Put your sweet lips a little closer to the phoneWhy? Well, it seems like there's a history of 'sweet lips' between Rove and Novak. From MyDD comes this link -- Karl Rove and Novak: They've Talked Before "Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source."
Let's pretend that we're together all alone.
I'll tell the man to turn the jukebox way down low.
And you can tell your friend there with you, he'll have to go.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Put your sweet lips a little closer to the phone
The tune is now in my head:
Oh, for crying out loud
We won. You lost. Stop grandstanding.
Anti-same-sex group lobbies Queen: " The former television host of 100 Huntley Street is leading a group urging Queen Elizabeth to step in and block Parliament from passing same-sex marriage legislation."
Anti-same-sex group lobbies Queen: " The former television host of 100 Huntley Street is leading a group urging Queen Elizabeth to step in and block Parliament from passing same-sex marriage legislation."
Maybe this time
Some in the blogosphere, having been burned many times before, are concluding that unless Rove is actually charged with obstruction or perjury or criminally outing a CIA agent, he's going to be staying in the White House. All that stuff from Bush two years ago about how the leaker would be fired were just the usual BS, they're saying, and the Republicans are going to try to make everything Joe Wilson's fault. Here's The Poorman's Ships post:
Josh Marshall points out the latest Republican "Red Herring Egregious Mumbojumbo", debunking that Wilson's trip to Niger had been authorized by Tennant or Cheney -- the egregious aspect being that Wilson neither said nor implied that his trip had been authorized by Tennant or Cheney. Marshall writes "The whole thing is a dodge and a distraction. It's irrelevant to the question that was under discussion. It's just yet another attempt to whip up a phoney cover story after the fact. Or, in other words, more scofflaw Republicanism."
It seems the Republican attack machine will be trying to recycle the same points it tried to make last summer, that a Senate Intelligence report had debunked Wilson -- which is not true at all. And with no WDM found in Iraq, and Tennant saying two years ago that the Africa claim should not have been made, I wonder how many would now be persuaded that Wilson was wrong about Niger.
Armando notes that the story has now developed some of its own momentum, moving away from Wilson to focus on Rove and Bush " . . . the White House lied to the American People about the fact that Rove leaked that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative. That's the story now. The law will take care of itself. The Plame prosecutor will tell us about that if and when he hands down indictments. But the White House has been lying to the American People about the fact that Rove leaked Plame's identity and about the fact that the President would fire whoever leaked this information."
. . . it is important to appreciate that there is a vast, vast ocean of difference between picking on some NY Times reporter and actually, you know, doing things which will make the White House upset. The right-wing smear machine hasn't tried to tear Fitzgerald down, the Justice Department and/or Congress hasn't taken away his funding, and Tom DeLay hasn't yet darkly warned any activist judges or jurists who might sit on such criminal cases as may result from this investigation that he cannot be responsible for the potentially violent actions of patriotic citizens which may understandably result from any anti-American type of outcome. It's not impossible that we could see justice come out of this thing, and perhaps even the long-awaited frogmarch, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Too many people just want to see this story sail away.But I wonder if it will actually be so easy -- are people in the United States finally getting fed up? According to Americablog, a lot of newspaper editorial pages this morning were on this story. John writes:
. . . the coverage is bad. Real bad. I'm going to post the leads of the stories, to give you a sense of how bad.
NYT (via SF Chronicle): Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover CIA officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions about new evidence of Rove's role in the matter.
Detroit Free Press: The White House refused Monday to repeat earlier assertions that any administration official who leaked classified information would be fired. The refusal comes days after Karl Rove, one of President George W. Bush's top aides, was revealed as the source of a news leak that exposed a CIA undercover officer in 2003.Houston Chronicle: The White House scrambled Monday to reconcile President Bush's vow to fire anyone who leaked information about an undercover CIA operative with revelations that top political aide Karl Rove spoke to a reporter about the agent.
AP: The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a femaleCIA officer.
SF Chronicle editorial: THE OFFICIAL silence from the White House on Monday was quite disturbing.
Robert Scheer: To try to conceal the fact that the president had lied to the American public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, Rove attempted to destroy the credibility of two national security veterans and send an intimidating message to any other government officials preparing to publicly tell the truth.
Josh Marshall points out the latest Republican "Red Herring Egregious Mumbojumbo", debunking that Wilson's trip to Niger had been authorized by Tennant or Cheney -- the egregious aspect being that Wilson neither said nor implied that his trip had been authorized by Tennant or Cheney. Marshall writes "The whole thing is a dodge and a distraction. It's irrelevant to the question that was under discussion. It's just yet another attempt to whip up a phoney cover story after the fact. Or, in other words, more scofflaw Republicanism."
It seems the Republican attack machine will be trying to recycle the same points it tried to make last summer, that a Senate Intelligence report had debunked Wilson -- which is not true at all. And with no WDM found in Iraq, and Tennant saying two years ago that the Africa claim should not have been made, I wonder how many would now be persuaded that Wilson was wrong about Niger.
Armando notes that the story has now developed some of its own momentum, moving away from Wilson to focus on Rove and Bush " . . . the White House lied to the American People about the fact that Rove leaked that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative. That's the story now. The law will take care of itself. The Plame prosecutor will tell us about that if and when he hands down indictments. But the White House has been lying to the American People about the fact that Rove leaked Plame's identity and about the fact that the President would fire whoever leaked this information."
Monday, July 11, 2005
Here's the Rove spin
Watch for these themes to be developed over the next few days. This is from Power Line
So what us liberal bloggers need is our own spin. The truth isn't going to be enough -- it never is these days.
And here is that spin:
Instead of dealing honestly with the American people about Iraq, the president's top aides once again tried to kill the messenger by attacking Joe Wilson's personal credibility. And they are just so incompetent that they outed an undercover CIA agent by mistake.
UPDATE: Digby says just about the same thing as I did, above, but he said it first
The media feeding frenzy will, indeed, be massive. But absent a serious claim of a statutory violation or perjury, it's questionable whether anyone apart from liberal bloggers and other pre-existing Bush haters will partake in the media's dog food. This isn't a top presidential aide accepting an expensive gift, or engaging in lewd sexual conduct. It's a top aide providing truthful information to journalists in response to lies told to embarrass the administration and our government. And . . . Valerie Plame isn't very convincing as a covert agent of the United States, although she did fairly well as an agent of her husband and the president's other enemies.Emphasis mine. So here is the spin to look for over the next few days: the only thing loyal Karl Rove did was to tell reporters the truth about that liar Wilson and his sleazy wife, who Rove didn't know was undercover so he didn't break any law.
So what us liberal bloggers need is our own spin. The truth isn't going to be enough -- it never is these days.
And here is that spin:
Instead of dealing honestly with the American people about Iraq, the president's top aides once again tried to kill the messenger by attacking Joe Wilson's personal credibility. And they are just so incompetent that they outed an undercover CIA agent by mistake.
UPDATE: Digby says just about the same thing as I did, above, but he said it first
The 'What, Me Worry?" Kid
They just cannot stand to be laughed at. Yahoo News reports:
Republicans Blast Sen. Clinton's Comments Well, its about time the Democrats said something about the fumblebums running the US now.
Republicans spend five months last year doing what they described as 'poking fun'at Kerry and the Democrats - remember the bandaids and the flip-flop sandals and on and on -- and just a few weeks ago, Rove continued the attack by smearing liberals and democrats as unpatriotic wimps. And Howard Dean, previously the only Democrat who was on the offensive with the Republicans, is derided as a screamer every time he opens his mouth.
So now the Democrats are just 'poking a little gentle fun' at Bush.
"I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington" . . . [Senator Clinton]drew a laugh from the crowd when she described Bush's attitude toward tough issues with Neuman's catch phrase: "What, me worry?"
And the sign that it is working is how pissed off the Republicans are.
Republicans Blast Sen. Clinton's Comments Well, its about time the Democrats said something about the fumblebums running the US now.
Republicans spend five months last year doing what they described as 'poking fun'at Kerry and the Democrats - remember the bandaids and the flip-flop sandals and on and on -- and just a few weeks ago, Rove continued the attack by smearing liberals and democrats as unpatriotic wimps. And Howard Dean, previously the only Democrat who was on the offensive with the Republicans, is derided as a screamer every time he opens his mouth.
So now the Democrats are just 'poking a little gentle fun' at Bush.
"I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington" . . . [Senator Clinton]drew a laugh from the crowd when she described Bush's attitude toward tough issues with Neuman's catch phrase: "What, me worry?"
And the sign that it is working is how pissed off the Republicans are.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Depends on what the meaning of "covert" is
Rove told reporter about Plame's role at CIA: "White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name . . . To be considered a violation of the law, a disclosure by a government official must have been deliberate, the person doing it must have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and he or she must have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent's identity."
Now, I wonder how in the world the president's assistant know that Joe Wilson's wife was an agent for the CIA. Maybe some of those NSA intercepts? However, this article doesn't ask that uncomfortable question. Indeed, the whole article seems designed to imply that Rove didn't actually reveal Plame at all, even though he talked to reporters about her. Rove just called her "Joe Wilson's wife" not Valerie Plame. And he didn't tell Cooper she was a covert agent, so that means maybe he didn't know she was. And even if he did know she was covert, the CIA cannot prove they were "concealing" her identity.
So, I guess, in that case, never mind.
Nothing to see here, folks, just move along.
Now, I wonder how in the world the president's assistant know that Joe Wilson's wife was an agent for the CIA. Maybe some of those NSA intercepts? However, this article doesn't ask that uncomfortable question. Indeed, the whole article seems designed to imply that Rove didn't actually reveal Plame at all, even though he talked to reporters about her. Rove just called her "Joe Wilson's wife" not Valerie Plame. And he didn't tell Cooper she was a covert agent, so that means maybe he didn't know she was. And even if he did know she was covert, the CIA cannot prove they were "concealing" her identity.
So, I guess, in that case, never mind.
Nothing to see here, folks, just move along.
Place Yer Bets
So what are the chances that the border will REALLY reopen?
Personally, I think the odds are maybe 1 out of 3.
First, how likely is it that the 9th circut appeal court will want to be labelled as causing quintessential irreparable harm to Americans by allowing Canadian cattle across the border?
And second, even if the appeal court overturns this injunction, R-CALF isn't going to go away. The documents posted on their website appear to be preparing the ground to argue for a new injunction based on Canada's supposed non-compliance with some new BSE guidelines from the World Organization for Animal Health.
This Washington Post article explains the USDA's official position: Snow Expects U.S. to Allow Canadian Beef: "Both governments agree that enough safeguards are in place to resume trade. U.S. government officials expect to overturn a lower court ruling that has delayed its plans to reopen the U.S.-Canadian border to live Canadian cattle. Snow said the four-month-old court injunction preventing the border from reopening was 'ill considered' and not based on scientific facts."
But even with the recent BSE case in Texas, R-CALF argues to maintain the border closure. Their press release says: “The BSE safeguards already in place here in the U.S. are more stringent than measures any other country has ever implemented prior to having a case of BSE, including Canada,” said McDonnell. “Yet, USDA continues to seek to lower our import standards by writing a Final Rule that would allow cattle and additional beef products into the U.S. from Canada, a country that doesn’t meet the minimum internationally accepted standards for BSE prevention and control.” And R-CALF is lining up a batch of scientists to bolster their case for requiring that Canada meet an impossible standard -- to demonstrate that the future risk of BSE in our cattle is essentially zero -- before our cattle ever be allowed across the border again.
UPDATE -- And indeed, this Globe article reports that in addition to the appeal court hearing next week, R-CALF has schedule another Montana hearing for July 27 with the same Judge Cebull (a 2001 Bush appointee, by the way) who gave the last injunction.
Goodale is quoted in the Globe article as saying “We believe that with the most recent developments in the United States, the rationale behind the judgment of Judge Cebull has absolutely evaporated — there is no justification for that position.” That's gonna piss him off real good!
And the Conservative Party has been granted amicus standing and will submit a brief to this hearing, though the Canadian government was apparently refused intervenor status by Cebull. Do a good job, guys!
Personally, I think the odds are maybe 1 out of 3.
First, how likely is it that the 9th circut appeal court will want to be labelled as causing quintessential irreparable harm to Americans by allowing Canadian cattle across the border?
And second, even if the appeal court overturns this injunction, R-CALF isn't going to go away. The documents posted on their website appear to be preparing the ground to argue for a new injunction based on Canada's supposed non-compliance with some new BSE guidelines from the World Organization for Animal Health.
This Washington Post article explains the USDA's official position: Snow Expects U.S. to Allow Canadian Beef: "Both governments agree that enough safeguards are in place to resume trade. U.S. government officials expect to overturn a lower court ruling that has delayed its plans to reopen the U.S.-Canadian border to live Canadian cattle. Snow said the four-month-old court injunction preventing the border from reopening was 'ill considered' and not based on scientific facts."
But even with the recent BSE case in Texas, R-CALF argues to maintain the border closure. Their press release says: “The BSE safeguards already in place here in the U.S. are more stringent than measures any other country has ever implemented prior to having a case of BSE, including Canada,” said McDonnell. “Yet, USDA continues to seek to lower our import standards by writing a Final Rule that would allow cattle and additional beef products into the U.S. from Canada, a country that doesn’t meet the minimum internationally accepted standards for BSE prevention and control.” And R-CALF is lining up a batch of scientists to bolster their case for requiring that Canada meet an impossible standard -- to demonstrate that the future risk of BSE in our cattle is essentially zero -- before our cattle ever be allowed across the border again.
UPDATE -- And indeed, this Globe article reports that in addition to the appeal court hearing next week, R-CALF has schedule another Montana hearing for July 27 with the same Judge Cebull (a 2001 Bush appointee, by the way) who gave the last injunction.
Goodale is quoted in the Globe article as saying “We believe that with the most recent developments in the United States, the rationale behind the judgment of Judge Cebull has absolutely evaporated — there is no justification for that position.” That's gonna piss him off real good!
And the Conservative Party has been granted amicus standing and will submit a brief to this hearing, though the Canadian government was apparently refused intervenor status by Cebull. Do a good job, guys!
This will be the way that I die
Via Windmills on the Hillcomes this useful How Will You Die? quiz -- not exactly fun, but interesting all the same.
Here are my results:
Here are my results:
 | You scored as Bomb. Your death will be by bombing. You will probably be an innocent bystander, not doing anything wrong and not a person who was targeted at, just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
|
And check out the other quizzes on the site.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Commando porn
Gilliard and Wolcott and Atrios and Kevin and Digby all notice how some media and blogger chickenhawks are gleefully indulging themselves in another round of macho terrorism tough talk.
Gilliard refers to all the TV shots of machine-gun-toting security guards in American subways as "Security Theatre", while Wolcott writes about "this scare talk complemented with commando porn images of security patrols packing enough firepower to retake Stalingrad. What are those weapons for? It's not as if terrorists engage in running gun battles in the West. They plant explosives, and once those explosives go off, guys standing around with machine guns . . . don't make a whole lot of difference."
And as usual, Digby gets to the heart of it.
He describes how people were seduced by the drama of 911:
But the chickenhawk problem is that they were and are too cowardly to actually fight. And this makes it impossible to ever win.
And what scares me is how many of these people are now talking on some of the right-wing websites about how much they want to just nuke all Muslims and the whole middle east.
Do they think war is a videogame?
Gilliard refers to all the TV shots of machine-gun-toting security guards in American subways as "Security Theatre", while Wolcott writes about "this scare talk complemented with commando porn images of security patrols packing enough firepower to retake Stalingrad. What are those weapons for? It's not as if terrorists engage in running gun battles in the West. They plant explosives, and once those explosives go off, guys standing around with machine guns . . . don't make a whole lot of difference."
And as usual, Digby gets to the heart of it.
He describes how people were seduced by the drama of 911:
9/11 was a very dramatic act of terrorism, a made for TV spectacle that horrifed and riveted the world for days. Many of these people threw themselves into the fantasy that this "war on terrorism" was the gravest threat the world has ever known (MAD be damned) and that they were somehow at the center of this conflict, destined to be heroes of the age. There were even those who said overtly that the greatest generation were a bunch of free-loading socialists compared to the freedom fighting liberators of today . . . I can understand the excitement of the twenty somethings like Pat Tilman who joined up after 9/11, driven by a strong desire to test his mettle and physical courage. (Hell, that was the reason Oliver Stone joined up in Vietnam, Kerry too --- it has little to do with politics.) Young men being excited about war is nothing new . . .
But the chickenhawk problem is that they were and are too cowardly to actually fight. And this makes it impossible to ever win.
We are dealing with a group of right wing glory seekers who chose long ago to eschew putting themselves on the line in favor of tough talk and empty posturing --- the Vietnam chickenhawks and their recently hatched offspring of the new Global War On Terrorism. These are men (mostly) driven by the desire to prove their manhood but who refuse to actually test their physical courage. Neither are they able to prove their virility as they are held hostage by prudish theocrats and their own shortcomings. So they adopt the pose of warrior but never actually place themselves under fire. This is a psychologically difficult position to uphold. Bullshitting yourself is never without a cost . . . Playing laptop Pattons at full volume, supporting the president and the entire power structure of the government is their only way of proving to themselves that they are warriors. They are damaged by their own contradictory past and as a result they cannot see their way through the haze of emotional turmoil to seek out and find real solutions to the problem of terrorism. They lash out with trash talk and threats and constant references to their own resolve because they are afraid. They've always been afraid.
And what scares me is how many of these people are now talking on some of the right-wing websites about how much they want to just nuke all Muslims and the whole middle east.
Do they think war is a videogame?
Declaring victory and leaving
Reuters AlertNet - UK memo says US, UK readying Iraqi withdrawal-report
Well well. The Iraqis will be standing up and the US will be standing down JUST BEFORE the US midterm elections next year.
Who woulda thunk it?
Well well. The Iraqis will be standing up and the US will be standing down JUST BEFORE the US midterm elections next year.
Who woulda thunk it?
Cartoon of the week
Steve Benson, United Media
I was looking through this week's batch of editorial cartoons, most of which concerned the London terrorist attack, and found this one that I liked. There was one odd thing I noted about several of the European cartoons and that was how they related the attack to the 2012 Olympics -- I guess there is a perception that the attack and the Olympic announcement were connected, though I hadn't heard anything like that in the news stories.
I liked this cartoon because Churchill tops my list as the most important historical figure of our time. I waited for a decade for William Manchester's third volume of The Last Lion, before finding out it may not ever be completed.
Who does the Catholic Church think it is?
My Blahg gets it exactly right.
He is blogging about this disgusting story Catholic diocese punishes MP over gay rights.
Now, first of all, I am going to go on my own rant here -- just what does the Catholic Church think it is doing? How dare they refuse communion to NDP MPs who have voted for gay marriage, which was the policy of their party. Now certainly there is nothing wrong with Catholic bishops meeting with Jack Layton and other party leaders to express their opposition to the party policy, and to try to persuade the party to change that policy. But now the Catholic Church seems to think that Canada will let them get away with targetting individual Catholic MPs not being 'Catholic' enough, for voting in the way their party wanted them to vote.
Now, I would have thought that the Catholic Church would be upset if anyone started posting election signs saying "Don't vote for X. He's a Catholic". I would have thought the Catholic Church would be shocked if voters start acting like the Klu Klux Klan with their 'papist plot' hate speech.
But I guess not. I guess they want our political parties to start examining the religious affiliation of prospective candidates, refusing to nominate Catholics anymore because of the risk that they will follow a church agenda rather than their party's policy. I guess they want us voters to start making our voting decisions based on the religion of candidates, because when I support a candidate for a political office, I expect them to vote according to their party's policy, not according to their priest's prejudices.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong
Anyway, back to what My Blahg said in The Vindictive Right. His rant deals with the corrupt and twisted moral swamp which those who support the Catholic Church's actions have now waded into -- the same moral swamp which anyone who tries to justify prejudice will also find themselves in:
Is this the kind of Canada that the Catholic Church wants? That's not my Canada.
UPDATE: And now they're turning into creationists too. Catholic biology teachers, beware.
He is blogging about this disgusting story Catholic diocese punishes MP over gay rights.
Now, first of all, I am going to go on my own rant here -- just what does the Catholic Church think it is doing? How dare they refuse communion to NDP MPs who have voted for gay marriage, which was the policy of their party. Now certainly there is nothing wrong with Catholic bishops meeting with Jack Layton and other party leaders to express their opposition to the party policy, and to try to persuade the party to change that policy. But now the Catholic Church seems to think that Canada will let them get away with targetting individual Catholic MPs not being 'Catholic' enough, for voting in the way their party wanted them to vote.
Now, I would have thought that the Catholic Church would be upset if anyone started posting election signs saying "Don't vote for X. He's a Catholic". I would have thought the Catholic Church would be shocked if voters start acting like the Klu Klux Klan with their 'papist plot' hate speech.
But I guess not. I guess they want our political parties to start examining the religious affiliation of prospective candidates, refusing to nominate Catholics anymore because of the risk that they will follow a church agenda rather than their party's policy. I guess they want us voters to start making our voting decisions based on the religion of candidates, because when I support a candidate for a political office, I expect them to vote according to their party's policy, not according to their priest's prejudices.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong
Anyway, back to what My Blahg said in The Vindictive Right. His rant deals with the corrupt and twisted moral swamp which those who support the Catholic Church's actions have now waded into -- the same moral swamp which anyone who tries to justify prejudice will also find themselves in:
The right is justifying these actions by saying that these people must be ready to face the consequences of their decisions. Excuse me? First of all, elected officials already do face the consequences of their decisions. It's called an election. If an elected official is making decisions the people are not comfortable with, then they will elect someone more to their liking. Any other form of consequences however, is completely unacceptable. Since when are there consequences attached to people for doing their job? Could you imagine what our society would be like if there were? Police would have to think twice about issuing speeding tickets for fear that they might be kicked out of their church or refused service in the businesses of their communities. Local bureaucrats would have to cave in to every demand of the people because to do otherwise would leave them open to retaliation in their personal lives. Our elected and appointed officials could no longer function without constantly looking over their shoulder to see who is out to exact revenge against them for doing so. Left unchecked, this sort of vindictive retribution would lead to the breakdown of free society as individuals and groups intimidated and terrorized anyone who did not tow the line.
Is this the kind of Canada that the Catholic Church wants? That's not my Canada.
UPDATE: And now they're turning into creationists too. Catholic biology teachers, beware.
Be a leader and shut up
Ahenakew unapologetic after conviction
I think its time for David Ahenakew to demonstrate some of those leadership skills for which he has been so widely and rightly praised in the past, and just shut up.
No, Jews did not start the second world war.
No, they aren't a 'disease'.
No, Hitler was not right to "fry" six million Jews.
I don't care what someone in Germany told you 60 years ago. You are a well-travelled, educated and respected elder now, so why would you still believe the racist tripe that someone told you when you were 20? You've had a whole lifetime to learn better. Its all a racist lie and you were wrong to spread it around.
Given your position of leadership and respect in the Aboriginal community and in Canada as a whole, for you to say such hateful and racist things about Jewish people is hate speech. Quite rightfully, when a community leader says such hateful and racist things, they get charged. It's not the justice system's fault that you said what you said. And its not the media's fault for reporting it -- you knew perfectly well you were talking to a reporter when you said these vile things.
Its time to stop saying vile things. It's time for the circus to stop. It's time to shut up.
I think its time for David Ahenakew to demonstrate some of those leadership skills for which he has been so widely and rightly praised in the past, and just shut up.
No, Jews did not start the second world war.
No, they aren't a 'disease'.
No, Hitler was not right to "fry" six million Jews.
I don't care what someone in Germany told you 60 years ago. You are a well-travelled, educated and respected elder now, so why would you still believe the racist tripe that someone told you when you were 20? You've had a whole lifetime to learn better. Its all a racist lie and you were wrong to spread it around.
Given your position of leadership and respect in the Aboriginal community and in Canada as a whole, for you to say such hateful and racist things about Jewish people is hate speech. Quite rightfully, when a community leader says such hateful and racist things, they get charged. It's not the justice system's fault that you said what you said. And its not the media's fault for reporting it -- you knew perfectly well you were talking to a reporter when you said these vile things.
Its time to stop saying vile things. It's time for the circus to stop. It's time to shut up.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
London tonight
John on Americablog was in London today on his way back from blogging the G8 meeting. He writes a very moving post about the reaction of Londoners to the attacks: Because a great nation deserves the truth
People were shocked by the attacks, but they really are determined not to let it get them down - I'd say much more so than we were on September 11. Meaning, we were more freaked than they are now. Much of that is due to their experience with the IRA bombings - this isn't exactly new. Still, they were shocked, and saddened. And many businesses closed tonight, though I think of a lot of it was more out of respect than fear. Many however were open, and the restaurants, including outdoor restaurants, were packed. The trains were packed. The buses were packed. People walked through the Kensington Gardens . . . I can imagine it would take me a long time to get back on any public transportion in DC after an attack. Here, they all did right away, and I joined them, and it didn't faze me. I'm not sure why. All I can say is that their calm in the face of all of this calmed me as well . . . I just rode the train in London and didn't really give a second look to who was on the car with me, or about the threat of any further attacks . . . more than one person has expressed a certain amount of sympathy, well, perhaps empathy or understanding is the better word, for why this happened. Again, none of those are the 'right' word, they're not saying 'we deserved it,' but more than a few are saying, between the lines, that Blair's, and Bush's, actions led to the attack, even caused the attack. Perhaps the most surprising was a cop in front of Buckingham Palace who, when asked by my friend why he thought today happened, the cop responded: 'Because some people just want to be free.' Pretty interesting words from a cop guarding Buckingham Palace on the day the flag is at half mast for the second time in history (Lady Di's death being the first time). But in the end, London still stands, strong, and lovely, calm, and resolved, and with dignity. It really is an amazing city.
Iraq through the looking glass
Gilliard has an interesting take here.
He writes that "Ahmed Chalabi has managed to influence the most powerful people in the US government to, essentially, boost Iran's fortunes in the world . . . Chalabi's feat in getting the US to attack Iraq and then help it fail at this task is likely as much espionage as anything else."
In other words, Iran worked through Chalabi to get the US to take out Saddam and then to make sure the US got bogged down fighting a guerilla war.
It just goes to prove the saying "those who live by the sword will die by the sword."
Now, the one thing I am uncertain about is whether anyone could have predicted that the US would get so bogged down in Iraq. It was their stupid decisions in the early days of the war which caused their problems now.
But a large number of those bad decisions can be traced back directly to Chalabi. It was Chalabi who told them they would be greeted with flowers so they didn't send enough troops, and it was Chalabi who said he could run the country right away so they didn't plan for an Iraqi government, and it was Chalabi who wanted the Iraq army disbanded, etc etc.
And there is one image of Iran's calculated, strategic ruthlessness that I cannot get out of my head: Robert X. Cringely's description of Iran sending thousands of its children to be shot to pieces by Iraqi guns during the Iran-Iraq war, just to prove Iran's own moral superiority.
So yes, perhaps it could be all just one big espionage plot -- a Middle Eastern version of The Looking Glass War, with Iran as the Circus and Chalabi as Control, and the entire US military as the bungling, amateurish, egotistical Department, tricked by the Circus into crushing and deadly failure.
He writes that "Ahmed Chalabi has managed to influence the most powerful people in the US government to, essentially, boost Iran's fortunes in the world . . . Chalabi's feat in getting the US to attack Iraq and then help it fail at this task is likely as much espionage as anything else."
In other words, Iran worked through Chalabi to get the US to take out Saddam and then to make sure the US got bogged down fighting a guerilla war.
It just goes to prove the saying "those who live by the sword will die by the sword."
Now, the one thing I am uncertain about is whether anyone could have predicted that the US would get so bogged down in Iraq. It was their stupid decisions in the early days of the war which caused their problems now.
But a large number of those bad decisions can be traced back directly to Chalabi. It was Chalabi who told them they would be greeted with flowers so they didn't send enough troops, and it was Chalabi who said he could run the country right away so they didn't plan for an Iraqi government, and it was Chalabi who wanted the Iraq army disbanded, etc etc.
And there is one image of Iran's calculated, strategic ruthlessness that I cannot get out of my head: Robert X. Cringely's description of Iran sending thousands of its children to be shot to pieces by Iraqi guns during the Iran-Iraq war, just to prove Iran's own moral superiority.
I eventually finished the piece and decided to go see the war since I had been in Beirut and Angola, but had never seen trench warfare, which is what I was told they had going in Iran. So I took a taxi to the front, introduced myself to the local commander, who had gone, as I recall, to Iowa State, and spent a couple days waiting for the impending human wave attack.
That attack was to be conducted primarily with 11-and 12-year-old boys as troops, nearly all of them unarmed. There were several thousand kids and their job was to rise out of the trench, praising Allah, run across No Man's Land, be killed by the Iraqi machine gunners, then go directly to Paradise, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dinars.
And that's exactly what happened in a battle lasting less than 10 minutes. None of the kids fired a shot or made it all the way to the other side. And when I asked the purpose of this exercise, I was told it was to demoralize the cowardly Iraqi soldiers.
It was the most horrific event I have ever seen, and I once covered a cholera epidemic in Bangladesh that killed 40,000 people.
Waiting those two nights for the attack was surreal. Some kids acted as though nothing was wrong while others cried and puked. But when the time came to praise Allah and enter Paradise, not a single boy tried to stay behind . . . Welcome to the New Morality.
So yes, perhaps it could be all just one big espionage plot -- a Middle Eastern version of The Looking Glass War, with Iran as the Circus and Chalabi as Control, and the entire US military as the bungling, amateurish, egotistical Department, tricked by the Circus into crushing and deadly failure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)