Hansen mentioned that there was also another tiny, little bit of confirmation on the question: IT'S IN THIS MONTH'S ROLLING STONE. No kidding. The October issue, on the stands now, has a big piece, "Backstage with blink-182." Their reporter was even at the concert with them on the fourteenth of September, the one I wrote about, and it's in the piece, "F--- you, George Bush," and all sorts of predictably cheerful epithets. Isn't that weird? Here I am trying to track down every popcorn vendor and security guard in Southern California who might've been at the concert that night, and the whole thing is in print on every stand in America. Oh, well.
Sean Gifford of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and an unidentified man in a cow-suit had planned a peaceful protest at the gates of the Grammar School to let pupils know about the claimed hazards in milk.
But they had to be rescued by two female police officers when the teenage pupils launched a violent protest of their own.
About 100 children, shouting "milk for the masses" and carrying banners, surrounded Mr Gifford and his "cow" partner and drenched them both in milk for about ten minutes. The police eventually intervened and escorted the PETA members back to their car.
(a) ignore them
(b) discuss your differences with them
(c) counterdemonstrate
Bush On Economy:
'Saddam Must Be Overthrown'
WASHINGTON, DC--Amid growing concerns about the faltering stock market and deepening recession, President Bush vowed to tackle the nation's economic woes head-on Tuesday, assuring the American people that he "will not rest" until Saddam Hussein is removed from power.
1980 Carter / Reagan:
During the campaign, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, leader of the ultra-rightist Moral Majority, announced that he had a conference with the President in the Oval Office and the latter had told him homosexuals needed representation in the White House and he had several on his staff. But it turned out there had been no such conversation. Falwell had never even been in the Oval Office. Confronted by reporters, the Moral Majority leader admitted he had "fabricated" the tale.
We presume he apologized, but the book doesn't say.
Greenhouse
West
Buy this LP
1989
1/2 star
In 1989, this band was sitting on top of the world. Now they're merely disposable.
When the singer sings about the importance of brushing your teeth, the result is purely hit-and-miss. Fans may say otherwise, but the take-no-prisoners "Return to My Roots" is virtually a rewrite of "My Own Worst Enemy."
On the empty and contrived live bonus track "Song #4," Greenhouse sounds like they're having a great time, unlike the audience. Do these guys really need more money? Singing about John Lennon in the unadorned "Parabola Paratrooper," the singer sounds like he's having about as much fun as a dying hyena.
Does anyone over the age of 15 like this stuff?
Greenhouse is not so much of a band, but an exercise in marketing. Two words: pig droppings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our readers respond
Dear Robot,
Your review of Greenhouse was dead wrong. Sometimes you just have to enjoy a good rock album for what it is. West is the record of the year. Your magazine sucks.
Greenhouse forever,
-- Greenhouse fan
Of course, you could try to write off the dissatisfied noises from the Pentagon as disinformation. Then again, the point of disinformation is to deceive the enemy about the nature of your preparations. Which means that if the Novak column, say, is disinformation, then the American military actually wants to fight an urban battle, and is trying to gull Saddam into fighting one by making him believe it is ill prepared for that. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out why the Pentagon might want to be thrown into that particular briar patch...
Sullivan has one of his legendary pieces of geopolitical analysis up. Discussing the Bali attack he says:
Read the story. This is Australia's September 11. Meanwhile, we're told to debate whether we should go to war. This isn't war?
But no one is suggesting that we should debate whether we should go to war with al Qaida, what was suggested was that we should debate going to war with Saddam Hussein. In case this point has somehow failed to penetrate the right-wing protective bubble of self-righteousness, let me be clear: Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are different people. They both hate America. And they're both Arabs. But they're different people. They have different ideologies. And different allies. And different methods. Indeed, one might say that they're rivals for the job of Chief Arab Badass and Number One Enemy of America and that if we knock Saddam down al Qaida (or Iran) will fill the void. But why should we debate a little thing like what the consequences of our action will be?
The Washington Post’s pundit, Michael Kelly, set us straight. He informed us that Mr. Gore's contention that Al Qaeda was still at large was a contemptible, vile lie. Mr. Kelly assured us that the destruction of Al Qaeda was complete. Here is part of what he wrote:
In truth, the men who "implemented" the "cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans" are not at large. They are dead; they died in the act of murder, last Sept. 11.
In truth, the "vast majority" of the men who "sponsored" and "planned" the crime are dead also, or in prison, or on the run.
It is a good thing that Mr. Kelly cleared that up. Some of us needlessly worried that Al Qaeda retained the ability to commit terrorist acts in a number of places around the world. Those of us critical of Mr. Kelly’s column should apologize. It is now clear that Al Qaeda is dead, in prison, or on the run.
American personnel in Kuwait have nothing to fear from Al Qaeda. Oil tankers may now traverse the oceans without giving Al Qaeda a second thought. Tourists may go to clubs in Bali and not fear those dead or imprisoned or on the run terrorists.
That despicable Al Gore was just trying to frighten us into thinking that Al Qaeda remained capable of mischief. It’s a good thing we have Michael Kelly to set us straight.
Tom Daschle, October 11, in Washington D.C., on Bush leaving Washington to spend two weeks on a fund-raising trip while Congress tries to clear up the legislative backlog created by the Iraq debate:
I would urge the president to cancel his political trip today. Cancel the trip. Show the American people you're more concerned about their jobs than you are about Republican ones.
Bush will be at the White House just two days next week. After that, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "the president will be on the road every day until Election Day."
Hawkish civilians, in and out of the government, have been suggesting that Saddam's elite Republican Guard will throw up its arms in surrender. No serious person believes that. The question is whether an uprising of the persecuted Shia majority will be enough to overthrow the Baghdad regime without heavy application of U.S. force. If there is no effective revolt, the generals and their friends on Capitol Hill worry that the unknown plans may not call for sufficient U.S. forces....
Their disappointment stems from Rumsfeld's inclination, born of a turbulent lifetime in governmental and corporate affairs, to make decisions within a restricted circle. That includes war planning. According to Pentagon sources, the secretary does not consult the uniformed service chiefs. Participating in the immediate planning are Gen. Tommy Franks, commander in chief of the Central Command, and a few officers from the Pentagon's Joint Staff.
What most bothers the generals, however, is Rumsfeld's preference for outside advice. For example, sources say a frequent consultant with the secretary is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an amateur military expert and member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. There is no distribution through the Pentagon of such advice....
I asked a senior, well-informed Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who is a strong supporter of President Bush, whether the U.S. military was preparing for war with Iraq with sufficient force to cover all possibilities. ''They better have,'' he replied. When I rephrased the question, he gave exactly the same answer. He does not know, and neither do some gentlemen with four stars on their shoulders.
I've always been a proponent of a simple formula:
Civilians decide when to fight and what the goals are, the military decides how to accomplish those goals.
I don't want the military having complete say over what wars we fight and what wars we don't fight, because those are primarily a question for elected officials. I do want them to having a big say, however, over how to win the wars we're committed to (excepting the use of nukes, torture, and other methods we've decided as a nation not to use).
Why? Because that's their job. Generals have spent their entire adult lives learning how to win wars, we haven't. I don't want a bunch of amateurs attempting to do jobs they're not qualified for and getting American soldiers killed in the process, especially when they seem motivated less by winning the war and more by what would be easiest to sell to the American public and what would be really cool.
But that wasn't the only gift that Dick Cheney had for Norman Schwarzkopf. Having figured out that the general was being too cautious with his fourth combat command in three decades of soldiering, Cheney got his staff busy and began presenting Schwarzkopf with his own ideas about how to fight the Iraqis: What if we parachute the 82nd Airborne into the far western part of Iraq, hundreds of miles from Kuwait and totally cut off from any kind of support, and seize a couple of missile sites, then line up along the highway and drive for Baghdad? Schwarzkopf charitably describes the plan as being "as bad as it could possibly be... But despite our criticism, the western excursion wouldn't die: three times in that week alone Powell called with new variations from Cheney's staff. The most bizarre involved capturing a town in western Iraq and offering it to Saddam in exchange for Kuwait." (Throw in a Pete Rose rookie card?) None of this Walter Mitty posturing especially surprised Schwarzkopf, who points out that he'd already known Cheney as "one of the fiercest cold warriors in Congress."
A White House intern "mistakenly" forwarded to dozens of Hispanic leaders an e-mail that described the Senate's senior Democrat as "doddering old Bob Byrd, the senile senator from West Virginia," an administration spokeswoman has told The Denver Post.
White House spokeswoman, Jeanie Mamo, said the e-mail, which was also highly critical of the Hispanic members of Congress who voted against the Iraq war resolution, was written by "an activist."...
"If they have a defense for their actions, they should deliver it to the kids in uniform that could one day have their --- shot off to protect these ninnies!" the e-mail said.
The reference to Byrd said "Even Tom Daschle, Senate leader, committed to President Bush today. . . he's just waiting for doddering old Bob Byrd, the senile senator from West Virginia to shut up and sit down so the Senate can vote!"...
The letter ended by listing 15 Democratic lawmakers who voted against the resolution and the three Republican Hispanics who voted for the resolution. "Que verguenza!" (How embarrassing), the letter ended.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]