Little Evil Bush

CNN.com - Airing of beheading video blocked - May 27, 2004: "'I feel it was totally inappropriate and inhumane to show the execution and beheading of this man,' said Claire Palmer, resident dean at Warren College and the overseer of its TV channel."

Does this differ from Disney's attempt to block release of Michael Moore's 9/11 documentary?

I think it does. Though there could be a political point to be made by showing the beheading and execution, I don't think that a general broadcast on a college TV station makes any political point - it is, in my mind, exploitation, and the University is right to enforce some rudimentary good taste.

Moore, however, has a point to make, and that point should be respected.

It is a very fine line between the two - and a distinction, I fear, that is more and more lost in our society. But if we don't know where this line is, we can't be both a civil, and a democratic, society.

The New York Times > Washington > As Ashcroft Warns of Attack, Some Question Threat and Its Timing

Some say that Al Queda might attack the U.S. in order to influence the upcoming elections. The question, who would they throw their hat behind? Some say they'd want the Democrats to win - because Al Queda are idealogues that want Westerners out of Arab lands, and left-leaning Democrats are more likely to abide by their plans. These people use as evidence the bombings in Spain, which tilted that country from Right to Left.

I, however, see it differently. I think Al Queda would be big Bush supporters. After all, Al Queda's stated goal is destruction of the U.S. - first, by destroying our economy. Secondly, by undermining our position of world dominance. I can't think of any candidate better qualified to achieve those goals that Bush. Not only with a second term of Bush policies drive up deficits, fracture our economic structure, and further isolate us in the world, but it would certainly guarantee a loss in the war in Iraq and further undisturbed sanctuary for Al Queda infiltration and training camps.

Bush may be the stated "enemy" of Al Queda and a Rightie, but that's precisely the foil Al Queda needs - while they peel away our alleys by turning them more democratic, they drive America further to the right, further isolating us, damaging our country, and gathering their own coalition of the willing.

What say you all?

This is all just CYA. (Cover Your Ass.) There was direct control from Rumsfeld on down. They just had a PR cover of non-accountability....

The New York Times > Washington > Rumsfeld Aide and a General Clash on Abuse: "How do you expect the M.P.'s to get it straight if we have a difference between the two of you?' said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts.
Later in the day, Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the Army's deputy chief of staff, said the issue of who controlled the military police officers accused of abusing the prisoners 'has to be ironed out.' The key question, he said, is whether the intelligence unit's commander told the M.P.'s 'how to do their job.'"

Here's an odd one: Safire may be right.

Not about letting Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld off the hook. Right about a chance for democracy.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Hold Fast, Idealists: "ssimism may be in the saddle today, but hope for Iraqi freedom is in the wings. Wait and see"

Why do I say this? Well - this turn of events (the prisoner scandal) was not in my predictions of April 14th. Who would have predicted that evidence of the war bungling would receive such play in the press? That Congress would finally do its job and manage this war? That the world would get to see what is really going on?

Having all this aired now may be painful - but I do believe it is the best thing to happen to the war. Seeing how we handle this, giving the American people a chance to correct the mistakes of the Bush administration: maybe I'm a slobby optimist, but maybe the result of all this is that we get rid of Bush...and install democracy in the Arab world to boot.

Wouldn't that be ironic - Bush ultimately DOES install an Arab democracy by being such a henious, undemocratic idiot.....

This is Evil Bush's true purpose:

The New York Times > Business > Economic Growth Swells Trade Deficit to Record $46 Billion: "The value of American oil imports in March rose to $10.2 billion, up from $8.4 billion the previous month. Rising crude prices, which averaged $30.64 a barrel in March, the highest since February 1983, helped to push the oil bill higher, as well as push America's trade deficit with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to a record $5.6 billion."

In this respect, Bush's war has been a great success....

Now the consequences begin. Some might argue that it is the media's fault for releasing the pictures. Others would blame it on the individuals. But think about this: the Bush administration has known about what's going on at Abu Ghraib for a year. They have done nothing. Only once the media gets ahold of some pictures do they even bother to react by...supporting Don Rumsfeld. What have the done to correct the situation? What have they done to protect Americans in Iraq and abroad? What have they done to protect us at home?

Can you honestly say that they are winning the war on terrorism now?

CNN.com - Video on al Qaeda-linked Web site shows beheading - May 11, 2004

The movement is more organized that I realized. The former Attorney General from the Johnson administration is leading the charge. You can go to his website to vote for impeachment and to read his articles of impeachment.

Vote To Impeach George W. Bush

If you're reading this and haven't yet signed the petition, DO SO NOW!

:: Donald Rumsfeld Must Resign ::

Can the government really get away with scapegoating these privates for carrying out policies handed down from Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld? If they charged every private who engaged in torture of prisoners there'd be no one left to fight the war.

When will charges be levied against Bush? Against Rumsfeld? When will we de-Bush-ify the U.S. military?

CNN.com - Bush�praises Rumsfeld - May 10, 2004: "The charges include committing an indecent act and assaulting Iraqi detainees on multiple occasions."

Now we know the truth: You can't be openly gay in the military because that might undermine the military effort to torture prisoners with simulated acts of homosexual intercourse.

(I presume that's because openly gay soldiers would not get the sick, sadistic pleasure from forcing captives to simulate homosexual sex that is needed to further incite the necessary rabid incidents of torture and dehuminization?)

CNN.com - Bush�praises Rumsfeld - May 10, 2004: "Hersh reports that military commanders did nothing about allegations of abuse from the International Committee of the Red Cross until a military policeman turned over a computer disk containing images of prisoners forced to simulate homosexual acts while American soldiers watched"

This most sorry and hateful man, William "Pete" Knight, could not accept his son and could not include his son's happiness in his own life. THAT'S abnormal.

The New York Times > National > Gay Marriage Opponent Knight Dies at 74: "``We've had homosexuals since time immemorial,'' he said. ``And nobody cared as long as they did their work and they didn't flaunt their sexuality and didn't try to push it on you and say, 'You have to accept me.' But now they are going to say they want to be classified as normal, and I can't accept the fact that two men, married, is normal.''"

You know - I just had a flash. It was the flash of a Republican mind-set. Maybe I channelled Tom DeLay's brain for a moment.

I was reading an article about Kerry criticing Rumsfeld's overall handling of the war - (BTW, yeah Kerry! Finally, this is the Kerry I've been waiting to see, the candidate I'd supported in the primaries.) As I read the logical, well-reasoned attack, I had a flash of insight: Republicans can't stand any criticism of the war because they can't ever imagine themselves being wrong.

That's all it is. Not hubris - a lack of imagination. It just isn't within the realm of their thinking to imagine any alternative course of action. They just don't know enough or have the brainpower. So, any criticism to them seems "defeatest" or worse, unpatriotic, because, in their mind, they ARE America...their thinking, whatever it may be, IS the country - so questioning that, it is like saying, there is no God, there is no America....

I don't mean that they think they are the Almighty. Just that they have set upon a course of action that is unquestionable. Rummy IS the war - a cult of personality where every policy action is personalized. They don't even understand what a "war on terrorism" really is. All they understand is that they are in charge - and if you criticize them, you can't be a good American....

So who is the more unpatriotic, the ideologue who creates a culture of abuse and torture that underminds our efforts to combat terrorism....or the people who point it out?

CNN.com - D-Day for Donald Rumsfeld - May 7, 2004: "One thing Republicans say they are sure about, Democrats will try to make this a presidential issue. Or as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay put it, speaking for the GOP opinion and about the Democrats: 'They want to win the election more than they want to win the war, and our enemies know it.'"

Well, Mr. DeLay, it *is* a Presidential issue, and it's fair to say that we have a much better chance of winning the war on terrorism with someone like Kerry in office rather than Bush and Rumsfeld. Ah, but the attack logic of the right is to turn things around - black is white, good is bad, rightdoers are evildoers, Clean Skies means clean skies, and any effort to assuage the anger of the Arab world and demonstrate some kind of accountability for the kind of prejudice that increases anti-American sentiment around the world is itself Anti-American....

Finally, some papers are starting to state a common sense opinion: as in Enron and Worldcom, those who lead a culture of lawnessness need to go (not just go, but be prosecuted).

Economist.com | Iraq: "the abuse of these prisoners is not the only damaging error that has been made and it forms part of a culture of extra-legal behaviour that has been set at the highest level. Responsibility for what has occurred needs to be taken?4and to be seen to be taken?4at the highest level too. It is plain what that means. The secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr Bush should fire him."

But this doesn't go far enough - Bush is the CEO in chief and the chief liar. It's about time the cowardly congress started impeachment proceedings.

If I ever form a rock band, I'm calling them "The Evildoers."

But what I want to know is, what is the difference between "wrongdoers" and "evildoers." Can you only be an "evildoer" if you are not an American? Or, is "evildoing" more like murder and such but "wrongdoing" stops and torture and sexual assault? I mean, is Green Goblin an Evildoer because you know he tries to kill Spiderman - but then, he's been zapped by radiation and used to be a kindly scientist so maybe he's just a Wrongdoer, or maybe he's not really any kind of doer but just a sick freak.

And then, I mean, if you believe your cause is right and just, but causes harm anyway, maybe that's the distinction. Because, for instance, those Americans believed their cause was right and just but because of their situation they got involved in some awful wrongdoing. But those Iraqi insurgents, are they "wrongdoers" or "evildoers"? Maybe Bush would say the insurgents are Wrongdoing, unless they are blowing themselves up, then they are Evildoing. Or maybe it has to do with numbers - if you can take out more than 1000 or so at a time, and cause a few billion in damage, that qualifies as evildoing, but killing only a dozen or so (or just one?), maybe that's only wrongdoing. Of course, when WE drop a daisy cluster or smart bomb and take out a boat-load of them suckers, I don't think that would be Evildoing, or even Wrongdoing, so there must be some ultimate ends of purposes that makes it all alright, as long as those ends are Islamic or those aren't Americans facilitating the means. Or maybe the whole language of wrongdoing and evildoing is meant to elide such moral distinctions all together.

I think, though, that one is meant to assume that "wrongdoing" is in some way not as eggregious as "evildoing," so there is some moral distinction being made. I'm just not sure what. I mean, for instance, Wrongdoing could be when I snatch an extra piece of cake when no one is looking. I mean, that's not exactly what those American kids did when they beat those Iraqi prisoners and told them to strip naked and pose for their homoerotic photographs. But where exactly does this Wrongdoing fit on the scale? I suppose then that eating the last bit of cake would not be quite "Wrongdoing" in the Bush vocabulary - that might be more like "Naughtydoing." But Naughtydoing just doesn't have that same oomph. I mean, going around calling someone a "Naughtydoer" really isn't telling them off very much. I mean, I don't know how much Bush wants to tell off Rummy but calling him a Naughtydoer probably won't cut it.

And what about Rummy? if he isn't a Naughtydoer then what? I don't think Bush would give Rummy the big Evildoer status but, well, Wrongdoer may not fit either. Maybe we'll have to coin another Bush 'doer - Rummy is probably going to be more like a "Do-do'er," as in, he's just stepped into a bunch of it.

CNN.com - Bush 'sorry for humiliation' of Iraqi prisoners - May 6, 2004

See my post dated April 28 (Vietnam War Record Spat) - I read somewhere (can't remember where) over the weekend that Kerry has adopted an intentional strategy of bashing back whenever the Republicans start to smear his character. His theory is that it Dukakis and others lost by letting the attacks go un addressed.

I'm not fully convinced. This could quickly devolve into the kind of thing that will turn off voters and squeek Bush back into office. I think the question has to do with the manner of bashing back. I think Kerry could strongly refute charges without stooping to their level. For instance, do we really have to make an issue of Bush being a rich, spoiled coward who was too lazy to even show up for his war-time exemption duties? Isn't it enough just to attack him for being single-minded and stupid (and EVIL, of course).

Maybe I'm splitting hairs. I'd much rather see the stories about Bush's alcoholism and frat-party days. The guy is a real piece of work. The problem with focusing on the national guard issue is, well - what if he WAS there? I mean, we don't really know: it's hard to prove a negative. Meanwhile, there are so many other character flaws we DO know about. For instance, why not make an issue out of Bush being a BIG FAT LIAR? That's public record.

Bush is such an embarrassment. Did anyone watch Saturday Night Live this weekend? I know that we always satirize our President. Clinton having sex, yadda, yadda. But a satire about the President being a simpering idiot - which hits home because it's pretty much true - is really a sad state of affairs.

Anyway, I think a better strategy for Kerry would be to assess the made-up distraction like the Vietnam war record flap and just point out that taking character assassination from Bush is like taking advice on integrity from Tony Soprano - basically, the "yeah, I OWN my flack jacket, Mr. Bush" - is a line that works well and he should have stuck with that - and forget trying to go after the really petty middling stuff (because, after all, an honest draft-dodger might run for President one day, and I might even vote for him or her....).

This article about David Brock is pretty interesting - particularly concerning Brock's motivations:

"The right wing in this country has dominated the debate over liberal bias," Mr. Brock said during an interview Friday. "By dominating that debate, my belief is they've moved the media itself to the right and therefore they've moved American politics to the right."

So true. The best analysis of the situation. It is exactly the problem with the Times (that supposed "bastion of liberalism"). Even though it is the only real newspaper left in America, it still pulls its punches and sidesteps calling the Evil Bush Empire and others on the truth. As others have said, "presenting both sides of an issue can be a deception, because sometimes there's only the truth."

But New Yorkers are a hard group to deceive consistently, so the Times still must serve up a few stories of decent critical analysis and editorialism, sometimes as penance for their pandering. Most other outlets though have completely given up.

But back to Brock. Do you really trust someone who's claim to fame is admiting to having slandered Anita Hill and Bill Clinton in their previous journalism? This isn't a guy I want on MY side. He can take his watchdog group, if you ask me, and stick it on a blog somewhere. I doubt, given the record on his integrity, that he's going to have much of an effect.

I don't want to see more "liberal radio." What I really want to see is the mainstream media get the story right.