Op-Ed
The latest polls show that most Americans are critical of the war
in Iraq. But the option of swiftly withdrawing all U.S. troops from that
country gets little media attention.
So far this year, many news outlets have lapsed into conjecture on what George W. Bush has in mind for the Iraq war. At the end of a recent lengthy editorial, the New York Times noted that “there’s speculation about whether President Bush intends to use the arrival of a new elected government [in Baghdad] as an occasion to declare victory and begin pulling out American troops.”
Right now, that kind of speculation amounts to a smokescreen for a war-crazed administration. Its evident intention is for large numbers of U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for a long time.
So far this year, many news outlets have lapsed into conjecture on what George W. Bush has in mind for the Iraq war. At the end of a recent lengthy editorial, the New York Times noted that “there’s speculation about whether President Bush intends to use the arrival of a new elected government [in Baghdad] as an occasion to declare victory and begin pulling out American troops.”
Right now, that kind of speculation amounts to a smokescreen for a war-crazed administration. Its evident intention is for large numbers of U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for a long time.
January 20, 2005
Warren Mitofsky
Mitofsky International
1776 Broadway - Suite 1708
New York, NY 10019
Larry Rosin
President
Edison Media Research
6 W. Cliff St.
Somerville, NJ 08876
Dear Mr. Mitofsky and Mr. Rosin:
January 20, 2005
The Hon. Jim Petro
Attorney General
State of Ohio
State Office Tower
30 E. Broad St, 17th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Dear Attorney General Petro:
KEY WEST, Fla. -- Tough gig here. A weekend in Key West holding forth on the subject of humor with a lot of funny people. A pundit's work is never done.
Actually, being earnest about humor is deadly -- if you have to explain a joke, you kill it. Fortunately, the participants in the Key West Literary Seminar did little analysis and a lot of rock 'n' roll. Garry Trudeau, creator of "Doonesbury," is also a comic essayist on occasion and was once inspired by Real Life to write the results of an interview of Madonna conducted by a Hungarian journalist. He asked questions in Hungarian, she replied in English, then it was all translated into Hungarian and then re-translated back into English.
Q: Let us cut towards the hunt: Are you a bold hussy woman that feasts on men who are tops?
A: I am working like a canine all the way around the clock.
Actually, being earnest about humor is deadly -- if you have to explain a joke, you kill it. Fortunately, the participants in the Key West Literary Seminar did little analysis and a lot of rock 'n' roll. Garry Trudeau, creator of "Doonesbury," is also a comic essayist on occasion and was once inspired by Real Life to write the results of an interview of Madonna conducted by a Hungarian journalist. He asked questions in Hungarian, she replied in English, then it was all translated into Hungarian and then re-translated back into English.
Q: Let us cut towards the hunt: Are you a bold hussy woman that feasts on men who are tops?
A: I am working like a canine all the way around the clock.
Here's an interesting theory for why Bush attacked Iraq. He did so in order to violate international law. This is what Eric Zuesse argues in "Iraq War, the Truth," a 188-page book from Delphic Press.
The book is better than its title or its preface. Zuesse makes a case that Bush's central motivation in launching this war was to render the United Nations and the International Criminal Court powerless. Bush didn't attack and occupy Iraq in order to eliminate weapons that he already knew didn't exist. And looting the oil and other resources (and the US Treasury) for corporate cronies was a side benefit. Attacking in violation of international law, and using napalm and depleted uranium in the attack, was not a regrettable circumstance to Bush. He would not have preferred to have UN backing, because his primary enemy was never Saddam Hussein; it was the United Nations. What about "liberating the Iraqis"? Bush believed that one. He didn't expect the Iraqis to continue resisting. But that wasn't why he started the war.
The book is better than its title or its preface. Zuesse makes a case that Bush's central motivation in launching this war was to render the United Nations and the International Criminal Court powerless. Bush didn't attack and occupy Iraq in order to eliminate weapons that he already knew didn't exist. And looting the oil and other resources (and the US Treasury) for corporate cronies was a side benefit. Attacking in violation of international law, and using napalm and depleted uranium in the attack, was not a regrettable circumstance to Bush. He would not have preferred to have UN backing, because his primary enemy was never Saddam Hussein; it was the United Nations. What about "liberating the Iraqis"? Bush believed that one. He didn't expect the Iraqis to continue resisting. But that wasn't why he started the war.
AUSTIN, Texas -- Cheez, I go to all this trouble not to call the president of the United States a liar -- perhaps misinformed, did not seem to know about, no one has told him, etc. -- and then he just comes flat out with a whopper.
Drolly enough, he prefaced his latest with the unlikely statement, "As a matter of fact ..." before he proceeded to do battle against truth: "... by the time today's workers who are in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt. So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now. And that's what we're here to talk about, a system that will be bankrupt."
Drolly enough, he prefaced his latest with the unlikely statement, "As a matter of fact ..." before he proceeded to do battle against truth: "... by the time today's workers who are in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt. So if you're 20 years old, in your mid-20s, and you're beginning to work, I want you to think about a Social Security system that will be flat bust, bankrupt, unless the United States Congress has got the willingness to act now. And that's what we're here to talk about, a system that will be bankrupt."
AUSTIN, Texas --- Excuse me, but is that smoke in your ear?
I wouldn't go calling anyone a liar, but as we say in our quaint Texas fashion, this administration is stuffed with people who are on a first-name basis with the bottom of the deck. They've been telling us only four out of the 18 provinces in Iraq will be too unsafe to vote in. Doesn't sound that bad, does it? Unless you happen to know that about 50 percent of the population lives in those four provinces.
Will someone explain to me what earthly good they expect to do by misleading us? If, God forbid, the Iraqi election turns out to be a disaster, will we be better off for not having expected it? How long are Bush and Cheney going to sit there pretending the problem is that the media won't report the "good news" out of Iraq? Be a lot more useful if they paid attention to some of the bad news.
I wouldn't go calling anyone a liar, but as we say in our quaint Texas fashion, this administration is stuffed with people who are on a first-name basis with the bottom of the deck. They've been telling us only four out of the 18 provinces in Iraq will be too unsafe to vote in. Doesn't sound that bad, does it? Unless you happen to know that about 50 percent of the population lives in those four provinces.
Will someone explain to me what earthly good they expect to do by misleading us? If, God forbid, the Iraqi election turns out to be a disaster, will we be better off for not having expected it? How long are Bush and Cheney going to sit there pretending the problem is that the media won't report the "good news" out of Iraq? Be a lot more useful if they paid attention to some of the bad news.
AUSTIN, Texas -- In the Texas legislature, they are called "prior-roarities," such a happy coinage. What should come prior?
When the pitter-patter of falling year-end columns comes again, not necessarily next year, but certainly four years from now, I fearlessly forecast a dismal unanimity: that the Bush Administration II suffers from bad and dumb prior-roarities.
Actually, the passage of time is not required for proof -- look around. The Bushies are about to launch a $50 million to $100 million dollar propaganda campaign to convince us the Social Security system is in crisis. Actually, it's not. It's quite robust and has astonishingly low administrative costs, less than 1 percent.
According to President Bush's own Commission to "Strengthen Social Security," the administrative costs of keeping track of private accounts will be 10 to 30 times the cost of administering the current system.
When the pitter-patter of falling year-end columns comes again, not necessarily next year, but certainly four years from now, I fearlessly forecast a dismal unanimity: that the Bush Administration II suffers from bad and dumb prior-roarities.
Actually, the passage of time is not required for proof -- look around. The Bushies are about to launch a $50 million to $100 million dollar propaganda campaign to convince us the Social Security system is in crisis. Actually, it's not. It's quite robust and has astonishingly low administrative costs, less than 1 percent.
According to President Bush's own Commission to "Strengthen Social Security," the administrative costs of keeping track of private accounts will be 10 to 30 times the cost of administering the current system.
Thirty-three Members of the US House of Representatives, and one all-important Senator -- one more than four years ago -- voted not to accept Ohio's 20 electoral votes for George Bush. The votes were 33 to 260 and 1 to 72. The protesters lost. What does it mean?
First, it's worth noting that more than one Senator took action. Barbara Boxer announced her intention to challenge the election on Thursday morning. By midday Senators Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Barak Obama had let it be known that they would support Boxer. During the discussion in the Senate, Richard Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Edward Kennedy, Ron Wyden, Frank Lautenberg, and Tom Harkin joined the others in speaking in support of Boxer's challenge. And in the House, numerous members spoke, one after another, until the time was up, and the number voting for the challenge jumped to 33 from the 8 that had been known early in the day.
First, it's worth noting that more than one Senator took action. Barbara Boxer announced her intention to challenge the election on Thursday morning. By midday Senators Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Barak Obama had let it be known that they would support Boxer. During the discussion in the Senate, Richard Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Edward Kennedy, Ron Wyden, Frank Lautenberg, and Tom Harkin joined the others in speaking in support of Boxer's challenge. And in the House, numerous members spoke, one after another, until the time was up, and the number voting for the challenge jumped to 33 from the 8 that had been known early in the day.
The new year has scarcely begun, but Americans watching television
have already heard a lot about God.
When Larry King interviewed George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton the other night, CNN presented ample split-screen evidence that the Lord transcends political parties and backgrounds. The former presidents -- blue-blooded Yankee and hardscrabble Arkansan -- spoke eloquently about faith. By now, perhaps no subject has achieved more agreement in the USA’s news media. Faith in God is a televised no-brainer.
“My faith is never shaken by a personal tragedy,” said ex-President Bush, “or even a tragedy of this enormity.” Clinton said: “It reminds us that we’re not in control, that our faith is constantly tested by circumstances, but it should be deepened when we see the courageous response people are having, and the determination to endure.” Both men praised the incumbent in the White House, presumptively a God-loving guy.
When Larry King interviewed George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton the other night, CNN presented ample split-screen evidence that the Lord transcends political parties and backgrounds. The former presidents -- blue-blooded Yankee and hardscrabble Arkansan -- spoke eloquently about faith. By now, perhaps no subject has achieved more agreement in the USA’s news media. Faith in God is a televised no-brainer.
“My faith is never shaken by a personal tragedy,” said ex-President Bush, “or even a tragedy of this enormity.” Clinton said: “It reminds us that we’re not in control, that our faith is constantly tested by circumstances, but it should be deepened when we see the courageous response people are having, and the determination to endure.” Both men praised the incumbent in the White House, presumptively a God-loving guy.