|
·support our
troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,
Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com
, PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom ,
FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·
|
|
Political
Satire /Commentary*
Daily Updates .™©·2003
..··
*Where
the satire
is always
commentary
but the commentary
isn't
always satire.
Installments
for April 11 through 20, 2004 time period (in reverse chronological order).
April 20, 2004: #01
Political Satire/Commentary where
satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com
Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com
Subscribe
Permanent
Link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn.
John
Kerry favors "pressuring" Saudi Arabia to increase oil supplies to
lower gasoline prices but not if such pressure were to actually work between
now and the election; .·
John Kerry is conducting a tour de force display of the
"nuances" of his energy policy. The intellectual gymnastics he
displays in the process have earned him the title of "New-Wonk of
Nuance." Previously, Bill Clinton held the title, but it appears that
Kerry has now surpassed Clinton's skill in denying that what he had said had
said what he meant or denying that what he had meant had meant what he said when
he said it. Some of his critics consider this process to constitute
"flip-flopping" or "waffling," but those are mere warm-ups
for the real event, which is describing such contradictions as
"nuances" of intellectual analysis that may be beyond the mental grasp
of most people.
On April
1, 2004, John Kerry blamed President Bush for the currently high price of
gasoline. He claimed that if he were President, he would
temporarily divert oil from our strategic reserve to immediately lower prices
and promptly obviate the need to continue doing so by "pressur[ing]"
oil suppliers to increase supplies. Kerry thus described what he would be
doing if he were President now-- i.e., if he were the incumbent facing
the politically unpleasant prospect of high oil prices during the months
preceding the forthcoming election. He didn't say that he would
divert oil from the strategic reserve until after the election and then
attempt to "pressure" oil producers to increase supplies.
On April 18, 2004, CBS News' 60 Minutes broadcast claims by Bob Woodward
that Bush had obtained assurances from Prince Bandar that Saudi Arabia would
increase production by the summer of 2004 "in time for the
election." Kerry
then sternly asserted that any such "deal" would be improper.
Presumably, he would not oppose any effort by Bush to persuade the Saudis to
avoid increasing supplies until after the election.
The
New-Wonk of Nuance.
I'm
Kerry, nuancing* about
positions on oil that I tout,
like plans** I put forth
on April the fourth
to increase the oil that's pumped out.
On
April the fourth I contended
if President, I would have ended
the drop in supply
that makes the price high
by pressure on those we've befriended.
However,
on hearing the claim
by Woodward that Dubya obtained
from Bandar assurance
to end the endurance
of shortage, of course I complain.
To
those who would wrongly perceive
my words as a flip-flop by me,
my nuance explains
I always hate change
that's disadvantageous to me.
All politicians "flip-flop." Some do it more than others; some
do it less than most. Kerry fits into the former category; Bush fits into
the latter. Kerry personifies the tendency of ideological debaters to
seize upon whatever argument may seem readily convenient at the moment to
support a particular tactic regardless of whether it undermines or contradicts
the claimed goal or strategy.
This leads to the necessity for the flip-flopper to attempt to reconcile
apparent contradictions. One method is to claim circumstances changed
between the flip-flops. Of course, sometimes that's a perfectly valid
explanation. Opposing invasion of Iraq before 9-11 would have made sense;
supporting it afterward also makes sense regardless of absence of proof or
claims that Iraq played any overt role in 9-11. However, flip-flops
occurring without any intervening change of circumstances other than discovery
that one's opponent has embraced a strategy one has ardently embraced require
greater mental gymnastics for one to successfully disguise the incompatible
positions as harmonious. Kerry's attempt to accomplish this is to
characterize his positions as reflecting the "nuance" one finds in
highly intellectual analyses of problems.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
*
I'm committing the sin of converting the noun "nuance" to a verb to
denote the act of attempting to cloak indecisiveness and/or flip-flops in an
aura of highly intellectual analysis beyond the mental prowess of one's critics.
**
According to an April
1, 2004, Associated Press article published in the CapeCodeOnLine version of
Cape Cod Times, "Democratic contender Sen. John Kerry said that as president he would stop pumping oil into the nation's emergency stockpile until prices fell and would
pressure OPEC to provide more oil. A White House spokesman said President Bush was disappointed by OPEC's decision."
(Emphasis added.) For an excellent analysis of this statement by Kerry
describing his current policy to prevent, rather than encourage, higher
prices from discouraging consumption of oil, see "The
Flip."
April 19, 2004: #01
Political Satire/Commentary where
satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire ™·2004.
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com
Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com
Subscribe
Permanent
Link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn.
Spain's
Jose Zapatero cowers to terrorism and closes eyes to light at the end of European
tunnel-vision; Bob Woodward and Mike Wallace unwittingly commit self-parody in
"60 Minutes" interview mocking faith; Edward R. Murrow rolls
over in grave; John Kerry straddles growing ideological divide; Re Saudi oil,
Kerry's nuances are slicker than oil.·
Spain's Prime Minister Jose Zapatero, Bob Woodward, Mike Wallace, the Deniacs
and Naderites strengthen appeasement and mock steadfastness. Al Qaeda and
anti-freedom forces in Iraq take comfort in desertion and derision of George
Bush. Meanwhile, John Kerry floats "nuances" in policy towards
OPEC that are slicker than oil from Saudi Arabia.
Spain's
Capitulation.
Spain's decision to accelerate its appeasement of al Qaeda (by accelerating
withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq) shows the Socialist Prime Minister,
José Zapatero, has decided to abruptly reverse course in the tunnel from which
other European critics of our war on terror seemed to be on the verge of
emerging. Spain's appeasement temporarily sated its hunger for security by
eliciting a public announcement from terrorist "leaders" urging their
followers to abstain from terrorist actions against Spain. Like a merchant
intimidated by the mob from cooperating with police and thereby making himself a
permanent hostage to the mob, Spain's cowering in the face of terrorist threats
is strengthening and emboldening the terrorists. If the Brits during the
Battle of Britain were to have exhibited the same worship of security over
freedom, the Nazis would be ruling Europe today.
John
Kerry's straddle of widening ideological divide will require painful stretching.
Another effect of the March 11, 2004, attack on Spain inducing Spain's desertion
of civilization's war on Islamic Fascism in the face of its barbaric attack on
Spain appears to have been to strengthen the appeasement wing of the Democratic
Party and widen the ideological gap John Kerry must try to straddle. The
Entertainment-Left/Deniac/Nader-Sympathizing wing of the Democratic Party is
beginning to pressure Kerry to adopt a "get out of Iraq regardless of the
consequences" rather than claiming to have a plan to somehow stiffen the
spine of uncooperative European allies to help us achieve a successful result in
Iraq. Teddy Kennedy's attempt to cast Iraq as "another Vietnam"
unwittingly casts Kerry as "Nixon" following "Johnson"
rather than as Carter succeeding Nixon/Ford by claiming, inter alia, that our
Vietnam-Era foreign policy suffered from an "inordinate fear of
Communism." The Entertainment-Left/Deniac/Nader/Kennedy wing of the
Democratic Party seems to naively but genuinely believe our post-Cold-War
foreign policy suffers an "inordinate fear of terrorism."
Mike
Wallace and Bob Woodard unwittingly perform self-parody on 60 Minutes;
Edward R. Murrow rolls over in grave.
Watching yesterday's 60 Minutes broadcast of Mike Wallace's interview of
Bob Woodward to promote his book, Plan of Attack, shows how radically the
dominant media has departed from the traditions of the CBS icon, Edward R.
Murrow. To recognize the radical extent of the change, imagine Murrow
interviewing a "literary establishment" author of a book purporting to
describe war-waging strategies of Franklin Roosevelt and/or Dwight Eisenhower.
Would such author have employed a tone and manner to imply something sinister
about a Commander in Chief's having ordered development of contingency plans for
a war-fighting strategy to make such option ready for implementation without
delay when, and if, it were to be needed? Of course not. Even if
such author were to have done so, would Murrow have made "faces" to
express agreement with such implications? More likely, Murrow would have
expressed astonishment at the offensive absurdity of such implication.
In explaining that tears welled in the eyes of a Commander in Chief and/or
military commander at the moment of issuing orders certain to lead to the losses
of lives of those under his command, would such author have done so in a manner
to mock such decision-maker's fitness for making such decision? Even if
such author were to have done so, would Murrow have made "faces"
expressing agreement with such derision?
In describing such leader's assertion that he prayed for Divine guidance in the
hope that the decision he was making would be morally sound as well as
strategically effective, would such author have smugly portrayed such action as
manifestation of the decision-maker's intellectual inferiority and/or delusional
perception of himself as "doing the will of God"? Even if such
author were to have done so, would Murrow have made "faces" smugly
expressing disdain for such manifestation of the leader's desire to be moral,
rather than immoral? Would such author and/or Murrow have mocked the
prayer Dwight Eisenhower recited before the Normandy invasion? (FYI, I'm a
non-believer, but, unlike Secular Fundamentalists, I don't construe the humility
of introspective prayer for moral guidance as a sign of intellectual or moral
inferiority.)
In explaining that a Commander in Chief and/or military commander chose a
strategy strongly opposed by some of his subordinates and strongly favored by
others, would such author have tried to cast such decision in a sinister light
or imply the existence of disagreement among subordinates somehow intrinsically
invalidated selection of a strategy strongly opposed by some and strongly
supported by others? Would Murrow have made "faces" to express
agreement with such view? Would they mock the prayers of troops
facing battle as they risk their lives to protect the freedoms of Woodward,
Wallace and other "intellectuals" to mock such faith?
Apoplectic
Intellectualism.
In any other context, do Democrats express contempt for those not seeking to be,
and not craving approval of, intellectuals? How many tyrants have been
toppled by intellectual posturing? In the 1980's, intellectuals smugly
mocked the un-intellectualism of Ronald Reagan in doggedly rejecting their
"wisdom" in claiming unilateral nuclear freezes, rather than
intensified deterrence, would persuade the Soviet Union to abandon its
totalitarian grip on its own people and those of Eastern Europe, yet it was
Reagan's dogged insistence on intensification of deterrence that ultimately
induced the Soviets to relent. In the 1980's, intellectuals smugly mocked
Reagan for describing totalitarian Communism an "Evil Empire" destined
for the "dust-bin of history," yet it was Reagan's un-intellectual
vision that history proved right. In the 1980's, intellectuals smugly
mocked Reagan for standing at the Brandenburg Gate and demanding "Mr.
Gorbachev, tear down this wall," yet history proved his making such demand
at that time dramatically strengthened the moral tide rising in Eastern Europe
against Soviet totalitarianism.
John
Kerry's nuances: Slicker than oil from Saudi Arabia.
Finally, remember John Kerry's recent demand that Bush ought to
"pressure" Saudi Arabia to increase supplies of oil in order to reduce
the price? So, what might one expect to be Kerry's response to Bob
Woodward's claim yesterday on 60 Minutes (and in his book he's peddling) that
the Saudis had agreed to accommodate Bush's demands for increased supplies to
lower prices? Condemnation, of course, followed by an effort to explain
the "nuances" of being in favor of pressuring the Saudis to increase
prices but not in favor of such success occurring at a time disadvantageous to
Kerry.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Daily
Update immediately preceding the one above.
April 18, 2004: #01
Political Satire/Commentary where
satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire ™·2004.
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com
Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com
Subscribe
Permanent
Link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn .
No
update for Saturday, April 18, 2004.·
April 17, 2004: #01
Political Satire/Commentary where
satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire ™·2004.
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com
Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com
Subscribe
Permanent
Link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn .
No
update for Saturday, April 17, 2004.·
April 16, 2004: #01
Political Satire/Commentary where
satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire ™·2004.
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com
Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com
Subscribe
Permanent
Link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn .
Bin
Laden's "truce" proposal unwittingly stiffens spines of Europe; Vive
la France, Dankeshane, Muchas Gracias, Grazie Mille; Domo Arigato Gozaimashita;
Mistakes, Apologies, and Remedies.·
Shock and awe describes responses by our most severe European critics to Usama
bin Laden's proposed "truce" in the form of his offer to stop trying
to kill them if they were to cease and desist all support for, or participation
in, America's war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else in the
world. Like General General Anthony C. McAuliffe at Bastogne, even France,
Germany and the newly-elected leftist government of Spain said
"Nuts." Even more reassuring was the fact that staunch allies
whose wills have recently been severely tested in Iraq, such as Italy and Japan,
likewise said, "Nuts."
Light
at the end of European tunnel-vision?
Our European critics' unequivocal repudiation of bin Laden's invitation for them
to embrace appeasement of a tyrannical ideology out of fear of barbarity appears
to reveal light at the end of European tunnel-vision.
Perhaps it soon will be time to pop a bottle of French champagne, drink a few
toasts chased by a few Koestritzer beers, and then run with the bulls in Spain
to celebrate the stiffening spine of "old" Europe. Perhaps in
the long run, the leaders of "old" Europe will gradually become more
willing to exhibit the moral courage to see the future in the visionary way in
which Bush and Blair see it as did Churchill and Roosevelt in even darker
times. As this process unfolds, we need not demand, and cannot expect,
those leaders to concede that Bush and Blair were right and they were wrong;
rather, we need to, and should, unequivocally welcome their growing support as
prodigal allies returning home.
Top
secret transcript of bin Laden's serial revisions of "truce" proposals following Europe saying
"No" to his April 15, 2001 proposal:
Bin
Laden to Europe: I'll stop trying to kill you if you stop
supporting the Infidel Americans' efforts kill me.
Europe
to bin Laden: No!
Bin
Laden to Europe: How about if you stop supporting the
Infidel Americans' effort to find me?
Europe
to bin Laden: No!
Bin
Laden to Europe: How about if you stop supporting the
Infidel Americans' efforts to find my money?.
Europe
to bin Laden: No!
Bin
Laden to Europe: How about if you stop supporting the
Infidel Americans' efforts to convince the world that I'm "evil"?
Europe
to bin Laden: No!
Bin
Laden to Europe: How about if you stop supporting the
Infidel Americans' efforts to say bad things about me to normal Muslims?
Europe
to bin Laden: No!
Bin
Laden to Europe: How about if you at least promise to
think about stopping support for the Infidel Americans' efforts to say bad
things about me to normal Muslims?
Europe
to bin Laden: No!
War
in Iraq-- Mistakes, Apologies and Remedies.
Paradoxically,
those in the media least capable of perceiving, much less admitting and even
much less remedying, their own mistakes are most zealous in demanding that Bush,
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and Powell identify, admit, and apologize for,
"mistakes" in connection with 9-11, Operation Enduring Freedom in
Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the war on terror in general.
Suppose Edward R. Murrow were to have suffered the same afflictions in
questioning Eisenhower following the Normandy invasion:
ED
MURROW: General Eisenhower, don't you feel you owe it to the American
and British people to identify the mistakes you made in planning Operation
Overlord, Operation Market Gardens, and the overall strategy of rejecting what
virtually all military experts considered to have been the most militarily
sound invasion strategy-- i.e., to focus the invasion at Pais de Calais
rather than the beaches of Normandy?
EISENHOWER:
In war, one cannot foresee, or even expect to foresee, most of the many, many
things that will turn out to be worse, harder or more dangerous than
predicted. Of course we made mistakes, but I don't think it would be
productive to now attempt to describe them-- to determine the significance of
various mistakes requires acquisition of complete hindsight from a vantage
point in the future after the end of the conflict. In the interim, have
we internally assessed what we consider to have been mistakes and done our
best to take remedial actions? Of course.
ED
MURROW: But General Eisenhower, wasn't it a mistake for you to fail to
adequately anticipate the Battle of the Bulge and thereby avoid the losses of
lives resulting from our unpreparedness for a Nazi counteroffensive?
What do you say to the families of the troops who died needlessly as a result
of your mistakes?
EISENHOWER:
No one who has been burdened by the authority and responsibility for making
decisions on which hundreds of thousands, and potentially millions, of lives
hang in the balance can escape the burden of knowing he cannot realistically
find himself free of mistakes that cost the lives of others. Yet, if one is certain the goal is morally just,
one cannot achieve it without sacrificing lives and making mistakes in the
process that costs additional lives. To make avoidance of mistakes more
important than accomplishing the mission would guarantee its failure and
thereby guarantee that even unavoidable deaths sustained in pursuit of the
mission would constitute lives lost in vain.
ED
MURROW; Unlike those who will attempt to follow in my footsteps in the
early Twenty-First Century, I'm able to recognize how right you are.
The
Who? Media?
Too many of today's journalist fear loss of what they perceive to be their
"objectivity" more than they fear loss of freedom. Is there a
chance that growing numbers of the free press will recognize that they ought not
even try to be "neutral" with respect to conflicts between freedom and
tyranny? Will they allow themselves to be left behind by the gradual
re-evolution of Europe's perception that free people cannot afford the luxury of
being "neutral" with respect to conflicts between freedom and
tyranny? Probably not, because that element of the media is most addicted
to approval by what they perceive to be the sophisticated "European"
view in contrast to what they perceive to be the wild-west, "cowboy"
view of Bush.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
April 15, 2004: #01
Political Satire/Commentary where
satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire ™·2004.
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com
Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com
Subscribe
Permanent
Link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn .
Usama
bin Laden's video-tape offering "peace" to European countries
abstaining from war on terror implies expected European obliviousness to fact
that 9-11 was retaliation for America's European-approved use of Arabian land
for war to free Kuwait and thereafter maintain token forces to deter aggression;
Osama bin Laden's blackmail.·
Why did Usama bin Laden, a.k.a. Osama bin Laden, declare war on the
United States and launch the 9-11 attack preceded by a series terrorist attacks
on the U.S. interests? According to bin Laden's post-9-11 video tape and
subsequent propaganda, he did it as retaliation for what was America's
then-token military presence in Saudi Arabia in the years after America provided
an overwhelming proportion of the military force (and sacrifices) to drive
Saddam Hussein's troops from Kuwait in accordance with United Nations
resolutions supported by virtually every country in Europe.
Does any Western European country that condemned rather than supporting
Operation Iraqi Freedom exhibit any meaningful understanding that the
thousands of Americans who died in the 9-11 attack suffered such fate as a
direct result of America having played the dominant military role in
enforcing U.N. resolutions those countries supported for removing Hussein from
Kuwait by military force and for America maintaining token forces in Saudi
Arabia to enforce the cease-fire in Persian Gulf War and to serve as a deterrent
against future aggression by Hussein? No, of course not.
Do not those same countries now speciously imply that if only the
United States were to have merely maintained its massive military
buildup in the Persian Gulf in 2002 as the means for "containing"
Hussein and attempting to coerce him into complying with twelve-years of United
Nations resolutions supported by them but defied by him, al Qaeda's
motivation (and recruitment) for attacks against American even more devastating
than 9-11 would have somehow diminished rather than intensifying?
Should it not be obvious to anyone using common sense that our having merely
maintained such massively larger force in the Persian Gulf (rather than
launching Operation Iraqi Freedom) would have intensified al Qaeda's motivation
(and recruitment) for attacks against America more devastating than 9-11?
Given America's use of military power to topple the Taliban and spend years
trying to eradicate al Qaeda members and sympathizers from Afghanistan, would it
not have been foolhardy for America to have failed to massively increase its
military presence in the Persian Gulf as a deterrent against Hussein perceiving
our occupation with Afghanistan as an opportunity for him to resume aggressive
action and/or enhance or restore his ability to use, or credibly threaten to
use, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons? If we were to have followed
such strategy, would we not now be worrying about our military forces in the
Persian Gulf becoming victims of surprise uses of weapons of mass
destruction? Would not those forces now be experiencing terrorist
attacks? Would our military not now already be "stretched" too
thin with such large numbers needed to guard our flank while waging war in
Afghanistan?
Given the fact that our success in Iraq (despite current setbacks) has forced al
Qaeda and other terrorists forces to concentrate their efforts against us in
Iraq, could one seriously argue that the Operation Iraqi Freedom has redounded
to their benefit rather than ours? Is not chess a more suitable strategy
against terror than tic tac toe? Does not a strategy seeking
long-term success rather than tic-tac-toe defense make it more, rather than
less, likely that lives lost in such effort will not be lost "in
vain."
Bin
Laden's Offensive Peace Offensive.
My
name is Usama bin Laden
announcing my tactic for proddin'
America's friends
to totally end
support for the war on bin Laden.
To
Europe, al Qaeda proposes
to offer a bed full of roses
to countries digressing
from warfare suppressing
the threats our barbarity poses.
Forget
that we launched 9-11
to punish the country that leavened
Arabian lands
with soldierly bands
to save them from Saddam's aggression.
Forget
that such warfare deployment
they shrunk to a token deployment
on freeing Kuwait
per votes that you gave
to chasten Saddam's bad deportment.
Pretend
if America fails
its mission that freedom prevail,
our brethren in bands
concealed in your lands
would not inflict terror travails.
When
hope that your goose we're not cookin'
persuades you away to keep lookin'
until the next phase,
to borrow a phrase,
I'll sell you the bridge they call "Brooklyn."
Will these facts ever dawn on our European critics? Even though we have
thus far been able to convince them that Iraq is, and was, an essential theatre
in the global war against terrorism, perhaps Usama
bin Laden's latest video tape proposing a "truce" with
countries ceasing cooperation with America in Iraq or Afghanistan may trigger
the beginning of their enlightenment.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
April 14, 2004: #01
Political Satire/Commentary where
satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire ™·2004.
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com
Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com
Subscribe
Permanent
Link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn .
Reliable
sources predict new Pharmaceutical Warfare weapon in the war against terror.·
Reliable sources have informed PoliSat.Com's Washington Bureau Drawer Chief that
the 9-11 Commission is preparing recommendations for a radical new strategy in
the war against al Qaeda. It involves use of a new "secret"
weapon that fits within a loophole between chemical and biological warfare--
It's Pharmaceutical Warfare (PW). The plan involves retrofitting Predators
with large tanks equipped with nozzles capable of blanketing ten square miles
with aerosolized PEP (the top-secret acronym for the weapon) to impair the
mental ability of terrorists to maintain concentration in devising, planning and
implementing terrorists attacks. Experts who've witnessed its effects say
that it impairs all but the most primitive neurological functions.
The aerosolized PEP easily penetrates vehicles, buildings, caves and even
underground bunkers. Even though it's directly effective only against
approximately half the population, experiments show that it's indirectly
effective on the other half by virtue of its ability to induce aggressive
behavior by the those directly affected towards those not directly affected.
Some critics consider it the equivalent of a "dirty" bomb, but
supporters raise objections to such criticisms as being "narrow
minded." Defense Department scientists who perfected the weapon say
they can't take credit for inventing it, because they first discovered it when
it was used as a weapon against us by a foreign power, whose identity is
classified, in the late 1990's when our intelligence agents discovered its
presence in the ventilation system of a key U.S. government office.
Although the version used by the foreign power proved to be quite effective,
reliable sources indicate that the reformulated version developed by our
scientists is at least 100 times more powerful.
However, a whistleblower inside the Defense Department is threatening to expose
the weapon as being the moral equivalent of cruel and unusual punishment because
the reformulated versions cannot be countered by any known antidote. The
whistleblower characterizes the inhumane effects of PEP as causing permanent
brain damage that impairs all but the most primitive neurological functions.
The research began during the Clinton Administration. Sources tell
PoliSat.Com that Clinton personally rejected objections raised by First Lady
Hillary Clinton on moral grounds characterizing the effects of PEP as being so
extremely unpleasant as to be tantamount to a violation of the Geneva
Conventions.
Those unschooled in the jargon of Pharmaceutical Warfare can learn more by
reading this
news report (or just watch television commercials) to learn that
"PEP" is the Pharmaceutical Warfare acronym for Priapic Erection
Perpetuators a.k.a. Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.
April 13, 2004: #01
Political Satire/Commentary where
satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire ™·2004.
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com
Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com
Subscribe
Permanent
Link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn .
John
Ashcroft, who concealed the breast of the Spirit of Justice, reverses course
today by exposing the naked partisanship of Jamie GoreLick on the 9-11
Commission.·
Who first politicized 9-11? Was it Bush who stood in the well of
the Senate to demand answers to whether he had "known" about 9-11
"in advance"? No. It was Hillary Clinton. Was it
Bush who floated "an interesting theory" on National Public Radio that
he had known in advance about the plans for the 9-11 attack? No. It
was Howard Dean. Was it Bush who claimed he had hatched the plan to invade
Iraq in order to provide profits to his financial backers? No. It
was Teddy Kennedy. Was it Condoleeza Rice who falsely and deceitfully
tried to convince a listening nation that an August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily
Briefing (PDB) contained "warnings," which, if heeded, "could
have prevented" 9-11? No. It was Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie
GoreLick, the most transparently partisan members of the 9-11
Commission.
The political posturing by GoreLick and Ben-Veniste now seem even more surreal
in light of John Aschroft's revelation today of a 1995 memo authored by then
Deputy Attorney General, Jamie GoreLick, seeking to strengthen the legal
barriers in the sharing of intelligence information between the FBI and the
CIA. Will the dominant media focus a fraction of the attention on this
pompous windbag's contribution to the problem rather than the solution as it
focused on Ben-Veniste's and GoreLick's deceitful and spurious claims that the
August 6, 2001 PDB contained "warnings" recklessly ignored by the Bush
Administration? Of course not unless and until the non-dominant media drags
the dominant media kicking and screaming to do so.
Will 60 Minutes feature a breathtaking "expose" on the hypocrisy of
Jamie GoreLick's partisan pontificating about specks in the eyes of others while
carrying a beam in her own eye? Will NPR agonize over the intrinsically
deceitful and nakedly partisan nature of her conduct as a member of the 9-11
Commission? Will Howard Stern discuss her "naked"
partisanship? That would be a discussion about "nakedness"
that might actually contribute to national enlightenment. Will anyone in
the dominant media ask whether her even being on the Commission is not a patent
conflict of interest? Will anyone in the media challenge the judgment and
sincerity of whoever were the Democratic officials demanding or recommending her
being named to the 9-11 Commission?
To lovers of "the arts," Ashcroft
did a great disservice when he installed curtains to conceal the bare breast of
the Spirit of Justice statue, but today he did a great service to the
lovers of truth when he exposed the naked partisanship of the pompously
self-righteous Jamie GoreLick. Will anyone else in the media find it suitable to
focus on her hypocrisy with a fraction of the venom with which they've focused
on the absurd claims that Bush negligently "allowed" 9-11 to
happen?
When will this political
cannibalism, which surely must be encouraging, comforting and entertaining to
bin Laden, et al, end? Is it really likely that
the 9-11 Commission's final report will make any recommendation that wasn't
already self-evident to anyone applying a common-sense
analysis to the structural factors that diminished, rather than enhanced, the
chances that our intelligence services could detect a plot such as 9-11 in time
to prevent it? If you guessed "little or none," give
yourself an "A."
Ashcroft
Exposes Gorelick's Naked Partisanship.
Says
Ashcroft, "That Clinton-Gore relic,
who sits as Commiss'ner Gorelick,
increased 'stead of lessened
the pre-Nine-Eleven
restrictions on means to foretell it.
By
Leftists I first became hated
when bare-breasted views I abated
with curtains concealing
the statue revealing
her breast in a manner so naked.
Because
claims Gorelick's conflated
that terror we "could've" abated,
I'm forced to expose
her partisan pose
revealing her motives so naked.
Says Ashcroft, "I'm forced to confide
where truth and distortion collide.
Of course I may blush;
however, I must
expose what she'd much rather hide."
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.
April 12, 2004: #01
Political Satire/Commentary where
satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire ™·2004.
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com
Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com
Subscribe
Permanent
Link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn .
John
Kerry reinvents the "Misery Index" to alert the country to the danger
of thinking good news is good rather than bad.·
Given the fact that the "Misery Index" popularized by Jimmy Carter in
defeating Gerald Ford in 1976 defined "misery" as the product of the
joblessness rate, the prime interest rate and inflation would, if applied to
current economic conditions, yield a good result rather than a bad one, John
Kerry's campaign is inventing a new
"Misery Index" as a basis for claiming
economic conditions are bad. The success of Kerry's new
"Misery Index" rests upon whether political advertising can induce a
sense of misery among people not feeling miserable in the ways predicted by
Kerry's "Index." Of course we've long known that watching
political commercials inherently induces misery.
One of the criteria selected is the "median" income since use of that
number will always have strong political appeal to half the population since
half the population will always, by definition, be below the median income
regardless of whether it rises or falls. It's akin to the claim years ago
by Ted Kennedy that we need to spend enough money on education to enable all
students to be "above average."
Another criterion is enhancement of productivity through loss of unproductive
jobs and accretion of productive jobs. However, rather than describing
improvement in productivity as the beneficial change that it is-- i.e., a
rising tide that lifts our standard of living-- Kerry's "Misery
Index" applies the single-entry accounting method of analysis by describing
half the phenomenon: the loss of unproductive jobs to countries with
cheaper labor forces (described as "exporting" jobs). This
debit-entry-only analysis ignores the credit-entry half of the equation-- i.e.,
increases in standards of living through the same, and newer, products becoming
available at lower costs and increases in high-skilled, high-productivity jobs.
Says
Kerry, my index of mis'ry
revises the meaning of mis'ry
for casting of blame
'cause absent such change,
we'd need more revision of hist'ry.
The
old definition of mis'ry,
invented by Carter, says hist'ry,
used prime-int'rest rate
times joblessness rate
to measure the index of mis'ry.
But
now that the joblessness rate
times prime at its near-lowest rate
is good 'stead of bad
the index we had
was bad for our candidate's fate.
So
therefore we had to compute
some standards designed to refute
the good news abounding
with claims for confounding
the folks who cast votes in a booth.
So
what is the method we push
to claim things are bad 'stead of good
to make voters mad?
Defining as "bad"
whatever's accomplished by Bush.
Will Kerry's new "Misery Index" become the new standard for
determining the extent to which likely voters may be satisfied or
unsatisfied? What is more likely to occur as a result of Kerry's
redefinition of the "Misery Index" is its ultimately refinement into a
more realistic index-- i.e., a set of criteria to measure the level of
misery inflicted by political advertising generally.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
April 11, 2004: #01
Political Satire/Commentary where
satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire ™·2004.
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search PoliSat.Com
Home Tell a friend about PoliSat.Com
Subscribe
Permanent
Link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About author, Jim Wrenn .
Richard
Ben-Veniste finds a smoking gun (but not the one he expected) as a result of his
9-11 Inquisition of Condoleeza Rice about the August 6, 2001 PDB; Ben-Veniste
hoists himself on his own petard.·
The April 10, 2004, declassification of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily
Briefing (PDB), about which Richard Ben-Veniste cross-examined Condoleeza Rice
at the April 8, 2004, hearing before the 9-11 Commission, exposed a smoking gun
but not the one Ben-Veniste expected or hoped to expose. The smoking gun
is the partisan deception culpably employed by Ben-Veniste to convey the
false impression that the August 6, 2001, PDB contained "warnings"
which, if heeded, could have prevented 9-11.
Ben-Veniste asked Rice a two-part question. When she answered the second
part first and then began answering the first part, he deceitfully attempted to
characterize his two-part question as though it had been a one-part question in
an effort to prevent her from answering the first part. Of
course, only people not paying attention to his two-part question (and
subsequent media sound-bites omitting the first part but including the second
part) could have construed his two-part question as a one-part question.
Such subsequent media "sound bites" of the colloquy between them thus
conveyed false impressions: (a) that she was attempting to answer a
question he hadn't asked and (b) that her answer (to the second part of his
two-part question) constituted an "admission" that the PDB at issue
had contained "warnings" which, if heeded, could have prevented 9-11.
What was the two-part question? He asked her whether the August 6, 2001,
Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) contained "warnings" of bin Laden's
intent to launch attacks within the United States, and without pausing he also
asked her whether she could remember the PDB's "title." She
straightforwardly answered the second part first by saying the title was
"Bin Laden determined to strike within the U.S." The
instant she began answering the first part by explaining why the PDB constituted
a recitation of historical information about bin Laden's actions and previously
stated intentions rather than a "warning" of any particular attack,
Ben-Veniste deceitfully denied he had asked any question other than
whether she remembered the PDB's title. However, the fact that he had
asked a two-part question and was attempting to prevent her from answering the
first part was obvious to anyone who had been listening to his words. His
efforts to deny such and his deceitful effort to prevent her from answering the
first question and to simultaneously falsely characterize her attempt to do so
as an attempt to waste his allotted time by filibustering insulted the
intelligence of anyone listening with ears not attached to heads containing
little thought other than blindly partisan contempt for President Bush.
Ben-Veniste (and Jamie GoreLick) then behaved as though his eliciting from Rice
the title of the PDB was the equivalent of uncovering the barrel of a smoking
gun and as though Rice's insistence on answering the first part of the two-part
question was an effort to disguise the barrel as something else. However,
although the White House's subsequent declassification and public release of
that PDB (the full contents of which Ben-Veniste knew during his inquisition of
Rice) revealed an entire smoking gun, it wasn't the one Ben Veniste pretended to
have discovered. Instead, the fact that the content of the PDB wholly
corroborated Rice's characterization of it and wholly negated Ben Veniste's
deceitful characterization of it revealed the smoking gun to be in Ben
Veniste's hand-- i.e., his transparently partisan and willful
distortion of information available to him in an effort to deceitfully and
unjustifiably impugn the integrity of his political opponent.
Fair-minded reading of the PDB,
the contents of which were known to Ben-Veniste when he cross-examined Rice
under an expectation that Bush would probably refuse to declassify its contents,
reveals that nothing in it could rationally be construed to support
Ben-Veniste's deceitful attempt to characterize it as an unheeded
"warning" of an al Qaeda attack in the U.S. even remotely similar to
the 9-11 attacks. He owes Rice an apology but surely lacks the moral
integrity to make one or even realize he owes her one.
I'm
Dick Ben-Veniste, who spun
a web to ensnare smoking guns,
but yet my deceit
in trying this feat
snared me with my own smoking gun.
Framing a cross-examination question knowingly and deceitfully mischaracterizing
the content of a document expected to not be shown to "the jury" (in
this case, the public) is a favorite tactic of deceitful, unscrupulous
lawyers. I've dealt with honorable lawyers and successfully prosecuted
deceitful lawyers, and I know the difference. Not only did Ben-Veniste
expose himself, rather than Rice, as the person holding a smoking gun, he
simultaneously also used it to publicly shoot himself in the groin. I
suspect his sense of honor is too dull for him to even feel the pain.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Daily
Update immediately preceding the one above.
Other sites that feature
PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary-- Click here
to view our Affiliates page.
·
John Kerry is conducting a tour de force display of the
"nuances" of his energy policy. The intellectual gymnastics he
displays in the process have earned him the title of "New-Wonk of
Nuance." Previously, Bill Clinton held the title, but it appears that
Kerry has now surpassed Clinton's skill in denying that what he had said had
said what he meant or denying that what he had meant had meant what he said when
he said it. Some of his critics consider this process to constitute
"flip-flopping" or "waffling," but those are mere warm-ups
for the real event, which is describing such contradictions as
"nuances" of intellectual analysis that may be beyond the mental grasp
of most people.
