« Art & Propaganda | Main | 20 Things To Think About »
Home for the Holidays...
SPECIAL HOLIDAY GREETINGS FROM
THE POLLY SIGH HEALING CENTER FOR THE LUMPEN
This letter came to me early in the week, in anticipation of the joyous celebration that is Thanksgiving. This poor soul carries the burden of several extreme right-wing relatives, and finds the challenge of civilized conversation quite notable. Naturally, I have come to her rescue with the white light of familial survival. God bless us, every one.
Dear Polly:
I am writing out of complete frustration and a good deal of nervous energy. Thanksgiving approaches, and I will have to spend an entire day with my Uncle Leonid (Lenny) and Aunt Sequoia (Squiggy). They are so far right, they make Jerry Falwell look like a hippy. They are so far right, they make Bill Frist look like a raving liberal. They are so far right… well, you get the idea.
Anyway, I know that at some point in the day, Uncle Lenny will start prattling on about how wonderful the war is going in Iraq, and how President Bush is a great military leader and a brilliant man. I will sit there praying that I do not have a stroke at the dinner table.
I usually don’t respond to him, but this year, I just don’t think I can take it. He’s such a mad partisan that he doesn’t care if we’re really winning the war or not – he just wants everyone to pretend it’s all okay, because the President is a member of his political party. I think we’re Americans before we’re members of a political party, and I think we owe it to our country to be honest about what’s happening in Iraq. But not Lenny and Squiggy… No siree.
It’s so delusional, it makes me wonder if maybe he’s getting a bit loopy in the head, if you know what I mean… Anyway, I’d like some helpful advice on how to keep cool, and not blow a gasket and grab him by his chicken neck and squeeze until his eyes pop out.
Help me.
Terrified of Thanksgiving
Dear TOT:
Alas, you are not the only person in America facing this dilemma over the holidays. One in three families has the same problem.
There are a couple of ways to handle the situation. Here are some of your options:
1) Ignore your Uncle and drink continuously all day. At some point, you’ll start dancing, and you won’t give a damn about politics;
2) Challenge your Uncle with cold hard facts. This can make you feel better, although partisans of that degree generally aren’t moved by reality;
3) Kill your Uncle with the gravy boat, and bury him in the back yard at midnight, along with the remains of your first gerbil and your goldfish.
Think carefully before you decide which course to pursue. It’s possible that your Uncle will still be alive next Thanksgiving, so you want to leave yourself a little wiggle room, if you know what I mean.
And please update us after the holiday on how things went.
Your friend,
Polly
** UPDATE FROM TOT **
Dear Polly:
My Uncle is still alive, although his nose is different now. As per the advice of my attorney, I’m not at liberty to disclose more than that.
God Bless You.
TOT
Miss you Polly.
I, too, had a similar reunion with the sister-in-law a couple of weeks ago. An otherwise savvy woman, she doesn't like the disrespect shown George, and doesn't like to hear how dumb we think he is. A pocketbook GOP, although she says it's for Israel, she doesn't much like Uncle Teddy 'cause she thinks he's a lush, Kennedy that is, and can't share much of my respect for the people and policy on the other side. I sympathize with TOT, but suggesting killing is a little harsh.
Oh, I had a great time.
We avoided all political talk.
However, they were going to watch a movie called "Stealth" about going to war without the casualties, and I 'scored' a point by pointing out the fact that the side being bombed were being killed and that was wrong.
But I'm pro-life.
On Thanksgiving long weekend I have mostly surfed the web, stopped a giant CD holder from collapsing and moved pictures around on the walls. Now figuring out what to do with turkey.
Anyway, here is the story of why Bush was so obsessed with Al-Jazeera:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1651882,00.html
Ha hahahaha!!
Polly, you are so funny!!! Hysterical.
Tot,
I really like option number one. Just drink until you don't care about politics anymore, in fact until you don't even care if you have to spend the whole afternoon in Lenny and Squiggy's presence. Life's a party. Don't let anyone rain on your parade. Especially not an ultra wing-nut conservative aunt and uncle. EE-Gads! Anyone who would make Falwell look like a raving hippy certainly is way out there on the ultra wing-nut right. But, I know what you mean. I am related to a few of those myself.
Here's what I did. I slugged a double before dinner, kept a flask outside the back porch, and danced my way through the dishes. I was able to escape just before the family sat down to watch their nightly viewing of Pat Robertson's "700 Club". They were so busy admiring Pat they didn't even notice me fox trotting my way out the back door.
P.S. Sorry to hear your Uncle got his nose bent out of shape. Maybe some day you can share the details and a bit about your technique.
Which reminds me, as a "by the way".
If you haven't seen "Mixed Nuts" with Steve Martin, and Adam Schandler, you might pick it up over the holidays. It is one of my favorite holiday comedies.
Pentagon Expanding its Domestic Espionage
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600857.html
Allawi says Iraq as bad as under Saddam
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/26/2307/3735
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1651789,00.html
Bush Al-Jazeera Obsession
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1651765,00.html
I just went to hear Brazilian music in a bookstore & was able to discuss this story with a journalist who almost went to work for Al-Jazeera and says they are quite fair and balanced & that the American press just presents one side.
Burning of Taleban Bodies "not a crime"
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article329586.ece
It's for "hygiene," says the military
Frank Rich on Iraq: 'What was not a lie?'
RAW STORY
A column set to appear in Sunday's New York Times by Frank Rich explores a number of 'cover-ups' attributed to the Bush Administration about the war in Iraq in recent reports, RAW STORY has learned.
Among other examples, Rich covers the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) ten days after 9/11 that showed "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with al-Qaida" which Murray Waas reported was kept from Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and last Sunday's LA Times story which described German intelligence officials as being "shocked" that President Bush and Colin L. Powell used "not proven" WMD intel in key prewar speeches.
Excerpts from Rich's Sunday column:
Each day brings slam-dunk evidence that the doomsday threats marshaled by the administration to sell the war weren't, in Cheney-speak, just dishonest and reprehensible but also corrupt and shameless. The more the president and vice president tell us that their mistakes were merely innocent byproducts of the same bad intelligence seen by everyone else in the world, the more we learn that this was not so. The web of half-truths and falsehoods used to sell the war did not happen by accident; it was woven by design and then foisted on the public by a PR operation built expressly for that purpose in the White House. The real point of the Bush-Cheney verbal fisticuffs this month, like the earlier campaign to take down Joseph Wilson, is less to smite Democrats than to cover up wrongdoing in the executive branch between 9/11 and shock and awe.
....
What these revelations also tell us is that Bush was wrong when he said in his Veterans Day speech that more than 100 congressional Democrats who voted for the Iraqi war resolution "had access to the same intelligence" he did. They didn't have access to the President's Daily Brief that Waas uncovered. They didn't have access to the information that German intelligence officials spoke about to The Los Angeles Times. Nor did they have access to material from a Defense Intelligence Agency report, released by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan this month, which as early as February 2002 demolished the reliability of another major source that the administration had persistently used for its false claims about Iraqi-Qaida collaboration.
The more we learn about the road to Iraq, the more we realize that it's a losing game to ask what lies the White House told along the way. A simpler question might be: What was not a lie? The situation recalls Mary McCarthy's explanation to Dick Cavett about why she thought Lillian Hellman was a dishonest writer: "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the."'
New York Times subscribers can read the rest of "Dishonest, Reprehensible, Corrupt..." at nytimes.com
We have our own Murtha - Congressman Norm Dicks. He's a big footballer & I've encountered him in food lines at political events. He was initially against the war, in disagreement with Congressman Jim McDermott, from my district. Now - an about face. He gives some reasons, dovetailing nicely with the Frank Rich column (toward the end) that Monkey just posted. Keep in mind that Nicks and Adam Smith are Democrats, conservative Democrats.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002645321_normdicks25m.html
Defense hawk Dicks says he now sees war as a mistake
Rep. Norm Dicks voted in 2002 to back the war.
WASHINGTON — It was after 11 p.m. on Friday when Rep. Norm Dicks finally left the Capitol, fresh from the heated House debate on the Iraq war. He was demoralized and angry.
Sometime during the rancorous, seven-hour floor fight over whether to immediately withdraw U.S. troops, one Texas Republican compared those who question America's military strategy in Iraq to the hippies and "peaceniks" who protested the Vietnam War and "did terrible things to troop morale."
The House was in a frenzy over comments by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had called for the troops to leave Iraq in six months. In response, the White House initially likened Murtha, a 37-year veteran of the Marines and an officer in Vietnam, to lefty moviemaker Michael Moore.
Then a new Republican representative from Ohio, Jean Schmidt, relayed a message to the House that she said she had received from a Marine colonel in her district: "Cowards cut and run; Marines never do."
During much of the debate, Dicks, a Democrat from Bremerton, huddled in the Democrats' cloakroom with Murtha, a longtime friend. Both men are known for their strong support of the military over the years. Now, they felt, that record was being questioned.
"There was a lot of anger back there," Dicks said in an interview this week. "It was powerful. I can't remember anything quite as traumatic as this in my history here."
Near midnight, he drove to his D.C. home, poured a drink and wondered how defense hawks like he and Murtha had gotten lumped in with peaceniks by their colleagues and the administration.
And he thought about all that had happened over the past couple of years to change his mind about the war in Iraq.
Voted to back Bush
In October 2002, Dicks voted loudly and proudly to back President Bush in a future deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq — one of two Washington state Democratic House members to do so. Adam Smith, whose district includes Fort Lewis, was the other.
Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States.
After visiting Iraq early in the war, "Norm told me the Iraqis were going to be throwing petals at American troops," Murtha said in an interview this week.
Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.
While he disagrees with Murtha's conclusion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn within six months, Dicks said, "He may well be right if this insurgency goes much further."
"The insurgency has gotten worse and worse," he said. "That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong — we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake."
Dicks, a former member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.
Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would "absolutely not" have voted for the war.
The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.
But Dicks says the intelligence was "doctored." And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.
"A lot of us relied on [former CIA director] George Tenet. We had many meetings with the White House and CIA, and they did not tell us there was a dispute between the CIA, Commerce or the Pentagon on the WMDs," he said.
He and Murtha tended to give the military, the CIA and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Dicks says. But he now says he and his colleagues should have pressed much harder for answers.
"Norm ... has agonized"
"All of us have gone through a difficult period, but Norm really has agonized," Murtha said this week.
Murtha and Dicks were appointed to the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee in 1979, three years after Dicks first was elected to Congress. They rarely have disagreed, especially in their support of the military.
In October 2002, Dicks made an impassioned speech during the House debate over whether to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq without waiting for the United Nations to act.
"Based on the briefings I have had, and based on the information provided by our intelligence agencies to members of Congress, I now believe there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that he may be close to developing a nuclear weapon," Dicks said at the time.
By spring 2003, U.N. weapons inspectors said they hadn't found hard evidence of WMDs in Iraq. But Dicks remained convinced of Iraq's threat.
"We're going to find things [Saddam] had not disclosed," he said shortly before the war began in March 2003. "There is no doubt about that. Period. Underlined."
By June of that year, with no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found, Dicks remained steadfast in his support for the war but called for a congressional inquiry into the intelligence agencies' work on Iraq. "I think the American people deserve to know what happened and why it happened," he said at the time.
That same month, Dicks was upset when a good friend, Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, was forced into retirement after telling Congress that the secretary of defense was not sending enough troops to win the peace.
Growing doubts
On July 6, 2003, Dicks awoke to read the now-famous New York Times opinion piece by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.
Wilson wrote that he had found no evidence of such Iraqi intentions and criticized Bush for making the claim in his State of the Union address two months before the invasion.
"That Joe Wilson article was very troubling," Dicks said.
Dicks grew somber about Iraq. Rep. Jim McDermott, who represents Seattle and had opposed the war from the start, talked with him about it.
"Norm is a lot like Jack Murtha. These are guys with a somewhat different philosophy than me," McDermott said recently. "This an extremely difficult time for them because they have to reassess what they were led to believe" about prewar intelligence.
The White House maintains it did nothing to mischaracterize what it knew about Iraq and its weapons.
Dicks' private concerns became more public two months ago. At a breakfast fundraiser on Capitol Hill, Dicks surprised the guests with a tough talk against the war.
The White House last Friday called Dicks to gauge his support. House GOP leaders were pushing for a vote on a resolution they hoped would put Democrats on the spot by forcing them to either endorse an immediate troop withdrawal or stay the course in Iraq.
Dicks said he told the White House that "their attack on Murtha was the most outrageous comment I've ever heard."
The resolution, denounced by Democrats, ultimately was defeated 403-3.
Dicks says the Pentagon should begin a phased withdrawal and leave some troops to help maintain order and train a new Iraq army. "We've got to be very concerned that Iraq comes out of this whole," he said.
But he added, "We can't take forever."
Some people say it takes eight to nine years to control an insurgency, Dicks said.
"I don't think the American people will give eight to nine years, and I sure as heck won't."
US Congressmen Injured in Iraq when Convoy Overturns
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/13265278.htm
The PDB debunking the Al Qaeda-Iraq link is the smoking gun evidence.... no wonder Bush and Cheney don't want anyone to see it.
Drip, drip, drip - just like Watergate
I would like to preface my post by clearly stating that in the past I have never called for Bush's impeachment. However after reading the last thread, and the beginning of this thread, I was struck by the tone of the conversation among equally valuable contributors to the blog.
However, if and only if a congressmen is willing to take the stand and swear that the President of the United States lied by ommission and some degree of commission, will I absolutely call for the impeachment of both the President and his Vice-President. Until then it is just a shouting match (including among ourselves).
Yet, as more members of Congress are willing to publically acknowledge their mistake, we will eventually have a better chance of bringing the soldiers home. And isn't that something we all can agree about?
Polly Sigh comes through with another great one. Fun to read after all the very serious links. Thanks.
Believe it or not, I just saw a promotional ad for a sitcom with womens' mammaries as the focal point.
The clever name for this show: Stacked.
The star: Pamela Anderson.
The network: Fox.
Are they trying to make themselves irrelevent or they laying down the gauntlet?
Bloggin with myself......my mother warned me not to do this.
We're with ya, man
altho' 16 year old son is intrigued by the Fox show mentioned above...
At least he can't vote in the next election but I think I know which way he would go. The question for many in his age group.....boobs or brains in 2008?
Pamela Anderson has arms?
In 2000 I recall David Letterman referred to George Bush as a, "Big Boob".
I rest my case.
Yet, as more members of Congress are willing to publically acknowledge their mistake, we will eventually have a better chance of bringing the soldiers home. And isn't that something we all can agree about?
Posted by: oncall at November 27, 2005 01:38 PM
Absolutely...we have to do whatever it takes to bring the troops home -- alive -- as soon as possible.
But this is something I'm struggling with: the absolute desire for an end to bring the soldiers home and my own internal demons who want this regime to suffer for their greed & lies (and especially after reading Frank Rich's commentary today, as mentioned by monKey). In the perfect world, I want the credit for ending the war to go to those who deserve it, like those brave members of Congress (& others like Cindy Sheehan) who are taking a stand against this regime's bad war policies. What I'm realizing is that the bigger issue is one of global & historical perspective -- how the US is viewed & judged.
Yesterday's article ( http://tinyurl.com/7fu6b )from the LA Times talks about how the US is now planning for significant troop withdrawal -- with a lot of the credit going to this regime/Republicans. And then there's this article from today's NYTimes that gives some historical background from previous wars... I really hate to swallow my pride & desire for justice for the greater good, but in the end, that may be what it takes...
Saving Face and How to Say Farewell
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/weekinreview/27glan.html?pagewanted=2
I am with you in distress, madame.
I want the end of this horrific war.
I also want the end of this horrific regime.
Posted by: oncall at November 27, 2005 02:18 PM
Oncall, thanks for the great links in the previous thread. Also enjoyed the one with the graphic art you posted the link to. That was fun for some mind fluff between the heavy articles.
Watch that blogging by yourself. You don't want to end up with a braille keyboard.
16-year old son has revealed that "STACKED" already exists and he has actually seen it.
Mom: So it's about women's chests
Son: NO, it's about BOOKS
Mom: Pamela Sue Anderson is on a show about BOOKS??? I am having severe cognitive dissonance...
Son: Well, it's about a girl who wants to work in a bookstore so she can change her life around.
Mom: ...
Son: Her presence in the bookstore causes all kinds of problems with the people who frequent the bookstore.
Mom: So it IS about her chest.
Son: Well........... yes.
Yet, as more members of Congress are willing to publically acknowledge their mistake, we will eventually have a better chance of bringing the soldiers home. And isn't that something we all can agree about?
Posted by: oncall at November 27, 2005 01:38 PM
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Probably two years ago, when people enraged by the awful Bush presidency started clamoring for impeachment, I counseled patience and level-headedness (and the reality that impeachment would never happen). I said to these people that they should elect Democrats (or liberals) and take over the House or the Senate - in order to get a balance of power between Dems and Reps in Washington etc...
There are literally hundreds of "Impeach Bush" or "I Hate Bush" websites and discussion groups on the internet. They have popped up everywhere like dandeelions. And now I am beginning to think
that this administration is so awful and corrupt that it is worthy of impeachment. (Although I dislike impeachment because it becomes a political circus as in the case of Clinton's impeachment.) One could try to impeach using the "stolen elections" in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 basis. Or perhaps the lying to Congress about Iraq basis.
Another reason to be wary of impeachment is that it backfired in the case of Clinton's impeachment, actually making him more popular and costing the Republicans seats in the Congress.
Either way it looks like we are in for an awful and long 3 years until Jan 2009.
I have had an "Impeach Bush" sign in my window for four years.
Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark had an excellent case ready way back then - just needs someone to initiate it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1652244,00.html
US may use planes as substitute for troops in Iraq
The Bush administration is considering a plan to put America's awesome airpower at the disposal of Iraqi commanders, as a way of reducing the number of US troops on the ground. The plan is causing consternation among commanders in US air force, who say it could lead to increased civilian casualties and lead to airstrikes being used as means of settling old scores.
According to an article in the New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh, the possibility of using airpower as a substitute for American troops on the ground has caused unease in the military, with air force commanders objecting to the possibility that Iraqis will eventually be responsible for target selection.
"Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and blame it on someone else?" a senior military planner told the magazine. "Will some Iraqis be targeting on behalf of al-Qaida, or the insurgency, or the Iranians?"
With the White House under increasing pressure over its handling of the war in Iraq, senior administration figures are for the first time signalling the possibility of significant troop reductions. In a departure from previous statements the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said last week that the training of Iraqi soldiers had advanced so far that the current number of US troops in the country probably would not be needed much longer.
However, there remains scepticism about the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from the 160,000 US troops in the country. Under the plans reported in the New Yorker, air power will be used to try to fill the gap left by troop reductions. But with the insurgency operating mostly within urban environments, and planes relying on laser-guided bombs directed from the ground to try to avoid collateral damage, there are fears that turning the process over the Iraqis could lead to increased civilian casualties.
"The guy with the laser is the targeteer. Not the pilot ... The people on the ground are calling in targets that the pilots can't verify. And we're going to turn this process over to the Iraqis?" a former high-level intelligence official said.