And the hosannas, where are they?

From CNN.com, "Four U.S. civilians killed in Iraq: Residents hang bodies from bridge", Wednesday, March 31, 2004:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Suspected insurgents killed four American civilian contractors in a grenade attack Wednesday in central Iraq, U.S. officials said.

Cheering residents in Fallujah pulled charred bodies from burning vehicles and hung them from a Euphrates River bridge.

Crowds gathered around the vehicles and dragged at least one of the bodies through the streets, witnesses said.

Residents pulled another body from one of the cars and beat it with sticks.

From CNN.com, Crossfire transcript, November 4, 2003:

JACOBUS: You just seem to want to forget what he said in the very beginning when we went into this war, when we went into Iraq. He didn't say that this would be easy and pretty and have smooth edges.

CARVILLE: We found all those nuclear bombs over there, did we?

JACOBUS: So what he told us, James, was that this was going to be hard.

CARVILLE: He did?

JACOBUS: This was going to be drawn out. This was going to be painful. They were very up front with us, and I think most of the American people understand that war is not going to be pretty. I think they're...

CARVILLE: Dick Cheney said we'd be greeted with roses. And Paul Wolfowitz said we'd pay for the reconstruction with oil revenues of $100-200 billion a year. They were dissembling the truth.

JACOBUS: The polls in Iraq show that the people of Iraq are behind us. They don't think this is going to be easy. It's only people on your side that want this...

CARVILLE: Wolfowitz said it would be a bed of roses.

From "Live From Iraq, an Un-Embedded Journalist", Robert Fisk, March 25, 2003:

Perle, Wolfowitz, and these other people—people who have never been to war, never served their country, never put on a uniform- nor, indeed, has Mr. Bush ever served his country- they persuaded themselves of this Hollywood scenario of GIs driving through the streets of Iraqi cities being showered with roses by a relieved populace who desperately want this offer of democracy that Mr. Bush has put on offer-as reality. And the truth of the matter is that Iraq has a very, very strong political tradition of strong anti-colonial struggle. It doesn't matter whether that's carried out under the guise of kings or under the guise of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath party, or under the guise of a total dictator. There are many people in this country who would love to get rid of Saddam Hussein, I'm sure, but they don't want to live under American occupation.

Karl Rove for the Day, Vol. 3

(Click the image above to see the original undoctored photo, and/or click here. Or you can read more about these heinous backdrops by Dan Bartlett and Scott Sforsza here.)

Tastes Great! Less Filling!

From "Mass. Gay Marriage Ban Passes Hurdle" by Jennifer Peter (Associated Press), March 30, 2004:

BOSTON (AP) -- Legislators approved a constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriages while legalizing civil unions. If passed during the next two-year Legislative session, the measure would go before voters in November 2006.

[...]

The constitutional convention took place in front of thousands of citizens, who crowded the Statehouse each day to watch from the gallery and protest in the hallways.

After each intonation of "Jesus" by gay rights opponents inside the building Monday, gay rights advocates tacked on "loves us." The two opposing sides then shouted "Jesus Christ!" and "equal rights!" simultaneously, blending into a single, indistinguishable chant.

Oh, and for what it's worth, this tastes awful, and leaves me feeling rather empty inside.

R.O.V.E.: Rolling Over Valued Entitlements

You know how it sounds so much more palatable to go scuba diving than to, say, strap on a "Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus?" In that same vein, legislators on the Hill caught on to this a few years ago, and began packaging their now-commonplace rollback of civil rights in grandiose acronyms.

This began most notably with Congress' October 26, 2001 passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." USA PATRIOT sounds far better than the proposed alternative, KAFKA, or the "Keeping Americans From being Killed by Airplanes" Act.

Following on the heels of their success with that bill, the Bush administration and likeminded legislators brought forth Operation TIPS, or "Terrorism Information and Prevention System," which would have enlisted the help of postal workers, meter readers, truck drivers, and other workers in the public sphere in an elaborate effort to look out for "suspicious" activity. Again, better than the alternative, SPY, or "Subtly Prying Youths," which would have brought America's toddlers on board in the campaign to root out terrorist educators. This iteration of the bill never made it out of the House judiciary committee, of course.

And now the acronym brigade is at it again, according to Wired News. In the wake of Johnny Depp's Oscar nomination, and their subsequent downloading of that relevant film, Americans are bracing for PIRATE fever:

[O]n Thursday, Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) introduced a bill that would allow the Justice Department to pursue civil cases against file sharers, again making it easier for law enforcement to punish people trading copyright music over peer-to-peer networks. They dubbed the bill "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004," or the PIRATE Act.

The bills come at a time when the music and movie industries are exerting enormous pressure on all branches of government at the federal and state levels to crack down on P2P content piracy. The industries also are pushing to portray P2P networks as dens of terrorists, child pornographers and criminals -- a strategy that would make it more palatable for politicians to pass laws against products that are very popular with their constituents.

Meanwhile, civil libertarians across the nation are eagerly awaiting this fall's ELECTION, or "Eliminating Leaders Elected to Congress To Impugn Our Nation".

Compare and Contrast (lots of Bombast)

From the White House's "Iraq Fact of the Day" propaganda (a.k.a. "press release") series, March 22, 2004 (by way of Ward Harkavy's Bush Beat at the Village Voice):

Free Press in Iraq

Free press is flourishing in Iraq and providing the Iraqi people with access to a variety of news sources. More than 646 journalists have credentials for the new international press center in Baghdad. Many of the journalists write for more than 200 Iraqi newspapers now in circulation across the country. This burgeoning free press is encouraging debate and democracy in Iraq.

Source: Coalition Provisional Authority, Baghdad

From the New York Times' Jeffrey Gettleman, March 29, 2004:

G.I.'s Padlock Baghdad Paper Accused of Lies

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 28 — American soldiers shut down a popular Baghdad newspaper on Sunday and tightened chains across the doors after the occupation authorities accused it of printing lies that incited violence.

[...]

The letter ordering the paper closed, signed by L. Paul Bremer III, the top administrator in Iraq, cited what the American authorities called several examples of false reports in Al Hawza, including a February dispatch that said the cause of an explosion that killed more than 50 Iraqi police recruits was not a car bomb, as occupation officials had said, but an American missile.

Many newspapers and television stations have sprouted in Iraq since the fall of the Hussein government. But under a law passed by the occupying authorities in June, a news media organization must be licensed, and that license can be revoked if the organization publishes or broadcasts material that incites violence or civil disorder or "advocates alterations to Iraq's borders by violent means."

But the letter outlining the reasons for taking action against Al Hawza did not cite any material that directly advocated violence. Several Iraqi journalists said that meant there was no basis to shut Al Hawza down.

METAPHYSICAL NOTE TO SELF: I'm beginning to wonder if it's not a better idea to go the Dennis Miller route and start defending the Bush administration, because criticizing it has started to become far too easy. You know, try and have a go at something challenging for once.

Bush et al., valiant defenders of liberty

From "Rice Defends Refusal To Testify" by Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus, in the March 29, 2004, edition of the Washington Post:

Rice gave no ground on the administration's decision that she will not appear in public before the panel or testify under oath because Bush officials believe doing so would compromise the constitutional powers of the executive branch. The renewed refusal came despite the panel's unanimous plea for her testimony.

Republican commissioner John F. Lehman, who has written extensively on separation-of-power issues, said that "the White House is making a huge mistake" by blocking Rice's testimony and decried it as "a legalistic approach."

"The White House is being run by a kind of strict construction of interpretation of the powers of the president," he said on ABC's "This Week." "There are plenty of precedents that the White House could use if they wanted to do this."

[...]

Rice said she has "absolutely nothing to hide" and "would really like" to testify but will not because of the constitutional principle.

Gee, guys, this whole "Constitution" document sure comes in handy when you need it most, huh? That is, when you're not too busy covering your ears to cries of "Hypocrisy!" and otherwise obliterating the fucking thing, like you've been doing for the past two-and-a-half years.

RELATED (and very much worth reading): Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo discusses the issue of Constitutional precedent here and here.

Under-reported Factoid of the Week

Worth mulling over as the Bremer, I mean, Bush administration's self-imposed Iraqi sovereignty deadline of June 30th approaches:

From Dexter Filkins' profile of Iraqi exile (and purveyor of bad WMD-related intelligence) Ahmad Chalabi in the March 26, 2004 New York Times:

"In a nationwide poll conducted by ABC News and the BBC, 10 percent of Iraqis listed Mr. Chalabi as someone they 'don't trust at all,' a higher percentage than any other Iraqi leader. According to the poll, conducted from Feb. 9 to 28, 3 percent said they did not trust Saddam Hussein. In the poll, 2,737 randomly selected Iraqis age 15 and up were interviewed. The results have a two percentage point margin of error."

(emphasis mine, with thanks to Danny)

Unintentionally Hilarious Photo of the Moment, vol. 17

Yes, it's redundant, but it's all a part of our new "Unintentionally Hilarious" sub-category: "George Tenet Facial Tics that Surface While Testifying."

Colin Headroom Tes-Tes-Testifies

(Click above to see the New York Times' original photo of Sec. Powell testifying before the 9/11 commission on March 23, 2004)

"We wanted to moo-moo-move beyond the rollback policy of c-c-containment, criminal prosecu-cu-cu-cution and limited retaliation for specific terrorist attacks. We wanted to de-de-de-destroy Al Qaeda." - COLIN L. POWELL, Secretary of State, Network 23

Richard Clarke, Democratic Party operative

OK, the big guns are out, and the Bush Administration is in damage-control mode regarding former NSC advisor Richard Clarke's charges that Bush was doing a "terrible job" in the war on terrorism, and that the pursuit of Saddam Hussein had been a misguided scapegoat since September 12, 2001.

We'd refer to these charges as "explosive," but, come on now, realistically, these things tend to have a short lifespan, right? By next week, we'll almost certainly be talking about yet another "disgruntled former employee" to spring forth from the loins of the fruitfully dishonest Bush Administration.

From Dana Milbank and Mike Allen in the Washington Post, March 23, 2004:

Half a dozen top White House officials, departing from their policy of ignoring such criticism, took to the airwaves to denounce Clarke as a disgruntled former colleague and a Democratic partisan. Vice President Cheney, on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, said the counterterrorism coordinator "wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." Cheney suggested Clarke did not do enough to prevent three attacks during the Clinton administration and said "he may have a grudge to bear there since he probably wanted a more prominent position."

[...]

In addition to Cheney's radio appearance, Rice was a guest on all five network morning shows, and by 11 a.m. the White House had booked more than 15 interviews on cable news channels, as well as numerous talk-radio appearances, over the next nine hours. White House press secretary Scott McClellan spent much of both of his briefings yesterday arguing that Clarke's book was politically motivated and timed. "This is Dick Clarke's 'American grandstand,'" McClellan said.

Wow, Scott McClellan sure is hilarious! What's next, Dick Clarke's American Top 40 Lies and Distortions of the Bush Administration? Dick Clarke's Guide to Aging Gracefully through 30 Years of Federal Employment?

Regardless, here are some of Richard Clarke's career highlights. Be sure to take note of his obvious and transparent role as a lifelong Democratic party operative during his employment in both the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations.

• Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence, or the second-highest ranking intelligence officer in Reagan's administration

• Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs. "In that capacity, he coordinated State Department support of Desert Storm and led efforts to create a post-war security architecture. Clarke was appointed to the National Security Council staff in 1992." This was during the elder Bush's administration.

• National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, 1998, Clinton administration

• held the above position until being "demoted" to Special Adviser for Cyberspace Security within the National Security Council, current Bush administration

Or, as the BBC puts it quite succinctly, "Four successive US presidents have picked Richard Clarke to defend the country against terrorists."

That's one Democrat and three Republicans, mind you. That sick, partisan son of a bitch.