| | |
 Goodbye to Turdblosssom
8/15/07 17:43:05
|
I was actually torn as to whether to post at all on the subject of Karl Rove. What is there left to say about this odious, smug fat boy who has demonstrated time and time again that he is completely devoid of human decency? Why should I comment on his desire to "spend more time with his family", an absurd fiction that the Washington press corps continues to print despite knowing full well it’s a complete falsehood? What is there left to write about his legacy of division, self-serving evil and his eagerness to be the "brain" of the mindless dauphin who occupies the White House?
I only feel I have to mention a few key words, names and dates to summarize this man’s hate-filled and overblown legacy. John Mccain, 2000. Max Cleland, 2002. The midterm elections, 2004.
Remember what the forces of the Bush campaign did to McCain in 2000? Remember how for a brief period the ghost of Lee Atwater rose again to spoil and rot a political campaign with innuendo and hearsay? Remember the whispering campaigns carried out by the Southern "evangelical" "preachers" and "churches"? The rumors of McCain’s illegitimate black child, who was actually an Bangladeshi orphan the McCains adopted from Mother Theresa’s orphanage? The stories that circulated about McCain being the Manchurian Candidate, a traitor, and mentally imbalanced as a result of his imprisonment at the Hanoi Hilton? Thank you Karl Rove.
Remember what was done to Senator Max Cleland of Georgia in 2002? Remember the grotesque commercial run by Saxby "I had a bum knee which prevented me from going to Vietnam" Chambliss against a man who left both of his legs (including his knees) and his right arm behind in Vietnam? The commercial that compared Max to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? I don’t know what’s more repellant - the fact that the Rove machine stooped to that level to destroy a good man or that the voters bought it.
And incidentally, I disagree with the late Mary McGrory. I think Lee Atwater would have done not only the same, but that of Rove had pulled off this sort of dirty trick while working for Atwater that ol’ Lee would have given him a bonus.
Now the to the midterms of 2004, where Rove’s alleged genius was exposed to be smoke and mirrors, and his political instincts fell flat. Lost the House. Lost the Senate. Beat the 9/11, terrorism and fear theme into the ground until even Americans got fed up and said "no mas".
He leaves the White House a lucky man not to have been frogmarched out of the White House by the forces of Patrick Fitzgerald, contrary to the wishes of Joe Wilson. But once the smoke clears and the official commentariat in Washington comes to its senses, they’ll realize they were duped by an evil fanatic who has demonstrated time and time again that he’ll do anything to win and that he’s not funny to boot. And at that point, his enablers, flatterers, dupes and useful idiots will have a lot of explaining to do.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (2)
|
Chickenhawks aplenty
8/8/07 07:48:01
|
So presidential candiate Mitt Romney, Iraq war enthusiast and advocate of mo’ Guantanamo, has five grown sons, none of whom are serving in the armed forces even though their age makes them prime pickins. Why?
"My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."
Oh.
He added: "One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president."
But that’s not all!
Romney noted that his middle son, 36-year-old Josh, was completing a recreational vehicle tour of all 99 Iowa counties on Wednesday and said, "I respect that and respect all those and the way they serve this great country."
This absurd explanation did not sit well with an Iowa lady who was impertninent enough to ask Romney why none of his sons was in uniform. This lady, by the way, has a brother serving in Iraq:
"He told me the way his son shows support for our military and our nation is to buy a Winnebago and ride across Iowa and help him get elected."
The pro-war GOP. 100% behind letting the poor, the unemployed and the desperate fight their battles.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (2)
|
More proof that no one learns any lessons from history, not ever
8/7/07 07:34:10
|
Thank God I’m not a history teacher. Seriously, thank God. I mean, what is the point? Who pays attention? And I’m not talking remembering who someone like Xerxes is, I’m talking about recent history, like, within the past 20 - 30 years or so.
See, if I taught history, I’d only teach adults. In positios of power. I’d do to their ears what was done to Malcolm McDowell’s eyes in A Clockwork Orange. And if that didn’t work I’d beat them with a stick until the lesson sunk in. Corporal punishment, liberally administered. Yeah, I said it.
Because so many problems, so much suffering, could be and could have been avoided by our "leaders" if only someone bothered to crack a book or click on Wikipedia, or even read reports that they themselves commissioned.
For today comes the story that American troops stationed in Afghanistan are becoming heroin addicts. Just like the Russians. In the 1980s. Not so long ago.
Because you see, the Afghans figured something out long ago. One, they don’t much like being occupied. Two, when occupied, they can get lots of weapons from countries sympathetic to their cause (or violently opposed to their occupiers/invaders. End result is the same). Three, they know their terrain - the invaders think they do, but they don’t. Four, the Afghans will outwit, outfight, and outlast to the last man - the invaders definitely won’t. Fourth, when brute strength isn’t enough, make hay out of the bounteous amounts of opium production in the country and turn the invading force into junkies. Consider this statistic:
Afghanistan now supplies more than ninety-two per cent of the world’s opium, the raw ingredient of heroin. More than half the country’s annual G.D.P., some $3.1 billion, is believed to come from the drug trade, and narcotics officials believe that part of the money is funding the Taliban insurgency.
So there we are. Our soldiers as stand-ins for their Russian counterparts not so long ago, in a war called "the Russian Vietnam".
Good work, neocons. Well played.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (1)
|
Robert Novak throws himself a pity party and you’re invited!
8/7/07 07:17:53
|
It’s hard to know where to begin with this. I’m sure Larry Johnson will have plenty to say on the topic of how this horrible bastard, Robert Novak, outed a CIA agent and now has the temerity to whine about how much this whole episode has "hurt" him. Never mind that he avoided prosecution and incarceration as a traitor. No, what really frosts his self-riteous, self-pitying ass is that a) he’s been booted out of the right wing nut treehouse, b) his television career, during which he played a demonic and villainous character, is pretty much over (about 20 years after wearing out his welcome, if you ask me), and c) that people write him mean e-mails.
And the icing? A traitor who has avoided jail by (obviously) cooperating with the prosecutor to avoid becoming a larger convict’s wife is bitching about the cravenness of his fellow journalists. Hell, even that shameless "reporter" (cough cough stenographer cough cough) Judy Miller went to the slammer to prove a point.
Smallest violin, anyone? Larry Johnson, over to you...
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (0)
|
Pakistan in the spin zone
8/7/07 07:14:27
|
So what’s all this with Pakistan lately? Since the release of the very scary NIE the other week that concluded that al Qaeda has strengthened considerably in the past two years and it’s all our good friend Pervez Musharraf’s fault, American politicians have worked themselves into a lather trying to show who’s ready to get in there first and make those terrorists his/her bitch.
Consider the reactions:
Barack Obama: "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will."
Hillary Clinton: In an interview with American Urban Radio News Networks, she said that if there were actionable intelligence showing Osama bin Laden or other prominent terrorist leaders in Pakistan, "I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured."
Joe Biden: "The way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it," Biden said at the National Press Club. "The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty."
Frances Townsend: Job number one is to protect the American people, and there are no options that are off the table.
George W. Bush: “I’m confident, with real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done.”
So who says that Clinton and Obama don’t see eye to eye? Even President Bush is on the reservation. And that is that when referring to this al Qaeda resurgence in Pakistan, use the word "actionable".
Actionable.
What an interesting word that is. Actionable.
And what a world of possibilities it opens up.
So what does the use of "actionable" tell us? Could it mean that the NIE doesn’t actually specify where these terrorists are lurking? If not, why isn’t the American press casting a critical eye on the NIE’s conclusions? Are we really going to have to go through the Iraq debacle again, where we had to wait for Bob Woodward to have a road to Damascus experience before the rest of the horde started digging? To be clear, I’m not suggesting that Pakistan is terror-free. I’m just saying that before bombing or invading a sovereign nation, which happens to be a nuclear power and an ally, maybe, just MAYBE, it might be a good idea to determine where our attacks should be aimed. And maybe local cooperation would be helpful, but not of the type suggested by the foolish Henry Crumpton in the recent David Ignatius column (providing tribal leaders with weapons and money didn’t work so well in Afghanistan, despite protestations to the contrary. Sorry Henry).
Oh, and message to Barack Obama: blaming the media for your fuckup won’t work. Nice try though.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (0)
|
And speaking of talentless bimbos...
8/6/07 07:03:10
|
Nicole Richie was not aware that smoking pot and taking Vicodin impairs your driving. And Glendale is totally confusing. Not even Joel Madden can keep a straight face. And yes, I admit I clicked on it. Good work Diane Sawyer.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (2)
|
The last word on Merry
8/6/07 07:00:10
|
OK, so I’m posting about the Merry Miller fiasco way too late. So sue me.
I’ve now had a chance to read every single excuse under the sun for why this idiotic woman made such a complete fool out of herself on ABC’s time and dime. The IFB wasn’t working. She was a booker with no "interview" experience, who ended up on the air to fulfill the dying Joel Siegel’s wish. Not that it matters anyway, according to some apologists, because this segment wasn’t actually part of the "real" ABC, since The Buzz is only seen on low-rent platforms like cell phones.
Oh, bullshit.
First off, the idea that a booker cannot do an interview is simply ridiculous. Bookers not only line up guests; in many cases they also have to produce the segment for the lazy and blow-dried "talent", meaning they conduct something which in television is called a "pre-interview". In layman’s terms, it’s running the guest through the paces so they don’t seize up on the air, but the pre-interview’s actual function is to save the show host the trouble of doing any heavy lifting whatsoever when the guest appears in the studio or on the screen. I’ve worked with bookers who were more astute and agile interviewers than the so-called "talent". It’s also the booker whose ass is on the line when the ratings start to dip. So this notion that a booker is just dials a telephone is absurd.
While I think I have as healthy a sense of humor as the next burned-out, jaded TV person, there’s something deeply unamusing and unfunny about this ubiquitous YouTube clip. What we’re watching, folks, is yet another example of why so many Americans believe Iraq attacked us on 9/11 and that WMDs were found in Iraq. Call it Foxification if you like, but not only downmarket "news" organizations are relying on dimwitted beauty pageant alums to present the news to the public. It’s become industry-wide, and it’s infuriating.
It’s not just the pretty or young ones, by the way. It’s the general erosion of professionalism and standards across the board that’s gotten us into this pickle.
Consider if you will the following clip from the new documentary NO END IN SIGHT. Go to 5:09. What do you see? Rumsfeld making a joke about the widescale lawlessness that erupted in Iraq following the invasion, smarmily joking about how there couldn’t be that many vases in Iraq to loot. We’ve seen this before. But what do you notice now?
The Pentagon press corps laughs. They laugh. Oh ho ho, so funny. What a witty guy, our secretary of defense. Stuff happens. And I’m willing to bet that not one of those patrons at this comedy club known as the Pentagon briefing room got fired for this behavior.
But DCMG, you say, Merry Miller only interviewed Holly Hunter. The Rumsfeld thing was important. How do you make the leap.
Well, who hires these people? Who keeps them employed? Why are they hired? Who protects them? And how is their massive incompetence hurting us?
Well, at least Merry Miller lost her job. What about the folks who sold us the WMD bill of goods? Who among them has returned a Pulitzer, or resigned from their job in shame?
I’m waiting for an answer to that last question. I may be waiting a while.
Dc Media Girl Permalink
Comments (2)
|
| | |
|
