing changed. Our world right now is, in fact, quite different from the way it was before the attacks.
Since the attacks, Americans have become more jingoistic. We've lashed out at well-meaning allies. We've alienated just about every other country in the entire world with our foreign policy. In the co-opted name of the victims of the attacks, we've sent the men and women who've vowed to keep us safe to invade another, un-9/11-adjacent country without provocation. We're embroiled in a war seemingly without end. We've renamed "French fries" "Freedom fries" and then changed the name back. We've held up the families of 9/11 victims as justification for war, and then we've chastised them when they protested such exploitation or grieved in a government-nonapproved fashion. We've attacked Arabs for possibly being Muslims, and we've attacked Sikhs for looking like Arabs. We've decried the abuses of women in Arab countries, and then we've spat on women on our own city streets for daring to wear the hijab. We've convinced ourselves that the Iraqi people are innocent and worthy of our help and simultaneously ungrateful wretches who deserve anything that comes to them. We've made it okay, even admirable, to be xenophobic and hateful. We've normalized racial profiling. We've criminalized dissent. We've submitted to unconstitutional government invasions of our privacy. We've consented to torture. We've reduced the American flag to an item of apparel and the attacks of September 11 to a smoking-tower logo and "We'll Never Forget" suitable for t-shirt, bumper sticker, snow globe, or Commemorative Coin Forged From Genuine Ground Zero Salvaged Steel. Between American casualties in Iraq and lives lost in the attacks themselves, we're nearly 7,000 fewer than we were six years and a day ago.
But those changes aren't because of 9/11. Correlation vs. causation; those changes happened after the September 11 attacks, but not because of them. Those changes happened because someone - lots of someones - saw an opportunity to turn a tragedy into a campaign.
The 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, but we're not at war with Saudi Arabia. The attacks were coordinated by Osama bin Laden, but we're no closer to capturing him than we've ever been. Our airport security is and has been weak as water, but the best efforts made for our safety involve putting our travel-sized shampoo bottles in Ziploc bags. The terrorist cells that constantly threaten our safety are holed up on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, but our troops are too bogged down in Iraq and our global diplomacy cred is so shot that we can't get into other countries to punish those responsible for the attacks. We're told that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, and all the while the government is systematically stripping those freedoms away unquestioned. We've given complete control of our lives to a man who takes vacations during natural disasters and hasn't mastered the pronunciation of "nuclear" yet and has fed us one untruth after another to justify his war, because he looks convincing in a cowboy hat, and because anyone preaching reason and moderation is far too removed from the "boot in the ass" misguided-revenge-seekers who appeal to the lesser angels of our nature.
But 9/11 didn't do any of that. We did that. We just used 9/11 as an excuse.
You know what would be awesome? If 9/11 really did change everything. If we took that feeling of global unity - "We are all Americans" - that immediately followed the attacks and ran with it. If, instead of alienating our allies and neighbors by lashing our randomly, we worked together to rout out the true causes of global terrorism. If we made it a priority to understand other cultures instead of demonizing them. If we reached out to grieving families instead of using them for our own purposes. If we stepped outside of our own personal bubbles and looked to happiness other than our own. If we reacted with compassion instead of fear. If, instead of playing directly from the terrorists' script and letting our lives turn into a reactionary chaos of fear and mistrust and hatred, we resolved to make our country, and our place in the world, stronger, safer, more welcoming, more understanding, more open. If we realized that life is precious and can be gone in an instant, and that the only way to honor that is to live life, with others, rather than cowering in fear.
We've been there. I've seen it. Right after the attacks, back before those in power set to really cultivating the fear that the attacks seeded, blood banks were overflowing with donors and state troopers were running bucket-brigade relays to get that blood where it needed to go. Anyone grieving or afraid had a set of available arms nearby. Some churches and synagogues and mosques were hosting seminars and gatherings to promote understanding and correct misconceptions between faiths. Firefighters held out boots at traffic lights, and those boots were always full to overflowing with donations. During that first flush, when news coverage showed nothing but disaster footage, for whatever reason we turned to each other in the US and in the rest of the world, and the sheer potential of it all was amazing. Back before it all got really dirty, it was the one shining hope that could arise from the rubble like the clichéd flower poking out of a crack in a sidewalk.
We can be that potential. We can choose, even at this late and seemingly immutable point, to go back and find that place where we could make a good thing out of something that seemed completely devoid of any goodness. And when we do that, you'll get another September post for me saying that I knew all along how 9/11 changed everything.
Friday, September 07, 2007
On the good, the bad, and the Friday Random Ten
One of these things is totally adorable.
Okay, so it's been rather the quiet news week this week. No real surprises. The famed September report? Not gonna happen. Shock! Bush knew Saddam didn't have WMD? Shockier! "Wide Stance" Craig still says he's not gay and might not resign after all? Didn't see that coming! Next thing you know, they're going to be telling us that men like hot women.
And just as reliable as Bush's gin-addled alternate reality is Practically Harmless's good, bad, and Ten.
What's good (for the week ending 9/7/07):
- Pavarotti's signature Nessun Dorma (and may angels sings thee to thy rest)
- Herbal Essences True Intense Color in Deep Red
- Georgia 35, Oklahoma State 14
- Appalachian State 34, Michigan 32
- m&ms
What's not good:
- Not knowing where your nuclear warheads are
- The aforementioned liar, a liar with his pants on fire.
The Ten:
1. Sarah McLachlan, "Last Dance"
2. The Verve, "Bittersweet Symphony"
3. Bobby Darin, "I'm Beginning to See the Light"
4. Jump, Little Children, "Angel Dust"
5. Saliva, "Superstar"
6. The Features, "Blow It Out"
7. N.W.A., "Fuck Tha Police"
8. Cal Tjader, "Soul Sauce (Guachi Guaro)"
9. Evelyn "Champagne" King, "Shame"
10. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky, "Danse napolitaine" from Swan Lake
I thought we were about to get an inadvertent tribute to Pavarotti there for a minute... and then came N.W.A., and it all suddenly means something completely different. Anyway, that's my good and bad; what's good for you this week?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
On stuff we already knew
Okay, so now it's time to play a little game we like to call "Who Said It?"
Here's the quote:
And now you get to figure out who said it! (See how that works with the name of the game? Kind of intuitive.)
Did you guess "ACG at Practically Harmless"? If so, you're... well, kind of right, maybe, because I'm sure that I've said that once or a dozen times. But no, that particular quote came from none other than Dick Cheney himself. 'Cept he said it back in 1994, back when logic still halfway applied, before invading Iraq became a good thing via the magical power of Karl Rove.
While we're playing the game, who said this?
That would be "political genius" and "brilliant mind" Karl Rove, who is packing up his shrunken baby heads and cat-o'-nine-tails for his departure from the White House at the end of the month. He says it's "to spend more time with his family," and although convential wisdom generally translates that to "I just got fired, either for my own stupidity or poltiical reasons," I think in this case it just means "the military developed a nice satellite remote that lets me control the president from the comfort of my living room."
Here's the quote:
Because if we’d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.
Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.
It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
And now you get to figure out who said it! (See how that works with the name of the game? Kind of intuitive.)
Did you guess "ACG at Practically Harmless"? If so, you're... well, kind of right, maybe, because I'm sure that I've said that once or a dozen times. But no, that particular quote came from none other than Dick Cheney himself. 'Cept he said it back in 1994, back when logic still halfway applied, before invading Iraq became a good thing via the magical power of Karl Rove.
While we're playing the game, who said this?
“He will move back up in the polls,” says [our mystery speaker], who interrupts my reference to Mr. Bush’s 30% approval rating by saying it’s heading close to “40%,” and “higher than Congress.”
Looking ahead, he adds, “Iraq will be in a better place” as the surge continues. Come the autumn, too, “we’ll see in the battle over FISA” — the wiretapping of foreign terrorists — “a fissure in the Democratic Party.” Also in the fall, “the budget fight will have been fought to our advantage,” helping the GOP restore, through a series of presidential vetoes, its brand name on spending restraint and taxes.
As for the Democrats, “They are likely to nominate a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate” by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Holding the White House for a third term is always difficult given the pent-up desire for change, he says, but “I think we’ve got a very good chance to do so.”
That would be "political genius" and "brilliant mind" Karl Rove, who is packing up his shrunken baby heads and cat-o'-nine-tails for his departure from the White House at the end of the month. He says it's "to spend more time with his family," and although convential wisdom generally translates that to "I just got fired, either for my own stupidity or poltiical reasons," I think in this case it just means "the military developed a nice satellite remote that lets me control the president from the comfort of my living room."
Thursday, August 09, 2007
On happy returns
This is why I'm hot.
Okay, so I'm back, and regular blogging can now resume (more or less as soon as I've cleared this pile of work-related crap off of my desk). The trip was largely uneventful, save for the opportunity to get voluntarily bumped in exchange for a voucher (sweet! Skokie, Illinois, here I come) and one evening at dinner where we... Well, we'll just say we didn't expect the joke to go as far as it did, and he was totally a sport. Anyway, my coworker and I did all of the fun touristy stuff, going to the top of the Arch and whatnot, and we conferenced, and we got home safely (and, in my case, about seven pounds heavier than when I left - hello to the gourmet hotel food), and that makes it a good trip, in my eyes.
I don't know if conferences were supposed to be as fun as ours was - the conference director did mention that ours was the first group to start a drinking game during a session ("Robust!" "Hey!") - but I'm fairly sure that a good time was had by all but that one prat from Kennesaw State who couldn't stop talking about how much he hated marketing people. I mean, as many conferences as I tagged along to with my dad, not once did any presenter ever pull out this video:
Good times.
The funny thing is that, the whole time we were in St. Louis, temperatures were in the mid-90s and people kept jokingly accusing us of bringing the hot, muggy Birmingham weather up with us on purpose. Then Wednesday, our plane lands in Birmingham and the captain informs us that the temperature here is 101. So I guess the joke is on... well, us, still. It's shoe-meltingly hot, and as miserable as I am, that's still with the benefit of central air conditioning.
And I guess my question would have to be, What the hell are you people doing when I'm not here? I turn my back for a second and a half, and suddenly temperatures are in the triple digits, the Dems caved and President Bush is listening in on people's phone calls, respectable Republicans are trying to go down on cops in public bathrooms, and K-Fed is filing for custody.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
On doing it for the kids
Okay, so in a bipartisan effort, the Senate Finance Committee has greenlighted a bill that would expand the Safe Children's Health Insurance Program. The bill would increase funding for the program $35 billion over the next five years to $60 billion, decreasing the number of uninsured children in the country by 4.1 million.
But President Bush is going to veto the bill.
He's going to veto it because the added funding would be financed by an increase in federal excise tax on tobacco products, raising the taxes on each pack from 39 cents to $1.
That's not the only reason, though:
That's right: This program must be stopped, because it might insure too many children! And in an insurance market that has left more than 9 million children uninsured, obviously, insured children is a... bad thing.
Without this bill, SCHIP is set to expire September 30, yanking the insurance out from under nearly 6 million children. But to a man who doesn't mind vetoing troop funding in the middle of a war, a bunch of uninsured children probably doesn't even register.
But President Bush is going to veto the bill.
He's going to veto it because the added funding would be financed by an increase in federal excise tax on tobacco products, raising the taxes on each pack from 39 cents to $1.
That's not the only reason, though:
“The proposal would dramatically expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, adding nonpoor children to the program, and more than doubling the level of spending,” Mr. Fratto said. “This will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage, to go on the government-subsidized program.”
That's right: This program must be stopped, because it might insure too many children! And in an insurance market that has left more than 9 million children uninsured, obviously, insured children is a... bad thing.
Without this bill, SCHIP is set to expire September 30, yanking the insurance out from under nearly 6 million children. But to a man who doesn't mind vetoing troop funding in the middle of a war, a bunch of uninsured children probably doesn't even register.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
On shrinking the government
Okay, so I'm an enthusiastic and unashamed therapygoer myself, and what's more, I don't think I've ever met a single person who wouldn't benefit from a couple or five couch sessions with a professional to help straighten out their heads and articulate the truth that they've been unwilling to tell themselves. And no one would benefit more from a little head-straightening and truth-articulating than the folks currently in charge of our government. Now, I won't pretend to be a licensed therapist, but I've spent enough time with them to have picked up a thing or two to my own benefit and the benefit of others.
I will dispense this advice now.
1. You can't control anyone's actions but your own.
A progress report due out this week is expected to report no progress in Iraq since the surge. The president has said that he doesn't intend to withdraw troops or even shift his strategy in light of the new information and that critics should just wait for General Petraeus's report in September. Then he once refreshed the tired old implication that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks. But mostly, the message was "stay the course and give the surge a chance to work."
Here's the problem, six months into the surge: It's not not-working because of the troops (although their very presence is seen as an irritant by many of the people they're bound to protect). It's not-working because of the Iraqi government. We can send as many or as few troops as we want, but the progress that needs to be made needs to be made by Nouri al Maliki and his pals. More Iraqi police and soldiers need to be trained, but they also need to be held accountable, to be required to show up for work, to be properly armed and armored, and to be loyal to the government and the people of Iraq rather than to the militias - and that's something that Iraq has to do. The militias themselves need to be put down and Muqtada al Sadr stripped of his power and his influence instead of just shuffled around until the heat is off and his armies can rise again - and that's something that Iraq has to do. The government needs to find a way to deal with religious freedom, civil conflict, and oil revenues - and that's something Iraq has to do.
George, you can plead with them. You can bargain with them. You can threaten to withdraw troops or withhold aid. You can negotiate with them. You can send advisors to help them plan to disarm and dissolve the militias, to build the police forces and the Army, and to distribute oil revenues, and they might be good plans. But what you can't do is make them do what they need to do. You can only control what you do. And when they choose not to do what they need to do, as they have been doing for two years now, you have only two choices: to keep troops there or to begin a phased withdrawal. You can't make the Iraqi government do what they're supposed to do, but you can control whether or not American troops are in danger while they don't do it.
2. If you keep doing what you're doing, you're going to keep getting what you're getting.
In an effort to shake us up and keep us good and scared when we might start to be not-scared, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Tuesday that chances are good for a terrorist attack this summer. He said there wasn't evidence of imminent attack, but that his "gut feeling" and past terrorist activity patterns made a "spectacular" attack more likely.
"We strike at them, we degrade them, but they rebuild." It's a pattern. "[Y]ou see an enemy that is improving itself just as we're improving ourselves." Pattern. We're in a war with the sole purported goal of fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, and what we get is... patterns. Terrorist activity in north Africa, Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, "spectacular" summertime terror threats in the US, and we degrade them, but they rebuild. Over and over and over.
Do something different, y'all. If what you're doing only knocks them down a little bit, and then they come back with a new plan or strike from a different direction or, heck, rebuild exactly where they were before with nobody saying a thing about it (Taliban, I'm looking at you), then what you're doing isn't working. We've been "staying the course" since 2003, and since 2003, we've been getting the same dismal results. Don't stick with a bum plan. My dad likes to say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I'm just sayin'.
3. You teach people how to treat you.
If you insist on being treated with respect, people will treat you that way. If people give you crap and you take it, they'll learn that you accept crap, and they'll continue giving you crap. If Alberto Gonzales lies on the stand and otherwise obstructs justice, Congress, and you don't call him on it, he's going to keep lying. Because he knows he can get away with lying to you. When Bush tells you you can't talk to his aides because he's extra special and above the law, Congress, you know that he isn't, but if you don't tell him otherwise, he's going to keep stonewalling you. Because he knows he can get away with stonewalling you. When the White House continues pushing the myth that Iraq had a hand in the September 11 attacks, new media, and you don't call them on it, they're going to keep lying to you. Because they know that can get away with lying to you.
The only way to stop the lying, to make them respect you and stop treating you like an idiot and/or particularly gullible toddler, is to call them on it. Call them on it every time. Let them know that you're paying attention and that you aren't afraid to use the brains God gave you and the free speech the Constitution guarantees you. You have to respect yourselves before anyone else will respect you.
4. When you find yourself on the wrong road, the worst thing you can do is keep driving.
Listen, President Bush, we know you've got a lot on your mind right now. You're in the middle of this war that isn't going nearly as well as Dick and Karl told you it would, and you're getting the blame for it. You're trying your hardest to show up your daddy and prove to him that you're just as smart and competent and take-charge as your brother Jeb, but every time you do, you end up screwing it up and looking even more incompetent in a real sitcom kind of way. Your supporters are shearing off. You recently pardoned Scooter Libby so that Dick Cheney, your surrogate father figure, won't be mad at you. George, you made a little girl cry.
You know that something is wrong. You can surely sense that something is very, very wrong. And I know that right now, you're trying to go along to get along, to do whatever you can to skate until the inauguration in 2009 when you officially won't have to worry about any of this terrorism crap or immigration crap or healthcare crap or global warming crap or any of the other crap that people seem to want you to care about. But putting on the blinkers and driving resolutely forward is not the way to go, George. Right now, you're gearing yourself up for a legacy as The President Who Screwed Everything Up So Badly We're Still Trying to Quantify the Fallout. If you want to avoid that fate, the only way to do it is to stop dead in your tracks this second and reevaluate. You need to talk with some people who know how to deal with these things - swallow your pride and talk to your dad's folks, for God's sake - and figure out what you want your legacy to be and how you can get there from where you are.
I can recommend a couple of therapists, if you'd like.
I will dispense this advice now.
1. You can't control anyone's actions but your own.
A progress report due out this week is expected to report no progress in Iraq since the surge. The president has said that he doesn't intend to withdraw troops or even shift his strategy in light of the new information and that critics should just wait for General Petraeus's report in September. Then he once refreshed the tired old implication that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks. But mostly, the message was "stay the course and give the surge a chance to work."
Here's the problem, six months into the surge: It's not not-working because of the troops (although their very presence is seen as an irritant by many of the people they're bound to protect). It's not-working because of the Iraqi government. We can send as many or as few troops as we want, but the progress that needs to be made needs to be made by Nouri al Maliki and his pals. More Iraqi police and soldiers need to be trained, but they also need to be held accountable, to be required to show up for work, to be properly armed and armored, and to be loyal to the government and the people of Iraq rather than to the militias - and that's something that Iraq has to do. The militias themselves need to be put down and Muqtada al Sadr stripped of his power and his influence instead of just shuffled around until the heat is off and his armies can rise again - and that's something that Iraq has to do. The government needs to find a way to deal with religious freedom, civil conflict, and oil revenues - and that's something Iraq has to do.
George, you can plead with them. You can bargain with them. You can threaten to withdraw troops or withhold aid. You can negotiate with them. You can send advisors to help them plan to disarm and dissolve the militias, to build the police forces and the Army, and to distribute oil revenues, and they might be good plans. But what you can't do is make them do what they need to do. You can only control what you do. And when they choose not to do what they need to do, as they have been doing for two years now, you have only two choices: to keep troops there or to begin a phased withdrawal. You can't make the Iraqi government do what they're supposed to do, but you can control whether or not American troops are in danger while they don't do it.
2. If you keep doing what you're doing, you're going to keep getting what you're getting.
In an effort to shake us up and keep us good and scared when we might start to be not-scared, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Tuesday that chances are good for a terrorist attack this summer. He said there wasn't evidence of imminent attack, but that his "gut feeling" and past terrorist activity patterns made a "spectacular" attack more likely.
You look at their activities around the world: bombings in North Africa from Al Qaeda, conflict in Somalia with radical Islamist groups contending for control over Somalia, training activity taking place in South Asia, the Taliban continuing to try to regain control of parts of Afghanistan.
I think if you look at that picture you see an enemy that is improving itself just as we're improving ourselves. They can't afford to remain static just as we can't afford to remain static. Our edge is technology and the vigilance of the ordinary citizen.
....
I think we do see a greater span of activity in South Asia, so we do worry about whether they are rebuilding their capabilities. We strike at them, we degrade them, but they rebuild. All these things give me kind of a gut feeling, not that I have a specific threat that I have in mind right now, but we are entering a period of increased vulnerability.
"We strike at them, we degrade them, but they rebuild." It's a pattern. "[Y]ou see an enemy that is improving itself just as we're improving ourselves." Pattern. We're in a war with the sole purported goal of fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, and what we get is... patterns. Terrorist activity in north Africa, Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, "spectacular" summertime terror threats in the US, and we degrade them, but they rebuild. Over and over and over.
Do something different, y'all. If what you're doing only knocks them down a little bit, and then they come back with a new plan or strike from a different direction or, heck, rebuild exactly where they were before with nobody saying a thing about it (Taliban, I'm looking at you), then what you're doing isn't working. We've been "staying the course" since 2003, and since 2003, we've been getting the same dismal results. Don't stick with a bum plan. My dad likes to say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I'm just sayin'.
3. You teach people how to treat you.
If you insist on being treated with respect, people will treat you that way. If people give you crap and you take it, they'll learn that you accept crap, and they'll continue giving you crap. If Alberto Gonzales lies on the stand and otherwise obstructs justice, Congress, and you don't call him on it, he's going to keep lying. Because he knows he can get away with lying to you. When Bush tells you you can't talk to his aides because he's extra special and above the law, Congress, you know that he isn't, but if you don't tell him otherwise, he's going to keep stonewalling you. Because he knows he can get away with stonewalling you. When the White House continues pushing the myth that Iraq had a hand in the September 11 attacks, new media, and you don't call them on it, they're going to keep lying to you. Because they know that can get away with lying to you.
The only way to stop the lying, to make them respect you and stop treating you like an idiot and/or particularly gullible toddler, is to call them on it. Call them on it every time. Let them know that you're paying attention and that you aren't afraid to use the brains God gave you and the free speech the Constitution guarantees you. You have to respect yourselves before anyone else will respect you.
4. When you find yourself on the wrong road, the worst thing you can do is keep driving.
Listen, President Bush, we know you've got a lot on your mind right now. You're in the middle of this war that isn't going nearly as well as Dick and Karl told you it would, and you're getting the blame for it. You're trying your hardest to show up your daddy and prove to him that you're just as smart and competent and take-charge as your brother Jeb, but every time you do, you end up screwing it up and looking even more incompetent in a real sitcom kind of way. Your supporters are shearing off. You recently pardoned Scooter Libby so that Dick Cheney, your surrogate father figure, won't be mad at you. George, you made a little girl cry.
You know that something is wrong. You can surely sense that something is very, very wrong. And I know that right now, you're trying to go along to get along, to do whatever you can to skate until the inauguration in 2009 when you officially won't have to worry about any of this terrorism crap or immigration crap or healthcare crap or global warming crap or any of the other crap that people seem to want you to care about. But putting on the blinkers and driving resolutely forward is not the way to go, George. Right now, you're gearing yourself up for a legacy as The President Who Screwed Everything Up So Badly We're Still Trying to Quantify the Fallout. If you want to avoid that fate, the only way to do it is to stop dead in your tracks this second and reevaluate. You need to talk with some people who know how to deal with these things - swallow your pride and talk to your dad's folks, for God's sake - and figure out what you want your legacy to be and how you can get there from where you are.
I can recommend a couple of therapists, if you'd like.
Monday, July 02, 2007
On Surface Pretty
What do you mean, we don't get to keep the fans?
Okay, so I read a book, when I was younger, that took place in Scotland and included a scene where characters repainted a community center for an upcoming visit by the Queen. As they painted, the main character wondered if Her Majesty thought the whole world smelled like fresh paint.
One might wonder the same thing about Her Majesty The First Lady:
It was Thursday, only twenty-four hours left before the First Lady's visit, and a work crew from the U.S. embassy was installing electrical outlets in two classrooms. The next day, the outlets would power the fans to cool Mrs. Bush and the rest of the crowd. But, like most schools in Mali, the Mandela School doesn't have enough money for electricity, so the power cord from these new outlets led out the windows to a mobile generator the embassy brought over and hid out back.
Rebecca Rhodes is the project manager for the Teacher Training Via Radio program, which is entirely funded by President Bush's African education initiative. For two weeks, Rhodes has worked with White House security and communications crews to make the school picture perfect for the First Lady's visit.
REBECCA RHODES: So Mrs. Bush's limousine and the limousine of Mali's First Lady would come through the door there at the front of the school, and then she will walk down this lovely gravel (laughs) that we have just put down.
GOSS: About the gravel: USAID bought it so that the First Lady wouldn't slip on the mud in the courtyard. The gravel just covers the portion of the courtyard Mrs. Bush would see....
Demba Bundi is a high school teacher who works with the Teacher Training Via Radio program.... He was ... struck by some selective repainting on the walls surrounding the school.
DEMBA BUNDI: Only the entrance door has been painted new, because that's where everybody gets in, but the rest of the wall, it's dirty, and you have all these American gangster-boy kind of graffiti on the wall, and nobody seems to care about that....
Of course, it would be far too much to actually let the school, say, keep the generators and the electrical outlets and the fans once they'd put on such a nice show.
GOSS: Yesterday morning, I returned to the Mandela School with teacher Demba Bundi. The courtyard was once again covered in trash, this time water bottle labels and doughnut cartons from the First Lady's visit. Bundi looked at the scene and shook his head.
BUNDI: Mali is a poor country. We're not ashamed of saying it, we're poor. But despite the poverty level, we still want to impress the West, which to me is pointless. If I am poor and sleeping on the dirt and you're coming to visit me, let's hang out on the dirt. And maybe I'll have a better chance to get some help from you.
GOSS: We went into the classroom that had been electrically fitted. The embassy had removed the fans, the furniture, and the generator the same afternoon the First Lady visited. Even the outlets had been pulled out of the wall.
I'm assuming they were allowed to keep the paint and the gravel.
They will see everything - except the real Mali.
Like a hastily-staged New Orleans photo op, these are the days of the Bushes' lives.
Monday, June 18, 2007
On the importance of precise definitions
Okay, so I just got an e-mail from a friend of mine, and in the name of OPSEC I'll refrain from sharing his branch of service or current location, but suffice it to say that it's very, very hot where he is, it's quite far away, and that he would have far more opportunities to buy Christmas presents in Dubai than anyone currently in their offices in Washington.
Because he's, y'know, there, and not here where I can sit him down and talk with him, I haven't had the opportunity to ask his opinion on this:
Yeah, I understand that this has been a challenge not only for the president but for the 101st Fighting Keyboarders and their Cheeto-Dust Coated Typing Fingers of Patriotism (and may God preserve them from carpal tunnel syndrome), but I thought this would be a great opportunity for some clarification.
1. Is the daytime temperature at your current location under 100 degrees?
2. Are you fewer than four time zones away from your spouse/the majority of your loved ones?
3. Is your nighttime sleep uninterrupted by jet engines, gunshots, and/or mortar fire?
4. Can you walk outside of your home without a flak vest?
5. Are you allowed to go home at the end of the workday?
6. Do you share at least one language with the majority of the people in your city?
7. Do you feel comfortable that very few of those people want you dead?
8. When your boss gives you an assignment, does s/he also give you the financial, physical, and human resources necessary to complete the job?
If you answered "yes" to two or more of the above questions, you're not actually on the front lines. You're in a place commonly known as "home." The front lines are somewhere else. It's rather far away and identifiable through extreme heat and humidity, gunfire and explosions, and lots of death. I'll try to dig up a map for you. Don't worry, though; it's a mistake anyone could make.
Because he's, y'know, there, and not here where I can sit him down and talk with him, I haven't had the opportunity to ask his opinion on this:
Q: Are there any members of the Bush family or this administration in this war?
SNOW: Yeah, the President. The President is in the war every day.
Q: Come on, that isn’t my question –
SNOW: Well, no, if you ask any president who is a commander in chief –
Q: On the frontlines, wherever…
SNOW: The President.
Yeah, I understand that this has been a challenge not only for the president but for the 101st Fighting Keyboarders and their Cheeto-Dust Coated Typing Fingers of Patriotism (and may God preserve them from carpal tunnel syndrome), but I thought this would be a great opportunity for some clarification.
1. Is the daytime temperature at your current location under 100 degrees?
2. Are you fewer than four time zones away from your spouse/the majority of your loved ones?
3. Is your nighttime sleep uninterrupted by jet engines, gunshots, and/or mortar fire?
4. Can you walk outside of your home without a flak vest?
5. Are you allowed to go home at the end of the workday?
6. Do you share at least one language with the majority of the people in your city?
7. Do you feel comfortable that very few of those people want you dead?
8. When your boss gives you an assignment, does s/he also give you the financial, physical, and human resources necessary to complete the job?
If you answered "yes" to two or more of the above questions, you're not actually on the front lines. You're in a place commonly known as "home." The front lines are somewhere else. It's rather far away and identifiable through extreme heat and humidity, gunfire and explosions, and lots of death. I'll try to dig up a map for you. Don't worry, though; it's a mistake anyone could make.
On DoD R&D: This Is Your Soundtrack
Okay, so I'm horribly ashamed that I didn't get my Ten in this week, especially considering that I had this little tidbit to kick it all off:
Now, the story is actually several years old; the report on the use of such nonlethal chemical weapons was written in 1994, and the story first became public sometime in 2005. But now we have actual confirmation from the Pentagon that our best hope for victory in Iraq involves making their d00ds super ghey.
Other options?
- a spray to inflict “severe and lasting halitosis”
- a chemical that would make their skin very sensitive to sunlight
- a chemical that would make them irresistable to bees and/or rats
The provided classification for these nontraditional chemical weapons? "Harassing, annoying and 'bad guy'-identifying chemicals." And that's why this Not-Even-Friday, Not-Even-Random Ten goes out to our guys at the Pentagon: Annoying the hell out of the enemy over there so we don't have to annoy them over here.
The Ten:
1. Paul Oakenfold, "Sex Drive"
2. Banx de France, "Sex In a Machine"
3. Marvin Gaye, "Let's Get It On"
4. Original Broadway Cast of Avenue Q, "If You Were Gay"
5. The Police, "Every Breath You Take"
6. Hot Chocolate, "You Sexy Thing"
7. Aqualung, "Brighter Than Sunshine"
8. Robert Palmer, "Simply Irresistable"
9. OMD, "Enola Gay"
And, of course,
10. Tom Jones, "Sexbomb"
Your whatever goes wherever; it's Monday, y'all.
Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.
Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsquently rejected, building the so-called "Gay Bomb."
Now, the story is actually several years old; the report on the use of such nonlethal chemical weapons was written in 1994, and the story first became public sometime in 2005. But now we have actual confirmation from the Pentagon that our best hope for victory in Iraq involves making their d00ds super ghey.
Other options?
- a spray to inflict “severe and lasting halitosis”
- a chemical that would make their skin very sensitive to sunlight
- a chemical that would make them irresistable to bees and/or rats
The provided classification for these nontraditional chemical weapons? "Harassing, annoying and 'bad guy'-identifying chemicals." And that's why this Not-Even-Friday, Not-Even-Random Ten goes out to our guys at the Pentagon: Annoying the hell out of the enemy over there so we don't have to annoy them over here.
The Ten:
1. Paul Oakenfold, "Sex Drive"
2. Banx de France, "Sex In a Machine"
3. Marvin Gaye, "Let's Get It On"
4. Original Broadway Cast of Avenue Q, "If You Were Gay"
5. The Police, "Every Breath You Take"
6. Hot Chocolate, "You Sexy Thing"
7. Aqualung, "Brighter Than Sunshine"
8. Robert Palmer, "Simply Irresistable"
9. OMD, "Enola Gay"
And, of course,
10. Tom Jones, "Sexbomb"
Your whatever goes wherever; it's Monday, y'all.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
On (non-celebrity) criminals walking
Okay, so I toldja, I toldja, I toldja I toldja I toldja. And I wish I could get some kind of pleasure out of "I told you so," but it sucks being right in this political climate.
My bitter tea comes courtesy of reader Duff, who points us to this:
Born in Qatar, al-Marri lived with his wife and children in Peoria, Illinois, where he was pursuing a master's degree and where he was arrested in 2001 as a"material witness" and al-Qaeda collaborator with Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He has been held without charges in various locations since then, most recently a brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Though he never personally took action against the United States, it's arguable that he participated in and assisted actions threatening to national security.
But because our president has declared himself above and untouched by the Constitution, Ali al-Marri may get to walk.
Al-Marri could be a real threat. He has been in government custody. It's probably better for everyone that he remain in government custody. The United States has numerous legal, ethical, constitutionally sound mechanisms by which he could remain in custody, if only George Bush hadn't gotten all "I'm the decider," declared him an "enemy combatant," and held him outside of those legal options.
The next steps will, most likely, be those legal, ethical, constitutionally sound mechanisms. With the civilian trial of Jose Padilla currently underway, we have proof that we can, in fact, bring terrorists to justice and keep our country safe without violating the Constitution that defends the rights of every U.S. citizen and legal resident. We can protect our country from terrorists and protect civil liberties at the same time. It just makes you wonder why, if those mechanisms are in place, our own president - who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution - continues to insist on using unconstitutional, illegal tactics that only endanger national security and give Americans reason to fear their own government.
And that, really, is what makes the ruling from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals so valuable. With this ruling, we have evidence that someone out there, some branch of the government, is interested in protecting Americans from being rounded up by the government and held without trial. If our president isn't going to do it, someone has to.
My bitter tea comes courtesy of reader Duff, who points us to this:
The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it believes is an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him, a divided federal appeals court ruled Monday. The court said sanctioning the indefinite detention of civilians would have "disastrous consequences for the constitution—and the country."
In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.
It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention."
Born in Qatar, al-Marri lived with his wife and children in Peoria, Illinois, where he was pursuing a master's degree and where he was arrested in 2001 as a"material witness" and al-Qaeda collaborator with Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He has been held without charges in various locations since then, most recently a brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Though he never personally took action against the United States, it's arguable that he participated in and assisted actions threatening to national security.
But because our president has declared himself above and untouched by the Constitution, Ali al-Marri may get to walk.
Al-Marri could be a real threat. He has been in government custody. It's probably better for everyone that he remain in government custody. The United States has numerous legal, ethical, constitutionally sound mechanisms by which he could remain in custody, if only George Bush hadn't gotten all "I'm the decider," declared him an "enemy combatant," and held him outside of those legal options.
"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians . . . would have disastrous consequences for the constitution -- and the country," U.S. Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the majority.
The next steps will, most likely, be those legal, ethical, constitutionally sound mechanisms. With the civilian trial of Jose Padilla currently underway, we have proof that we can, in fact, bring terrorists to justice and keep our country safe without violating the Constitution that defends the rights of every U.S. citizen and legal resident. We can protect our country from terrorists and protect civil liberties at the same time. It just makes you wonder why, if those mechanisms are in place, our own president - who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution - continues to insist on using unconstitutional, illegal tactics that only endanger national security and give Americans reason to fear their own government.
And that, really, is what makes the ruling from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals so valuable. With this ruling, we have evidence that someone out there, some branch of the government, is interested in protecting Americans from being rounded up by the government and held without trial. If our president isn't going to do it, someone has to.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
On a great time to stick with tried-and-true methods
Okay, so I've observed in the past, with regard to both the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay and to the warrantless wiretapping program, that one of the dangers of breaking the rules in those ways is that when it comes to pursuing actual justice, we may find ourselves painted into a corner. It happened with Mohammed al-Qahtani, it nearly happened with Jose Padilla, and now it's happened again:
The problem they ran into? The Military Commissions Act specifically applies to "unlawful enemy combatants." Bush's Combatant Status Review tribunals? Only classified the Guantanamo detainees as "enemy combatants" - without specifying "lawful" or "unlawful." And while the administration obviously felt that, since the commissions and tribunals were creations entirely of their own imaginations to begin with, specific laws were immaterial, the military judges obviously felt otherwise and dismissed the cases, without prejudice, citing lack of jurisdiction.
The question of military tribunals and commissions was raised in the first place because of the Bush administration's assertion that the US lacked a judicial system equipped for dealing with the "irregular circumstances" of terrorism and conflict such as we've seen in Iraq. ACLU blog Find Habeas points out that that's not necessarily the case:
At the very least, it's comforting to know that there are judges out there who respect the rule of law, even if our own president won't.
So what's next for our intrepid administration? Plenty. The DoD does plan to appeal the dismissal, but since at this point, a court does not exist to which they can appeal, they'll have to wait for the Pentagon to establish a Court of Military Commission Review, as authorized by Congress. In the meantime, further Combatant Status Review tribunals may be held to re-classify the fourteen "high-value" detainees currently at Guantanamo, among them suspected 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
My advice to the government (and IANAL)? Just stick with what you know, y'all. They're a little bit trickier and pickier, since provisions would have to be made to keep top-secret information top-secret and prosecutors would have to make efforts to, like, follow the Constitution and stuff, but regular ol' trials within the current justice system are demonstrably suitable for terrorism suspects. They're not as fancy or Tom-Clancy-sexy as military tribunals, but they have the advantage of being constitutionally sound and being a tool with which the government has considerable experience. And trials like these are just too important to screw up.
In other habeas corpus news,
The Habeus Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, a bill "to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States," is expected to see a floor vote within the month.
Feel free to give your senator a call and encourage him/her to vote for this very important measure. Remember that it's not just foreign nationals who are affected by this bill - under the Military Commissions Act, the next "unlawful combatant" could be you.
The Capital Switchboard:
1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437
The government’s new system for trying Guantánamo detainees was thrown into turmoil Monday, when military judges in separate decisions dismissed war crimes charges against two of the detainees.
The rulings, the latest legal setbacks for the government’s effort to bring war crimes charges against detainees, could stall the military’s prosecutions here.
The decisions did not turn on the guilt or innocence of the detainees, but rather made essentially the same determination that the military had not followed procedures to declare the detainees “unlawful enemy combatants,” which is required for the military commission to hear the cases.
Pentagon officials described the rulings as raising technical and semantic issues, and said that they were considering appeals. If appeals failed, they said, they could go through the process of redesignating the detainees.
But military lawyers said the rulings exposed a flaw that would affect every other potential war-crimes case here. And the rulings brought immediate calls, including from some on Capitol Hill, for Congress to re-examine the system it set up last year for military commission trials and, perhaps, to consider other changes in the legal treatment of Guantánamo detainees.
The problem they ran into? The Military Commissions Act specifically applies to "unlawful enemy combatants." Bush's Combatant Status Review tribunals? Only classified the Guantanamo detainees as "enemy combatants" - without specifying "lawful" or "unlawful." And while the administration obviously felt that, since the commissions and tribunals were creations entirely of their own imaginations to begin with, specific laws were immaterial, the military judges obviously felt otherwise and dismissed the cases, without prejudice, citing lack of jurisdiction.
The question of military tribunals and commissions was raised in the first place because of the Bush administration's assertion that the US lacked a judicial system equipped for dealing with the "irregular circumstances" of terrorism and conflict such as we've seen in Iraq. ACLU blog Find Habeas points out that that's not necessarily the case:
In February 2003, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, known more ominously by the Spanish acronym FARC (a moniker outdone in being scary-sounding only by the Haitian Tonton Macoute), kidnapped three American counter-narcotics contractors, which it then attempted to exchange for prisoners and a chunk of Columbian territory. All three remain captive.
Though FARC’s involvement in the drug trade has traditionally been its claim to infamy, recent administrations have increasingly focused on its use of terrorism (as well as its recruitment of child soldiers). It is currently designated a terrorist organization by both the State Department here and the European Union.
...
Notably, the parameters of the [senior leader Ricardo] Palmera case look a heck of a lot like the parameters of your mine run al-Qaeda criminal indictment. Most folks are going to be charged with material support, or some other catch-all-esque charge. Most are not going to face conspiracy, attempted murder or murder charges. The government has successfully prosecuted cases where training camp attendance alone constituted “material support” under the statute.
Contrary to [Pentagon deputy general counsel Daniel] Dell’Orto’s talking points, the civilian justice system is well equipped to handle these types of cases, which make up the vast majority of the alleged misconduct of the Gitmo detainees. The FARC trial underscores this point.
At the very least, it's comforting to know that there are judges out there who respect the rule of law, even if our own president won't.
So what's next for our intrepid administration? Plenty. The DoD does plan to appeal the dismissal, but since at this point, a court does not exist to which they can appeal, they'll have to wait for the Pentagon to establish a Court of Military Commission Review, as authorized by Congress. In the meantime, further Combatant Status Review tribunals may be held to re-classify the fourteen "high-value" detainees currently at Guantanamo, among them suspected 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
My advice to the government (and IANAL)? Just stick with what you know, y'all. They're a little bit trickier and pickier, since provisions would have to be made to keep top-secret information top-secret and prosecutors would have to make efforts to, like, follow the Constitution and stuff, but regular ol' trials within the current justice system are demonstrably suitable for terrorism suspects. They're not as fancy or Tom-Clancy-sexy as military tribunals, but they have the advantage of being constitutionally sound and being a tool with which the government has considerable experience. And trials like these are just too important to screw up.
In other habeas corpus news,
The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted for the Specter/Leahy habeas restoration bill. The committee sent it to the floor with no amendments, no debate and on almost a party line vote (with the GOP sponsor, Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania voting in favor).
The Habeus Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, a bill "to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States," is expected to see a floor vote within the month.
Feel free to give your senator a call and encourage him/her to vote for this very important measure. Remember that it's not just foreign nationals who are affected by this bill - under the Military Commissions Act, the next "unlawful combatant" could be you.
The Capital Switchboard:
1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437
Monday, June 04, 2007
On a matter of time
Okay, so there's been a lot of discussion about whether or not Bush has an exit strategy. He swears he has a plan (and what reason would we have not to trust him?), and that we just need to give it time to work.
And of course I wouldn't be so foolish as to insist on an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. It's a big deal, and things need to be planned. How quickly can you get Iraqi troops trained to take over (if, in fact, that's something you sincerely plan on doing)? How soon can the Iraqi government get the militias under control (if, in fact, that's something they sincerely plan on doing). At what rate should you start redeploying troops, and over what period of time, until the Iraqi people have regained control of their country?
If, in fact, that's, y'know, something you sincerely plan on doing.
The man says, "Give it time," and it's true that time can change a lot of things. F'rinstance, not too long ago, you were promising reports showing magnficient progress by September, and now you're saying that you were "way too optimistic." And just last year, Maliki was all, "Hey, pack your bags, y'all, 'cause Iraqi troops are taking over as of June 2007," and now he's fearful of a military coup. Things change when you give it time.
So maybe we just need to go ahead and give Bush's plans time to work. Maybe a couple of years. Maybe more than a couple; maybe fifty. Maybe we need to build an embassy the size of the Vatican, with a 16,000-square-foot house for the ambassador, while the rest of Baghdad is getting less than five hours of electricty a day.
And maybe, supplemental spending bill notwithstanding,
we need to gladly embrace the big ol' middle finger that our president is flicking us as he makes plans to maintain three or four bases throughout the country, and he'll stay there until he's good and ready to leave, because leaving is quitting and quitting is losing, and screw us for suspecting that he has no idea what he's doing and is only counting down the days until he's out of office and this whole mess is someone else's problem.
It's just a matter of time.
And of course I wouldn't be so foolish as to insist on an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. It's a big deal, and things need to be planned. How quickly can you get Iraqi troops trained to take over (if, in fact, that's something you sincerely plan on doing)? How soon can the Iraqi government get the militias under control (if, in fact, that's something they sincerely plan on doing). At what rate should you start redeploying troops, and over what period of time, until the Iraqi people have regained control of their country?
If, in fact, that's, y'know, something you sincerely plan on doing.
The man says, "Give it time," and it's true that time can change a lot of things. F'rinstance, not too long ago, you were promising reports showing magnficient progress by September, and now you're saying that you were "way too optimistic." And just last year, Maliki was all, "Hey, pack your bags, y'all, 'cause Iraqi troops are taking over as of June 2007," and now he's fearful of a military coup. Things change when you give it time.
So maybe we just need to go ahead and give Bush's plans time to work. Maybe a couple of years. Maybe more than a couple; maybe fifty. Maybe we need to build an embassy the size of the Vatican, with a 16,000-square-foot house for the ambassador, while the rest of Baghdad is getting less than five hours of electricty a day.
And maybe, supplemental spending bill notwithstanding,
SEC. 3301. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be obligated or expended by the United States Government for a purpose as follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(2) To exercise United States control over any oil resource of Iraq.
we need to gladly embrace the big ol' middle finger that our president is flicking us as he makes plans to maintain three or four bases throughout the country, and he'll stay there until he's good and ready to leave, because leaving is quitting and quitting is losing, and screw us for suspecting that he has no idea what he's doing and is only counting down the days until he's out of office and this whole mess is someone else's problem.
It's just a matter of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)