So George Bush stayed up past his bed-time to tell us all how re-invading Iraq will protect America even more from pissed-off Arabs.
Why, you may ask, do we need a new strategy? After all, since we invaded no Iraqi terrorists have flown airplanes into our buildings! Doesn’t that fact prove the President’s pre-election statement that we were winning in Iraq?
Of course it does; or rather it did.
But the President also said that part of his winning strategy was to listen to his generals and adapt to the situation on the ground, and the situation has changed!
Just as the President and Vice President warned us all, if the Democrats gained the House in November it would embolden the terrorists.
Sure enough as soon as the elections were over and the Democrats won, America lost. The generals began to speak out about increased violence and Negroponte stated explicitly before Congress that the US was no longer winning in Iraq.
Could this have been coincidence? Of course not—George Bush had exactly predicted it! So when the Democrats started to call for a withdrawal of troops, our President had to come up with a new plan for not just victory, but more victory!
A new plan for victory would have to be in diametric (that means opposite) opposition (that means opposite as well-- so really it’s double-opposite which doesn’t mean the opposite of opposite which would mean….well…double-opposite means more opposite, okay?) to anything the Democrats were proposing.
So as the Democrats were calling for un-winning the war by un-invading Iraq it’s obvious to even the most colossally stupid idiot in the world that to defeat the Democrats and their terrorist supporters George Bush would have to re-invade Iraq—and that’s what he’s decided to do.
But, you ask, how is re-invading Iraq really any different from the original invasion except that we’ll be doing it with even less troops?
Well to take a cue from Karl Rove’s famous marketing analogy that “you don’t introduce new products in August” you also don’t advertise to the consumer all the benefits of your product all at once.
Either the product is ‘New and Improved!’ or “Now with power of Formula X that kills 99% of all suspected terrorists!” or “10% MORE!”
In this case “New and Improved Victory” has “10% LESS!” and then you wait until sales start dropping before announcing “Now with power of Formula-X that kills 99% of all suspected terrorists!”
And if that doesn’t keep your sales going, you can always repackage the old product with a new name, like perhaps ‘Iran-B-Gone!’ It Smells like Victory but with Twice the Killing Power!
Friday, January 12, 2007
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Mad King George
(Note: For the past month I totally forgot how to log in post-beta which also buggered up my attempts to comment at other's blogs. All fixed now).
If George Bush insists on increasing troop levels in Iraq by 20,000-30,000 when the Army is telling him they only have 9,000 available and when the Joint Chiefs, the Congress, the American public, the Iraqi public and the US troops themselves all object (for very good reasons) I think we can safely conclude that our President is certifiably insane, that he is a danger to everyone and is unfit for office.
If George Bush insists on increasing troop levels in Iraq by 20,000-30,000 when the Army is telling him they only have 9,000 available and when the Joint Chiefs, the Congress, the American public, the Iraqi public and the US troops themselves all object (for very good reasons) I think we can safely conclude that our President is certifiably insane, that he is a danger to everyone and is unfit for office.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Iraq Study Group Report--Grade: WTF?
It took the Iraq Study group nine-months to compile their report and the main stream media five minutes to sum it all up for the ignorant masses:
“Realists declare Iraq a mess!---Bush’s strategy isn’t working!---The troops can come home in 2008!---Lindsay Lohan is out of control!—Funniest Christmas Home Videos Available Now on DVD!”
It seems Bush hasn’t actually read it; he’s waiting for additional reports which he will then decide not to read all at once before deciding to do nothing until say, January 2008.
Not that the ISG Report shouldn’t be ignored; it is after all nothing more than a political tract garnished with a few statistics and bound together with idiotic suppositions and ludicrous “recommendations”.
Having actually read and then mulled-over the ISG report I offer this summary (which falls far short of the report's actual craptacular inadequacy and sheer poltroonosity, but neither you nor I have all day to really get into it).
ISG SUMMARY
The ISG recommends that the US military should stay in Iraq, put more effort into a training program that is beyond repair to save the country, democracy and freedom and in the meanwhile use their spare time to kill “insurgents” who ipso facto aren’t Iraqi citizens as well but just a bunch of fucking fuckers .
The non-insurgent Iraqis need to stop relying on fucking awesome US expertise and generosity, pull their fucking socks up and get fucking real.
All the countries that were castigated and threatened by the US over the past five years need to get their fucking act together and follow US orders on how to polish the giant steaming turd that Uncle Sam dumped on the porch and then accept whatever tip they get afterwards without whining.
The American public should shut the fuck up because they were the idiots who wanted to go into Iraq in the first place.
The Iraqi public should shut the fuck up because their "government" hasn’t asked the US to leave and even if they do the US won’t leave until their “interests” have been taken care-of and until they’re damn good-and-ready.
And then the Iraqis can have all the fucked-up and radio-fucking-active military equipment that no longer works to defend themselves and their utopian US-supplied democracy.
Once all that’s accomplished our brave and noble troops can finally leave Iraq—for Afghanistan where the situation is grave and deteriorating as militias are running rampant killing innocent civilians, sabotaging reconstruction efforts, undermining the authority of the government and giving safe-haven to terrorists planning attack the United States and freedom-loving democracies everywhere!
The bottom line is this: despite its ballyhooed criticisms of the Bush/Neocon adventure in Iraq the ISG report is nothing more than a cut–and-paste collection of hackneyed theory, spurious assumption, puerile analysis and remnants of neocon fantasy that allows the Bush administration to tread water for the next two years until Dubya inherits the immunities afforded all ex-Presidents.
During that time likely another one thousand US troops will die serving a pointless and irredeemable cause as will thousands more Iraqi civilians trapped in the consequences of US warmongering, political arrogance and ignorance, beyond the help of any sympathetic American soldier or Marine not too busy trying to save their own lives.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill; “Never in the field of human conflict have so few fucked-up so much for so many”. To expect the fuck-ups to abandon their entrenched fuck-uppery and thus un-fuck-up their fuck-up is about as fucked-up as you can get.
There is no “single solution” to the Iraq problem, but there is a course of action obvious to all except the fuck-ups still searching for some benefit from this mother of all fuck-ups, and that is to get the fuck out! Sure, it’s not perfect but really, what the fuck?
“Realists declare Iraq a mess!---Bush’s strategy isn’t working!---The troops can come home in 2008!---Lindsay Lohan is out of control!—Funniest Christmas Home Videos Available Now on DVD!”
It seems Bush hasn’t actually read it; he’s waiting for additional reports which he will then decide not to read all at once before deciding to do nothing until say, January 2008.
Not that the ISG Report shouldn’t be ignored; it is after all nothing more than a political tract garnished with a few statistics and bound together with idiotic suppositions and ludicrous “recommendations”.
Having actually read and then mulled-over the ISG report I offer this summary (which falls far short of the report's actual craptacular inadequacy and sheer poltroonosity, but neither you nor I have all day to really get into it).
ISG SUMMARY
The ISG recommends that the US military should stay in Iraq, put more effort into a training program that is beyond repair to save the country, democracy and freedom and in the meanwhile use their spare time to kill “insurgents” who ipso facto aren’t Iraqi citizens as well but just a bunch of fucking fuckers .
The non-insurgent Iraqis need to stop relying on fucking awesome US expertise and generosity, pull their fucking socks up and get fucking real.
All the countries that were castigated and threatened by the US over the past five years need to get their fucking act together and follow US orders on how to polish the giant steaming turd that Uncle Sam dumped on the porch and then accept whatever tip they get afterwards without whining.
The American public should shut the fuck up because they were the idiots who wanted to go into Iraq in the first place.
The Iraqi public should shut the fuck up because their "government" hasn’t asked the US to leave and even if they do the US won’t leave until their “interests” have been taken care-of and until they’re damn good-and-ready.
And then the Iraqis can have all the fucked-up and radio-fucking-active military equipment that no longer works to defend themselves and their utopian US-supplied democracy.
Once all that’s accomplished our brave and noble troops can finally leave Iraq—for Afghanistan where the situation is grave and deteriorating as militias are running rampant killing innocent civilians, sabotaging reconstruction efforts, undermining the authority of the government and giving safe-haven to terrorists planning attack the United States and freedom-loving democracies everywhere!
The bottom line is this: despite its ballyhooed criticisms of the Bush/Neocon adventure in Iraq the ISG report is nothing more than a cut–and-paste collection of hackneyed theory, spurious assumption, puerile analysis and remnants of neocon fantasy that allows the Bush administration to tread water for the next two years until Dubya inherits the immunities afforded all ex-Presidents.
During that time likely another one thousand US troops will die serving a pointless and irredeemable cause as will thousands more Iraqi civilians trapped in the consequences of US warmongering, political arrogance and ignorance, beyond the help of any sympathetic American soldier or Marine not too busy trying to save their own lives.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill; “Never in the field of human conflict have so few fucked-up so much for so many”. To expect the fuck-ups to abandon their entrenched fuck-uppery and thus un-fuck-up their fuck-up is about as fucked-up as you can get.
There is no “single solution” to the Iraq problem, but there is a course of action obvious to all except the fuck-ups still searching for some benefit from this mother of all fuck-ups, and that is to get the fuck out! Sure, it’s not perfect but really, what the fuck?
Friday, December 01, 2006
Bush Announces US Troop Withdrawal From Iraq
President Bush wholeheartedly embraced the James Baker III-led Iraq Study Group’s recommendations that US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq over the next year when speaking to the press during his visit to Jordan:
“So we’ll be in Iraq until the job is complete, at the request of a sovereign government elected by the people…we’re going to stay in Iraq to get the job done, so long as the government wants us there. so there’s one thing I'm not going to do: I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.”
Bush’s latest comments appear to be consistent with his oft-stated position of “staying the course” and his recent comment during his Vietnam trip when he said “if we quit, we lose.” Thus many pundits tell us that Bush simply will not withdraw the troops from Iraq.
Silly pundits.
What these pundits are forgetting of course is that whatever Bush says and does in public is the exact opposite of what he says and does in private. Here’s a tiny sample:
“I will create 12 million new jobs” (1999 campaign promise).
“[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide.” (Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00)
"What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots.” (1/26/00)
"We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." (3/3/01)
“War is the last resort”
"We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." (3/6/03)
"We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" (via White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04)
“Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a fantastic job” (just before ‘06 mid-term elections).
So when Bush says in public that he won’t withdraw the troops, his track record says that he will do just that.
Though I do recall him saying in 2000 that he didn’t think the US should be “involved in nation-building” and that’s one public statement he has certainly stuck with.
“So we’ll be in Iraq until the job is complete, at the request of a sovereign government elected by the people…we’re going to stay in Iraq to get the job done, so long as the government wants us there. so there’s one thing I'm not going to do: I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.”
Bush’s latest comments appear to be consistent with his oft-stated position of “staying the course” and his recent comment during his Vietnam trip when he said “if we quit, we lose.” Thus many pundits tell us that Bush simply will not withdraw the troops from Iraq.
Silly pundits.
What these pundits are forgetting of course is that whatever Bush says and does in public is the exact opposite of what he says and does in private. Here’s a tiny sample:
“I will create 12 million new jobs” (1999 campaign promise).
“[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide.” (Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00)
"What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots.” (1/26/00)
"We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." (3/3/01)
“War is the last resort”
"We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." (3/6/03)
"We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" (via White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04)
“Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a fantastic job” (just before ‘06 mid-term elections).
So when Bush says in public that he won’t withdraw the troops, his track record says that he will do just that.
Though I do recall him saying in 2000 that he didn’t think the US should be “involved in nation-building” and that’s one public statement he has certainly stuck with.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Aides Crisis
As a losing incumbent representative, certainly realities have to be faced: first is that you are a loo-oo-ser; second that thousands, even tens of thousands of people think you totally suck, and third, you are now unemployed.
But it's not all bad because you get a guaranteed pension, lifetime health-care and you can probably snag a poli-sci professorship/think-tank fellowship/radio-show/regular TV pundit gig/ weekly columnist job from which you can plot your political comeback or simply talk smack without consequence (and hopefully get a book-deal).
The real victims of anti-incumbency aren't the suddenly un-re-elected representatives, but apparently their aides who by the callous whim of a public they've tried so hard to manipulate, find themselves now de-funded, filibustered, defeated, disowned and disinhereted at the brink of Christmas like Dickensian orphans, with only their cell-phones and PDA's to keep them warm.
The Hill reports that Nancy Pelosi is working on legislation that would provide two months severance pay to any soon-to-be-unemployed congressional aides while they look for jobs after the January 4th take-over of the House. Though bi-partisan in scope, the proposed legislation of course will initially benefit only Republican staff.
(The proposal is similar to S. Res. 478--authored by Bill Frist--which provides aides to senators who have failed to be re-elected a ‘cushion’ of two months salary).
I’m sure that’s really nice of Speaker-elect Pelosi, not to mention a shrewd “under the dome” political move but I’m not sure what to make of this.
I mean, every time I found myself unemployed I’d apply for social security and have to wait three weeks before I got my first (at maximum) $375 per week check (which of course would be taxed come April 15).
So why can’t these aides do the same? It’s not as though Washington is a more expensive place to live than New York or New Jersey.
I'm all for people getting a "living wage" sufficient to allow saving a month's wages without too much hardship whilst waiting for the first dole-check to arrive when unemployment rears it's ugly head, but why should they get a "severance package" when tens of millions of Americans who provide quantifiable services and products that actually add to the economy and the national welfare, don't? What makes them so special?
But it's not all bad because you get a guaranteed pension, lifetime health-care and you can probably snag a poli-sci professorship/think-tank fellowship/radio-show/regular TV pundit gig/ weekly columnist job from which you can plot your political comeback or simply talk smack without consequence (and hopefully get a book-deal).
The real victims of anti-incumbency aren't the suddenly un-re-elected representatives, but apparently their aides who by the callous whim of a public they've tried so hard to manipulate, find themselves now de-funded, filibustered, defeated, disowned and disinhereted at the brink of Christmas like Dickensian orphans, with only their cell-phones and PDA's to keep them warm.
The Hill reports that Nancy Pelosi is working on legislation that would provide two months severance pay to any soon-to-be-unemployed congressional aides while they look for jobs after the January 4th take-over of the House. Though bi-partisan in scope, the proposed legislation of course will initially benefit only Republican staff.
(The proposal is similar to S. Res. 478--authored by Bill Frist--which provides aides to senators who have failed to be re-elected a ‘cushion’ of two months salary).
I’m sure that’s really nice of Speaker-elect Pelosi, not to mention a shrewd “under the dome” political move but I’m not sure what to make of this.
I mean, every time I found myself unemployed I’d apply for social security and have to wait three weeks before I got my first (at maximum) $375 per week check (which of course would be taxed come April 15).
So why can’t these aides do the same? It’s not as though Washington is a more expensive place to live than New York or New Jersey.
I'm all for people getting a "living wage" sufficient to allow saving a month's wages without too much hardship whilst waiting for the first dole-check to arrive when unemployment rears it's ugly head, but why should they get a "severance package" when tens of millions of Americans who provide quantifiable services and products that actually add to the economy and the national welfare, don't? What makes them so special?
Monday, November 20, 2006
Nancy Pelosi Declares War on Thanksgiving
Preznit Bush always keeps his Colt .45 ACP handy when meeting with known terrorists like Nancy Pelosi ( orig. photo: Pablo Martinez, AP)
"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."—George Bush 10/20/2006
On November 7th 2006, a day that will live in infamy, terrorist mistressmind and San Francisco madwoman Nancy Pelosi seized control of the US Congress.
Drunk with power and seaweed-tofu cocktails she proclaimed her administration would last for 100 hours. In her victory speech she predicted a new era of “bi-parties” and announced a new military “transformation” program that would include pink uniforms, and the installation of advanced gaydar on all current and future combat aircraft.
But absent from her speech was her real agenda.
Ever since the crack investigative team of Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson followed their noses, investigated their own cracks and squeezed out the shocking evidence that S-P’s were trying to kill the Baby Jesus, Pelosi's original plan to force America to worship stem cells instead of our Lord and Saviour had to be aborted forcing her to devise a new plan to destroy America—by turning American democratic elections into a weapon!
During his presidential campaign George Bush stated firmly that as President he “wouldn’t engage in nation building” and his efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown he has kept that promise. Pelosi however has decided to keep such honest declarations hidden under her burqa (bought for her by her gay godless blog-masters—sources say she wears it at home when ordering her illegal immigrant housekeepers and handymen to vote), claiming she was too busy getting pregnant to serve in Vietnam.
But as Republicans wisely say “that’s old news” and “that’s all in the past” and “I’ll let history be the judge” (or Kenneth Starr)—what really matters is the future and the future is now, which as any conservative will tell you, was the 18th Century when the USA was founded as the zenith of political and social development.
But the wisdom of the Founding Fathers just isn’t good enough for Pelosi—oh no! Not only does she want to roll back all the social and economic advancements made in the last two-hundred and thirty years that the Republicans have been rolling back in the past six years to create a more perfect union and re-establish the natural law of the “have’s” having magnitudes more than the “have-not’s”, she is now secretly trying to destroy the celebration of Thanksgiving!
The proof is in the advertising. As soon as Pelosi’s coup was announced the Christmas-themed ads came out—completely skipping over Thanksgiving. Coincidence? I think not!
The saving of Christmas was just one part in the Global War on Culture. We must stay the course until America has a stable government that can defend itself.
Only when America stands up will Americans stand down. And with the leadership of John Gibson and Bill O’Reilly I doubt the war will last more than a few Friedman Units, when our brave culture warriors will be greeted as liberators and showered with plastic turkeys.
Friday, November 10, 2006
An Ode to Donald Rumsfeld
I thought of recording this myself but realizing I sing as well as Don Rumsfeld "manages" the DoD I thought I'd spare everyone the agony of my efforts (unlike Don).
Still, pretty much everyone should know the tune, so sing it to yourself in private and if anyone with areal singing voice would like to record and post it on YouTube or as an mp3 or whatever, go ahead--though I'd appreciate a credit for the lyrics:
OH DONNY BOY
Oh Donny boy, the pols, the pols were calling
You to resign ‘cos you so often lied
The years have gone, there’s no end to the dying
Tis you, tis you must go the people cried
But came ye back with summaries so callow
With unknown knowns and things we did not know
Said you I’ll stay and not laid-out to fallow
Oh Donny boy, oh Donny boy I love me so
But if you come, and say my powers are dying
And I’m not dead, as dead I shall not be
I’ll find a job where I can keep on lying
The PNAC’s kept a comfy seat for me
And I shall hear that everyone loved Rummy
And all my dreams will warm and sweeter be
I will not fail to take my government money
I’ll sleep in peace, of that I guarantee
Oh Donny boy, your polls were clearly falling
But stayed you still and heeded not the words
Of critics that you still kept on ignoring
Oh Donny boy, you polished all your turds
And will you hear the cries of those still dying
From all the lies you chose to say and sell
For rationalizing all the deadly lying
There is a special place for you in hell
And you will hear from all the souls you’ve taken
And all your dreams should fearful nightmares be
Your ego ruled, humanity forsaken
Oh Donny boy, thy name is infamy
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
BEST BUSH QUOTE EVER!
(Post Midterm/Rumsfeld Resignation Press Conference)
Bush: I thought we were going to do great yesterday. Show’s what I know! ( smirk, shrug)
(Actually, Bush did give some diplomatic and considered answers to a couple of questions)
Bush: I thought we were going to do great yesterday. Show’s what I know! ( smirk, shrug)
(Actually, Bush did give some diplomatic and considered answers to a couple of questions)
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Cry Me A Tigris River
In his Vanity Fair latest article (nonsensically titled “Neo Culpa”) David Rose provides a lamenting violin score to teary-eyed neocons whose dreams of greatness now lie crumpled like so much snot-soaked tissue paper.
Rose writes “As he [Richard Perle] looks into my eyes, speaking slowly and with obvious deliberation, Perle as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, had invited the exiled Iraqi dissident Ahmad Chalabi to its first meeting after 9/11.”
Ah yes, poor, homeless, dissident Chalabi; forced to wander the streets of Washington until the kind neocons took him in, gave him hope, a home and $300 million of taxpayer’s money.
(poot!) (sniff)—Is someone chopping onions in here?
Anyway, Perle continues;
"I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.'
But above all, Perle says “At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration and the disloyalty" .
So, to summarize:
The Iraq clusterfuck that Perle both promoted and shaped is the fault of the millions who didn’t protest loudly enough, the Iraq Experts Group who failed to send him their risk analysis, General Shinsecki who failed to insist on enough troops, Joe Wilson, the IAEA, the U.N. and finally George Bush for not realizing how opposed his own party was to the invasion.
Basically Perle just mentioned in passing that invading Iraq might be a good idea, but as it’s turned out, maybe it wasn’t such a good idea at all—but should he be blamed for that?
Recognizing that Perle “is now plagued with doubt” (and in need of a hug) Rose then wonders “What do the rest of the pro-war neoconservatives think… how do his comrades-in-arms feel?”
Gosh yes! What do his comrades-in-arms feel? Do they feel as bad as the comrades-without-arms that actually served in the war? Are the poor little neocons sad? Is something bothering them? Would they like to share their feelings?
Rose writes that he expected “disappointment” but instead finds “despair, and fury at the incompetence of the Bush administration the neoconservatives once saw as their brightest hope.”
Kenneth Adelman, a lifelong neocon activist and Defense Policy Board member until 2005 said in a Washington Post op-ed in February 2002 that “liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Now he says, "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."
Adelman again: "I've worked with [Rumsfeld] three times in my life. I've been to each of his houses, in Chicago, Taos, Santa Fe, Santo Domingo, and Las Vegas. I'm very, very fond of him, but I'm crushed by his performance. Did he change, or were we wrong in the past? Or is it that he was never really challenged before? I don't know. He certainly fooled me."
Michael Rubin, former Pentagon Office of Special Plans and Coalition Provisional Authority staffer: "Where I most blame George Bush is that through his rhetoric people trusted him, people believed him"
Richard Perle: "Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad. I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war."
Perle, Adelman and Rubin didn’t just champion the invasion of Iraq as a matter of belief, but as a policy that they developed and acted upon. Perle was indeed an architect of the war, as was Wolfowitz and it was their friends and co-conspirators—Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Bolton along with their minions--who executed the actions and principles with which they all agreed and who crushed all dissent and rational consideration by not only exercising the executive power afforded them but also by increasing that power not for their “moral” foreign policy goals but to intimidate and destroy any challenge to their self-appointed roles as the guardians and champions of their privileged, blinkered vision of the future of America, democracy and the world.
For these disgusting creatures to claim “disappointment”, for these individuals to blame their co-conspirators and reserve none for themselves and to plead betrayal and victimization is utterly beyond the pale.
These people are as guilty as any who were tried in Nuremburg for engaging in a war of aggression—not defense, as they claimed—and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, simply to satisfy their vision of the world which had no more legitimacy or reasoned argument to support it than did the governments of Hitler or Stalin or Pol-Pot or any other regime led and sustained by mindless apparatchiks convinced of their own superiority.
And now Perle is complaining that his comments weren’t supposed to be published until after the mid term elections?!!!
He doesn’t even apologize for his role in the Iraq debacle, and yet he chastises David Rose for quoting him?!!!
This fucker, a former policy-maker is apparently upset because despite Rose’s best efforts to paint Perle as a victim of his own good intentions, is pissed–off because Rose, being as stupid as every official and non-official suckling at the Bush administration’s teat, accidentally reveals through Perle’s own thoughts and words issues that are relevant to the American public that voters don’t apparently deserve to know when they are charged with deciding the nature of their own government and future.
Though un-elected, Perle’s job as a Defense Policy Advisor was NOT to promote the fanciful ideas of a sequestered club of pseudo intellectuals with a hard-on for war and imperial dominance, but to serve the citizens of the country. Instead he chose to be a player, to be active only to satisfy himself. And now in his complaints following this article he is still serving only himself.
It’s thanks to fuckers like him, who view everything through a self –referencing political lens that the US consistently engages in policies abroad that engenders the kind of hatred that leads to strangers from one side of the planet determined to kill other strangers from the other side of the planet. But it’s not the policy-makers who are driven to kill out of frustration to be heard and it’s not the policy-makers who get blown to bits as a result.
I’m so fucking mad at this fucking GIT and his fucking friends and the whole fucking lot of them that I can’t properly conclude this post.
Rose writes “As he [Richard Perle] looks into my eyes, speaking slowly and with obvious deliberation, Perle as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, had invited the exiled Iraqi dissident Ahmad Chalabi to its first meeting after 9/11.”
Ah yes, poor, homeless, dissident Chalabi; forced to wander the streets of Washington until the kind neocons took him in, gave him hope, a home and $300 million of taxpayer’s money.
(poot!) (sniff)—Is someone chopping onions in here?
Anyway, Perle continues;
"I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.'
But above all, Perle says “At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration and the disloyalty" .
So, to summarize:
The Iraq clusterfuck that Perle both promoted and shaped is the fault of the millions who didn’t protest loudly enough, the Iraq Experts Group who failed to send him their risk analysis, General Shinsecki who failed to insist on enough troops, Joe Wilson, the IAEA, the U.N. and finally George Bush for not realizing how opposed his own party was to the invasion.
Basically Perle just mentioned in passing that invading Iraq might be a good idea, but as it’s turned out, maybe it wasn’t such a good idea at all—but should he be blamed for that?
Recognizing that Perle “is now plagued with doubt” (and in need of a hug) Rose then wonders “What do the rest of the pro-war neoconservatives think… how do his comrades-in-arms feel?”
Gosh yes! What do his comrades-in-arms feel? Do they feel as bad as the comrades-without-arms that actually served in the war? Are the poor little neocons sad? Is something bothering them? Would they like to share their feelings?
Rose writes that he expected “disappointment” but instead finds “despair, and fury at the incompetence of the Bush administration the neoconservatives once saw as their brightest hope.”
Kenneth Adelman, a lifelong neocon activist and Defense Policy Board member until 2005 said in a Washington Post op-ed in February 2002 that “liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Now he says, "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."
Adelman again: "I've worked with [Rumsfeld] three times in my life. I've been to each of his houses, in Chicago, Taos, Santa Fe, Santo Domingo, and Las Vegas. I'm very, very fond of him, but I'm crushed by his performance. Did he change, or were we wrong in the past? Or is it that he was never really challenged before? I don't know. He certainly fooled me."
Michael Rubin, former Pentagon Office of Special Plans and Coalition Provisional Authority staffer: "Where I most blame George Bush is that through his rhetoric people trusted him, people believed him"
Richard Perle: "Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad. I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war."
Perle, Adelman and Rubin didn’t just champion the invasion of Iraq as a matter of belief, but as a policy that they developed and acted upon. Perle was indeed an architect of the war, as was Wolfowitz and it was their friends and co-conspirators—Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Bolton along with their minions--who executed the actions and principles with which they all agreed and who crushed all dissent and rational consideration by not only exercising the executive power afforded them but also by increasing that power not for their “moral” foreign policy goals but to intimidate and destroy any challenge to their self-appointed roles as the guardians and champions of their privileged, blinkered vision of the future of America, democracy and the world.
For these disgusting creatures to claim “disappointment”, for these individuals to blame their co-conspirators and reserve none for themselves and to plead betrayal and victimization is utterly beyond the pale.
These people are as guilty as any who were tried in Nuremburg for engaging in a war of aggression—not defense, as they claimed—and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, simply to satisfy their vision of the world which had no more legitimacy or reasoned argument to support it than did the governments of Hitler or Stalin or Pol-Pot or any other regime led and sustained by mindless apparatchiks convinced of their own superiority.
And now Perle is complaining that his comments weren’t supposed to be published until after the mid term elections?!!!
He doesn’t even apologize for his role in the Iraq debacle, and yet he chastises David Rose for quoting him?!!!
This fucker, a former policy-maker is apparently upset because despite Rose’s best efforts to paint Perle as a victim of his own good intentions, is pissed–off because Rose, being as stupid as every official and non-official suckling at the Bush administration’s teat, accidentally reveals through Perle’s own thoughts and words issues that are relevant to the American public that voters don’t apparently deserve to know when they are charged with deciding the nature of their own government and future.
Though un-elected, Perle’s job as a Defense Policy Advisor was NOT to promote the fanciful ideas of a sequestered club of pseudo intellectuals with a hard-on for war and imperial dominance, but to serve the citizens of the country. Instead he chose to be a player, to be active only to satisfy himself. And now in his complaints following this article he is still serving only himself.
It’s thanks to fuckers like him, who view everything through a self –referencing political lens that the US consistently engages in policies abroad that engenders the kind of hatred that leads to strangers from one side of the planet determined to kill other strangers from the other side of the planet. But it’s not the policy-makers who are driven to kill out of frustration to be heard and it’s not the policy-makers who get blown to bits as a result.
I’m so fucking mad at this fucking GIT and his fucking friends and the whole fucking lot of them that I can’t properly conclude this post.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Apocalpto Now
It’s hard to know who to trust anymore when it comes to film criticism.
This weekend Dazed and Confused was being shown on the TV so after a quick Google of reviews (all very positive) I bothered to watch it.
It wasn’t so much “crap” as utterly pointless—which is ironically fitting I suppose but when it comes to wasting my own time watching film-makers and actors wasting their time along with mine, I prefer it to be a spontaneous act of lethargy on my part rather than being due to professional persuasion.
I’ve been burned too many times before; the Unbearable Lightness of Being was recommended by Siskel and Ebert basically because at a couple of points legitimate European actresses got naked and simulated horniness wearing floppy couture hats. X-Men II added a second dimension to its characters, Star Wars 27—Revenge of The Lack of Pith was “dark” and explained everything no-one cared about and pretty much already knew.
I realize that the province of critiquing movie dross really belongs to World O’ Crap (MST3K having been long gone) but Scott can’t be everywhere at once and he has a lot of catching up to do, so where might one turn for honest advice and informed opinion on upcoming soon-to-be-released gobs of digitally enhanced celluloid magic?
Why FOX of course!
It happens that Father Jonathan Morris (Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch’s roving religious reporter) is also a movie critic!.
You may have read his resounding and non-partisan approval of “The Passion of The Christ” and it’s uplifting message that the torture and death of a single cult figure that was the fault of a handful of Jews is as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago when tens of thousands of Jesus’s devout believers, incapable of overpowering a couple of dozen roman soldiers to crowbar him off a cross simply wandered by and told him to “hang in there.”
T
he subject of Father Morris’s latest critique (he’s not a biological father—at least as far as he knows, being a Catholic priest and all) is Mel Gibson’s new film Apocalypto.
“Never before had I made an intercontinental flight to see a movie. But that's what I did this month when I accepted Mel Gibson's invitation to preview and critique his new film “Apocalypto,” (scheduled to appear in theaters on December 8th) says this pastor of pop-culture.
“I didn't make the trek across the ocean for entertainment value. My work as a consultant on and off the set of Gibson's “Passion of the Christ,” gave me a new appreciation of the power of well-made, serious, and widely-distributed movies. They influence culture. They affect the way we think about the story they tell. Sometimes they warp our view of history or of humanity. Other times they inform, inspire, and challenge. But they always leave a mark.”
Hey, if anyone knows anything about affecting the way people think, the warping of history and humanity and leaving some kind of mark—who better than a Catholic priest?
“That's why I cared to see Gibson's first post-“Passion” production” he goes on (presumably caring more about the product of genius than the all-expenses paid trip that would let him see it). “Yes, movies matter — some more than others. Viewers of the “Passion” know what I mean. Picture for just a second, if you would, Jesus Christ crucified. Remember his face, his bloody face. Look into his eyes, the forgiving and loving ones. What you see is a different image of Jesus. That there is the power of a well-made film! Because I know Mel, his noble intentions and his creative genius, I was eager, though somewhat unconvinced, to see how much his new film would matter.
Mel has done it again! His film matters. That's my critique of “Apocalypto.”
Well, there you go! No ifs, buts, metaphors or subtexts! There’s nothing more Christian than three hours of widescreen bloody sacrifice! But wait, could Apocalypto be more subtle than that?
“Don't get me wrong. This is no sequel to “The Passion of the Christ” writes the Catholic critic, apparently because “Mel just didn't have it in him.”
And I can quite understand that because first of all the sequel to the Passion Of Christ would involve about half an hour of Jesus being taken down from the cross some wailing and gnashing, cave closed, rock rolled away, ascending into heaven and then what? Two hours of clouds and angels and Morgan Freeman in a white suit washing the floors and pretending to be all wise and whatever? Nu-uhh! That would be blasphemous!
“Some of his fervent fans will be disappointed if they were hoping for another religious epic. He doesn't see himself as a prophet, a spiritual director, or a religious role model” opines our dog-collared dogmatist.
Not because most of Mel’s most fervent fans have his occasional buttock shots saved on a continuous loop for posterity (as it were), but because his most fervent fans admire almost everything in his filmography—as a self destructive vengeful psychotic with a death wish in the Mad Max series of films, or as a self destructive vengeful psychotic with a death wish in the Lethal Weapon movies, or as a vengeful psychotic in Hamlet and Braveheart and The Patriot; but not so much as the guilt ridden victim of science in Forever Young or the burn victim in The Man Without a Face, but still—good looking, great buns and mostly vengeful psychotic victim of something or other, so what’s not to love and forgive?
“But he knows how to make movies, and he has been making good and responsible ones for a very long time” continues Christ’s critic, coyly failing to highlight the family values and respect for authority so rvident in the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon series—not to mention the success of the very entertaining but utterly pagan Braveheart that bankrolled the Passion of Christ. No indeed, no lucre is filthy once it is put to God’s work!
But enough of the past, what of the immediate future—namely the just in time for Christmas release of Apocalypto?
“Of all of his past films, this one most resembles Braveheart. The only difference is that it takes place in an ancient Mayan jungle, (instead of the Scottish jungle ?) is spoken in the ancient Mayan language (instead of a modern Scottish brogue), and is represented by a bunch of unknown actors who, for the most part, had never acted before” (so I guess it’s like Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, but with Scotsmen playing pre-Christian Middle-Americans).
“Oh yeah” adds our groovy faith-based film-ologist, ”and the story is not about Scotland's fight for independence from the Brits” (because that was called Braveheart and he died in the end and this is called Apocalypto), “but rather the fight for personal and spiritual independence of a hero who risks his life to free himself from an opulent, but now decaying pre-European Mayan culture.” (a hero who frees himself but no-one else?)
Despite his overall praise Father Morris does find some room for actual criticism:
“Warning: count on a few typical Gibsonian scenes that my sensitivities could have done without (one in particular was unnecessarily vulgar). I suggest you watch it alone before you take your kids.”
I can only assume he is referring to unnecessary buttock-action and whatnot of a heathen sexual implication instead of scenes of bloody torture.
So, though Father Jonathan Morris raves “Mel’s Done It Again!” I frankly still don’t know what the heaven this movie is about or why I should watch it—other than he says I should. As I said at the beginning of this piece I’ve been burned by film critics before so why should I listen to Father Morris? Because he speaks for God, and you know God is an infallible critic-- just read the Old Testament!
This weekend Dazed and Confused was being shown on the TV so after a quick Google of reviews (all very positive) I bothered to watch it.
It wasn’t so much “crap” as utterly pointless—which is ironically fitting I suppose but when it comes to wasting my own time watching film-makers and actors wasting their time along with mine, I prefer it to be a spontaneous act of lethargy on my part rather than being due to professional persuasion.
I’ve been burned too many times before; the Unbearable Lightness of Being was recommended by Siskel and Ebert basically because at a couple of points legitimate European actresses got naked and simulated horniness wearing floppy couture hats. X-Men II added a second dimension to its characters, Star Wars 27—Revenge of The Lack of Pith was “dark” and explained everything no-one cared about and pretty much already knew.
I realize that the province of critiquing movie dross really belongs to World O’ Crap (MST3K having been long gone) but Scott can’t be everywhere at once and he has a lot of catching up to do, so where might one turn for honest advice and informed opinion on upcoming soon-to-be-released gobs of digitally enhanced celluloid magic?
Why FOX of course!
It happens that Father Jonathan Morris (Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch’s roving religious reporter) is also a movie critic!.
You may have read his resounding and non-partisan approval of “The Passion of The Christ” and it’s uplifting message that the torture and death of a single cult figure that was the fault of a handful of Jews is as relevant today as it was 2000 years ago when tens of thousands of Jesus’s devout believers, incapable of overpowering a couple of dozen roman soldiers to crowbar him off a cross simply wandered by and told him to “hang in there.”
T
he subject of Father Morris’s latest critique (he’s not a biological father—at least as far as he knows, being a Catholic priest and all) is Mel Gibson’s new film Apocalypto.
“Never before had I made an intercontinental flight to see a movie. But that's what I did this month when I accepted Mel Gibson's invitation to preview and critique his new film “Apocalypto,” (scheduled to appear in theaters on December 8th) says this pastor of pop-culture.
“I didn't make the trek across the ocean for entertainment value. My work as a consultant on and off the set of Gibson's “Passion of the Christ,” gave me a new appreciation of the power of well-made, serious, and widely-distributed movies. They influence culture. They affect the way we think about the story they tell. Sometimes they warp our view of history or of humanity. Other times they inform, inspire, and challenge. But they always leave a mark.”
Hey, if anyone knows anything about affecting the way people think, the warping of history and humanity and leaving some kind of mark—who better than a Catholic priest?
“That's why I cared to see Gibson's first post-“Passion” production” he goes on (presumably caring more about the product of genius than the all-expenses paid trip that would let him see it). “Yes, movies matter — some more than others. Viewers of the “Passion” know what I mean. Picture for just a second, if you would, Jesus Christ crucified. Remember his face, his bloody face. Look into his eyes, the forgiving and loving ones. What you see is a different image of Jesus. That there is the power of a well-made film! Because I know Mel, his noble intentions and his creative genius, I was eager, though somewhat unconvinced, to see how much his new film would matter.
Mel has done it again! His film matters. That's my critique of “Apocalypto.”
Well, there you go! No ifs, buts, metaphors or subtexts! There’s nothing more Christian than three hours of widescreen bloody sacrifice! But wait, could Apocalypto be more subtle than that?
“Don't get me wrong. This is no sequel to “The Passion of the Christ” writes the Catholic critic, apparently because “Mel just didn't have it in him.”
And I can quite understand that because first of all the sequel to the Passion Of Christ would involve about half an hour of Jesus being taken down from the cross some wailing and gnashing, cave closed, rock rolled away, ascending into heaven and then what? Two hours of clouds and angels and Morgan Freeman in a white suit washing the floors and pretending to be all wise and whatever? Nu-uhh! That would be blasphemous!
“Some of his fervent fans will be disappointed if they were hoping for another religious epic. He doesn't see himself as a prophet, a spiritual director, or a religious role model” opines our dog-collared dogmatist.
Not because most of Mel’s most fervent fans have his occasional buttock shots saved on a continuous loop for posterity (as it were), but because his most fervent fans admire almost everything in his filmography—as a self destructive vengeful psychotic with a death wish in the Mad Max series of films, or as a self destructive vengeful psychotic with a death wish in the Lethal Weapon movies, or as a vengeful psychotic in Hamlet and Braveheart and The Patriot; but not so much as the guilt ridden victim of science in Forever Young or the burn victim in The Man Without a Face, but still—good looking, great buns and mostly vengeful psychotic victim of something or other, so what’s not to love and forgive?
“But he knows how to make movies, and he has been making good and responsible ones for a very long time” continues Christ’s critic, coyly failing to highlight the family values and respect for authority so rvident in the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon series—not to mention the success of the very entertaining but utterly pagan Braveheart that bankrolled the Passion of Christ. No indeed, no lucre is filthy once it is put to God’s work!
But enough of the past, what of the immediate future—namely the just in time for Christmas release of Apocalypto?
“Of all of his past films, this one most resembles Braveheart. The only difference is that it takes place in an ancient Mayan jungle, (instead of the Scottish jungle ?) is spoken in the ancient Mayan language (instead of a modern Scottish brogue), and is represented by a bunch of unknown actors who, for the most part, had never acted before” (so I guess it’s like Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, but with Scotsmen playing pre-Christian Middle-Americans).
“Oh yeah” adds our groovy faith-based film-ologist, ”and the story is not about Scotland's fight for independence from the Brits” (because that was called Braveheart and he died in the end and this is called Apocalypto), “but rather the fight for personal and spiritual independence of a hero who risks his life to free himself from an opulent, but now decaying pre-European Mayan culture.” (a hero who frees himself but no-one else?)
Despite his overall praise Father Morris does find some room for actual criticism:
“Warning: count on a few typical Gibsonian scenes that my sensitivities could have done without (one in particular was unnecessarily vulgar). I suggest you watch it alone before you take your kids.”
I can only assume he is referring to unnecessary buttock-action and whatnot of a heathen sexual implication instead of scenes of bloody torture.
So, though Father Jonathan Morris raves “Mel’s Done It Again!” I frankly still don’t know what the heaven this movie is about or why I should watch it—other than he says I should. As I said at the beginning of this piece I’ve been burned by film critics before so why should I listen to Father Morris? Because he speaks for God, and you know God is an infallible critic-- just read the Old Testament!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
