« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »
May 24, 2006
The Anchoress is a Nazi — and Other Dubious Claims
It's almost certainly not true that The Anchoress is a Nazi, but she recently announced that "[she] will not be called a nazi," possibly unaware that just two days later, she'd be proven wrong. The article in which she makes this claim is a round-up of the recent streak of untruthiness in the blogosphere, including Jason Leopold's unfortunate claim that "Rove has been indicted" and Amir Taheri's claim that Iran had passed a law requiring religious minorities to wear colored badges.
The Anchoress correctly identifies Leopold as a reporter, not a blogger, so she doesn't take his mistake out on the left-wing blogs. In fact, the prominent left-wing blogs were skeptical about Leopold's revelation last week — lefty blogger Peter Daou took Leopold to the woodshed right away. The Amir Taheri story, on the other hand (as noted here), was accepted as gospel on the right. Even after being debunked down to the status of "flat Earth theory," they cling to it tenatiously. So, while the Anchoress' article talks about the need for skepticism — the title is "Caveat Emptor" — she spends much of it trying to find a way to vindicate the "badges" story. Unlike the other bloggers squeezing this story desperately seeking a drop of credibility, the Anchoress does not return to Amir Taheri for comfort — kudos for that — instead resorting to... well here's what she says:
Okay, maybe I’m thick, but if “all Iranians” are to wear these “standard Islamic garments” and if “standard Islamic garments” include garments of specific colors, stripes or markings for non-Islamists Iranians (this piece does not say it doesn’t) then is it not possible that maybe, just maybe, the story is not completely false? Just because a document “makes no mention” of something doesn’t mean a thing is not - under a definition of “standard” - implied. Why would a press that believes nothing from the mouth of the US Government simply take the Iranian government at it’s word? I’m just asking. The thing still seems nebulous - I am dissuaded by the quick assurance of the AP that all the Iranians mean is a rejection of Western dress. And I will not be called a nazi, as Alexandra has been labled for daring to consider that Clintonian-word-parsing and Orwellian Doubleplusgoodspeak exist in lands other than ours.
So this story could be true depending on what the word "standard" means. Nice Clintonian word parsing there, Anchoress. The law that the Anchoress is referring to is a law that was actually passed — is a law concerning fashion among Iranians. This law is about headscarves and other muslim dress codes and it does not mention religious minorities at all, much less mandate colored badges. Nevertheless, the Anchoress wonders why we should trust a fact-checked article from a news organization over an opinion piece published by Amir Taheri who works for Benador Associates, a public relations firm. I dunno, maybe because they read the actual law?
Still, I have to give the Anchoress due respect for her overall reasonableness and restraint. The same cannot be said for Micheal Galien over at Liberty and Justice. Like a junky running back to his dealer, he flogs Amir Taheri's hand-waving press release. Says Galien:
It is extremely difficult to get reliable information out of Iran. The best thing we have is Taheri - he has proven that he has some very reliable and knowledgeable sources. He is seldom wrong. We will see whether this story will develop in the direction we all feared or, as Andrew Sullivan puts it, Taheri was ahead of the news cycle.
Galien is a Dutchman in desperate need of an afternoon in a hash bar, and maybe an enema. Apparently, he pines for the days when the Netherlands was controlled by the Nazis, writing in another post, "I am probably a Nazi myself," and bragging that "my country is filled with blond, beautiful women." Sounds like he's cornered the market on the master race. Um... er... good for him. He probably quotes people out of context, too! Anyway, back to his latest post.
First of all, it's not "extremely difficult to get reliable information out of Iran." Despite their backwards politics, Iran is a fairly modernized country and new laws are posted on the Internet by the Parliament. AP didn't have any trouble getting a copy of an Iranian law. Amir Taheri is not "the best we've got" until the day that we no longer have the Internet and telephones.
And Amir Taheri is "seldom wrong"? I've seen two pieces by him in the past week, one of which was an outright fabrication and the other riddled with falsehoods and half-truths. I'll say it again: this guy works for a public relations firm. In all likelihood, someone is paying for these opinions. It's obvious why, as they resonate so deeply with the wingnut right.
I quoted his quote of Andrew Sullivan saying that Taheri was "ahead of the news cycle" because that was a reference to Jason Leopold's excuse for his story about the phantom Rove indictment. Sullivan is taking a "wait and see" position, similar to what many lefty blogs took on Leopold's story. His comment about the news cycle was a subtle jab at Taheri getting it wrong. Too subtle for our Aryan friend in Amsterdam, I guess.
DoctorZin at Regime Change Iran is widely cited by those desperately clinging to Taheri's tale, and he offers more of the same. He does make one comment worth noting:
It should also be remembered that the Islamic Republic seldom acts in a manner to anger vast numbers of Iranians all at the same time.
DoctorZin then warns, ominously, that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and that more draconian legislation may be on its way. More speculation. His statement is true, however. For reasons I don't want to get into (this is long enough), 25% of the Iranian population is under 25. That's a lot of teenagers wanting to wear cool clothes. As I said, Iran is a modern country in many ways (not enough, but many), and its teenagers like to dress cool like teenagers in other countries. (Note to Michael: Nazi uniforms are quite cool looking, so you're covered.) Iran is already having trouble with its rebelious youth, so instituting a State Fashion Police is probably an impossible task. My prediction, for what its worth, is that this stupid fashion law will fade away, if it's implemented at all.
As for Taheri's dissembling:
Interestingly, the Islamic Republic authorities refuse to issue an official statement categorically rejecting the concept of dhimmitude and the need for marking out religious minorities. I raised the issue not as a news story, because news of the new law was already several days old, but as an opinion column to alert the outside world to this most disturbing development.
Huh? The Iranian government did, too, deny Taheri's story, officially and unofficially. If he means that they didn't officially deny the "need for dhimmitude," that's true, but that's not what his article said. It said that they'd passed a law requiring colored badges. Oh, and he published his column as an opinion column "to alert the outside world to this most disturbing development." Oh, not because opinion articles are not fact checked? I guess he's got a point, because publishing a fact-checked news article has never managed to "alert the outside world" about anything [eye roll].
Meanwhile, Taylor Marsh, guest-blogging at Firedoglake, raises some interesting questions about why the Simon Weisenthal center claimed to have verified this story.
Posted by Winston Smith at 08:04 AM | Comments (0)
May 23, 2006
Calling People Nazis
Just recently, I was called on the carpet by some of the self-appointed luminaries of the right-wing blogosphere for comparing Princess Bottleblonde of "All Things Beautiful" to a Nazi. Quoth Charles at the Very Tiny Balls blog:
In all modesty, however, I must point out that I hold a unique position in the Nazi-obsessed world of the stalking left, since I’ve been called both “Hitler” and his mistress Eva Braun. Some guys have all the luck.
Well, it's easy to get lucky when you're dating your right hand, but I was a little puzzled at this reference to the "Nazi-obsessed ... left." Sure, you have fringe types like Ward Churchill calling people "little Eichmanns," but it seemed to me that it is the right-wing — and not the fringe right wing, but the mainstream right wing — that's enamored of Hitler analogies.
Sure enough, I didn't have to wait very long for a right wing commentator to compare a prominent left-wing politician to a Nazi. Oh, where's the outrage? Why didn't someone cut his mic, or at least tell him he'd gone too far? Maybe because Exxon-Mobile was paying him to say what he said. Gotta please the sponsors, you know.
The best part was finding this post by tristero at Hullaballoo, who rightly calls the guy an "unprincipled fuck." As I, tristero has come under fire for his angry tone. I have to agree with him though, that sometimes you have to call someone an unprincipled fuck, especially when they are by any reasonable measure, an unprinipled fuck. I really see no need to apologize for being outraged at the truly outrageous and expressing it in language that is appropriate for adults.
Posted by Winston Smith at 08:29 PM | Comments (0)
Profit the Prophet
SJR readers are, no doubt, painfully aware that a rather vocal segment of the wingnut right wants to you know that there is a monster under your bed and that monster is Islam. Boo! Scared yet? They are, and they want you to be scared, too, so you'll support their campaigns of hatred and hostility against Muslim populations. I know it's asking a lot for a wingnut to think past the end of his own dick — or whatever — but I have to wonder, "To what end?"
Saddam Hussein, as rotten as he was, did, at least, have a secular state where women enjoyed unprecedented civil rights for the Arab world. While it may be just as well that Hussein has been deposed, is it really progress — in the eyes of wingnuts — that his regime is being replaced with an Islamic Republic, dedicated to Shari'a law? I don't have the frothing hatred and fear of Islam that they do, but I don't particuarly like theocracies, Muslim or otherwise.
I agree with my ideological opponents that the worst thing Iran has going for it, is that its government is in the grip of backwards, fundamentalist mullahs. So what are we supposed to do about that? Most of them, as I understand it, advocate "regime change" in Iran, mirroring our spectacularly successful "regime change" in Iraq.
But even in some neo-con fantasy, where a few well-placed tactical nukes trigger the rise of Jeffersonian democracy in Iran, does anyone expect Iran to stop being a predominantly shi'ite country? Was America supposedly populated by muslims who converted to Christianity the moment John Hancock signed the Declaration? No. We've largely kept the religious tradition that set settlers brought over.
According to the rabid wingnuts who descended a couple of days ago and their ilk, there's no such thing as a peaceful muslim country and no such thing as a peaceful muslim. What, exactly does one do about that? Genocide? If you buy their heated rhetoric, where else can you go?
Posted by Winston Smith at 04:29 PM | Comments (1)
Inaccuracy In Media
Accuracy in Media ostensibly exists to correct the "liberal bias" in media — to "set the record straight." Yesterday, Cliff Kinkaid — and Roger Aronoff — decided to emulate Thomas Kincade and "paint some light" on a dark subject in a rather slimy article entitled "The Good News From Iraq. Basically, if an article with this title doesn't start with, "First of all, not everyone in the country has been found tortured, mutilated and shot in the head," then a red flag goes up. The article begins:
President Bush on Sunday hailed the formation of a unity government in Iraq, making the announcement in person so that at least some of the media covering the White House would be forced to pay attention to it. This is good news, of course, and there is much more good news out of Iraq. But there's no counting out the terrorists, who can always depend on the media to make them seem more formidable than they actually are. In this battle, one thing is clear: America must be able to neutralize the pernicious influence of Al-Jazeera, the Arabic TV channel that now wants to expand into U.S. and Western media markets with an English-language broadcast.
Why must America, a country which codified freedom of the press in its Constitutional Bill of Rights, "neutralize" a "pernicious" news organization? Isn't the whole point of freedom of the press that you can battle a bad news organization with a good news organization?
There are three main pillars of the exposition in this article. The first is a "captured al-Qaeda document," which "indicates that the insurgency in Iraq is badly hurting," and mentions a "media-based strategy." The second is a collection of polling data showing how happy the Iraqis are and how unhappy the rest of the Arab world is. Finally, it combines these two elements to conclude that Al Jazeera — the Qatar-based news organization — is tantamount to a terrorist organization.
Within this sleazy propaganda lies the answer to the question posed above. If Al Jazeera is painting a dim picture of the Iraq situation, it would be impossible to find a more-credible news organization to counter it, because painting a brighter picture — as evidenced in the article — requires a substantial degree of lying and misdirection. In case you're one of the wingnuts who's been visiting the site recently: lying and misdirection are not hallmarks of credible news organizations, despite what you see on Fox News.
The article contains two hyperlinks. One is to the translated Al-Qaeda document and the other is to a video they've put together — not surprisingly, their audience isn't particularly interested in things like "reading." They're also not interested — again, surprise surprise — in examining the details of the statistics referenced in the article because there is no link to those. No problem, I found some of them here.
First, the Al-Qaeda document. This was linked to a CENTCOM site and I could find no context about it at all. I'm calling it an Al-Qaeda document because I'm giving Cliff Kincaid and Roger Aronoff the benefit of the doubt — they claim it's an Al-Qaeda document, but I couldn't find where the document, or the military, say that. In any case, the AIM paper acts as if this document is somehow the voice of "the insurgency." Reading through the paper, I couldn't see that this was published by an organization with more than a few dozen people in it, and it sounds as if their successes are sporatic and minor. Considering the thousands who have died in just the last few months, this document can't have come from a particularly influencial faction.
The terrorist document is under a section of CENTCOM's site entitled "what the extremists are saying," which appears to be tracking the activities and statements of the extreme religious factions in Iraq. These are, by definition, fringe elements, and are not responsible for the massive sectarian violence that has swept Iraq in the last few months.
Suffice to say that this document is pretty flimsy evidence that violence is abating in Iraq or that "the media" is all that important an element in generating the stacks of bodies found daily in the streets of Iraqi cities.
Next up, the statistics. The authors cite a few different sources, and I was able to track down just this one from World Opinion.
Looking at the World Opinion data, you have to note one thing up front: this was taken in January of this year, right after the much-heralded elections and before the bombing of the Sunni shrine that touched off the ongoing violence. Still, at the rosiest of times, it isn't an entirely pretty picture. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that the civil war hasn't changed anyone's mind since January.
It's true, as Kincaid and Aronoff point out, that 77% of Iraqis polled said that it was worth it to be rid of Saddam Hussein. The authors also make this claim about the un-linked polling data:
The Iraqis want the Coalition forces to leave, but not immediately, as proposed by some Democratic politicians. They want us to leave over a two-year or more timetable, so that a democracy and security can be established.
This is, plain and simple, a big, fat, hairy lie, and you can see it if you actually look at the polling data they didn't link to.
In reality, only 35% percent of Iraqis desired a 2-year withdrawal. Another 35% preferred a six-month withdrawal. The report does not say what the remaining 30% wanted, but support for some withdrawal timeline was high (87%) and support for "stay until the situation improves" was low (29%). In the commentary, the World Opinion study references an Oxford International poll from the previous November in which 65% of Iraqis "opposed 'the presence of coalition forces in Iraq.'"
One interesting section of the polling data that Kincaid and Aronoff seem to miss is the part where 47% of Iraqis support the attacks on U.S. troops. That's nearly half of the country — and 23% strongly support these attacks. Ironically, 41% of those who support these attacks didn't support a near-term withdrawal. I guess that would be the segment of the population that realizes it will be harder to kill the American swine if they go back home. Actually, the World Opinion writeup links it to another phenomenon: a fairly large segment of the Iraqi population doesn't trust the Americans to leave at all — some, it might be conlcuded, think we'll need a little "convincing." Only 23% of Iraqis think that the U.S. will leave when it is asked to leave.
The AIM paper tries to use the bogus "77% wants a two year or more withdrawal" claim to make it appear as if we're wanted and needed in Iraq. Predictably, they don't bring up the 67% of Iraqis who believe that security will improve after the U.S. leaves, the 73% of Iraqis who believe that the government will strengthen on our departure, or the 67% who believe that basic services, such as electricy, will improve when the U.S. is gone.
It's also clear that the Iraqis know they need help — 64% favor an "international conference" to mentor the new government. The "international" part is key, here, too. A whopping 21% of Iraqis want to U.S. to be in charge of rebuilding Iraq, and 59% would prefer the U.N. to be in charge. While most Iraqis support U.S. non-military assistance, two thirds of those supporters think that the U.S. is doing a poor job. Sunnis are particularly unhappy with the U.S. non-military assistance, but over half of them would be more supportive if the U.S. would set a timetable for getting the fuck out of their country. In contrast, many Iraqis felt that Arab League efforts in Iraq have fallen short, but even among those who feel the most negative, 68% support ongoing efforts by the League.
So where were we? Oh yeah, "good news from Iraq." Apparently, if you care to dig deeper into what Kincade and Aronoff present, you'll discover that the good news from Iraq is that the Iraqis don't want us there, don't think we're helping and don't believe that we're ever going to leave. Luckily, some fringe terrorist group is having a difficult time finding weapons in Baghdad, probably because all of the people who are doing all of the killing are already using the weapons. But don't despair! As soon as we can get Al Jazeera (and the rest of the "MSM") to stop saying that things are going badly, then they'll be doing fine! Yay!
I should note that all of AIM's polling data is stale. It's hard to believe that Iraqi sentiments have not shifted due to the horribly escalating violence. I doubt that we'll see newer studies, however, because it's too fucking dangerous in Iraq to conduct an opinion poll. You're doing a heck of a job, Rummy.
Posted by Winston Smith at 09:35 AM | Comments (0)
May 22, 2006
Quote of the Day
In light of the racist trash that's been wailing and nashing their teeth over my posts, I thought this appropriate:
No prejudice is ever debated that isn't already dying.
Bishop John Shelby Spong
Update: I don't know if I should feed the troll, but Siggy has returned with this insightful response to Bishop Spong's quote (from the comments):
That is why there is not a single example of a political ideology or government, supported by the left, can be remotely connsidered a success.
I guess that depends on who you ask. If you ask me, I'd say Dr. King's civil rights movement was a success. I'd say Susan Anthony's womens' rights movement was a success. I think Thomas Jefferson wrote a pretty decent Constitution.
I imagine that if I asked Siggy, or someone in his Klub, they'd consider these things "failures."
Governments? How about Sweden, Norway and Germany? Those are all decidedly socialist. The Netherlands? Not a bastion of right-wing ideology, is it? Do people who say shit like this even know that the term "left-wing" or "liberal" mean? I realize that "both sides" have distorted meanings in an ongoing war of words, but, to quote Rush Limbaugh, "words have meaning."
Is Bishop Spong supposed to be a conservative or right-wing? I have bad news for Siggy if he thinks that the case.
Posted by Winston Smith at 11:47 AM | Comments (4)
The Spies Have It
I realize that I'm supposed to spend the rest of my life defending myself from the onslaught of bigots and Islamophobes that have decided to take umbrage at me calling the beloved Contessa a Nazi.
Nevermind that I didn't actually call her a Nazi, I said she sounded like one and I could imagine her putting on a Gestapo uniform (I'm sure she'd look quite dashing) and the remark was satirical. I know, "Is that the kind of twisted crap that Winston the Ape thinks is funny?" Why, yes, it is. Hey, it's a free country. Kinda.
On that note, I thought I'd share a Flash animation put together by the ACLU. It's also pretty funny. Of course, the wingnuts will object to the depiction of Cheney and Bush (Cheney has more hair than that!) and probably to the use of a Mulder-esque character (Mulder and Scully were conservatives!). Enjoy.
Posted by Winston Smith at 11:24 AM | Comments (3)
May 21, 2006
Apes, Tuxedos and the Functioning Alcoholics
I would like to start out by denying that I am an "Ape in a Tuxedo" as charged by the ambulatory schizophrenic running the "Sigmund Carl and Alfred" blog. I am not wearing a tuxedo.
Nothing rattles ignorant xenophobes more than being caught in a lie. Over the past few days, I've written about about a particular lie that was floated by a bitter Iranian ex-patriot, and then trumpeted by the wingnut blogosphere. In the course of this, I tried to make a point about levelling unfounded accusations by satirically calling another blogger a "Nazi." This, and the fact that I am not filled with irrational hatred of Muslims has been the focus of the response.
I shouldn't bandy about the word "focus" too carelessly, because the most extended response, from "Siggy" is an incoherent expectoration of ignornace, fear and hatred. Of course, it is rife with the requisite ad hominems, particular that of calling me an ape — an epithet I don't really mind. Siggy is so proud of his puerile jab he repeats it incessantly. Such hostility. Finally, there is little need to mention the army of strawmen Siggy erects in the course of his rambling bombinations.
[Winston Smith] concedes there may be some anti Semitic acts, but not condoned by the regimes.
I never said this. I said that the poor treatment of Jews and Christians is proscribed in Islamic law (Hadith), although not necessarily seen in practice. There isn't any debate that the Iranian regime is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. The debate is whether the Iranian regime passed a law requiring non-Muslims to wear badges (it hasn't even considered passing such a law) and whether the President of Iran declared a desire to "wipe Irael off the map" (he didn't).
Meanwhile, Siggy whips himself into a lather and barks out — are these supposed to be counterpoints? — non-sequitors like these:
The civilized world is waiting for Muslim outrage and mass, violent protests against the beheading of non combatants in Iraq and elsewhere.
...
The civilized world is waiting for outrage at the GIA, Algerian fundamentalists that raped children (before dismembering them), as a matter of religious policy (apparently, the Prophet would be more incensed at his portrayal in newspaper cartoons than he would be at the rape of children).
...
The civilized world is waiting for outrage at the ongoing Arab slave traders in Mauritania.
...
No word yet at Muslim outrage at the slaughter by the Arab tribal Janjaweed of Christians and animist in Darfur (so much fun that the Muslim women sing as their 'men' rape women).
...
The civilized world is waiting for the outrage at children being executed in Iran.
There's a bunch of these and I have to agree that they are outrages — at least the ones that are true; Siggy trots out the "wipe off the map" canard, again. The civilized world is waiting for Turkish outrage over the extermination of 85% fo the Armenians, Japanese outrage over the rape of Nanking and Indonesian outrage over the genocide against the East Timorese, too. Of course, Siggy was talking about outrageous acts in the muslim world, not elsewhere. Then again, I was just talking about a specific act within Iran, so there's something to be said for sticking to the fucking subject.
On that note, one of Siggy's calls for outrage was this little gem:
The civilized world is waiting for outrage at the 100 million women that have suffered Female Genital Mutilation.
Is it really that many? Hmmm... well, whatever the case, female genital mutilation is an African practice, not part of Islam. If the civilized is wondering why muslims aren't any more outraged than anyone else, then perhaps the civilized world needs to get out more. I'm really curious to see if Siggy is willing to call "Africans" on the carpet or not. It's not clear if he hates ordinary niggers as much as he hates sand niggers.
What I find most telling about Siggy's article is the repetition of the "chest-beating ape" image to describe me as someone trying to drown out reason with heated rhetoric. Ironically, in the entire course of a rather long, original essay, he doesn't address a single thing I actually said. Siggy claims to be a psycho-therapist, so I assume he's familiar with the term "projection." If he nees a functional definition, he should look in a mirror.
Update: Apparently, Siggy isn't content to keep his simian chest-beating bigotry in his own sty; no, he has to pollute our comments section with it. Read it yourselves. The guy is a raving lunatic and somewhat of a liar, too. From his comment:
Further, although I never mentioned the 'wipe of the map' remark (reread my post), I don't have to.
From his post:
No word yet of Muslim outrage at Iran's Almadinejad's Holocaust denial or his stated aim of 'wiping Israel off the map.'
I'm supposed to re-read what now? Oh, and he misspelled Ahmadinejad.
There are between 1.5 and 2 billion muslims on the planet. If Islam is really this unified force for world domination, then I guess we're pretty much fucked already. Fortunately, the vast majority of muslims want nothing to do with war and don't particularly hate Jews and Christians, although there is a pretty widespread dislike of Israel.
Finally, I don't really know what I'm supposed to do about these atrocities other than what I'm doing now, which is to support peace and freedom and oppose hatred. I think that latter part is the problem. I don't hate the Global Muslim Conspiracy™ as much as people like Siggy think I should. (Is this guy really a psycho-therapist? I'll beleive that he's a psycho, but therapy for what? Being too content?) But really, I know where this is going: "bomb Iran." Yeah, that will solve everything, demonstrate our moral superiority and enlighten the miserable Islamists as to the benefits of democracy.
Oh yeah, Iranian democracy. Mossadeq. Look it up.
Posted by Winston Smith at 04:32 PM | Comments (7)
A question of terminology...
In response to the question of what a proper term is for the Rightist Christians of the current American political scene, I propose the term:
Let me explain why I feel this terminology is accurate socially, politically and theologically.
As a Liberal Christian (Anarchist neo-Marxist actually), I, like many other believers and non-believers, am offended by the way that the rightist elements within the Body of Christ have taken over political and religious discourse in America.
A vocal minority of believers have taken it upon themselves to claim to speak for an entire faith... while excluding most of the members of that faith by claiming they are “apostate”, “heretical”, “blasphemous” and “idol-worshippers”.
These individuals, who are mostly of the Fundamentalist, Nondenominational and Evangelical denominations – but can be found within the Roman and Byzantine Catholic, Orthodox and Episcopal Churches in minuscule numbers – are destroying the very faith that they claim to be a member of.
Much like the Sadducees, the Pharisees (or P'rushim) and the Herodians of Jesus' time, these Christians, by being complicit with the establishment of the status quo, are corrupting the teachings of the God and the Messiah they claim to follow.
Much like the Jewish parties mentioned above, today's American Rightist Christians claim that they are the “true voice” of God and that to speak against them, their social, political or economic systems or religious teachings is to speak against God himself.
Let us look briefly at each of the Jewish Parties of Jesus' time – and we will see that there are parallels among the current Christian Fundamentalists in America.
First, the Sadducees – who are of unknown/uncertain origin. They probably come from a group established in ~200BCE as the High Priest's Party, but claimed to be the descendants of Zadok, the High Priest of Dawid. This claim was made to help them claim that Israel's existence depended on their existence and forms of worship. Without the Sadducees, Israel would not and could not exist. Socio-politically, the Sadducees were members of the Aristocracy – the rich and powerful descendants of the high-priestly line – but not all were actively priests. They viewed their economic position as further sign of their blessedness in the eyes of God.
In modern America, Evangelicals and Nondenominationalists who preach/believe in “The City on a Hill” and “the Gospel of Prosperity” are the spiritual descendants of the Sadducees.
Next come the P'rushim. This party likely was established by the Hasidim and represent the spiritual and political descendants of Judah Maccabee and his band of religious freedom fighters. This was the largest socio-political sect in Israel at the time of Jesus, and as such were composed of educated middle-class individuals (scribes, lawyers, teachers/Rabbis, businessmen, traders, etc.). They were responsible for the theological development of “Oral Law” and the shift from sacrifice to observance of the Law in public worship.
In modern America, this represents the majority of Christians Fundamentalists, Evangelicals and Nondenominationalists – these are individuals who simply want to believe in God, worship as they feel is right, and follow their pastor's teachings because they think their pastors honestly speak for God.
Finally, there are the Herodians. This group is the hardest to nail down theologically, as it was not a religious group as such, but rather a political one composed of individuals from both the Sadducees and the P'rushim. What united these individuals was their wealth and political views. They supported Herod (and any descendant of Herod the Great that gained power). They also unquestioningly supported anything that would help them to implement their religio-political views – even if it meant complicity with an occupying force at the cost of their own people.
The modern American version of the Herodians are “Republican Christian” leaders such as Tom DeLay and others who seek to implement their religio-political vision at any cost – even that of their own honesty and morality.
Another religio-political parallel with the Israel of Jesus' day is that there was no place for the vast majority of Jews in political discourse. The above parties denied membership to the vast populace of the land because they either lacked the proper ancestry, education or wealth. These individuals were literally outsiders in a society they formed a majority of. This is the reason that there were so many “messiahs” and “revolutionaries” in First Century Israel. The people were literally crying out and looking for salvation from religious, political and economic oppression. This is why Jesus, as itinerant teacher, preacher and wonder-worker was able to gain crowds of followers. He spoke to the people in their language about their concerns . He challenged the status quo by stating that all persons had equal access to the “Kingdom of God”.
As in first-century Israel, Christians who speak out against the status-quo, especially from “the left” are derided as being “immoral”, “atheists”, “subversives” or “against the unity of the state”. For example, Liberation Theologians have no place in the current “rightist” political discourse. They are rejected as being contrary to the “true message of Christ” and “perverters of the Gospel”. This is ironic given that in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 18, verses1-5, we see Jesus teaching the crowds what it means to be part of the Kingdom of God.
At that time, the disciples approached Jesus and said, “Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?”He called a child over, placed him in the middle of the crowd, and said, “Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like this child, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. And whoever receives one child such as this, it as if he receives Me.
Jesus did not hold this child up as a model of Christian behaviour because he felt that children were any more “innocent” or “pure” than adults... rather he holds up a child as being the greatest in the Kingdom because in the ancient world, children were the least of the people. Animals and women were of greater importance (in that order) than children. Children, until they were able to contribute labour and defence to a community were a drain on resources. Because of the high infant mortality rates in the ancient world, children were viewed as being a drain on the economic, social and political resources of the community of which they were a part. Jesus held up a child as being the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven precisely because they were seen as “costly” and a “burden”... they were totally dependent on and trusted fully in their families and communities for support. Without that support, they, who were unable to defend or provide for themselves, would surely die.
By making a child the Greatest in the Kingdom, Jesus said that true disciples of his teachings must also have complete dependence on and trust in their religious community.
Christian Nationalists turn this view on its head by stating that they are to be in charge of and in control of the community itself. By doing so they think that they can bring about a manifestation of the Kingdom of God on Earth. Rather than being in the world, but not of it, while changing it through love, they seek to overcome the world by force and to establish a Dominion over it. This is contrary to the teachings of the Jesus of History as well as the Christ of Faith.
If you want to read more about what Jesus taught about the religious sects of his day and their various attempts to establish a theocracy contrasted with His vision of the Kingdom of God, read: ; Matthew 21 12-17; Matthew 22 15-22, 34-40; Matthew 23 1-39. None of these passages seem to indicate that Jesus would have supported Christian Nationalists' quest for a “Christian America” founded on the political, social and economic policies of the Neo-conservatives.
How can the Christian Nationalists' forget that Jesus himself was executed by the religious nationalists of his day – the Sadducees, Pharisees and Herodians all agreed that Jesus needed to eliminated – for his insurrection and revolutionary teachings? The religious establishment was worried that Jesus' teachings would incite a rebellion. The fact that Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem before the Passover feast only added to their fears... he had all the signs and portents of being an actual Messiah... if he got the people behind him, he could endanger their political and religious stronghold on the region.
Unfortunately, the Revolutionary Jesus of History has been lost in some people's version of the Christ of faith. Their Christ died for their sins only. Their Christ supports unjust wars. Their Christ supports the exploitation of non-Christians. Their Christ has no problem with his followers not being faithful stewards of the environment. Their Christ is a white American. Their Christ, probably just like their pastor, drives a SUV and votes Republican.
One final irony of the Christan Nationalists is this: if you talk to them about the Orthodox or Catholic Churches they will at some point likely deride these ecclesiastical bodies for the historical unity of Church and State for most of their history. The problem they have is not what they espouse it to be: a theocracy as a violation of individuals' religious and civil rights; rather, their complaint lies in the particular faith practiced. If these states had their National Churches based upon the Fundamentalist, Evangelical or Nondenominational doctrines/practises, they would not complain. They would see it as a manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
Convenient.
As for how Jesus views the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth:
If those who lead you say, “Look, the kingdom is in Heaven,” then the birds of heaven will precede you.
If they say, “It is in The Sea (of Galilee),” then the fish will precede you.
Rather, the kingdom is within you and outside you. When you know yourselves, you will be known, and you will know you are children of the living father.
But if you do not know yourselves, you live in poverty and you yourselves are the poverty.
The Gospel of Thomas, 3
Ironic that the Christian Nationalists who speak out against social programmes, welfare, and socialised medicine are the poverty of the Kingdom they seek to establish on Earth.
Update: adding a trackback to tristero's round-up of news topics on Hullabaloo, which includes a discussion of the "Christianist" term.
Posted by Sister Weasle at 01:36 PM | Comments (6)
May 20, 2006
All Things Blithering
Ask any war-happy wingnut, and they will gleefully inform you that Iranian President Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Ask them for a direct quote and you're highly unlike to get this:
و امام عزيز ما فرمودند كه اين رژيم اشغالگر قدس بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود
You won't get this for two reasons. First, most wingnuts speak only one language — and frequently badly, at that — English, and those who speak more than one almost never speak Farsi or Arabic. Second, anyone who speaks Farsi fluently wouldn't claim that this was a call to "wipe Israel off the map," especially in the context of the entire speech.
Out-of-context mistranslation is the bread and butter of anyone who ever quotes the King James Bible, and most wingnuts will quote it abundantly, some not even realizing that Bible wasn't written in 17th Century English. Also, we're talking about wingnuts and truth isn't a big part of "being right" for them — more on this later.
Yesterday, I wrote an entry about a big fat hairy lie bouncing around the wingnut echo chamber and I "trackbacked" to several of the blogs peddling this lie. Gibbering mouthbreather, Alexandra, of "All Things Beautiful" was kind enough to respond to my post and invite further ridicule. Here it is.
In case you need some more ammunition to insult, I have written another long article about it today.
Thankyou, Alexandra, and thank you for making it so fucking easy.
The post is long and includes a lot of bullshit including some out-of-context quotes from 10th-14th Century imams, and best of all, a lengthy citation from Amir Taheri's article. She claims that Taheri "confirms today in the New York Post," apparently blissfully unaware that the Post is merely running the article that that invented this story in the first place. I linked to Taheri's article yesterday, but apparently the slow-witted Alexandra didn't pick up on the fact that Taheri is, in fact, the only person in the world who claimed that Iran had passed a law requiring non-muslims to wear identifying badges.
Inability to comprehend sourcing is another wingnut trait. If one person makes a claim and 99 other people repeat it, then 100 people said it — as long as it fits their preconceived world view. 100 eye-witnesses who disagree with their personal religion are "biased" or even "liars."
Alexandra's lengthy cut-n-paste-laden essay is intended to support a premise that made my jaw literally drop open: truth doesn't matter. In her own words:
It really doesn't matter whether or not the Iranian Mullahs actually have passed the law forcing Iranian Jews and Christians to wear colored badges identifying them as non-Muslims.
OK, so it doesn't really matter whether claims she makes about what the Iranians do are true or not. Um, why?
What matters is, that they are not only perfectly capable of passing such a law, but that Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and his cohort Mullahs are most certainly breathlessly awaiting the day when such laws are testament to their progress towards establishing the Caliphat, complete with Shari'a laws imposing segregation of first class, i.e. Muslims and second class citizens, otherwise known as Dhimmis, whose right to live depends at best on their ability to pay 'protection tax', or Jizya poll tax.
See? It doesn't really matter what they do because we know what they're capable of. Nevermind that this characterization of Islam is provably false.
Christians and Jews living in Islamic Republics are not second-class citizens. It is expressly forbidden to treat them as such — they are fellow "people of the book."
Now, you can easily come up with plenty of examples where Jews and Christians are treated shabily in Islamic countries, but law and practice are two different things. For example, it became illegal to treat blacks as second class citizens in the United States in the late 1860's, but it wasn't until the 1960's that anyone made a good-faith effort to put that into practice; in fact, we're still working the bugs out of it today.
Ironically, during the periods from which the ominous Imams' quotes are taken, the safest place in the Western Hemisphere for Jews was in Islamic countries. They paid their tax and were left alone. Meanwhile, back in Europe, Alexandra's ancestors were burning Jews at the stake and destroying their temples in pogrom after bloody pogrom. Alexandra's family hails from the former Yugoslavia where there were no fewer than three concentration camps located in Jasenovac, Rab and Sajmiste. In nearly 4000 years of recorded history, the Persians (Iranians) have never hosted a concentration camp. Ever. Not a single one. In fact, many of the Armenians who survived the 1915 genocide were shielded from the Turks because they lived in Persia.
But lets get back to the Nazis.
Alexandra's gross mischaracterizations should sound familiar to anyone who has studied the Holocaust. Similar mischaracterizations were made of Jews and Romany Gypsies (who hail from her ancestral homeland). Any Nazi of good standing could level an accusation against a Jew or a Romany and the accused would be presumed guilty and possibly sumarily executed for the crime. The truth of the accusation was irrelevant because Jews and Gypsies were of such low character — as "everyone knew" — that the accusation might as well be true. In any case, if they weren't guilty of the specific crime, it could be assumed that they were guilty of some other crime or would be guilty in the future, so why waste the opportunity to cleanse the fatherland (or Yugoslavia, as the case may be)?
So Alexandra sounds like a Nazi. She sure looks like a Nazi (if that's an accurate image of her). Is she a Nazi? Sure, why not? After all, it doesn't really matter whether or not she claims to be a Nazi, what matters is that in my fevered imagination, she's ready to don a Gestapo uniform the minute the UPS guy delivers it to her doorstep.
Finally, a note "towards the person"; she wrote:
So many ad hominems on one page, are you always this prolific?
You tell me. You (potential) Nazi!
Update: Well, from the "that dead horse wouldn't be moving if you weren't still flogging it department", Alexandra shared a rather involved essay from one of her readers (it's in the comments). This guy gets a silver star for knowing Farsi. He would get a gold star, but I believe the correct translation of the remark is "...must vanish from..." not "must be erased," but close enough. He still takes the quote out of context. Big surprise. In any case, I doubt we'll be seeing the wingnuts change their charge to "Ahmadinejad said that the Jerusalem-occupying regime must be obliterated from the page of time!" because that is a political goal, not a military goal, and wingnuts don't like anything that doesn't have a body count. (Also, nice brag that he knows Turkish, a language with two irregular verbs, it's not that hard to learn.) Interestingly, the commenter directs me to MEMRI for futher instruction, although their translation of Ahmadinejad's line jives with mine, not his.
I guess I'm supposed to be learned a great deal about the awfulness of the Iranian government, if not Iranians, Arabs and Muslims in general. Of course, there was yet another deluge of blather about Ahmadinejad's anti-Zionism, which is brazen and unforgivable and which I never denied. The author appears to be trying to establish that "Like John Kerry, Mr. Jones seems to be constitutionally incapable of realizing that some things are, indeed, lucidly clear." I think Mr. Jones will be very hurt by this allegation as he hasn't posted on this blog for over a year.
I haven't spoken to Mr. Jones on this subject, but I think he would find it lucidly clear that Amir Taheri manufactured a lie about the Iranian government, Alexandra and her ilk heralded it all over the blogosphere, and once it had become clear that it was false, have refused to admit that, choosing, instead, to fill my inbox with infantile rants. There are a lot of reasons to hate the regime in Iran, but I'm not going to swallow a conflation of anecdotes and shit out hatred for all Persians, Arabs and Muslims, which is what my critics are all about — and as much as I find them vile, I'm going to leave their words in the comments section as testament to their frothing hatred of all things not like them.
As far as the traffic goes, we at the SJR couldn't care less. We don't run ads, we run the truth, albiet with toungue-in-cheek. Deal with it, you big babies. Oh, and nice with the "lawyer" comment, that really raises your credibility, fucknut. It's the Internet equivalent of "I know karate!"
Posted by Winston Smith at 07:07 PM | Comments (6)
Gullible Perspective
The right-wingnut blogs are all atwitter about a new law in "Islamofascist" Iran requiring Jews and Christians to wear identifying badges. The real problem here is that this story isn't remotely true; it is another big, fat, hairy lie from serial liar and bitter ex-Iranian propagandist Amir Taheri.
Taheri is a big celebrity on the right wing blogs for his article telling the wingnuts everything they ever wanted to hear about how great Iraq is going. Apparently, the "MSM" is hiding the truth, as are — I pointed this out yesterday — the Iraqis blogging live from Iraq. Damn, it seems that no one but Amir Taheri and a hoard of sedentary pee-pee-pants conservative cowards know how great things are going. Didn't the MSM listen to Rumsfeld? We've turned the corner in Iraq! This time we're really gonna make it! You'll see!
Anyway, the "Vital Perspective" blog breathlessly reported that "Iran Parliament Passes Law Requiring Nazi Style Badges for Jews, Christians". Oh my god! Where did they get that?! It came from an article in the Canadian National Post. Did they verify it? Sure! They asked some Iranians — Iranians who live in Canada. One of those Iranians? Amir Taheri.
Maurice Motammed, a Jewish MP in Iran vociferously denied that any such law had been passed. So has the Iranian Embassy. In this second story, a follow-up run by the National Post, someone actually speaks to Jews in Iran:
Sam Kermanian, of the U.S.-based Iranian-American Jewish Federation, said in an interview from Los Angeles that he had contacted members of the Jewish community in Iran -- including the lone Jewish member of the Iranian parliament.
They denied any such measure was in place.
Hmmmm, I dunno. Maybe we should invade Iran just to make sure. I mean, that has worked so well in neighboring Iraq.
I really don't know what else I can say.
Oh yeah, wingnuts are reprehensible liars and morons, but that should be obvious.
Posted by Winston Smith at 01:23 PM | Comments (2)
May 19, 2006
Dr. Idiot
An imbecile calling herself "Dr. Sanity" — a play on her name "Santy," I believe — has posted another Kaloogianesque bit claiming that Iraq is doing really great and that the "MSM" is making it look bad because, well, because they're pootyheads.
What is the good doctor's proof that the editors of America's largest newspapers are unfairly trashing our efforts in Iraq? Well, she's found an article written by the former editor of the largest Iranian newspaper. I kid you not.
Amir Taheri, Dr. Santy's "expert," lost or fled his position during the 1979 Islamic revolution, so it would be ignorant to accuse him of supporting the mullahs that taunt us from Tehran nowadays. No, Taheri lived and worked as the mouthpiece for brutal dictatorship of Shah Reza Palahvi. So someone skilled at running a propaganda operation is being held up as a foil to the press of the entire Western world. This genius of using this guy just strengthens the irony of using an op-ed peice by a fixture of the MSM to "prove" that the fact-checked news articles of the MSM are dishonest.
Taheri isn't the first Iranian stooge to figure out that a "rah-rah Bush" story would get them the good graces of the neo-conservatives. Taxpayers shelled out $350,000 a month to Ahmed Chalabi to have him spoonfeed the Bush Administration whatever his Iranian handlers wanted him to. And a "rah-rah" piece it is, too. In the first paragraph, Teheri trots out the bogus wingnut talking point that "journalists don't leave their hotel rooms." Tell that to Jill Carroll. If the journalists are "cocooned in hotels in Baghdad" as Taheri puts it, how is it that more journalists have died in 3 years of covering Iraq than died in 8 years of covering Vietnam (which, as any wingnut will tell you, was a much worse conflict than Iraq).
You see, Amir Taheri knows something that zombies like Dr. Santy and her drooling herded fan base don't know. It isn't that the beloved Bush puppet regime in Iraq is is doing well, it's that the hated Iranian regime is doing well. Very well. If there's a clear winner in America's Iraq adventure, its the mullahs in Tehran. How do I know this? Did I consult the MSM or the New York Times? No, I can get this information from Iraqi bloggers such as Riverbend:
We constantly hear our new puppets rant and rave against Syria, against Saudi Arabia, against Turkey, even against the country they have to thank for their rise to power- America… But no one dares to talk about the role Iran is planning in the country.
The last few days we’ve been hearing about Iranian attacks on northern Iraq- parts of Kurdistan that are on the Iranian border. Several sites were bombed and various news sources are reporting Iranian troops by the thousand standing ready at the Iraqi border. Prior to this, there has been talk of Iranian revolutionary guard infiltrating areas like Diyala and even parts of Baghdad.
Even over at the pro-war Iraqi blog, Iraq The Model, Bush's Iraqi cheerleaders have to admit that Iran is infiltrating Iraq militarily. One commenter at Dr. Santy's blog posted a quote from Omar at Iraq the Model to demonstrate how upbeat they are:
Can you imagine what things will be like when Baghdad becomes a safe place where diplomats are not afraid to come, businessmen are not afraid to invest their money, people are not afraid to go to work, passenger flights are not afraid to land like they do in other airports in this world?
I can, and it's a vision of beauty that can become a reality.
How touching. You must read the rest of the article where Omar laments the complete lack of security in the capital. Better yet, read Mohammed's post from a week later which wraps up with a more defeated tone:
Anyway, promises about an improvement in power production and supplies by 2008 is not largely convincing to people living under the burning sun of Baghdad under which promises evaporate and dreams of a cool A/C breeze evaporate as well.
Apparently we are destined to have more rough summers.
Getting back to the Iranians, though, why not just say, "Hey, if we don't win in Iraq, then it will fall — or parts of it will fall — to Iran." I've been against this war since day zero, and I find that a compelling argument against "cut and run." The reason that this sensible argument won't be heard coming from the Dr. Sanity's or Amir Tahari's of the world is simple. In order to make this argument, you must admit what a terrible, terrible bunch of fuck-ups Bush and his crew have been. If Iraq does, indeed, need an international military presence to help it stabilize, it's clear that the US and the UK aren't the right nations to provide that military presence. There's no way in hell that the Bush Decidership is going to turn all that oil over to the UN or the Arab league.
So more innocent Iraqis will die for oil and ignorance and smug assholes like Pat Santy will sit on their fat asses in places like Ann Arbor and talk about how great everything must be going in Iraq.
Update: Gateway pundit is also screeching full blast into the wingnut echo chamber. In addition to the source-du-jour, Amir Taheri, he cites data from the oh-so-unbias U.S. commanders of the MNF. They've been tracking refugees and can't seem to find very many. Hmmm... maybe because refugees don't want to be associated with the army that's destroying their homeland? Just a guess.
Posted by Winston Smith at 03:02 PM | Comments (0)
16% of Freepers Would Rather Vote for Marxists that Republicans
Really? Well, it looks that way.
Free Republic always has an opinion poll and records the votes with a distinction between members and non-members. The member-only vote is a better gauge of how the True Believers™ are leaning. In the case of a recent poll it would appear that a significant number are leaning far enough away from the Republicans to "let the Marxists win."
What?! You read that right. One thing that Free Republic tries to do with its polls is to make a statement; Freepers generally have a herd mentality, and seeing what the "popular" opinion is tends to shift the herd. This time, I'd have to say that it fell flat. Perhaps they tried too hard. This was the question:
A time for choosing: It appears that a significant number of our members are so disgusted with the GOP's failure to secure our borders against illegal aliens that they are willing to risk all by voting them out of office, even if it means Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, et al, are allowed to take charge. Is this the best course of action or should we be working harder than ever to hold the line and actually try to make a difference by getting more constitutionally-minded conservatives elected? Are you willing to give it all up or are you more determined than ever to keep the Marxists out of power?
Gee, put that way, what choice does a loyal Freeper really have? Marxists or conservatives? Pushing the poll further were the two options for answers:
Work harder to get conservatives elected.
Turn it over to the Rats.
Oh come on. There's only one choice there, right? Well, apparently not. Around 500 of the roughly 3000 members who voted — that's one out of six, or 16% — picked "Turn it over to the Rats." Given the way the question was phrased, that's 16% of the hard-core Freeper base that would just as soon let Hillary Clinton run the country than trust the neo-cons. That's pretty huge.
Amongst non-member voters — some like me, many probably unregistered conservative lurkers — "the Rats" scored nearly 30%, for a combined voting o 23.4% for "the Rats."
Go 'Rats!
Posted by Winston Smith at 09:32 AM | Comments (0)
Settle Down Now
President Bush has finally figured out why the American people don't like him, and like most things President Bush figures out, he's got it wrong. Apparently, we're just "unsettled." As Bush explained it to NBC's David Gregory:
Gregory: They’re not just unsettled, sir. They disapprove of the job you’re doing.
President Bush: That’s unsettled.
So settle down, people! You're endagering the smooth operation of the Bush Decidership!
Posted by Winston Smith at 09:21 AM | Comments (0)
May 18, 2006
Give Rumsfeld a Banana
Seeing as how the Republican Party has mastered the fine art of crapping in their hands and flinging it, you'd think that there wasn't much our fellow primates, the knuckle-dragging great apes, could do to one-up our other fellow primates, the knuckle-dragging Republicans. But you'd be wrong.
It turns out that apes can apes can plan ahead. If you've heard anything about Iraq — oh, since about March, 2003 — it would become clear that we'd have been better off letting Orangutans plan the invasion of Iraq. Oh well, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the chimps that are in power, not the chimps you wish were in power.
Posted by Winston Smith at 07:50 PM | Comments (0)
May 15, 2006
American the Fearful
Today's column by Bob Herbert (TimesSelect required) is blunt and to the point.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, all bets were off. John Kennedy once said, "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war." But George W. Bush, employing an outrageous propaganda campaign ("Shock and awe," "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), started an utterly pointless war in Iraq that he still doesn't know how to win or how to end.If you listen to the Bush version of reality, the president is all powerful. In that version, we are fighting a war against terrorism, which is a war that will never end. And as long as we are at war (forever), there is no limit to the war-fighting powers the president can claim as commander in chief.
So we've kidnapped people and sent them off to be tortured in the extraordinary rendition program; and we've incarcerated people at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere without trial or even the right to know the charges against them; and we're allowing the C.I.A. to operate super-secret prisons where God-knows-what-all is going on; and we're listening in on the phone calls and reading the e-mail of innocent Americans without warrants; and on and on and on.
The Bushies will tell you that it is dangerous and even against the law to inquire into these nefarious activities. We just have to trust the king.
Well, I give you fair warning. This is a road map to totalitarianism. Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included an excessive reliance on secrecy, the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population, a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy, the promotion of blind patriotism, the denial of human rights, the curtailment of the rule of law, hostility to a free press and the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.
There are not enough pretty words in all the world to cover up the damage that George W. Bush has done to his country. If the United States could look at itself in a mirror, it would be both alarmed and ashamed at what it saw.
We've crossed the line between Republic and Tyranny. Will we be able to step back?
Posted by Steven at 05:34 PM | Comments (0)
May 01, 2006
Third Anniversary of "Mission Accomplished"
In case you don't remember the ass-kissing coverage of Bush's infamous landing on an aircraft carrier (kept at sea for just this occasion for the cost of $33M tax payer dollars -- not reimbursed by the GOP), Media Matters has the look-back.
President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln aboard an S-3B Viking jet, emerged from the aircraft in full flight gear, and proceeded to "press[] flesh," as The Washington Post put it, as he shook hands and hugged crew members in front of the cameras. Later that day, Bush delivered a nationally televised speech from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln in which he declared that "[m]ajor combat operations in Iraq have ended," all the while standing under a banner reading: "Mission Accomplished." Despite lingering questions over the continued violence in Iraq, the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction, and the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein, as well as evidence that Bush may have shirked his responsibilities in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG) during the Vietnam War, the print and televised media fawned over Bush's "grand entrance" and the image of Bush as the "jet pilot" and the "Fighter Dog."
Joe Bob sez check it out.
Posted by Steven at 12:00 PM | Comments (0)