Author: Brandon

Pat Robertson’s statement that the US should knock off Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, because he is a “terrific danger” to the US and Venezuela will become “the launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.” is a perfect illustration, outrage not withstanding, of the difference between public and private morality. It’s alright for Robertson to suggest murder, as long as it’s the State that’s carrying it out. If, on the other hand, Robertson were to seriously suggest that he was planning to kill his neighbor, or a competitor, what do you suppose the reaction might be? As I said, the comments have caused some public sensation, but not as much as they should have. In a more civilized era, Robertson would no doubt have been shunned to the point of effective non-existence for comments like these.
Robertson may not be aware that the US does not engage in political assassinations. It is, in fact, illegal by Executive Order;

“Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.”

Setting aside morality for the moment, Robertson identifies “communist infiltration” and “Muslim extremism” as his motives for the killing. Don’t make me laugh. Communism failed, as it was preordained to do. It never had a chance of succeeding and should have been greeted with snickers when first proposed. Robertson must be one of the only people left who’s willing to publicly say that he believes communism can work, so much so that he’s willing to commit murder to stop it. The irony of a prominent Fundie talking about Muslim extremism is…well he makes it too easy. Chavez is a danger to Venezuela, not the US, and it’s Venezuela’s problem to solve, if they choose to do so. America’s problem is Pat Robertson.
The contemptible thing about these kinds of helpful suggestions by warmongers is that they invariably involve someone else doing the dirty work. I say that if Robertson wants Chavez on the slab, he should have the guts to do the job personally.

“Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them to it” – Shakespeare, Henry V

Every so often, the confused cranium of George W. Bush emerges from seclusion and words escape his lips which are apparently designed to be explanations of his policies. Typically, his statements only create greater confusion amongst observers, possibly including the President himself. Ever expanding confusion, mirroring ever expanding entropy, the second law of thermodynamics applied to the gray matter of George Bush*; that would be a neat explanation for this statement, concerning deceased US servicemen;

“We owe them something. We will finish the task that they gave their lives for. We’ll honor their sacrifice by staying on the offensive against the terrorists and building strong allies in Afghanistan and Iraq that will help us win and fight … the war on terror.”

“Finish the task” — what task? as tex pointed out below, Bush has never defined the task. The task, like the justification for the task, is whatever Bush wants it to be, moment by moment. That’s what “they gave their lives for” as he puts it. They gave their lives for the imagination of George W. Bush. “Honor their sacrifice”…by wiping out any resistance to our dreams of world domination, no matter who be in our way. And who are “the terrorists” Bush is always referring to? The president is always talking about terrorists and insurgents, insurgents and terrorists. He hasn’t clearly delineated who the enemy is. Clearly, the enemy is anyone whom George W. Bush imagines them to be. “Building strong allies” refers to the permanent US military bases in Iraq, assuming Bush remembers that he is having them built. And then this matter of “the war on terror”, another thing Bush has never bothered to define in anything resembling specific terms. Since we don’t know exactly what the war on terror is, it isn’t possible to win it, except in the imagination of its Creator: George W. Bush. The president imagines the cause, imagines the enemy — why not simply get out of the region and he can imagine the casualties too!

*For the Second Law to apply to Bush’s brain, it would have to be, in technical terms, a ‘closed system’, in which no new positive thermal energy can enter…

Drudge is running a report about an exchange between the only White House correspondent who matters – Helen Thomas – and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. It goes like this;

Q The other day — in fact, this week, you said that we, the United States, is in Afghanistan and Iraq by invitation. Would you like to correct that incredible distortion of American history —

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we are — that’s where we currently —

Q — in view of your credibility is already mired? How can you say that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I think everyone in this room knows that you’re taking that comment out of context. There are two democratically-elected governments in Iraq and —

Q Were we invited into Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are two democratically-elected governments now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments, and we are there today —

Q You mean if they had asked us out, that we would have left?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, I’m talking about today. We are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments — Q I’m talking about today, too.

MR. McCLELLAN: — and we are doing all we can to train and equip their security forces so that they can provide for their own security as they move forward on a free and democratic future. Q Did we invade those countries?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve. (Emphasis gleefully added by me)

Yes, Steve, go ahead. Please bail me out of this disaster. I shouldn’t have to answer unpleasant questions like this.
Anyone who has to resort to using a phrase like “I think everyone in this room knows” is full of crap. Imagine if the entire press corps weren’t a passel of gutless power worshippers — imagine they all had the sack to tell the Emperor that he was buck naked — now that would be fun, unless your name is Scott McClellan.
PS. Somebody tell Drudge that his title tags on that page contain erroneous information, in that it is no longer 2004…

The Rumsfeldian streamlining of the military continues. It will now be much, much easier to identify and destroy targets. Yay!

George Lucas conceived Star Wars in part as a criticism of Nixonian America and the Vietnam War (the Endor battle scenes in Return of the Jedi are intended partly as a Vietnam sequence). Now, at the premier of Revenge of the Sith, he says “When I wrote it, Iraq (the U.S.-led war) didn’t exist… but the parallels of what we did in Vietnam and Iraq are unbelievable.”
Although shrewd businessman Lucas wants to downplay any overt political implications of his new movie, there is an obvious critique of Bush and the War on Terror. Near the end of the picture, after Anakin has embraced the Dark Side and become Darth Vader, he confronts his best friend Obi-Wan Kenobi. Vader says “You are either with me — or you are my enemy.” Bush said something very similar after 9/11: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” In the novelization and I hope, the movie, Kenobi responds “Only Sith deal in absolutes, Anakin. The truth is never black and white.”

A radical shift in US war planning towards preemptive surprise attacks of a purely technological nature (bombing, space weapons) is the subject of a new article by William M. Arkin in the Washington Post. It seems that Washington is moving towards conflict resolution without the messy US casualties that usually force an end to wars. Since the US public seems much more willing to accept unfortunate non-US civilian casualties than it is American Soldier casualites, this strikes me as sound market-based war planning. Would there be much concern in the US if everyone woke up tomorrow to read that Pyongyang had been nuked in a surprise attack? I wonder…
Arkin calls for a public debate on the issue;

though CONPLAN 8022 suggests a clean, short-duration strike intended to protect American security, a preemptive surprise attack (let alone one involving a nuclear weapon option) would unleash a multitude of additional and unanticipated consequences. So, on both counts, why aren’t we talking about it?