"What made Mr. Rumsfeld's speech noteworthy wasn't its toxic effort to impugn the patriotism of administration critics by conflating dissent on Iraq with cut-and-run surrender and incipient treason. That's old news. No, what made Mr. Rumsfeld's performance special was the preview it offered of the ambitious propaganda campaign planned between now and Election Day. An on-the-ropes White House plans to stop at nothing when rewriting its record of defeat (not to be confused with defeatism) in a war that has now lasted longer than America's fight against the actual Nazis in World War II.
Here's how brazen Mr. Rumsfeld was when he invoked Hitler's appeasers to score his cheap points: Since Hitler was photographed warmly shaking Neville Chamberlain's hand at Munich in 1938, the only image that comes close to matching it in epochal obsequiousness is the December 1983 photograph of Mr. Rumsfeld himself in Baghdad, warmly shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in full fascist regalia. Is the defense secretary so self-deluded that he thought no one would remember a picture so easily Googled on the Web? Or worse, is he just too shameless to care?"
"Oooh, Brian Williams gets e-mails saying people are sick of hearing about New Orleans. You know what? I have no doubt that's true. You know what else? Brian should tell them to go suck a dick. Because I have no doubt that people in New Orleans are sick of being homeless, living in trailers, not getting paid by their insurance companies, getting fucked over by FEMA and generally ignored or blamed by the loudest voices on TV talk shows, but they don't have the luxury of turning off the goddamn television. Brian should tell his noble e-mailers that he'll get off the story when the story's over, and that they'd better thank God that's his attitude because you can bet everything you have that when it happens to them, when Buttfuck, Nebraska gets hit by some natural disaster and the Bush administration does its heckuva job again, those same e-mailing assholes will be screaming for all the attention in the world to be paid to their plight. Once and for goddamn all, government didn't fail New Orleans after Katrina. Government failed AMERICA, and if Brian's e-mailers don't get that, he should deliver their puling messages straight to the junk folder and then go the fuck back to work.
If they're sick of New Orleans being a story, well, there are in fact ways to fix that. I've thought for a long time that the reason people confuse coverage with occurrence is that hardly anybody in the news business stands up and says, "Look, if the thing didn't exist we couldn't take a picture of it so I'm sorry you're offended, but get offended at the thing, not the image of it." People's anger was aimed at the government during the immediate aftermath of Katrina because they were told, clearly, with no equivocation or fake "balance" that government was failing. You can't just sit back and expect people to know this stuff. You have to tell them. Otherwise they'll blame you for putting the pictures on their TV."
"In his New York Post column, Podhoretz says this (emphasis added): "barring a miraculous change of heart on the part of the Iranian regime, a military strike is all but inevitable. Bush himself will view his own presidency as a failure if he doesn't act. So act he will." For reasons I set forth the other day, I agree entirely with Podhoretz. I believe the President is now committed to military conflict with Iran and, for that reason, has now boxed himself in by all but publicly vowing to initiate it.
There is only one reason why the administration and its Congressional loyalists would refuse to have Congress vote on an AUMF for Iran -- because they know Americans don't want a new war. If they thought they could make that case, they would follow the 2002 script which worked so well for them and engineer a vote before the midterm elections, thereby forcing Democrats to vote to authorize the war or be accused of being weak on national security (or, as with Iraq in 2002, both).
Democrats need very unambiguously and aggressively to tell Americans that continuing to allow the President's party full and absolute control of our government will -- as the President has essentially vowed -- ensure that we start new wars in our short-term future. Make Americans aware of what is really at stake, offer them that clear contrast, and then make the case as to why allowing the administration to start new wars is both imprudent and dangerous. The White House doesn't want a referendum on a war against Iran for exactly the reason Democrats ought to make it one."
* Paul Thomspon was on Rhandi Rhodes discussing 911PressForTruth a week or two ago. (mp3 - 16 mins) Rhandi:
"when you simply put all the stuff together that we KNOW about 911, it looks TERRIBLE for the Bush administration"The premiere is Thursday. Yay. Congrats again to Kyle and Larisa. Kyle and Paul will be on Rhandi Rhode Thursday. Let's hope the US press covers it. ha! Check here for screening times & locations.
(I also heard a rumour that the film will be available at Barnes & Noble and Towers - which would be amazing)