Liberation by Starvation
posted by Susan Stark

If anybody doubts that this is a genocide being committed in Iraq, please read the following:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20071227/wl_oneworld/65731564101198796661;_ylt=Ajt9AZJR5kiWdKpgZ0Is2OkE1vAI

Iraq Slashes Food Rations, Putting Lives at Risk
Ahmed Ali and Dahr Jamail, Inter Press Service (IPS)Thu Dec 27, 5:31 PM ET

The Iraqi government announcement that monthly food rations will be cut by half has left many Iraqis asking how they can survive.
The government also wants to reduce the number of people depending on the rationing system by five million by June 2008.
Iraq’s food rations system was introduced by the Saddam Hussein government in 1991 in response to the UN economic sanctions. Families were allotted basic foodstuffs monthly because the Iraqi Dinar and the economy collapsed.
The sanctions, imposed after Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait, were described as “genocidal” by Denis Halliday, then UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq. Halliday quit his post in protest against the U.S.-backed sanctions.
The sanctions killed half a million Iraqi children, and as many adults, according to the UN. They brought malnutrition, disease, and lack of medicines. Iraqis became nearly completely reliant on food rations for survival. The programme has continued into the U.S.-led occupation.
But now the U.S.-backed Iraqi government has announced it will halve the essential items in the ration because of “insufficient funds and spiralling inflation.”
The cuts, which are to be introduced in the beginning of 2008, have drawn widespread criticism. The Iraqi government is unable to supply the rations with several billion dollars at its disposal, whereas Saddam Hussein was able to maintain the programme with less than a billion dollars.
“In 2007, we asked for 3.2 billion dollars for rationing basic foodstuffs,” Mohammed Hanoun, Iraq’s chief of staff for the ministry of trade told al-Jazeera. “But since the prices of imported foodstuff doubled in the past year, we requested 7.2 billion dollars for this year. That request was denied.”
The trade ministry is now preparing to slash the list of subsidised items by half to five basic food items, “namely flour, sugar, rice, oil, and infant milk,” Hanoun said.
The imminent move will affect nearly 10 million people who depend on the rationing system. But it has already caused outrage in Baquba, 40 km northeast of Baghdad.
“The monthly food ration was the only help from the government,” local grocer Ibrahim al-Ageely told IPS. “It was of great benefit for the families. The food ration consisted of two kilos of rice, sugar, soap, tea, detergent, wheat flour, lentils, chick-peas, and other items for every individual.”
Another grocer said the food ration was the “life of all Iraqis; every month, Iraqis wait in queues to receive their food rations.”
According to an Oxfam International report released in July this year, “60 percent (of Iraqis) currently have access to rations through the government-run Public Distribution System (PDS), down from 96 percent in 2004.”
The report said that “43 percent of Iraqis suffer from absolute poverty,” and that according to some estimates over half the population are now without work. “Children are hit the hardest by the decline in living standards. Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 percent before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to 28 percent now.”
While salaries have increased since the invasion of March 2003, they have not kept pace with the dramatic increase in the prices of food and fuel.
“My salary is 280 dollars, and I have six children,” 49-year-old secondary school teacher Ali Kadhim told IPS. “The increase in my salary was neutralised by an increase in the price of food. I cannot afford to buy the foodstuffs in addition to the other necessary expenses of life.”
“The high increase in food prices led people to condemn the delays in the ration every month,” Salah Kadhim, an employee in the directorate-general of health for Diyala province told IPS. “The jobless just cannot afford to buy food.”
“The food ration still represents a big part of the domestic budget,” Muneer Lafta, a 51-year-old employee at the health directorate told IPS. Without the ration, she said, families have to go to the market. Because Iraqi families are large, usually six to 12 people, shopping for food is simply unaffordable.
“I and my wife have five boys and six girls, so the ration costs a lot when it has to be bought,” 55-year-old resident Khalaf Atiya told IPS. “I cannot afford food and also other expenses like study, clothes, doctors.”
People in Baquba, living with violence and joblessness for long, are now preparing for this new twist.
“No security, no food, no electricity, no trade, no services. So life is good,” said one resident, who would not give his name.
Many fear the food ration cuts can spark unrest. “The government will commit a big mistake, because providing enough food ration could compensate the government’s mistakes in other fields like security,” a local physician told IPS. “The Iraq will now feel that he, or she, is of no value to the government.”

Bhutto Assassinated

This is huge.

I’ve been writing since 1999 that Gen. Musharraf’s regime wasn’t the prescription for, but rather the cause of, instability in Pakistan and South Asia. Here’s where the rubber hits the road.

Now the only salvation for a post-Musharraf Pakistan–and Pakistan MUST get rid of Musharraf–is Nawaz Sharif. It’s far from certain that he enjoys the political credibility and broad-based support to rule the country. But if he fails, my long-predicted nightmare scenario could be at hand. Fracture, disintegration, warlordism, full-on Talibanization leading to Islamists waging (possibly nuclear) war against India.

This is America’s mess: we made Musharraf and we supplied him. Calls for military involvement there would not necessarily be legally or morally illegitimate.

Again: this is huge.

Merry Christmas
posted by SantaDon
Help where you can. Spay and neuter your pets. Treat people better than they deserve. Call out BS when you see it. It all adds up in the end, and we’re kinda in a deficit. And yeah, that’s me posing with pets for charity. If anyone ever asks you “Do ferrets stink?”, you can tell them that I said yes. A lot.

Sunday Funnies
posted by TheDon

Meat the Press

Oh Goody! We’re starting off with a round of “How Crazy is Ron Paul?” The over-under is “raving loon”, and I’m taking the over.
First notion – get rid of income tax and the IRS. Make up the difference with spending cuts. I’m liking my chances of winning this round.
Russert: “But if you eliminate the income tax, do you know how much lost revenue that would be?”
Paul: “A lot.” (Seriously. That was his answer.)
Russert: “Over a trillion dollars.”
Paul: “That’s good!”
(shortly after that)
Paul: “You need the income tax to police the world and run the Welfare State. I want a Constitutional-sized government. Use the Constitution as our guide, and you wouldn’t need the income tax.”
This clip should be required viewing for all the liberals who are attracted to Paul’s anti-war views. And he’s just getting warmed up!
He then defends his view that Israel wants us to bomb Iran for their needs, and that he would cut foriegn aid to Israel, and all others. He uses the same arguments used to destroy our social safety net, that making them stand on their own two feet will make them stronger.
Paul then successfully defends his (correct) assertion that Al Qaeda attacked us because we provoked them in many ways for many years. He equates neocons and their empire-building ways with the (small number of) Islamists who want to take over the world, and dates planning for the invasion of Iraq to W’s first cabinet meeting.
Paul’s reaction to 9/11 was a fear of big government. Not (as I understand him) the kind we got (spying, torturing, police state), but he says he was concerned about an expansion of the “nanny state”, and is happy that people are rejecting surveillance and the abolition of habeas. He seems to mix up the two concepts, and must be seeing a rejection that I don’t. Last time I checked, we still don’t have habeas or any real checks on the spying and torture.
During his 1988 presidential campaign, Paul wanted to abolish the FBI, CIA, every agency except the Justice and Defense Departments, public schools, welfare, Social Security and farm subsidies. (side note – many Libertarians call for private currencies as well, in case you were wondering about the Treasury.) He would no longer abolish the FBI and CIA, just stop them from secret wars, torture, spying on citizens. He doesn’t “recall” calling for the abolition of public schools, and doesn’t call for it now. He wants to “offer the kids a chance to get out” of Social Security.
Timmeh nails Paul for voting against Katrina aid, but loading up on earmarks. Paul says that he put the earmarks in because of his duties as a representative, but says he never voted for an earmark. Timmeh calls shenanigans. Paul says that he’s just recovering the money that the Feds stole from his constituents, so it’s all good. Tells Timmeh that he (Timmeh) is “confused.” He portrays it as a holy duty, and votes against all spending. He’s a hoot!
Timmeh nails Paul for running on term limits, then serving for 18 years. Paul’s quote? “I never ran on VOLUNTARY term limits.” heh. He’s honorable.
Paul really goes off the rails on immigration. He’s for unlimited immigration, but with no “subsidies”. No food stamps, social security, free health care, free education and amnesty. Well. That WOULD be cheaper. Slaves always are, in the short term. He wants to take away birthright citizenship from illegal immigrants.
He admits to wanting to treat all drugs like alcohol (no real limits on production, sales or consumption by adults), so he’s not all bad. End the war on drugs! He rails against arresting sick people for using medical marijuana. Hear, hear! He then says that he wants to de-regulate at the federal level, but let the states do what they want. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Libertarian make that argument.
Wow. Ron Paul, in 2004, spoke out against the “forced integration” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Respond, please! Paul frames it as a property rights issue, and invokes the holy name of Barry Goldwater, completely skipping the part where he said it “did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the CRA of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” He also claims that he has more black support than any other Republicans (by some measures) because of his freedom loving, war hating ways. I’m pretty sure that most of his black supporters are happy that the schools, lunch counters, neighborhoods, pools, restrooms and water fountains are no longer segregated. As much.
Paul argues that Abe Lincoln should not have gone to war, that there were better ways of getting rid of slavery. Why, look what the Brits did – buy the slaves and free them. Every other major country phased out slaves without a war. Lincoln went to war to eliminate the original idea of a republic,and did it to demonstrate the iron fist of Washington.
So… his PhD wasn’t in history? To buy his argument, you have to ignore the reality that the South fired the first shots, and declared that they were a new country. Slavery may not have existed by now, but neither would the USA.
Heh. Ron Paul’s web site brags about his support for Reagan against Ford in 1976. That would be a good thing in their primary, if only he had not spent a good deal of time disassociating himself with Reagan and calling him a “dramatic failure”. Paul says that Reagan ran on a good platform, but failed.
Timmeh asks Paul why he’s running as a Republican, since he says Reagan was a failure, 41 was a bum, he didn’t vote for 43, and he sent in his Republican decoder ring in 1987. Paul says it’s because he rolls Old Skool Republican! He stands for everything Rs run on, but never deliver.
Ron is “pretty darn sure” the he doesn’t intend to run as an independent if (if!) he doesn’t get the nomination.
Paul responds to himself quoting Sinclair Lewis (“When fascism comes to this country it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.”) He backed quickly away from a Huckabee comparison, and takes the time to bash the PATRIOT ACT, corporatism, “support the troops” mentality as having a fascist tone. Says we’re getting close to fascism. I don’t disagree at all.
Overall I’ll give Paul an 8 on the loony-meter, but only because the bar has been raised so very, very high.
Now, a mini-panel discussing polls, commercials and upcoming votes. My take? When your top candidate polls at 20%, you don’t have a top candidate. Lying about marching with MLK in at a Republican primary seems stupid – why would they care? When you are up by 25% in the national polls, your campaign has not imploded, no matter what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire. National head-to-head presidential polls at this time are meaningless.
Next Sunday: Obama and Huckabee. That should be good TV.
Fawkes News
The surge is “working”! Now the question is how fast US troops can come home.
oh.dear.god. And they are going to ask General Betray Us himself.
Speaking of god, they will also have Rev Joel Osteen.
And a look ahead to what’s coming in 2008 with the panel.
I don’t have the stomach for this one. I’m out.
This Weak

Rudy! There’s no way I’m sitting through that interview. It’s straight to the panel.
Oh good, they are going to talk about the xmas campaign commercials. I can normally take the insipid and look for the gems, but the family is on the way and I still don’t have Santa nailed to the cross. Good night, and good luck. Maybe I can watch more next week, but I make no promises.

SYNDICATED COLUMN: The Unfunny Pages

Artsy Comics Are Alienating Readers

Love them or hate them, people react to cartoons. Comic strips like “The Far Side,” “Peanuts” and “Doonesbury” inspire devotional cults. Political cartoons, such as the recent Danish Mohammed illustrations and my own post-9/11 Bush-bashing scribbles, can arouse hateful mobs. What’s weird is when cartoons elicit no reaction at all.

Which is what has (not) happened since 2005, when The New York Times began running “The Funny Pages,” a literary supplement to its Sunday Magazine section that includes a full-page comic strip in every issue. First up was “Building Stories,” a graphic novel by Chris Ware serialized in 30 weekly installments. To call Ware an award-winning graphic artist is like calling a cockroach prolific; the only accolade he hasn’t won is the Nobel. Yet.

Comic book fans had hoped that The Funny Pages would convince normal adults, who limit their graphic art consumption to political cartoons and comic strips, to buy graphic novels. (Articles espousing comics-as-art typically bear the headline “Comics: Not Just for Kids Anymore.”) I don’t know why anyone cares about what other people read, watch or listen to. It’s not like reading is a communal activity. But grown men (they are mostly men, often so grown as to be terrifying) crave “mainstream acceptance” of their comics habit even more than sexual companionship.

Anticipation yielded to disappointment as Ware, in his typically mannered and obtuse style, rendered the paint-drying anti-drama of a dowdy middle-aged, one-legged (<--call her Ahab, in search of the Great White Male) spinster wallowing in self-inflicted depression in a hundred thousand earth-toned squares. Unless you count phony, plot-less, generalized angst, nothing happened in "Building Stories." Ever.
Ware’s word balloons were so small that many mistook them as evidence of his contempt for his audience. Those who scrounged up magnifying glasses learned the sad truth: just like Michael Stipe’s mumbled lyrics on early R.E.M. albums, hyper-reduction was Ware’s attempt to cover up his inability to write dialogue.

Nothing wrong with working around your weaknesses, right? But cartoons need great writing more than they need great art. Which is why Gary Larsen is better than Winsor McCay. “Little Nemo” was high art. “The Far Side” is hilarious.
Seven months passed. (To those who didn’t give up on “Building Stories,” it felt like seven years.) Disappointment yielded to apathy. Fixtures of the tiny world of “art comics” Jaime Hernandez, Seth and Megan Kelso followed with their serialized graphic novellas. Daniel Clowes’ “Mister Wonderful” treads standard art-comics territory: unattractive boy meets dowdy girl, insecure girl meets shoe-gazing boy, reader prays for Al Qaeda to blow up their café.

For whatever it’s worth, Clowes’ entry is the best of a crapulent lot. The life of an artist is a lonely one, sometimes it’s hard to get laid, people are mean to dorks. Who cares?

Among that class of New Yorkers for whom the Times is required reading, no one talks about The Funny Pages. Even cartoonists, who argue about every aspect of the medium until their spouses eventually divorce them, care about the high-profile feature about as much as the average American thinks about the latest Baghdad car bomb. The Times‘ experiment to “engage our readers in some ways we haven’t yet tried–and to acknowledge that it takes many different types of writing to tell the story of our time” has received the harshest possible verdict: indifference.

An online poll by the media blog Gawker asked 1,680 readers whether they found The Funny Pages “funny.” 92 percent voted “no.” Granted, Internet surveys are unreliable. Still, I want to know: Where’d they find the 8 percent?

Part of the problem is serialization. Nowadays we don’t want to wait a whole week for the next part of a story. (When I hear about a cool new TV series, I wait for it to get canceled so I can watch it all at once on DVD.) But the Times‘ main error has been its choice of cartoonists, art school graduates with little to say but draw real purty. Comics are about telling stories–not trying to dazzle, as Ware does, with innovative (but confusing) graphic design. Comic bookshops are bursting with exciting books by creative storytellers that deserve a wider audience, and that the 1.6 million readers of the Times Magazine might actually enjoy (or hate, which would be an improvement over the current yawnfest).

“Why,” a Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist asked me recently, “are these graphic novelists so empty? They’re void…nil.” A lot of newer cartoons, I protested, do feature characters motivated by bigger concerns than their feelings of awkwardness and alienation. But they appear in alternative weekly newspapers and in books put out by independent publishers. The Times, and comics anthologies that reflect the official social imprimatur of the journalistic elite, like “The Best American Comics 2007” (edited, naturally, by Chris Ware and featuring his friends), censor important comics.

“I found myself drawn to this…group of work,” writes the New York Times Book Review about “Best American Comics,” “mostly because I couldn’t understand much of it, and, O.K., I worried whether this was a failing of mine or the artists’.” This was, incredibly, from a positive review.

Memo to Times Book Review critic: Cartoons are a form of communication. When a reader doesn’t understand a cartoon, it isn’t because he is stupid. It is because the cartoonist has failed.

Comics Journal critic Noah Berlatsky thinks the current crop of art comics stars are obsessed with trying to overcome some perception that the medium is all about caped superheroes like Superman and Batman. “Alt comics have a huge chip on their shoulders, and they have responded by rejecting everything superhero in favor of Serious Art–which, alas, often means seriously boring art.”

Whatever the reason, the literary establishment’s insistence on promoting dull cartoons is destroying the chance for comics to become more than what they are today–a small, barely noteworthy, niche.

Clarification: In a previous column about the newspaper business, I wrote: “In his book ‘The Vanishing Newspaper’ Philip Meyer predicts that 2043 will mark the death of printed newspapers in the United States, ‘as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition.'” Meyer e-mailed me to inform me that those words never appeared in his book, but from a speech by Rupert Murdoch to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 2005.

Meyer says that, in his book, he said that “a straight-line projection of the declining percentage of adults who report reading a newspaper ‘every day’ brings their number to the zero point in 2043. But to take that as a prediction would require assuming that no one will do anything to change the equation and that newspapers will relentlessly keep turning out their products until there is only one daily reader left. Publishers tend to be stubborn, but not that stubborn!”

Fair enough. But if a columnist can’t trust the BBC and The Economist–both of whom misquoted Meyer–who can he trust?

COPYRIGHT 2007 TED RALL

ITMFA – Teapot Museum Edition
posted by TheDon

“I’m instructing Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill.”

With those words, George W Bush started the process of his impeachment. A Congress which has watched (or participated in) the loss of free speech, the loss of habeas corpus, the loss of protection against unreasonable search and seizure, signing statements, the torture of non-whites, the indefinite detention of people designated as enemies of the state, illegal wars, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, outing of CIA agents, leaking of classified material, lying to congress, contempt of congress, no-bid contracts, firing of US Attorneys, lying about firing US Attorneys, soviet-style handlers in every government office, destruction of White House communications, destruction of White House visitor logs… you get the idea… THAT Congress, will not tolerate a president with the temerity to mess with the Teapot Museum. I didn’t know what it would take to get him impeached, but I’m pretty sure this is the big one. An anxious nation awaits.

TGIF – Lucky Me
posted by TheDon

I can now publicly reveal that I had sex with Jamie Lynn Spears. Of course it wasn’t on the same day, in the same city, or with each other, but I am invoking the Romney Saw to justify my assertion. I also saw my father single-handedly beating the Nazis, but that’s a story for another post.

It just kills me that Al Gore is still mocked to this day for things that he never said. References to “Al Gore invented the internet” are guaranteed to bring chuckles, despite the fact that he never even implied any such thing. Al Gore is a braggart. Al Gore is a liar. These memes are part of our national folklore, and for no reason except the cynical repetition of a series of lies about him. Lies repeated on hate radio, in national newspapers, on evening talk shows and on national news programs.

On the other hand, Romney and Giuliani can engage in a series of lies and exaggerations, each lie knocked down with air-tight evidence, usually with video of the candidate himself, and neither one has his honesty questioned in a serious way. Each story dies an early death, laughed off as unimportant. This morning, Joey Scar, after a story on Romney’s latest lie, said this, “If that’s all you’ve got on Mitt Romney, he’s in pretty good shape.” Yes, Joe, all we have is that Romney will say anything, invent important events in his life, and change any political positions, just to be elected POTUS. I am only half-kidding when I say that I expect Romney to convert to Evangelical Christianity any day now.

But it’s Friday, the end of the week, and most of us are off for the holidays. From my family to yours, have a happy holiday if, in fact, you celebrate any holiday at all. And knock back a drink in honor of my new relationship.

Blushing Teenage Virgin
Mix equal parts pomegranate juice and coconut rum over ice. Splash on some chocolate liqueur and it will taste a lot like a chocolate covered cherry. Come to think of it, that’s probably a much more appropriate name for the drink.

SYNDICATED COLUMN: Democrats—The Other White Meat

Let’s Fight a Doomed War in Afghanistan, Not Iraq!

NEW YORK–There is too a difference between the two major parties. Republicans want us to spend, die and lose in Iraq. Democrats want us to spend, die and lose in Afghanistan.

There’s a difference between the two major wars, too. Afghanistan is even less justifiable than Iraq. It’s also less winnable.

The lily-livered libbies’ “Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan when he invaded Iraq” meme is back.

“Six years after we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan–the origin of the 9/11 attacks–we still don’t have our priorities straight,” Barack Obama said in Des Moines this week. That followed an October speech in New Hampshire in which he described George W. Bush’s response to 9/11 as “perfectly reasonable.”

“I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because the Taliban had been supportive and the base camp for Al Qaeda,” Obama said. “So I had no problem with that.”

In fact, Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. The Taliban were not involved. The “base camp” for Al Qaeda was, and is, in Pakistan. (Different country! Look it up.)
Democrats, reports Tom Curry of MSNBC, have embraced an election-year “out of Iraq, shift to Afghanistan” strategy. It’s a drone of rhetorical distraction worthy of Karl Rove, and one not one mainstream media outlet has bothered to question. Obama and his fellow Democrats (John Edwards is a laudable exception to the lunacy) say they were for Bush’s first war–the one he lost because he didn’t spend enough money or enough lives–before they were against the second one.

Obama’s hoary sports metaphor, regurgitated since 2005 by Howard Dean, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and virtually every other luminary of the lame left, followed a December 17th vote by Congressional Democrats (201 to 30) to send $30 billion for war against Afghanistan, but nothing for Iraq. No wimps here!

“Afghanistan is the primary front of the fight against Islamic extremism, but for too long we have taken our eye off the ball,” parroted Rep. Ike Skelton, Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

In fact, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan the whole time U.S. forces were “looking” for him in Afghanistan. So was Al Qaeda, and most of its training camps. The money for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. The hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Hey, never let the truth get in the way of a good sound byte.

I’m not convinced the military can fight terrorists. Blowing up schools and weddings is a lousy way to fight Islamic extremism. The history of counterinsurgency shows that it’s easier to kill your enemies with an open mind than with bombs. But if you’re determined to go the military route, you’d be better off taking on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt–in that order.

The New York Times, comrades in clueless centrism with the (oxymoron alert–>) Democratic leadership, reported that the normally implacable Bush Administration is gripped by “a growing apprehension that one of the administration’s most important legacies–the routing of Taliban and Qaeda forces in Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001–may slip away.”

Then the paper editorialized: “Unless the United States and Europe come up with a better strategy–and invest more money, attention and troops–the ‘good war’ will go irretrievably bad.”

Ugh. “Good war,” indeed. Doesn’t anyone care that Afghanistan and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are entirely separate countries?

Committees are being empanelled to analyze why Afghanistan is a mess of warlords, opium farmers and suicide bombers. Could it be the decision to send one-tenth as many troops as Iraq to a nation the same size, but with more daunting terrain and a fierce population of warriors renowned for slaughtering invaders? Was it a PR mistake to replace the Taliban, who stoned rapists and murderers to death, with the Northern Alliance government, whose officials are rapists and murderers? Did the lack of reconstruction increase resentment? How about the grinding poverty, which the U.S. invasion made worse?

Yes.

But here’s what we keep hearing instead: “I have a real concern that given our preoccupation in Iraq, we’ve not devoted sufficient troops and funding to Afghanistan to ensure success in that mission,” said Skelton, the Congressional Democrat.

The cold, hard truth is that Afghanistan can’t be won. Not with more money, and not with the 6,000 more troops Obama wants to send there. Not with 60,000, or 600,000.

With the recent exception of 9/11, America’s wars have been fought overseas. We have a deadline: we can’t stay over there forever. The Afghans, on the other hand, live there. They have time–all the time in the world. They know that all they have to do is wait us out, and hassle our forces in the meantime. They’re damned good at it–ask the Brits and Russians.

Not everyone is falling for the Democrats’ “forget their war, let’s fight our war” spiel, though. A letter to the editor of the Times began: “I hope that when the Bush administration and NATO conclude their analyses of the Afghanistan mission they will reach one inescapable, common-sense conclusion: that Western-style democracy cannot be militarily imposed on a culture that is based on tribal loyalties. Maybe at that point, our nation and the world will be able to finally use our economic and human resources in a more efficient manner.”

The letter writer’s name was Bill Gottdenker. Too bad he’s not running for president.

(C) 2007 Ted Rall, All Rights Reserved.


Fire in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building
posted by TheDon

The EEOB houses the offices for most of the staff of the President and Vice President of the United States. I’m guessing that a document shredder overheated. This image was taken from the MSNBC news site.

Love Notes
posted by TheDon

The post office is busy this time of year, so I am posting notes to the notable here, where I know each of my recipients checks in most days.

To: Jon Corzine
You are my hero today for signing a law banning the death penalty in New Jersey. You announced proudly that you were signing the law because the death penalty is immoral, since there can never be a guarantee that innocent people won’t be executed. I am in awe.

To: Mitt Romney
I just sat through an hour of Tim Russert hammering on you. It is an hour I will never get back, but I must say I came away very impressed. You are one of the most talented politicians I have ever seen, able to lie with a straight face, completely unfazed by video evidence of flip-flops, focused and on-message. But, and you knew there would be a but, I have a couple of suggestions.

When you make up a story about a major turning point in your life, don’t put in details that are easily disproved. For instance, you graduated from law school in 1975, so your big emotional moment when you heard about god telling the leaders of your church to allow black folks full rights could not have happened while you were driving home from law school. Also, you might consider telling the story in a way which cannot be headlined “Romney: The Decision to Raise Blacks to Status of Whites Made Me Cry”. Just sayin’.

Also, I think your perception of church/state duties is a little off. You said, “If we’re all children of the same god, we have a duty to one another, to care for one another. Americans first, and the people of the world second.” If we’re all children of god, with a duty to each other, nationality doesn’t matter, even a little bit. If we’re all citizens of the same country, with a duty to each other, then it’s Americans first. Hope that clears it up for you.

To: John McCain

So you got the coveted Holy Joe endorsement. Nice. That translates to exactly zero votes in New Hampshire. There is a reason none of the Democrats asked him for an endorsement. In other endorsement news, Ron Paul got the coveted Andrew Sullivan endorsement. Same result.

To: Fred Thompson
If you don’t want to be president, just drop out of the race. Saying that your most prized possession is your “trophy wife” is just embarrassing. For everyone. Go home and catch up on your naps.

To: Tucker Carlson
To answer your question today, you are not the only person upset at the prospect of the US Senate outlawing incandescent light bulbs. In fact, our very own Ted Rall wrote about this almost a year ago. TR wrote, “I would rather watch the oceans boil than live in a world lit by fluorescent light bulbs.” I am guessing that you will re-think your position.

By the way, calling Hillary Clinton’s campaign “so Clintonesque” is “so Tuckeresque”.

To: Rep. Pete Hoekstra
You are going against you favorite preznit to push a Congressional investigation of the CIA for destroying torture tapes. You said it is important to “hold this community accountable” and opined that “there’s a constitutional responsibility for (the CIA) to keep us informed, and they have not”. I agree completely with you, but I have one simple question for you.

Why the sudden interest in Congressional oversight after disuse for a period of time associated with atrophy? Is this part of the “CIA is incompetent and plotting against W” conspiracy theory?

To: The Congress of the United States of America
ITMFA. What are you waiting for? The list of outrages grows and there is still not a serious attempt to stop the assaults on the Constitution. You swore an oath! As harshly as history will judge those morons who went after Clinton, it will judge you even more harshly for sitting on your hands during this dark period.
keyboard_arrow_up
css.php