George Bush & Co.: Masters Of Terror? or Sorcerer's Apprentices?

[Chris Knipp]

George Bush & Co.: Masters Of Terror?

Terrorism and empire: major US products

An article (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2311307.ece) in the Independent of London cites an "authoritative US study (http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/650/2/) of terrorist attacks after the invasion in 2003" that shows the Iraq war is directly responsible for "an upsurge of fundamentalist violence worldwide." The Bush administration is doing exactly the opposite of what it says it is doing. The "war on terror" as waged by the US in Iraq has not reduced the number of terrorists and made us safer, as Bush keeps saying. It has caused them to multiply, both in Iraq and elsewhere, and put us all in more danger -- everywhere.

This by now widely known fact takes on yet deeper significance with Seymour Hersh's latest piece (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh) in The New Yorker. Two notable comments at the moment on American foreign policy are just out from Chalmers Johnson and Hersh. Johnson's Nemisis (http://www.amazon.com/Nemesis-American-Republic-Empire-Project/dp/0805079114) completes his Blowback Trilogy about the rise and expected fall of the American empire. He thinks the US must withdraw its hundreds of bases from occupying the world or sink under its hubris like ancient Rome. For him the prospect of a lighter, more humane regime coming from the democrats in Washington makes little difference overall. This is reinforced by a new film about Ralph Nader, An Unreasonable Man. Nader justified his controversial third-party presidential campaigns against Bush by the principle that when it comes to the two ruling US parties, there's no real difference. When you look at Johnson's story of American empire, that proves true. (In domestic terms, it's another story.)

A tangled web of deceit

Once again after months of traveling as far as Beirut, where he interviewed Hezbullah's Hassan Nasrallah, arguably the shrewdest and most important new leader to emerge in the Arab world in decades, and talking to his usual plethora of unidentified government informants active and retired, Hersh makes the surprising announcement that Cheney and company are supplying pallet-loads of dollars -- of which there are millions, perhaps billions, floating around in Iraq -- and other secret funds to Sunni radicals closely linked to Al Qaeda. In the article, "The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terror?" Hersh reports a recent reconvening of Iran-contra alumni to assess the pros and cons of such ventures. The Sunni radical support program follows a similarly convoluted and illegal system. Obviously in Hersh's view, and he has recently said so, US leaders don't learn from history. This "strategic shift" or "redirection" the New Yorker article refers to is a more tangled web than Iran-contra, devious and absurd though that scheme was. The aim of strengthening radical Sunnis to hold the Shiites in check seems dangerous and likely to backfire. All of this is clandestine, unknown to Congress, and directed out of the Vice President's office, not the Pentagon or CIA. Does it make any sense? Not a lot. Do you have trouble keeping straight the difference between Sunnis and Shiites? You can bet they do too.

All according to plan

Following a pattern set well before George W. Bush came into office, the direction of US foreign policy has lately been shifting increasingly from Iraq to Iran. Whether the threat to Israel or to US troops or any other reason is cited, this focus was always part of a grand scheme (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm) for expanding, or merely flaunting, the American empire with the euphemistic title "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) that, as is well known, was issued by the Project for a New American Century in September 2000.

The plan was always to do these things, but did not specify exactly how to do them and certainly not how to justify doing them. Hence Washington is using essentially the same exploded strategy of ersatz pretexts for war in the case of Iran as it used four years ago for Iraq. How can it hope to get away with this? Surely there is an almost universal awareness by now that Iraq was a completely put-up job? Well, in a sense they can't get away with it, because here we are, talking about it. They can't fool everybody. But they can still do it. The power is still in their dangerous hands. And unfortunately the electorate and the Congress still have not developed a system for rapidly demolishing administration lies. Nor has the press. Bush accusations against Iran are reported as prime news. We have no mechanism for rejecting indigestible material; it still has to go down before it can come back up. And Bush has asked to have the ability to initiate the bombing of Iran with only a one-day lead time. It could happen faster and with less warning than Shock and Awe hit Baghdad.

Who benefits: destruction for profit

There is a logic behind going for Iran. Sure, the US is indirectly behind the rule of the mullahs. That is the common American pattern: set them up, knock them down. But Iran is the biggest danger to US interests in the Middle East (other than the US itself, that is). However, this is part of a destructive system of solving problems by violence (direct, or indirectly incited) rather than by negotiation. (Recently, the administration has taken a step in the other direction by reversing itself and negotiating with North Korea, with positive results.) Resolving the Palestine-Israel situation by peaceful means, by bringing pressure to bear on all parties involved, would obviously ease all the other unrest in the region. But that is not what the Bush administration or its neo-con ideologues want. Empire, or at least the hell-bent kind the neo-cons favor, is best pursued by war, not peacemaking,. Destruction in the administration's system of thinking isn't really a minus. It's still possible as Naomi Klein argued in her September 2004 Harper's article (http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html) , "Baghdad Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia," that the mess in Iraq was intentional; that the forces at the top wanted raw capitalism to triumph, not democracy, and so all the chaos was acceptable from the start. Apart from political extremists -- the in-country terrorists, the friends of Al Queda, or the nationalistic insurgents -- the Halliburtons and Blackwaters and myriad other contractors (http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro) (though not their in-country operatives, who return maimed, like the soldiers) remain the sole elements truly benefiting from US Middle East policy, and it is obvious that they do not rebuild. Destruction for profit could in fact be the best way to describe how the planet has primarily been managed in the capitalist age.

The sorcerer's apprentice

Thus while they are primarily profiteers, the current US leaders have shown themselves to be in one sense indeed "Masters of Terror." The Bush administration is exceptionally good at inspiring terrorism. But it's not good at controlling or quelling it. The only way to quell terror is the almost impossible strategy of ignoring it; that is what makes terrorism so effective. But a reasonable substitute is to wage peace -- to negotiate with enemies and create alliances. This is not the Bush II way. Hence Cheney et al. aren't true Masters of Terror. They're like the sorcerer's apprentice: they unleash forces they can't control.

[Johann]

Isn't it great for Bush and Cheney that they have so many people willing to stand by and watch them do whatever in Oil's name they want?

You're absolutely right that Congress has no system for demolishing the lies and deceit.

Expediency seems to be extinct.

Something that really really bothers me is the absolute ignorance of lives. For commerce.

Or for voting revenge- that's what I think Katrina's response was all about. Louisiana didn't vote for Bush, so he said "Fuck 'em".

Man, you gotta have zero heart and zero humanity to do what he and Cheney have been doing.

I can't think of one single fucking good thing Bush has done in almost 8 years.
Can you?

How can anybody stand behind this hick dipshit?

He's driven the US deficit to an unheard of level.

Is everybody clear the U.S. Treasury is
EMPTY?

THEY. HAVE. NO. MONEY.

And they spend your tax dollars (not theirs- they keep theirs with a zillion fucking breaks) on shit that you have no clue about or endorse.
The U.S. Treasury is BANKRUPT.

This is serious, folks.

They've already spent your great-grandchildren's money and they're working on your great-great- grandchildren's.

For the next 200 years your kids and your kids kids will be slaving away for the sins of the 20th/21st century governments.

Hope you're happy.
Hope you are OK with that.
Because when the whole thing comes down like 2 towers we used to know, don't say "what's going on? Why is this happening? Why can't I watch American Idol tonight?"

It'll be because you were duped or you were ignorant or you were just too busy with your own petty dramas to see the larger evil that has been looming for a long, long. long time.

[Chris Knipp]

Somebody was saying this morning that the power grabs by the executive have had the effect of making Congress just a rubber stamp for Bush, and this is exactly what you get in a "Banana Republic." Only we don't have "Banana Republic," yet. We've just got a few power-hungry neo-cons controlling the administration.

Winton Marsalis was on Charlie Rose a couple nights ago--he's from New Orleans, and his statements about it were powerful. He said Katrina revealed that it's all about money. Our government is all about money now. Not about people.

I'd be the wrong person to tell you about anything good Bush has done.

Blowing away the surplus is a major one. But the US still has a lot of resources and if well managed could restore the economic balance sooner than our great-great-great grandchildren, I do believe.

We need to work to make sure the republicans don't gain back the narrow margin in Congress and the demos can continue to slowly reverse things. But we're pretty much screwed till Bush is out of office.

[Johann]

So true.

It's enraging.

I know people hate politicians & politics (I'm one) but it's Defcon 5 right now.

Something's gotta be done. But what?
And by whom?

The red tape and beaurocratic sludge is enough to make anyone groan.

Can Democrats actually do anything?

What the hell will Hilary Clinton do?
I like Barack Obama but he's facing Everest.
McCain?
Good god where are the leaders?!

[Chris Knipp]

Hilary's watching Gore. If he starts to drop weight, that's a sign she better look out, he's going to run. Obama is too inexperienced, and for me, too pro-Israel, but in the latter area, so is Hilary.

McCain is a piece of work. And to think the brilliant writer David Foster Wallace followed him around admiringly covering his last campaign.

I think we need to give the real independents like Kucinich and Nader more support, to scare the machine politicians on both sides and make the dems realize they have got to be something other than republican lite.

[Johann]

What the hell is up with Gore?

He's been turned into an environmental champion (remember Oscar night?) yet he is (to quote HST) the "worm-eaten dunce who fumbled the white house away to a gang of sleazy oil-mongers".

How can anybody be in his corner when he *smiled and* conceded defeat to Bush in 2000?

We wouldn't be in this situation if he had the stones to challenge Bush's victory.

Thousands would still be on this planet if he grew a spine and led the country on everything from foreign policy to global warming.

Lose weight? What, is he eating big macs and downing frothy shakes instead of deciding on running?

This is so sad.

[Chris Knipp]

Obviously Gore had made the evaluation that fighting Bush's results wouldn't work, and I don't think he was wrong. I don't think we would have wanted something like the election battle that went on in Mexico recently between Felipe Calderón and Andrés Manuel López Obrador. It might be a good thing to have the kind of real political contrasts that reflects, but we've got something that's also of value to citizens. We've at least got stability. I would not line up behind anything said about Gore in the passion and anger following the elections. He has grown a great deal since his 2000 campaign. He's the least egocentric of the major democratic figures and the strongest. He's got way more stones than most of them.
He's been turned into an environmental champion (remember Oscar night?)It would be a mistake to think Gore recently became an environmental champion. Have you seen the film An Inconvenient Truth? He has been an environmental champion since he was an undergraduate in college and he wrote a bestseller on the global environmental issues, Earth in the Balance (http://books.google.com/books?id=QDbNhec98iEC&dq=al+gore+books&pg=PP1&ots=cbu4BfOcdi&sig=NMxZO3RIJ7EbVMuc24RLkl6LdXs&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dal%2Bgore%2Bbooks%26btnG%3D Google%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1#PPA128,M1) (that link will allow you to read a substantial preview of the entire book online) published in 1992. He has long had a profound understanding of the environment. Oscar night just meant that people who hadn't realized that, got tipped off about it. If our choice is Hilary or Obama or Al, I'd pick Al without hesitation, even with confidence.
Thousands would still be on this planet if he grew a spine and led the country on everything from foreign policy to global warming. This is misleading because he is leading the world on global warming, and he has been outspoken on foreign policy. He was outspoken against the Iraq war.
Lose weight? What, is he eating big macs and downing frothy shakes instead of deciding on running?

This is so sad. He tends to be on the large side. He grew a beard for a while after the elections. Oscar night showed he's not slim. Deciding to run for president again wouldn't be easy. He has a family. So, he hasn't decided yet. Hilary and Obama have started way too early. It's not likely to help them. This isn't sad, it's just the reality of the situation. McCain has decided. He announced his candidacy on the Letterman Show. Brilliant. I'm so excited. You think he's got balls? He changes sides every six months. He even changes sides in the middle of a conversation. Remember that documentary interview?

[Johann]

He wasn't wrong to not challenge the election results?

What's that all about?

Calderon vs. Obrador or not, he should've been unleashing his inner screaming banshee over it.

He was running for the Presidency.
If that was me, investing my whole life and a gazillion dollars into running for the highest office in the land I'd be having a mad cow over being swindled.

Was Gore really serious about the whole thing?
He was SMILING when he announced his acceptance of "defeat".
Fahrenheit 9/11 clearly showed that.

Something is really wrong with Al Gore but I don't know what it is.
You support him and would love to see him run, but man, something ain't right about the way he handled the 2000 election results. I'd like to see him run too, because he'd probably win this time. But he won last time for Christ's sakes!

Whether he's "grown a great deal" or not he should've been the President. He fumbled it away. And seemed happy to do so.

[Chris Knipp]

He wasn't wrong to not challenge the election results?

What's that all about?

Calderon vs. Obrador or not, he should've been unleashing his inner screaming banshee over it.

He was running for the Presidency.
If that was me, investing my whole life and a gazillion dollars into running for the highest office in the land I'd be having a mad cow over being swindled.It wasn't you. The people who have spent years since then proving or trying to prove that the election was stolen were not wrong, but a screaming bancheee is not a person I'd vote for. He was statesmanlike. He was smiling. Should he have been weeping, scowling? Diplomatic façade. And a lot of inner strength. That's how I read it. But if you'd rather run Michael Moore for president you're welcome to come down and support him.

[Johann]

That's twisting it.
I'm not saying VOTE FOR A SCREAMING BANSHEE.
I'm saying have a little outrage over your *strange* loss.

He should have at least had a straight face.


I want Henry Rollins for President

[Chris Knipp]

I know you weren't saying to vote for a screaming banshee but that wasn't the time to express outrage. Not when he was conceding. Too late for outrage then. Might as well smile. Anyway, that was then, this is now.

[Chris Knipp]

From Gore's Earth in the Balance, his 1992 ecology book:
At an early age, I learned many political skills simply by observing my parents; I also learned that these skills are valuable only insofar as they serve worthy goals. Later, I learned the visual rhetoric of my own television generation and found myself unconsciously practicing a new set of "personality skills." But I am increasingly struck by how easy it is for every politician -- myself included -- to get lost in the forms of personality traits designed to please and rhetoric designed to convey a tactical impression. Voice modulation, ten-second "sound bites," catchy slogans, quotable quotes, newsworthy angles, interest group buzz-words, priorities copied from polsters' reports, relaxation for effect, emotion on cue -- these are the forms of modern politics, and together they can distract even the best politician from the real work at hand.

What does it say about our culture that personality is now considered a technology, a tool of the trade…..?

[Johann]

That explains a lot, that quote.


"Emotion on cue". That's despicable unless you're an actor.

That means his smile could have been on cue.
Didn't somebody famous say "the smile hides the truth"?

That means his "environmental concerns" could all just be an act to make himself look good!

It's true!
All politicians get into it for themselves!
I'm slitting my wrists now!

:)

I'm smiling as I write this- don't jump all over me..

[Chris Knipp]

It sure does say a lot, and comes in very apropos, doesn't it, to our discussion here and your objections to his demeanor at 2000 concession time?

Anyway at least he's aware of this huge tendency in modern politics, if it t even is a new tendency, and not just something always true merely jazzed up with modern technology. Gore differs from Clinton in that he never got his act down as smooth.

But I still have to differ from you about Gore's global warming concerns. They are real and deep. He means them, and isn't just expressing them to make himself look good. But maybe you're just saying that to make yourself look cool. And for a laugh. Which is fine. We need a few.

See An Inconvenient Truth. They you'll have a hard time kidding around about the whole business, or Gore's sincerity about it.

But keep smiling, and keep us smiling. We love you.

[Johann]

I don't really have anything against Gore aside from his odd concession of defeat.

I'm just being a little skeptical, that's all.

He seems very genuine about his environmental concerns and his film is obviously very important. Haven't seen it and I know I should.
I like the title and I like the packaging job they did on the DVD: a basic, enviro-friendly sleeve.

Putting on the Beach Boy's Smiley Smile album now.
Spring is here...

[Chris Knipp]

Watch the Gore movie some day when you're feeling virtuous. Though some people knocked it and said it's just a slide lecture, it's a hell of a slide lecture, like one you've never seen, and he puts a lot of himself into it.

One has to be skeptical about any politician. No matter how good they are, circumstances are set up to defeat their best impulses. And some of their impulses are none too good to begin with. Politics is all kinds of indigestible reality sandwich. It's the toughest test of all. Nobody really passes it 100% -- except th armchair second-guessers.

[Johann]

I don't want to seem alarmist, but this is seriously alarming.

I got this from Rolling Stone magazine, from Dec. 2006.

It's an interview/update with Kurt Vonnegut, the Laughing Prophet of Doom.



I'm Jerimiah, and I'm not talking about God being mad at us.
I'm talking about us killing the planet as a life-support system with gasoline.

What's going to happen is, very soon, we're going to run out of petroleum, and everything depends on petroleum. And there go the school buses. There go the fire engines. The FOOD TRUCKS will come to a halt. This is the end of the world. We've become far too dependent on hydrocarbons, and it's suddenly going to dry up. You talk about the Roaring Twenties. That was nothing. We're crazy, going crazy, about petroleum. It's a drug like crack cocaine. Of course, the lunatic fringe of Christianity is welcoming the end of the world as the rapture. So I'm Jerimiah. Evil slime has gushed into our lives via the River Styx, courtesy of Hades. We have destroyed our entire planet over transportation. WHOOPEE.

On Global Warming:

I know what it's all about.
I don't need any more persuasion.
There is nothing they can do.
It's over my friend. The game is lost.


Think about that. I've been thinking about it non-stop since I read it. Think about no vehicles on the road anymore, no airplanes in the sky. No food being delivered to your local grocery store, no cough medicine for your kids...This could be worse than anybody can imagine.

[Chris Knipp]

Watch the Gore movie, johann.

There are things that can be done. It is not the end of the world, but sure, we need a wakeup call. UCBerkeley and Indiana U are getting $400 million to research alternative fuels. Things are being done. But is oil an addiction? You bet.

By the way, speaking of Rolling Stone, about two weeks ago they had a terrific forum (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth/print) on the situation in Iraq. They got some of the best experts on the subject that we have in this country, and it's pretty broad and deep coverage in a short space.

Rolling Stone forum "Beyond Quagmire," March 7, 2007TIM DICKINSON moderator, Juan Cole, Nir Rosen, Zbigniew Brzhinski, Richard Clarke terrorism czar, Michael Scheuer, Gen. Tony McPeak (retired) Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War Bob Graham Former chair, Senate Intelligence Committee Chas Freeman Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War; president of the Middle East Policy CouncilPaul Pillar Former lead counterterrorism analyst for the CIA Michael Scheuer Head CIA bin Laden Unit.

You get a spectrum of opinion there. Nir Rosen is perhaps the most pessimistic, and Juan Cole the mildest. Of course nobody in this group sees the Iraq invasion as anything other than a colossal mistake at best.

[Johann]

If the known intelligent world is in unison that the war was a colossal mistake, then why doesn't congress impeach?

Why aren't Bush & Cheney in jail for war crimes?

It's quite overwhelmingly clear that Bush and Cheney are evil ignorant scum.

They've caused so much damage to the world that they need to be taken out YESTERDAY.

Am I missing something on U.S. policy that deals with removing assholes from power?

What is the hold-up?

My ex-friend anduril hasn't said a peep about Bush, Iraq, or freedom fries in years.

He must be really pleased with how Iraq has turned out and how "the greatest leader of the free world" has managed the war on terror...

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a mur-say-deez benz. My ex-friends all drive porsches, I must make amends...yee hah margret!

[Chris Knipp]

If the known intelligent world is in unison that the war was a colossal mistake, then why doesn't congress impeach? Because Congress is not part of the known intelligent world.
Why aren't Bush & Cheney in jail for war crimes? Beats me. I guess because they're well connected. Also refer to my first answer.

[Johann]

Alright! FINALLY some news to stand up and cheer for.

The Senate just passed a bill for withdrawal from Iraq.

Amen and praise be lavished on the Democrats.

They are doing what they SHOULD be doing.

Bush says he'll veto, but WHO GIVES A SHIT?

I gotta buy some Greg Norman's merlot tonite...

YEAH BABY!

[Chris Knipp]

Hooray! They're growing some balls, little by little. It's hard for some, especially if their name is Nancy. Just joking. She probably has more balls than most of them.

[Johann]

True enough.

Bush is gonna squash it but I don't care.

This is BIG to me.

[Chris Knipp]

It's close, so Congress doesn't have enough votes to override Bush's veto of the withdrawal bill. But if the democrats' enthusiasm continues to grow and public opinion continues to go against Bush and against the war, Congress may be moved to cut the funding, and Bush can't override that. If they want to do it, they can do it. That's what I would like to see, of course, and it's what the liberal wing dems want. Actually there appears to be more funding available than they tell us. But war funding cuts ultimately would demoralize the hawks. Dennis Kucinich thinks the US could get out of Iraq in a minute. And in theory we could. Why are the democrats voting to do it next year? There are powerful pro-war lobbies, the Halliburton-Kellogg, Brown & Root boys, the arms and munitions manufacturers, all those who value dollars over lives or stability or humanity, and we've got plenty of those.

This really is a battle over the balance of powers in the American government. Bush wants to be a dictator, but he hasn't got a rubber stamp Congress any more. Nancy Pelosi & Co. are bandying the phrase "constitutional duty" around.
"Calm down with the threats. . . . There is a new Congress in town," Pelosi said. "I just wish the president would take a deep breath, recognize again that we each have our constitutional duty."[Chicago Tribune story (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/16991526.htm) today] Murtha is taking a different tack. He wants to cut troops by passing restrictions against sending depleted or worn out ones back to Iraq before they've had a year or two of R&R.

If Bush lasts through to the end of his term, he's going to have a continual battle on his hands. According to a current Washington Post article, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401576.html) nine new Republicans just openly defected from the pro-war side; dozens more could be coming.

The same article is good at showing all the new currents in Congress going on now. Here's a dramatic instance:
Rep. Ric Keller (Fla.), a reliable conservative vote, prefaced his statement with an affirmation of support for Bush personally. But, he said, a "surge" of troops had already been attempted in Baghdad. "The benefits were temporary," he said. "The body bags were permanent." That's pretty clear. And that was a "reliable conservative vote" talking. The tide is turning.

[Johann]

Yes the tide is definitely turning.

The Democrats know full well what kind of heat's on them to get something tangible done.

And they're doing it. That's all you can ask for.

When you're fighting a steroid-injected elephant like Bush's war machine, you gotta get some serious tranquilizer guns to bring it down.

I really hate his "turning it on them" vibe, the whole "if we pull out terrorists will follow us over here". What a crock of shit.

What an asshole to say that the Dems will cause terror to run rampant if they push for a complete withdrawal.

You're causing the terror YOURSELF. George! Your handling that all by your lonesome!

Fuck, he's really fuckin' oblivious.

He gives the terrorists all the reason they need to attack NOW. He's poured ten billion gallons of gasoline on an already roaring fire.

It's terrible to think that the U.S. is due for a counter-attack.

You keep pushing, George.
You keep needling the middle-east.
You go cowboy!
You don't need to blame anybody for terrorism in the US except YOURSELF.

Body bags sure are permanent.

I was a soldier very briefly.

You better believe I wouldn't want to die for this absolute bullshit. I feel so sorry for those
pawns of the U.S. government known as THE TROOPS. "the FODDER" is more like it.

I have a special kind of rage to direct at Bush.
I have a special kind of contempt for him and Rumsfeld and Cheney and Condi Rice.

Soldiers and former soldiers with a brain know what I'm talking about.

You sign up, you volunteer because you BELIEVE in your country. You want to fight for your home and native land. It's noble, it's something to be proud of. You look at all those veterans from just wars and you're in awe that they stood up and did something, and did it so well- watch band of brothers to see what I'm talking about

And then you see what's happening in Iraq & Afghanistan and that pride goes straight out the tank turret.
That noble vibe is squashed like a grape when you see all of the misguided shit and beaurocratic EVIL swirling around.

They don't know and they don't care.

Why?

Because they're SUITS.
They're corporate scum, not custodians of The United States of America.

They are evil ignorant cocksuckers and they should not be tolerated one second more by the people.

They need to be drawn and quartered.
They need a serious strip torn off them.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEDGE?!

I wanna puke when I hear that phrase.

I'll give you executive priviledge:

It is my priviledge to tell you how much I hate what you stand for.

It is my priviledge to exercise free speech aimed directly at your pathetic power-hungry pussy hearts.

You got a special type of criminal soul, GEORGE BUSH.

And the judge will be issuing the maximum sentence he can impose, IN DUE TIME

[Johann]

Ah, the onion.

How howlingly funny they can be sometimes...

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_refuses_to_set_timetable_for

[Chris Knipp]

Yeah, The Onion is frequently right on, especially about politics and this is a good one.

It's looking like the democrats are wimping out now....I don't like the way things are going. At least this fake war has had more objections worldwide earlier, and more government opposition, finally, sooner, than Vietnam.

The soldiers got screwed by being sent to Vietnam before and a lot of the homeless men on the street are still Vietnam vets.

[Johann]

Today I learned that Mr. Kurt Vonnegut has died at age 84.

Another important literary figure gone.
Thanks Kurt. I learned something from you.

[Chris Knipp]

Glad you brought this up. He was important to me in the Seventies. I got a classroom of Berkeley freshmen to read the introduction to Mother Night.
Hey presto! Fire storm! That he was distilling his own firsthand witnessing of the aftermath of the firebombing of Dresden, not just jazzing up some historical research, makes this incredibly condensed rage all the more impressive. Word has it that Kurt did some serious political activist stuff during his seventies and early eighties.

Mother Night

Cat's Cradle

Welcome to the Monkey-House

Slaughterhouse Five

Those will stand the test of time.

How many of his works were made into movies?

You're Canadian, so tell me: which is the one that Glenn Gould did the music for (using his own Bach performance)?

[Johann]

Not sure.
Who's Glenn Gould?


*just joking! calm down!*

[Johann]

I'm aware of only two Vonnegut films:
Slaughterhouse Five and
Breakfast of Champions

[Chris Knipp]

Who's Glenn Gould? Oh my god.

Anyway the answer is George Roy Hill's Slaughterhouse Five, and the recurrent theme is I believe Bach's First keyboard concerto.

Look up Gould here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Gould) for a start. He's just the most famous classical musician Canada has produced, and his recordings are selling as big today as when he was alive. You're pricked a major Gouldie, here.

[Johann]

I did say I was joking.
I knew you're a fan and I know who Glenn Gould is. Being Canadian, you're almost obligated to know who he is.
You e-mailed me about him years ago.

[Chris Knipp]

I'd forgotten. Can't remember back years....

Did you know it was Slaughterhouse Five though?

[Johann]

No I didn't.

Thanks for the info tho- I love bach and I didn't know that Mr. Gould (who was a genius) did that.

[Johann]

I saw this today and loved it.

Bill Maher is the man.
I'd buy you a nice brick of hash, Bill.
Hit that bong- you know the truth man.
Glad your back on the air- and HBO no less.
Wish I had pay T.V....



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcz_NHAFGS0

[Johann]

Bush vetoed the bill to withdraw troops.

Another pathetic day during Bush's "presidency"...

[oscar jubis]

Pathetic indeed.
For those who'd like to protest the veto (and the whole damn war), please go to www.moveon.org (right now the site is overloaded with traffic but that'll change) and learn about the locations of over 200 places nationwide where peace-loving people will gather to protest today. Hopefully there's a site convenient to you. If possible, bring signs and noisemakers.

[Johann]

This war will go on forever. Remember, this is all about money.
Bush will be gone from the white house and it'll still be going on.

We're just canaries in a coal mine.

You can't do much when you've got the Slimebosses of mass corruption stretching their tentacles anywhere, psychotically conducting their "business".

Special places in hell reserved for you, Bush minions.
Bet on it.
You may not pay for it on this plane, but the Lords of Karma are onto you like the Senators are onto Brodeur.
Bring that cup to Ottawa and bring the troops home!

[Chris Knipp]

The latest moves in Congress are actually hopeful.

[Johann]

This General has clout.
This General has something to say.
This General says Iraq is a total disaster for the United States.
You'd better listen, Dubya.
He's broken a LONG silence in order to speak.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/retired_gen_george_washington


Also, the "With all due respect, but I choose not to go fuck myself" article down the main page, in most e-mailed, is also hilariously funny

[Chris Knipp]

Hi, Johann, a friend sent me the Onion Return to Civility (I will not fuck myself, thank you) article, and it's good. Somebody else sent me this which you might enjoy:


The Ultimate Rejection Letter

Herbert A. Millington
Chair - Search Committee
412A Clarkson Hall, Whitson University
College Hill, MA 34109

Dear Professor Millington,

Thank you for your letter of March 16. After careful consideration, I regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your refusal to offer me an assistant professor position in your department.

This year I have been particularly fortunate in receiving an unusually large number of rejection letters. With such a varied and promising field of candidates, it is impossible for me to accept all refusals.

Despite Whitson's outstanding qualifications and previous experience in rejecting applicants, I find that your rejection does not meet my needs at this time. Therefore, I will assume the position of assistant professor in your department this August. I look forward to seeing you then.

Best of luck in rejecting future applicants.

Sincerely,

Chris L. Jensen

[Johann]

Great.
Some funny stuff on that onion from time to time.

I love how the guy sounds so 'stick-in-the-muddish', with his polite refusal, his eloquent retort. Great, imaginiative writers over there.

[Chris Knipp]

There's is some of the most satisfying political commentary. Sometimes I like Maureen Dowd too, and Frank Rich.

[Johann]

"One of the notable things about the Vietnam war was that it was manipulated in Washington by hawk intellectuals who tried to fine-tune reality like an advertising agency, constantly inventing new jargon like 'Kill ratios', "Hamlets pacified', and so forth. The light was always at the end of the tunnel."
-Stanley Kubrick.


Do we have anybody in Washington today who's manipulating?
Are they bangin' a drum re: lights at the end of the tunnel?

No. No way in hell.