Wednesday, November 22, 2006
PRESIDENT REVOKES PARDON OF TURKEYS
BWEST OF BWANA
Earlier today, President Bush went about the annual ritual of pardoning the Thanksgiving Turkey. Actually, consistent with his practice, he pardoned two turkeys, Flyer and Fryer, and also announced that they were going to be sent off to DisneyLand in
Unfortunately, a strange thing happened during the
The President asked: “Well, how do you feel about Warren Jeffs marrying all those women?” Romney replied: “Well, Mr. President, I think he’s a turkey and I have never supported polygamy.”
The President called Senator John McCain to seek counsel and heard the familiar refrain: “Well, Mr. President, I’m opposed to gay marriage but I believe we should leave it to the states, so the question is what state were they flying over when it happened? I mean, if they were flying over
The White House operator called Romney back only to be told that the Governor was busy with the PSG – Polygamy Study Group. “Oh, I thought it would be a good counterpoint to the ISG – Baker’s Iraq Study Group” the scion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints explained. “Besides, I think that McCain is disingenuous on this gay marriage stuff. You can’t have it both ways. I’m against it even though I was for it before I was elected Governor.”
“Sheesh, you sound a lot like that Ketchup … er, Kerry fellow,” the President said, as got on the phone.
The President thought long and hard and decided to revoke the pardons.
“We can’t have people running around behaving like turkeys … or turkeys running around behaving like people,” White House Press Secretary Tony Snowjob said. “The President is rescinding the pardon heretofore granted. Those turkeys may be off to
Just then, Vice President Cheney stuck his head in the door. “Yeah, right,” the President said. “What’s that, Mr. President?” asked Cheney. “Oh, I was just talking about goofy turkeys. By the way, I hear that Lynne’s book is selling well since people found out that it has a description of a lesbian sex scene,” the President said. “By the way, Dick what is a Lesbian? You wouldn’t know, would you?”
“Well, Mr. President …” began Cheney.
“Oh, never mind,” said Bush, “I need to pardon somebody in lieu of the turkeys. I need another turkey or two to pardon.”
“Well, Mr. President, you could pardon me … you know, for shooting that lawyer in the face,” said Cheney. “I’ve thought about it” said Bush.
Laura Bush came in just then. “You know Bushie, you could pardon Mark Foley and George Macaca Allen,” she said.
“Well now, honey, I can’t pardon George Allen for denying that he was Jewish even though his mother is. The Jewish lobby would go berserck.”
“No, no, silly” Laura said, “you’d pardon him for calling that Indian kid a Macaca,” she said.
“Yeah, he is a big turkey, ain’t he?” said the President.
“Come to think of it Mr. President, you could pardon Saddam Hussein,” chirped Cheney.
“What’s that!!?” the President asked.
“Well, Sir, you know we accused him of killing Iraqis but come to think of it, Iraqis kill Iraqis,” so maybe we shouldn’t have blamed him.
“Dick, I don’t think I’m going to pardon you after all,” the President said. “By the way, when did you last get your pacemaker battery checked?”
Laura said, “Honey, I’ve made a list of people you can pardon. Let me see, Karl Rove, O.J., Haggard, Richards, Santorum, DeWine …”
“Stop, stop!” yelled the President. “This sounds like a turkey roast.”
______________________________________________________
Labels: Bush, Bwana, Pardon, President, Thanksgiving, Turkeys
Monday, November 20, 2006
BAKER CANCELS WAR, BOOK, MOVIE AND ALL
BWEST OF BWANA
November 20, 2006
BAKER CANCELS WAR, BOOK, MOVIE AND ALL
Less than a week after the newly elected Democratic majorities romped home in the elections, the Baker Commission has issued a Fatwa canceling the forthcoming book and movie by Vice President Cheney titled “If I Had Won The War This Is How I would Have Done It .“
Baker Issues a FatwaThe book, with an introduction by Senator John McCain featured a commentary on committing hundreds of thousands of additional, but nonexistent American troops to the fight in
The movie, loosely based on the book which was previously published under the title “The Yellow Cake Chronicles” was to star a dyslexic cowboy wannabe from Texas who despondent over his own success at avoiding military service, was bent on playing a macho warrior and destroying as much of world’s oil production capability as possible. “I always wanted
Macaca
"I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project. We are sorry for any pain this has caused the families of Iraqi people and American servicemen," Commission chairman James A. Baker, III said this afternoon in a statement about the incursion into Iraq for which Halliburton and Bechtel were paid billions in advances for publishing rights to the stories.
By the end of last week, at least 13 TV stations affiliated with the Fox broadcast network had told Fox they would not carry any more stories about the war.
In an interview that was to have been broadcast, Cheney talks about how he persuaded the President to issue orders to invade
By the time Baker put out his statement, Rupert Murdoch who had announced cancellation of the O.J. Simpson “confessional” saw returns from booksellers returning copies of "If I Did It," rivaling those of Cheney’s book.
On Thursday, when the storm of criticism of the war reached a crescendo, Cheney issued a rambling statement about how he intended to proceed full speed ahead with the
"Our Commission feels very strongly that there is no beneficial interest to the continuation of this war except to bail the President out of what is the biggest foreign policy gaffe in American history” Baker said.
Baker said the Commission is still considering whether to allow former Secretary of State Colin Powell to broadcast a prime time special titled “If I Had Told The Truth At The UN, This Is What I Would Have Said.”
The Powell special is to be preceded by a duet performed by former Congressman Mark Foley and disgraced former Pastor Ted Haggard who was President of the National Association of Evangelicals, singing “If I Were Straight I Wouldn’t Have Eyes Only For You.”
Senator John Kerry reached for comment said he had watched an advance copy of the movie “but then, I watched it backwards in fast reverse, so that I could say I unwatched it before I watched it.” As Cheney watched and tried to bite his upper lip which kept getting away while it maintained its perpetual sneer, Kerry explained, “If I hadn’t voted for the war, I would have voted against it.”
Cheney Unsuccessfully Tries To Bite His Sneering Upper Lip
First Lady Laura Bush traveling with the President said she was less than thrilled to have to stop in
Cheerz…Bwana
Saturday, November 18, 2006
THE GENERAL IDEA
_____________________________________________________________________________
BWEST OF BWANA
AN OCCASIONAL BREAKFAST WITH BWANA FEATURE
November 18, 2006
THE GENERAL IDEA
When I sat down to try to make sense of all this – yes, I did laugh at myself for even suggesting to myself that I might or might not make sense of all this, or part of it, or all of the above – I came away with a feeling of bewilderment suffused by dread. Pretty soon, I had my bewilderment and dread in a knot.
The General started by saying that he did not believe we needed more troops in Iraq and also that to begin a significant withdrawal of troops over the next six months would lead to an increase in sectarian killings and hamper efforts to persuade the Iraqi government to make the difficult decisions to secure the country.
The first part is easy enough. It is reflective of Administration policy and, led by the gently leading questioning of Senator Joseph Independent Lieberman, (I {nee D}
The second part, however, gave me a jolt. Does this mean that the Iraqi government is not already making decisions about securing the country? Does this mean that the Iraqi government has to be persuaded to make those decisions? Does this mean that somehow, if we begin pulling our troops out over the next six months, the Iraqi government will stop making such decisions as it has or may make?
How did this guy get to be the top American military commander for the
General Multiribbon-Windsorknot Abizaid then said that we don’t need fewer troops in
But then, our armed forces are so depleted that we cannot even commit to putting 20,000 more troops and sustaining that commitment.
That scares me. What scares me even more is that he has now confirmed to the entire world that
Under questioning by other Senators, General knickers-in-a-knot Abizaid came up with a few more gems. He said that while more American troops are not needed, more Iraqi troops are necessary to quell the sectarian violence. Huh? Does it not follow, as the night the day, that American troops who are training Iraqi forces are perforce better trained themselves and more capable? Okay, okay, I’ll allow that one could argue that Iraqi forces are less likely to be viewed as targets by the Iraqis. But is that really true? If the Iraqi forces are not truly reflective of Iraqi society, i.e., Shia, Sunni, Kurd, then will not they too be viewed as allied with one sect? Indeed that is one of the problems now.
How did this guy get to be the top American military commander for the
Does all of this sound suspiciously familiar? Well, it should. Reproduced below is my Breakfast with Bwana piece from January 2005 (you can also find it in the archived posts on this blog). What have these guys been doing since January 2005? How did this guy get to be the top American military commander for the Middle East?
Scary, isn’t it? It sounds like the Democrats will now give the Administration 4-6 months since that’s what General Ribbons-in-a-knot asks, and it seems like the Administration will give the Democrats 4-6 months since that is what Senator Carl Levin and the leading Democrats ask. And, in the first slap at outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald “Strangelove” Rumsfeld, Abizaid also said that General Shinseki had been right in saying that a larger force was needed ab ovo but that egg came before the chicken that has laid the egg that is
Whether Senators McCain and Levin are correct that more troops are needed, is moot since we don’t have more troops. The President’s continued posturing over military action against
Cheerz…Bwana
Breakfast with Bwana
JANUARY 29, 2005
LUCK IS OUT OF
At the beginning of this month, we took note of the commission given to General Gary E. Luck ("Luck-E Gary") by our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to go to
As I pointed out then, Luck-E's report was to be "CONFIDENTIAL" for Rummy's ears only. Of course, they've leaked his preliminary findings. So, what else is new?
Before we get there, it bears noting that the spinmeisters at the Pentagon haven't stopped having conversations with themselves. They claim that Luck-E "knows the operation in
Whoa, Nellie! Back in 2003, when Pin-Ball Whiz Tommy was conducting his video game war by remote control, there were no
The Pentagon goes on talking to itself and suggesting that Luck-E has a "degree of independence as a retired general" to recommend adjustments in policy. Sure, an inattentive, casual observer might think that a retired general has no axe to grind and would call the shots as he saw them. However, if the Pentagon is trying to talk itself into believing that this is truly a no conflicts, independent, hard-headed assessment, why would they have picked a guy who is currently a senior advisor to the military's Joint Forces Command?"
Now, if you are attentive and focused, you might think that Luck-E doesn't want to get UN-Luck-E and have his "senior advisor" consulting contract canceled. But, if you think that way, you are just plain cynical and probably giving comfort to the enemy - the enemy of waste and nonsense, that is.
Of course, back in early January, I had the temerity to suggest that the whole exercise was a waste of time and unnecessary. But, I guess if I were to say that Luck-E got a lucrative additional contract, probably with a "combat conditions" booster, then I'd be called cynical and an aider and comforter of the enemies of waste and nonsense too.
So, what did Luck-E "tentatively" report?
1. American troops must speed up training of Iraqi security forces.
How? By assigning more American trainers to work directly with the Iraqis being trained.
2. Shift the
How? By a step-by-step approach that would take months, if not years, proceeding at different paces in different parts of the country, depending on performance of the Iraqi troops.
Oh, and Americans would work closely with Iraqis in the most dangerous parts of the country, but would still take the lead combat role there.
No kidding. You don't say.
I think I've figured out why things are not going well for our troops in
If you were making decisions up front to implement a program of training Iraqi troops and security forces, wouldn't you know that you needed an adequate number of trainers? And would you wait for almost a year and a half before trying to assess why the program was not working?
But, I do feel safer, knowing that Pin-Ball Whiz and Luck-E are retired generals so we don't have to depend on them. I wonder though, who replaced them. Come to think of it, the guys in charge now continue to look to Luck-E for advice. Suddenly, I don't feel safer. Luck is really out of
Cheerz....Bwana
Sunday, November 12, 2006
DUCK SOUP
BWEST OF BWANA
AN OCCASIONAL BREAKFAST WITH BWANA FEATURE
November 12, 2006
POLITICAL CANARD, CANARD PRESSE AND CANARD SAIGNÉ
OF LAME DUCKS, WOUNDED DUCKS AND DEAD DUCKS
Karl Rove declared that the Republican setback was occasioned by the failings of a corrupt few, thus putting a gloss on the “thumpin’” that the President recognized. It is as if Rove believes the canard that disinformation is as easy as duck soup. This political canard seems to miss the point.
Many years ago, still bubbling with the inexperience of youth, I learned that a post-prandial cognac following on the heels of a single malt taken as an aperitif, followed by a first course complemented with a soft Charmes Chambertin or its neighboring Mazoyères-Chambertin, and in the tradition of getting skins or nachos “loaded,” topped off with a Pauillac (my favorite), or Margaux (my favorite) or a lovely Saint-Estèphe (also my favorite) was not necessarily the most politic of courses along which to course. The canard that adding a goodly dose of alcohol in fortified form on top an established base and a heavy meal was good for you, disproved itself by its results.
Sobered by my own experience, I am not inclined in this post-election interlude, to treat the Democratic “victory” as a post-prandial that is judiciously savored. This was more a defeat than a victory, albeit a well-earned and well-deserved defeat for many of the toadiest and vilest people who have deigned to call themselves Republicans. What I am concerned about is that they not be followed by toady and vile Democrats.
President Bush, in an almost immediate outpouring of feigned charm, said: “I'm open to any idea or suggestion that will help us achieve our goals of defeating the terrorists and ensuring that Iraq's democratic government succeeds.” Speaker presumptive Nancy Pelosi made noises about cooperation and bipartisanship similar to what we heard from Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert before they embarked on their clubbiness rivaling in exclusivity only the bond of brotherhood that a street gang can forge.
The President’s words seem to suggest that as long as the Democrats agree with his “goals” he will listen to them. Congresswoman Pelosi’s words leave one with the feeling that if the President agrees to change course as the Democrats dictate, she will cooperate.
As bookends to this mix, we saw in the pre-election hype, Vice President Dick Cheney declaring that we would proceed full-speed ahead in Iraq, and in the post-election sacrificial gesture, Donald Rumsfeld sent to pasture but definitely not with stud fees attached.
The Vice President, like his boss, seems not to know the difference between a goal and a strategy for he declared that he thought the Administration had the “basic strategy” right. What is the “basic strategy” that he touts? Well, it is that the Iraqi government can be a self-sustaining democracy and in charge of its own security. It seems as if nothing has changed but the words surrounding the words. A goal is not a strategy. But neither is declaring that the Administration’s strategy is not working equivalent to a workable Democratic alternative.
If the blood had been drained from the Republican Party and it were now officially qualified as Halal meat (a fitting fate for an Islamophobic party) we might look at the various forms of duck left, the lame ducks, the wounded ducks, and the dead ducks and think of a dish I have conjured up – canard saigné – or exsanguinated duck, a sort of Halal Republican.
Yet, with its basic policy of disinformation and damn-the-torpedos-full-speed-ahead attitude, this is more like a Republican canard à la presse. That dish is described in vivid terms, thus: the duck is first strangled but not allowed to bleed – this is decidedly not halal. The duck is then partially roasted. The liver is ground and seasoned. The carcass minus breast and legs which are removed, but including residual meat, bones, and skin is then put in a press akin to a wine press. The pressure applied extracts blood and any other fluids from the carcass/bones/skin input. The breast is sliced and cooked in a reduced red wine sauce and served together with the liver. The juice extract from the carcass is thickened cooke in butter and Cognac. All this stuff is then cooked with the breast and liver. Not to be forgotten, the legs are broiled and served separately.
In other words, all the parts are intact, but this duck has been bled, wounded, dismembered and is definitely dead.
There is no question but that Donald Rumsfeld and Senator Macacawitz Allen are dead ducks. There is no question that Vice President Cheney is a wounded duck. Perhaps his shooting incident when he got poor Mr. Whittington, was an omen – perhaps, if the Republicans had sacrificed a duck at the feast of Lupercal and checked its entrails, they might have seen that the fault was in their underlings that they are no longer stars.
As for President Bush, what shall we say? Well, he has a choice between a danse macabre with Nancy Pelosi or a Tango with Nancy Pelosi. As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango.
That said, I want to remind you all that the lame duck is a position in tango. The dancers slightly separate, clasp hands, and face forward. The man steps forward with his right foot and the lady with her left, dipping with their right knee as they take the next step. The steps are repeated.
I found this nice little picture descriptive of the position.
And I also want to remind you that a lamer is someone in a strategy, combat, or other style of multiplayer competitive game who uses tactics which are either unskilled, particularly cowardly, or ludicrously easy to pull off (compared to their effectiveness). That is, someone who is being cheap or lame in a game. e.g. What a lamer strategy. (n) That guy's such a lamer.
It will be interesting to see who lands on two feet in this dance to come. For ballet aficionados, the Assemblé is apropos, literally meaning to assemble, a movement where the first foot performs a battement glissé/degagé, "swishing" out. The second foot then swishes under the first foot, thereby launching the dancer into a jump. The feet meet together in mid-air and the dancer lands with both feet on the floor at the same time.
On whom am I betting? Well, I’m not telling, but to be honest, I’ve seen a lot of cowboy boots, and a lot of fancy footwork when it comes to masking the truth, but a truthiness-filled glissé/degage? That remains to be seen. But I think I know who the lame duck is.
Cheerz….Bwana
___________________________________________________________________________________
Thursday, November 09, 2006
FROM SCRYING TO CRYING
BWEST OF BWANA
AN OCCASIONAL BREAKFAST WITH BWANA FEATURE
November 9, 2006
FROM SCRYING TO CRYING:
When I wrote The Worst Day Of The Year on October 17, obviously I was not writing from the Republican perspective, else I’d have waited until yesterday.
Well, what happened? I mean, why did the election turn out this way? Here are some statements for you to consider:
1. “I believe Iraq had a lot to do with the election, but I believe there's other factors as well.”
2. “And in terms of the election, no question, Iraq had something to do with it.”
3. ‘The amazing thing about this election, and what surprised me somewhat, which goes to show I should not try punditry, is that this economy's strong. And, a lot of times, off years are decided by the economy.”
4. “And yet, you know, obviously there was a different feel out there for the electorate. The economy – the good news in the economy was overwhelmed by the toughness of this fight and toughness of the war.”
5. “You know, again, I think when you really look close at the results – first of all, there's a lot of close elections. No question Iraq had an impact.”
6. “And my only point to you is I'm sure Iraq had something to do with the voters' mind, but so did a very strong turnout mechanism in those two important states. (New York and Pennsylvania)”
7. “I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made there.”
If you have not guessed by now, all 7 statements were made by President Bush yesterday in the space of less than one hour during his post-election press conference.
The most charitable thing one can say is that he finally gets it. Surely, Rumsfeld’s resignation tells us at least that much. The President said that he and Rumsfeld “after a series of thoughtful conversations … agreed that the timing is right for new leadership at the Pentagon.”
However, his comments about surprise at the results suggest that it took this "thumpin'" as he labeled it to produce reality sweats.
The big question for me now is whether the Democrats get it. Will they operate under the assumption that the American people are going to greet them as liberators who have come in and cast off the yoke of arrogance, stupidity, and incompetence that has marked this Administration’s implementation of its foreign and domestic policy? Or will they get down to real business? After all, it was the promising of righting the ship of state - more than junking the drunken skipper of the SS Valdez - that got them here. Or was it?
This is of concern because all one needs to do is hearken back to Vice President Cheney’s scrying back on March 16, 2003 when he gazed into a fuzzy crystal ball or perhaps a peloid pool of water and had this exchange with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:
VP CHENEY: Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VP CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.
Now that Cheney’s scrying has led to crying, one has to ask if the Democrats will think they have license to investigate how things went awry, to pry into every facet of decision-making, leave the legislative well dry, or will they say we have many problems to address so we should get together and try? If not, any Democratic scry who thinks, as the Republicans did, that you can take the American electorate for granted will have a good cry.
Cheerz...Bwana
__________________________________________________________________________________
Thursday, November 02, 2006
BUSH DECLARES WAR ON POVERTY
On Final Campaign Swing, Bush Visits Deep Red Territory Declares War on Poverty
BILLINGS, Mont., Nov. 2 -- President Bush warned Thursday against the dire possibility that a Democratic Senate might emerge after next Tuesday’s elections. “Not only is it clear that they will not confirm my nominees to the Supreme Court, should I have that opportunity to redenominate a straight thinking Justice to the highest judicial office in the courts of this great land, but they might even try to put a stop to other things” the President declared in a stump speech.
Bush flew to Billings to help Sen. Conrad Burns stage a comeback after trailing Democratic challenger Jon Tester over the preceding many months. “The only poll that matters is the one that the voters do on election day” Mr. Bush said.
The visit to Montana was the start of a six-day pre-election, 10-state final campaign swing for the president as he left the White House. He went to Elko, Nev., and plans to campaign Friday in Missouri for Sen. James M. Talent, who is locked in one of the closest Senate races. The President also plans to campaign in his base-rich constituencies in Iowa, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Florida, Arkansas and then to return to Texas, where he will vote before stopping to clear some brush at his ranch and returning to the White House to watch returns Tuesday.
In a surprise move, with his approval ratings remaining mired in the high 30s, the President decided to reveal a new initiative. Aides said that he has been frustrated for months that despite the strong performance of the US economy, he is not being recognized for having led the policy initiatives that have resulted in growth. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, stated that the new policy initiative was crafter after an intensive planning session with Vice President Cheney, Treasury Secretary Paulson, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Rice, World Bank President Wolfowitz,
In two rallies Thursday, Bush stated: “The time has come for this great nation to declare a formal war on poverty. In the past, that term has been used, but the root cause of this evil has not been addressed. The true cause of poverty is the growing number of poor people. If we are not careful, they will increase in number and place even greater strains on the capacity of this great nation to meet its pressing needs. In this time of war, we cannot afford to divert resources that would otherwise go to supporting the brave men and women who are placed in harm’s way in fighting the war on terror.”
The crowd cheered in unison and Mr. Bush pressed on: “We are now engaged in two wars at the same time, the war on terror and the war on poverty. Now, there is nothing more important than the war on terror, but we will not let those who are responsible for poverty take over the resources of this great nation. The poor people are the enemy combatants in the war on poverty and I have ordered that they be detained for the indefinite future. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has his staff working on legislation that will eliminate the need to provide counsel for these detainees. If they cannot afford to pay for their own lawyers, the government should not have to provide counsel. After all, the charge is that they are poor and it seems – at least it seems to me quite clear, that if they say they cannot afford to pay for a lawyer, then we have proved the point to begin with.”
At a press conference, the President was asked if these detainees would be given a hearing. He responded: “We are at war. Congress has recently passed legislation to allow enemy combatants to be tried by special commissions. We believe that any poor person who can afford counsel should have the opportunity to overcome the presumption that he or she is living off the resources of this nation. In that case, we will provide a hearing. If they continue to be poor, we will house them in a portion of the fenced area we will be erecting between Mexico and the United States. I have ordered that holding pens be constructed on the Mexican side, and sent a message to the Mexican government that if they continue to allow their poor people to come into the United States, we will send our poor people to Mexico.”
Senator John Kerry asked for comment said: “I want to apologize to the poor people for saying that they are without resources but I want you to understand that I was for the war on poverty but now I’m against it.”
Cheerz...Bwana
__________________________________________________________________________________
