Friday, December 23, 2005
Compare And Contrast
Here's 201k.com September 18, 2004:
The relevence of the Vietnam war -- and, by extention, Watergate -- to this election is what each candidate took away from it. John Kerry, and indeed most Americans, learned that if leadership does not properly lead then the mission becomes corrupt and dangerous, and that things rapidly escalate out of control, harming a lot of innocent people, helping no one, and leading to disastrous failure.Here's 201k.com December 22, 2005:
The members of the Bush administration -- and let's not forget many of them were in the Nixon administration -- took away from Vietnam and Watergate the lesson that if you control the message you control the reality.
The lessons the rest of us learned from Watergate and Vietnam were about the failures of leadership. The lesson Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld learned was that if they'd been able to control the message they'd have gotten away with it.And here's the New York Times December 23, 2005:
Most Americans looked at wrenching events like the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal and the Iran-contra debacle and worried that the presidency had become too powerful, secretive and dismissive. Mr. Cheney looked at the same events and fretted that the presidency was not powerful enough, and too vulnerable to inspection and calls for accountability.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
America Gets Its Christmas Wish
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken
H.L. Mencken
None Dare Call It Fascism.
Police have been infiltrating peaceful protests by American citizens, even acting as provocateurs.
The president of the United States authorized--perhaps illegally--the NSA to spy on Americans.
We suspect the more that's learned about these incidents and their wider implications the more vague the arguments in their defense will become, until at last the right will be speaking in tongues while waving flags.
The lessons the rest of us learned from Watergate and Vietnam were about the failures of leadership. The lesson Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld learned was that if they'd been able to control the message they'd have gotten away with it.
Thirty years later the right controls the message, and Cheney and Rumsfeld can get away with anything. Anything. We're at the point where the New York Times won't tell its readers that the executive branch is spying on Americans without warrants. They held that news through his reelection, and only came clean when someone on their staff was about to tell the world that it was going on--and that the Times knew about it.
The Times' own story on the NSA dropped off their front page in less than a day. It was a headline for a brief period last night; to find it today one has to scroll down to the sections listing, click on "Washington", then scroll down THAT page to find it. All previous stories on the domestic spying revelation are gone from the online paper, save one on Cheney's defense of the practice. For that story one has to scroll almost to the bottom of the "Washington" page.
And yet from North Carolina today comes a letter (posted as a comment on the 12/20/05 201k post) that this is all "just partisan politics" and, heck, Clinton knew, too, and besides, Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy.
The mother of a dear friend escaped Poland during the Blitz, eventually ending up here in Boston. We always feared that her dark judgments--that "the world is an evil place--good may sometimes win but evil will always catch up" might be true.
But we never imagined that Americans would march to the municipal abattoir meekly, willingly, stupidly--like cattle.
The president of the United States authorized--perhaps illegally--the NSA to spy on Americans.
We suspect the more that's learned about these incidents and their wider implications the more vague the arguments in their defense will become, until at last the right will be speaking in tongues while waving flags.
The lessons the rest of us learned from Watergate and Vietnam were about the failures of leadership. The lesson Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld learned was that if they'd been able to control the message they'd have gotten away with it.
Thirty years later the right controls the message, and Cheney and Rumsfeld can get away with anything. Anything. We're at the point where the New York Times won't tell its readers that the executive branch is spying on Americans without warrants. They held that news through his reelection, and only came clean when someone on their staff was about to tell the world that it was going on--and that the Times knew about it.
The Times' own story on the NSA dropped off their front page in less than a day. It was a headline for a brief period last night; to find it today one has to scroll down to the sections listing, click on "Washington", then scroll down THAT page to find it. All previous stories on the domestic spying revelation are gone from the online paper, save one on Cheney's defense of the practice. For that story one has to scroll almost to the bottom of the "Washington" page.
And yet from North Carolina today comes a letter (posted as a comment on the 12/20/05 201k post) that this is all "just partisan politics" and, heck, Clinton knew, too, and besides, Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy.
The mother of a dear friend escaped Poland during the Blitz, eventually ending up here in Boston. We always feared that her dark judgments--that "the world is an evil place--good may sometimes win but evil will always catch up" might be true.
But we never imagined that Americans would march to the municipal abattoir meekly, willingly, stupidly--like cattle.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
What Changed, Exactly?
The idea that "everything changed on 9/11" seems to be the underlying justification for all manner of Bush administration malfeasance. We're told it's the reason for--well, everything: the war in Iraq, the loss of civil liberties at home, the need to drill for oil in ANWR--everything.
201k takes issue with the premise. We have never felt that "everything changed" on 9/11 in the way that the administration and its supplicants in the press have wanted Americans to believe.
Before 9/11, the United States was the target of international terrorists. It was hated across much of the Islamic world. It had enemies, both abroad and at home, that seeked to do it harm.
That had been true for decades, and the government was well aware of it.
On 9/11 the terrorists succeeded, spectacularly, horrifically, in attacking us. But the threat itself was hardly new, and to pretend otherwise is patently dishonest.
What changed on 9/11 was the American public's understanding of this long-standing threat--and that's all that changed. The people in charge of our security who were supposed to know about this threat did know--whether the Bush administration listened to them or not. It was only the citizens of this country who didn't know. That's why the the morning of 9/11 struck with both shock and horror.
There should have been horror; there should not have been shock.
The Bush administration's use of 9/11 as a justification for an increasingly fascist state--and that's what we have--is dishonest. It's a lie.
The security situation of the U.S. did not, in fact, change on 9/11. A threat that had long existed finally hit us at home. What changed was public perception; the American people learned that their leadership was inept. And they learned that their tax dollars had been squandered, lost, or stolen.
And they learned that in its drive to consolidate its power, the Republican party would go as far as misrepresenting the lessons of 9/11.
201k takes issue with the premise. We have never felt that "everything changed" on 9/11 in the way that the administration and its supplicants in the press have wanted Americans to believe.
Before 9/11, the United States was the target of international terrorists. It was hated across much of the Islamic world. It had enemies, both abroad and at home, that seeked to do it harm.
That had been true for decades, and the government was well aware of it.
On 9/11 the terrorists succeeded, spectacularly, horrifically, in attacking us. But the threat itself was hardly new, and to pretend otherwise is patently dishonest.
What changed on 9/11 was the American public's understanding of this long-standing threat--and that's all that changed. The people in charge of our security who were supposed to know about this threat did know--whether the Bush administration listened to them or not. It was only the citizens of this country who didn't know. That's why the the morning of 9/11 struck with both shock and horror.
There should have been horror; there should not have been shock.
The Bush administration's use of 9/11 as a justification for an increasingly fascist state--and that's what we have--is dishonest. It's a lie.
The security situation of the U.S. did not, in fact, change on 9/11. A threat that had long existed finally hit us at home. What changed was public perception; the American people learned that their leadership was inept. And they learned that their tax dollars had been squandered, lost, or stolen.
And they learned that in its drive to consolidate its power, the Republican party would go as far as misrepresenting the lessons of 9/11.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Finally...
Maureen Dowd got up the nerve to treat like a clown the most clownish president in the history of the republic:
But which ones are, we wonder?
The idea that W. is getting good advice from very capable people is silly - administration officials have blown it on everything from the occupation and natural disasters to torture. In the bubble, they can torture while saying they don't. They can pretend that Iraqi forces are stronger than they are. They can try to frighten people with talk of Al Qaeda's dream of a new Islamic caliphate - their latest attempt to scare Americans into supporting the war they ginned up.So we can at last presume that Dowd, at least, is one reporter not taking money from the CIA.
"Whether or not it needed to happen," the president told the anchor, "I'm still convinced it needed to happen." The Bubble Boy can even contradict himself and not notice.
But which ones are, we wonder?
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Clowns
In a meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel, Germany's first leader from the formerly communist East, Clown Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice followed up her acknowledgement that the CIA had wrongfully seized and held a German citizen with this defense of Clown President Bush's prosecution of the "War on Terror":
Meanwhile, no one, not even the judge, dares tell Saddam Hussein to sit down and shut up at his trial for crimes against humanity--because, of course, they still fear him.
Why? Because Clown Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld never sent enough troops to actually gain control of Iraq. Read it and get it, folks: despite what Senator Joe Lieberman (Insurance - CT) says, we do not have, and have never really had, control of Iraq. We barely have control of the so-called "Green Zone". Hussein's people melted away with their weapons, and they, along with Islamic radicals, have succeed in bringing Iraq to chaos--to the brink of civil war.
They have the US politically, if not militarily, on the run--and every Iraqi knows it. So don't expect anyone to give the Butcher of Baghdad any lip.
And as The Despot of Iraq sits smirking and sneering while his victims describe the torture they and their families endured, the Liberator of Iraq--Clown vice-president Cheney--continues his efforts to legally sanction the use of torture by--get this--the CIA, here in the birthplace of liberty.
The Bush Administration is the most clownish this country has ever had. They are a grave danger to us all.
''This is essentially a war in which intelligence is absolutely key to success,'' Rice said. ''If you are going to uncover plots, if you are going to get to people before they commit their crimes, that is largely an intelligence function.''You read correctly: Rice defended the use of "intelligence" to "get to people before they commit their crimes" in the presence of a politician who grew up in communist East Germany.
Meanwhile, no one, not even the judge, dares tell Saddam Hussein to sit down and shut up at his trial for crimes against humanity--because, of course, they still fear him.
Why? Because Clown Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld never sent enough troops to actually gain control of Iraq. Read it and get it, folks: despite what Senator Joe Lieberman (Insurance - CT) says, we do not have, and have never really had, control of Iraq. We barely have control of the so-called "Green Zone". Hussein's people melted away with their weapons, and they, along with Islamic radicals, have succeed in bringing Iraq to chaos--to the brink of civil war.
They have the US politically, if not militarily, on the run--and every Iraqi knows it. So don't expect anyone to give the Butcher of Baghdad any lip.
And as The Despot of Iraq sits smirking and sneering while his victims describe the torture they and their families endured, the Liberator of Iraq--Clown vice-president Cheney--continues his efforts to legally sanction the use of torture by--get this--the CIA, here in the birthplace of liberty.
The Bush Administration is the most clownish this country has ever had. They are a grave danger to us all.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Now They Tell Us
From A.P.
We do. But that isn't what they did. Instead, they bent to pressure, couching their findings in talking-point caveats, politely minimizing the gross negligence of the Bush administration's response to the myriad warnings it had received about impending terrorist attacks.
Now, funded privately, they want everyone to to pay attention to the reality of America's precarious security situation.
Thanks for nothing, guys.
Former 9/11 Commissioners: U.S. at RiskAnyone else remember both these guys playing along with the Bush administration's spin back when they were actually an official government commission? Back when a strong word from either of them--in other words, the truth--might have had some effect?
By HOPE YEN Associated Press Writer
December 04,2005 | WASHINGTON -- The U.S. is at great risk for more terrorist attacks because Congress and the White House have failed to enact several strong security measures, members of the former Sept. 11 commission said Sunday.
"It's not a priority for the government right now," said the former chairman, Thomas Kean, ahead of the group's release of a report Monday assessing how well its recommendations have been followed.
"More than four years after 9/11 ... people are not paying attention," the former Republican governor of New Jersey said. "God help us if we have another attack."
Added Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic vice chairman of the commission: "We believe that another attack will occur. It's not a question of if. We are not as well-prepared as we should be."
The five Republicans and five Democrats on the commission, whose recommendations are now promoted through a privately funded group known as the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, conclude that the government deserves "more Fs than As" in responding to their 41 suggested changes.
We do. But that isn't what they did. Instead, they bent to pressure, couching their findings in talking-point caveats, politely minimizing the gross negligence of the Bush administration's response to the myriad warnings it had received about impending terrorist attacks.
Now, funded privately, they want everyone to to pay attention to the reality of America's precarious security situation.
Thanks for nothing, guys.
There's Always Room At The Top...
Mired in an unwinnable war that you foisted on the public with disinformation and smears?
Don't fix the policy--change the marketing!
Too tall an order, you say? No one could possible concoct a propaganda effort to counter-act the loss of credibility accumulated through all the previous propaganda efforts, you say?
Nonsense! You just need to find a political scientist who's also a lieutenant commander in the United States Naval Reserve.
Don't fix the policy--change the marketing!
Too tall an order, you say? No one could possible concoct a propaganda effort to counter-act the loss of credibility accumulated through all the previous propaganda efforts, you say?
Nonsense! You just need to find a political scientist who's also a lieutenant commander in the United States Naval Reserve.
