Sunday, October 15, 2006

a curiously touching story about lyndie england

* parry :
"There’s always been the frightening question of what would happen if a President of United States went completely bonkers. But there is an equally disturbing issue of what happens if a President loses touch with reality, especially if he is surrounded by enough sycophants and enablers so no one can or will stop him.

At his Oct. 11 news conference, Bush gave the country a peek into his imaginary world, a bizarre place impenetrable by facts and logic, where falsehoods, once stated, become landmarks and where Bush’s “gut” instinct, no matter how misguided, is the compass for finding one’s way.

In speaking to White House reporters, Bush maneuvered casually through this world like an experienced guide making passing references to favorite points of interest, such as Hussein’s defiance of U.N. resolutions banning WMD (when Hussein actually had eliminated his WMD stockpiles).

“We tried the diplomacy,” Bush said. “Remember it? We tried resolution after resolution after resolution.” Though the resolutions had worked – and left Hussein stripped of his WMD arsenal – that isn’t how it looks in Bush’s world, where the resolutions failed and there was no choice but to invade.

At other news conferences, Bush has filled in details of his fictional history. For instance, on July 14, 2003, just a few months after the Iraq invasion, Bush began rewriting the record to meet his specifications.

“We gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power,” Bush told reporters.

In the real world, of course, Hussein admitted U.N. inspectors in fall 2002 and gave them unfettered access to search suspected Iraqi weapons sites. It was Bush who forced the U.N. inspectors to leave in March 2003 so the invasion could proceed.

Over the past three years, Bush has repeated this false claim about the barred inspectors in slightly varied forms as part of his litany for defending the invasion on the grounds that it was Hussein who “chose war,” not Bush.

Meeting no protest from the Washington press corps, Bush continued repeating his lie about Hussein showing “defiance” on the inspections. For instance, at a news conference on March 21, 2006, Bush reprised his claims about his diplomatic efforts.

“I was hoping to solve this [Iraq] problem diplomatically,” Bush said. “The world said, ‘Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.’ … We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did. And the world is safer for it.”
[]
Still, perhaps, the greatest danger from Bush's delusions is that they will come to supplant any American notion of reality and spell the doom of the United States as a democratic Republic based on an informed electorate."

* Dreyfuss:
" The realists may not be in charge, yet, but they're getting there. John Warner is the muscle behind Frank Wolf, who created the ISG, and Warner isn't happy. The military, behind Warner, ain't happy, either. Baker is a good lawyer, and when your client (in the case, W.) is guilty, you cut a deal. We might not get W. for murder in Iraq, but he's going down for manslaughter.

Lake quotes a member of the ISG's expert groups thusly: "Baker wants to believe that Sunni dictators in Sunni majority states are representative." Since there only a couple of neocons involved with the ISG, I will leave it to you to guess who threw that particular brickbat at Baker. But I'd guess his initials are RMG."

(i.e. freaky, creepy gerecht)

* driftglass appears to favour compulsory voting. in australia, the fine is only $50

* there's a curiously touching story about lyndie england here

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Damn, I didn't even know England was being kept only about a mile or so away from my house across the canyon! I guess that just goes to show sometime what our media emphasizes and what it doesn't around here...

Maybe I should try to get a second interview with her if and when I get bored here sometime... :) Anyone have any questions they still want asked?

oldschool said...

I don't find the England article to be 'curiously' touching - I find it to be absolutely touching. That girl was sent off totally un-armed into the real world, and I'm not talking about weapons. I don't know whether I'm in touch with my feminine side, but I *am* in touch with my trailer-trash side, and I kinda feel like I know her. It's a monumental crime that they scapegoated her.

I didn't follow the course of her prosecution, but is it safe to assume that her attorneys attempted to subpoena higher-ups without success?

oldschool said...

I watched the GWB Oct 11 presser. I was afraid for a while there that I was going to have to reconstruct the protective chicken-wire barrier around my TV which protects it from flying objects.

Fucking "White-House-Correspondents". I hate 'em. I suppose that, aside from the chair on the evening nightly news, WH corrspondent is the pinnacle of the profession. Having reached that level, they're damn sure not giving it up by doing something so silly as to ask real questions. Hang onto that briefing room chair bitch. There isn't a set of balls to be culled from the collective lot of them. All I have to see from a reporter is that he/she is standing on the WH lawn while speaking, and I know that nothing worth listening to will be said.

As to GWB's personal 'reality'. He reminds me of my son's mother. She had the truly frightening ability to simply tell herself anything - and after a time or two - absolutely and totally believe it. There's probably a psychological term for it (bug-fuck crazy?) but it exists in her, and it seems to me that GWB might have that same thing going on too. Sometimes his body language gives away that he's simply lying out his ass - other times not so much. Sometimes, quite often actually, I get the impression that the silly fucker truly believes the garbage he's spewing.

LeeB said...

Oldschool: "There isn't a set of balls to be culled from the collective lot of them. All I have to see from a reporter is that he/she is standing on the WH lawn while speaking, and I know that nothing worth listening to will be said."

Are you including Helen in this . . . nah, you wouldn't be including Helen! But the rest of 'em? No question about it . . . at least where the 'name' correspondents are concerned. There are some not-so-well-known reporters that hang in there, but seldom get a chance to ask anything. . . . and on second thought, props are due David Gregory for some more recent displays of committing journalism. I'm hoping he'll read this and do some more! LOL!!!

lukery said...

anon - send her our regards, and tell her that we hate the people who put her there too.

lukery said...

oldschool - yeah, they tried to get her *ahem* superiors on the stand (either in her trial, or at least in some of her fellow torturers' trials)

lukery said...

OS - re that presser, yeah, i only saw clips from it, but the general consensus appears to have been 'bug-fuck crazy'

re journos asking questions, at least malveaux asked him about the lancet report. if my memory serves, i don't think he was *ever* asked about the first lancet report - so that's a start. at this rate, we can expert an adversarial press by about 2016, or a Dem presidency - whichever comes first.