UK drama paints fictional assassination of Bush | Entertainment | Film | Reuters.com: "'Death of a President,' shot in the form of a documentary examining the assassination, will use a blend of archival footage and computer-generated special effects to portray Bush in October 2007 arriving in Chicago during an anti-war rally.
In the film, Bush is killed by a sniper, and the investigation quickly focuses on a Syrian-born man. It will air in October on Channel 4's More4 digital channel, as well as at the Toronto Film Festival in September."
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Run and Hide | TPMCafe
Sterling Newberry: "we have reached the on coming dark at the end of the tunnel, and should we continue on our current course, the destabilization of Iraq is a matter of months, not years."
Sterling concentrates mostly on an analysis of the military situation, but at the end, he wonders, whither the Media? For those of us looking for the coming political storm, which surely must follow from the debacle in Iraq, this is, obviously, a critical piece.
The Media has become a corporate, right-wing monolithic propaganda machine. Will they turn on their masters? Or, will their Masters turn on their creature, George W. Bush?
Or, will the Master of Media blame the Iraq debacle on the opponents of the war?
Sterling concentrates mostly on an analysis of the military situation, but at the end, he wonders, whither the Media? For those of us looking for the coming political storm, which surely must follow from the debacle in Iraq, this is, obviously, a critical piece.
The Media has become a corporate, right-wing monolithic propaganda machine. Will they turn on their masters? Or, will their Masters turn on their creature, George W. Bush?
Or, will the Master of Media blame the Iraq debacle on the opponents of the war?
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Gary Hart: Twenty-first Century Rome | The Huffington Post
The Blog | Gary Hart: Twenty-first Century Rome | The Huffington Post: "The army, the courts, and religion. The keys to the creation of the American Empire."
Gary Hart notices Bush's fascist state project.
Gary Hart notices Bush's fascist state project.
Friday, August 25, 2006
If you're right, you're right, and other tales of Iraq
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall August 25, 2006 06:47 PM:retired Lt. General Bernard Trainor, as quoted by Matthew Yglesias:
Matthew sums it up:
The answer to this Delphic conundrum is really not all that difficult. Are we willing and able to not merely stay, but to act to improve the situation for the long-term?
Bush has so little concept of what needs to be done, that the whole debate over what to do, short of precipitous withdrawal, is frozen. Iraq has many dire problems. Are we willing to do anything about them?
I don't think Bush is either willing or capable of helping the Iraqis. He has no idea what to do, beyond a stupid persistence. Even if some of his advisers had some bright ideas, the Decider-in-Chief lacks both ambition and discernment.
I don't agree with those on the Left, who glibly say the situation is, in principle, hopeless, or minimize the inevitable losses down the road as Iran takes over the Middle East.
I think, with sufficient effort and expense, Iraq could be transformed. Half a million American troops on the ground and $60 to 80 billion in additional reconstruction funding, diligently spent, and I could see the U.S. really accomplishing something.
Withdrawal or not would become a moot point; a strong Iraq would ask the U.S. to leave, forthwith.
As it is, we are in the position of the idiot cook, who has put the pot on the stove, and seeing it boil, puts a lid on, hoping to stop it from boiling over. Our lid just makes it worse.
If we are not willing to do anything more, than we should take the lid off, and flee the kitchen, and accept what follows. If Iran ends up dominating the region, so be it. Oil is fungible, and we should use a lot less, anyway.
"By just about every measure, our strategy is not succeeding. Common sense would dictate that we cut our losses and get out as soon as feasible, leaving the Iraqis to settle matters in their own way. But that would be taking a leap into the great and highly dangerous unknown, perhaps creating problems more vexing than those we currently face. Opponents of precipitous withdrawal raise “out of the frying pan, into the fire” scenarios — and they may be right. If so, staying the course and working for improvement is the only logical choice unless at some point the chaotic situation absolutely forecloses that option."
Matthew sums it up:
"Trainor clearly has a grip on reality that many of his fellow contributors lack. . . . And yet his argument here is that opponents of withdrawal are correct to oppose withdrawal if and only if opponents of withdrawal are right. But, obviously, we shouldn't leave if withdrawal opponents are right. The question is are they . . . right?"
The answer to this Delphic conundrum is really not all that difficult. Are we willing and able to not merely stay, but to act to improve the situation for the long-term?
Bush has so little concept of what needs to be done, that the whole debate over what to do, short of precipitous withdrawal, is frozen. Iraq has many dire problems. Are we willing to do anything about them?
I don't think Bush is either willing or capable of helping the Iraqis. He has no idea what to do, beyond a stupid persistence. Even if some of his advisers had some bright ideas, the Decider-in-Chief lacks both ambition and discernment.
I don't agree with those on the Left, who glibly say the situation is, in principle, hopeless, or minimize the inevitable losses down the road as Iran takes over the Middle East.
I think, with sufficient effort and expense, Iraq could be transformed. Half a million American troops on the ground and $60 to 80 billion in additional reconstruction funding, diligently spent, and I could see the U.S. really accomplishing something.
Withdrawal or not would become a moot point; a strong Iraq would ask the U.S. to leave, forthwith.
As it is, we are in the position of the idiot cook, who has put the pot on the stove, and seeing it boil, puts a lid on, hoping to stop it from boiling over. Our lid just makes it worse.
If we are not willing to do anything more, than we should take the lid off, and flee the kitchen, and accept what follows. If Iran ends up dominating the region, so be it. Oil is fungible, and we should use a lot less, anyway.
he is psychotic
Justin Frank, psychiatrist: "I have not examined the President, so it is not proper for me to offer a diagnosis. However, my observations lead me to believe that he is psychotic."
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?
Dr. Frank is not asserting that Bush is hearing voices, only that he is not entirely accepting of reality.
I have noted elsewhere that the whole Republican Party is increasingly hostile to reality. I am not sure that makes either Bush or the Republicans as a whole "psychotic", but I am keeping my eye on the threat to attack Iran.
I really do not expect the U.S. to attack Iran, partly because I do not think Bush would get sufficient backing from Congress. Bush's Republican backers in Congress are rallying, though. I presume a certain rational calculation permeates the deliberations of the Bush Administration, despite the history of bad judgement.
But, I could be completely wrong. Maybe, the President really has lost his grip. I know a President initiating a second war in the Middle East, without the backing of the country, would create a Perfect Storm, that would dwarf anything before in American history.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?
Dr. Frank is not asserting that Bush is hearing voices, only that he is not entirely accepting of reality.
I have noted elsewhere that the whole Republican Party is increasingly hostile to reality. I am not sure that makes either Bush or the Republicans as a whole "psychotic", but I am keeping my eye on the threat to attack Iran.
I really do not expect the U.S. to attack Iran, partly because I do not think Bush would get sufficient backing from Congress. Bush's Republican backers in Congress are rallying, though. I presume a certain rational calculation permeates the deliberations of the Bush Administration, despite the history of bad judgement.
But, I could be completely wrong. Maybe, the President really has lost his grip. I know a President initiating a second war in the Middle East, without the backing of the country, would create a Perfect Storm, that would dwarf anything before in American history.
Why Political Storm Matter: Party ID
Economist's View: Party Identification by Age:
CalculatedRisk explains why political storms matter: "A bad President, making terrible decisions, can really hurt a party for years."
CalculatedRisk explains why political storms matter: "A bad President, making terrible decisions, can really hurt a party for years."
Thursday, August 24, 2006
It Could Be Worse
Bush's New Iraq Argument: It Could Be Worse: "For three years, the president tried to reassure Americans that more progress was being made in Iraq than they realized. But with Iraq either in civil war or on the brink of it, Bush dropped the unseen-progress argument in favor of the contention that things could be even worse."
It is hard to tell if the Administration is trying to flee from the disaster forward into war with Iran, or whether they are preparing for ignominious withdrawal from Iraq.
Either, occurring next year in the midst of recession, and investigations by Democrats in charge of the House, would create the conditions for a Perfect Storm of truly titanic proportions. Bush seems determined to achieve a degree of unpopularity as President that even Nixon failed to achieve.
It is hard to tell if the Administration is trying to flee from the disaster forward into war with Iran, or whether they are preparing for ignominious withdrawal from Iraq.
Either, occurring next year in the midst of recession, and investigations by Democrats in charge of the House, would create the conditions for a Perfect Storm of truly titanic proportions. Bush seems determined to achieve a degree of unpopularity as President that even Nixon failed to achieve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)