it's official: saddam had WMDs
for you iraq hawks distressed over the carnegie endowment for international peace's allegations of fabrication and strong-arming by the bush administration to whip up support for their stinkin' oil war, have no fear. (and btw, the CEIP would know, because they've dug up every square inch of iraq and syria, right?) the cavalry just showed up, but the man on the white charger isn't who you'd expect: bill clinton has reaffirmed his belief that saddam hussein held weapons of mass destruction.
see, don't you feel better now?
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.
no, no, no, bill. you've got it all wrong. bush lied. he had to have lied, dammit. he lied because he's a lying liar, and we know he's a liar because he lies. it's ironclad, baby. we'll just disregard the fact that the brits, germans, french, russians...just about everyone you care to name, including the u.n., firmly believed right up until the liberation of iraq that saddam retained about half of his non-conventional weapons stockpile because, hey, bush lied.
i realize that logic isn't a liberal's strong point, but please, you doves, try to keep up. trust me, this is good for you:
1. if george w. bush lied, then by definition he knew that iraq had no WMDs but willfully misled the american people to the contrary.
2. this would mean that he must have had access to some secret source of information that had escaped the combined notice of the finest intelligence agencies in the world today, even those of nations who opposed the liberation of iraq from the start. who knows, maybe he had one of those crystal ball things saruman used to spy on frodo and the ring.
3. assuming bush is not able to conjure demonic henchmen to do his bidding, his sources of intelligence were largely the same as those clinton used to establish what had to have been a mere pretext for his cruise missile strikes on saddam. remember how much of the intel powell based his famous iraq-WMD address to the u.n. on was grounded in circa 1998 stuff? bush's belief (and the rest of the world's) was founded on the same intel clinton had. if bush lied, clinton did too. bush's ulterior motive, according to you doves, was oil. could clinton have had one? hard to say. my memory is hazy...must be getting old...can anyone remind me of what was happening on the domestic front around the time clinton started jonesin' to wack iraq?
don't go straining yourselves, my dovish friends. clinton was telling the truth, and so was george w. bush. see, here's the key:
whether or not saddam actually had WMDs is moot in regards to the question of whether or not bush lied.
wow, man. like, deep, huh?
stay with me, now: bush, like clinton and basically everyone else on earth, believed that saddam had weapons of mass destruction. maybe it was the fact that saddam had used weapons of mass destruction on the iranians and his own people. hard to say. whatever it was, though, everyone was pretty damn sure. ergo: nobody lied! they acted in accordance with what they firmly believed to be the truth.
you'll find that this truth hypothesis has a very convenient attendant benefit, namely, once you've accepted that nobody lied, you no longer have to explain why it is that saddam
1. kicked out weapons inspectors in the late nineties incurring further international sanctions,
2. kept them out and routinely locked on to or even fired upon american aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone,
3. grudgingly readmitted inspectors as a last-ditch effort to save his skin but refused to grant unfettered access even to hans blix, a man who had every reason in the world not to find weapons,
4. went into an unwinnable war that resulted in his eventual dethroning for a pipe dream.
although, i must say, we on the right have really enjoyed your attempts at psychoanalyzing saddam (saddam's ego didn't allow him to back down even though their was no reason to fight, saddam lived in a fantasy world where he believed he had WMDs even though he didn't, saddam was afraid that if he let on he didn't have WMDs his enemies would come after him, etc.) i mean, saddam is so damn crazy that he's going to go to war with the united states of america over a bunch of weapons he doesn't even have, yet he's brilliant enough to trick the entire planet into thinking that he's got them after all? sure.
but such is your hatred of george w. bush that you'd rather be strangled in your own web of conspiracy than allow your minds to be freed by the simple truth: from hell's heart we stab at thee, dubya! and thus you'll take the word of some pinko group over that of the most reputable intelligence agencies on earth since the pinkos are at least telling you what you want to hear.
locdog is only trying to help
my loved ones were massacred and all i got was this stupid wading pool?
that's the winner. 5200 entries and "reflecting absence" was selected.
not "reflecting terror."
not "reflecting tragedy."
not even "reflecting loss."
just "absence." those who met their gruesome fates on september 11, 2001 just up and disappeared. nothing bad happened. nothing was permanently misplaced. hell, who knows, maybe they'll be back tomorrow. they're just "absent," after all. off on an extended leave somewhere, a trip which may or may not have been prompted by the actions of certain ter--no, too offensive--hijackers one sunny summer tuesday not so many moons ago.
"the existence of the previous world trade center and its inhabitants has been indefinetly postponed," our fine new memorial informs us.
not to put too fine a point on it, but the only thing "reflecting absence" is a monument to is the colossal idiocy of the 13-member panel of experts who selected the winning design: "architects, artists, and cultural leaders." God save us from the experts. i'd love to know if any of these experts had a loved one blown up on september 11th--and i'm not talking about their old roommate's ex-wife's second cousin twice-removed. i'm talking about sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, lifelong friends...it seems impossible to believe that anyone for whom the events of september 11th 2001 were not an abstraction could have embraced such a travesty. bereft of sentiment, reverence, and, worst of all, meaning, "reflecting absence" will serve as a sort of guidepost for future generations of americans seeking to avoid the vapid, nihilistic meanderings of their post-modern fathers.
one of the experts was maya lin, who you may recognize as the designer of the vietnam wall. i've never been crazy about the wall, but i've been willing to accept it on account of its undeniable power: vietnam veterans and the families of KIAs find it fitting, and that's all that really matters. and while i don't care for the whole minimalist aesthetic in general, it seemed to suit the wall: it's the lowest common denominator of memorials, what's left after every possible side of the argument, every last bit of jingoism and america-hating has had its say and obliterated its counterpart. what's left is tens of thousands of dead american boys.
is that all that can be said for those who lost their lives in the world trade center attacks? were there no heroes? were there no villains? it's all just containment and brinkmanship and the finer points of johnson's escalation and no one's really right or wrong but there are thousands of dead people anyway and gee we ought to do something?
i can't figure out what it is i'm supposed to remember when i look at the thing. "reflecting absence" can't even qualify as revisionist history because its got no story to tell. it's emptiness. it's like the way they won't show footage of the disaster on tv anymore or refer to the murderers as “terrorists.” they don't want us to remember. they don't want to memorialize anything.
"can't we all just move on and put an end to this violence," the silly sages of our age cry out.
no. we can't. and we shouldn't.
locdog won't forget
it's monday. it's raining. i'm back at work. at least there's today's political roundup.
guess they've never heard of godwin's law
howard dean slush fund moveon.org recently hosted a contest to find the best oust-bush spot. one entry they hosted had still images of der fuhrer accompanied by an audio reel of his characteristic ranting. suspiciously anachronistic subtitles translate: "we have taken new measures to protect our homeland," shouts adolf. "i believe i am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator! God told me to strike at al-qaida and i struck them!"
we should have been so lucky.
the image, uh, moves on to one of bush waving to an unseen crowd, this coming on the heels of hitler giving one of his seig heil! salutes so that the similarity forced on the viewer is unmistakable. "...and then He instructed me to strike at saddam, which i did," the subtitles continue. hitler's voice is still blaring in the background, never missing a beat. the screen goes black and SOUND FAMILIAR? flashes on it, the effect reminiscent of those GOT MILK? ads that were big a few years back.
moveon.org pulled the ad in response to complaints that should have been a surprise to no one, but the RNC kindly posted it themselves: in 2004 it's between us and them, and you sure don't want to be on their side, they seem to say. i guess the republicans are banking on the fact that the american people are smart enough to recognize that they really do have an enemy who thinks they take their marching orders directly from God, have a hitlerian thirst for blood, and hate jews with an unquenchable passion to boot--and that george w. bush is working hard to defeat this enemy each and every day.
now that i think of it, the republicans could assemble quite the spiffy little campaign commercial with nothing more than recycled 100% post-democratic waste. smart and environmentally friendly, too. they could start with that new hampshire dean-cum-daisy-girl spot, move on to clark blaming bush for 9/11 ("When this administration came to office...they were told that the greatest threat to American security was Osama bin Laden. And yet, on 9/11, there was still...no plan sanctioned by the President of the United States, no plan directed to go after that threat of Osama bin Laden." --he is referring to bill clinton here, right?) then move on once more to adolf bush.
move over, quayle
howard dean has blundered more in his brief career as a democratic presidential candidate than all the other dwarves combined (excluding john f'ing kerry.) a good late-model example would be his kucinichly-kooky insistence that bin laden be assumed innocent until proven guilty. howard, baby, you've already got the lunatic left in your pocket. what the hell were you thinking?
but dean is no longer satisfied with gaffes by the gross. it takes quantity and quality to lose in a landslide, which is why dean has boldly pioneered realms of idiocy where only elephants and all manner of strange beasts were thought to dwell. dean has given us something fresh and exciting, an entirely new sort of screw-up that combines elements of the classic blunder with the baffling ignorance of dan quayle:
After hearing Dean's observation beginning "If you know much about the Bible — which I do," a reporter asked about his favorite New Testament book. Dean named Job, adding, "But I don't like the way it ends . . . in some of the books of the New Testament, the ending of the Book of Job is different . . . there's one book where there's a more optimistic ending, which we believe was tacked on later."
the shades of quayle are right there in living color so i won’t rub your nose in dean's mess. the blunder aspect is nearly as flagrant: the only hope dean's ham-fisted attempt at winning southern/heartland voters has is for a few pity votes inspired by his clownish flailing. sure kid, i'll buy a glass of lemonade.
if only he could have mangled Testament...called it the "new testimony" or something...we would have had the political FUBAR trifecta.
i wouldn't bring this up, but i know how important intelligent, well-spoken candidates are to you democrats and all.
yanks 1, limies 0
so we've had our first mad cow. we've still got plenty of reasons to look down our shapely noses at our smelly eurotrash neighbors. reason number 9, 257,826: our mars lander works.
are you getting this, oj?
charlie hustle has admitted to betting on baseball. but not against the reds, of course.
"i wish i could take it all back," says rose. yeah, i'll bet. the question (as if there ever was one) now becomes: how long till selig caves and rescinds rose's ban from baseball?
i'm agin' any such gesture, as you probably guessed. in addition to disgracing himself and the game he says he loves, rose has lied to loyal fans for over a decade. now that he finally comes clean--thus doing the least that could possibly be expected of anyone hoping to call himself a man--rose should be rewarded with, in effect, a ticket to cooperstown? before you act, bud, think: what's the lesson that kids are supposed to take from this? that it's ok to break the rules as long as you lie about it for a sufficient chunk of your adult life?
locdog brings you all the news he sees fit to print