Robots Are People Too!

Apparently Scott McClellan may soon be given a pink slip (according to CNN).

Faced with an increasingly entrenched national dissatisfaction over foreign and domestic policy it makes perfect sense for the Bush Administration to play to its strengths of rearranging the deckchairs and blaming the messengers but I can’t help feeling that this is beyond the pale.

More than a just a Grima Wormtongue or an Igor, Scott McClellan has been nothing less than Bush’s personal robot—devoid of personality and self awareness, capable only of mimicking speech and following simple programming.

Nonetheless doesn’t he deserve something better than the scrapheap? Has he not faithfully followed Republican Robot Law?

1. A Republican Robot may not injure George Bush or, through inaction, allow a George Bush to come to harm.
2. A Republican Robot must obey orders given it by George Bush or Republicans except where such orders would conflict with the First Law
3. A Republican Robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

I can’t think of a single instance where Scott McClellan has ever short-circuited.
One only has to look at the transcripts of his many press conferences to recognize his steadfast inability to deviate from his internal logic.
Such responses as “I think we’ve discussed that already”, “I think the President made it very clear”, “I’m not willing to conjecture” and of course “I’ll get back to you on that” are testaments to his spokesbot efficiency.

Without direct and simultaneous criticism of McClellan from press and public alike, I just don’t see how he deserves the Michael Brown/Jack Abramoff treatment.

Scott has been more than competent in that not only has he faithfully re-iterated and even reinforced the White House message he has done so without any self-promotion (unlike say Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ridge, Chertoff, Brown, Harris etc.). Perhaps only Elaine Chao (Secretary of Labor) has been less visible.

I put it to you that getting rid of RoboScott at this stage would be just like “cutting and running” and I’m shocked that our Great Leader might even contemplate such an action. Unless….he’s actually going to be promoted to Director of FEMA!

I’ll bet that’s it! You read it here first!

(Disclaimer: the opinions expressed are not necessarily my own and I reserve “out of context” rights in perpetuity as well as post facto historicus revisionum)

And Iraq's Next Prime Minister Is.....???

From a CBS/AP report entitled Rice: Iraqis Must End Power Vacuum

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that the next Iraqi prime minister must be a “strong leader” capable of unifying the people of this fractured country
Rice said the Iraqi people and the international community “need to see that process of government formation come to an end.”
“You have to have the state with a monopoly of power,” Rice said.

Let’s see now; “strong leader”, “uniter”, “end of government formation” and “monopoly of power”.

Who could possibly qualify?

Suggestions anyone?

You Don't Know Jack!

Anyone who thinks they know Jack Abramoff (and everyone who is now pretending they don’t know him) better think again!

The man is a fucking saint, I tell ya!

Don’t believe me? !!!!

Just take a butcher’s at some of these testimonials sent to the judge who is poised to sentence “Casino Jack” today in Florida.

National Hockey League referee David Jackson stated "Jack is a good person, who in his quest to be successful lost sight of the rules."

Apparently Abramoff once took 14 kids to Jackson’s dressing room before a game and welcomed kids into the skybox to help teach them sportsmanship.

Who knows more about rules and sportsmanship than a hockey referee and hockey players?

And speaking of sports, Abramoff’s racquetball partner describes Jack as “someone who always acts honorably, and will call himself on infractions."

Yup, it’s a tragedy how rules, sportsmanship and honor, not to mention infractions, never made it past the locker rooms of exclusive sports enclaves—but that’s Saint Jack for you, never thinking of his own actions, only the actions of others.

Abramoff also has friends on Capitol Hill springing to his defense.
Well; one friend anyway.
Sort of:

"Over many years, I've known a far different Jack than the profit-seeking megalomaniac portrayed in the press," wrote California Republican Dana Rohrabacher. "Jack was a selfless patriot for most of the time I knew him."

But if none of these heartwarming affidavits convince you that Abramoff actually deserves our sympathy, not to mention a Nobel prize and a sainthood consider Dr. Gene Colice’s heartwarming anecdote of the time Abramoff spent his valuable time ($300 per hour—not including the 50% ‘finder’s fees’ he was entitled to) to "find a lost hamster on a Friday night."

(John Kerry you’ll remember actually resuscitated a hamster but a) it was his daughter’s and b) it wasn’t on a Friday night).

But don’t listen to me; get the real scoop from the AP/Yahoo news item here or the AP/NewsMax report (which appears now to have been scrubbed—I have their original text from earlier today only in a cut/pasted Word doc)—both are much funnier “in the raw” than my pathetic post.
Given AP’s recent confusion over attribution and in light of the WaPo Domenech debacle the AP might want to consider the issues of “fair use”, plagiarism and the blogosphere—not to mention their own standards of reporting.

Update: Jack just got six years instead of 7+, so 'lesson learned', people!
One hamster = one less year in jail!

Invest in hamsters before George Bush scoops the market!

No More Mister Nice-God!

Back in the good old days when God thought people weren’t paying attention he’d whip ‘em back into shape with a good old-fashioned smiting, a plague, a wandering in the desert or making 90-year-old women pregnant. Now that’s the way to get a message out!

But if recent events are anything to go by, the strategy no longer works.
Despite Pat Robertson’s astute observation that the destruction of 9-11 was due to God’s anger with liberals and fags, the majority seemed to think it had something to do with Arab terrorists and Iraq.
When God visited Hurricane Katrina upon the Gulf Coast to punish those who defied him by eating crawfish and playing jazz (NOT a joyful sound unto the Lord by a long shot) the lesson learned was not that God was in charge but that one Michael Brown was.

Now it looks like God is going to be kickin’ it, old school! Having jump-started a global conflict, he’s now dialing up the holy thermostat AND turning on the flood taps to boot. Looks like it’s going to be a 24/7 wrath-athon.

But what about the faithful, you ask? Well being faithful they’re all looking forward to the End Times. And whilst they are waiting they get to stare at a miraculous stain on the I-74 bridge support in Moline, Illinois. As one observer said “Too many things are happening in the world and people are losing their faith and that’s why she’s appearing [The Virgin Mary], she wants people to get their faith back.”

So, if YOU want to be saved from hell on earth just find yourself a stain, stare at it and after a while you won’t notice a thing.

In Allah We Trust

No doubt Afghani Abdul Rachman must feel very comforted by the outcry and concern of western governments and fellow Christians who are petitioning to save him from being sentenced to death as a result of his insulting and humiliating Allah by having converted to Christianity sixteen years ago.

On the other hand, he might be feeling a tad miffed at the fact that these same governments (and many American Christians) encouraged, ratified and praised the Afghan constitution that may well seal his fate wherein it is stated in Article Three:

“In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.”

Damn! Never saw that coming! Dang it!

Oh well, never mind. The Afghan constitution was just a practice run anyway.
The Iraq constitution is way better! Just look at the Iraqi’s Article 3:

“Iraq is a multiethnic, multi-religious and multi-sect country. It is part of the Islamic world and its Arab people are part of the Arab nation.”

See? Nothing to worry about there! If that doesn’t sound democratic then I…hang on a sec…ummmm

Article (2): 1st – “Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.”

Double dang it! Shoot! Darn!

Maybe the third time’s a charm? What about the Palestinian constitution?

Article 7: “The principles of Islamic Shari’a are a major source for legislation. Civil and religious matters of the followers of monotheistic religions shall be organized in accordance with their religious teachings and denominations within the framework of law, while preserving the unity and independence of the Palestinian people.”

What the…!?
Is everyone cribbing off each other?
Don’t these people understand that religion and democracy don’t mix?
Have they learned nothing from George Bush?

IRAQ: Ship Out, or Shape Up?

The Iraqi government can’t govern, the Iraqi security forces can’t secure, and public services can’t serve the public.
The occupation forces occupy only enclaves from which they raid and to which they retreat.
The citizens are left to fend for themselves, trapped in a no-man's land between the local militias and the U.S. military.

Majorities in the U.S. and Iraq (including the U.S. troops) are keen for an American exit for a variety of reasons but are these wishes sensible, reasonable or just emotional?
With Iraq nearly or already in a state of civil war would a U.S. departure help stabilize or improve the situation or would it accelerate a descent into further chaos?

If the US were to leave “immediately” then there will indeed be a full blown civil war as each interested group will seek to gain control and establish their own order and primacy. These groups will probably seek, and will certainly be offered, support from foreign neighbors who will also likely attempt to influence the situation regardless. The US would be politically emasculated (as if it weren’t already).

If the US “stays the course” the sectarian violence will continue. The US will have the options of supporting one group and destroying another, or trying to destroy all militants. The latter option might actually force the rivals into a coalition against the US forces, so the former choice might be “preferable”.

If successful the supported victors will have to be magnanimous to the beaten rival to mitigate inevitable resentment and concomitant problems. It’s anyone’s guess whether that would actually happen. There is also the possibility that the general Iraqi population, sick of war, sick of the occupation, sick of the government and sick of the sectarianism might create a popular uprising; but with no particular authority to rebel against or negotiate with, such an effort would be long and bloody too.

There are two options that have yet to be discussed publicly:

One is to abandon the rest of the country to civil war and redeploy and consolidate US forces to the South where a concerted effort to rebuild infrastructure, order and good governance might provide a working example desirable enough to be adopted or demanded by the rest of the country in time.

The other option is to get serious. Deploy far more forces to provide sufficient security and control to allow political and physical infrastructure to develop and take root. Such an effort might even elicit support from other countries after a while.

Both of these latter options would require a complete change of attitude, management and leadership in the U.S. Such a change cannot realistically occur before 2008. In the meantime the violence and resentment will continue. Should such a change occur it would take time to organize and years to implement.

These are the options as I see them.

The last option is of course what should have happened in the first place had the U.S. administration been sincere in its declared aims and reasons. It is now the most difficult of the options to undertake. I’m inclined to think it would be the “best”. But whether it is really possible, I’ve no idea.

There are particulars to each of these options that I've chosen to ignore for the sake of brevity but which could significantly alter the possible outcome of any course of action (such as how and in what manner would the US forces leave, or what would happen to all the prisoners in US custody?).

But in broad terms that's the view from my armchair. What's yours?

So....Tired!

According to Washington Post staffer Peter Baker the good folks in the White House are plumb tuckered-out from all the hard work that they do.

"Of all the reasons that President Bush is in trouble these days, not to be overlooked are inadequate REM cycles."



Of course! It’s the long hours and lack of sleep that have been causing all the problems, not the other way round!
No wonder Bush has taken more days off than any other President in history; like he said, "it’s hard work."
The administration is probably skipping breakfast too!

So now we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for Bush constantly falling of his bike and the country being driven into a ditch every other week, what’s to be done?

Guzzling handfuls of No-Doz is one option, but I’d suggest a long vacation instead.

Maybe then I could get a decent night's sleep. too.
And come to think of it

"Fool me twice--won't get fooled again!"

Hello, America? This is George W Bush.

Would you be interested in supporting a strategy for winning the War in Iraq? I'm not asking you to donate your first-born or your financial future--I have those already-- all I'm asking is for you to pledge your few remaining brain cells to believing in me and my strategy! I'd really appreciate your support!

"....The number you have reached is unavailable...please try again...."

George Bush will begin a series of speeches next week explaining to the American public the Administration’s strategy for winning the war in Iraq.

Apparently the White House is counting on the previously demonstrated dimwittery of the American public to somehow boost support for Bush and the Republicans in light of the latest damning polls that the President regularly insists are the products of special-interest focus groups.

If I remember correctly the original strategy for winning the war in Iraq was to cruise to Baghdad in some pimped-out wheels, hook-up the "bra’s" with some sweet deals on the down-low and then alternately chill, par-tay and rake in some righteous bread.

When that didn’t work the strategy became popping caps in the local buzz-kills or just fuckin’ wit’ em, old-school an' fraternity-style!

When that strategy delivered results that "no-one could have predicted", the "situation on the ground" demanded a new strategy--the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq published and speechified in November 2005 which explained how well the previous strategies had worked out and how together they would work even better by being written-down retroactively.

However, that was then and this is now.

As General Pace said just the other day things in Iraq are "going pretty well" (at least as well as Carrie’s prom) and he should know because he’s a fucking General, goddammit! BUT on the other hand Pace's boss Donald Rumsfeld said that he military's information offices, operating mostly eight hours a day, five or six days a week weren't keeping up with the terrorists who get their messages out to the media 24 hours a day, seven days a week, resulting in a "dangerous deficiency" for the US.

So with more dead Iraqis and terrorists than dead Americans, but with harder-working live Iraqi terrorist bloggers journalists and pundits than live American bloggers, journalists and pundits the White House is responding with with a new strategy.

And what is this new strategy? Just like the President, it’s very simple:

The strategy is to explain that there IS A STRATEGY, which is of course to explain that there is a strategy, which is the strategy!. And the strategy is to win! Got that? Good! Now back to the polls and give the the right answers this time! If you don't, we'll lose this war and it will be all your fault!

And don't think you''l be able to come crying back to me when some freedom-hating islamiac flies a nuclear bomb into your trailer-home and then stands by whilst liberals force your daughter to have an abortion and bans Christmas! You've been warned!

The United State of Texas

Tom Delay delivering his new campaign slogan "Fuck You, Bitch!" .

This week’s Texas GOP national congressional nomination race was the first in over 20 years in which observers thought Tom Delay might face some competition on account of being indicted on some very serious charges.

Throughout, Delay expressed complete confidence in retaining his position and dadgammit, he won!
Ever gracious in victory Delay said in a statement:

"Not only did they [the voters] reject the politics of personal destruction, but they strongly rejected the candidates who used those Democrat tactics as their platform."


Apparently advisers scratched-out "Now kneeeeeell before ZOD!" at the last minute.

Anyhoo, the big story isn’t that Texan Republicans exhibited classic "battered wife syndrome" courtesy of "The Hammer"; oh no, not at all!

The big story is buried in this little tidbit concerning the race between fellow Democrats Henry Cuellar and Ciro Rodriguez in the one and only Texas district without a Republican challenger.

As the AP casually mentions it:

With about 69 percent of precincts reporting, Cuellar had 16,705 votes, or 49 percent, compared with Rodriguez, who had 15,408 votes, or 45 percent. It was unclear when the race would be decided. The tabulation of early votes in a key county was delayed because of voting-machine software problems, election officials said.

Clearly Democrats can't run their own elections properly (never mind that the entire process from soup to nuts is run and owned by the Republicans)

The Republican run-off apparently went without a hitch.

In 2000 it was Florida that determined the Presidential election.
In 2004 it was Ohio.
In 2008 ? Take a guess!

Cricket Chirping

Photo: Charles Dharapal-AP

Bush having a go at cricket on his recent India/Pakistan trip.
Very sensibly he's being tossed tennis balls, not a cricket ball (which is the same weight as a regulation baseball--5-1/2 oz--but something like twice as hard).
He's off the crease (meaning he's not protecing the wicket behind him) which is understandable.
Interestingly the wicket has no "bails"--horizontal rods that fit atop and across the wicket that fly off when the wicket is hit ( making it plain that the batsman has been bowled out).


No doubt Bush was briefed on the game of cricket for his trip and it may have gone something like this:

Cricket Explained

There are of course two sides.

The game begins with one side being in, but that doesn’t mean the other side is out.

The players who are in are bowled six balls at a time, which is called an over.

When the over is over, one of the players on the side that is in may now be out.
So the player who is out goes in because he’s out whilst another player from the side that’s in goes out because he’s now in.

If both players who are in go out, then they both go in whilst two more players from the side that’s in go out to be in until they are out and so on.

When the side that was in are all out, the side that wasn’t in (but wasn't out of course) goes out and tries to stay in whilst the side that was in but is now out comes out and tries to get the side that is now in, out.

Of course if the side that is in still has players who are in when the overs are over, those players are declared not out, but they can’t stay in because the other side has to go out because they are in and the side that was in, even though they aren’t out, are out and have to come in.

So that side then comes in and the other side goes out because they are now in.

Then it’s time for tea so both sides, whether in or out or somewhere in-between, come in before they go out again.

The game isn’t over until both sides have been in and out and all the overs are over, unless one side, in or out, declares that the game is over because there aren’t enough overs left to go out and stay in.

The winner is often the side that has been in more than out with more not-outs when the overs are over, or even when the overs aren’t over but the game is.