« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »

January 28, 2007

The Experts Do Their Thing

You could say they rounded up the usual suspects experts -- long on scholarship, long on experience, not as long on influence (to judge from the way the Iraq war has played out), in some key particulars short on insight. It was nothing if not a star-studded conference.

"Iraq, Iran, & Beyond: America Faces the Future" opened with an informal talk by Pat Lang, who offered background. "We invaded the Iraq of our dreams," he said. In other words, "the country was not, in fact, what we thought it to be."

Furthermore, Lang said, differences in values between Americans and Iraqis are so great and so misunderstood, on both sides, that there is no basis for believing they can be overcome in the short term and, he strongly implied, not in the long term, either.

The first panel -- Patrick Clawson, Toby Craig Jones, Dafna Linzer, Lawrence Wright -- addressed the subject of "The Proxy War: Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran." The conclusion was unanimous (despite huge but unmentioned political differences among the panelists), which made it striking: Conditions in Iraq are so dire that nothing the U.S. can do -- absolutely nothing -- will end the war there.

This means (though the panel didn't say so) all the BananaRepublican talk of a "new" strategy is pure propaganda. Ditto for the accusation that those who oppose it are defeatists. (OK, you knew that.) Wright did say this: "Reading Al Qaeda strategists is like reading a neocon think tank. They want the U.S. to do things they can't do. For instance, take on Iran."

Panel moderator Stephen Simon won the prize for honky weirdness when he said "genocidal killing" in Iraq was not happening because the Shiites do not have the two defining requirements 1) "heavy weaponry" and 2) "broad communal consent." Progroms? Yes. Genocide? No. (In that case, what would he call the genocide in Rwanda? A large pogrom?)

There was much more to the conference, all of it recorded: Peter Bergen, Steve Coll and Barnett Rubin on "The Taliban Resurgence and the Future of Al-Qaeda"; Max Boot, Noah Feldman, Salameh Nematt, Paul Pillar and Lang on "The Last Best Chances? New Plans of Action"; and Steven Cook, Fawaz Gerges, Farhad Kazemi, and Craig Unger on "The Neighborhood: Dominoes Ready to Fall?"

NYU's Center on Law and Security, which hosted the conference, plans to post video and transcripts, a spokesman says. When it does, I'll link.

Postscript: Feb. 23 -- Tomorrow it will be four weeks since the conference was held, but the center still hasn't posted video or transcripts. The reason for the delay, I'm told, is a lack of staff and resources. But the center hasn't given up. "I imagine we'll have it out in a few weeks," Nicole Bruno, the associate director of programs, says. Doubtful, methinks.

Posted by jherman at 11:49 AM

January 24, 2007

Yeah, Yeah

The state of the union is "strong" wrong. Make that delusional.

Postscript: "Delusional is far too mild a word to describe Dick Cheney." -- Maureen Dowd, 1/27/07

Posted by jherman at 7:52 AM

January 22, 2007

Proud of His Steadfast

The President With His Head Up His Ass made a surprise appearance at the National Conference for Media Reform and gave one of his typical brain-addled speeches. It's guaranteed to make you laugh. Then Helen Thomas asked him a few questions:

As Huha said in closing, "If there's questions that has not been answered that's not my fault."

Now stop laughing and watch or listen to Helen Thomas answering questions put to her at the conference by Amy Goodman. The interview aired this morning on Democracy Now! Thomas is withering about Huha and his regime, and about the mainstream media's craven acceptance of the invasion of Iraq -- before the war, during its early years, and for a long time afterward. She didn't use the word "complicity," but others have. It's clearly what she meant. She also talks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Nixon pardon, Bill Clinton, etc.

And here's a bunch of video excerpts from the conference, featuring Bill Moyers's keynote address and speeches by political luminaries from Bernie Sanders to Jesse Jackson and celebrities from Jane Fonda and Danny Glover to Geena Davis.

Posted by jherman at 9:12 AM

January 19, 2007

He's B-a-a-a-ck!

Whenever this ventriloquist's dummy trots out to justify the latest effort by the BananaRepublic to subvert the Constitution, we feel obliged to post his picture.

This time we also offer the latest example of what he calls "good management," his Orwellian term for firing more than a dozen federal prosecutors who've been investigating corruption fostered, protected, or simply allowed, by his enabler and boss, The Bullshitter, a k a the President With His Head Up His Ass.

As this morning's column by Paul Krugman, "Surging and Purging," points out:

Since the day it took power this administration has shown nothing but contempt for the normal principles of good government. For six years ethical problems and conflicts of interest have been the rule, not the exception. ...

[N]ow that [The Bullshitter] can no longer count on Congress to do his bidding, he's more determined than ever to claim essentially unlimited authority -- whether it's the authority to send more troops into Iraq or the authority to stonewall investigations into his own administration's conduct.

For whatever reason, possibly because Krugman has said that umpteen times before -- justifiably, in our opinion -- or because of copyright protection, t r u t h o u t has chosen not to post this particular column for free distribution (as it has done with his others, such as "The Texas Strategy").

Postscript: "Surging and Purging" is now free to read.

Posted by jherman at 9:58 AM

January 16, 2007

Shoah and Pin-Ups

That's the title of a new documentary about Boris Lurie, the 80-year-old New York NO! Artist, whose work breaks taboos by combining gassed corpses and nudie pictures, Holocaust realities and sado-masochistic fantasies. "It's not perverted art, but a comment on a perverted society," says Lurie, a survivor of Buchenwald-Magdeburg and other concentration camps, who, not incidentally, draws a line from the Shoah to the war in Iraq.

"Lurie would like to have painted comfortable, comforting things," says Matthias Reichelt, a curator and art historian who collaborated on the film with the director Reinhild Dettmer-Finke. "But something kept him from doing so. And that something is what this film explores."

"Shoah and Pin-Ups" travels from Riga and Buchenwald to the New York of the 1950s and '60s, when NO! Art developed as an obstinate reaction to Pop Art. "NO! is Boris Lurie's motto," says Reichelt. "NO! to the expectations of the art market, NO! to bourgeois decorum, NO! to victim mentality. The film is about the timeless, timely questions of remembering and about coping, through art, with the extermination of the Jews."

The documentary will have a special screening next month (Feb. 23) at Anthology Film Archives in New York. We'll have more to say later.

Posted by jherman at 9:08 AM

January 15, 2007

Bold and Beautiful

Today's national holiday marks the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. He would have been 78. That's younger by five years than two living ex-presidents, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, and yet he seems a figure from a far more distant past.

Is it because he died so prematurely, killed by an assassin's bullet, at 39? Or does he recede into history because someone of his towering stature is unimaginable in a BananaRepublic led by blustering moral pipsqueaks?

Click these links: 1) to read or watch King's greatest address, the "I have a dream" speech, of Aug. 28, 1963, which he delivered from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, and 2) to hear an audio excerpt of his peerless "Letter From Birmingham Jail," of April 16, 1963. Writing from his cell on a yellow pad of legal-size paper smuggled to him by his attorney, he says:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. ... Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait."

To read the whole letter, click this link. King defends "direct-action nonviolence," explains its principles and expresses his bitter disappointment with white moderates who are "more devoted to 'order' than to justice." Notice he has "almost reached the regrettable conclusion" that they are a bigger stumbling block to freedom and equality for blacks than the White Citizen's Council or the Ku Klux Klan.

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Listen to him speak on April 4, 1967, at Riverside Church in New York City about the difficulty of resistance during escalation of the Vietnam War:

Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world.

Finally, apply what he said then ("A time comes when silence is betrayal") to the war in Iraq:

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. ... I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. ... I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

And wish like hell he were still alive to set an example and stiffen the spine.

Postscript: At least John Edwards is giving it a shot.

Posted by jherman at 1:01 AM

January 11, 2007

Old Bull on Top of New Lies

If anybody needed further proof that whatsisface is still flogging the same old bullshit, let him read "The Real Disaster," which pretty much says what needs to be said about his speech on Iraq. It's the lead editorial in this morning's New York Times. (Then compare it with the Washington Post mush and the Los Angeles Times drivel.)

Meanwhile, the same old bullshit is being floated on new lies: "As part of a campaign to market the new strategy, [Prez Huha's] aides insisted that the plan [for more U.S. troops] was largely created by the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki," David Sanger reports. But, in fact, the Iraqi government "does not really want them," according to another NYT report.

What should be highlighted in big bold print is Huha's comments in a private meeting with Congressional leaders before making his speech. "I said to Maliki this has to work or you're out," Sanger quotes him as saying, according to two officials who were in the room. "Pressed on why he thought this strategy would succeed where previous efforts had failed, [Huha] shot back: 'Because it has to.'"

Really.

The Wall Street Journal naturally supports the President With His Head Up His Ass. In its lead editorial, under the jingoish headline "Mission Baghdad," it ignores reality and claims that "with the new strategy, new forces and new generals [Huha] is putting in place, we have a fighting chance to create a virtuous circle whereby better security leads to more anti-insurgent cooperation from the [Iraqi] public -- which in turn leads to still better security."

Everything just gets better and better.

Its secondary editorial, "A Cynical Opposition," then tries to shift the focus: "The real question is whether the Democrats are prepared to act like a responsible opposition now that they control both houses of Congress, in contrast to the last four years of partisan minority sniping." Ludicrous as that sounds, it's not surprising. Last June The Journal drew this conclusion: "The U.S. has sacrificed too much already in Iraq to withdraw just when victory once again looks possible." [Italics added.]

Which pretty much defines ludicrous.

Finally, it's worth noting the historian Gareth Porter's take on the perverse logic of Huha's war and, most especially, the involvement of Henry Kissinger, whose "sudden emergence as a key figure" in the so-called new Iraq policy "deserves closer examination."

Although he knows very little about how to deal with Sunnis and Shi'ites, Kissinger does know how to convey to the public the illusion of victory, even though the U.S. position in the war is actually weak and unstable. One of Kissinger's accomplishments was to sell the news media on the Nixon administration's propaganda line that the Christmas 1972 bombing of Hanoi had so unnerved the North Vietnamese that it had allowed president Richard Nixon and Kissinger to achieve a diplomatic victory over the communists in the Paris Agreement. That line was a gross distortion of what actually happened before and after the bombing.

And so, Porter writes further, Huha "may be equally interested in Kissinger's experience in shifting the blame for defeat to the Democrats."

That is exactly what he tried to do in spring 1975 when the South Vietnamese military regime fell apart under the pressure of the North Vietnamese offensive. Even though Kissinger had privately admitted at the time of the Paris Agreement that the regime of president Nguyen Van Thieu was unlikely to survive, he insisted that Nixon's successor, president Gerald Ford, go through the motions of asking for an additional U.S. $722 million in military aid on April 11, less than three weeks before the final collapse.

Are we going through the motions again? It would seem so. Only now, in addition to the untold casualties and lost lives, Huha is talking billions -- $6.7 billion, to be precise -- on top of the billions already spent. If the Democrats don't stick it to him, who will? The BananaRepublicans?

Postscript: That was not a rhetorical question. See this:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 -- Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee came to the defense of [the President With His Head Up His Ass] on Friday, lending support to his decision to send more troops to Iraq and hoping to head off a Senate resolution criticizing the plan.

Posted by jherman at 10:45 AM

January 10, 2007

Over the Top

Take a close look. Does he bear any resemblance to the President With His Head Up His Ass, a k a Prez Huha?

It's Alfred Jarry's woodcut of Père Ubu, better known as Ubu Roi, and it comes to mind as a prelude to Huha's speech tonight because a reader has just suggested Père Bubu (Papa Bubu) or BuBu Roi (King BuBu) as our new moniker for the whatsisface who occupies the White House.

"Maybe a bit literary," he writes, "but fitting for an arts website. And this is the centennial year of Jarry's death."

The staff likes the term, especially the kicky Wikipedia description: "Ubu is a nobody. He is fat, stupid, greedy, cowardly, and evil." But I'm not sure.

When I say Papa Bubu I get a different echo, more of an association with Papa Doc, who terrorized the Haitians under his misrule as an incarnation of the voodoo spirit Baron Samedi in top hat and tails. (His secret police, the Tontons Macoute, did the dirty work.) But while Papa Doc's infamous declaration -- "God and the people are the source of my power. I have twice been given the power. I have taken it, and damn it, I will keep it." -- fits Prez Huha with eery precision, it's all a bit over the top, methinks.

Even Papa Huha (sorry, Prez Huha) would not claim, as Papa Doc did, that he was a voodoo Jesus Christ and God himself, would he? And if he did, I doubt that his evangelical base would buy it. Besides, has Huha ever appeared in public in top hat and tails? Not to my knowledge (although he gave it a try in post-Katrina New Orleans).

Posted by jherman at 11:01 AM

January 8, 2007

Terminology

The question was, "Does anyone out there have a suitably demeaning substitute for Bullshitter-in-Chief?" The answers were, "Of course." But the suggested terms, ranging from "d'Oily Farte" and "Mr. Stupid" to "Banana Head," "Fratboy" and "The Dolt," failed to inspire the staff.

So we'll stick with our term, shortened to The Bullshitter. We hope this will underscore his iconic status not just as the first among equals in a fraudulent regime but as an exemplar of fraudulence. From time to time we may also refer to him as the President With His Head Up His Ass, Prez Huha, or PWHHUHA (the other acronym).

When he gives his expected "surge" speech later this week, let's all remember what Harry G. Frankfurt says in the foreword to his latest little essay, "On Truth," about his previous one, "On Bullshit":

...bullshitters, although they represent themselves as being engaged simply in conveying information, are not engaged in that enterprise at all. Instead, and most essentially, they are fakers and phonies who are attempting by what they say to manipulate the opinions and attitudes of those to whom they speak. What they care about primarily, therefore, is whether what they say is effective in accomplishing this manipulation. Correspondingly, they are more or less indifferent to whether what they say is true or whether it is false.

And keep in mind Paul Krugman's "Quagmire of the Vanities."

Postscript: Also, Arianna Huffington offers a smart "Diagnostic Guide" to watching the speech.

Posted by jherman at 10:45 AM

January 5, 2007

More Popcorn

If it's true he hasn't seen the video of Saddam Hussein's execution, as the White House claims, will somebody please explain why not? Is it because it would offend his compassionate soul? Or is it because he would have to describe how he felt about it? And you know what a mumbler he is.

He's already said what he's been told to say by his handlers. (The execution should have been "more dignified.") Presumably, they saw the video. But shouldn't he see for himself what millions of others have seen? If he's too sensitive to watch the raw execution video, he could watch the not-so raw video.

Shouldn't he know first-hand what's happening before he makes next week's do-over speech about his latest "new" strategy for Iraq? (Not that it would make a difference.) Or has he watched the execution video, while munching on popcorn, and that's a national security secret?

Posted by jherman at 12:06 PM

January 3, 2007

The Believer's Gas

He has called himself The Decider. Now he wants to be known as The Cooperator? So it would seem from the ghostwritten gas of his horseshit op-ed column in today's Wall Street Journal.

We're still mulling a suitably demeaning term to substitute for our customary Bullshitter-in-Chief. Based on the column's "I believe" graf, one staffer has suggested The Believer.

Here's the graf, with footnotes for clarification:

I believe that when America is willing to use her influence abroad, the American people are safer and the world is more secure.¹ I believe that wealth does not come from government. It comes from the hard work of America's workers, entrepreneurs and small businesses.² I believe government closest to the people is more responsive and accountable.³ I believe government plays an important role in helping those who can't help themselves. Yet we must always remember that when people are hurting, they need a caring person, not a government bureaucracy.⁴

¹ This is why I ordered up the war in Iraq.
² This is why I believe in tax relief for the rich and nothing at all for the poor.
³ This is why I'm ignoring the midterm elections and am sending more troops to Iraq.
⁴ This is why I will pray everyday for the flood victims in New Orleans.

Postscript: The Believer was never under serious consideration.

Posted by jherman at 9:56 AM

January 2, 2007

2007: Time for Him to Go

It's the new year, so nu? What's the point of leaving the old one at the top of this column? There is no point. It just signals my hangover -- not from too many champagne toasts, but too few. There wasn't much to celebrate unless it was the hope that 2007 will bring us closer to the end of our collective humiliation by the Bullshitter-in-Chief and his BananaRepublic.

It could happen. But the Bullshitter's remarks about the Iraq war, as reported this morning in The New York Times, make it doubtful. "What I want to hear from you is how we're going to win, not how we're going to leave," he is quoted as warning the military's top brass. He still insists on talking about victory, the report notes (italics added), because, he claims, "It's a word the American people understand."

Sure. Why should he accept the blame for his own catastrophic failure? Blame everyone else. The warning and the victory talk merely reaffirm his arrogance, incompetence and deceit. Which leads to a niggling little matter. What should he be called these days? Given current conditions as shown by his highly unfavorable poll ratings, our customary term of reference may have outlasted its usefulness.

Does anyone out there have a suitably demeaning substitute for Bullshitter-in-Chief? The staff likes "Junior," per Maureen Dowd, for its connotation of a lightweight. But I'd much prefer something that goes with the "head-up-his-ass" photo (originally posted here in 2005, when a staff conscript sent it per the ravages of Katrina).

Posted by jherman at 11:24 AM