Says it all...

One Boring Old Man:

As my father was known to repeat endlessly, "I don’t mind you peeing in my boot, but don’t tell me it’s water."

Mission Accomplished

As Juan Cole reminds us, it's been 5 (f-i-v-e) years since Bush was flown onto an aircraft carrier and gave a speech in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign.

Throughout the years, I've often wondered whether the administration actually thought it was that simple, or whether they knew and hoped for what has been happening. The truth probably is in the middle, but either way those of us who have lived to witness the unfolding war have seen one of the great criminal enterprises of our time--planned and executed by our leaders at the cost of thousands of solidier's lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Here's Juan Cole's excerpt from the speech. His comments can be found [].

. . . major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. . .

And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. . .

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. . .

Because of you our nation is more secure. . . [Note that he is trying to attribute to the poor enlisted men his policies.] . . .

In the images of fallen statues we have witnessed the arrival of a new era. . . [The statue was pulled down by the US military and the whole thing was staged before a tiny Iraqi crowd, the small size of which media close-ups disguised.] . . .

In defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Allied forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation. Today we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. . . [The US has probably directly killed about 200,000 Iraqis and destroyed the city of Fallujah as well as damaging and repeatedly bombing others. Bush's fascist attempt to reconfigure warfare as a humanitarian gesture is the biggest lie of all] . . .

Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air. [Foreign military occupation is not generally considered 'liberty' by most people.] . . .

We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. [The sites were being investigated before the war, and nothing was being found, so Bush pulled out the inspectors and went to war. Nothing ever was found.] . . .

Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq. [When will that be exactly?] . . .

In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban . . . [ Maybe not so much; this 'mission accomplished' passage has not been sufficiently criticized] . . .

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding. [There was no operational connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. None. And the US occupation of Iraq gave al-Qaeda a new lease on life ] . . .

We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq and in a peaceful Palestine. . . [90% of the world fell down laughing at that point in the speech; only gullible, self-righteous Americans could even think about taking this snow job seriously] . . .

Friedman: Liar, war-monger... respected.

Friedman takes a lot of flack... and it is all deserved. That he is one of the leading opinion-makers is both travesty and tragedy.

I should have linked to Greenwald earlier:

But tragically, there is nothing unique about Tom Friedman. What drives him is the same mentality that enabled the administration's invasion of Iraq and, so much worse, it is the mentality that is keeping us there and will keep us there for the indefinite future. We stay in Iraq in pursuit of goals we know are fantasies, because to do otherwise requires the geniuses and serious establishment analysts to accept responsibility for what they have done -- and that is, by far, the most feared and despised outcome.

Wanker of the month

Dan Goure:

Listen to him here.

This is one of the most misleading opinions I have heard on NPR, and reminds me why N(Nice) P (Polite) R(Republicans) is a network to be deeply discounted. It is why I wrote them an email (which I am posting here in modified and lengthened format in the form of this blog entry).

Goure's overt opinion--that audacity almost always trumps caution--is a red herring which hides subtler and more troubling accusations. Goure praises Bush for invading Afghanistan, and then for invading Iraq despite the lack of international consensus. Goure also lauds Rumsfeld, for insisting, "audaciously," that the war in Iraq could be won with fewer soldiers and weapons than many experienced members of the military believed. Most surprisingly, Goure states that the U.S. invaded Iraq and won.

Really, now, that is silly. If we had won the war, congress would have actually spent the 20 million it allocated for a victory celbration in 2006. If we had won the war, the Whitehouse would not have doctored the famous "Mission Accomplished" speech so as to eliminate the banner saying...well, "Mission Accomplished."

So, how does Mr. Goure accomplish his mission? He uses half-truths worthy of the "I-did-not-have-sex-with-that-young-lady" kind.

Could it be said that we won the war in Iraq? Yes, if you think the war lasted three weeks. Was Rumsfeld right? Yes, but again only if you limit his responsibility to a few weeks or months. I mean, where is Ken Starr when you need him?

But to engage Mr Goure on these points is a waste of time. The real question here is why is Goure bring this up now? Well, with a Middle East in turmoil, with increasing gas prices, with nuclear weapons in North Korea, with larger and larger swaths of Afghanistan in the hands of the Taliban, with Iraq on the verge of all out civil war, someone is going to bear the blame. Mr. Goure's goals become clear at this point: shift the blame. Instead of telling the truth, say instead that America is losing in Iraq because we are not audacious enough. Instead of facing up to a failed foreign policy, say that Bush, Rumsfled, Cheney are bold and "fearless" leaders and that if only the American people and Democrats had the stomach, we could win this thing.

Stop there. Blame anybody but the Bush Administration? Hell no. They are the sole criminals in a criminal war. Moreover....


America and Americans have shown themselves to be tough, valorous and willing to stomach the realities of war time and again. And, indeed, many soldiers have died in this current conflict. But the realities of war are different from real war, and only a real war should justify those realities. A real war is faught for reasons of necessity and dire need, not because of supposed WMDs or non-existent terrorists. A real war comes after an attack, not a pre-emptive strike. A real war is not a choice, but a necessary reaction to imminent and possibly overwhelming danger from a credible adversary. Americans know this is not a real war, and they had the audacity to kick out as many Bush enablers as possible.

That is the reality of a democracy, even one in its current condition.

So, Mr. Goure, please stop telling Americans that it is their fault if we lose this war. The Bush administration stage-managed this bloody intervention from the very beginning and is responsible for a mountain of failures costing countless lives. Moreover, the Bush administration used fear to sell their program from the very beginning--and Americans stood up to it. Vive la démocratie. [end of email to NPR]

Of course, Goure is from the Lexington Institute, a conservative thinktank. I suppose that gives him some credibility in the mainstream media, but it does little to persuade me, especially when he spouts inane falsehoods in order to spread propaganda, not "deep thought."

Ugh.

When I did a little more research on Monsieur Gouré, I came upon this little gem of an article, from which I will quote:

What France really wants
A medium-sized power with super-sized ambitions

WASHINGTON, March 13 - Sigmund Freud is reported to have once exclaimed in sheer exasperation, “What do women want?” The same question can be asked today about France. [...]

Ok--I get it: France is a little girl! That's funny! And women are second-class citizens and therefore should be discounted. I mean, how dare they be uppity? Monsieur is clearly establishing himself as one of the deeper thinkers, isn't he? What else does he say?

[...] Jacques Chirac not only opposes any effort to declare Iraq delinquent according to 1441, it has organized the opposition to U.S. efforts to bring the current crisis to a definitive conclusion. Paris has lobbied the non-permanent members of the Security Council against the Anglo-American second resolution. It even has declared its willingness to veto that resolution if it achieved the nine votes necessary for passage. France also sought to block NATO assistance to one of its own members, Turkey, forcing the other members of that organization to neutralize France’s obstructionism by moving to an alternate venue. And on Thursday, the French rejected the new British effort at compromise, beating even Iraq to the punch.

WHAT’S GOING ON?

It is entirely too easy to ascribe to the French actions motives such as great power envy, an excess of Gallic pride or revenge against an American administration that France feels has paid insufficient attention to French interests. Yes, it is true that Washington and Paris differ on a number of issues, some serious, such as global warming, missile defense, genetically modified agricultural products and the humor of Jerry Lewis...

Though Freud has been largely discreted by all but a few psychologists, Goure invokes him as a reference to his deep thoughts. Power envy=penis envy, France=disgruntled woman, the French are snobs and when they do like Americna culture, it's Jerry Lewis. Clearly they are deranged and should be ignored.

My point here is not to go through every disengenuous argument Goure makes. Indeed, that is the trap he is setting. He want's us to get bogged down in his interpretation of details.

Don't do it.

Rather, understand Goure for what he his. A shill that wants to shape the argument of a "real-man," real-politik agenda in spite of overwhelming evidence that this has failed.

He's a shill that wants to blame others for his (and the administration he loves) agenda.


He's a darling of our media. He's an...

Yes, he's an...

asshole.


Did I mention that he misquoted the Jim Webb-George Bush incident?... Go listen.