Friday, May 20, 2005

A little song, a little dance...

...Saddam in his underpants.

I couldn’t care less about whether or not Saddam's rights were violated, but he's not the one who should feel embarrassed. He managed to keep Iraq under control, which is a hell of a lot more than George W. Bush can say for himself.

This from Paul Krugman in today's NEW YORK TIMES:

"And as far as I can tell, nobody in a position of power is thinking about how we'll deal with the consequences if China actually gives in to U.S. demands, and lets the yuan rise."

As far as I can tell, nobody currently in a position of power in this country has thought about the consequences of anything. This business of blaming China for our economic woes is a slick piece of Rovian demonizing. Yes, much of our proplem is caused by the fact that China owns so much of our national debt. But the Chinese aren't the ones who created the debt. The ones who created the debt are the irresponsible White House and the rubber stamp Congress.

W? H? A? T?

From Al Kamen of the WASHINGTON POST we learn that some people are skeptical of the State Department's ability to improve America's image in the Arab world. Colonel William A. Eddy, former U.S. chief of mission in Saudi Arabia, thinks any print and broadcast program run by the State department is doomed to fail. As Kamen explains, "The audiences (will) assume that U.S.-run media simply reflect U.S. policy to the various governments in the region." Colonel Eddy thinks the job should be run by the Pentagon psy-war folks.

Can you imagine a grown person with diplomatic experience actually believing that people will trust the Pentagon more than the State Department? This Colonel Eddy character needs to cut back on the Kool-Aid.


How many more people, do you suppose, will get compared to Hitler while this administration is in the White House? First Hussein was Hitler, then George W. Bush was Hitler, then the Democrats were all Hitler. What do these guys do, take turns?


Hey, have you heard? There's a new book out now that suggests maybe Frank Sinatra had mob ties. Who'd of thunk it?



  1. I imagine the Bush administration could keep better control too if they resorted to the tactics Saddam used to maintain control. When you say 'at least' her kept control, aren't you forgetting how he did it?

  2. Well, I hate to bring this up because someone might think I'm bashing the troops over there, but..

    I think you'd have to agree that we've actually done more damage to Iraq than Saddam ever did, but we haven't kept the situatioon under control.

    Don't think I'm saying Saddam was just a nice old man--he was a tyrant. But he kept his factions under control.


  3. Actually, I submit Hussein did more damage than we have at this point. I know you aren't complimenting Hussein in anyway - I'm just pointing out that he kept things under control in the way tyrants always keep things under control. His tactics are the reason he needed to be removed from power.

    That said, things could certainly have been better conducted over there.

  4. scott,

    I moved this discussion to the front page and did a short feature about it.

    I hope it doesn't appear to you like I chopped you off at the knees. Please let me know if you feel that way.

    Thanks again for visiting and posting, and please do so again.