Thursday, January 27, 2005
The Poodle Bites
Well it only took about two years, but Tony Blair apparently finally had something negative to say about the Bush administration. Known by his Bush-hating, Iraq-War-loathing countrymen as 'The Poodle' for his lapdog-like allegiance to the 43rd US president, Blair finally had what AP was quick to call 'harsh words' for TeamBush.
In fact, they were the sound words of a friend who had seen his pal ramble too far astray for too long. "If America wants the rest of the world to be part of the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda, too," he told the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, a gathering of 2,500 political and business leaders."
Blair specifically cited the Kyoto Protocols as an example on which the President could show more of an international spirit. The accord will come into effect this year without US participation (To put it mildly--TeamBush has worked diligently for years to undermine the agreement ever being ratified).
Their French counterpart Jacques Chirac (who, you'll recall, is actually a rightist candidate despite Yahoo American attempts to portray him as a pinko because of his anti-Iraq War stance) also addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. His message emplored "rich nations [to] raise billions of aid dollars through new taxes and other measures.
Referring to the Dec. 26 tsunami, he said: "The world suffers chronically from what has been strikingly called the 'silent tsunamis.' Famine. Infectious diseases that decimate the life force of entire continents.""
So will TeamBush listen? Is it still 'my way or the highway' for this White House? One thing is certain, when your best buddy and your playground nemesis start singing the same tune, it makes good sense to start paying attention.
Well it only took about two years, but Tony Blair apparently finally had something negative to say about the Bush administration. Known by his Bush-hating, Iraq-War-loathing countrymen as 'The Poodle' for his lapdog-like allegiance to the 43rd US president, Blair finally had what AP was quick to call 'harsh words' for TeamBush.
In fact, they were the sound words of a friend who had seen his pal ramble too far astray for too long. "If America wants the rest of the world to be part of the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda, too," he told the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, a gathering of 2,500 political and business leaders."
Blair specifically cited the Kyoto Protocols as an example on which the President could show more of an international spirit. The accord will come into effect this year without US participation (To put it mildly--TeamBush has worked diligently for years to undermine the agreement ever being ratified).
Their French counterpart Jacques Chirac (who, you'll recall, is actually a rightist candidate despite Yahoo American attempts to portray him as a pinko because of his anti-Iraq War stance) also addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. His message emplored "rich nations [to] raise billions of aid dollars through new taxes and other measures.
Referring to the Dec. 26 tsunami, he said: "The world suffers chronically from what has been strikingly called the 'silent tsunamis.' Famine. Infectious diseases that decimate the life force of entire continents.""
So will TeamBush listen? Is it still 'my way or the highway' for this White House? One thing is certain, when your best buddy and your playground nemesis start singing the same tune, it makes good sense to start paying attention.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
When the justification for war falls in a forest . . .
Does anyone hear it?
It would appear not. Note the placement of this article at the top of page A-5 in yesterday's Philly Inquirer--a few paragraphs crammed in above an almost full-page ad for a local department store.
Not that it should come as any surprise. Yes, Saddam did have some weapons capabilities in the 1980s and early 90s (much of it enhanced by US patronage back in those heady dictatorial days), but as the interim Duelfer Report showed, they primary rationales for those weapons were as a deterrent toward Iran, a threat to internal enemies, and the general sense of regional machismo that germ warfare provides the average tin-horn despot.
Who needs a valid rationale for war anyway? Not TeamBush, clearly. To be completely non-partisan about this, LBJ was also on shaky ground with the Gulf of Tonkin resolutions in 1964--but Vietnam was never nearly as crucial to the world as the Middle East.
But why worry about truth when there are so many well-worn soundbites waiting to be dusted off from the recent November election cycle?
When asked about the findings, Executive mouthpiece Scott McClellan said:
"Based on what we know today, the President would have taken the same action," press secretary Scott McClellan said, "because this is about protecting the American people."
Of course it is. And anyway, George has a forty million dollar party to go to next week. I'm sure he's busy getting his hair done or cowboy boots polished or something (such a man of the people, that one).
Does anyone hear it?
It would appear not. Note the placement of this article at the top of page A-5 in yesterday's Philly Inquirer--a few paragraphs crammed in above an almost full-page ad for a local department store.
Not that it should come as any surprise. Yes, Saddam did have some weapons capabilities in the 1980s and early 90s (much of it enhanced by US patronage back in those heady dictatorial days), but as the interim Duelfer Report showed, they primary rationales for those weapons were as a deterrent toward Iran, a threat to internal enemies, and the general sense of regional machismo that germ warfare provides the average tin-horn despot.
Who needs a valid rationale for war anyway? Not TeamBush, clearly. To be completely non-partisan about this, LBJ was also on shaky ground with the Gulf of Tonkin resolutions in 1964--but Vietnam was never nearly as crucial to the world as the Middle East.
But why worry about truth when there are so many well-worn soundbites waiting to be dusted off from the recent November election cycle?
When asked about the findings, Executive mouthpiece Scott McClellan said:
"Based on what we know today, the President would have taken the same action," press secretary Scott McClellan said, "because this is about protecting the American people."
Of course it is. And anyway, George has a forty million dollar party to go to next week. I'm sure he's busy getting his hair done or cowboy boots polished or something (such a man of the people, that one).
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Premature Evacuation?
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. . . apparently going straight out of Iraq if ten-term GOP House member Howard Coble gets his way. Although many Democrats have criticized the Iraq War, the prevailing belief of party members is that troops need to remain in the now-shattered country until it is stabilized. The exception being Rep. Dennis Kucinich (who, in a sane country, would be our President-elect).
Coble joins fellow GOP Rep. Leach as the only other party member who has openly asked for short-term troop withdrawal to be considered. Still, his 'bold' declaration was couched in support for the mission in Iraq and his vote giving Bush authorization to use force.
That's a bit of 'have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too' sentiment.
Yep, we got Saddam alright. And it only took destabilizing the country, destroying its infrastructure, and making Iraq a haven for international terrorists and criminals to do so. In other words, now that the Pandora's Box has been opened, let's just declare victory and go home.
I guess if those towelhead Eye-raqis refuse to recognize all of the good we've done for them, well it just shows what ingrates they are.
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. . . apparently going straight out of Iraq if ten-term GOP House member Howard Coble gets his way. Although many Democrats have criticized the Iraq War, the prevailing belief of party members is that troops need to remain in the now-shattered country until it is stabilized. The exception being Rep. Dennis Kucinich (who, in a sane country, would be our President-elect).
Coble joins fellow GOP Rep. Leach as the only other party member who has openly asked for short-term troop withdrawal to be considered. Still, his 'bold' declaration was couched in support for the mission in Iraq and his vote giving Bush authorization to use force.
The congressman said he thought Bush was correct in attacking Iraq, and that he and most of his constituents still believe it was the right decision because "we've done a lot of good over there." That includes capturing Saddam Hussein, "the international terrorist, the tyrant, the snake," he said. But a troop withdrawal should be an option if the Iraqi government is unable or unwilling to "shoulder more of the heavy lifting" for its own security, Coble said. There has been little or no indication that the Iraqi government can do that, he said.
That's a bit of 'have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too' sentiment.
Yep, we got Saddam alright. And it only took destabilizing the country, destroying its infrastructure, and making Iraq a haven for international terrorists and criminals to do so. In other words, now that the Pandora's Box has been opened, let's just declare victory and go home.
I guess if those towelhead Eye-raqis refuse to recognize all of the good we've done for them, well it just shows what ingrates they are.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Forget the Lawyers, Kill All the Consultants
Did Willie Shakespeare get it wrong? Could he not wrap his brilliant yet decidely Elizabethan mind around the concept of political consultancy? Maybe he was at least half-right; I mean, many of the consultants are lawyers anyway, so no harm, no foul Oh Bard of Avon.
Adding to the developing literature of failure surrounding yet another Democratic defeat at the national ballot box (the idea of secession still has currency in my mind), Amy Sullivan has written a piece that gets to the heart of the matter for Washington Monthly.
Her analysis shows that Big-name Democratic consultants like Bob Shrum, Mark Mellman, and Joe Hansen continue to be the standard bearers for their party's electoral strategy--despite losing big contests time-and-time again. Why? Sullivan comes up with a few answers. First, these big players have a lock on power and access, and hence, money. The D's, for good or ill (mostly the latter) radiate power out of Washington. The GOP, by contrast, recognizes and puts to much more effective use, their outside players who shake-up and innovate and, by the way, win elections. Sure, the bloated GOP stalwarts populating K Street still get enough contracts and cash to keep them fat:
"but they're not in the inner circle.” In 2004, seasoned Washington media
strategist Alex Castellanos paid the bills with a handful of safe congressional
races and a few unsuccessful primary challengers. Meanwhile, nearly every tight
Senate race (North Carolina, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Florida) was
handled by a Tampa-based firm, The Victory Group. "
So what now in 2005 as the Democrats look again at realigning the stars and tweaking the margins of their once-formidable electoral empire? Is there an urge to 'toss dem' bums out' and start afresh? Sullivan concludes, "As for Hansen, his connection to Daschle may not help him now that the South Dakotan has vacated the Democratic leader's office. But don't cry for Joe Hansen—he's the consultant for incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. "
Now there's a clear path to success.
Did Willie Shakespeare get it wrong? Could he not wrap his brilliant yet decidely Elizabethan mind around the concept of political consultancy? Maybe he was at least half-right; I mean, many of the consultants are lawyers anyway, so no harm, no foul Oh Bard of Avon.
Adding to the developing literature of failure surrounding yet another Democratic defeat at the national ballot box (the idea of secession still has currency in my mind), Amy Sullivan has written a piece that gets to the heart of the matter for Washington Monthly.
Her analysis shows that Big-name Democratic consultants like Bob Shrum, Mark Mellman, and Joe Hansen continue to be the standard bearers for their party's electoral strategy--despite losing big contests time-and-time again. Why? Sullivan comes up with a few answers. First, these big players have a lock on power and access, and hence, money. The D's, for good or ill (mostly the latter) radiate power out of Washington. The GOP, by contrast, recognizes and puts to much more effective use, their outside players who shake-up and innovate and, by the way, win elections. Sure, the bloated GOP stalwarts populating K Street still get enough contracts and cash to keep them fat:
"but they're not in the inner circle.” In 2004, seasoned Washington media
strategist Alex Castellanos paid the bills with a handful of safe congressional
races and a few unsuccessful primary challengers. Meanwhile, nearly every tight
Senate race (North Carolina, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Florida) was
handled by a Tampa-based firm, The Victory Group. "
So what now in 2005 as the Democrats look again at realigning the stars and tweaking the margins of their once-formidable electoral empire? Is there an urge to 'toss dem' bums out' and start afresh? Sullivan concludes, "As for Hansen, his connection to Daschle may not help him now that the South Dakotan has vacated the Democratic leader's office. But don't cry for Joe Hansen—he's the consultant for incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. "
Now there's a clear path to success.
Return of the Wide-Open Blogger!!
News of the demise of AllHopped Up was not entirely accurate. Life intervened, election cycle depression, ostrich-like evasion on the pitiful subject of Iraq (January elections. . . lookin' good!) and general malaise following the (actual, reasonably uncontested) election of TeamBush had me in a funk.
I spent the month of October trying to contact the nation's Yahoos and fencesitters in a now-obviously futile attempt to swing the election toward the least objectionable candidate. I hope I at least got a few people to explore worldviews that go further than the edge of the Super Wal-Mart parking lot, but in the end Karl that evil bastard had yet another day in the electoral sun.
TeamBush hasn't even squandered millions for the inaugural yet (most expensive in history--primarily a result of security costs, owing much to the fact that W. is the most hated president in modern history) and they are fattening up an uber-right-wing agenda to dismantle what's left of those parts of government that are neither well-armed nor serve the wealthy.
I feel like it's almost futile to go on blogging and ranting against these well-heeled privatizing freaks. But then I think of people who lost everything and everyone in an instant on an otherwise beautiful tropical day last December 26, and I realize how selfish I am to even consider using the words futility or despair or devastated.
Back to your regularly scheduled rant.
News of the demise of AllHopped Up was not entirely accurate. Life intervened, election cycle depression, ostrich-like evasion on the pitiful subject of Iraq (January elections. . . lookin' good!) and general malaise following the (actual, reasonably uncontested) election of TeamBush had me in a funk.
I spent the month of October trying to contact the nation's Yahoos and fencesitters in a now-obviously futile attempt to swing the election toward the least objectionable candidate. I hope I at least got a few people to explore worldviews that go further than the edge of the Super Wal-Mart parking lot, but in the end Karl that evil bastard had yet another day in the electoral sun.
TeamBush hasn't even squandered millions for the inaugural yet (most expensive in history--primarily a result of security costs, owing much to the fact that W. is the most hated president in modern history) and they are fattening up an uber-right-wing agenda to dismantle what's left of those parts of government that are neither well-armed nor serve the wealthy.
I feel like it's almost futile to go on blogging and ranting against these well-heeled privatizing freaks. But then I think of people who lost everything and everyone in an instant on an otherwise beautiful tropical day last December 26, and I realize how selfish I am to even consider using the words futility or despair or devastated.
Back to your regularly scheduled rant.
