Conflating Iraq And Al Qaeda

Our President appeared as confused as a schoolboy who hasn't done his homework and is suddenly called to the front of the classroom. That is a kind interpretation. A more cynical interpretation is that the President, lacking the requisite ability, long ago hitched his wagon to a group of Machiavellian neocons and became a useful idiot for their schemes. Now he's forced to defend their failed ideas lest his poor judgment and unoriginal thinking become apparent to the general public. Al Franken comments:

Al: So he keeps saying that a failed Iraq would make America less secure, there would be terrorists there and extremists there. And this woman asks a question, "Quick follow up. A lot of consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in?" How do you square all that? And then he gets into this thing of, like, he's just reeling here where he's trying to talk about Saddam Hussein. Imagine a world with Saddam Hussein. And he gets into this.

President Bush: You know I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived. And you know, kind of... stir up the hornet's nest theory. This just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Reporter: What did Iraq have do with that?

President Bush: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Reporter: The attack on the World Trade Center.

President Bush: Nothing! Except for it's part of... And nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.

Al: OK, so he's saying in defense of attacking Iraq that uh, you know some people say that we started this hornet's nest there but what they're forgetting is that Saddam Hussein stirred so much resentment and hatred that people came and killed 3,000 people there. And they say who had anything... what does that have to do with Iraq? And he goes, "Nothing!" And then he says no one suggested that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Well the fact of the matter is more than half of the American public believe that Saddam had something to do with the 9/11 attacks- and that didn't come from nowhere. Right? That came from actual... like things like this. Cheney on Meet The Press: "It has been pretty well confirmed that Mohammed Atta did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Checkoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." Uh, this is... And then this is him in March. This is Cheney, you know, essentially ten days before we went to war.

Producer: This is January.

Al: Oh, I'm sorry. Never mind. My fault. My fault.

Vice President Cheney: I continue to believe I think there's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.

Al: OK, and he says that... And then here's what he said on Meet The Press. This is November 14, 2003. Now he's talking about Iraq. He's talking to Tim Russert. Listen to this.

Vice President Cheney: They will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, geographic base of the terrorists that have had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11.

Al: OK, so he's saying this is the geographic base of 9/11. What does that mean? That means Iraq attacked us on 9/11. So when the President says no one has ever suggested that Saddam planned this- baloney! Now, here is the letter that Bush sent to Congress. He's saying that when we uh... He's saying, "Acting pursuant to the Constitution the authorization to use military force against Iraq resolution of 2002 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and the terrorist organizations including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11th, 2001." So in other words he's saying in the official letter to Congress outlining the legal justification for commencing war against Iraq on March 18th, he's saying "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11th, 2001." Baloney! They were saying that Al Qaeda and Saddam did this together.

     

An article by Erik No Comments

Are You Familiar With The Thing I Just Made Up?

I know it's cheap to post content from other sites, but this is priceless. Al Franken invited Joseph Minton and Tom Breuer to his show. They are the authors of Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly. The three discussed the many ways Bill manages to embarrass himself. Al provoked lively discussion by playing clips from Bill's show. Some topics include:

Defamation of Character

Al: One of the ugliest lies is about Jeremy Glick, who lost his father in 9/11. And he keeps saying that Jeremy Glick said on the show- which he didn't- that Bush I and Bush II orchestrated 9/11.

Tom or Joe: There's a chapter in the book where we actually line by line go through the entire interview and write what Bill said, what Jeremy said, and then what was happening in Bill's head. And it's three totally different things.

Fake Sources

Al: At this point Canada was giving sanctuary to some of our deserters. And he was threatening that the O'Reilly Factor would boycott Canada, our largest trading partner.

Tom or Joe: And wreak havoc in the way his previous boycott had wreaked havoc on France.

Al: Which it hadn't. By the way, once he started his boycott of France, imports from France went up.

Bill: If you start to undermine our war against terrorists then Americans are going to take action. Are you willing to accept that boycott which will hurt your economy drastically?

Canadian Journalist: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partner.

Bill: No it will take place. In France they've lost billions of dollars according to the Paris Business Review.

Canadian Journalist: I think that's nonsense.

Al: OK now, there is no Paris Business Review... He does this thing all the time, which is "Are you familiar with the thing I just made up?"

Revisionist History

Bill: Although if France had sided with us Saddam would have backed off, the weapons inspectors would have been in, and there wouldn't have been a war. That's true.

Tom or Joe: Yeah, as that's black and white fact to him. In his head that is fact. That is so scary.

Al: The fact to him is that the weapons inspectors never went in. Even though the weapons inspectors... went in. In November. We told them finally to get out because we're going to be bombing. So the weapons inspectors were there from November 18th, 2002. And he says this repeatedly!

Fake Credentials

Bill: I tell you what. I've been in combat. I've seen it. I've been close to it. And if my unit is in danger and I've got a captured guy. And the guy knows where the enemy is. And I'm looking him in the eye. The guy better tell me. That's all I'm going to tell you. If it's life or death... he's going first.

Caller: Hey Bill. Bill, first things first. You just said that you've been in combat but you've never been in the military have you?

Bill: No I have not.

Caller: Why did you say you've been in combat?

Bill: What do I say that Roger? Because I was in the middle of a couple of firefights in South and Central America.

Caller: But you were a media guy.

Bill: Yeah. A media guy with a pen, not a gun. And people were shooting at me, Roger.

Caller: 'Cause people might think that you actually were in the military.

Bill: No. We don't want to mislead anybody. But I've made it quite clear, quite clear in many, many circumstances.

Caller: Is that fair and balanced?

Bill: Yeah. Hey listen Roger, you know what? You can take your little fair and balanced snip remark and shove it. You're not getting on this air. You, Mr. macho man, would have never come close to anything that I've done down where I've been. So take a walk, and... enough said.

Tom or Joe: He knows nothing about Roger. Roger could have no legs from Vietnam. I mean he has absolutely no idea who Roger is. It's the most insane thing to take that approach.

Fact Checking

Al: Here he's talking about the Factor staff. And how devoted he is to getting his facts right.

Bill: Every day the Factor staff, radio and television, comes to me with stories. We have pitch meetings. And I say, "Prove it." They got to prove it to me. And it may be a story I really like. And I go, "OK, prove it." And we kill eight out of ten stories because it's not there. Which is why in eight and a half years I've never had to retract a story on either radio or television. Never had to retract one.

Al: What kind of staff does he have that eight out of the ten stories they bring him don't check out?

Tom or Joe: You've got to fire those people. You don't keep them on.

Bad Writing

[You've got to hear this. Bill's attempt at salacious fiction is as funny as it is bad. His reading of his own writing makes it even more humorous.]

Tom or Joe: He reads it like a talking points memo!

     

An article by Erik No Comments

Brokeback Mountain

I watched Brokeback Mountain on Wednesday. It is not as gay a film as you may expect. I thought that Capote was gayer, in that boorish sense of the word, as it focused on an effeminate, bon vivant writer. Brokeback Mountain is really a film about rural life. It focuses on emotions, not politics. It is not so different from most Westerns as it exhibits the male supression of emotion for the greater social need. I thought it was excellent.

After watching the film, as I'm wont to do, I read comments on IMDB and NetFlix. I was amused by a number of dissatified viewers who protested that the film would not be such a big deal if the lead characters were not gay. Take away the gay cowboys, they say, and the film wouldn't be so highly praised.

Well, it's good to know that one can find people willing to point out the obvious. Often when writing for this site I find myself struggling with nuanced analysis, contradictory thoughts and interpretations. It's comforting to know that I can rely on these Internet critics to keep me from losing sight of the main points.

This just shows, the Internet critics continue, Hollywood's liberal agenda. The only reason Brokeback Mountain is getting so much press is because it furthers the gay agenda.

That's right Einstein, very good. That's the same reason In The Heat of the Night got so much press. It also furthered a liberal agenda, civil rights. That is exactly why some of us think Brokeback Mountain is an excellent film. It displays the damage done to people left behind by the status quo agenda. Some of us believe that examining this kind of wreckage is the penultimate duty of art. Do you expect the artists who made this film to apologize for asking their audience to consider a more liberal view of the matter? Do you expect them to be ashamed that their film helps advance a liberal agenda? Don't hold your breath for an apology. The wheels of time will not stop on your account.

I relate this episode simply to clarify that while Brokeback Mountain avoids political dialectic, focusing on emotions rather than politics, it is most certainly a highly political film. It is so because its subject matter has been so politicized in recent years.

So let us not shy away from the politics. I have discussed the issue of gay marriage in an earlier blog: Gay Marriage Is A Threat To Male Insecurity.

Al Franken found some humor in the gay marriage issue on his Thursday show: 

     

An article by Erik No Comments

Dodged A Bullet

Al Franken postulates that Cheney's hunting mishap could have been much worse. How so Mr. Franken?

I have to imagine, don't you think that Cheney and Bush have gone hunting together? Wouldn't you say Andy?

They'd have to have gone hunting together.

Joel, don't you think?

Absolutely.

At some point, right? Now imagine if Cheney had shot the President. Can you imagine that? And knowing this President... I mean the guy that Cheney shot in the face- and neck, left side of his face and neck- is seventy eight years old. Bush- if he shot Bush like that... Bush is in good shape. And he's kind of- I think he's got a temper and he's kind of macho. I think Bush would have gotten up and shot Cheney back. And I think they would have gone after each other, blasting each other like in a Tarantino movie. Can you imagine? I mean really that's possible. These guys, I think, have short fuses.

Think about it. Think what could have happened if the President and the Vice President were hunting together and this happened. I mean the Vice President almost killed this guy. I mean a little higher and a little closer it could have... And imagine what would have happened if we- you know you're sitting at home like we got the reports- that the Vice President killed the President. You know an accident. An accident. Everybody, all the eye witnesses going "accident." I mean there would be a lot of conspiracy theories, obviously.

Many of which would be expressed probably in e-mails to our show.

Yes, but we'd be faced with... Imagine this: We would be faced with the situation where Cheney would then be President. The President would have shot the other President, the last President. And we'd have to decide as the sort of American people- and our leaders would have to decide what do you do? I mean we did dodge a bullet here in a way, in a sense.

     

An article by Erik No Comments

Unapproved FISA Wiretaps

More humor from Al Franken regarding the NSA wiretapping story. Mr. Franken is referring to the secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The serious question is why did the Administration bypass this court when it has in the past been very accommodating to surveillance requests, approving all but a few requests? The humorous question is for what reason were those previous requests denied? Mr. Franken:

So, since the inception of the FISA court in 1979 there have been roughly- this we got from the Electronic Privacy Information Center. There have been roughly 19,000 requests approved for warrants and four- five, I'm sorry- five rejected. Uh... There... OK. And you just got to wonder what those five were like. How do you?... If you have five rejected out of 20,000- 19,000- what were those five requests that were turned down like? I think it was like this. It was like:

"Um, Jerry? You want this warrant to wiretap your wife? Is that right?"

"Uh, yeah. I think she's a spy."

"Jerry, haven't we been through this?"

"Uh, no really I think she's spying for, uh, Serbia."

"Uh huh. And you also want to wiretap her boss?"

"Right, yeah. I think he's in on it- the spying for Serbia."

"Look Jer. I think that maybe you should think about getting maybe a private eye or a marriage counselor. But this is not why the FISA court was set up."

"She's cheating on me, Bob! She's cheating on me!"

"Ah Jer, calm down. Look, this is the fifth time you've tried to get a warrant on your wife. And I warned you last time and I got... I'm gonna have to tell your supervisor. And I can't guarantee that he's not going to be very, very unhappy."

"OK, I won't come to you again."

"Now Jer, I told you last time. I told you two times ago, three strikes and you're out. And I've let you come now again twice. I've got to tell you supervisor. And these are the only five warrants we've ever turned down, and it's just got to stop."

"I'll stop!"

"Now you said that before, Jer. I can't help you with your wife. Get a private eye. Get a marriage counselor."

I think that's it.

     

An article by Erik No Comments