Morning tip of the hat to Rude Pundit for this followup on Bush’s Saddam firearm:
Exactly how may laws, federal and D.C., might the President be breaking with his possession of that firearm? Did he receive a background check for the transfer of ownership? Is Bush licensed to possess a firearm in a federal facility? The District of Columbia prohibits firearms to be gifts. How many people are implicated in Bush’s firearm possession?
It’s like they think the laws don’t apply to them.
Is there anyone left in the Bush administration that is not a proven liar?
A Pentagon e-mail said Vice President Dick Cheney coordinated a huge Halliburton government contract for Iraq, despite Cheney’s denial of interest in the company he ran until 2000.
In previous administrations, this would be the stuff of resignations and impeachments. Now it’s just business as usual.
Seen on MSNBC‘s site today:
A handgun that Saddam Hussein was clutching when U.S. forces captured him in a hole in Iraq last December is now kept by President Bush at the White House, Time magazine reported Sunday.
Aside from the obvious phallic subtext, there’s nothing particularly bad about that. However, the article goes on to point out that said gun:
is kept in a small study off the Oval Office where Bush displays memorabilia. It is the same room where former President Clinton had some of his encounters with former intern Monica Lewinsky.
It’s like some sort of sick reflex. No matter that our economy is shaky, millions of Americans are out of work, and our soldiers are dying in a nearly unwinnable war in Iraq. People just can’t stop themselves from slipping in a comment about Clinton getting blowjobs.
I’m going to watch George Stephanopolis on TiVo and see if my mood improves.
I frequently find that Atrios’s perspective on events is similar to mine, but I think he’s a little off base with his latest take on the Allawi situation. This may be one time where dislike of the Bush administration is coloring his analysis.
Looking at the Washington Post article he cited, as well as some of the extensive reporting on the issue over at Talking Points, it seems clear from all accounts that Allawi was a main, if not the top, candidate for the PM slot. Since this was known to the UN, the US, and to the Iraqi Governing Council, it’s not so surprising that the Governing Council would use this information in an attempt to look relevant and/or independant by naming Allawi.
In other words, it’s not that nobody was at the helm. It’s that the Iraqi Governing Council – possibly egged on by Allawi himself – decided to try steering.
Whether Allawi is a good choice, I am undecided. Some of the info coming out about him – like his tie to now-disproven memos about Saddam’s WMD capability – is troubling. I’d like to see some more information before making up my mind though.
I found 2 reports online today (here and here) referring to the possibility that Iran is taking an active hand in Iraqi affairs by recruiting suicide bombers to go after US/British targets in Iraq and elsewhere.
I don’t know whether the World Tribune is a reliable source, but MEMRI, although they do have a pro-Israel agenda, at least can be trusted to get its translations accurately.
What’s disturbing is not that there are more threats being made to recruit and send out suicide bombers. That’s hardly news. What I do find disturbing is the direct linkage of the threats to the US occupation of Iraq.
When people ask for proof that Bush’s war is in fact not making the world safer for America and Democracy, this is the kind of thing we can point to. But since most of it is not happening in English-language news sources, it’s going overlooked.
More or less right on schedule. Bush isn’t looking too good in the polls, so what happens? The word starts to go out that a vote for Kerry is a vote for the terrorists.
[CNN reporter Kelli] ARENA: Neither John Kerry nor the president has said troops pulled out of Iraq any time soon. But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House.
BEN VENZKE, INTELCENTER: Al Qaeda feels that Bush is, even despite casualties, right or wrong for staying there is going to stay much longer than possibly what they might hope a Democratic administration would.
Source: CNN
Arena’s quote particularly annoyed me. It would be nice to know who is speculating that sort of thing. Sounds like the kind of thing a Republican operative would say “in confidence” to a reporter, hoping that said shill would repeat it on the air. Heck, it worked for Judith Miller, why not here?
With examples like this happening on a daily basis, small wonder why so few people think the media is trustworthy these days.
Update: I sent an email to Eason Jordan, CNN’s chief news exec. Not likely I’m going to get an answer, but at least I feel like I did something.
Dear Mr. Jordan,
During the ’91 Iraq war, I had CNN on virtually non-stop. Through most of the 1990s, CNN was what I turned to for my news coverage. Over the last 2 or 3 years though, I’ve declined my viewership. These days, I scarcely watch CNN at all.
Want to know why? Comments like this one:
“ARENA: Neither John Kerry nor the president has said troops pulled out of Iraq any time soon. But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House.”
Courtesy of http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/27/wbr.01.html
Arena is a CNN reporter, not a guest on that show. When she talks about what Al Qaeda is thinking, it would be nice to know her sources, assuming she actually had any. Who exactly is it that thinks Kerry as POTUS would somehow help Al Qaeda? Sounds like the kind of thing a Republican operative would say “in confidence” to a reporter, hoping that said reporter would repeat it on the air.
Isn’t it CNN’s job to actually report the news, not shill for the politicos? Oh wait, Judith Miller already answered that one. (Yes, I know she did not work for CNN. The point still stands.)
I wish this were an isolated incident, but it is not. Every day, journalists are doing less and less real reporting and more attending briefings and then parroting back what they’re told. Sure, it’s easier to get your story in when all you have to do is show up at a press photo op, upload a press release, and do a live intro to the package. But that’s not news. It’s PR.
You guys need to take a hard look at what you call news these days. If you did, you might actually get viewers like me back in front of the TV.