1115.org

(1)
Reuters asks: Is there a new member of the Bush family?

The good news is that they’re not talking about Pervez Musharraf. Not that it wasn’t considered. George did propose to Laura that they adopt Pervez. And Laura was distinctly leaning towards “okay”. But she turned that into a firm no, when she discovered that George planned to have Pervez sleep in their bed. Indefinitely. (Actually, the agreement was “till Osama is found”. “Indefinitely” is my free-verse translation, for which I take full responsibility.)

No, they (Reuters) are actually talking about the unlikely friendship that’s developed between Bill Clinton and George Bush the Elder. The funny part of the story: George Bush the Younger seems to be looking forward to a similar friendship with Bill Clinton once he graduates to ex-President-hood. (In case anyone’s interested, I have $500 bucks that says: in your dreams, Little George!)

(2)
The US and Iran. I kid you not.

Washington backed a Tehran initiative to deny UN access to advocates of sexual minorities’ rights.
[…]
Rights advocates said the Bush administration’s international posture matched its increasingly strident and discriminatory bent at home.
[…]
The federal government’s UN vote to dismiss two international organizations’ applications for speaking rights at the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) brought the U.S. government in line with regimes it routinely chides as human rights delinquents, HRW said. These include the leaders of Cameroon, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. 

The move also marked a shift in policy for Washington, which previously had supported or abstained on such applications, according to HRW. Officials gave no explanation for the change, it added.

Nice company we’re keeping these days, what? And what enlightened policies we have. Truly befitting a leader of the free world.

(3)
Cindy Sheehan and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Not unlikely, actually, just bedfellows. And a nice segue to the next item, which doesn’t even involve bedfellows (not unless you consider it an act of rape, which some apparently do.) And it gives me a hook for the following reflections:

Cindy Sheehan is obviously one angry lady. Is she angry just at the President (and appendages thereof)? Probably not. She’s probably angry at all of us too, we who just sit back and let the war take its course, and who see nothing wrong with what’s going on, certainly nothing worth protesting.

Do you realize that this is the only war in modern history (start that clock whenever you like, it’ll still be true) where a government took a country to war under one pretext, and then when it was proved false, just turned around and smoothly created a whole new rationale? No previous government, in any country, has had the unmitigated gall to pull such a stunt. And America’s reaction? First a collective yawn, and then a half-felt opposition which barely makes its way into opinion poll results, and then just peters out somewhere between outrage and action.

Do you realize that one day your kids and grandkids will ask you, with big round trusting eyes: “Mom (or Dad or Grandma or Grandpa), tell us what you did when that Bush pulled this stunt!” Would you prefer a deafening silence, or would you prefer to be caught in a lie? Or would you prefer to make a different choice now, while you still can?

(4)
Over the last year, the Bush administration has very kindly shared with us several different factors which have been adversely affecting the morale of our troops in Iraq. The number one factor (and also numbers two, three and four) has apparently been that well-known lily-livered Congressman, John Murtha. What the Bush administration inadvertently forgot to put on their list is the Pentagon’s “stop-loss” policy:

The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called “stop-loss”.
[…]
The policy applies to soldiers in units due to deploy for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army said stop-loss is vital to maintain units that are cohesive and ready to fight. But some experts said it shows how badly the Army is stretched and could further complicate efforts to attract new recruits.

And so, once again with a perfectly straight face, the Administration hopes to convince you and me that that these 50,000 soldiers found Murtha’s comments on the war more upsetting than the news that they wouldn’t be allowed to go home after all when their stint was up? (If we didn’t keep buying this shit, they wouldn’t keep selling it. If you’re not buying it, TELL THEM SO!)

And this is the best they could come up with as a justification for the policy? That it is vital to maintaining units that are cohesive and ready to fight? If there’s one glue that really holds a unit together, it would have to be the presence of four or five soldiers who are pissed off as hell to be fighting in Iraq when they expected to be back home with their families. And who could be more ready to fight than these highly motivated souls?

If this is the best they could come up with, I would really love to see the suggestions that ended up in the shredder!