Archive for May 29th, 2007

All hail the King

You’ll forgive me — every nerve in my Berkeley-born populist [sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing] body is offended by the following … and I’m rendered temporarily speechless. I expect to rant loudly later this evening, when I get over it … IF I do. I keep trying to swallow down something … that’s got me by the throat.

Jude

Bush has Doubled Admin’s Secret Service Protection;
Readies 103 Full-Time Agents for his Retirement. Soldiers still Lack Armor.
BuzzFlash
Tue, 05/29/2007

The 2008 campaign will require more Secret Service resources than expected, the Washington Post reported Tuesday. The article also brings up some interesting highlights on Secret Service coverage for the Bush administration:

[T]he Bush administration has doubled the number of officials granted Secret Service protection, from 26 to 54, including top White House aides such as the chief of staff and national and homeland security advisers.

Guess the paranoia is justified considering their abysmal approval ratings. We always thought it was just a coincidence that Cheney never leaves his undisclosed location during full moons.

And while the 2008 campaign gets going, the service is also gearing up for January 2009, when President Bush is set to leave office … The service has begun training agents to fill 103 full-time slots as to be part of the current president’s retirement detail.

103 personal, full-time Secret Service agents after he’s retired? Bush must not be planning on making any more friends over the next year and a half.

And to think that these are the same folks who didn’t want Speaker Pelosi – second in line to the presidency – to have a military plane for official travel (much less a fighter jet to land on an aircraft carrier for a photo op).

If you think it’s crazy for the taxpayers to spend millions protecting a man who single-handedly pissed off the world, the American people, and even most of his own party, there is still hope: impeachment and conviction will prevent Bush from receiving the standard protection, office staff, and cushy pension afforded to retired presidents.

In fact, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter proposed doing just that to Bill Clinton… even after he had already left office! Booting our lame duck president now would not only spare the nation months of more torment but would also save us big bucks in his upkeep.

A 1997 law made Clinton the last former president to get lifetime Secret Service coverage, meaning Bush will only get a decade of official protection. After that, well, we guess it’s up to Blackwater.

Campaign Puts New Strain on Secret Service
Big Field and Early Start Force Cuts in Other Efforts
Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post Staff
Tuesday, May 29, 2007

The U.S. Secret Service expects to borrow more than 2,000 immigration officers and federal airport screeners next year to help guard an ever-expanding field of presidential candidates, while shifting 250 of its own agents from investigations to security details.

Burdened by the White House’s wartime security needs, the persistent threat of terrorism and a field of at least 20 presidential contenders, the Secret Service was showing signs of strain even before the Department of Homeland Security ordered protection for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as of May 3, the earliest a candidate has ever been assigned protection in an election season.

Its $110 million-plus budget for campaign protection — two-thirds more than the record $65 million it spent for the 2004 election — was prepared when the service did not expect to be guarding Obama or anyone else until January. The agency has already been forced to scale back its efforts to battle counterfeiting and cybercrime.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has doubled the number of officials granted Secret Service protection, from 26 to 54, including top White House aides such as the chief of staff and national and homeland security advisers.

As recently as the beginning of Bill Clinton’s administration in 1993, no White House aides had such security details, although coverage had been extended before and was given later to national security advisers Brent Scowcroft, Anthony Lake and Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, said former Clinton and Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke.

And while the 2008 campaign gets going, the service is also gearing up for January 2009, when President Bush is set to leave office; officials are mindful of the 1993 assassination effort by Iraq against his father, former president George H.W. Bush. The service has begun training agents to fill 103 full-time slots as to be part of the current president’s retirement detail.

“You’ve just ticked off what you might say are unprecedented challenges,” said David G. Carpenter, formerly the head of Clinton’s Secret Service detail and assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security and now vice president of global security for PepsiCo.

The stresses come as the agency’s duties have grown faster than its funding.

Founded as part of the Treasury Department in 1865 to combat counterfeiting and tapped in 1901 as guardian of presidents, the service is best known for protecting individuals. By law, the agency guards presidents, vice presidents, candidates, their families and visiting heads of state. The president can also extend protection by executive memorandum.

But the service has taken on added homeland security jobs in recent years, such as screening White House mail and coordinating security at national events such as presidential conventions and Super Bowls. And while its budget has grown 50 percent since 2001, the number of agents, uniformed officers and support staff has increased by about 20 percent, to 6,500.

“The protection work of the Secret Service has grown in magnitude and complexity since 9/11. . . . The number of protectees under your responsibility has doubled since 2002. At the same time, the global war on terror is driving up the intensity of your protective operations,” Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) told Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan at a March hearing on his $1.4 billion 2008 budget proposal. “Your already stretched personnel and resources are going to be stretched even further.”

Saddled with new duties, the agency is cutting back its traditional work on financial fraud and cybercrime.

Counterfeit money in circulation grew 20 percent between 2003 and 2006, from $58 to $81 per million dollars, said Rep. David E. Price ( D-N.C.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on homeland security. Losses prevented by Secret Service investigations dropped 40 percent in 2006, from $556 million to $316 million.

While its goal is to spend 65 percent of its resources on investigations — 50 percent in presidential election years — the service is cutting investigators’ budgets and is on track to flip its usual ratio, spending nearly two-thirds on protective duties.

“Is it a systemic problem within the organization that there has been a drop-off regardless of the campaign? I would say it is,” Sullivan told Price’s panel. “We flat out need more people.”

The Secret Service, mindful of offending the White House or Congress, said in a statement that it “declines to participate with this story.”

The statement said plans are in place and the service’s personnel are prepared, adding, “We are currently working with the Department of Homeland Security in order to address campaign funding issues.”

But members of Congress in both parties are throwing jabs.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, called on Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to “provide the necessary resources,” saying, “The stability of our nation and institutions of our democracy must be protected.”

“The Secret Service is being stretched thinner with these added requirements,” Rogers said. “It can’t be done on the cheap.”

The exceptionally early start of the 2008 race and its unusually large field have increased the pressure, forcing the Secret Service to scramble to keep up with the longest and costliest U.S. presidential campaign ever.

Candidate protection is expensive. Flight, lodging and per diem expenses are sizable, exceeding the $100 million that the Secret Service normally spends on travel per year. Security details require three shifts of agents that rotate every three weeks, bomb-sniffing dogs, sophisticated communications equipment, hundreds of vehicles, and even, at times, specialized gear such as detection and jamming devices.

Chertoff’s recent decision to authorize protection for Obama was also unexpected. The Secret Service initially estimated that it would need to staff 739 “candidate protection days” for 2008, on the low end of the range of 300 to 2,000 days it has staffed for campaigns over the past 40 years.

But with coverage of Obama starting 18 months before Election Day, his campaign alone could consume 540 days, at a rate of about $44,360 a day.

On the other hand, with more than 25 states proposing or holding caucuses or primaries by Feb. 5, the vast field could be cleared early, Price noted. Also, as a former first lady, Democratic candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ( N.Y.) already has a protective detail.
The reason for the Obama order is unclear. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who is backing Obama, expressed concern that the candidate is drawing large crowds that could impede his movement in an emergency, while Obama aides were concerned about threatening letters and Internet postings seeming to target the senator because of his race, congressional sources said, although there was no specific threat.

In interviews, Obama has expressed ambivalence about the change and played down any racial aspect.

“I’m not an entourage guy,” Obama told ABC News, saying that until recently he helped his wife shop for groceries. But he added: “If I don’t win it’s not going to be because of my race. It’s going to be because I didn’t project a vision of leadership that gave people confidence.”

While presidential candidates often object to Secret Service protection as intrusive and a barrier to voters, the agency’s presence can convey legitimacy to fledgling campaigns and lend experience, organization and speed to their travel operations.

Former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who received a Secret Service detail in 2004 as the Democratic vice presidential candidate, has said he has no immediate plans to request protection this time. He told CNN that he would rather, “as long as possible, have the freedom to be able to be with people.”

Spokesmen for the Republican front-runners, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, said the campaigns have neither asked for nor received Secret Service protection.

Staff writers Perry Bacon Jr. and Mary Beth Sheridan and political researcher Zachary A. Goldfarb contributed to this report.

Wonders of The Imperial World
Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch
Tuesday, May 29, 2007

[open for dozens of revealing links]

Of the seven wonders of the ancient Mediterranean world, including the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and the Colossus of Rhodes, four were destroyed by earthquakes, two by fire. Only the Great Pyramid of Giza today remains.

We no longer know who built those fabled monuments to the grandiosity of kings, pharaohs, and gods; nowadays, at least, it’s easier to identify the various wonders of our world with their architects. Maya Lin, for instance, spun the moving black marble Vietnam Memorial from her remarkable brain for the veterans of that war; Frank Gehry dreamt up his visionary titanium-covered museum in Bilbao, Spain, for the Guggenheim; and the architectural firm of BDY (Berger Devine Yaeger), previously responsible for the Sprint Corporation’s world headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas; the Visitation Church in Kansas City, Missouri; and Harrah’s Hotel and Casino in North Kansas City, Missouri, turns out to have designed the biggest wonder of all — an embassy large enough to embody the Bush administration’s vision of an American-reordered Middle East. We’re talking, of course, about the still-uncompleted American embassy, the largest on the planet, being constructed on a 104-acre stretch of land in the heart of Baghdad’s embattled Green Zone, now regularly under mortar fire. As Patrick Lenahan, Senior Architect and Project Manager at BDY, has put it (according to the firm’s website): “We understand how to involve the client most effectively as we direct our resources to make our client’s vision a reality.”

And what a vision it was! What a reality it’s turned out to be!

Who can forget the grandiose architecture of pre-Bush-administration Baghdad: Saddam Hussein’s mighty vision of kitsch Orientalism melting into terror, based on which, in those last years of his rule, he reconstructed parts of the Iraqi capital? He ensured that what was soon to become the Green Zone would be dotted with overheated, Disneyesque, Arabian-Nights palaces by the score, filled with every luxury imaginable in a country whose population was growing increasingly desperate under the weight of UN sanctions.

Who can forget those vast, sculpted hands, “The Hands of Victory,” supposedly modeled on Saddam’s own, holding 12-story-high giant crossed swords (over piles of Iranian helmets) on a vast Baghdad parade ground? Meant to commemorate a triumph over Iran that the despot never actually achieved, they still sit there, partially dismantled and a monument to folly; while, as Jane Arraf has written, Saddam’s actual hands,”the hands that wrote the orders for the war against Iran and the destruction of Iraqi villages, the hands handcuffed behind his back as he went to trial and then was led to his execution are moldering under ground.”

It is worth remembering that, when the American commanders whose troops had just taken Baghdad, wanted their victory photo snapped, they memorably seated themselves, grinning happily, behind a marble table in one of those captured palaces; that American soldiers and newly arrived officials marveled at the former tyrant’s exotic symbols of power; that they swam in Saddam’s pools, fed rare antelopes from his son Uday’s private zoo to its lions (and elsewhere shot his herd of gazelles and ate them themselves); and, when in need of someplace to set up an American embassy, the newly arrived occupation officials chose — are you surprised? — one of his former dream palaces. They found nothing strange in the symbolism of this (though it was carefully noted by Baghdadis), even as they swore they were bringing liberation and democracy to Saddam’s benighted land.

And then, as the Iraqi capital’s landscape became ever more dangerous, as an insurgency gained traction while the administration’s dreams of a redesigned American Middle East remained as strong as ever, its officials evidently concluded that even one of Saddam’s palaces, roomy enough for a dictator interested in the control of a single country (or the odd neighboring state), wasn’t faintly big enough, or safe enough, or modern enough for the representatives of the planet’s New Rome.

Hence, Missouri’s BDY. That midwestern firm’s designers can now be classified as architects to the wildest imperial dreamers and schemers of our time. And the company seems proud of it. You can go to its website and take a little tour in sketch form, a blast-resistant spin, through its Bush-inspired wonder, its particular colossus of the modern world. Imagine this: At $592 million, its proudest boast is that, unlike almost any other American construction project in that country, it is coming in on budget and on time. Of course, with a 30% increase in staffing size since Congress approved the project two years ago, it is now estimated that being “represented” in Baghdad will cost a staggering $1.2 billion per year. No wonder, with a crew of perhaps 1,000 officials assigned to it and a supporting staff (from food service workers to Marine guards and private security contractors) of several thousand more.

When the BDY-designed embassy opens in September (undoubtedly to the sound of mortar fire), its facilities will lack the gold-plated faucets installed in some of Saddam’s palaces and villas (and those of his sons), but they won’t lack for the amenities that Americans consider part and parcel of the good life, even in a “hardship” post. Take a look, for instance, at the embassy’s “pool house,” as imagined by BDY. (There’s a lovely sketch of it at their site.) Note the palm trees dotted around it, the expansive lawns, and those tennis courts discretely in the background. For an American official not likely to leave the constricted, heavily fortified, four-mile square Green Zone during a year’s tour of duty, practicing his or her serve (on the taxpayer’s dollar) is undoubtedly no small thing.

Admittedly, it may be hard to take that refreshing dip or catch a few sets of tennis in Baghdad’s heat if the present order for all U.S. personnel in the Green Zone to wear flak jackets and helmets at all times remains in effect — or if, as in the present palace/embassy, the pool (and ping-pong tables) are declared, thanks to increasing mortar and missile attacks, temporarily “off limits.” In that case, more time will probably be spent in the massive, largely windowless-looking Recreation Center, one of over 20 blast-resistant buildings BDY has planned. Perhaps this will house the promised embassy cinema. (Pirates of the Middle East, anyone?) Perhaps hours will be wiled away in the no less massive-looking, low-slung Post Exchange/Community Center, or in the promised commissary, the “retail and shopping areas,” the restaurants, or even, so the BDY website assures us, the “schools” (though it’s a difficult to imagine the State Department allowing children at this particular post).

And don’t forget the “fire station” (mentioned but not shown by BDY), surely so handy once the first rockets hit. Small warning: If you are among the officials about to staff this post, keep in mind that the PX and commissary might be slightly understocked. The Washington Post recently reported that “virtually every bite and sip consumed [in the embassy] is imported from the United States, entering Iraq via Kuwait in huge truck convoys that bring fresh and processed food, including a full range of Baskin-Robbins ice cream flavors, every seven to 10 days.” Recently, there has been a “Theater-Wide Delay in Food Deliveries,” due to unexplained convoy problems. Even the yogurt supplies have been running low.

But those of you visiting our new embassy via BDY’s website have no such worries. So get that container of Baskin-Robbins from the freezer and take another moment to consider this new wonder of our world with its own self-contained electricity-generation, water-purification, and sewage systems in a city lacking most of the above. When you look at the plans for it, you have to wonder: Can it, in any meaningful sense, be considered an embassy? And if so, an embassy to whom?

The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland in the most recent issue of the New York Review of Books terms it a “base” like our other vast, multibillion dollar permanent bases in Iraq. It is also a headquarters. But what a head! What quarters! It is neither town, nor quite city-state, but it could be considered a citadel, with its own anti-missile defenses, inside the increasingly breachable citadel of the Green Zone. It may already be the last piece of ground (excepting those other bases) that the United States, surge or no, can actually claim to fully occupy and control in Iraq — and yet it already has something of the look of the Alamo (with amenities). Someday, perhaps, it will turn out to be the “White House” (though, in BDY’s sketches, its buildings look more like those prison-style schools being built in embattled American urban neighborhoods) for Moqtada al-Sadr, or some future Shiite Party, or a Sunni strongman, or a home for squatters. Who knows?

What we know is that such an embassy is remarkably outsized for Iraq. Even as a headquarters for a vast, secret set of operations in that chaotic land, it doesn’t quite add up. After all, our military headquarters in Iraq is already at Camp Victory on the outskirts of Baghdad. We can certainly assume — though no one in our mainstream media world would think to say such a thing — that this new embassy will house a rousing set of CIA (and probably Pentagon) intelligence operations for the country and region, and will be a massive hive for American spooks of all sorts. But whatever its specific functions, it might best be described as the imperial Mother Ship dropping into Baghdad.

Amazingly, despite complaints from Congress, the present U.S. ambassador is stumped when it comes to cutting down on that planned staff of his — every one more essential than the last — and the State Department is actually lobbying Congress for an extra $50 million to construct yet more “blast-resistant housing” on the vast site. Maybe this is what the “build and hold” strategy, pushed by many counterinsurgency types, really means. We’ll simply plan in Washington, design in Kansas City, build through a Kuwaiti construction firm using cheap imported labor, and try to keep building out forever from our “embassy” in Baghad.

As an outpost, this vast compound reeks of one thing: imperial impunity. It was never meant to be an embassy from a democracy that had liberated an oppressed land. From the first thought, the first sketch, it was to be the sort of imperial control center suitable for the planet’s sole “hyperpower,” dropped into the middle of the oil heartlands of the globe. It was to be Washington’s dream and Kansas City’s idea of a palace fit for an embattled American proconsul — or a khan.

When completed, it will indeed be the perfect folly, as well as the perfect embassy, for a country that finds it absolutely normal to build vast base-worlds across the planet; that considers it just a regular day’s work to send its aircraft carrier “strike forces” and various battleships through the Straits of Hormuz in daylight as a visible warning to a “neighboring” regional power; whose Central Intelligence Agency operatives feel free to organize and launch Baluchi tribal warriors from Pakistan into the Baluchi areas of Iran to commit acts of terror and mayhem; whose commander-in-chief President can sign a “nonlethal presidential finding” that commits our nation to a “soft power” version of the economic destabilization of Iran, involving, according to ABC News, “a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions”; whose Vice President can appear on the deck of the USS John C. Stennis to address a “rally for the troops,” while that aircraft carrier is on station in the Persian Gulf, readying itself to pass through those Straits and can insist to the world: “With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we’re sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike. We’ll keep the sea lanes open. We’ll stand with our friends in opposing extremism and strategic threats. We’ll disrupt attacks on our own forces…. And we’ll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region”; whose military men can refer to Iraqi insurgents as “anti-Iraqi forces”; members of whose Congressional opposition can offer plans for the dismemberment of Iraq into three or more parts; and all of whose movers and shakers, participating in the Washington Consensus, can agree that one “benchmark” the Iraqi government, also locked inside the Green Zone, must fulfill is signing off on an oil law designed in Washington and meant to turn the energy clock in the Middle East back several decades; but why go on.

To recognize such imperial impunity and its symbols for what they are, all you really need to do is try to reverse any of these examples. In most cases, that’s essentially inconceivable. Imagine any country building the equivalent Mother Ship “embassy” on the equivalent of two-thirds of the Washington Mall; or sailing its warships into the Gulf of Mexico and putting its second-in-command aboard the flagship of the fleet to insist on keeping the sea lanes “open”; or sending Caribbean terrorists into Florida to blow up local buses and police stations; or signing a “finding” to economically destabilize the American government; or planning the future shape of our country from a foreign capital. But you get the idea. Most of these actions, if aimed against the United States, would be treated as tantamount to acts of war and dealt with accordingly in this country, with unbelievable hue and cry.

When it’s a matter of other countries halfway across the planet, however, Americans largely consider such things, even if revealed in the news, at worst tactical errors or miscalculations. The imperial mindset goes deep. It also thinks unbearably well of itself and so, naturally, wants to memorialize itself, to give itself the surroundings that only the great, the super, the hyper deserves.

Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poem “Ozymandias,” inspired by the arrival in London in 1816 of an enormous statue of the Pharaoh Ramesses II, comes to mind:

    “I met a traveler from an antique land
    Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
    Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
    And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
    And on the pedestal, these words appear:
    ‘My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
    Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare,
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

In Baghdad, Saddam’s giant hands are already on the road to ruin. Still going up in New York and Baghdad are two half-billion dollar-plus monuments to the Bush imperial moment. A 9/11 memorial so grotesquely expensive that, when completed, it will be a reminder only of a time, already long past, when we could imagine ourselves as the Greatest Victims on the planet; and in Baghdad’s Green Zone, a monument to the Bush administration’s conviction that we were also destined to be the Greatest Dominators this world, and history, had ever seen.

From both these monuments, someday — and in the case of the embassy in Baghdad that day may not be so very distant — those lone and level sands will undoubtedly stretch far, far away.

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

$10 phonesexalateen historyanal adventures of stabbing captain amazing1940 sex eroticaaebn minutes blog free 15 pornfantasies hentai sex aliensex having after breakout acnejasmine aladdin porn and video Map

Add comment May 29th, 2007

They’re coming for your dog: regarding the irrelevant

The Senate Intelligence Committee has unearthed intelligence reports from 2003 that were a prophetic voice, detailing what we’re experiencing in Iraq and the ME today — all of which was ignored by the Bushies in their glee to get to Saddam and the oil [open the Froomkin link below for an outline]. Just one more outrageous piece of evidence that this administration ignored all that did not suit their PNAC model.

And still the Dubby drones on about the WOT, about the Islamofascists that are hiding behind your garbage cans waiting to jump out at you when you water the lawn, about how he knows best because he’s got all that intelligence [sic] — and the phrase that goads me the most, makes me want to throw heavy objects at my television set, is about how AMERICANS UNDERSTAND what he’s doing for them; he includes it in every speech, winking and smirking … even when he’s pissy, which is most of the time now.

This is no longer a Red talking point, this is a bona fide delusion, akin to that which you’d hear from a senile senior or a brain-ravaged AIDs patient. Bush is lost there … so lost. Oh, I know — Karl says he has to stay on point, he can’t give an inch … but all of KR’s success has been based on the public dozing, not noticing his backroom deals and linguistic maneuvers. Those days are gone — and to keep his boy on point at this juncture only makes Dubby seem less relevant than ever. [Karl needs a white jacket too -- or an orange jumpsuit. Either works for me ... and seems a growingly attractive option to the public in general.]

But I’d bet money that Karl couldn’t stop the Dubster now even if he wanted to. Bush has bet his entire psychic bundle on his preemption policy — the only thing worse than losing his war would be losing the philosophy that makes some sense of his infintile ambitions and pretense. If he’s given an option to retire to the ranch, he’ll still be looking for the Muslims behind the barn … hoping to find one and be redeemed. His personal demons are our political reality.

Here is a collection of excellent reads — don’t miss them; none are very long. If you only have time for one, read SPIRD: Smartest person in the Room Disorder — but try to make time for them all. The energy that’s expanding, and revealed in these articles, is the actual understanding … not just speculation … that there’s something Very Wrong with this president, this administration … there was something Very Wrong with their conceptualizations from the beginning … and following them over the cliff is no longer either patriotic or pragmatic. We’ve finally “got it.”

Enough of the Baby Boomers have elder parents who sound just as fixated, just as unreasonable, just as lost-in-time as the Bushies — they’re beginning to hear that echo and connect the dots. The old voices of authority are fading … while that authority, misused, is the political cartoon of this decade.

Remember when we were urging everyone to THINK? Now the public finds itself forced to … because those they counted on to do it for them show no real evidence that they are capable. And maybe that was the Cosmic Intent from the git go.

Really good, easy reads, below.

Jude

Warnings of Chaos Ignored
snipped from Froomkin re: Fridays press conference
Washington Post

The Press Conference

Mark Silva writes in the Chicago Tribune: “Defending his widely criticized stance that Iraq has become the central front in a global war on terror, the president said, ‘This notion about how this isn’t a war on terror, in my view, is naive. I would hope our world hadn’t become so cynical that they don’t take the threats of Al Qaeda seriously, because they’re real.’”

Rutenberg called Bush “mostly good humored.” Silva didn’t think so: “At times during the news conference, Bush appeared frustrated, combative and tired in answering questions about a lingering war that many in his administration had thought would be far shorter and more decisive. The president seemed especially annoyed when a reporter asked why bin Laden was still free.”

That reporter, as it happens, was Rutenberg. Bush’s reply: “Why is he at large? Because we haven’t got him yet, Jim. That’s why. And he’s hiding, and we’re looking, and we will continue to look until we bring him to justice. We’ve brought a lot of his buddies to justice, but not him. That’s why he’s still at large. He’s not out there traipsing around, he’s not leading many parades, however. He’s not out feeding the hungry. He’s isolated, trying to kill people to achieve his objective.”

Dana Milbank writes in The Washington Post that Bush invoked al Qaeda “19 times and even suggested it was going after individual reporters’ kids.

    “‘They are a threat to your children, David,’ he advised NBC’s David Gregory.

    “‘It’s a danger to your children, Jim,’ Bush informed the New York Times’ Jim Rutenberg.

    “This last warning was perplexing, because Rutenberg has no children, only a brown chow chow named Little Bear. It was unclear whether Bush was referring to a specific and credible threat to Little Bear or merely indicating there was increased ‘chatter in the system’ about chow chows in general.” [Emphasis Added - J]

Bush thinks public is on his side
No, we’re not making this up
JENNIFER LOVEN, Capital Hill Blue
May 28, 2007

Confronted with strong opposition to his Iraq policies, President Bush decides to interpret public opinion his own way. Actually, he says, people agree with him.

Democrats view the November elections that gave them control of Congress as a mandate to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. They’re backed by evidence; election exit poll surveys by The Associated Press and television networks found 55 percent saying the U.S. should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.

The president says Democrats have it all wrong: the public doesn’t want the troops pulled out — they want to give the military more support in its mission.

“Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq,” he said April 24, ahead of a veto showdown with congressional Democrats over their desire to legislation a troop withdrawal timeline. “I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course.”

Increasingly isolated on a war that is going badly, Bush has presented his alternative reality in other ways, too. He expresses understanding for the public’s dismay over the unrelenting sectarian violence and American losses that have passed 3,400, but then asserts that the public’s solution matches his.

“A lot of Americans want to know, you know, when?” he said at a Rose Garden news conference Thursday. “When are you going to win?”

Also in that session, Bush said: “I recognize there are a handful there, or some, who just say, `Get out, you know, it’s just not worth it. Let’s just leave.’ I strongly disagree with that attitude. Most Americans do as well.”

In fact, polls show Americans do not disagree, and that leaving — not winning — is their main goal.

In one released Friday by CBS and the New York Times, 63 percent supported a troop withdrawal timetable of sometime next year. Another earlier this month from USA Today and Gallup found 59 percent backing a withdrawal deadline that the U.S. should stick to no matter what’s happening in Iraq.

Bush aides say poll questions are asked so many ways, and often so imprecisely, that it is impossible to conclude that most Americans really want to get out. Failure, Bush says, is not what the public wants — they just don’t fully understand that that is just what they will get if troops are pulled out before the Iraqi government is capable of keeping the country stable on its own.

Seeking to turn up the heat on this argument, Bush has relied lately on an al-Qaida mantra. Terrorists remain dangerous, and fighting them in Iraq is key to neutralizing the threat, he says. “It’s hard for some Americans to see that, I fully understand it,” Bush said. “I see it clearly.”

Independent pollster Andrew Kohut said of the White House view: “I don’t see what they’re talking about.”

“They want to know when American troops are going to leave,” Kohut, director of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, said of the public. “They certainly want to win. But their hopes have been dashed.”

Kohut has found it notable that there’s such a consensus in poll findings.

“When the public hasn’t made up its mind or hasn’t thought about things, there’s a lot of variation in the polls,” he said. “But there’s a fair amount of agreement now.”

The president didn’t used to try to co-opt polling for his benefit. He just said he ignored it.

In Ohio in mid-April, for instance, Bush was asked how he feels about his often dismal showings. “Polls just go poof at times,” he replied.

It was the same the next day in Michigan. “If you make decisions based upon the latest opinion poll, you won’t be thinking long-term strategy on behalf of the American people,” the president said.

After weeks of negotiations between the White House and Capitol Hill’s majority Democrats, last week ended with things going Bush’s way. Congress passed and he signed a war spending bill that was stripped of any requirement that the war end.

But the debate is far from over.

The measure funds the war only through Sept. 30 — around the time that military commanders are scheduled to report to Bush and Congress on whether the troop increase the president ordered in January is quelling the violence as hoped. Even Republicans have told Bush that a major reckoning is coming in September, and that they will be hard-pressed to continue to stand behind him if things don’t look markedly better. Also due that month is an independent assessment of the Iraqi government’s progress on measures aimed at lessening sectarian tensions that are fueling the violence.

Between now and then, Democrats don’t intend to stay quiet. They plan a series of votes on whether U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and whether the president has the authority to continue the war.

Bush isn’t likely to stay quiet, either.

Wayne Fields, an expert on presidential rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis, said the president’s new language exploits the fact that there is no one alternative strategy for the public to coalesce around, which clearly spells out how to bring troops home. Bush can argue that people agree with him because no one can define the alternative, Fields said.

But, with the president’s job approval ratings so low and the public well aware of what it thinks about the war, Bush is taking a big gamble.

“This is a very tricky thing in our politics. We want to think that we want our leaders to stand up to public opinion. But we also like to think of ourselves as being in a democracy where we are listened to,” Fields said. “He risks either the notion of being thought out of tough … or to be thought simply duplicitous.” ++

Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this story.

What The Dormouse Said…
Christy Hardin Smith, FireDogLake
5/29/07

If this were only pieces on the chessboard or a poorly dealt hand of cards at stake, it wouldn’t be so disturbing…

[snips of the above article]

Could I select option three: the President is both out of touch and duplicitous? Whatever undisclosed rabbit hole they have Dick Cheney crouching in these days in his off-time, could someone go over and fetch a “Drink Me” bottle of the delusional cocktail that they have been spoonfeeding the neocons? They still pretend to be ten feet tall with their ever-shrinking public support, and they can’t just fortify themselves with hot air and backpatting alone, can they? There has to be some kick to that stuff that gives them the acting chops or the delusions of candor to appear, in public at least, to sail blissfully along on a rose-colored sea while the rest of the country sees something entirely more fetid and chaotic. But the mask is slipping, and I begin to see some panic behind the clenched cheshire grins.

As for the ever-shrinking Bush poll numbers? He appears to have fallen down a hole of his own digging…and no amount of PR jabberwocky will set things right again. While the President continues to see himself as a white knight of sorts, or perhaps even an indulgent ruler if a bit on the petulant side, what the rest of us see is a man who has dragged us all along to an increasingly mad party of his own making. But no one seems to know the way back through the looking glass… ++

SPIRD: Smartest person in the Room Disorder
Steve Young, Smirking Chimp
May 29 2007

    “We must be careful about what we pretend to be”
    ~ Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night

In the brilliant 1987 James Brooks film, “Broadcast News,” news director, Paul Moore (Peter Hackes), tells his producer, Jane Craig (Holly Hunter) that, “It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you’re the smartest person in the room,” to which Craig bemoans, “No. It’s awful.”

That the Craig character so sincerely believes she is “the smartest person in the room” and sees it as an exhausting burden, might give some insight as to what seems to be a burgeoning 21st century pandemic that’s spreading throughout politics, entertainment and - sigh - this column. In fact, it just might be infecting your very house - if you have a teenager growing there.

SPIRD once resided largely in neighborhood bars, infecting anyone who had moved past a third beer. But today, it appears to afflict every facet of our society.

It doesn’t matter what side of the aisle, politicians always know better.

You can’t be a successful radio talk show host without SPIRD.

Rosie O’Donnell’s View-undo was more a result of SPIRD than contract disagreement.

It’s a baffling psychosomatic disorder, as being the smartest person in the room doesn’t mean that you’re actually the smartest person in the room. Only that you believe you are. It’s not so much about being smart as much as feeling you’re always right. Immune to the challenge of facts.

SPIRD symptoms include, but are not limited to: thinking you should know all the answers, thinking you have all the answers, bulging forehead blood vessels, shouting down the opposition and an impulsive need to demonize or ruin your adversary.

Speaking of Bill O’Reilly.

The No-Spinster may be the ultimate SPIRD. He not only admits that he knows what’s best, but he uses it to look out for you. And it’s not like he shouts down everyone. He is quick to praise others. ‘Course those being the ones who agree with him - another earmark of someone smitten with SPIRD.

I oftened referred to my one short-lived radio program as the “I Stand Corrected Show.” You could change my mind at the drop of an fact. Perhaps a good reason for my present lack of radio employment today.

This past week, Presidential candidate, John McCain, who had been out of the room for months campaigning, told a senatorial colleague that he (McCain) knew more about the pending Immigration issue than anyone in the room. He punctuated it with one of a SPIRD’s most trusty summations, especially when debating a fellow SPIRD: f@#! you.

Some might consider SPIRD a virtue, one we would desire in our leaders; a confidence or conviction that stands up against coercion or evil. Problem is that SPIRD is not grounded in integrity as much as ego; being right despite pounds of information that reveals huge holes in your logic and/or beliefs.

President Bush has long said that he would “stay the course” even if only Laura and Barney were with him. And now, if the polls are correct, even Barney is beginning to question that course, but it won’t change his mind. Sadly, this President’s SPIRD is terminal.

Fact is, having SPIRD is not about being smart at all. It’s built out of the need to win above all else. Winning becomes more important than being right even though that type of winning many times carries with it the burden of being less right than whomever you feel you’ve defeated. And that isn’t winning at all.

SPIRDs are not hard to spot, mostly because they tend to carry a spotlight to shine on themselves. It is the truly smart people who are more difficult to notice, at least right away. They neither shout down nor try to diffuse an adversary’s argument by turning off their mike. To do otherwise might keep them from actually learning a new piece of information, something someone with SPIRD is incapable of.

Probably the most deadly consequence of SPIRD is that it keeps us from admitting that we’ve made a mistake; a fear of letting anyone know we’re not perfect. Despite the trepidation of revealing you may not be so smart, SPIRD denies the carrier from becoming smarter. For it is in most any mistake, misstep or failure that we find an opportunity to learn. So as with Brooks’s “Broadcast News” character, the burden of being the smartest person in the room is not about smarts, it’s about an unwillingness or an inability to learn.

And like second-hand smoke, the damage done is not only to the person with the cigarette in their mouth, but to those who don’t realize that the poison that spews from the SPIRD-affected can effect those who breathe it in, without question. Need any more proof that it is a vast and flourishing epidemic. Take a look at talk radio’s ratings.

Psychologist Howard Dansky has written that “face-saving from those who say ‘I may be wrong’ is only so that they might appear that they do not actually think the other person is a total nonentity ignoramus. But the intellectually self-absorbed aren’t thinking of anyone else and don’t seem to be concerned that they may come off as a fraud if they have it wrong. The total absorption with the self; egotism takes that to the extreme of being a sociopath who is able to place responsibility for any wrong on something outside of himself, never himself.”

It is ultimately important to understand that you need not be a celebrity, politician or a talk show host to suffer from SPIRD. It effects everyone. Even the parent of a teenager. There is no known cure, but you can prevent it from affecting you and your loved ones. Turn off the TV, same with the radio and when face to face with someone who will not let you get in a word edgewise, leave the room immediately.

As Dansky, reminds us of SPIRDs, “you can never actually win an argument with these types. You can only hope to do your best to make them irrelevant.” [EA - J]

Above all, don’t pretend to know everything or be something you’re not. It’s downright draining.

Then take two Vonneguts and call me in the morning. ++

Bush has yet to outgrow his hubris
Friday, May 25, 2007
Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

When we were in college, the woman who would eventually become my wife once asked whether I’d rather be thought of as evil or stupid.

“Evil,” I said without missing a beat. Since we weren’t dating at the time, I suspected nothing heavier than an honest inquiry into the state of my moral compass.

When you’re a male college student in your early 20s, obtuseness, even if you’re born with it, is considered a greater moral flaw than binge drinking, serial dating or cheating on final exams.

Even if you’re guilty of uttering racist or homophobic remarks during late-night bull sessions in the dorms, there’s still the possibility of redemption. For all its distasteful implications, prejudice remains firmly ensconced on the evil side of the moral divide, despite attempts to reclassify it as ignorance.

Eventually, people outgrow their hubris. Nuance and humility supplant dogmatism as virtues to live by. If we’re lucky, we’re able to admit to ourselves and others that we don’t know everything, and that we may be ignorant about most things. As we grow older, most of us bristle at being considered evil.

There is one notable exception, though.

While watching President Bush’s news conference yesterday, I was struck by his unwavering support for policies that have proven to be unmitigated disasters for the United States.

When asked by a reporter why Americans should consider the Bush White House a credible source about al-Qaida’s plots, given its lousy track record on intelligence, Mr. Bush answered with a tautology: “I’m credible because I read the intelligence.”

It was a moment that crystallized everything wrong about the Bush administration — from its overweening arrogance to its inflexibility in the face of mounting failure.

Though his news conference was a grim and listless performance, Mr. Bush stuck to the script and dutifully recited every talking point drilled into him by his subordinates — all the while smirking like a man who would do anything to avoid the indignity of being thought an idiot.

That’s when it occurred to me that George W. Bush is still at a stage of life where being considered evil by his interlocutors is preferable to being thought stupid.

How else does one explain Mr. Bush’s insistence on resisting a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq?

As cruel as April was in terms of the death count of American soldiers, May is on its way to matching it.

The logic of Mr. Bush’s and Gen. David Petraeus’ surge strategy is grounded in a willingness to throw fresh bodies into securing the mirage of a stable Iraqi democracy.

“It could make August a tough month,” the president said, acknowledging what is likely to occur once all American troops are on the ground in Iraq, “because what they’re going to try to do is kill as many people as they can to influence the debate at home. Don’t you find that interesting? I do. They recognize that the death of innocent people could shake our will.”

Far be it from Mr. Bush to have his will shaken one iota by the futility of a strategy resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, the political destabilization of the region and a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites that will last another thousand years.

More than 3,400 U.S. troops have lost their lives and many thousands more have suffered debilitating injuries that have left them either mentally or physically scarred.

With $300 billion already down a rat hole and another $120 billion in the pipeline thanks to the Democrats’ tendency to blink under pressure, this insanity will go on until more principled congressional leadership musters the courage to pull the plug on the greatest foreign policy debacle in American history.

“They are a threat to your children,” the president said, cynically gesturing to a reporter who pressed him, “and whoever is in the Oval Office better understand that and take measures to protect the American people.”

Only in the topsy-turvy world of the Bush White House could any effort to end a stupid and immoral war be considered anything but an attempt to protect the American people.

Mr. Bush spent part of the news conference trying to remove a splotch of bird droppings deposited on his sleeve by a sparrow — a final sign that the mandate of heaven he once took for granted had been withdrawn. [EA - J]

When the definitive history of this war is written and a full account has been taken of its spillage of blood, its rituals of mutilation and its mindless embrace of death, Mr. Bush may be the first president to be regarded by future generations as both evil and stupid. ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Add comment May 29th, 2007

Previous Posts


Calendar

May 2007
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category