I’m collecting links to posts that demonstrate just how bass-ackwards this nation’s Iraq escapade is. The latest addresses an issue that certainly wouldn’t come up in polite conversation in Republican circles. How do George and Dick sleep at night, really?
This actually happened, according to Reuters (or did it?):
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad had to reconvene the U.N. Security Council and rerun a meeting on Friday after reading the wrong statement on Sudan, effectively wiping an entire council session out of history.
At the first session, Khalilzad, current president of the council, read out a hard-hitting statement denouncing aerial bombardment in the troubled Darfur region in a clear critique of the Sudanese government.
When the session ended, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin was the first to point out that the statement was not the one that the council’s 15 members had agreed, participants said.
After about 10 minutes, officials managed to corral diplomats wandering off for the weekend back into the council chamber. Khalilzad opened a new meeting under the same serial number at which he read out a more anodyne statement that just urged all parties in Darfur, rebels included, to end violence.
“He read an old version” of the statement at the first meeting, U.S. mission spokesman Benjamin Chang said of Khalilzad. “That first one (session) never happened.” U.N. officials agreed that in effect the earlier session had been superseded.
Khalilzad’s only admission of error at the second meeting was when he concluded by saying with a grin: “The meeting IS adjourned,” stressing the word “is.”
Afterward, he told reporters: “There were two words that were there in the first statement that shouldn’t have been there. It was late in the day, Friday, administration under a degree of stress, but you know, we’re all human beings, it happens.”
Well, that’s certainly inspiring. The statement itself hardly inspires shock or awe.
Dammit Al, you have charisma, even ganas, so where was all this stuff when you ran for president?
You’re not the first presidential candidate to mysteriously develop a personality after a presidential election (although at least you won yours, technically), but if you start showing up in Viagra ads*, I will be very, very upset.
*Yes, I know it’s not the Viagra ad, but close enough.
I’m not usually one to read any sort of signs or portents into current events, but you gotta wonder:
Bush In Line of Fire
May 24, 2007 1:50 PMABC’s Ann Compton reports: An outdoor news conference in perfect spring weather, with birds chirping loudly in the magnolia trees, is not without its hazards.
As President Bush took a question Thursday in the White House Rose Garden about scandals involving his Attorney General, he remarked, “I’ve got confidence in Al Gonzales doin’ the job.”
Simultaneously, a sparrow flew overhead and left a splash on the President’s sleeve, which Bush tried several times to wipe off.
Deputy White House Press Secretary Dana Perino promptly put the incident through the proper spin cycle, telling ABC News, “It was his lucky day…everyone knows that’s a sign of good luck.”
If you will indulge me, please read the following statement from Rep. Steve Chabot during the Clinton impeachment trial:
In this instance, and in many others that have been presented to you over the last two days, the facts and the law speak plainly. The President’s actions and demeanor make the case that President Clinton knowingly and willfully lied under oath in a grand jury proceeding and in a civil deposition. The compelling evidence in this case satisfies the intent element required under both sections 1621 and 1623 of the Federal Criminal Code. You will probably hear opposing counsel argue that the President did not technically commit perjury, and appeal to the case of Bronston v. United States. This is a legal smoke screen. In the Bronston case, the Supreme Court held statements that are literally truthful and non-responsive cannot by themselves form the basis for a perjury conviction. This is the cornerstone of the President’s defense. However, the Court also held that the unresponsive statements must be technically true in order to prevent a perjury conviction; such statements must not be capable of being conclusively proven false. As we have seen, none of the President’s perjurious statements before the grand jury, covered in the first impeachment article, are technically true. So, when the President’s counsel cites the Bronston case, remember the facts. And ask yourselves, are the President’s answers literally true? And, remember, to be literally true they must actually be true. It is also important to note that, consistent with the Bronston case, the response, “I don’t recall,” is not technically true if the President actually could recall. The factual record in the case, consisting of multiple sworn statements contradicting the President’s testimony and highly specific corroborating evidence, demonstrates that the President’s statements were not literally true or legally accurate. On the contrary, the record establishes that the President repeatedly lied, he repeatedly deceived, he repeatedly feigned forgetfulness. (Emphasis mine)
Now go watch this selectively-edited video.
I see only two conclusions to draw from the Gonzalez fiasco:
1. The Attorney General is lying through his teeth to Congress and the American people and should be fired or impeached; or
2. The Attorney General is too incompetent to know what his subordinates are doing, to remember important conversations, or to remeber much of anything about the duties of his job as the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the land, and should be fired or impeached.
Bush ain’t gonna fire him. That leaves one option. The Dems have shown they have balls, but can they use them?
Will Bunch at Attytood has posted about the #2-selling book at Amazon.com:
It’s called: “The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps,” by Michael D. Evans. The “O” in “MOVE” has a very un-Christian set of crosshairs in the middle.
I blinked several times, then went and got some more coffee, then came back to my computer and the words “Final Solution” were still there. I have not read this book, nor do I know much about its author, but words are important, and those words especially carry some weight. These ideas, to the extent that they are widely shared, certainly merit discussion and a big ol’ rhetorical smackdown.
Reviews of the book seem to be mostly negative:
I’m currently serving in the United States Army deployed in Iraq with the 25ID. Think for yourself. The fact that this book is on the best-seller list makes me want to vomit. The author is intent on seeing democracy controlled by religion, knowing that through these beliefs he can control the people. Think for yourself. Trust God and not the author who mangles and manipulates His words for the sake of power.
Then again, there was also this one:
Everyone should read this book but especially Americans. All indications are that the public has let 9-11 fade into the past. This book will wake you up. It’s well documented, a very real fast read (unless, like me, you tend to highlight pertinent passages to pass on to those who have fallen asleep). I recommend this book to anyone who values the United States of America and our “remaining” freedoms.
I actually agree with everything this guy says, except that (a) he is actually making a case for the war in Afghanistan by invoking 9/11 and (b) he seems immune to the irony of mentioning our “‘remaining’ freedoms,” ignoring who is principally responsible for the freedoms not “remaining.”
What troubles me is the eagerness for further war in the Middle East as fulfillment of Biblical prophecy possibly bringing about a tribulation period or something. This did not start with Newt Gingrich’s oddly eager invocation of “World War III” to describe the brief Israel-Hezbollah war of 2006 (whose outcome was hardly certain, anyway). This has been going on for some time, but the Iraq War seems to have resulted in increased rhetoric. What I don’t understand is the idea (and this may seem somewhat straw-man, but the people making these arguments are notoriously slippery) that humans, by forcing the events described in the Bible to happen in the right sequence, can hasten the Second Coming, apocalypse, etc. Does God (and yes, I know I don’t technically believe in Him, but go with me for a second) have a checklist of events that he is waiting on before sending Jesus back? Isn’t it just a tad arrogant for people like Newt or John Hagee to think they can hasten the end times by encouraging war in the Middle East? My biggest beef with organized religion is the idea that any one man (or woman) can speak definitively for God, let alone be the catalyst for Armageddon. If the Bible is any guide (and most if not all Christians say it is), God is gonna do what God is gonna do, so everybody chill. Instead of the constant obsessing over the afterlife, take some time to appreciate all the great stuff He’s created in this one.
I know this person most likely does not represent the mainstream of Christian thought in America today, but it is important to show what is being said in Jesus’ name:
This is posted here (NSFW, really), and I don’t know what newspaper it is from or if it is even real. On the off chance that someone actually wrote this (I hope it’s fake), it is chilling. Aside from some factually-questionable assertions, the idea that the First Amendment somehow mandates religious belief of some sort is, well, baffling. That’s really all I think needs to be said here.
Like I said, I hope this thing is fake.
UPDATE – Thanks to Google and a little more free time, I confirmed that the clipping is for real, originally published in the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska Clarion (it has made its way around as a scanned clipping because the newspaper’s website requires registration. I took one for the team and did so.) Comments can be found here, here, and here.
