Category: Politics

The wife and I were good little liberals and went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 on opening night last Friday.

One word: go.

I won’t go into too much detail about why you should see this movie, since you can read about many different reasons all over the net. I will only say that it made me even angrier at our current administration and more determined than ever to get this clown out of his stolen office. Like the hand-made note I saw pinned to some guy’s shirt on opening night: Defeat or Impeach, Now or Later.

I’ve been thinking about how people are comparing this movie event to The Passion of the Christ and I think that it’s a pretty good analogy. Both movies have organizations mobilizing their members to get out and see them and try to convince others to do the same. Both movies are setting records. Both movies are heavily slanted to an ideological position.

But I think that there is another comparison to bring up. Remember when the Republicans impeached Clinton? Remember Ken Starr? Remember all of our money that was spent investigating a blow job? Millions of dollars were wasted on that sad debacle and the ultimate result was just that–a waste.

Well, in a way, Fahrenheit 9/11 is our own impeachment trial. There is the potential for public opinion to be swayed dramatically and the very real end result could be that Bush will not be re-elected. Moore’s movie could help us get Bush out of office without our tax dollars being spent on impeachment investigations and depleting our budget. In fact, it’s just the opposite. The movie helps our economy. Millions of dollars are being distributed through our economy and the American taxpayer doesn’t have to pay a dime. I think it’s a win/win.

Buy tickets to Fahrenheit 9/11

Register to Vote

One of these days I’m going to create a sideblog of interesting links. As they say in Jamaica, soon come, mon, soon come. Until then, I offer you this awesome story by Jeffrey Veen about his recent experience of tailgating the secret service:

Driving the Next First Lady

I need to point you to this brilliant analysis of the “current situation” by Joshua Marshall.

Joshua has perfectly articulated the feeling I have every time I hear the president speak. When he distills the President’s speech from the other night down to its essence, it reads like the babbling nonsense it is:

“Why are things spinning out of control in Iraq? Why are we losing the struggle for hearts and minds in the country? Because we stand for freedom. And the terrorists hate freedom. And they’re attacking us because we’re bringing freedom to Iraq. And terrorists hate freedom. Therefore they hate us. And since they hate us so much of course they fight us.”

As Mr. Marshall aptly points out, this would be funny if not for the fact that “this…inane mumbojumbo…will — perhaps literally — get us all killed.”

Of course he says it all much better than me, so please read it.

I just finished reading a great entry over at juancole.com (Professor of History at the University of Michigan), debating the assertion by Rupert Murdoch’s “news” organizations and others that al Qaeda won the Spanish elections. In discussing Zapatero’s victory speech, Mr. Cole lets loose this gem:

“After nearly four years of White House rhetoric stolen from old Clint Eastwood spaghetti Westerns, the determination in this speech to pursue anti-terrorism with an eye to establishing social peace and creating the conditions of human development hits me as a gale of fresh air.”

Well, amen.

You really should read the whole entry

This is easily the best Kottke post I’ve read in a long time. Go get ’em, Jason!

Those Naughty Girl Scouts

From a list of George Bush’s accomplishments so far:

Bush tax cuts could pay for hiring all nine million people out of work and pay them $40K for two years instead of benefiting wealthy.

Dear friend,

During this year’s Super Bowl, you’ll see ads sponsored by beer
companies, tobacco companies, and the Bush White House. But you
won’t see the winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund’s Bush in 30
Seconds ad contest. CBS refuses to air it.

To check out the ad and ask CBS to air ads like this one, go to:

http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/

Thanks.

in which I take the words “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and replace them with “Santa Claus” and replace “weapons” with “Santa”:

DIANE SAWYER: Fifty percent of the American people have said that they think the administration exaggerated the evidence going into the war with Iraq, Santa Claus, connection to terrorism. Are the American people wrong? Misguided?

PRESIDENT BUSH: The intelligence I operated on was good sound intelligence, the same intelligence that my predecessor operated on. The – there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The – otherwise the United Nations might – wouldn’t a passed, you know, resolution after resolution after resolution, demanding that he disarm. … I first went to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002, and said you’ve given this man resolution after resolution after resolution. He’s ignoring them. You step up and see that he honor those resolutions. Otherwise you become a feckless debating society. … And so for the sake of peace and for the sake of freedom of the Iraqi people, for the sake of security of the country, and for the sake of the credibility of institu – in – international institutions, a group of us moved, and the world is better for it.

DIANE SAWYER: But let me try to ask – this could be a long question. … When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has Santa Claus, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has Santa Claus. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical Santas and now the inspectors say that there’s no evidence of these Santas existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn’t have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence – the inspectors have said they can’t confirm this, they can’t corroborate.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.

DIANE SAWYER: – an active –

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.

DIANE SAWYER: Is it yet?

PRESIDENT BUSH: But what David Kay did discover was they had a Santa program, and had that, that – let me finish for a second. Now it’s more extensive than, than missiles. Had that knowledge been examined by the United Nations or had David Kay’s report been placed in front of the United Nations, he, he, Saddam Hussein, would have been in material breach of 1441, which meant it was a causis belli. And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there’s no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.

DIANE SAWYER: Again, I’m just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer’s gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him.

DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were Santa Claus as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those Santas still –

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what’s the difference?

DIANE SAWYER: Well –

PRESIDENT BUSH: The possibility that he could acquire Santas. If he were to acquire Santas, he would be the danger. That’s, that’s what I’m trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be de – dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man’s a danger. And so we got rid of him and there’s no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone.

DIANE SAWYER: But, but, again, some, some of the critics have said this combined with the failure to establish proof of, of elaborate terrorism contacts, has indicated that there’s just not precision, at best, and misleading, at worst.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Look – what – what we based our evidence on was a very sound National Intelligence Estimate. …

DIANE SAWYER: Nothing should have been more precise?

PRESIDENT BUSH: What – I, I – I made my decision based upon enough intelligence to tell me that this country was threatened with Saddam Hussein in power.

DIANE SAWYER: What would it take to convince you he didn’t have Santa Claus?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.

DIANE SAWYER: And if he doesn’t have Santa Claus [inaudible] –

PRESIDENT BUSH: Diane, you can keep asking the question. I’m telling you – I made the right decision for America –

DIANE SAWYER: But-

PRESIDENT BUSH: – because Saddam Hussein used Santa Claus, invaded Kuwait. … But the fact that he is not there is, means America’s a more secure country.

As I read an article today about how George Bush won’t speak at the British Parliament because he’s afraid of hecklers, I got mad. As I was reading it, I had to keep reminding myself, “don’t post this to your blog, don’t post this to your blog.”

I’ve recently come to the conclusion that posting political rants on your blog, while allowing a healthy release of pent up emotion, really do no good in the grand scheme of things. They also make you look like a whining baby.

If you’re so mad, why don’t you do something about it? Posting the idea that “Bush sucks” on your blog does about as much good as paying a skywriter to post your message above a major metropolitan area. Sure, it might potentially be seen by a large group of people, but ultimately who cares. They’ll probably look up at your message and say either, “Huh, yeah, Bush does suck” or “That asshole! Bush doesn’t suck! He’s great!”

So what? What does that accomplish? Certainly a lot less than if you took your sorry ass down to the local campaign office of a presidential candidate and offered to help, or started a letter writing campaign, or basically any-fucking-thing else.

Now, I know that technically I’m writing about Bush right now. But, I don’t plan on doing it very often in the future. Sure, I might get really riled up again soon. But when that time comes, I’m going to seriously consider actually doing something about it instead of posting to my silly little blog.

So, as a parting shot, I offer these lyrics from the Camper Van Beethoven song, Sweethearts. It was originally written about Ronald Reagan but could just as easily be about George W. Bush. Fuck you, George.

Sweethearts
Camper Van Beethoven

’cause he’s always living back in dixon
Circa 1949
And we’re all sitting at the fountain, at the five and dime

’cause he’s living in some b-movie
The lines they are so clearly drawn
In black and white life is so easy
And we’re all coming along on this one

’cause he’s on a secret mission
Headquarters just radioed in
He left his baby at the dancehall
While the band plays on some sweet song

And on a mission over china
The lady opens up her arms
The flowers bloom where you haved placed them
And the lady smiles, just like mom

Angels wings are icing over
McDonnell Douglas olive drab
They bear the names of our sweethearts
And the captain smiles, as we crash

’cause in the mind of Ronald Reagan
Wheels they turn and gears they grind
Buildings collapse in slow motion
And trains collide, everything is fine

Everything is fine
Everything is fine

Here’s the Radiohead-sponsored cow, painted by Stanley Donwood.

The cow is painted with the names of the 18 companies who have been invited to restructure Iraq.

If you want to do one yourself, here are the instructions.

Just so you know.