Morning funny: Judith Miller assaulting Assange ?

I just heard this this morning, but I think it's old news. Good stuff nonetheless.

Judith Miller criticizing Assange. Funny stuff. The very definition of the pot calling the kettle black!

Assange "...didn't care at all about attempting to verify the information that he was putting out or determine whether or not it would hurt anyone."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110104/ts_yblog_thecutline/judy-miller-responds-to-criticism-over-assange-slight

Hmmm. Why does this seem familiar? Bad reporting on WMD and exposing Valerie Plame?

I guess she verified all of that and made sure it didn't hurt anyone, so we're good. Never mind that she was very wrong and she did.

She leaves us with this inspiring statement in the Yahoo article that should clear up all of her inconsistencies:

"Whatever I have to say I shall say at the time and place of my choosing," Miller said.

Everyone else has to answer to her, then? ;)

***

Here's Democracy Now's headline:

Question: "Why is he a bad journalist?"

Judith Miller: "Because he didn’t care at all about attempting to verify the information that he was putting out, or determine whether or not it would hurt anyone."

Miller once said, "My job isn’t to assess the government’s information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of the New York Times what the government thought about Iraq’s arsenal."

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/3/headlines

GWB Foundation???

With a Reunion Planned, Bush Eases Back Into the Public Eye
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/us/politics/11web-baker.html?_r=1&nl=pol&emc=pola1

Good thing the shindig is in Dallas, or any number of them could be arrested for war crimes!

Seriously, though, a future George W. Bush Policy Institute?? This is just puzzling to me. Optimistically speaking, maybe it will have absolutely nothing to do with foreign policy. I mean, Iraq, 48 hour ultimatums, pre-emptive war, going to war based on WMD rumors and cartoons, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, illegal combatants, declaring "war on terror", warrantless wiretapping, NSEERS, blind support for Israel (including its violations of law), double standard-requiring Palestinians to meet criteria that Israel refuses to meet, etc. There is a long list of really bad directions and wrong turns that were never corrected.

Maybe someone has learned a lot and will set up a foundation to study how all of these horrendous things happened- or how Bush's original plans (I'd like to think they started out noble enough) went so horribly, horribly wrong. Judging from Cheney and likes of others Bush surrounded himself with, though, I suspect it will be a foundation dedicated to correcting a few glitches (not teh torture, but the getting caught; not the secret prisons, but the public finding out about them, etc) in an otherwise grand and successful plan for a war on Islam, ahem terrorism, and forced American democratization (only recognized if your leader is approved by us, of course!) of the Middle East.

The guy has strong points. He did some good in Africa. Why not expand on that?

Please, please, please stay away from foreign policy!

Last Bush Press Conference

The question about his past mistakes is particularly interesting for 2 reasons. First, a few years ago that same question received an answer of can I get back to you because I can't think of any (!). Second, the "disappointments" he mentions I would call monumental mistakes with far reaching consequences, the biggest stains on his legacy, while his "mistakes" he listed were pretty minor things. I could add more… I think I have a blog post or two somewhere with a list.

"Clearly putting a "Mission Accomplished" on a aircraft carrier was a
mistake.
I've thought long and hard about Katrina -- you know, could I have
done something differently, like land Air Force One either in New Orleans or
Baton Rouge."

The issue wasn't when or if he came to visit! It was the whole slow and messed up response and the FEMA debacle where his cronyism got him in deep.

"There have been disappointments. Abu Ghraib obviously was a huge disappointment
during the presidency. Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant
disappointment."

Abu Ghraib and finding no WMD in Iraq after having invaded were disappointments?? Abu Ghraib was a disaster! An international scandal. Not finding WMD in Iraq (or invading before you knew) was so much more than a mistake. It proved the administration had an agenda other than the defense of our nation and finding those responsible for 9/11. It did prove diplomacy was lacking and sorely needed and that the pre-emptive policy is not effective and just wrong. We claimed to give Hussein an ultimatum then follow through with enforcing law, but given the time frame and the way we approached the UN, then went ahead without a real consensus, the whole thing became a really bad joke, a nightmare that turned us into greedy occupiers and ruthless invaders and lawless torturers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090112.html

Irony and double standards

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people," George W Bush said in Washington.

"Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st Century."

Hmmm…In which century did we invade Iraq? True, the people didn’t exactly elect Saddam Hussein, but it was a sovereign nation and relatively stable, unlike now. It is interesting to hear that come out of his mouth. I think I’m not surprised anymore by such irony. He once said bring ‘em on in talking about terrorists – that one surprised me. Why even joke about that as leader of the free world in a public setting??

*** *** ***

John Edwards has admitted to adultery. That’s disappointing, as I have favored him for Presidential and VP runs. This will no doubt ruin political aspirations. Not that that's all that matters. Adultery is serious and I don't condone it at all. My issue is that the private lives ruined or at least tainted the careers of Edwards and Clinton, but Bush will apparently bear no responsibility (he certainly won't admit he's wrong, let alone guilty) for questionable, not-so-transparent, and possibly illegal things he's done as President.

This seems a bit funny as you put Edwards’ and Bill Clinton’s marital issues in contrast to what Bush has done politically on the world stage. He invaded Iraq for essentially no reason. At best, we acted too hastily, without the whole story (no WMD, no 9/11 link, “spreading democracy is a legit reason to bomb, etc); at worst, he or the administration flat out lied. Ron Suskind has a new book out that may expose that we knew Iraq had no WMD and fabricated a letter coming to the opposite conclusion--impeachable offenses. We’re holding people indefinitely in Guantanamo and even if they do get a trial, and aren’t guilty, we can still hold them indefinitely as long as this nonspecific, broad and general so-called war on terror goes on. We’ve sanctioned harsh interrogation methods (torture) and kidnapped people and tortured them in 3rd party countries. We even made up a new name for POWs, so we wouldn’t have to deal with the Geneva Conventions under this administration. Going to war so hastily or under a lie is absolutely reprehensible, yet Bush will encounter no consequences, unlike Edwards and Clinton for their private affairs (pun intended?). War has effects that range from monetary cost to the extensive human cost- the dead, the injured, the psychologically injured, soldier suicide, and the families and friends that have to bear this cost. And the military doesn't really take care of it's own. PTSD doesn't really exist to them. I have heard that some who admit to this to a military doctor are told that the cure is to go back over and kill more Iraqis. Nice. The military can break people down and turn them into killing machines, but does nothing to help bring them back to civilian life as a functional, happy human being bearing some resemblance to who they used to be.

Bush will remain blissfully ignorant of the effects of war (personally) and untouched by any number of consequences that should go along with such offenses as he has committed. War should be a last resort and it is becoming clearer that Bush doesn't have the same opinion- unless of course the country in fact DOES actually have nukes, like N. Korea- then, proceed with caution.

There is a good quote that you can win a war no more than you can win an earthquake.

Bush sewage plant!

This is for real. Some Californians are pushing to rename a sewage plant after Bush in commemoration of his policies and legacy. This is great. I kind of hope it passes. Only in California! Too funny.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/presidential.putdown.ap/index.html

Bush says economy's strong

Bush has got his head in the sand more than ever these days. First, that farce in the Middle East, now this priceless quote from him last week:

"...so that an economy that's inherently strong gets a boost..."

Is he talking about the US?? All I've been hearing about is how hard it is to get a job, debates about are we on the brink of a recession or already in one, reports on the credit crisis, housing and lending disasters, etc.

I mean, really, does he write his own material or what?