I suppose I have to blog about that speech...

...or risk getting a "Bad Blogger! No Biscuit!" citation.

But really...what is to say? It was the Diet Coke of Presidential Speeches. There was no substance and the flavor wasn't quite right, but nonetheless, it was pretty much what was expected; rancid aftertaste and all.

But like Diet Coke is calorie free, the Resident's speech was fact free:

• "Iraq's national leaders are getting some things done," such as "sharing oil revenues with the provinces" [The oil law fell by the wayside, was doused in gasoline and set alight a full day before the bullshit banquet was served up this evening.]

• Bush made the proclamation that Baqubah, capital of Diyala province, (once, (impossibly) simultaneously considered both restive and the al Qaeda - Iraq mothership) is now pacified. "[t]oday, Baqubah is cleared." stated the President. [The pResident makes this claim, yet on 27 August the head of the Foreign Service Office in Diyala said the security situation was far from stable and impeded access to both sustenance and energy needs.]
  

• Further separating himself from reality, he thanked "the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq." [He was only off by a dozen or so. Give a dry drunk moron credit for not fucking this up worse...]
  

• He referenced a panel report assembled by Marine Gen. James Jones, and presented to congress last week, but he misrepresented it, saying that "the Iraqi army is becoming more capable..." [The report actually says that the Iraqi Army "cannot yet meaningfully contribute to denying terrorists safe haven." It also described the 25,000 member national police force as being infiltrated to the core by sectarian militias, and at best of specious loyalty. The Jones report recommended that it be disbanded.]

• He pointed to the relatively restive Baghdad of today, as compared to the Baghdad of a year ago, and pointed to lessened violence in the capital as evidence that his Surge™ strategy is showing success. [When the ethnic cleansing is complete, the supply of people fleeing and being murdered naturally dries up.]

At least in Japan miserable failures like the fool currently occupying the oval office have the decency to go sideways. But not this Dionysian fuckwit. He will go to his grave, at far too distant a date, and after enjoying too much health for too many years, convinced that we lost Iraq because I personally didn't clap loud enough.

There's more: "I suppose I have to blog about that speech..." >>

The Jokes Write Themselves

Source: President Bush Discusses Economic Expansion and Gross Domestic Product Growth
Mortar Board tip: Holden Caulfield

There's more: "The Jokes Write Themselves" >>

Frickin' Ridiculous

So, those guys from Cartoon Network who were promoting the new Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie are being prosecuted in Boston for "[creating] panic by placing 'bomblike' electronic light boards displaying a cartoon character with an upraised middle finger throughout Boston." This is stupid. The problem here is not that these two men created a panic, but rather, that the Boston Police Department created a panic by overreacting and failing to recognize a piece of electronics that was obviously not a bomb. Seriously. It's a pixelized alien sporting a middle-finger. This promotion was conducted in seven other major cities without incident.

The city of Boston needs to just accept that they made a mistake; a mistake that was exacerbated, perhaps, by a generational gap. If DAs prosecuted every instance of guerrilla marketing, there'd be no one left on the streets.

While I like Aqua Teen Hunger Force, I'm not really an avid fan. I wasn't aware of the "moon men" characters, but when I saw the alleged "hoax bombs" it was obvious what they were. While it wasn't obvious that it was part of a marketing ploy, it was obvious that it was some kind of grass-roots art; potential vandalism at worst. If these men are prosecuted, the freedom of speech consequences could be pretty dire.

There's more: "Frickin' Ridiculous" >>

Once More Dear Friends...

At various points throughout Bush's speech I was struck by how the most basic ideas were being held forth as a "new way forward:" the President discussed the need to send more troops so we could both clear an area of insurgents and hold it; he described holding the Iraqi government to benchmarks as a way of ensuring their cooperation in this new path forward; the President said he told Prime Minister Maliki that our commitment to Iraq is not open-ended.

If this is our new plan, what were we using before? Why didn't we have enough troops to hold the areas that had been cleared? Why did we once think that the rhetoric of standing down as the Iraqis stood up could substitute for benchmarks? And when did saying we would stay as long as the job would take and not a day longer become an inadequate measure of how long this endeavour would take? For President Bush to simply say that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me," is wholly inadequate.

I don't say this simply out pique or sour grapes. My incredulity and anger aren't motivated by a desire to maintain the "negative spin" on Iraq. I say this as a veteran of the First Gulf War who fought at the battles of 73 and and 74 Easting. I say this as someone who has seen combat and who, since that sick feeling formed in the pit of his stomach the first day he heard we would invade, has had his worst fears realized. The chaos, destruction, and death that our troops have been through, and that the Iraqis have had visited upon them, deserves a more heartfelt and meaningful explanation than has been delivered to us tonight by the man who acts as our leader.

And our leader's explanation, or rather its lack of substance, isn't simply a matter of rhetoric (or mollifying a cranky vet for that matter). It's about sound foreign policy: this was President Bush's opportunity to show that he could be trusted to find a way out of this. This was his opportunity to show that he had heard and understood the November elections and that he respected the will of the people. After all, how can we trust someone who can't adequately explain his gross and manifold failings to get the job right this time? How can we in good conscience expect someone who only now is finally beginning to adopt the most basic logical and military principles to be capable of leading? We have no evidence to believe that the President's new plan is any better than what's gotten us where we are now. And just as bad, if not worse, we have to wonder how he can hope to spread democracy abroad if he doesn't understand how it works at home?

When I was sent to war by Bush Sr. I was given a real plan, real support, and real leadership; I'm afraid our troops are still waiting for their fair share, even as they are being sent back into the breach.

There's more: "Once More Dear Friends..." >>