Who's on First?

An explanation to my son ... Why did we invade Iraq (from my mom, again):

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq ?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq ?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? A: That's because the weapons were so well hidden.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons.

Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it ok to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is a Communist country.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being Capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become Capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like in China?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein came to power through military coups, so they're not really legitimate leaders anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in theUnited States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamists who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women too.

Q: Didn't the Bush Administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people ware caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's ok with us if radical Islamist fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic bodycovering.

Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia .
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan .

Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the Mujahedeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the evil Communist empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and Capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets, I mean, the Russians, are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq , so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to re-name French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always re-name foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah, for a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yes, but we looked the other way, to show him we were his friends.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable and go to sleep. Good night.

Good night, Daddy.

An Angry Lefty for One Day

I’m just angry today. Yep, I’m an angry person today and I am a liberal so … viola … I’m a member of the angry left … today.

My good friend and blogging buddy, James Wigderson, author of Wigderson Library and Pub (which is a very fine blog) annoyed me yesterday and today (perhaps it was his intention) with his rant about the right needing to reach for a higher standard … a standard higher than liberal offensive speech … and his off-handed defense of Newt Gingrich's indiscretions.

I was flabbergasted at both the audacity and sagaciousness of his posts. Flabbergasted at the audacity because, other than some punks out in blogger land who write some truly offensive things about the President, who say offensive things about the vice president … you know, ordinary citizens who admittedly have the IQs of mice … it’s conservatives who dominate the mean-spirited end of the free speech spectrum. I’ve documented the notorious members of this brigade of hate, so I will not repeat myself.

But, I’m also flabbergasted at his sagaciousness because … well, James would be a great speech writer. I can see the less informed members of the conservative coalition (most of them) nodding their heads in unison at his seemingly convincing words.

Tom Tomorrow covers the Coulter phenomenon well … and the fact that she does not get it. No matter how many times James and others decry Coulter, the fact is a vast majority of conservatives enjoy and support her filthy mouthings.

The mouth that roared

Coulter explains her harmless, inoffensive little joke:
Right and I suspect everyone listening to your show knows about that. I mean, I know — well, I guess Pat is out in America now; you’re primarily in New York City. I give a lot of speeches out in America, I frequently visit America, and Americans are pretty freaked out about somebody going to rehab for using a word, and that’s of course what I was referring to. And I don’t think there’s anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag. It’s a schoolyard taunt. It means — it means wussy. It means, you know, Hillary giving a speech in a fake Southern drawl — that’s faggy. A trial lawyer who weeps before juries is faggy. Lifetime-type TV, faggy. Everyone understood I was not literally calling — well, I was not calling — well, for one thing, I wasn’t calling John Edwards anything. That was the whole point. I couldn’t talk about him, his life’s work, his appeasement policies, his wimpiness on foreign policy, because that word is out of bounds. So, in point of fact, I called John Edwards nothing. I said I couldn’t even discuss him because using any variation of that totally excellent word would send me into rehab.

This is, of course, the woman who “jokes” about murdering New York Times reporters en masse and assassinating Supreme Court judges and Democratic Presidents. Nonetheless, I find this defense extraordinary. Up until last week, there wasn’t a person in this country who would have argued that “faggot” is just a harmless word, offensive to no one. To say that it’s just a “schoolyard taunt” — well, I spent my middle school years in the south at the height of the integration battles (America being the place where I grew up and live today, unlike Ann, who apparently views it as a foreign land she sometimes has to visit). There were plenty of “schoolyard taunts” in those days targeted toward race, far beyond the “n” word. By Ann’s logic, she should be free to use any of them in discussing Barack Obama, because they were nothing more than harmless “taunts.” Why, if she phrased the joke properly — “I can’t call Obama a —— because it would be sooooo politically incorrect, ha ha ha!” — she could even claim that she hadn’t called him anything at all.
I invite her to try.

… it’s also sad that Ann, allegedly a professional writer, can’t think of a single way to discuss her negative feelings toward a presidential candidate without using a term that is considered hateful and offensive by most rational people. Maybe she should consider another line of work.


Lastly, James posts that the media still doesn’t get it about the Clinton impeachment. I’ve already commented at James’ site … the problem is James doesn’t get it. It really is about hypocrisy … James, and Gingrich, once again use that tried and true argument called equivalency in an attempt to sway the meager minds of their audience, however, the fact is Gingrich had an affair. For him to claim to be an authority on what is moral and a value is a travesty. For him to sit in judgment of Bill Clinton is ridiculous. For James to ignore it and to twist it in a different direction is a travesty, too.

Old Crabby

That ideologically moribund old crustacean, Cal Thomas, has pissed me off again. His latest diatribe is against those who protested against Vietnam, and now exercise their right to protest the excesses of the Bush administration in Iraq. His target? It’s an old and useful one for soulless crabs like Cal … the elite(?).

He addresses the protestors, who recently showed up in Washington to express their anger. He calls them “aging hippies” and says that they are responsible for hundreds of thousands, nay, possibly millions of deaths after the end of Vietnam, and now are encouraging the enemy in the same way in Iraq.

He calls them the “pampered generation that eschewed self control for self indulgence (not to be confused with Dick “I had other priorities” Cheney, who could not be bothered).” Cal calls them vain for idealistically wanting to end war, racism, hunger, etc. Cal proclaims that it was all about them.

Bullshit.

Cal is the crab that wouldn’t, couldn’t shut up. If Cal had the wherewithal, Vietnam would still be fought. Never mind the hundreds of thousands, nay, possibly millions of deaths that would have occurred in Vietnam had the war continued in the manner that Cal and his minions wanted. Never mind a land maimed beyond repair, it's rivers polluted with death-inducing chemicals, it's plant life crushed, flattened. Nope, the deaths caused because of the bombs dropped, bullets shot and the multitude of other death-causing devices in the glorious arsenal that man built would not have been Cal’s fault. He would have found a way to blame that on the left, too.

A Cal column would not be complete without a stab at Hollywood. These lines from the book of Cal are especially odious:

Hollywood is the land of make-believe where love means never having to say you're sorry and acting means never having to take responsibility for your words and behavior, which are written and directed by others. These stars live behind gates with security alarms and guards to protect their privileged lives.

I couldn’t help but laugh at the double entendre Cal obliviously makes. I mean, the entire run of conservative governance from Reagan forward to Shrub has been one of not taking responsibility for words and behavior. Conservatism means never having to say you’re sorry for obfuscation of the truth. Heck, if you’re the Shrub, nothing you say is original anyway, ask Rove. Oh, and next time down the road, ask Ollie North how is personal home security system built with taxpayer dollars is functioning.

Bullshit.

Cal rebukes the Hollywood types, but when convenient uses them to try and make a point. Proving that fantasy is not just for perverts, Cal uses the "vision" of the hit television show, 24, to make his point that they’re out to get us. Earth to Cal. No one has ever said differently. We know that terrorism is a threat to the world. It’s just that we, most of us, believe in taking a legal approach to tackling this issue, not lying, listening in on communications secretly, denying habeus corpus … yeah, poor Cal and his buds … it’s little things like the Constitution that get in the way of total power.

Wasn’t it our fearless Shrub who said: Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

This is what Cal and the others can't stand, that so few stand with them.

Doing a Pilate

-- Steve Sack

Another Immaculate Conception

More Cheney grandchildren?

CHESTER, England - As Christmas approaches, a virgin mother is anxiously awaiting the arrival of her offspring. She’s Flora, the Komodo dragon.

In an evolutionary twist, Flora has managed to become pregnant all on her own without any male help. It would seem the timing is auspicious: The seven baby Komodo dragons are due this festive season.

“We were blown away when we realized what she’d done,” said Kevin Buley, a reptile expert at Flora’s home at the Chester Zoo in this town in northern England. “But we certainly won’t be naming any of the hatchlings Jesus.”

Immaculate Conception?

Dick Cheney to be a grandpa again. Mary Cheney, his 37-year old daughter is expecting according to a source.

WASHINGTON - Mary Cheney, the openly gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney and wife Lynne, is pregnant, according to a published report. Mary Cheney, 37, and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, 45, are "ecstatic" about the baby, due in late spring, The Washington Post reported in Wednesday's editions, quoting an unnamed source close to the couple.

Some of the more weird elements of the Christian Right will see this as either the advent of the apocalypse, or the answer to their prayers.

Just having some fun, so keep the comments cool. Other Side wishes the best to Mary Cheney and Heather Poe. Mary Cheney especially has maintained herself with dignity and I must say this about Dick "The Mouth" Cheney ... in this regard his behavior has been beyond reproach.