Wednesday, May 26, 2004
This Kool-Aid Sure Is Tasty:
Just when I'd momentarily forgetten about the mass idiotry peddled at the Washington Times, I read this gem.
Essentially the author feels there's something especially ugly about calling the Abu Ghraib prison scandal ugly. Here's some of the choicest cuts:
Democratic Reps. Bill Delahunt and Barney Frank of Massachusetts recently called the prisoner abuse in Iraq "disgusting and disturbing" and "heartbreaking," respectively — though Mr. Frank also categorized the abuse as "sadomasochistic sexual degradation."
Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington state said abuse images "depict an America I don't know," while Rep. John W. Olver, Massachusetts Democrat, said the situation had created "an unaccountable regime."
I wonder how, exactly, the GOP would like to characterize them if not "disgusting and disturbing" and "heartbreaking"?
Now, I don't dispute that some of the other comments, by senators Tim Johnson (referred to the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party"), Edward Kennedy ("Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management — U.S. management."), and Hilary Clinton (Mr. Bush's re-election would "create an America we won't recognize.") are harsh. But considering the events that transpired, they're not unwarranted.
But the grandest part of this "journalism" is how Ralph Nader is quoted as a Dem. Har har har.
It's Hard for NYT to Say 'I'm Sorry'
Apologies for the headline -- we've been watching too much "50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs" on VH1. But the New York Times, despite the many columns and e-mails my its public editor indicating that everything the paper does is right, has finally come clean about its poor Iraq coverage. They bury the lede several paragraphs deep, but here it is:
It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in. And until now we have not reported that to our readers.It's taken the Times a long while to make its mea culpa. I look forward to what the Daily Howler will say about it. Also, what effect will this have on the rest of the Washington press corps? Will it become more acceptable to accuse the administration of lies so big that before even the so-called liberal Times gave them the benefit of the doubt? Fritz, over to you.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Last night, Bush called the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse "disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values."
Today the AP reports, "A U.S. Army sergeant who gave an insider's view of Abu Ghraib prison to the media has lost his security clearance and has been disciplined by the military for speaking out."
One wonders which conduct Bush truly considers "disgraceful": that innocent Iraqis were sodomized and terrorized, or that the press found out about it. Actually, one doesn't wonder all that much.
If a Man Say, I Love God, and Hateth His Brother...
Just saw this on the Chicago Tribune's website:
Cardinal Francis George has instructed priests in the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago to deny communion Sunday to those who wear a so-called rainbow sash indicating they are gay or lesbian, WGN-Ch. 9 reported.Wow. I'm not really sure what else to say about that.
And I thought the whole issue regarding giving communion to pro-choice politicians was mean-spirited...
Building a Better Deathtrap
Pop quiz, hot shot. So there's this prison/torture chamber called Abu Ghraib. You capture it while liberating the Iraqi people. You start putting your own prisoners in there, and it once again becomes a torture chamber -- or at least a fount of abuse.
With your back to the political wall, what do you do? What do you do?
If you're George W. Bush, you demolish Abu Ghraib and... build a new prison. "The prison near Baghdad, scene of torture under Saddam Hussein and of a prisoner abuse scandal under the U.S. military, would be replaced by a new maximum security prison funded by the U.S. government, the White House said in a statement," according to the AP.
Why not build a children's hospital? A school? Why not show your commitment to the democratic ideals we are supposedly trying to foster in Iraq by making some bold, creative move?
Monday, May 24, 2004
Moore Is Much Less:
I gotta say, Marc, that I have more problem with Michael Moore than just his waistband-sized looseness with facts. He's also a hypocritical bastard and, I think, given way more credit than he deserves. I mean, maybe my perception is tainted by that fact that I was watching coverage of his big win in Cannes on London television (or "telly") and had to listen to some Irish reviewer blab on about how important Moore is, how he's an Irish poet, and how Fahrenheit 9-11 could "make a difference" in the 2004 elections. Does anyone who lives here actually think that, or is this just a pipe dream?
I think that my reaction to Moore always comes down to the fact that I don't believe him. I technically agree with his positions, but I think that if you want to make the point, you'd better have your shit right. Anything less, and you're just engaging in propaganda or entertainment. If Michael Moore is the lefty Rush Limbaugh, then I'll spend as much time watching the pre-stomach stapling fatty as I have listening to the post-stomach stapling fatty. If you're going to lie to me, then, thanks bro, I'll just wait this one out.
So, I mean, I guess it's a good thing that he won the Palme D'or, but the other movies that were in the competition were probably just as entertaining.