Welcome to the musings and notes of a Cadillac, Michigan based writer named Micah Holmquist, who is bothered by his own sarcasm.
Please send him email at email@example.com.
Micah would appreciate it if you purchased items from Teaberry's Shop.
"As South Korea has grown more free and prosperous, it's built an increasingly capable military that is now ready to assume a larger role in defending its people," George W. Bush said on November 19. "By assuming some responsibilities that have traditionally been shouldered by American forces, South Korea will strengthen the deterrent on the Korean Peninsula and free up some of our combat forces to help us win the war on terror."
America's Vice President Dick Cheney spoke at the Frontiers of Freedom Institute 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala last night and lied about more than just whether or not Team Bush was dishonest in their justifications for the invasion and occupation of Iraq:
I have spent a lot of years in public service, and first came to work in Washington back in the late 1960s. I know what it’s like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully. In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition. And the suggestion that’s been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.
Washington D.C. has a "tradition" of "some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate"? This will be news to the Republican partisans who generally think the Democrats do nothing but lie (I've listened to Rush Limbaugh) and the Democratic partisans who think the same of Republicans (I've listened to Randi Rhodes). If Cheney is saying they are wrong, I would think Cheney's strongest supporters would be outraged at this treasonous act, but I see no sign of that on Blogs for Bush (Mark Noonan, November 17) or anywhere else in the blogs.
Nope, whatever else can be said about Bush's strongest supporters, they largely do know what rhetoric is garbage (I'm trying to cut down on my bad language) that shouldn't be intellectually defended because it isn't true and only has the purpose of saying, "take that! We are right! You are wrong!"
What matters to them is that there is now this verbal defense of the primary justification for the military actions they love so much. A well reasoned critique of this justification, such as this recent one by Stephen Zunes (Foreign Policy in Focus, November 14), doesn't stand a chance against Cheney's unscrupulous harangue. (Of course they are unlikely to come across the views presented by Zunes, who does underplay the degree to which Saddam was not a threat even if he had possessed WMDs, but it wouldn't matter if they did.) One makes them feel good and the other doesn't, and this is all about loving God's greatest country just a little bit more.
For the record, despite the title of this entry, I don't think Cheney will be engaging in Holocaust denial anytime soon, but only because Team Bush wouldn't benefit from doing so. If it were to their advantage, by now, I'd be sick of making fun of how Team Bush and their supporters enjoy saying things like "you are defending the Christ killers." And their slogans and "arguments" wouldn't be anymore shameful than they are now.
Yglesias (The American Prospect, November 15) is absolutely correct
to say Democrats should have been more critical of Team Bush's plan to invade
and occupy Iraq in 2002, but he is even more correct to not say this should
lead one to have less support for Democrats.
If you oppose Bush's policies, it is, and always will
be, your duty to support the Democrats, even if the Democrats are partially
responsible for Bush enacting those policies.
One thing that nobody wants to report, however, is that as the protesters
were ushered out of the building, to what I am not exactly sure, a key and
close aide of Cheney went to visit of them. Here is a transcript of that
Aide: Hi, there you young Americans, what is it that upsets you so much
about this war? Don't answer I know what it is. You are mad because you believe
irresponsible Democrats when they say President Bush, our president in this
great war of our time for freedom, was less than honest in the run up to the
war in Iraq. Nothing could be further from truth, however, as lots of
Democrats, including even, if you can possibly believe this, I know I start
masturbating about oral sex every single fucking time I think about it,
President Bill Clinton, agreed that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq,
so it was of course right for President Bush to know that weapons of mass
destruction were in Iraq even though it turns out they weren't already... OK,
you can let them speak now, guard...
One protester who is no longer protesting: So the Dems lied too...
Aide: Silence! You are so stupid. So very stupid. If the Democrats and the
Republicans agreed on something, it must be true. Or are you one of those
immoral Americans who doesn’t mind voting for a liar?
Another protester who also, due to the situation, is no longer protesting:
Fuck you asshole! Where do you come up with this stuff?
Yet another no longer protesting protester: Well this nice aide to Cheney is
right about how the Dems did support invading Iraq.
One more: What are you talking about? Bush got us into the war? Bush lied!
People died! Nobody ever died when Clinton lied. Everything was great and
peaceful then. Yeah that’s a fact that nobody can dispute.
The person known as “Yet another no longer protesting protester”: How can
you be so stupid. The Dems did too support invading Iraq. And people did die as
a result of Clinton’s actions…
Aide: Silence… hey my Patrick Stewart impression is getting pretty good.
Back to the matter that is not at hand because I am going back to it, good
protesters, we may disagree on how evil President Bush is, or really I am
correct in believing that he is not evil and is honest while you are wrong to
believe he is evil and honest, but the important thing to never forget, even in
these times when you are working to defeat freedom and promote terrorism and we
are working to promote freedom and defeat terrorism, is that the genius of the
great American experiment in democracy and freedom as a form of government that
is better than all others because we are better and God loves us more even if
He wants to love other more than He current does, although by no means as much
as He does love, let alone how much He wants to love us, is that the two sides
may fight about a lot in ugly campaigns where we throw half truths at one
another as if it were sporting event for cable channels that show lots of shows
being broadcast as the very moment they are performed but never show sports
proper and we may pretend that this is the most important thing in the world
and the best way to get the truth of the matters that impact each and every one
of us, but we never, ever, and I do mean never, forget that at least one of us
must be right. Thank you and good day.
As the aide walked away, he whispered to an unidentified
person, “’One protester who is no longer protesting’ and ‘Yet another no longer
protesting protester’ sure are amusing. What’s wrong with people? (Laughter.)"
When exactly did this become the case? Bush has been throwing out false chares since the "global war on terror" began. Bush goes on to say, "[t]hese baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," which might sound good but don't Bush's many baseless arguments concerning the "war on terror" endanger the all important troops by making them go into grater harm's way and a send a bad message to evil people who already think democracy is a crock of shit where the leaders simply have to be effective at manipulating the public? Why give them this excuse?
And what about the fact that in the speech Bush cited a letter said to have been written by Ayman al-Zawahiri without mentioning that serious questions about its authenticity have been raised (Henry Schuster, CNN, October 19)? This really doesn't seem to be keeping with Bush's own rules.
I also want to say I am ashamed of the veterans, military personal and others in attendance at this Veterans Day event. Once could say that it is sad that none of them denounced Bush during the speech or stood up and yelled, "stop lying to us, Mr. President," but what's really sad is that there would be a single one of them that didn't. Are these people stupid? Or so reprehensible that that they don't mind the prez lying to justify military actions because, hey, they allow us to fly the flag and go kill some people?
Then again, I've never witnessed the president, who is certainly right when he says in yesterday's speech that many of his critics have changed their position, speak in person. Maybe Bush's manipulation of people's fears, ignorance and lack of critical thinking comes across better in person.
I have been praying all Veterans Day morning for God to bless America’s veterans. They do deserve to be blessed by the mighty hand that created the world in seven days, but it is rude of someone like Michelle Malkin to just tell them “God bless” (michellemalkin.com, November 11) as if she had created the universe or something. She didn’t and I don’t think she even could have if she wanted to.
Some US officials say privately that there is now an active debate about whether regime change [in Syria] should be a US goal. Publicly, administration officials say that they want to see a change in behavior.
Well of course it should be. The Syrians deserve to be liberated just as much as the Iraqis. They deserve to die in houses just as much as Iraqis and Godblessit I believe in freedom. I believe in the freedom of American to create an even richer legacy for our veterans so we have even more to celebrate next year on November 11.
Now, if you will excuse me, I am off to protest my own plan of a few years ago for a Daniel Ellsberg of memorial. Then I will cry at the Wall, America’s eternal fountain of innocence.
I have only approximately less than a dozen only things to say to the people, apparently young, of apparently a certain religion and/or certain ethnicities who are causing trouble and up to no good in a certain country that I hate because they are evil cowards who, according to Bill O’Reilly, are the only reason that Americans are dying in Iraq – thank you! Thank you! Thank you! And, also, God –the real God, not your phony one- will bless you for what you are doing.
I don’t know for certain what caused you to support America and attack France, but I have to believe it is our just and right invasion and occupation of Iraq. You love to see liberated people like you, as you should. Just remember, we are more important than you.
With regard to the matters discussed in yesterday's post "More on WMD, torture and Iraq," an entry that is receiving plenty of hits due to its inclusion in a fine collection of links by Tex MacRae (antiwar.com, November 6), it is striking that there is nothing controversial about members of the Bush Administration, including George W, telling the public what amounts to summaries of classified information. But, Senators have to get clearance to tell the public the whole story of what the classified stuff says.
On a related matter, I would be interested in finding out when Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller found out that the Defense Intelligence Agency questioned the credibility of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.