In a highly unusual move, key Republicans in Congress are seeking to declassify testimony that former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday.
Frist said the intent was to determine whether Clarke lied under oath - either in 2002 or this week - when he appeared before a bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and sharply criticized President Bush's handling of the war on terror.
``Until you have him under oath both times you don't know,'' Frist said.
Come on folks... just free your mind for about 5 minutes, forget who you're rooting for in this sick gamesmanship level of politics most Americans participate in...
Forget if you like Bush, hate Bush, whatever, forget who the players are, just imagine their words and actions...
OK, it can be objectively proved, it has been proved, that the white house and president misled the country into a war in Iraq. Forget intent, whether it was deliberate or whatever, it's an objective fact that all the reasons given for going to war in Iraq were suspected of being and have subsequently been proved to be false. They did not have stockpiles of WMDs, they did not have any sort of nuclear program to speak of, the Iraqi government for the last decade did not have any active relationships to any anti-American terrorist groups; they were cooperating with the UN inspectors finally and they were not a threat to their neighbors or to the US.
That's all completely true. Forget the post-war rationalizations, OK? Just forget it. We took down a bad guy, people are free, etc.... It's beside the point of this thought exercise. The fact is we were misled by the administration into the war (if you don't think that's the case stop now, you don't have enough of a brain to do any thought exercises).
OK, now it's a year later. No one in the administration has hardly been taken to task, even. The president has not had to testify under oath regarding the war which, objectively speaking, was embarked upon under false pretence.
The GOP is not asking for any sort of inquiry, they're mainly defending the president.
Now we have this 9-11 commission. Richard Clarke is testifying under oath and saying, basically, that the Bush administration screwed up by not taking terrorism seriously prior to 9-11. That assertion is being debated. Objectively speaking it looks like he may be right since the only counter arguments the white house has put forward is their personal assurances it's not true. It's their word against Clarke's, Beers, Kwiatkowski, and the actions they've taken like Ashcroft's 7 points that didn't include terrorism, turning down a request to take 300 million from missile defense to counter-terrorism operations, turning down a funding bill worth 50 million... the evidence points in Clarke's favor but we still can't say his assertions are undeniably correct.
What does the GOP want to do? Declassify Clarke's former testimony.
In regards to the 9-11 commission and the separate issue of the Iraq war, the GOP has not cared enough to have Rice, Cheney, Bush, Powell, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Ashcroft or anyone else testify under oath. It's undeniable we were misled into a war (whether intentionally or not), it seems reasonable that the white house did not focus enough on terrorism before 9-11 (and still aren't since the state of Iraq had nothing to do with anti-American terrorism) and the GOP wants to see if they can catch Clarke in a lie.
Now, it might not be unreasonable to compare his two testimonies-- that's not the point. The point is, that's all the GOP is concerned with. The greatest act of terrorism ever, a war clearly of choice sold as necessary to protect the US from an immediate danger, and the only thing the GOP wants to do is double-check Richard Clarke.
The most horrific thing that's every happened to our country and the white house didn't even want a 9-11 commission. Over 3,000 people killed and the GOP doesn't mind if the administration at the helm during the attack ever makes it to the mic. They only care about catching Clarke in a lie.
If you vote for Bush, or any of the GOP cum Bush footsoldiers, you're a fool at best and at worst a fucking scumbag. I'm sorry, but there's just no excuse anymore. These are bad people doing bad things to our country for bad reasons (to put it in 5 year-old terms).
Life-long Republican? Step outside yourself for a moment and stop being so fucking petty with your vote. It's not about "sides" and winning, these are the people we're paying to run the country and this is what your Republican politicians are doing. They don't deserve the privilege anymore. One or two honest people in the whole fucking bunch doesn't make it OK to continue to vote along party lines simply because you chose your side and you don't want to go over to the other side and have to hear about it from your buddies.
They've lost their way. They're no good right now. They need to go.
Oh Yeah- The GOP also furiously wants to blame the Iraq war all on bad intelligence. That's the other thing they want to do. Thereby admitting we went to war under false pretense... but irony is a concept conservatives don't seem to be aware of.
If every twenty-something aspiring screenwriter could get Bill Murray to be in his/her self-indulgent, navel-gazing, "nobody understands me" script, they'd be up for oscars, too!
Did I use "to wit" correctly? Is it "whit"? I don't care enough to find out for myself.
Bill Murray is always great because Bill Murray is great. Even if he's in crap he's worth watching.
What you've got with "Lost in Translation" is a contemplative, plodding piece of poetry that's not about anything but "life can be funky sometimes, kid." It's OK, but there were some really weak points and ultimately it only comes out OK because, again, Bill Murray is always great.
I wish I had a Bill Murray face. He's just got one of those faces, you know?
Did it make me think and love and learn? Well, thanks to Bill Murray, a little bit. But there's been plenty of movies without Bill Murray that did it better. "Wings of Desire' comes to mind. Contemplative, "what's love got to do with it?" but much better.
For the past two weeks, since Mel Gibson's movie depicting the crucifixion of Christ opened on Ash Wednesday to such heavenly business, I've received well over 100 e-mails, several phone messages and even a few good old-fashioned letters in response to my negative — okay, aggressively negative — review. While a tiny percentage of these responses were sympathetic, supportive and in general agreement with my misgivings, the vast majority were not. They were angry.
Indeed, if there was one charge readers levelled against more than any other — more than calling me an idiot, a hypocrite (because I liked Kill Bill: Vol. 1), blind, incompetent, perverted, biased, and several other profoundly un-Christian sentiments — it was that I couldn't handle the truth.
While truth in movies — or anywhere, really — is a treacherously slippery concept under the best of circumstances, in this case it seemed to morph into something slightly different every time it was used.
For some people, the truth I failed to see was a literal truth: For these viewers, and apparently for Gibson himself, The Passion Of The Christ depicted what really happened, and my resistance to that was simply a denial of that reality. Needless to say, for anyone cognizant of the artificial, selective and ultimately interpretive nature of all cinematic storytelling, this response could not help but be astounding.
People are dumb. Especially when it comes to actually thinking about their faith rather than just screaming out tenets of it to anyone that doesn't share their groupthink.
If the Jebus came back tomorrow, he'd hire a lawyer and legally divorce himself from "Christians" everywhere.
I'm busy. Making a little teeny "TV" show. Editing a doc. Some other stuff.
Next time I have a free 15 minutes and am all worked up about something I'll holler. In the meantime it seems there are some constants in this world:
Bush is a truly awful president. Either he's completely fucking incompentent or a hideous, black-souled liar, and anyone who votes for him is either willfully ignorant, stupid, or a bad person.
Some people won't be happy till the fucking gulf stream stops and Europe freezes and our summers are 130 and our winters -50 and usually they call themselves "conservatives", which would be ironic if it wasn't so goddamn terrible.
Kids suck and most of the crap on the radio sucks. No, it's not because I'm getting old, we're in a sucky music cycle. This shit happens in cycles people. The last cycle of good music ended with "grunge". Give it a year or two and we'll start hearing more decent stuff on the radio.
The two biggest problems facing the world today occur on an individual scale, yet add up to big, big trouble for the entire planet: people are too goddamn self-absorbed and too goddamn stupid.
Yep. Not a day goes by where the above doesn't seem to immutable.