| Movin' on |
[Oct. 9th, 2004|03:16 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | See you! | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "On The Road Again" | ] |
I've decided to move my blog from LiveJournal to Blogspot.
Malvolio, my new blog, is now up and running. If you're interested, feel free to pitch in and comment.
I've also created two other new blogs.
Parshah Thoughts is my weekly commentary on each week's Torah portion (parshah) and haftarah (a reading from one of the prophets that accompanies and usually has some reference to each week's Torah portion). Although born to a Jewish family, I only recently started being interested in religious Judaism after a lifetime of training and instinct as a historian and scientist. So I'm coming at this from a very different perspective than most Torah commentaries I've read. This is for me, mostly; I plan to do this for an entire year and see what/if I've learned. But I welcome comments, if anyone's interested.
Leo's Lies is a weekly rant about John Leo, the vile, mendacious commentator for US News & World Report. He is infamous for screeching about infinitesimal liberal misdeeds while completely ignoring far worse conservative outrages. He has driven me crazy for years; he's the reason I let my subscription to US News & World Report lapse. He does not deserve his high-profile position. It's time he was held to account (even in a blog no one else will read).
Everyone is welcome to read and comment on my blogs. Hope some of you will follow me there. Thanks. |
|
|
| "October Madness" starts this afternoon |
[Oct. 5th, 2004|10:16 am] |
| [ | mood |
| | Play Ball! | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" | ] |
I like this article a lot, especially its opening grafs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7062-2004Oct4.html
In October, Predictions Fall Like Leaves
By Thomas Boswell
Tuesday, October 5, 2004; Page D01
Welcome to the baseball playoffs, the most fun-packed month that any sport provides us. Sit back and relax, because the peace and quiet won't last long. Prepare to be driven beautifully bonkers for the rest of October.
When baseball canceled its World Series in 1994, little did the game imagine that, when it returned in 1995, it would introduce an attendance- goosing gimmick that would become the best postseason format in sports.
At first, purists groaned at the hideous sight of two wild cards, eight teams in the postseason and three tiers of playoffs. Then, we grudgingly accepted. Finally, over the last three years, we cheered wildly as we realized that an October format that virtually ensures upsets, controversies, instant heroes and continuous nightly madness for four weeks with barely a chance to catch our breath is a good thing. A really, really good thing, in fact.
What baseball has created -- by accident and after a century of resisting its tackier impulses -- is a capricious carnival of a crapshoot that produces the maximum number of thrills and shocks. Instead of "may the best team win," baseball has come up with a different but marvelously marketable credo: "May the most fans have fun." After all, maybe that's the point.
:::snip:::
Let the divine madness begin. Unleash that Murderer's Row of Estrada, Marrero, Giles and Franco on those poor unsuspecting Astros sluggers Jeff Bagwell, Jeff Kent, Carlos Beltran and Lance Berkman. Anything can happen. Everyone's predictions will be wrong. (Mine are Yanks, Red Sox, Cards and Astros.) And it all starts tonight.
Break out the tranquilizers.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company |
|
|
| Was war the only response? |
[Oct. 5th, 2004|08:58 am] |
| [ | mood |
| | Pissed Off | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "Lyin' Eyes" (again) | ] |
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/politics/05weapons.html
Inspector's Report to Detail Iraqi Plans to Undermine Sanctions and Produce Illicit Arms
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 - A report to be made public on Wednesday by the top American weapons inspector in Iraq will outline new details of attempts by Saddam Hussein's government to undermine United Nations sanctions as part of a plan to produce illicit weapons if those sanctions were lifted, Bush administration officials said Monday.
The report by the arms inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, will make clear that Iraq did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the American invasion in 2003, and that it had not begun any large-scale program for weapons production by the time of the invasion, the officials said. Those findings had previously been reported, based on an early draft of the document.
Mr. Duelfer's conclusion that Iraq clearly intended to produce illicit weapons if the sanctions were lifted had also been previously reported. But the final version of the document, in making that case, describes new evidence of concerted Iraqi efforts to bypass the sanctions while they were still in place and to undermine international support for them, the administration officials said.
That evidence is expected to be figure prominently in efforts by the administration to cast the report in a favorable light. With Election Day less than a month away, the White House has been seeking to persuade voters that the war in Iraq was justified even though the weapons stockpiles it cited as the main rationale for the invasion now do not appear to have existed.
In an appearance in Atlanta on Friday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell provided what other officials described Monday as a preview of how the White House and other agencies would depict the new report. Mr. Powell said the report by Mr. Duelfer would make "very, very clear" that "what Saddam Hussein was trying to do was to break out of the sanctions" imposed by the United Nations. "He was trying to break the sanctions, not for the purpose of applying to be Soldier of the Month, but for the purpose of going back and developing these kinds of weapons," Mr. Powell said.
None of this is a surprise. Of course Saddam Hussein was trying to break the sanctions. I don't know of anyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq who thought Saddam Hussein was a peace-loving, benevolent, democratic ruler of his country. He was a monstrously evil mass murderer who deserves almost any punishment the twisted mind of Man can devise.
But did we have to invade to stop him from succeeding in acquiring WMD? Did we have to invade to stop him? At such a horrific cost: hundreds of billions of dollars, over a thousand coalition fatalities, tens of thousands of dreadfully wounded, injured and maimed, countless thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, destruction on a scale not seen since World War II, a growth in terrorism, and the blackening of America's reputation in most of the rest of the world. Was it truly worth it?
What was the alternative, do I hear you ask? Well, um, Mr. Powell, with all due respect, did you try diplomacy? Did you try making the case for better sanctions rather than a war? No, you did not. You went to the UN and said Saddam was close to getting WMD; that was a lie, and you knew it. I know the French had been saying, no use of force under any circumstances, and that was a challenge it would have been difficult to overcome. But that's the true burden of leadership. This Administration came into office determined to go it alone in almost every case. No to the Kyoto Protocol, no to the International Criminal Court, no to this and no to that. Why would the world then be on our side when it came to a war we wanted and they didn't? If the Bush Administration had been more respectful of world opinion (the way Bush promised he would be during the 2000 campaign, until getting into office and preferring to throw red meat to his insular base rather than expand his appeal to the more open-minded majority of Americans), maybe the world would have been more open to a broad-based diplomatic solution to the Iraqi crisis.
In any case, the justification for the war was not that Saddam might get WMD in the future; it was that he had them now or was on the very verge of getting them. That was unquestionably a lie or at least a grossly irresponsible exaggeration. The New York Times article this weekend (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html) demonstrates that senior officials in the Bush Administration either knew or had absolutely no excuse for not knowing that Saddam was not close to achieving his goal of acquiring WMD. Under such circumstances, to launch a war was close to being a crime against humanity, especially as President Bush has issued multiple and in some cases contradictory justifications for his war (http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html). Recently, the President even went so far as to say that had he known Saddam was not close to getting WMD, he would have invaded anyway! How more blatantly can he admit that he lied about the reason to invade in the first place?
Diplomacy is not easy or fun; you don't get headlines, you can't pretend to be the great liberator. But who said being president and de facto leader of the free world is supposed to be easy or fun? President Bush launched an unnecessary war for reasons that many people pointed out at the time were false and misleading. He has not paid any price, personally or politically, for this "colossal error in judgment," as John Kerry was kind enough to call it in the first debate.
Diplomacy might not have worked. Saddam had been busting sanctions for some time, often with the assistance or at least the connivance of some of the very countries whose help we would have needed for a diplomatic solution. The world was seemingly becoming bored with the issue. But go to war? With no plan for the aftermath? While insisting on keeping the tax cuts for the rich? Without sufficient forces? That's not just reckless, that's not just an error in judgment. That's beyond mere ineptitude and incompetence. That's malfeasance on such a scale that it comes close to warranting impeachment. Okay, I know that will never happen; it's not as if Bush porked an intern and then lied about it, or something else of equally grave and unforgiveable sinfulness. All Bush did was invade a country that had never threatened us and thereby get over 1000 brave young Americans killed and thousands more horribly injured; no biggie.
We will never know if Saddam could have been stopped by diplomacy. But thanks to George W. Bush's rush to war, along with the sickening assistance of Colin Powell, a man who really should have known better, we have a pretty good idea that was was not the answer. If you could have asked the Iraqis in 2002 what their preference was - Saddam in power versus Saddam out of power but with the US occupying an increasingly unstable and violent Iraq - I think they'd probably, reluctantly, have chosen the former. Bush never asked. He didn't care. This was never about Iraq; it wasn't even about Saddam Hussein (after all, Donald Rumsfeld, in a photo he probably wishes was never taken, was photographed shaking hands with Saddam in 1983; http://www.redrat.net/BUSH_WAR/fas.htm). We backed Saddam in his war against Iraq in the 1980s, we encouraged him to invade Kuwait in 1990. This was and is all about George W. Bush and his need to be the great liberator. He can't admit he made a mistake; it will be up to all of us to do that for him on Nov. 2. |
|
|
| Should Kerry try to "capitalize" on the draft issue? |
[Oct. 3rd, 2004|08:35 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Drafty | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "This is the Army, Mr. Jones" | ] |
Some blogsters (for example, http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_10_03_americablog_archive.html#109683155740593292) I'm reading are saying Kerry should run an ad trying, essentially, to scare Americans into voting for him by predicting that Bush will reinstitute the draft.
I'm sorry, but I don't think it's right to "capitalize" on this issue. The sad fact is, a military draft may turn out to be an unavoidable necessity even for President Kerry. It's best not to try to politick on it now, lest he find he has to implement it later. What if he promises never to bring it back only to find out later that he must. He'll rightfully be accused of playing with people's hopes and fears.
I don't want a new draft, but if lamentably turns out to be the only way to fully staff the military, we may have to swallow hard and say, reluctantly, yes. Kerry needs to be able to face this issue with clean hands (forgive the slightly mixed metaphor). |
|
|
| The movie was based on a book, you know |
[Oct. 3rd, 2004|06:08 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Bookish | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "Paperback Writer" | ] |
Watching Sydney Pollack's introduction on Turner Classic Movies to The Day of the Jackal, Fred Zinneman's terrific 1973 movie based on Frederick Forsyth's terrific 1971 novel, I'm startled and saddened. Everything Pollack says about the movie is true - it's a first-rate thriller, at times almost a documentary or handbook on how to be an assassin or a police detective, meticulously directed by Zinneman.
But what Pollack does not say - what he never says - is a word about the novel. Most of the good stuff in the movie comes right out of the book; it's one of the best visualizations of written material ever, and it would have been nice for whoever wrote Pollack's introduction to at least mention Frederick Forsyth. |
|
|
| This made me laugh out loud |
[Oct. 3rd, 2004|02:47 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | It's not "Moscoe," it's "Moscow" | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "Why Do The Wrong People Travel?" | ] |
Okay, so I'm easily amused.
http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/003210.html
Banned
I've just returned from chairing the bi-annual meeting of the Supreme Council of Moral Rectitude, and I am pleased to report that the following things are now banned:
:::snip:::
10. Unless you are a native speaker of said foreign language, ostentatiously referring to foreign countries by their foreign language name is banned. Oh, you just got back from "Meh-hee-ko"? That's very interesting, considering that there is no such country in the language that you're speaking. Did you discover it, then? Is it located under the ocean, or deep beneath the Earth's crust, or in another galaxy? Especially banned is just saying the country's name in a silly tone of voice, presumably on the theory that foreign languages are just silly voices. For some reason, this is almost exclusively a problem with Latin American countries, which are enunciated as if the speaker had been born without a tongue, and which have a indefensible habit of sprouting oceans of extra syllables in the middle. Listening to an NPR reporter pronounce "Nicaragua" can take the better part of an afternoon, and only ends at all because their larynx explodes. Nobody ever goes to "Frahns" or "Doichlund" or "Nee-pon" or "Oi-erlind". And there is no such place as "Nih-hu-a-hu-a-hu-a-wa-wa" or whatever in any language anywhere in the Universe. BANNED.
He's so right, too.
Also, an extremely cute cat photo. |
|
|
| My new project: a weekly Torah blog |
[Oct. 3rd, 2004|12:35 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Baharta banu mikol ha-amim | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "Eitz Chayim Hi" | ] |
I've started a new blog called "Parshah Thoughts" (http://mytorahblog.blogspot.com/), in which I will offer commentary on each week's Torah portion (in Hebrew, "parshah").
For those who don't know, each week Jews read a portion of the Torah in synagogue. There have been thousand of years of commentaries on the Torah, by rabbis and by laypersons.
For the next year, I'm going to offer my own perspective on what each week's portion says to me, from the point of view of a person trained in history and science. Although I was born to a Jewish family, it was a non-religious family. I have identified strongly as a Jew my entire life, but I became interested in Judaism only a few years ago. So I have a lifetime of learning other ways to look at the world and universe than someone who grew up as a religious Jew would bring to the Torah.
I'm not claiming I will come up with any blindingly brilliant insights that have not previously occurred to (many) others. I don't know how many people will read this (if any), and I don't care. This is for me. But if you read it and want to comment, please go ahead.
You can find "Parshah Thoughts" at http://mytorahblog.blogspot.com. |
|
|
| Every vote is sacred
Supreme Court - We should be hammering this!
Supreme Court - Kerry should be ha |
[Oct. 3rd, 2004|08:49 am] |
| [ | mood |
| | Python for President! | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Strike Up The Band! | ] |
If anyone mentions that they don't think they're going to vote because 1 vote can't make a difference, I have three words for them:
FLORIDA FLORIDA FLORIDA
Actually, remind him that (for example) Gore won Oregon in 2000 by only 6,765 votes (out of 1,530,549 cast: .4%).
Every vote is sacred
Every vote is great
If a vote is wasted
God is quite irate |
|
|
| Excellent point! |
[Oct. 2nd, 2004|09:23 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Wish I'd thought of that | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "If I only had a brain" | ] |
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/election_2004_/2004/10/hell_be_going_to_the_un_next.php
October 01, 2004
He'll be going to the UN next
As already noted here, it turns out to be false that negotiating separately with North Korea would displease the Chinese government, as President Bush twice stated last night.
But put that aside. There's a more fundamental problem.
A reader writes:
I believe I heard Bush assure China a veto over our security vis-a-vis North Korea (can't talk to them if China doesn't want us to...we need China...etc). I thought he wasn't going to give foreigners this power?
Good point.
Of course, Mr. Bush might respond that there are some things that can only be done with the help of other nations, and in those cases the opinions of the leaders of those nations, and even of their citizens, need to be reckoned with if we are to accomplish our goals in the world.
But that's precisely the "global test" Mr. Bush's supporters are lambasting Mr. Kerry for considering.
Posted by Mark Kleiman at 05:11 PM |
|
|
| Why we don't have a better press |
[Oct. 2nd, 2004|08:46 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Figuring it out | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Gumby Opera | ] |
A lot of Kerry supporters are angry with the press for never pointing out how stupid Bush is, for letting him get away with all his many idiotic statements, to say nothing of his lies. I have a question for them:
What makes you think the press is any smarter than the rest of the American public?
I remember when Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court. Roman Hruska, Republican Senator from Nebraska, responded to criticisms of Carswell, that he was a mediocre choice, by saying, "Well, there are a lot of mediocre lawyers and judges in the country. Don't they deserve representation on the Supreme Court?" (Needless to say, the Senate refused to confirm Carswell. And that bizarrely idiotic statement is the only thing anyone remembers Roman Hruska for.)
Anyway, there are a lot of idiots in the country? Don't they deserve representation in the press? Clearly, they do. And clearly, they're getting it. |
|
|
| Last night was so unfair - Kerry obviously didn't get Rove's memo |
[Oct. 1st, 2004|11:09 am] |
| [ | mood |
| | upbeat | ] |
| [ | music |
| | You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch | ] |
Last night, John Kerry pulled the dirtiest, lousiest, most underhanded trick in the book - he was good! Rove & Cheney obviously never expected that. And why should they? In the monarchy they've turned the USA into, I'm sure they were fully confident that Kerry would play out the role they'd written for him, that of the bumbling challenger permitted in the race only because the Constitution requires one (for now), the same way the Harlem Globetrotters always permitted the Washington Generals on the court so they could call it a game instead of a practice.
How mean and low can you get? Kerry honestly thought he was there to debate and not be Bush's punching-bag. Man, that's just so selfish of him, being such a master debater and all. (When the Pore Li'l Chile is just a masterbater.) I'm shocked and infuriated at Kerry, how dare he actually try to win? That's lese-majeste, isn't it?
Well, I'm sure the hard-working media will figure out a way to make it all better for King Georgie. After all, isn't it everyone's job to cover up for Georgie's mistakes? (For some Americans, that might be the only job they can get.)
Don't worry, son, there's no reason for you to really win the debates. Just like there was no need for you to actually win 4 years ago - there's always someone on Daddy's payroll to say you won anyway. There, there. Go back to sleep, Georgie. We'll wake you when the "election" is over and tell you how you heroically slew the monstrous 18-foot-tall Kerrysaurus Democraticus Liberalus Flipflopitus. I'm sure after a few more drinks you'll even come to believe it. |
|
|
| My Torah thoughts - new blog! |
[Sep. 27th, 2004|09:54 am] |
| [ | mood |
| | Reverent but Questioning | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Vzot Ha-Torah | ] |
I've started a new blog, "Parshah Thoughts" (http://mytorahblog.blogspot.com). This will be a weekly commentary on the Torah portion (parshah) being read in the synagogue that Shabbat. I'm not claiming any special expertise or insight (far from it), but I want to record my impressions, from my sort of "outsider's" position, as it were, on each week's portion. I came rather late to observant Judaism (although I am a Jew by birth), so I look at it from a lifetime being influenced by my studies of history and science. I'm still not sure exactly how much of the faith I truly embrace, other than that I certainly feel privileged to be Jewish. Anyway, I'll start writing weekly commentaries soon.
On Friday, Oct. 8, Jews celebrate the holiday of Simchat Torah (literally, "Rejoice of the Torah"), on which day we complete the annual reading of the entire Torah - and immediately start up again. Each week we read a section; each week, I'll comment on that week's portion. Again, "Parshah Thoughts" is located at http://mytorahblog.blogspot.com. I don't really expect anyone else to read it, but if you're interested, feel free to comment. |
|
|
| And he himself has said it, and it's greatly to his credit |
[Sep. 19th, 2004|08:59 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Wow! Honesty! (At last!) | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Take Me Out to the Ball Game | ] |
Someone posted this to the NY Yankees list:
From pages 276-277 of Bob Woodward's, Bush at War....
The next evening, Tuesday, October 30, the president flew up to New York to
throw out the ceremonial first pitch at Game 3 of the World Series between
the Yankees and the Arizona Diamondbacks. At the stadium, he went to the
bullpen area to warm up. It was difficult to throw in the bulletproof vest
he had agreed to wear, and he wanted to keep his arm loose.
:::snip:::
The president emerged wearing a New York Fire Department windbreaker. He
raised his arm and gave a thumbs-up to the crowd on the third base side of
the field. Probably 15,000 fans threw their arms in the air imitating the
motion.
He then threw a strike from the rubber, and the stadium erupted.
Watching from owner George Steinbrenner's box, Karl Rove thought, It's like
being at a Nazi rally.
Well, Rove would certainly know... |
|
|
| Predicting the Future (Movie version) |
[Sep. 19th, 2004|08:00 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Titanic | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "My Heart Will Go On...and On...and On...and On" | ] |
I'm watching Titanic on NBC right now, thinking about a spectacular movie about a huge disaster that happened a long time ago.
Anyone want to bet against the almost certainty that, 80 years from now, some James Cameron to be will make a similar movie about 9-11? Maybe it won't even take that long. Of course, we can't imagine anyone trying to commercialize such a wrenching tragedy; it would be the equivalent of raking a naked child over a field of barbed wire and jagged shards of metal.
But so would Titanic seem to anyone from 1912. They would find it literally inconceivable that someone would ever dare fashion entertainment based on what was, at the time, a horrible tragedy, a tale of terror that sent frissons of empathetic fear up and down the spines of the entire world.
But time has a way of lessening the pain, especially for those who, fortunately, did not have to experience it themselves. Someone, someday, is going to make a movie about Sept. 11, with all the technological sophistication his or her time will be able to muster. Probably more than one such movie (A Night to Remember, after all, dates to 1958; The Unsinkable Molly Brown started as a Broadway musical in 1960 before ending up on the big screen in 1964. Although, to be honest, I can't quite see a musical based on Sept. 11, but I suppose anyone who was alive when the Titanic sank probably would not have imagined anyone making a musical about the Titanic; and, to be sure, The Unsinkable Molly Brown is mostly not about Ms. Brown's claim to fame but about what led her to her big night on the big boat).
Anyway, it's going to happen. I don't mean using 9-11 as a theme, or even as a starting point; Law & Order, for example, has already done that. There will be documentaries and dramas, etc. I mean a more detached, fictionalized story told on an epic scale with state-of-the-art technological wizardry that uses 9-11 as the background for big screen entertainment. Titanic does not trivialize the monumental scale of the tragedy (although it was the biggest disaster of its time, it would of course shortly be eclipsed by the unthinkable horrors of the First World War), but it would have to have seemed, to anyone who had experienced the long night in the water or knew someone who had or simply read about it and tried to imagine what it must have been like, a shocking breach of everything good and proper and decent.
We are a much coarser though far freer and more open society than respectable 1912, but it's still far too close to the destruction of the World Trade Center and all the still-unhealed political schisms opened up by that horror for us to imagine that someone will use it for mere entertainment. But someone will. |
|
|
| The dilemma: Public is anti-Bush but not pro-Kerry |
[Sep. 14th, 2004|12:55 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Anxious | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "Standing Still" | ] |
It is increasingly clear to me that the American public does not particularly want to reelect George Bush. It's not hard to see why: the war in Iraq is bogging down with no end in sight. Bush and Cheney have succeeded in scaring us about the dangers of terrorism rather than convincing us that they've made us safer. The deficit is spiralling into the stratosphere. There are fewer jobs than when Bush took office. There are fewer people with employer-paid health insurance (and those who still have it must pay more to keep it). Our reputation in the rest of the world has never been lower. And on and on and on (add your own ills and woes to this list).
The problem is, John Kerry has been completely unable to persuade the voters to replace the incumbent with him. This is a serious problem for Democrats, because faced with a choice between an inadequate incumbent and an unappealing replacement, anything can happen. If Kerry cannot excite the electorate on his behalf, at the same time that they're turned off to Bush, large numbers of voters may just decide why bother and stay home. This has implications for Senate and House races, too.
Don't take this as just more doom-and-gloom. It isn't, but Kerry's inability so far to gain any traction must be taken seriously. It's not like nothing has gone his way. Bush has had a bad week and his post-RNC bounce is all but gone. The news is generally not what he'd like to see. But so far Kerry has been unable to take advantage of any of it; not the bad economic news nor the bad news from Iraq nor even the revelations about Bush's Vietnam war era cowardice. You'd like to think that sooner or later we'd reach a tipping point, that eventually all the Bushit would simply be too much for all but the most diehard wingnuts. But even that, if it occurred, would merely raise Bush's negatives, not necessarily Kerry's positives.
Kerry has a reputation for being a strong closer. I sincerely hope that is the case, because he is going to need a very strong sprint to the finish. So far, I have not seen or heard anything from him that would give me great confidence that he's about to catch fire. I hope I'm wrong, but hope is not a plan. The Kerry campaign has to get itself moving quickly in the right direction, and they don't have too much more time to do this.
Bush is ripe for the taking. If we blow this, we'll never forgive ourselves. |
|
|
| The logic on Ben Barnes the Bush White House is ignoring |
[Sep. 10th, 2004|01:17 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Thinking for myself | ] |
| [ | music |
| | "If I Only Had A Brain" | ] |
Trying to claim that Ben Barnes got George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard without being asked or pressured or bribed to do so by the Bush family kind of doesn't really make much sense. How could Barnes have known that Bush wanted to get into the TXANG unless someone told him, and that someone would have had to know that Bush wanted to get in. So even if neither Bush nor Daddy told Barnes, they must have told someone who told Barnes, or someone who told someone who told Barnes.
Also, look at it from this point of view. You're George W. Bush (I know, it makes me ill to contemplate the possibility, too). You're gung-ho to be drafted and go to Vietnam. Suddenly, out of the blue, the Texas Air National Guard offers you a post, one you never asked for, and as far as you know no one else ever asked for on your behalf, either. What do you do? Do you say, "Gee, I never thought of the TXANG before, I was gonna just wait until the Army drafted me, I really want to go to Vietnam, but what the heck, flying sounds like fun, I'll take it!" Or do you go ask Daddy, "Hey, Pops, what up wid dis? Whuffo you pullin' strings for me? I never asked you to do dat. I'm hankerin' to go to Vietnam and kill me some gooks."
It doesn't make any sense that Barnes would simply get George W. Bush into the TXANG unless someone who knew Bush wanted to get into the TXANG asked him to get Bush into the TXANG. Does it really matter if neither GHB nor GHWB asked Barnes directly or if they used one or more intermediaries?
Not that anyone's trying to figure this out for themselves... |
|
|
| Conspiracy |
[Sep. 10th, 2004|10:19 am] |
| [ | mood |
| | Not buying it for a second | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Dem Bones Dem Bones Dem Dry Bones | ] |
How's this for a scenario? The Bush administration "releases" forged Killian memos that it knows are forgeries, then secretly encourages technical experts to reveal that they memos are forgeries. Bush is thus the "victim" of a scurrilous campaign to impugn him, garnering rebound sympathy from a press now furious at being taken in by the very forgeries they themselves trumpeted.
I'm not saying this is what has happened. It's not absolutely clear that all or some or any of the Killian memos are forgeries. But, if they are, would anyone who has been paying attention to the political career of George W. Bush under the tutelage of Karl Rove be the tiniest bit surprised if it ever turns out that this is what happened? |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
tomfodw's journal