I mentioned that I was out buying gifts today for my return trip to the US tomorrow, and AMERICAblog reader Ferd posted the following comment suggesting what I might buy:
Get everybody a Marcel Marceau mime outfit. Wear your's on the plane, and periodically strike annoying bad mime poses -- walk "against the wind" to the lavatory. When you get home, make sure to use that nasal laugh like Maurice Chevalier for a few months.
Bush's latest speechifying seems to have been met with skepticism by the traditional media. The Chicago Tribune's article on the campaign kick-off today challenges Bush's assertion that this wasn't about politics:
Yet observers say the president's new offensive appears more precisely timed for the start of a fall election campaign in which the war in Iraq has become a pivotal issue in many congressional districts and Senate races and the Republican Party is struggling to maintain control of Congress.
Could it be that at least some reporters are tired of being duped by the White House? The Trib's article contains a pretty straight-forward analysis of how Bush is basically trying to frighten the American people for votes -- again:
John Mueller, a professor of political science and national security at Ohio State University who has studied the impact of casualties on public support for war, suggests that Bush is playing to his political strength with this new offensive but has passed the point of regaining support for the war in Iraq.
"It's his strongest suit, and terrifying people over terror can win votes for him and his party," Mueller said. "There is an election coming. Terrorism is his strongest suit. The standard thing in an election is to focus on your strongest suit."
Mueller cites the words of a 20th Century social critic, H.L. Mencken: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed."
Yet, "judging from polls," public support for the president's argument that the war in Iraq is the central front of the war on terror "is starting to wane," Mueller said. "I don't think they have any new arguments, so people may not pay much attention, because they've already heard this 400 times… What happens is, as people drop off, they tend to stay off."
Funny how Bush said yesterday his speeches weren't political, but everyone else seems to think that's they are. We've been in this war on terror for five years and mired in Iraq for over three years. Yet, only now, right before the elections, has it become "the ideological struggle of the 21st century." They must have spent a lot of time and money focusing group that one.
The new numbers like the old numbers from last month, not to mention what is due to come out at the end of the week, look really weak. Maybe it's too hard to hire people when all of the profits are finding their way into the hands of the lucky few at the top of the food chain. Once again we are looking at well under the 150K+ per month of new entrants into the market. And the GOP thinks the American public wants more of this?
Last night I was able to view "Iraq for Sale," the new film by Robert Greenwald (of "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price" and "Outfoxed" fame), and I was blown away. It is a riveting, powerful production that should be at the top of everyone’s list to see, and then buy for everyone you know, when it comes out next month. It is already getting richly-deserved buzz, both in corporate media and blogs, and you can view a trailer, order the DVD, and check out screenings at IraqForSale.org.
The film is a searing indictment of how massive defense contractors are exploiting the war in Iraq for billions of dollars of profit at the expense of U.S. troops, Iraqi civilians, and American taxpayers. The damage these defense contracting companies do to the Iraq mission – and, more broadly, to American security – is stunning, and Iraq for Sale explains difficult and emotional issues in a measured way that will resonate with people regardless of their background knowledge or political beliefs.
Something news and political junkies occasionally forget is that not everybody reads five newspapers and a dozen blogs every day. People who closely follow the news know that there are huge problems with defense contractors, both with money and with their actions, but millions of Americans see the issue as just another partisan argument that doesn't really have that much impact. Iraq for Sale explodes this myth, revealing the extensive harm and exploitation these companies wreak. As such, it provides new and insightful information for experts, and even more importantly, a comprehensive but accessible outline of the deceit and exploitation that all Americans should be aware of.
When I was in Iraq, contractors were nearly universally reviled. Their intel people often had no idea what they were doing, and there was no discernable chain of command, so even when somebody was terrible, their nominal military overseers didn’t know how to correct the problem. The security people were cowboys, acting without consequence in service of murky ends. There is no oversight for contractors, no controlling legal authority, and no incentive for them to follow any rules. Alan Grayson, who the Wall Street Journal says "is waging a one-man war against contractor fraud in Iraq," explains in the film,
If you are a U.S. soldier and you hurt an Iraqi civilian and that becomes known, you will be court-martialed. But if you are a U.S. contractor and you kill an Iraqi civilian and that becomes known, you will be sent home. And then, you can come back the following week, and you can work for a different contractor.
There is certainly room for contractors in defense, and some of my friends and colleagues at the Pentagon were smart, hard-working contract employees, working within the structure and oversight of a normal office. Without that structure, bad things happen. Further, the companies themselves are predatory. Although some contractors act badly in Iraq, many go over honestly believing that they’ll be helping reconstruct the country, or protecting virtuous officials, and the movie shows how their companies betray that trust and hope. Some of the most compelling statements come from contractors themselves . . . or family members who now mourn their deaths.
Considering the material, I thought the film was remarkably understated. I give the production team a ton of credit for letting the content speak for itself, having the focus on people telling their stories, augmented and reinforced by an incisive collection of data and reporting. It is mercifully free of the kind of Michael Moore-esque political sledgehammer approach that can overwhelm the facts, and here the facts are devastating. In fact, some of the best commentary comes from conservatives, such as Ralph Peters (an uber-conservative writer for the New York Post) who says,
Conservatives, especially, who favor a free market system, should be outraged about the degenerate state – the lack of competition in defense industry. The American way is competition. And I cannot sufficiently stress that in defense industry, when it comes to the big programs, there's not competition. It's monopoly and cartel behavior. It is corrupt, it is corrupting, it is corrosive to national defense.
Iraq for Sale starts by providing background information, patiently unraveling strands that make up an incestuous and tangled system, and gains momentum as it goes. The narrative moves effortlessly between informative and accessible experts and the personal stories of troops, contractors, and their families, hitting emotional and intellectual points with equal power. Like an expert boxer, the film starts with seemingly small, unrelated blows, gathering strength in the middle rounds as the strikes start to accumulate. By the time you realize that the hits are converging, all part of a greater narrative, an overwhelming combination of punches is inevitable, and the final part of the movie is a knockout. I can't recommend Iraq for Sale highly enough, and I’m grateful to the patriots who made it.
They've got no plan, they've got no agenda. So what's their strategy? Make stuff up:
Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."
Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone.
The fact that Bush and his team cannot support their allegations doesn't mean they won't keep making them. Interesting that the traditional media seems more on to their game this time.
While the president can hardly fall down without saying “September the 11th,” the truth is that Sept. 11 wasn’t all that great a day for an administration that was widely seen as a bunch of old Nixon-Reagan Era crooks who had managed to slither into the White House one last time.
With Bush on the run like a little girl, Cheney holed up in his bunker, Rumsfeld hiding in his office and the entire U.S. military curiously unable to halt the progress of a few hijacked passenger jets lazily looping over dozens of Air Force bases, Americans were so desperate for some kind of leadership that they turned to an opera-loving New York mayor with gay roommates.
Yesterday, Bush told reporters that his upcoming speeches on terrorism weren't political:
"They're not political speeches," Bush said Wednesday when asked if they might have an impact on the congressional elections just over two months away. "They're speeches about the future of this country, and they're speeches to make it clear that if we retreat before the job is done, this nation would become even more in jeopardy. These are important times, and I seriously hope people wouldn't politicize these issues that I'm going to talk about."
Yet, later that same day, Bush found himself at a political campaign rally giving his terror speech:
Thousands of Utahns cheered Wednesday night as President Bush arrived in Salt Lake City to deliver the first of a new series of speeches aimed at shoring up support for the Iraq war.
Air Force One touched down at 8:52 p.m., and Bush stood atop the stairway waving to supporters, estimated at 3,000 by the Secret Service. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. stood on the tarmac with his youngest daughter, Gracie Mei, 7, to greet the president along with Utah's congressional delegation, other officials and Sam Delis of Saratoga Springs, who was recognized for helping organize a clothing drive last year for Hurricane Katrina evacuees.
Bush thanked the throngs for "a fantastic Utah welcome," saying he wished first lady Laura Bush could have come. The president then launched into a preview of why he came to talk to the American Legion.
"These are challenging times, and I wish I could report to you that all is well. But there are still enemies who still want to hurt America," he said, referring to terrorists. "Our most important duty is to protect American people from further attack."
So, basically he lied...again. Bush is in campaign mode as is his entire cabinet. Rummy, Cheney and Condi are all giving the same kinds of political speeches. Imagine, just imagine, if this crowd put as much time thinking about ways to solve the Iraq crisis as they do in to politicizing Iraq. A lot fewer American soldiers would be dead. A lot more Iraqis would be alive.
There's a new ad campaign meant to apparently remind us that September 11 happened and was a really bad thing.
Where were you when you heard about Sept. 11?
Kiara Bradley was driving a bus. Gary Robertson was on his farm in California. Fire Department Lt. Mickey Kross was at New York's Engine Company 16, before he went to the burning World Trade Center and survived the north tower's collapse.
A national ad campaign being launched on Thursday features the stories of people who remember where they were when they heard of the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Hell, why stop there? Why not have ad campaigns targeted towards specific people? Judy Smith, where were you when you found out your child had leukemia? Joe Anderson, where were you when your wife was killed by a drunk driver? Let's have ad campaigns to remind all of us all the time about every single loved one who died tragically. And not a campaign to remind you of the loved one and how great they were - oh no - a campaign to remind you of the horrible moment of their horrible death. It's like memorializing your dead mother each year not by recollecting about how she used to bake those wonderful ginger cookies, but rather, making an annual ritual out of talking about how every bone in her body was smashed by a semi-truck. What a great way to remember mom.
What the hell is our obsession with remembering September 11? We remember it, ok. I don't need a TV commercial to remind me of that day or how I felt. I was there. It took me a long time to get over it. And I most certainly don't need my politicians, or anyone else, trying to drag me back to that day kicking and screaming several times a year as if I don't remember it, and as if it's somehow healthy to keep bringing it up.
Last year when I was in Paris I was out to dinner with friends at a really nice restaurant. Suddenly right behind me an entire tray of dishes went smashing to the floor. I jumped, like anyone would, but then I felt more. My head started to go a little numb and I started to feel boxed in by the booth I was sitting in. My friends continued jabbering away, but all I could think of was how the hell I was going to get out of that restaurant as quickly as possible. Well, I was boxed in by other diners, there was clearly no escape, so I broke into tears. I don't cry, it was very weird. And I immediately knew that I was having a September 11 flashback - no question at all.
I don't need anyone reminding me of September 11, thank you very much. In fact, as last summer's plate crashing episode reminded me, I could still use a little more forgetting about September 11.
Unfortunately we live in a country and a society where the dead aren't just eulogized, they're propagandized.
According to the Deputy Attorney General in the Bush Justice Department, we can't fight crime in the US, because we're fighting the "war on terror." In Bushspeak, the means Iraq where there really were no terrorists before we invaded. So, while our soldiers are dying over there, our citizens are dying over here:
"I'm well aware that there are many needs and desires on the part of law enforcement that we have not been able to serve well," McNulty said at the national crime summit organized by the Police Executive Research Forum.
He said the Justice Department was seeking more funds for its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives division to stem gun trafficking. But reclaiming money that was diverted from crime-fighting to anti-terror efforts may be difficult, he said.
"I wish I could stand here and say all that will be restored in the next year or two," McNulty said. "We are facing some big challenges. I see the challenges in fighting the war on terror. I see it is very expensive to fund soldiers overseas. At the same time, we have to find ways to get resources to win here at home."
If you get mugged or robbed or assaulted in America, blame the terrorists. It's their fault.
Clearly, it's campaign season because Bush is planning a "series of speeches to counter opposition" instead of trying to solve the crisis in Iraq. To Bush, it's just a political problem, not a quagmire that's killing lots of people. Even the Associated Press seems to have caught on to his game plan:
It is the third time in less than a year that Bush has launched a public relations offensive to try to rally support for the war in Iraq and his effort to spread democracy in the Middle East. He did it in November and December 2005 and again in March on the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Back then, the speeches were aimed at countering news reports of daily bombings in Iraq, where more than 2,300 U.S. troops had died. The death toll has risen to more than 2,630 and in July, about 3,500 Iraqis died violently - the highest monthly civilian toll since the war began.
The new addresses come two months before congressional elections and at a point when Bush's approval rate is at 33 percent in the August AP-Ipsos poll. His approval on handling of Iraq also was at 33 percent in the poll.
With those numbers in mind and the elections looming, Bush is just plain lying about the purpose of his little speech blitz:
"They are not political speeches," Bush said earlier Wednesday outside a restaurant in Little Rock, Ark., where he made his first campaign stop of the day. "They're speeches about the future of this country and they're speeches to make it clear that if we retreat before the job is done, this nation will become even more in jeopardy.
Sure, they are not political speeches. I'm sure there weren't any polls or focus groups conducted to find just the right language. How can the media not just laugh when he says something that ridiculous? Everything the man does is political.
It's all politics with the Bush crowd....they got no plan for Iraq, but they got speeches and campaign rhetoric. As my friend Nina from Austin always said, "Bush is all hat and no cattle."
Just saw Howard Dean on Keith Olbermann - he sounded like the in-their-face Howard Dean that was so attractive when he was running for President. He started swinging with "the whole government has sort of become ridiculous" didn't let up. He sounded "on message" and if that's the Fall message, it sounds good.
-- Rob in Baltimore
P.S. - Olbermann's closing was incredible. Incredible.
The article in the Times about details on the so-called UK terror case that is blocking out UK visitors is quite an interesting read and well worth a read. While on holiday this month I made it a point to avoid the news, email, phone, etc so when someone at a dinner party mentioned the 10 August arrests in London, I immediately dismissed it as yet another over-hyped warning that Bush and Blair have come to use all too often. Only hours before hearing about it, I remember seeing a headline at a newsstand about Labour having some sort of problems and thought that would probably mean something scary had to happen to help pick up the ratings.
After reading the Times article, once again I am fuming. I'm sick and tired of the fear campaigns for political purposes. Who could forget Tom Ridge doing his best to terrify the nation in the summer before the 2004 election with his so-called terror alert that wasn't really much of anything? Let's reflect on all of those over-hyped, let's scare-the-shit-out-of-everyone campaigns to keep everyone in line and drinking the Kool Aid, whether we are talking about lies about reasons for invading Iraq or the more recent insanely silly Miami arrests. As information on the 10 August arrests trickle out, it looks like US leaders have chosen, again, to opt for reckless fear and hysteria for political benefit. Read on and you decide.
Hours after the police arrested the 21 suspects, police and government officials in both countries said they had intended to carry out the deadliest terrorist attack since Sept. 11.
Later that day, Paul Stephenson, deputy chief of the Metropolitan Police in London, said the goal of the people suspected of plotting the attack was mass murder on an unimaginable scale. On the day of the arrests, some officials estimated that as many as 10 planes were to be blown up, possibly over American cities. Michael Chertoff, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, described the suspected plot as getting really quite close to the execution stage.
Hmmm, sounds like some pretty scary stuff.
But British officials said the suspects still had a lot of work to do. Two of the suspects did not have passports, but had applied for expedited approval. One official said the people suspected of leading the plot were still recruiting and radicalizing would-be bombers.
Hmm, sounds like it's not quite as scary as Chertoff suggested.
...British investigators have still not determined whether there was a target date for the attacks or how many planes were to be involved. They say the estimate of 10 planes was speculative and exaggerated.
Again
Despite the charges, officials said they were still unsure of one critical question: whether any of the suspects was technically capable of assembling and detonating liquid explosives while airborne.
A chemist involved in that part of the inquiry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was sworn to confidentiality, said HMTD, which can be prepared by combining hydrogen peroxide with other chemicals, in theory is dangerous, but whether the suspects ?had the brights to pull it off remains to be seen.?
While officials and experts familiar with the case say the investigation points to a serious and determined group of plotters, they add that questions about the immediacy and difficulty of the suspected bombing plot cast doubt on the accuracy of some of the public statements made at the time.
?In retrospect, said Michael A. Sheehan, the former deputy commissioner of counterterrorism in the New York Police Department, there may have been too much hyperventilating going on.
Over-hyping terror alerts for political purposes is one of the lowest forms of manipulation and only helps to weaken democracy in our countries. I've had it with the Soviet style, one party rule in the US that is all based on fear.
From CREW which serves as counsel to Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson in their lawsuit against Cheney, Rove and Libby:
Despite all of the unfounded right-wing rhetoric, the allegation this week that Richard Armitage was the initial source who told both Bob Novak and Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA does not affect the lawsuit that Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph Wilson have brought against the White House officials responsible for leaking Ms. Wilson's identity as a covert CIA operative. That lawsuit is premised on the deliberate and unlawful actions of top White House officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, his former chief of staff I. Lewis Scooter Libby, and Karl Rove, to publicly discredit Mr. Wilson and retaliate against him for his public statements regarding the administration's justification for going to war against Iraq by deliberately disclosing to selected reporters the classified CIA identity of Ms. Wilson.
Mr. Armitage's conduct in no way alters the fact that Vice President Cheney, Mr. Libby, and Mr. Rove were engaged in a concerted effort to violate the rights of Valerie Plame Wilson and Joseph Wilson that they should be held liable for their actions.
