Sort of related to the last entry, the Krauthammer wing of the G.O.P is pissed off that more is not being done to hype the "threat" posed by Iran. Their solution? Blame the intelligence agencies!
"Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States.
Yeah, because the warnings coming from the mole on Pete Hoekstra's ass are definitely more reliable than professional opinions.
Many senior Bush administration officials have long been dismissive of the work of the intelligence agencies. Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Pentagon set up an office led by Douglas J. Feith, the Defense Department’s third-ranking civilian official at the time, that sifted through raw intelligence to look for links between terrorist networks and governments like Iraq’s.
And that sure worked out well, didn't it?
House Intelligence Committee report released Wednesday was written primarily by Republican staff members on the committee, and privately some Democrats criticized the report for using innuendo and unsubstantiated assertions to inflate the threat that Iran posed to the United States.
The report’s cover page shows a picture of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran speaking at a lectern that bears the message “The World Without Zionism.”
Joesef Goebbles would blush at this kind of propaganda. But none of this tops, "This time, I swear I'm not crooked" Newt Gingrigh:
“When the intelligence community says Iran is 5 to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon, I ask: ‘If North Korea were to ship them a nuke tomorrow, how close would they be then?” said Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives.
Well, Newt, the answer to your hypothetical is 1 day. Today Iran has no weapon, but if a third party were to ship Iran a weapon, that makes them 1 day away from nuclear capability. Of course, if North Korea shipped a nuclear weapon to, say, my apartment, I too would be one day away from nuclear capability. Better questions: How likely is your fucking delusional scenario, and how soon can we revoke your driver's license, given that you're obviously batshit insane?
Mark this down: Given their intent, track record, and capability to follow through, these GOP fanatics are more dangerous than Iran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/washington/24intel.html?pagewanted=1
M.J. Rosenberg on that piece of filth, Charles Krauthammer:
Lay aside, for the purposes of this argument, the destruction this war has delivered to Lebanon. Krauthammer has never in his career expressed a word of sympathy for an Arab, anywhere. He hates them all. For him, the only good part of this war is the damage done to Lebanon.
But here's the beauty part. Krauthammer doesn't care about the Jews either. He wants a ground war and if it kills 500 Israeli soldier boys, so be it. Can you imagine. Usually, you can count on Krauthammer to weigh in about Jewish losses at every opportunity. In fact, the mean-spirited Krauthammer only cares about Jews. Or so I thought.
Actually I should have known better. About three years ago, I saw Krauthammer flip out in synagogue on Yom Kippur. The rabbi had offered some timid endorsement of peace -- peace essentially on Israel's terms -- but peace anyway. Krauthammer went nuts. He actually started bellowing at the rabbi, from his wheel chair in the aisle. People tried to "shush" him. It was, after all, the holiest day of the year. But Krauthammer kept howling until the rabbi apologized. The man is as arrogant as he is thuggish. Who screams at the rabbi at services? For advocating peace?
Indeed, who does that? Only a man for whom war is a grand exercise in cleansing those dirty A-rabs. The fact that this conflict features especially high leveles of brutality and suffering is a bonus to people like Charles Krauthammer.
Add in this trenchant comment by Rosenberg:
I think they want Israel and the US to crush the Arabs together. Following the victory, Israel will serve as America's eyes and ears in the region. This is very different from what Israelis want for themselves. Although they differ on policies that will get them there, most Israelis (not the settlers or the religious fanatics) want to make money, have a nice place to live, eat ice cream by the beach and not have to got to war. The neocons dream for Israel is Sparta. The Israelis dream for Israel is West Los Angeles.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/aug/09/krauthammer_other_enemies_of_israel
Perusing the latest data on the so-called culture wars, this sentence jumped out at me:
There has been an increase in recent years in the proportion of Americans who believe homosexuality is innate -- 36 percent, up from 30 percent in 2003. Similarly, 49 percent believed homosexuals cannot be changed to heterosexual, compared to 42 percent in 2003.
There seems to be a correlation between a general softening of attitudes towards homosexuals and a belief that homosexuality is innate. I guess the reasoning is that people don't feel it's right to hold inherant or immutable characteristics against someone. In other words - people are saying it ain't these people's fault they were born homo.
This attitude strikes me as sort of a pyrrhic victory. On the one hand, gay people get treated a little better. On the other hand, it's a very grudging sort of acceptance, one based on resignation at the inability to change behaivor, rather than a realization that being gay isn't hurting anyone and just isn't a big deal.
I have no idea whether sexuality is innate, my suspicion is that it isn't, but if someone were to conclude that there's some choice or preference in the matter, I wouldn't feel any less strongly about things like letting gay folks get married. I suppose I'll just have to take what I can get at this point.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060803/pl_nm/life_poll_dc
Just when I thought he had shown a glimmer of statesmanship, Stephen Harper, Canada's prime minister courtesy of just over one-third of the vote, reverted to character. Following Israel's apparently-deliberate targeting of four UN observers in Lebanon, including one Canadian, Harper thought it appropriate to ask, not why Israel killed them, but why the observers were there?
His inspired question reminded me of nothing so much as a rape-case lawyer attacking the victim with questions along the lines of why was she in such a place? at such a time? wearing such a dress?
From: "Why Must The Right Wing Sound So Brutally Stupid?"
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Chuckman01.htm
Over at the Huffington Post, Uri Averny takes a bold stance against the pre-eminent danger of the young 21st century - drunk Hollywood actors and the drunken anti-semitic things they yell! Arguing that Hollywood business elites should cut ties with Mel Gibson, Averny makes his bold stance known:
"There are times in history when standing up against bigotry and racism is more important than money."
Indeed. What will History think of us if we don't Stand Tall with Firm Resolve and Moral Clarity against Drunk Hollywood Actors?
Hey, Averny - There's a fucking bloodbath going on in Lebanon, carnage in Iraq, genocide in Sudan, famine in West Africa, a brewing ecological crisis that's only gettting worse...and you have the stones to declare Mel Gibson's DUI one of those "times in history" to stand up and make your voice heard?
Arianna Huffington herself adds unhelpfully:
"But is Ari the only high-profile figure willing to publicly draw a line in the Malibu sand? How disgusting and disappointing is that?"
No, Arianna. The rest of the folks in Hollywood just don't feel it's necessary to denounce the drunk rantings that everyone already knows are bigoted and idiotic. It's not brave to denounce something that the speaker himself has already denounced.
Get your head in the game you self-centered twits!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-emanuel/the-bottom-line-on-mel-gi_b_26115.html