Mini-snarks

• Paula Zahn's show last night did a story about a nasty little racist Internet game called "Border Patrol":
  
  DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The creators of a video game called "Border Patrol" won't win any awards for graphics or creativity, but could take home a prize for bad taste.
  
  (on camera): This isn't some expensive game for the Xbox. It's simple, free and on the Internet and, according to the Anti-Defamation League, dangerous.
  
  JONATHAN BERNSTEIN, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: It puts in the mind of the player that they should be resorting to violence.
  
  SIMON (voice-over): The objective? To shoot and kill Mexicans crossing into the U.S. The game's targets? Mexican nationalists, drug smugglers and most outrageous, breeders, pregnant women running with children. The more you kill, the higher your score.
  
  They criticized it, and rightfully so - but I somehow can't help but wonder at CNN being so concerned about this when they run a show every weeknight which, quite frankly, feeds into the paranoia about undocumented workers and "illegal immigration".
  
  
  "OPH NOES THE ILLEGALS ARE COMING!
  THEY'LL STEAL OUR JOBS AND OUR MONEY AND OUR WIMMIN
  OMFG RECONQUISTA !!!11!"
  
  
• And also from that bastion of classic journalism that is "Paula Zahn NOW", from the other night we have a gripping story about how Hollywood is dogpiling on the poor abused Preznit:
  
  Well, they're not the only ones going after President Bush this weekend. You can see two brand new movies that some people say are stepping over the line when it comes to politics. Both movies paint very unflattering pictures of the commander in chief. Is it all part of an unprecedented blitz from Hollywood against the Bush administration? Or is it just typical satire from that place in the country?
  
  [snip]
  
  (voice over): But Jason Apuzzo thinks Hollywood's presidential pot shots could back fire.
  
  APUZZO: It's, in effect, just, you know, alienating half your audience. And I don't frankly see the compelling reason to do that unless you're just trying to make it a cheap political message.
  
  Well, as you can see over at Tbogg's, Jason's busy being a full-time whiny-ass tittie-baby with regards to Big Bad Hollywood and their EEEEEEvil Liberal Bias, but "alienating half your audience"?
  
  Try "a THIRD of your audience", chucko.
  
  Bush's approval rating as measured by CNN's poll dropped from 36 percent in March. His lowest job performance measure has been 32 percent, in a Fox News poll this month.
  
  (And whatever happened to "give the people what they want"? If almost 68% of people in the country disapprove of the Preznit, isn't that a valid market to be appealing to?)
  
  
• And from that same Reuter's story (see how seamless my transitions are?) we get this:
  
  Bush's response to the gas crisis has been to warn Americans to expect a tough summer, vow that price gouging will not be tolerated and try to promote energy alternatives that will take years to get to consumers.
  
  Oh, jeez, thanks, Bush, you useless wimp. Leadership? Negotiations with the Saudis? Easing of tensions with Iran? Nope, Bush says "suck it up, you proles"!
  
  And remind yourself it's JUST A FRICKIN' COINCIDENCE that this White House is full of people associated with the oil industry. Which industry is just COINCIDENTALLY making massive profits. Naw, nothing to see here - move along, citizen.

Life imitates art... unfortunately (and possible movie spoiler)

Back in 1977, a movie was released by Robert Aldrich ("Dirty Dozen", "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "The Choirboys") called Twilight's Last Gleaming, about the seizure of an American missle silo by a USAF General, and his holding the goverment of the U.S. hostage to nuclear terror.

Ostensibly the threat is entirely motivated by money - and then, at the climax of the film, the truth comes out - the General wants information released pertaining to the Vietnam War, information akin to the Pentagon Papers that would reveal that the conflict in Vietnam had been willingly prolonged by the United States in an effort to prove to the Soviet Union what bastards we could be, sacrificing American lives for minimal return. This was (in the film) intended to deter a Soviet attack on the U.S. - a kind of macho masochism.

Naturally, some people found the plot less than believable. From a review at the film's IMDB listing:

The premise is silly and its interpretation of the cause of the Vietnam War (revealed at the end) is utterly preposterous--perfect Burt Lancaster material.

Well, unfortunately, according to The National Review’s Stanley Kurtz, the plot suddenly sounds more reasonable, since it's evidently the reason we must stay in Iraq:

We need to see peace and democracy in Iraq is icing on the cake. The real goal is the proof of resolve against Iran and others. If the public sees that, it might change its view of what’s important and what success means.

So I guess the message is that we're willing to sacrifice thousands of American and Iraqi lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, risk the stability of the Middle East and destroy the ideals of America to prove that we're tough guys who don't take no crap from anyone.

Where's General Dell when we need him?

(thanks to ThinkProgress and Atrios for the Kurtz info)

It's times like this I just want to bang my head on the desk until the bad men go away and a peaceful void emcompasses the senses

Billmon, who is usually more "hep" on these things than I am, makes a good case that the Iran [War To Be Named] has already begun. And further points up the nasty parallels to pre-Iraq actions I've been trying to cover.

Seems like it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when".

Plus there's a story at (I seem to recall) the presently unaccessable Blah3 about Iranian volunteers for terror retaliation against the United States. (Backup link here) And since we've made such a great case for pre-emptive strikes... well, fill in the blanks yourself.

Nemmindme... just suffering some BDS here...

Well, I've just been checking out a new toy I found (I think through Firedoglake) called Clusty which is kinda a Google thing but searches blogs as well & "clusters" results into specific categories.

Such as the category "Elections, Cornyn (9)" which I found while clusterficating (??) the name "Pere Ubu" (the (9) refers to the number of links in that cluster).

Well, imagine my suprise to find out that a number of people had linked to the blog here as a result of that posting, the one where John Cornyn makes a snarky comment to Dana Bash about "always having elections in this country". Thanks to all who linked - you've given me a lil' ego boost in doing this (cue Sally Struthers: "You LIKE ME!" ;))

There's always a dark side though, a slime-encrusted grease trap to the fast food of life. Someone at some enclave of wingnuttia called "IndustrialBlog" decided to take Atrios, and therefore me, to task for bein' all silly 'n paranoid and stuff about Cornyn's comment:

I guess if you're willing to insist on taking what your opponents' statements in the worst possible light, instead of actually understand what they're saying, you'll screw up like Atrios did.

Well, the comments for that post are long shut off, so I'll just have to defend myself here. I saw this exchange on CNN TV that morning - I didn't just read it on CNN.com or whatever. Cornyn's comment was delivered largely straight-faced; if it was supposed to be humorous, it's the damndest dryest humor I've ever seen. And I'm a big fan of dry humor.

And a comment from someone (possibly IndustrialBlog's owner) named Bill:

Mebbe Atrios is having some fun ... but did you see Pere Ubu's comments? PB's quite serious, and unless Atrios is having fun at the expense of his friend PB, then it's doubtful it's a joke.

Aw, yeah, hell, how COULD I take that seriously? After all, it was all just in good fun! Never mind the larger context of people having talked seriously back in 2004 about suspending elections, the New York Times op-ed I linked to awhile back suggesting the repeal of the two-term limit for Presidents (or even Preznits, in Bush's case), and Bush's own lil' "funny" about a dictatorship "being so much easier, so long as I'm the dictator". Yeah, when elected (or unelected, in Bush's case) officials start even JOKING about things like that, in a post-9/11 world where we're supposed to shut up, sit down and let the "Unitary Executive" do what he damn well pleases - well, GOD FORBID I shouldn't see the humor in that.

Isn't peace beautiful?

And remember, THIS is the country that we "won" (and then ignored to go after Iraq):

(CNN) -- In some of the fiercest fighting in months, Afghan forces backed by U.S.-led coalition troops killed 41 Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, the governor of Kandahar province has said.

[snip]

U.S.-led troops overthrew the Taliban government in Kabul in 2001 after its leaders refused to hand over al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, architect of the September 11 attacks on the United States. Kandahar used to be Taliban's stronghold.

Yeah, remember that Osama guy? "Alive or dead"? "Won't stop pursuing until we bring him to justice"?

Q Second question: The President's speech today at the Pentagon as far as terrorism and fighting terrorism is concerned, do you think that Osama bin Laden is still in -- is running the al Qaeda business?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, who?
--Simple Scotty McClellan, Jan. 4, 2006

Slouching towards Armageddon

Condi's not very happy with Iran, evidently:

Iran said Tuesday it had enriched uranium at a level of concentration high enough to operate a nuclear power plant, defying last month's U.N. Security Council presidential statement calling for Tehran to suspend the program.

"When the Security Council reconvenes [later this month], I think it will be time for action," Rice said. "We can't let this continue."

Y'know, maybe it's just me, god knows, but that doesn't exactly sound like a White House which is calmly going to let diplomacy do its work to resolve the situation peacefully.

But between Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and Bolton, who could seriously think "diplomacy" had a chance in the first place?

Some religions are just more equal than others

While researching the last post I found a noxious lil' blog called "The Big Picture" (no, no link); when the first thing I see, other than a Pajamas Media logo, is an adoring post lauding Wal-Mart's (ptui! ptui!) "courage" in planning to "Open Stores in Struggling Urban Neighborhoods" (yeah, that's courageous - or maybe they saw a section of the population they hadn't exploited yet? And really cheap rents, to boot), well, you know it's going to be a tough ride.

So anyway, Mr. Picture is all het up about an Islamic "enclave" in Arkansas and how it's inevitably going to lead to a bunch of rabid IslamoMarxiCommuNaziLibmaFascists leavin' footie-prints all over his nice, clean country:

While the imam, Aquil Hamidullah, says his goal is to create "a clean community, free of alcohol, drugs, and free of gangs," the implications for U.S. jurisprudence of this and other internal enclaves are greater: while the Little Rock enclave might prevent the sale of alcohol, can it punish possession and in what manner? Can it force all women, be they residents or visitors, to don Islamic hijab (headscarf)? Such enclaves raise the fundamental questions of when, how, and to what extent religious practice may supersede the U.S. Constitution.

One wonders if he'd have the same problem with, oh, say, these guys:

"ChristianExodus.org seeks a return to constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles, and has decided that the best strategy for achieving this goal is to reform the local and state governments. To accomplish this reform, we will relocate thousands of Christian constitutionalists to one particular sovereign State (South Carolina) so that our numbers will make an effective difference in electoral politics," the Web site says.

Any bets?

The Lollipop Tree Forest is to your left...

Well, boy howdy, the man who epitomizes the phrase "living in a fantasy world" tells the press to, well, stop living in a fantasy world:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he would not engage in "fantasy land" speculation about a possible U.S. attack on Iran, though he said the Bush administration is concerned about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

"The United States of America is on a diplomatic track," Rumsfeld said.

Pfeh, yeah, sure, just like the "diplomatic track" we were on with regards to Iraq.

Special Bonus:For those whiny-ass Bushistas who love to yell "BUSH DI'NT LIE 'BOUT NUTHIN'!", well, guess what: Bush lied about those "biological weapons trailers":

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration claimed trailers captured soon after the fall of Baghdad proved Iraq had weapons of mass destruction even though U.S. intelligence officials had strong evidence that was not the case, The Washington Post reported.

The Iraqi Survey Group later concluded from the inteligence evidence the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were probably intended for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons, the paper said.

[snip]

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was cited at the time as supporting evidence for the decision to go to war.

But a secret mission to Iraq had concluded the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission sent their findings to Washington in a report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement, the Post reported.

Oh, and lookie what I found while Googling for what the warbloggers had to say about the incident at the time:

May 11, 2003, Sunday
By JUDITH MILLER (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section 1, Page 12, Column 5, 1297 words

DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 1297 WORDS -A team of experts searching for evidence of biological and chemical weapons in Iraq has concluded that a trailer found near Mosul in northern Iraq in April is a mobile biological weapons laboratory, the three team members said today. Describing their four-day examination of the lab for the first...

(BTW, it's not easy to track down past postings on warblogger sites, I've discovered. I did manage to find this whining from Hindrocket, though:

Career bureaucrats at the State Department with loyalties to the Democratic Party have done everything possible to frustrate the Administration's policy initiatives. The most recent outrage is a memo by the Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research which questions the conclusion by the CIA and DIA that the mobile laboratories found in Iraq were intended for biological weapons production. Following the usual pattern, the report's conclusions were then leaked to the New York Times. The report itself was not leaked, which probably means that its reasoning was too weak to survive scrutiny.)

Quick! Get some paint!

The peace and calm of the new Iraq (Guaranteed Civil-War Free!) continues to impress:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Three suicide bombers on Friday struck a Baghdad mosque affiliated with a major Shiite political party, killing at least 74 people, according to the Iraqi Health Ministry.

Another 136 people were wounded, authorities said.

Meanwhile, in another great triumph of peeance/freeance, an Iraqi CBS cameraman is acquitted of incitement and recruiting for the Iraqi resistance, but neverthless remains in jail:

In Iraq, an Iraqi cameraman working for CBS News was acquitted of charges Wednesday that have kept him in prison for one year. But despite the acquittal, the judge ordered him returned to his cell at Abu Ghraib. The cameraman, Abdul Ameer, was filming clashes in Mosul when US troops shot him and arrested him a year ago Wednesday.

and as far as the New Iraqi Democracy That Will Inspire The Middle East, well, we're going to be cutting spending on that:

In news on Iraq, the Washington Post is reporting the Bush administration is dramatically reducing spending on so-called "democracy promotion" in Iraq. The move has angered several Republican-linked organizations who were awarded contracts after the US-led invasion. US officials said the money was needed to pay for increasing security costs.


"DUUUH, why you say Iraq not going good? You must be TRAITOR! Them be free 'n stuff!"

Preznit defends spying program...

...bears crap in the woods, the Sun rises in the East...

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (AP) -- President Bush, told by a critic he should be ashamed of his policies, defended the government's secret eavesdropping program Thursday and said he would not apologize for listening in on the phone and e-mail conversations of Americans talking to people with suspected al Qaeda links.

and Bush wants a mulligan on the Abu Garumpf thing, which he might have thought about BEFOREHAND:

"It gave the enemy a fantastic opportunity to use it for propaganda reasons. ... I wish that can be done over. It was a disgraceful experience."

Oops, who knew when you performed mass arrests and tortured people folks would get all upset and stuff? As we have seen, though, Bush & Co. aren't so much disgraced by the torture itself as the fact that it got revealed. They're doing a much better job of covering up their atrocities these days.

Meanwhile folks just LOVE 'EM some Dear Leader:

Despite a couple tough questions, the president got plenty of easy ones. One woman requested a picture with him and another asked about how young people can get involved to help. One questioner simply told the president people are praying for him and another said he has a friend from Iraq who is grateful that he has made the country safer.

Which country is supposedly safer, I'm not sure. It's sure as hell not Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A car bomb detonated Thursday near the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf, killing 10 people and wounding 39 others, police said.

(And as far as the young folks? Keep 'em away from anyone from the DHS - that'd be a good start.)

WTF?

We're now issuing warnings to Iraq about forming a government?

IRAQI leaders have shelved talks on forming a government despite a warning from the United States and Britain against any further delay, as at least 23 were killed in violence across the country.

And here I was thinking that a free country acted on its own schedule. Stupid of me, really.

Some perspective?

I'm not a conservative blogger, so I don't want to take a single news story and turn it into some kind of blanket statement, but THIS is VEEEEERY interesting - evidently those Kurds who we went to liberate from their oppressor - well, here's a couple quotes:

"I am happy that Saddam will go on trial because of everything he did," said 39-year-old Sahar Ibrahim in Baghdad.

"But it really won't matter. There is no security in the country now.

"It is much worse than before. At least then we knew what the danger was."

[snip]

"There was once one Saddam Hussein, now we have many, many," said Shawan Abdul Wahab, a 33-year-old engineer.

"Saddam Hussein should not be executed because he was better than our current politicians."

Sounds like, even with the painted schools and the trial of Saddam and all, some people just can't see the new day dawning...

"Safe" for who?

Headline from the AP this morning:

Nine U.S. troops killed in Iraq after relatively safe month

Yeah, well, "relatively safe", I guess, unless you count the hundreds of Iraqis who were killed last month:

Despite President Bush's repeated denials, the figures are clear: 900 sectarian killings in a single month in Iraq means a civil war is well under way.

Iraq is a nation of 25 million people. In the United States, that level of killing would proportionately equal almost 11,000 people killed in riots, reprisal killings and sectarian clashes in a single month.

"Safe"... a relative term.

George Bush to New Orleans: "Sorry, I must be... going..."

Preznit Lying Bastard, September 15, 2005:

The work that has begun in the Gulf Coast region will be one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen. When that job is done, all Americans will have something to be very proud of --

-- just don't expect to feel that pride any time soon, if ever:

Donald Powell who is Bush’s point man on Katrina reconstruction has said Bush is making no promises regarding the needed $6 billion. The decision will be made this week or next. Powell indicated that Plaquemines Parish is on the chopping block as few people live there. This would be a disaster eventually for NOLA as Plaquemines with its wetlands is a natural buffer to the city. But there is no guarantee that the $3 billion for NOLA metro area will be forthcoming either.

More here and here.

To put this into perspective, the war in Iraq is now costing about $7 billion a MONTH. Once again, as with NYC, Afghanistan, Homeland Security, Iraq reconstruction etc. usw. worldwithoutendamen, Bush has tired of this whole tough "commitment" thing and is off to find a new toy to play with, until the next major disaster when he can play his "call out the troops" card, the one damn card he has in his hand. And since rebuilding New Orleans, like rebuilding Iraq, doesn't give him adequate opportunities to dress up and flaunt his wanna-soldier fetish, it just ain't on his schedule.

Have I mentioned yet...

Oh jeez - I was just over at Tbogg - the sniveling quote from Hindrocket about Tom DeLay was bad enough, but the angry letter slagging him for DARING to criticize Bush and the MessO'Potamia, well, pardon me if I get all subversive here for a moment. 'Cause these also are times that try men's souls.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

You know -

it really is a challenge to keep from using harsh language on this blog.

Really really really a challenge sometimes, like with the last posting.

To paraphrase Mike Malloy - "Have I mentioned recently that I FRICKIN' HATE these people?"

The Global Bad Example

Well, evidently the Brits are taking a look at our new "We'll Do What We Damn Please" foreign policy, and, by gosh, they like the cut of our jib:

John Reid demanded sweeping changes to international law yesterday to free British soldiers from the restraints of the Geneva conventions and make it easier for the west to mount military actions against other states.

In his speech, the defence secretary addressed three key issues: the treatment of prisoners, when to mount a pre-emptive strikes, and when to intervene to stop a humanitarian crisis. In all these areas, he indicated that the UK and west was being hamstrung by existing inadequate law.

'cause god knows that's that we need - to make it easier for the U.S. and "The West" to go stomping around the world bombing the crap out of people. Why, yes, THAT'LL reduce the terrorism problem fersure.



"If you thought our foreign policy was bad before - this one GOES to 11!"

Like that guy with the mustache... oh, what WAS his name...?

Condoleeza "What Am I Supposed To Be Doing, Again?" Rice is coming out for a "strong leader" to unify and lead Iraq:

Speaking at a news conference with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Rice said the next Iraqi prime minister must be a "strong leader" capable of unifying the people of this fractured country.

Like... um... there was this guy there a while back who was a "strong leader"... we did business with him for years... kept the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds from fighting with each other... hell, what WAS his name again?



Oh, and the last throes of the Iraqi resistance continue to, well, throe:

A car bomb in eastern Baghdad killed at least 10 people and wounded 30 others, Baghdad emergency police sources said Monday.

Hope no schools got their new paint dirtied by the blast though. That'd be a REAL FRICKIN' SHAME.



"More happy news! More happy news! Honk! Honk! Smiles, everyone, smiles!"

Kaloogian followup

Well, Howard Kaloogian, the previously mentioned Repug who had claimed a picture taken in Turkey was a picture from Iraq, has now scrubbed his site clean and taken the "oh, it was all just a mistake" tack.

We originally posted a photograph not of Baghdad, Iraq but from Istanbul, Turkey where our delegation traveled on the way home to the United States. We apologize for this mistake. We have corrected it with a photograph we took from Baghdad.

Mind you, the new picture has NO DETAIL whatsoever - it looks to have been taken from a helicopter, as there is no way you can tell what's happening on street level. There could be a frickin' firefight going on at the time and you couldn't tell from his photo. So the "well this picture just proves how calm Iraq really is" arguement falls through, like using a Google Earth picture of New York City to "prove" the crime rate has gone down.

As a special added bonus extra-value snark, I note the reference to "two exclusive, by-invitation-only screenings of the documentary "Celsius 41.11"" which appears to be a response to and a supposed debunking of Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911". The movie was produced by David Bossie of "Citizens United", who is a long-time Repug dirty trickster and partisan hack who has been responsible for:

• the "Willie Horton" ads of 1988,
  
• the "Clinton Chronicles" film, detailing the trail of murders Bill Clinton was supposedly "responsible for",
  
• driving the Whitewater investigations by channeling false information to the press,
  
• the false Gennifer Flowers accusations against Clinton,
  
• attempts to link Gary Condit to the murder of Chandra Levy (bet you forgot all about that - god knows I wish I had),
  
• blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11 (his book "Intelligence Failure: How Clinton's National Security Policy Set the Stage for 9/11"),
  
• and filing an FEC complaint against Moore's advertising for "Farenheit 911" on the grounds that it violated campaign financing laws restricting political advocacy advertising.