A Spork in the Drawer

PSA

Occupied today. Light to no posting until tomorrow.

.

WMD FINALLY FOUND!!!

It turns out they were in Utah all this time:

Only this month has the United States started to destroy the deadly mustard gas now outlawed by international treaty. The Army facility incinerates it at the well-guarded desert complex, which was home to 45 percent of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile before destruction began a decade ago.

Eight other U.S. sites stored chemical weapons and are also destroying bombs, missiles, mines and other chemical munitions. At Deseret, 60 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, the weapons are buried below truncated pyramid-shaped mounds.

Prediction: Li'l Ricky will say that these were smuggled in by Saddam in order to hide them from inspectors.

.

Full Transcript

Keith:

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.

Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.

His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.

It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today’s Omniscient ones.

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.

Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding.

But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.”

Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”

And so good night, and good luck.

.

Another...

...Reagan Administration official turns on BushCo. Former Navy Secretary John Lehman is pessimistic, concluding:

In reviewing progress on the three fronts of this war, even the most sanguine optimist cannot yet conclude that we are winning or that we can win without some significant changes of policy.

Unfortunately, since the policy isn't going to be changed the only option is to remove those responsible for the policy.

Also, is Lehman a Nazi appeaser, Mr. Secretary of Defense?

.

Remember Iraq?

Violence in Iraq Kills 60 As Market, Recruits Hit U.S. Troops, Shiite Militia Fight in Eastern Baghdad

.

PR Fixes All Problems

So, the news from Iraq is bad. Do you fix that by improving conditions in Iraq? Hell, no. You hire a PR firm:

U.S. military leaders in Baghdad have put out for bid a two-year, $20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive monitoring of U.S. and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage of news from Iraq.

The contract calls for assembling a database of selected news stories and assessing their tone as part of a program to provide "public relations products" that would improve coverage of the military command's performance, according to a statement of work attached to the proposal.

[...]

The proposal calls for monitoring "Iraqi, pan-Arabic, international and U.S. national and regional markets media in both Arabic and English." That includes broadcast and cable television outlets, the Pentagon channel, two wire services and three major U.S. newspapers: The Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times.

Monitors are to select stories that deal with specific issues, such as security, reconstruction activities, "high profile" coalition force activities and events in which Iraqi security forces are "in the lead." The monitors are to analyze stories to determine the "dissemination of key themes and messages" along with whether the "tone" is positive, neutral or negative.

The media outlets would be monitored for how they present coalition or anti-Iraqi force operations. That part of the proposal could reflect Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's often-stated concern that the media does not cover positive aspects of Iraq.

This highlights the one of the few things this administration is actually good at: Propaganda.

Let's remember the stated White House strategy:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

This was easily the most honest thing ever to come out of the mouth of a Bush worshipper. Everything this administration does should be viewed through this lens.

Those who fail to understand this will end up on the losing side every time.

.

Logical Interpretations

Not at all political:

President Bush and his surrogates are launching a new campaign intended to rebuild support for the war in Iraq by accusing the opposition of aiming to appease terrorists and cut off funding for troops on the battlefield, charges that many Democrats say distort their stated positions.

[...]

Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."

Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials said those are logical interpretations of the most common Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Shorter BushCo: We make shit up so it must be true.

Yeah, that makes sense.

The effort will continue with other speeches in Washington and around the country, followed by a whirlwind tour of the Sept. 11 attack sites and a Sept. 19 address to the U.N. General Assembly. During a campaign stop in Arkansas yesterday, Bush denied that the efforts are connected to the election campaign.

"They're not political speeches," he said. "They're speeches about the future of this country, and they're speeches to make it clear that if we retreat before the job is done, this nation would become even more in jeopardy. These are important times, and I seriously hope people wouldn't politicize these issues that I'm going to talk about."

Nope. Not political at all. And we're picking up the tab for these not at all political speeches.

We're so generous.

.

They Get Letters

LAT:

Re "Rumsfeld Says Critics Appeasing Fascism," Aug. 30

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's comparison of our enemies in the Middle East to fascist countries of World War II is an interesting stretch.

Real fascist governments have the following characteristics: domination of all branches of government and the economy by a political party; control of news sources via economic relationships and threats of retribution; reliance on a large military to promote national unity and expand global influence; blind obedience to the national leader, and dismissal of any international laws unless they are temporarily expedient.

Insurgents and terrorists are not Nazis. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is not Neville Chamberlain and Rumsfeld, most assuredly, is not Winston Churchill.

MICHAEL RODDY
Joshua Tree, Calif.

•

Rumsfeld said: "Some seem not to have learned history's lessons." If that weren't such an accurate and tragic truth, it would be funny.

Hey, Don, instead of giving us a world history lesson, why don't you brush up on your own history? In both the American Revolution and the Vietnam War, the country with superior weaponry, technology and resources traveled to a distant land to battle insurgents; both superpowers lost.

The downfall of most world empires doesn't come from conservative or liberal views but from greed and the unwillingness to learn from one's own mistakes. It looks like you're well on your way, Don.

PETE LEWIS
Mission Viejo

•

I must admit that, for once, I agree with Rumsfeld. In his speech to the American Legion, he hinted at a comparison of the current state of American politics to those in Nazi Germany.

We most certainly have a loyal propaganda minister in Rumsfeld. There is certainly a collection of nodding "yes men" in the inner circle.

If only we could find a tyrannical leader who would "stay the course" despite all rational evidence to the contrary, the cast of characters would be complete.

THOMAS SEXTON
Huntington Beach

•

Rumsfeld has it wrong. Those who criticize the administration are not like Hitler's "appeasers." Unless we speak with a loud, clear voice, we are the silent majority that allowed a dictatorship to engulf a democracy.

JULIE ALBERT
Claremont

•

Re "Bush Shields U.S., Cheney Says," Aug. 29

The continual claim by the administration that President Bush's actions have deterred terrorist attacks since 9/11 reminds me of an experiment. I stand in the middle of my frontyard and wave my arms like crazy; a neighbor asks what I'm doing.

"Keeping the tigers away," I respond.

The neighbor replies, "I don't see any tigers."

"Exactly! It's working!"

JEANNE BARNEY
Hollywood

.

Doughy Pantload

The Thing From Lucianne's Vagina attempts to defend Our Glorious Leader™. It's what you'd expect. But Goldberg finishes with this:

Look, things could obviously be a lot better. But they could be a lot worse too. John Kerry could be president.

Discuss.

.

Olbermann

On his show tonight, Keith Olbermann destroyed Rumsfeld's contention that war critics are the equivalent of Nazi appeasers.

C&L has the transcript and video.

.