|
·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, ·
|
|
These are
Daily Updates for May 1 through 10, 2004, in reverse chronological order:
May
10, 2004: No update for Monday, May 10, 2004 (Editor off-- family/medical
responsibilities)
May 9, 2004: No update for Sunday, May 9, 2004 (Mother's Day)-- Editor
away with family.
May 8, 2004: No update for Saturday, May 8,
2004.
May 7, 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.
As
a viewer of news, I impeach the motives of CBS: Criminally
premature leaker conspired with CBS to short-circuit due process in order
to sensationally and prematurely release images in a manner CBS
and the leaker KNEW would jeopardize the lives of American military
personnel far more than awaiting their release by the Pentagon at a time not
violative of due process imposed by law upon Pentagon officials.·
Fortunately for CBS, there is no basis for "articles of impeachment"
against a news organization placing its desire for sensationalism ahead of the
safety of American military personnel risking their lives to serve the
principles of freedom guaranteeing the "freedom" of organizations such
as CBS to jeopardize their safety in order to serve its corporate
interests. If CBS genuinely doubted whether the Pentagon would disclose
the results of the investigation in due course in a accordance with due process,
CBS could have waited a little longer (as requested by General Richard B.
Meyers) in order to place the safety of our military personnel ahead of the
corporate interests of CBS.
Since there is no basis for "articles of impeachment," the next best
thing for me to do as a mere citizen would be to refrain from patronizing CBS as
a viewer unless and until CBS were to air the dirty laundry of the tawdry
process and motives within CBS News that led them to ignore General Meyers'
sensible, lawful and morally defensible request for a delay in order to
comply not only with due process but also to take steps to minimize risks to our
military personnel at such time as release of the information would be
proper. Will CBS News subject its process and motives to the same glare
they chose to prematurely focus on the Pentagon with callous disregard for the
fact that rejecting General Myers' reasonable request for delay would seriously
jeopardize the ability of our military to take steps to minimize risks to the
safety of American military personnel.
In my opinion, the CBS News decision to place its' interests in sensationalism
above the safety of our military personnel in such manner is as contemptible as
the prisoner-abuse depicted by the pictures. In my opinion, the
politicians focusing demands for Rumsfeld's resignation (or impeachment) while
ignoring the irresponsibility of CBS News are likewise engaging in equally
contemptible conduct. Even more contemptible was the effort of Minnesota
Senator Mark Dayton (D) to attempt to characterize Myers' request for "delay" as an attempt to
"suppress the news."
The
CBS News Contempt for the Troops.
At
CBS News, we prefer
the profits we hope to incur
by premature showing
of pictures exploding
the risks for our troops to be hurt.
So-what
if a Gen'ral named Myers
informed us the risks would be dire
if photographs leaked
were promptly released
without the delay sought by Myers.
Yet one cannot fairly paint all Democrats with such brush. Today, Senators
Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh exhibited admirable political sensibilities in
expressing their condemnation of the prisoner-abuse behavior upon which the
world is now focusing to the exclusion of the courageous, noble and selfless
sacrifices being made, and having been made, by hundreds of thousands of
American military personnel.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.
Daily
Update immediately preceding the one above.
May 6, 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.
Political
abuse emulates prisoner abuse as Senators summon Don Rumsfeld for inquisition;
John Kerry says "Unlike George Bush, I will not be the last to know what's
going-on in my command"; Kerry says he would overhaul the military
chain of command.·
Political abuse emulates prisoner abuse. Partisan opponents of Bush are
demanding Rumsfeld's resignation and threaten "articles of
impeachment" absent such resignation. John Kerry proclaims:
"As President, I will not be the last to know what's going-on in my
command."
Democrats'
secret plan to "break" Rumsfeld with psychological
"torture."
Congressional Democrats vow to require Rumsfeld to testify naked unless he
agrees to divulge answers they seek in order to minimize risks to
"Operation Aye, Rah, Kerry Fiefdom." Fearing Rumsfeld might not
be intimidated by requirements that he testify naked, and remembering how the
CIA played "heavy metal music" to coerce Manuel Noriega to surrender,
Nancy Pelosi offered to use her influence in Hollywood to persuade Barbra
Streisand to appear at the hearing and sing the Democratic fund-raising versions
of her most famous songs until Rumsfeld breaks as did Noriega. Kerry's
staff indicated they could use his influence with world leaders to persuade
Jacques Chirac to also attend and serve as a Guest Inquisitor, but Ted Kennedy
insisted that the new Socialist leader of Spain, Zapatero, could more
effectively play Torquemada.
Pelosi
Exposes Rumsfeld.
You
know me as Nancy Pelosi,
a leader with plans for exposing
what Rumsfeld conceals:
To force him to squeal,
we'll make him appear without clothing.
If
Rumsfeld by that isn't frightened
or flaunts "six-pack abs" that ain't wizened,
we'll force his submission
by making him listen
to Fund Raising singing by Streisand.
Kerry's
plan to overhaul the chain of command.
To implement this novel approach, Kerry would enter an Executive Order turning
the chain of command upside down and thereby enable himself to maintain direct,
real-time knowledge of everything being done by bottom-rank personnel, to whom
he would issue orders directly with instructions for them to then pass such
information "down" (formerly "up") the chain of command on a
"need to know" basis. This will assure Kerry's goal of always
being the "first to know." To facilitate implementation of this
plan, Kerry will also issue an Executive Order expanding the number of hours in
each day from 24 to 41,666 hours to enable him to spend one minute each day
communicating with directly with all bottom-rank federal employees.
Commander
Kerry.
I'm
John, whose proposal will show
I'd never be "lastest" to know
if troops on the ground
have strayed out of bounds--
Instead, I'd be "firstest" to know.
For
me to know "first," I'd announce
a change in command that's profound:
Tradition I'd spurn
by Order to turn
the Chain of Command upside-down.
When a critic foolishly thought he perceived a flaw in Kerry's plan by
calculating that spending one minute a day with each of the 2.5 million people
serving in our military would require the entire 41,666 hours and leave no time
for communicating with civilian employees, Kerry quickly exposed the flaw in
such reasoning by explaining that he would only be communicating with bottom
rank people, who would then pass the information "down" (formerly
"up") the chain of command on a "need to know basis."
"Therefore," said Kerry, "adding 41,666 hours to each day would
actually allow me 8 hours to sleep, two hours for all three meals (including the
fifteen minutes normally needed to get Ketchup to flow from a bottle of Heins
Ketchup onto a hamburger), and at least two hours of "free time" to
"strategize." Kerry said he thus could guarantee he would always
know everything before any member of his cabinet. Said Kerry, "When I
make a campaign promise, I always keep it before I break it."
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.
May 5, 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.
No
Satire today-- Iraqi Prisoner-abuse issues; President Bush; Arab leaders; Muslim
leaders; John Kerry; Donald Rumsfeld; Congress; Lady Liberty Weeps.·
Our
Lady of Liberty weeps
for those whom in danger we keep
while also insisting
on duties resisting
prohibited means for an end that is meet.
Today, in interviews for broadcast in mid-eastern media, President Bush rightly
condemned forcefully and unequivocally the abuses of prisoners committed by a
tiny percentage of American military personnel and rightly vowed punishment for
the guilty. Arab and Muslim leaders ought to likewise
condemn barbaric treatment and murders of Coalition troops, charitable workers,
U.N. workers and pro-democracy Iraqis and Muslims (but if recent history is any
guide, they won't).
John Kerry ought to resist his Vietnam-era impulse to sanctimoniously
mischaracterize such abuses as widespread. (Will he resist? I hope
so.) Congress should avoid political posturing and grandstanding in favor
of unequivocally supporting Bush's forthright condemnation of such abuses and
his vow that the guilty will receive appropriate punishment. (Will
congress do so? Not if the recent behavior of the 9-11 Commission is
indicative of what passes today for "bipartisanship.")
This is no time for anyone to engage in political posturing. Lives are at
stake. Although nothing Bush and America could do would satisfy the
fanatical America-haters (or "persuade" our terrorist adversaries to
refrain from torturing and murdering prisoners such as Danny Pearle, for
example), it's imperative that America's response unequivocally demonstrate to non-fanatical
Iraqis and Muslims our willingness to live by the rule of law rather than the
rule of the jungle. An overwhelming majority of non-fanatical people
throughout the world possess an innately human, fundamental sense of justice
ultimately amenable to persuasion through demonstrated allegiance to the rule of
law.
The abuses were mild (except, of course, the several alleged instances of
homicide) in comparison to barbarisms inflicted by terrorist adversaries and by
Baathists enforcing Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule, but to focus
on that distinction would undermine the moral clarity of the message we must
unequivocally convey. Such focus would smack of the "I condemn
terrorism, but...." argument constantly spouted by the
America-haters throughout the Middle-East (and especially by PLO
spokespersons). It's a bitter pill to swallow, but its one of the
medicines we prescribe for others whom we seek to persuade to embrace human
rights rather than tyranny and hate.
Some may argue that the possibility of preventing deaths of Coalition forces and
innocent people warrants abuse of prisoners merely designed to intimidate,
rather than injure, them in order to induce them to divulge information
facilitating such prevention. Idealists invoking specious logic would
characterize invocation of such goal as justification for abuse of prisoners as
"the end justifying the means." However, such idealists rarely,
if ever, accurately state the principle-- i.e., that morality forbids
assertion that a "good end" would justify "any"
means.
If the purpose of such abuse were to have been to intimidate a terrorist into
revealing the location of a nuclear bomb timed to explode in a city, virtually
any civilized person would consider such end sufficient to justify such means
(and almost certainly more severe means). What if the information sought
is "merely" the location of a bomb that would kill one person?
Most civilized people would have a hard time condemning non-physically-injurious
abuse to coerce divulgence of such information-- especially if such "one
person" were a colleague, friend, relative or countryman. However,
absent two vital assumptions -- i.e., that the prisoner possesses
information such that its divulgence would prevent death of another and
that one could reasonably expect such abuse to induce the prisoner to divulge
the information-- advocacy of such abuse degenerates into moral oblivion likely
to cost far more lives in the long run by undermining a vital part of the moral
fabric of civilization.
By expecting our military personnel to impose moral restraints on methods for
interrogating prisoners do we not necessarily thereby demand that they
face greater danger? Of course. By demanding that bomber pilots
expose themselves to greater risks when necessary to minimize risks to innocent
lives, are we not thereby articulating a moral principle for which, like
liberty, we're asking them to risk their lives? Of course. The
only acceptable, albeit unsatisfactory, answer to these kinds of questions is
that absent compelling circumstances, we must place a moral value on abstaining
from abuse of prisoners that must be high enough to prevent maximization of our
goal to minimize all risks of harm to our forces and others we're seeking to
protect.
Perhaps the most redcent, thoughtful analysis of this process of weighing ends
against means is Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge,
by Alan M. Dershowitz. In this book, Dershowitz, a self-described liberal,
ACLU member and Harvard Law Professor, devotes a chapter to such moral and legal
issues.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.
May 4, 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.
MSNBC's
pulling Rall-- Too little, too short to "stand tall"; MSNBC tries to
perfume intellectual stench of Ted Rall's cartoon mocking Pat Tillman and troops
who served with him in Iraq and Afghanistan.·
MSNBC's
pulling Rall,
though right for un-casting his pall,
was too late applied
and too short on "why"
for claiming thereby they "stood tall."
They
chose not to say "We're appalled"
but rather an "item" by Rall
"concern[ing] the late
Pat Tillman" escaped
the "fairness" and "taste" they'd applaud.
Their
words to explain their decision
were weaker than mere euphemisms
for content that mocked
the courage unlocked
by those who defend freedom's vision.
It appears that late yesterday afternoon (circa 4:45 pm EDT, which was before
PoliSat.Com's Daily Update for May 3, 2004, began appearing on the internet),
MSNBC "took down" the infamous Ted Rall cartoon mocking Pat Tillman's
choice to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. MSNBC deserves credit for doing
so but not for the tepid explanation of its reason for doing so and for
its failure to do so many hours earlier. Here's MSNBC's
explanation:
"MSNBC.com pulled a cartoon by syndicated political cartoonist Ted Rall on Monday.
Rall’s cartoon, distributed widely by Universal Press Syndicate to scores of newspapers and Web sites, concerned the late Pat Tillman, the NFL player who quit football to join the Army. Tillman was killed last month in Afghanistan.
The cartoon, like others on
MSNBC.com, is published daily on the site via an automated syndication feed. Such feeds are rarely reviewed. However, MSNBC.com Editor in chief Dean Wright concluded Monday’s Rall item did not meet MSNBC.com standards of fairness and taste."
[msnbc.msn.com/id/4893131/]
MSNBC.com's explanation described the cartoon as one that "concerned the
late Pat Tillman" and stated that MSNBC.com's Editor, Dean Wright,
"concluded Monday's Rall item did not meet MSNBC.com standards of fairness
and taste." From this tepid explanation, someone unaware of the
content of the cartoon could infer that it may have politicized his death to
promote the war rather than having mocked Tillman's choice to turn his
back on riches to serve his country in Iraq and Afghanistan. Apparently,
it would have been too politically incorrect for MSNBC to have objectively
characterized the cartoon as one that mocked Tillman's choice. No
rational person possessing common sense could have construed such
characterization as lacking objective accuracy.
If, for example, MSNBC.com were to have discovered that material automatically
posted to its site by syndication constituted child pornography, wouldn't
MSNBC.com have "pulled" it immediately upon discovering its
presence and immediately posted an explanation objectively and accurately
describing the "pulled" material as "child
pornography"? Would such posting describe the "pulled" item
merely as one that "concerned" children and describe
MSNBC.com's reason for "pulling" it merely by stating that the
"item did not meet MSNBC.com standards of fairness and taste"?
That MSNBC.com waited so many hours before it "pulled" the
intellectual stench of Rall's "cartoon" mocking Tillman and
that MSNBC.com declined to objectively and accurately characterize it in posting
an explanation for having "pulled" it speak volumes about MSNBC.com's
addiction to political correctness. Why else would MSNBC.com be to shy to
objectively state how the cartoon '[failed to] meet MSNBC.com's standards of
fairness and taste"?
What about Slate?
By virtue of the offensive cartoon having appeared on an MSBNC.com page labeled
"Opinions
with Slate," and by virtue of the fact that MSNBC.com
pages incorporate front-page
contents from Slate under the sub-banner "Opinions with Slate,"
one wonders whether Slate's silence on MSNBC.com's "pull[ing]"
the cartoon implies Slate's failure to approve, if not its disapproval
of, MSNBC.com's decision to "pull" it.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.
May 3, 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.
MSNBC's
Slate of Hate touts the intellectual stench of Ted Rall mocking Pat Tillman and
other Americans serving their country in the military.·
MSNBC crawled lower than pond-scum to publish a "cartoon" from the Slate
of Hate (a.k.a. Slate, the on-line magazine) by Ted Rall on May 3,
2004, mocking the willingness of Pat Tillman and other Americans to serve in
Iraq (and Afghanistan). Will MSNBC "News" loudly, unequivocally
and repeatedly condemn this offensive material and urge it's removal from the
MSNBC website or will they pretend
the First Amendment obligates them to remain silent in the face of such calumny?
This cartoon (see Editor's note below) is the
intellectual equivalent of prisoner abuse committed by a tiny percentage of
American military police in Iraq. Just as common decency motivates the
American military to unequivocally condemn such abuse and take effective steps
to terminate it, common decency ought to motivate Slate, MSNBC and
especially MSNBC News to unequivocally condemn this cartoon and take steps to
remove it from the MSNBC website. Slate may not mind (and in fact
may well prefer) being associated with such intellectual stench, but MSNBC and
especially MSNBC News ought to want to disassociate
themselves from it as unequivocally and quickly as
possible.
The
Pall of Rall on the Slate of Hate.
MSNBC,
we await
your stern condemnation of Slate
to show you're appalled
by satire of Rall
for Slate on its website of hate.
By
silence you'll tacitly say
his mocking of Tillman's okay
and thereby become
accessory to scum
employed by the website of Slate.
One can safely assume Joe Scarborough will express suitable outrage tonight on
Scarborough Country. One can also safely assume that tonight on CNBC
Dennis Miller will find suitable words to condemn such intellectual
stench. Will Chris Matthews do the same? Will NBC News broadcast a
segment focusing on Rall's cartoon as an example of hate? Will MSNBC
News? Will the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles
Times publish investigative reports on the anti-patriotism bigotry of the
Left? (Of course not!) Will NPR dare do anything other than coo
approvingly at the cartoon as a manifestation of what's really great about free
speech? (Of course not!) Will the PBS News Hour devote a segment to
such intellectual bigotry? (Do they even think such thing exists?)
One can recognize that a main purpose of satire, like cartoons, is to offend
people comfortable with offensive ideas. Another purpose of satire is to
mock the mockers. Those who mock beyond the bounds of decency deserve to
be mocked most severely of all. Unfortunately for me, and fortunately for
Rall, it's not possible to satirize him in a way as offensive as the manner in
which attempts to satirize Tillman and other American military personnel placing
their lives at risk because they lack the intellectual myopia and narcissistic
self-importance of people such as Rall, for whom pond scum is too kind an
epithet.
Editor's Note: I created a graphics
image to "memorialize" this example of intellectual stench, but I
refuse to provide a link to it because I don't want my site to contribute to
traffic to the url for MSNBC's Slate of Hate featuring the Pall of Rall.
What's so offensive about the cartoon? It mocks Pat Tillman as fool who
gave up his career to serve in Iraq (and then Afghanistan) because, in the
"mind" of Rall, Tillman could not have been "reading the
papers" or else he would have known that toppling Saddam Hussein was simply
a scheme by George Bush to enable his friends to get rich from "oil."
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.
May 2, 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.
No
Update for Sunday, May 2, 2004.·
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.
Daily
Update immediately preceding the one above.
May 1, 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.
The
One year anniversary of George Bush's landing on the carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln--
John Kerry's flawed metaphor.·
Intruder!
I'm Dubya demanding
you state who's the pilot commanding
a plane in my space
at sub-sonic pace
and state where you're headed for landing.
To
Dubya-- I'm Kerry, who's planning
to prove to a nation demanding
the steps I would take
as proof I can make
superior carrier landings.
To
Kerry-- It's risky to coddle
your engines with slack on the throttle
or else you will stall
and then you will fall
and thus will your mission be hobbled.
To
Bush-- It's a year since the day
when you in a Viking displayed
your piloting skills
(but not landing skills)
for carrier-landing that day.
To
Dubya-- my slogan I'm chanting
describing your carrier landing
as "stunts for the news,"
but I, unlike you,
know something of carrier landings.
To
Kerry-- Your slogan I've heard,
but swift-boats I thought you'd preferred
and didn't perceive
your great expertise
on carrier landings with verve.
To
Dubya-- My slogan, you fool,
is my metaphorical tool
for teamwork applied
with people allied
to reach a safe landing, you fool.
To
Dubya-- the faith that you shower
too much on American power
induces defiance
instead of reliance
on allies as sources of power.
To
John-- Unlike you I have learned,
the fact that sincerely I yearned
for allies who'd boost
the power for use,
it's we, 'stead of they, who've been spurned.
The
risks, my dear John, in depending
on them on a mission descending
through dangerous "weather"
is worse 'stead of better
for reaching the place we're intending.
To
John-- Bumpy landings are better
than seeking more power that's fettered
by choice to rely
on engines comprised
of types that so often are feathered.
This has been a consistent "theme" of John Kerry's campaign-- using
George Bush's carrier landing on the U.S.S. Lincoln a year ago as a metaphor for
characterizing Bush's military judgment as "showmanship" in comparison
to the fact that Kerry knows "something" about combat.
Courageous people may nevertheless be terrible strategists. If Kerry's
strategic vision in 1991 were to have been accepted by Bush 41, then Kuwait
would now be a de jure province of Iraq and Saudi Arabia would be a de
facto province of Iraq with respect to oil revenue.
By now, Saddam Hussein almost certainly would have nuclear weapons (in addition
to chemical and biological weapons). He would have become the de facto
leader of the Arab world. He would have a gold-plated military. The
risks of a nuclear confrontation between Hussein's Iraq and Israel would be
escalating. Israel would have little confidence that the United States
would risk nuclear war with Saddam to save Israel from nuclear blackmail.
Virtually no Arab state would be willing to be perceived by Saddam as willing to
cooperate with the United States or even think about peace with
Israel.
Hussein would have access to huge sums of oil revenues with which to purchase
the expertise of disaffected Soviet Scientists. He would have forced a
nuclear alliance with North Korea and possibly Pakistan. The world balance
of power would be radically different than it is today, and the balance would
not be in favor of a trend toward freedom and away from tyranny.
Who would challenge Saddam under such circumstances? The French? The
Germans? Anyone in Europe? How about Canada? The United
Nations? The Soviets? By now, we would have entered the Second Cold
War but this time with an adversary as sociopathic as was Stalin rather than
someone such as Gorbachev. We would be spending vastly larger sums on ways
to try to counter Hussein's nuclear arsenal. The so-called "peace
dividend" from the end of the First Cold War would have long
disappeared.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor@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.
·
