Thursday, February 27, 2003

Right Watch! George Will’s Column, February 27, 2003 "By thus nullifying the president's power to shape the judiciary, the Democratic Party will wield a presidential power without having won a presidential election." Forget for a moment how baldly ridiculous it is to accuse the Democrats of stripping constitutional rights and just think about this: Will claims that "the Democratic party will wield a presidential power without having won a presidential election," yet the [unelected] President is currently attempting to usurp Congress’ unique ability to declare war. The GOP has already tried the whole Democrats-hate-Hispanics angle with the Estrada confirmation process; is this the next step? And, the bigger issue: is Will really saying that by opposing the President’s demand, Democrats are not only unpatriotic (as has been said since 9/11), but actually are violating the constitution? If only I had the strength to laugh… Hannity & Colmes, February 24, 2003 It’s perhaps too involved to go into here, but I would encourage you to read the portion of this Hannity & Colmes transcript that details the exchange between ostensibly (I overuse this word to voice my skepticism and to avoid using more abusive terms, like "wimpy little cocksucker") liberal host Alan Colmes and Republican Congressman J.C. Watts. Note Watts’ repeated attempts to change the subject and so erode the conversation into a moral debate of good vs. evil that the original issue is lost in translation. Essentially, it started out with Colmes saying (to paraphrase) that Al Qaeda and Iraq have never been linked and was turned into Watts asking why Colmes liked evil people who gassed his own countrymen. This is a very common tactic on Hannity & Colmes. Here’s Sean Hannity doing it: Congressman Bernie Sanders: "Sean, you tell me that it’s a good idea to spend $20 billion bribing Turkey and tell veterans they can't get help in this country." Hannity: "Let me tell you something, Bernie. If this guy gets a hold of a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist [sic], you’ll be glad for every dollar we spent." Why do these people bother appearing on the show? All Hannity’s going to do is abruptly change the subject and launch into some hypothetical absurdity anyway. It’d be like Chris Matthews trying to discredit a guest by saying that he or she would be sorry when leprechauns start raping schoolchildren. What? Hannity & Colmes, February 25, 2003 Moving on to Tuesday’s Hannity & Colmes, we have the always insightful Ted Nugent (see www.mediawhoresonline.com for some more delightful tidbits from Mr. "Full Bluntal Nugity."). Here are some of Nugent’s comments: "…preponderance of [Governor Jennifer Granholm’s] votes came from pimps and whores and welfare" and "The liberals will provide policies by which you can increase your blood sucking. I don't think that's funny. I think that's tragic." David Horwitz’s Column, February 17, 2003 David Horowitz is ridiculous enough to satirize himself, making my job infinitely easier. A tidbit? The title of his column: "The march to save Saddam." Bill O’Reilly, February 26, 2002 (I got this from Media Whores Online; I don’t know if it’s a column or a transcript or what. Sorry.) Like his compatriot David Horowitz, Bill O’Reilly does the work for you. Here I quote the former Inside Edition anchor: "Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up. Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me. Just fair warning to you, Barbra Streisand and others who see the world as you do. I don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country in a time like this, well. Let's just say you will be spotlighted. Talking points invites all points of view and believes vigorous debate strengthens the country, but once decisions have been made and lives are on the line, patriotism must be factored in." - Marcus-Marcus 4:04:06 PM    comment []

One honest man A career diplomat has resigned his post, blasting our current pursuit of war. John Brady Kiesling is an American who deserves our admiration. Does this mean, however, that a man who has spent 20 years in the service of his country will now be branded "an enemy of the state," as Bill O'Reilly said of all opponents of the Iraqi misadventure? Take the duct tape off the windows, Grampa! It's ok to come out now! Whew! What a relief! While you liberal enemies of the state were out there giving aid and comfort to our enemies, Tom Ridge was doing everything necessary to lower our National Terror Alert Level to yellow, which he did today. In this case, "everything necessary" means "waiting for the period of the hajj to end." I bet that guy who wrapped his whole house in plastic feels stupid. Afghana-where? It looks like the Taliban has assassinated another Afghan government official. Boy, I sure am glad we liberated Afghanistan, aren't you? No more Taliban, just like Orrin Hatch says! What’s interesting about this is that Ted Rall (who was in Afghanistan in October, 2001, while the bulk of the war was going on), in his book To Afghanistan and Back, indicates that an insane percentage like 90% of the surrendering Taliban simply changed loyalties and joined the Northern Alliance, so that it isn’t so much that the Northern Alliance defeated the Taliban but that the Taliban BECAME the Northern Alliance. Contingent of the Bribe-able This is a story about how international law experts say that a pre-emptive strike constitutes a war crime, which is pretty sickening when you think about the Bush gang's willingness to embrace it. But I mostly put the link here for juvenile mockery of the term "coalition of the willing." How ridiculous is this? You know that game, Axis and Allies? I shudder to think that one day people will play Coalition of the Willing and Coterie of the Very Reluctant or something. From our "Protestants Are Hilarious" Department: If you thought the Presidential Prayer Team was gold, you'll love the "non-partisan prayer and fasting movement for President George W. Bush." The web site indicates that 454 people are fasting today for our fearless leader: I want the names of these people to ensure that I never make the mistake of hiring one of them to fix my plumbing. The best part, for my money, is that every sentence seems to end in an exclamation point, e.g. "How it began! How it grew! How you can help! Sign up!" Here's an exclamation for you: Thank God I'm Catholic! - Consider Arms 3:30:42 PM    comment []

Tony needs the Tories to save him In the biggest revolt within a governing party in more than a century, 121 members of parliament gave Blair the thumbs down on war with Iraq. Although a resolution in support of Blair handily passed the House of Commons, this was largely due to support from the Conservative Party. Tony is said to be "shaken." I am said to be "delighted." US sells out Kurds The Turkish government has been promised the right to send troops to Kurdish areas of Iraq once the war gets underway to prevent an independent or autonomous Kurdish statelet. This is how the US rewards its allies. The Kurdish-controlled areas of Iraq have been the US base of operations for more than a decade, and now we are letting the Turks crush the Kurds (and paying them $15 billion for their trouble). The story notes that the Turkish occupation of Iraq will "ensure stability in the region." We can only assume this stability will be similar to the stability ensured in Kurdish areas of Turkey: 30,000 dead in 10 years and more than a million refugees. NBC blacklists war resisters, rewards bigots Phil Donahue had the highest-rated show on MSNBC, higher even than the Chris Matthews show. So why did he get canned this week? A leaked memo shows that NBC, which runs the cable network, was terrified of Donahue's opposition to war. The memo claims that NBC saw Donahue as a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war......He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity." Incidentally, MSNBC just hired Michael Weiner (who goes by the name "Savage") as a talk show host, a man who hates women, gays, immigrants, poor people, and minorities and who recently called for the imprisonment of those who disagree with the Bush gang. The Return of George Orwell The headline actually reads, "Bush: War Means Peace." I can't wait for "Ashcroft: Freedom Means Slavery" or for "Congress to Create New Ministry of Love." Dear Jesus, is this truly the only world we can exist in? The story also quotes Bush saying that, after World War II, "we did not leave behind occupying armies - we left behind constitutions and parliaments." Is the Commander in Chief aware that our armies still occupy Germany, Japan, and Italy? Is he aware that. . . wait. You know what? I fucking give up. - Consider Arms 12:33:51 PM    comment []

There are several stories in the news today that are connected in a somewhat abstract way. The first three here deal with preparedness for terror: my last post discussed this BBC article about U.S. fighter jet pilots that may have had to sacrifice themselves to destroy the hijacked planes, which raises the question of how prepared the U.S. was to defend itself. Also, in this article, the White House is saying that the budget it just signed into law does not contain enough counterterrorism funds. And – the ostensibly good news – the terror alert is to be lowered to the don't-shit-yourself-just-yet shade of yellow. The second group deals more with what is going on overseas: first, Bush offers his delusional fantasies about a post-war Iraq while at the same time, Afghan President Hamid Karzai paints a more realistic picture of the result of American wars. The connection: the whole concept of terror preparedness is absurd. It is less important to prepare for terror than it is to change policy and actually prevent it. We can invade every country in the world, buy all the duct tape at Home Depot and throw billions of dollars at state and local government for terror response, but let’s be honest: so-called first responders can only serve to contain the incident and clean up the bodies faster. As honorable as they may be, firefighters can’t stop terrorists from wanting to attack us in the first place. - Marcus-Marcus 11:32:16 AM    comment []

"US considered ‘suicide jet missions’" This is weird. There is, I suppose, the argument that the government did not adequately prepare for terror attacks prior to 9/11, but I think making that argument is absurd because the attacks themselves prove it to be true. There is the question as to what would have happened had the U.S. been able to respond in time – namely, would fighter jets really have shot down the airliners, packed with innocent civilians? Of course, some believe that Flight 93 was actually shot down over Pennsylvania rather than crashed on its own - This site offers links to stories that range from far-flung conspiracy theories to ostensibly reliable accounts. As horrifying as it might have been, shooting down these planes could have been necessary. But U.S. pilots being asked to give their lives to take down a plane? How bizarre. You hear about suicide missions (admittedly, you hear about most of them in Schwarzenegger movies), but rarely is the suicide part of the design. Also: if Flight 93 was shot down, why the cover-up? It might be controversial, but what about all of the other things that have been done in the name of 9/11 (do I really have to make a list)? Isn’t this sort of a break-a-couple-eggs-to-make-an-omelet kind of Administration anyway? - Marcus-Marcus 10:57:25 AM    comment []

Still recovering from Dan Rather's interview with Saddam Hussein (Laura Ingraham suggested on her radio program that Rather was committing treason by interviewing the dictator; a charge echoed by Ari Fleischer and Charles Osgood), here is what the Associated Press (http://www.ap.org) says is news today: The Big News: South African inspectors say Iraq is cooperating with disarmament efforts while the UN confirms an earlier destruction of biological weapons by Iraq. The South Africans are asking the UN to give Iraq more time to fully comply. It occurs to me that no matter what anyone does, however, the writing is on the wall for Iraq. The Roundup: The US still wants a role for NATO in a post-war Iraq. Say, wasn't NATO originally formed to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union? This is like offering the Hanseatic League a role in post-war Iraq. . . Ariel Sharon's new ultra-rightist government is already ignoring the US peace plan for Palestinian statehood by 2005 and calling for more settlement building. . . Turkey's parliament will postpone its vote on US troop deployment until Saturday so everyone can work out how much they are going to skim off the top of our $15 billion bribe. . . US officials confirm that North Korea has reactivated its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, enabling them to begin production of nuclear weapons. Not that we're doing anything to stop them; after all, Saddam might have missiles that can go a few miles over the legal limit!. . . The AP correspondent in Afghanistan has filed two lunch-related stories in two days. Today's was on "snow picnics". . . Striking Guatamalan teachers have seized an oil-pumping station on the country's only oil pipeline. Boy, the cops are on strike in Bolivia, the teachers are on strike in Guatamala, and the managers were on strike in Venezuela. Not that the mainstream American press has noticed. . . Speaking of Venezuela, peace talks there have been postponed by an anti-government march, complete with protesters waving signs saying, "Put Us All in Prison, Chavez!" Careful what you wish for, folks. . . Biljana Plavsic, a Serb leader who committed "crimes of the utmost depravity" during 1992-1995 according to a judge, was sentenced to 11 years by a Hague war crimes tribunal. The judge said "undue leniency" would be a mistake. 11 years for war crimes isn't "undue leniency"? I've seen guys get more time for mugging people. God, whatever happened to the kind of European who would burn people alive for translating the Bible into the vernacular? - Consider Arms 10:21:54 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Marc Hatfield. Last update: 02/28/2003; 11:59:37 AM.