"This is my vacation money I'm spendin'. I'm squeezin' these nickles tighter than a jew."
"What do they have at the African booth?"
"Oh hell. I don't know...fried chicken and watermelon."
What are these people even doing at a cultural festival?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Petraeus: Surge working
Well duh, of course it is. This week Gen. David Petraeus has been painting a rosy picture for congress of progress in Iraq, despite all contrary evidence. Think about it. Here is this guy, in charge of Bush's surge, reporting out on his "progress." Have you ever had to tell your boss how you were doing on a project? Have you ever said "look...this clearly isn't working out. I'm pretty sure I've fucked it all up." Of course not. You'd try your damnedest to spin it so you look good, right? Of course you would.
Yet we're supposed to bank on his report as some credible measure of how things are really going in Iraq. If only there were some other report we could look at to get a more, well, unbiased assessment. Say the government had some independent office that, well, accounted for things. You know, generally speaking. What? There is? No way!
The GAO, a week before Petraeus offered up his rainbows-and-unicorns report, published their own report. The General Accountability Office is a branch of congress whose mission it is to audit, evaluate and investigate programs for which taxpayer money is spent. Like the war in Iraq, cause I think some taxpayer money is spent there. It's head, the Comptroller General, is a non-partisan presidential appointee, ratified by congress. The current CG is David M. Walker, a Clinton appointee. Yeah, I can almost hear your hackles rising. "Clinton? Non-partisan my ass!" But he was ratified by a republican congress, so there.
So last week the GAO submitted its report on progress made by the surge, titled "Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding Iraq: Iraqi Government Has Not Met Most Legislative, Security, and Economic Benchmarks." Contrast just the title of the report with the statement by Petraeus saying significant progress has been made. The GAO report looked at all of the benchmarks set in place 9 months ago when the surge started, benchmarks derived from promises made by the Iraqi government. Remember that the impetus for the surge was to quell violence to allow for the government to establish itself; without a thriving government, the surge isn't succeeding.
Of the 18 benchmarks, only three were met. four were "partially met" and 11 were not met. Knowing that, how can any reasonable person say the surge is working? If my daughter brought home a report card with three As, four Cs and 11 Fs, well, I wouldn't exactly be on TV telling the American people she's doing great.
So why is Bush buying Petraeus' pretty picture? Cause he helped paint it, probably. Remember that "surprise" visit he made to Iraq last week? I'm pretty sure his agenda wasn't all about troop morale. You can bet he had closed-door meetings with Petraeus on how to best spin the report. And no doubt that spin plan included enlisting the Bush propaganda machine--Fox News. A couple of days ago, Petraeus appeared on Fox with his shill, Britt Hume. Glenn Greenwald wrote about it over on salon.com and covered it nicely. Don't think for a second that it wasn't very carefully orchestrated.
But wait, you say, how can you impugn the character of this lauded 4-Star General? Petraeus has an, as far as we know, unsullied record of being a first-class officer. But you also know, of course, that Bush chooses his people veeeery carefully. His predecessor as Commander of Multi-national Forces, George Casey, was sacked because he didn't agree with Bush's surge.
"The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems. It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term," Casey said at the time. In other words, more US troops means the Iraqi government drags it feet.
But in the Bush administration, if you're not loyal (meaning willing to bend over and take whatever the POTUS commands of you without dissent), you're out. And so Casey was out.
And so Bush was looking for a surge fan and a loyal Bushie, and apparently found one in Petraeus. He implemented Bush's surge and now nine months later all evidence suggests he's failing. But we're supposed to believe everything is fine and if we stay the course, we win! Despite the GAO's assessment that Casey's assertion before the surge was correct.
And it's interesting. Recently, Bush stated that it was a mistake to withdraw from Vietnam, because of the damage it did to America's credibility. And that's incredibly telling. Essentially, it means that the lives of American soldiers are less valuable than the country's--and by extension the President's--saving face. More than 58,000 Americans died in that war, and Bush is saying that it wasn't enough. Well, Mr. Bush, only 3,774 American soldiers have died in Iraq so far, so I guess we have plenty more to go, huh?
Bush apparently believes that no matter what, we will succeed in Iraq. But what if we don't? After more than four years, we're no closer now than we were than to winning this war. So what? We just keep going, keep sacrificing people until 10,000 are dead and the military is just crippled? It's like continuing to drive your car after the red oil light comes on--insanity. Insanity with a pretty high cost.
So, bottom line--can we trust Petraeus' report?
Of course we can.
Yet we're supposed to bank on his report as some credible measure of how things are really going in Iraq. If only there were some other report we could look at to get a more, well, unbiased assessment. Say the government had some independent office that, well, accounted for things. You know, generally speaking. What? There is? No way!
The GAO, a week before Petraeus offered up his rainbows-and-unicorns report, published their own report. The General Accountability Office is a branch of congress whose mission it is to audit, evaluate and investigate programs for which taxpayer money is spent. Like the war in Iraq, cause I think some taxpayer money is spent there. It's head, the Comptroller General, is a non-partisan presidential appointee, ratified by congress. The current CG is David M. Walker, a Clinton appointee. Yeah, I can almost hear your hackles rising. "Clinton? Non-partisan my ass!" But he was ratified by a republican congress, so there.
So last week the GAO submitted its report on progress made by the surge, titled "Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding Iraq: Iraqi Government Has Not Met Most Legislative, Security, and Economic Benchmarks." Contrast just the title of the report with the statement by Petraeus saying significant progress has been made. The GAO report looked at all of the benchmarks set in place 9 months ago when the surge started, benchmarks derived from promises made by the Iraqi government. Remember that the impetus for the surge was to quell violence to allow for the government to establish itself; without a thriving government, the surge isn't succeeding.
Of the 18 benchmarks, only three were met. four were "partially met" and 11 were not met. Knowing that, how can any reasonable person say the surge is working? If my daughter brought home a report card with three As, four Cs and 11 Fs, well, I wouldn't exactly be on TV telling the American people she's doing great.
So why is Bush buying Petraeus' pretty picture? Cause he helped paint it, probably. Remember that "surprise" visit he made to Iraq last week? I'm pretty sure his agenda wasn't all about troop morale. You can bet he had closed-door meetings with Petraeus on how to best spin the report. And no doubt that spin plan included enlisting the Bush propaganda machine--Fox News. A couple of days ago, Petraeus appeared on Fox with his shill, Britt Hume. Glenn Greenwald wrote about it over on salon.com and covered it nicely. Don't think for a second that it wasn't very carefully orchestrated.
But wait, you say, how can you impugn the character of this lauded 4-Star General? Petraeus has an, as far as we know, unsullied record of being a first-class officer. But you also know, of course, that Bush chooses his people veeeery carefully. His predecessor as Commander of Multi-national Forces, George Casey, was sacked because he didn't agree with Bush's surge.
"The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems. It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term," Casey said at the time. In other words, more US troops means the Iraqi government drags it feet.
But in the Bush administration, if you're not loyal (meaning willing to bend over and take whatever the POTUS commands of you without dissent), you're out. And so Casey was out.
And so Bush was looking for a surge fan and a loyal Bushie, and apparently found one in Petraeus. He implemented Bush's surge and now nine months later all evidence suggests he's failing. But we're supposed to believe everything is fine and if we stay the course, we win! Despite the GAO's assessment that Casey's assertion before the surge was correct.
And it's interesting. Recently, Bush stated that it was a mistake to withdraw from Vietnam, because of the damage it did to America's credibility. And that's incredibly telling. Essentially, it means that the lives of American soldiers are less valuable than the country's--and by extension the President's--saving face. More than 58,000 Americans died in that war, and Bush is saying that it wasn't enough. Well, Mr. Bush, only 3,774 American soldiers have died in Iraq so far, so I guess we have plenty more to go, huh?
Bush apparently believes that no matter what, we will succeed in Iraq. But what if we don't? After more than four years, we're no closer now than we were than to winning this war. So what? We just keep going, keep sacrificing people until 10,000 are dead and the military is just crippled? It's like continuing to drive your car after the red oil light comes on--insanity. Insanity with a pretty high cost.
So, bottom line--can we trust Petraeus' report?
Of course we can.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Land of the Blind #1
Another day, another letter to the editor at the Chronicle about Gay Pride Day at SRS. And scanning the online reader comments, you’d think the threat of the imposition of the homosexual “lifestyle” on America was the biggest issue facing God-fearers today. But really, if all sin is equal, why the hubbub? Why not attack sin that afflicts demonstrably many more people than does the scourge of gayness? Everyone loves shrimp, gay and straight alike. Yet there it is in Leviticus, right next to laying down with men, God says eating shellfish is a bad thing. So why isn’t the warrior Christian right yelping about the succulent, abominable fried shrimp special Rhinehart’s runs every Sunday (yes, Sunday!)? Maybe they’re too busy sitting down to a big basketful of sin themselves.
Channel 12 (I think. I wasn’t really paying attention) told us Wednesday that it was hot, and when it’s hot people like to go swimming. What I want to see is the story about the guy that beats the heat by tarring his roof or smelting copper.
Over on the Soul Bar message board (because even musicians and hard-core drinkers need a place to vent), Coco Rubio announced the “12 Bands of Christmas” lineup. A pretty innocuous posting, but it spurred a full 7 pages of responses challenging the fairness of the selection process. The discussion was definitely heated: “and to all you people who keep accusing me of whining, you're reading my posts with the wrong inflection..........you should be accusing me of bravery...........because i had the balls to speak my mind on this subject,” “Stak” said. But Rubio handled it in stride. Even though he may not have placated everyone, he certainly heard them out, made rational points about the selection process and left everyone concerned, if not happy at least feeling like they’d been heard and their points considered. If Rubio can handle a bunch of cantankerous musicians with such aplomb, think of the sanity he could bring to the Augusta Commission.
The Chronicle ran a wire story about Grey’s Anatomy’s Isaiah Washington crying racism over his firing. Cause, you know, we love a story about an uppity black man.
And on the editorial page the same day, the paper likened the immigration reform bill (had it passed) to the hurricane Katrina disaster, which is pretty cool in and of itself (cities destroyed, close to 2000 dead and thousands more people displaced equals, what, hard-working people get to keep the jobs no one else wants?). But it got better. “Well, U.S. senators narrowly voted - despite themselves - to avoid another disaster…,” they said. Despite themselves? As if the bumbling congresspeople somehow managed to do the “right” thing, despite themselves. Sheesh, Chronicle, they got the result you wanted but you slam them anyway? I guess Bush and the democrat-led congress going down in flames together confoozled them. So better to err on the side of outrage, I guess. They went on to poke the local boys, saying “In Georgia and South Carolina, three of our four senators essentially voted against the bill…”. How do you “essentially” vote nay? Maybe they voted in French. “Non!”
The Outsider: MIA?
Speaking of which, I sort of miss Ryan B.
Channel 12 (I think. I wasn’t really paying attention) told us Wednesday that it was hot, and when it’s hot people like to go swimming. What I want to see is the story about the guy that beats the heat by tarring his roof or smelting copper.
Over on the Soul Bar message board (because even musicians and hard-core drinkers need a place to vent), Coco Rubio announced the “12 Bands of Christmas” lineup. A pretty innocuous posting, but it spurred a full 7 pages of responses challenging the fairness of the selection process. The discussion was definitely heated: “and to all you people who keep accusing me of whining, you're reading my posts with the wrong inflection..........you should be accusing me of bravery...........because i had the balls to speak my mind on this subject,” “Stak” said. But Rubio handled it in stride. Even though he may not have placated everyone, he certainly heard them out, made rational points about the selection process and left everyone concerned, if not happy at least feeling like they’d been heard and their points considered. If Rubio can handle a bunch of cantankerous musicians with such aplomb, think of the sanity he could bring to the Augusta Commission.
The Chronicle ran a wire story about Grey’s Anatomy’s Isaiah Washington crying racism over his firing. Cause, you know, we love a story about an uppity black man.
And on the editorial page the same day, the paper likened the immigration reform bill (had it passed) to the hurricane Katrina disaster, which is pretty cool in and of itself (cities destroyed, close to 2000 dead and thousands more people displaced equals, what, hard-working people get to keep the jobs no one else wants?). But it got better. “Well, U.S. senators narrowly voted - despite themselves - to avoid another disaster…,” they said. Despite themselves? As if the bumbling congresspeople somehow managed to do the “right” thing, despite themselves. Sheesh, Chronicle, they got the result you wanted but you slam them anyway? I guess Bush and the democrat-led congress going down in flames together confoozled them. So better to err on the side of outrage, I guess. They went on to poke the local boys, saying “In Georgia and South Carolina, three of our four senators essentially voted against the bill…”. How do you “essentially” vote nay? Maybe they voted in French. “Non!”
The Outsider: MIA?
Speaking of which, I sort of miss Ryan B.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Spamtastic!
From "Diedre Ferguson", to my work mail:
"If you hope to be aware of an expert's advice regarding which way you may amplify another measure in (u know what :P)), buy the right stuff."
I deleted it immediately, cause, ya know, I already have a copy of the Wolfe book.
"If you hope to be aware of an expert's advice regarding which way you may amplify another measure in (u know what :P)), buy the right stuff."
I deleted it immediately, cause, ya know, I already have a copy of the Wolfe book.
If you only knew
From the "whine line" in Metro Spirit last week:
"Jim Christian is one hell of a media critic, except when it comes to commenting on the Metro Spirit. I guess he doesn’t want to bite the hand that feeds him… literally."
Which is funny for a couple of reasons, first since I've commented on the Spirit in three previous colums. But also because I actually get paid in food...literally.
"Jim Christian is one hell of a media critic, except when it comes to commenting on the Metro Spirit. I guess he doesn’t want to bite the hand that feeds him… literally."
Which is funny for a couple of reasons, first since I've commented on the Spirit in three previous colums. But also because I actually get paid in food...literally.
You're welcome
I got a virtual shout-out from a swimming blog run by a couple of Olympians. My giving has no bounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
