"By what logic would we support a cult that is trying to kill us?" Oh, I don't know, maybe the logic stemming from the fact that 15 of the 19 Highjackers were from Saudi Arabia?
I'm by no means surprised that a bunch of stuff was pulled from the report (Allah forbid we should piss of the Saudis), but I'm impressed that someone in government actually stood up and said shit is fucked in the Kingdom.
Friday, July 25, 2003
Also, while looking up some info on my own about Gillespie, I came across what may be a very interesting page: Disinfopedia.
The new GOP chairman is a "former lobbyist" indeed. Here's a sampling of a few of his clients from the past couple of years:
- Enron: helped Enron get the ear of Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force for around $700,000, and helped influence the House's August 2001 energy bill on behalf of the "21st Century Energy Project," a coalition of some of Gillespie's clients which included Enron and Dailmler-Chrysler (who both contributed $50,000 to the project).
- Daimler-Chrysler: in addition to lobbying for the Daimler-Chrsyler as part of the 21st Centrury Energy Project, also lobbied to have higher fuel efficiency standards pulled from Bush's energy bill in March 2002.
- Big Steel: helped convince the Administration to impose a tariff on imported steel, which were declared illegal by the World Trade Organization in May.
He was also one of the primary writers of the GOP's "Contract with America" back in '94.
Gillespie, was referred to by The New Republic as "the most important operative you've never heard of in the Bush presidency." Although they say he was a "senior communications advisor" in the first CNN article, he was much more heavily involved with the campaign than that humble title implies. He did work with many of Bush's top advisors, and was program chairman of the 200 Republican Convention, which was responsible for trying to promote the Republicans as a party of compassion and inclusion by doing such things as putting entertainers like Chaka Khan on stage,
Most of this info comes by way of Arianna Huffington's book Pigs at the Trough.
- Enron: helped Enron get the ear of Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force for around $700,000, and helped influence the House's August 2001 energy bill on behalf of the "21st Century Energy Project," a coalition of some of Gillespie's clients which included Enron and Dailmler-Chrysler (who both contributed $50,000 to the project).
- Daimler-Chrysler: in addition to lobbying for the Daimler-Chrsyler as part of the 21st Centrury Energy Project, also lobbied to have higher fuel efficiency standards pulled from Bush's energy bill in March 2002.
- Big Steel: helped convince the Administration to impose a tariff on imported steel, which were declared illegal by the World Trade Organization in May.
He was also one of the primary writers of the GOP's "Contract with America" back in '94.
Gillespie, was referred to by The New Republic as "the most important operative you've never heard of in the Bush presidency." Although they say he was a "senior communications advisor" in the first CNN article, he was much more heavily involved with the campaign than that humble title implies. He did work with many of Bush's top advisors, and was program chairman of the 200 Republican Convention, which was responsible for trying to promote the Republicans as a party of compassion and inclusion by doing such things as putting entertainers like Chaka Khan on stage,
Most of this info comes by way of Arianna Huffington's book Pigs at the Trough.
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
You may not need a reminder, but be sure and check out this week's Onion. I particularly enjoyed this week's What do you think?.
Put on your shoes and go to work, you shallow cunt.
Seriously, wearing them for comfort is just fine. But if you're paying $85-$145 for flip-flops, you are this week's poster child for "Why they hate us." Also, what is with bullshit statements like "The more dressy styles make the statement that you are credible, yet still accessible"? Can you believe that people say shit like this and actually believe it? Yeah, I can.
Seriously, wearing them for comfort is just fine. But if you're paying $85-$145 for flip-flops, you are this week's poster child for "Why they hate us." Also, what is with bullshit statements like "The more dressy styles make the statement that you are credible, yet still accessible"? Can you believe that people say shit like this and actually believe it? Yeah, I can.
But what's gonna happen to all their porn?
Lucky timing for the Administration. Probably not long before people are like "what 16 words?"
Lucky timing for the Administration. Probably not long before people are like "what 16 words?"
Genius? Huh? You mean liar? Bottom line is, there's a big fuck up here. The President said something that turned out to be false. No, we didn't go to war over the 16 Words, but those words were part of the fabric that was our justification for war. Okay, so one thing has been proven false. Does that call in to question all of the other reasons? You bet your fucking ass it does, because a lot of us were questioning this shit from the get-go. Also, I am as yet to be convinced of a "present danger" from Saddam.
Then there's this nonsense that if there was any substance to the claims that the justifications for war were shaky, Bush would be in impeachment trouble. Yeah, that might be the case, if it wasn't for the fact that we have a republican controlled congress and a press that treats presidents differently. Clinton faced a republican-led congress, and the press latched onto a sex scandal like ravenous wolf high on angel dust. Meanwhile, Bush enjoys a republican led congress that is more interested in protecting its party's leader than protecting the country as well as a subdued press corps that asks bullshit scripted questions like "how is your faith guiding you?" when we're about to start fucking bombing people.
I do agree with at least part of one thing Kristol says, that the Democrats need to be "acting as an intelligent, loyal opposition." I don't care for the word loyal, because I'm getting sick of the implications that if you're not with Bush, you're with Saddam. But the words "intelligent" and "opposition" are spot on.
Then there's this nonsense that if there was any substance to the claims that the justifications for war were shaky, Bush would be in impeachment trouble. Yeah, that might be the case, if it wasn't for the fact that we have a republican controlled congress and a press that treats presidents differently. Clinton faced a republican-led congress, and the press latched onto a sex scandal like ravenous wolf high on angel dust. Meanwhile, Bush enjoys a republican led congress that is more interested in protecting its party's leader than protecting the country as well as a subdued press corps that asks bullshit scripted questions like "how is your faith guiding you?" when we're about to start fucking bombing people.
I do agree with at least part of one thing Kristol says, that the Democrats need to be "acting as an intelligent, loyal opposition." I don't care for the word loyal, because I'm getting sick of the implications that if you're not with Bush, you're with Saddam. But the words "intelligent" and "opposition" are spot on.
Monday, July 21, 2003
Okay, I swear to god, next fucking year I'm going to ComicCon. In the meantime, here are some pictures of new toys being shown at ComicCon. Nothing too exciting, except for the Playmates "Stonecutter Moe" figure. Of course, it's an "incentive" figure (don't you hate those marketing fucks?), which means I'll have to go out and buy like 4 other figures to mail away for it. Also, it's about time that Ron Jeremy got his own action figure.
Friday, July 18, 2003
So we've now moved that much closer to the endgame for me, when Tony Blair admits one way or another as to the status of WMD.
Also, I realized I fucked up earlier this week. The head guy in Iraq is Paul Bremer, not Brenner.
Speaking of Tony, has anyone else noticed that he looks different as of late? He seems thinner and younger. Not really thin in a good way, though, more of a "not eating well" type of thin. You know what? I think they replaced him with a robot.
Also, I realized I fucked up earlier this week. The head guy in Iraq is Paul Bremer, not Brenner.
Speaking of Tony, has anyone else noticed that he looks different as of late? He seems thinner and younger. Not really thin in a good way, though, more of a "not eating well" type of thin. You know what? I think they replaced him with a robot.
"The desire of the neighborhood has always been for a Starbucks." Jesus Christ, Ted, how fucking lame, suburban, and white can you get?
Meanwhile, this guy's kids are probably not asleep, and instead busy finding where all the kitchen knives and handguns are in the house.
Thursday, July 17, 2003
More opinion on this whole Iraq mess.
Also, this is the first time in awhile where I've seen references to us being told before the war that the occupation would last only a couple of months. I know we heard how quick and easy it was going to be over and over again, but now I have more perspective. A couple of months, even half a for occupation is preposterous if we're planning on doing a decent job (which I'm not convinced that we are). You know, after WWII, we occupied Japan for seven years, and even after '52, we still had a strong military presence over there (actually, we still have a strong presence there). I don't know how long Germany was occupied, but I'll bet it was more than 60 days.
I don't see how the Hawks could possibly pull out of Iraq before a reasonably stable government gets set up. The whole purpose, like I've said before, was to remove Saddam and install a pro-US government. If we leave too soon, there's an even greater risk of things degenerating back into dictatorship and/or theocracy. And I said "greater" risk, because even if we do put in the hours, there will always be a risk of return to the old ways. Things tend to be kind of fucked up like that in the Middle East. So, let's face it. We're going to be in Iraq for a long time. Not like we didn't know this, but I don't know if we've accepted it.
Also, this is the first time in awhile where I've seen references to us being told before the war that the occupation would last only a couple of months. I know we heard how quick and easy it was going to be over and over again, but now I have more perspective. A couple of months, even half a for occupation is preposterous if we're planning on doing a decent job (which I'm not convinced that we are). You know, after WWII, we occupied Japan for seven years, and even after '52, we still had a strong military presence over there (actually, we still have a strong presence there). I don't know how long Germany was occupied, but I'll bet it was more than 60 days.
I don't see how the Hawks could possibly pull out of Iraq before a reasonably stable government gets set up. The whole purpose, like I've said before, was to remove Saddam and install a pro-US government. If we leave too soon, there's an even greater risk of things degenerating back into dictatorship and/or theocracy. And I said "greater" risk, because even if we do put in the hours, there will always be a risk of return to the old ways. Things tend to be kind of fucked up like that in the Middle East. So, let's face it. We're going to be in Iraq for a long time. Not like we didn't know this, but I don't know if we've accepted it.
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Hey, somebody call Bud Selig and tell him the Japanese have already come up with a better solution for getting people interested in baseball.
One thing I keep getting sick of hearing is that we're in the post-combat phase in Iraq, especially after some high-ranking Army guy even said "we're still at war" several weeks back.
Also, the Democrats have no business criticizing anyone for a lack of "coherent" policy. The Democrats really should be going after the Administration for all this shit, I mean really going after them, but the best we get is the occasional opportunistic attack from John Kerry. They shouldn't be complaining about an incoherent policy, they should be complaining about an incomplete policy. I still feel like the Administration was like "Remove Saddam first, deal with everything else later". And of course, we'll get to "everything else" at some point, because undoubtedly, America's promises have no expiration date.
Why the fuck aren't the Democrats bringing shit like this up? Well, maybe it's because I'm wrong. But I'm still fully convinced that our current foreign policy was hammered out years ago, pre-September 11th, when our outlook was much different. I know I've said this a million times, but the Project for a New American Century group decided years ago on everything that's happening today. Do you think a Democratic congressman has ever brought up PNAC? You would think that someone would have to have done so, but I still don't know why a bigger deal hasn't yet been made of it. And yes, I know I'm oversimplifying things, and there's a lot more to the picture than PNAC, but come on. If someone explained to the American people how the Administration started with a premise like regime change in Iraq and worked backwards from there, I think that even with all the morons out there, some people might start to catch on.
While we're talking about the "incomplete" policy, why the hell is it so incomplete? I've said time and time again that even though I don't like Bush and his neocon cabal, I know that they, save Bush himself, are all smart fucking people. If they're so fucking smart, you'd think that they would have a better plan in place for putting Humpty Dumpty back together. Clearly, the idea isn't just regime change, but regime replacement. Namely, replacement with a pro-US democracy. Maybe I'm just impatient, since it has only been a couple of months since we went "post-combat," and this kind of thing is going to take time no matter what. But you can't help but think that things weren't fully thought through when Gen. Jay Garner was replaced as head of reconstruction by civilian Paul Bremer just a few days after taking the reigns. And of course, you can't have too much hope at this point, since our most recent (mis)adventure in reconstruction, Afghanistan, isn't exactly being hailed as a resounding success.
Also, the Democrats have no business criticizing anyone for a lack of "coherent" policy. The Democrats really should be going after the Administration for all this shit, I mean really going after them, but the best we get is the occasional opportunistic attack from John Kerry. They shouldn't be complaining about an incoherent policy, they should be complaining about an incomplete policy. I still feel like the Administration was like "Remove Saddam first, deal with everything else later". And of course, we'll get to "everything else" at some point, because undoubtedly, America's promises have no expiration date.
Why the fuck aren't the Democrats bringing shit like this up? Well, maybe it's because I'm wrong. But I'm still fully convinced that our current foreign policy was hammered out years ago, pre-September 11th, when our outlook was much different. I know I've said this a million times, but the Project for a New American Century group decided years ago on everything that's happening today. Do you think a Democratic congressman has ever brought up PNAC? You would think that someone would have to have done so, but I still don't know why a bigger deal hasn't yet been made of it. And yes, I know I'm oversimplifying things, and there's a lot more to the picture than PNAC, but come on. If someone explained to the American people how the Administration started with a premise like regime change in Iraq and worked backwards from there, I think that even with all the morons out there, some people might start to catch on.
While we're talking about the "incomplete" policy, why the hell is it so incomplete? I've said time and time again that even though I don't like Bush and his neocon cabal, I know that they, save Bush himself, are all smart fucking people. If they're so fucking smart, you'd think that they would have a better plan in place for putting Humpty Dumpty back together. Clearly, the idea isn't just regime change, but regime replacement. Namely, replacement with a pro-US democracy. Maybe I'm just impatient, since it has only been a couple of months since we went "post-combat," and this kind of thing is going to take time no matter what. But you can't help but think that things weren't fully thought through when Gen. Jay Garner was replaced as head of reconstruction by civilian Paul Bremer just a few days after taking the reigns. And of course, you can't have too much hope at this point, since our most recent (mis)adventure in reconstruction, Afghanistan, isn't exactly being hailed as a resounding success.
Why must so many things turn into an unnecessary adventure? I decided to treat myself to a sandwich at The Way today instead of just having a Code Red and a bag of pretzels. Then, I make the mistake of paying with my check card. As the cash register lady is ringing me up, I hear her make an aside to one of her coworkers that she punched the wrong button. So, I make sure to pay extra special attention to the receipt I'm about to sign, and lo and behold, it lists my total as $53.77, not the $5.37 it's supposed to be. Naturally, this woman doesn't know how to fix it, so manager guy shows up to recitfy the situation. He says the easiest thing to do is just refund me the difference, and he proceeds to do so. But then he fucks up, and ends up charging me an extra $48. So then he goes on to do another refund, which he finally gets right. So the end result is that I have three receipts in my wallet, the last of which is a refund of nearly $100 for a $6 sandwich.
You know what really sucks? They didn't even offer me any stamps.
All the while this is going on, all I can hear is Carlin yelling at me. "Get some fucking cash together!" You know what the sad part is, other than the fact that I'm not even supposed to be here today? I had plenty of cash, but went for the bank card instead to keep from breaking a whole dollar over that $.37. So, for me today, new rule: no more paying for inexpensive items with a credit card. I'm holding up the goddamn line. I should probably also institute a new rule of no paying for expensive items with a credit card, too, since I most likely won't have a job around this time next month.
You know what really sucks? They didn't even offer me any stamps.
All the while this is going on, all I can hear is Carlin yelling at me. "Get some fucking cash together!" You know what the sad part is, other than the fact that I'm not even supposed to be here today? I had plenty of cash, but went for the bank card instead to keep from breaking a whole dollar over that $.37. So, for me today, new rule: no more paying for inexpensive items with a credit card. I'm holding up the goddamn line. I should probably also institute a new rule of no paying for expensive items with a credit card, too, since I most likely won't have a job around this time next month.
Which Colossal Death Robot Are You? Also be sure and check out their other tests, like Which Genocidal Maniac Are You?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
