?

Log in

No account? Create an account

in a web of glass, pinned to the edges of vision

And to add to your day's political 'what the fuck????', I offer:

I'd forgotten how often we saw Magritte

mucha mosaic

And to add to your day's political 'what the fuck????', I offer:

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
mucha mosaic
this link to a CNN article, about a corpse discovered in England, which may have been the body of one Dr. David Kelly, who the government claims was the source of the original report on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He wrote report A, then, sayeth the UK's government, the BBC 'sexed up' the report into Proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction B. Interesting: we're not even ADMITTING we were insisting this was REALLY TRUE just YESTERDAY, are we, Mr. Blair?

...So let's get this straight. No WMD as yet, despite the efforts of huge numbers of people. No attempted uranium purchase, despite the insistence of Tony Blair's government. No Saddam Hussein, despite the efforts of THOUSANDS. No Osama bin Laden, despite bombing Afghanistan into the stone age. There are over 3000 dead Americans whose murder remains unavenged, despite that being the claimed aim of US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the person who supposedly wrote the report that the BBC then 'sexed up' to justify war (to quote CNN) is now apparently deceased. I bet that all wrongdoing will turn out to have been authored by him, now. Just watch.

So... what really is going on here?

I'm thinking one instance of adultery is a lot less scandalous or criminal than thousands of instances of murder, myself. Mr. Bush? Read your fucking bible, you supposedly follow the damn thing. And please continue to not pay attention to McCarthy: he eventually fell from power because his allegations of associations and links between communists were demonstrated to be naught but a lot of rhetoric. Please keep not paying attention to that.

Goddamn, I hope our elections next year actually elect someone this time.
  • *sigh*
  • Maybe they mean David E. Kelley, the guy who created [i]Ally McBeal[/i] and [i]Boston Public[/i].
  • UH.

    Holy crap.
  • And put this in the mix too:

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/16/intelligence/index_np.html
  • Or, to quote from my phone conversation with my dad last night:

    "The same people who were screaming bloody murder because the president got a blow job in the White House now think that lying about a war is perfectly fine. This is the so-called 'Religious Right'?"
  • It's not like the Clinton White House didn't have its own corpses either, remember Vincent Foster, the 'suicide'?
    • Hmmmn. But what did the Republican party try to crucify Clinton for? Yep: adultery.
      I dunno. 1000+ instances of demonstrated premeditated murder without apology, vs. 1 instance of adultery with apology.
      I'll take the adulterer k thx bai.
      • Yep, just keep repeating to yourself that the perjury didn't have anything to do with it.

        And the person you should be charging with thousands of counts of premeditated murder is Saddam Hussein, not Bush.

        But then again, the freedom of millions now must not really mean a damn thing to you.
        • Perjury about adultery is, perhaps, a less heinous crime than perjury about murder. Adultery doesn't result in the undesired cessation of someone else's life: murder does. It's a terribly picayune point sure. After all, adultery is (generally speaking) a misdemeanor, while murder's a felony- but the fact remains that we are confronted with a situation wherein we invaded one country under false pretenses provided by someone who has demonstrably point-blank lied TWICE to the American people, and you're telling me that lying about adultery ONCE- and admitting that you lied and that lying was wrong- is even on the same yardstick? I can't accept that premise: the logic is simply flawed.
          I'll agree that Saddam Hussein certainly did heinous things to his own citizens, no question. TERRIBLE things. However, this does not mean that our Executive Branch is on higher ground than Saddam Hussein: that's like saying you found that ravens have black feathers and therefore otters are smaller than ravens. There's no relationship between those two facts, yet it seems that you're attempting to say there is. I'll apply your logic in reverse here:
          Saddam Hussein did not invade two separate countries within the last two years with the result of thousands of people living in those countries dying. George Bush did. Saddam Hussein is CLEARLY a better person, therefore!
          Smells like a huge load of bullshit, doesn't it? Smells like bullshit when you apply it in favor of the opposite viewpoint, too. I'd submit that discussion of past executive foibles does not excuse current executive foibles: the Harding administration made the Bush administration look like a troop of Boy Scouts, comparatively. What relationship does that have to the matter under discussion?
          That serving of red herring dealt with, then: I'd recommend that you read the below.

          ...So let's get this straight. No WMD as yet, despite the efforts of huge numbers of people. No attempted uranium purchase, despite the insistence of Tony Blair's government. No Saddam Hussein, despite the efforts of THOUSANDS. No Osama bin Laden, despite bombing Afghanistan into the stone age. There are over 3000 dead Americans whose murder remains unavenged, despite that being the claimed aim of US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the person who supposedly wrote the report that the BBC then 'sexed up' to justify war (to quote CNN) is now apparently deceased. I bet that all wrongdoing will turn out to have been authored by him, now. Just watch.
    • Actually, I'd like to thank you and all the others that are pushing this brand of extreme rhetoric. I mean, Joe Lieberman might have a chance against Bush in 2004, but Howard Dean is going to make George McGovern look like Ronald Reagan.

      And technically, Hussein did invade the autonomous Kurds (killed 100,000 of them, too) and Iran.

      "There is none so blind as he who will not see" -- Ray Stevens
      • Congratulations on again changing the matter under discussion in response to a thesis that, I can only assume, you found inarguable.

        Please cease to post to my journal now.
    • Not that this excuses anything, but...

      After all, adultery is (generally speaking) a misdemeanor, while murder's a felony- but the fact remains that we are confronted with a situation wherein we invaded one country under false pretenses provided by someone who has demonstrably point-blank lied TWICE to the American people, and you're telling me that lying about adultery ONCE- and admitting that you lied and that lying was wrong- is even on the same yardstick? I can't accept that premise: the logic is simply flawed.

      The difference, as little as it is to me[*], is that Clinton apparently bold-faced lied -- he knew as he lied that he was lying, under oath. It is substantially less clear that Bush knew that he was lying, and he was not under oath.

      [*]Note: Both are lies; certainly Bush's had a far greater Bad Effect than Clinton's, and while I despise Clinton for many reasons, Bush is Definitely Not on my Christmas card list.
      • It doesn't /excuse/ it, but I can understand it better, yes.

        I'm unclear where A) lying on TV about marital infidelity is as great a crime as lying about murder on TV, but more importantly B) when lying on TV became perjury. Given that you and I weren't present for any judicial procedure in re: the Lewinsky follies, I can't honestly believe that we're even kicking the term 'perjury' around. He lied ON TELEVISION, which is something we should certainly be used to our government doing. I'd submit, in support of the 'government lying on TV is familiar' thesis, that which was termed 'Irangate', as well as the insinuation that SDI was essential to the longevity of the nation and without it, we would all be dead by, uhm, 1999.
        I can agree that 'lying under oath is worse than lying on TV', sure- but I'm not sure I can say 'lying under oath about adultery is worse than lying on TV about murder'.
        Most importantly: thanks for some light on the other side of people's perceptions: I sometimes find myself going '....WHAT?!?!?!?' when I hear some of the stuff that people think, and reading a reasonable explanation of how one gets there leaves me going 'okay, I don't completely AGREE, but I at least UNDERSTAND'.
  • It wasn't really about the adultery, as I'm sure you know, it's that Clinton was muscling in on traditional Republican turf. He was business-friendly. That's what distinguished him from most of the previous Democratic presidents. NAFTA, GATT, the DMCA, etc. And the Republicans are like, 'If big business likes working with Clinton AND he's seen to be a populist, what the hell are they going to need US for?' Plus it was seen as a fait accompli that Bush 1.0 was going to keep the Reagan era going, so they were pissed about that not happening. So they spent eight years trying to manufacture a Clinton scandal. Do you really think Ken Starr and all those guys lay awake in bed at night, worried that Western civilization was on the verge of collapse because the president lied about fucking an intern?

    Whenever a reason is given by a politician or someone in power, you can be almost certain that it isn't the real reason. You have to go back to like World War II to get official pronouncements which are in line with actual motivations, and even then it's a relative thing. If the real reasons are exposed, they can be objected to, they can be dissected.

    Incidentally, I'm still surprised they haven't found any chemical or biolgical weapons. I was against the war, but was still certain these weapons were there to some degree. Perhaps they were all sold off to finance Saddam's runner...
Powered by LiveJournal.com