Author: jp

NASTY WEATHER
SHIT STORM
IN THE EYE OF THE STORM
HURRICANE GEORGE
STORMY WEATHER
A GATHERING STORM
….ack

From “Choice Breaks Deadlock on New Government; Council Disbands“, the New York Times, June 1, 2004:

After the announcements [of appointments to the new prime minister’s cabinet], a member of the Iraqi Governing Council said the body would immediately dissolve rather than remain in office until the June 30 transfer of sovereignty.
Younadam Kana, a member of the council, told reporters that 20 of the 22 members of the American-appointed body agreed to disband.

TOTALLY UNRELATED LINKS:
“Council member ambushed in Najaf“, CNN.com, May 27, 2004
“Head of Iraqi Governing Council Killed“, the Guardian, May 17, 2004
“Iraq governing council member shot“, CNN.com, September 20, 2003

Lakhdar Brahimi, meet Lizzie Grubman
If you had begun to wonder how well things were (or weren’t) going in our efforts to establish full Iraqi sovereignty before the Bush administration’s June 30th deadline, consider the subliminal grammatical clues put forth by reporters covering the matter for the New York Times. Specifically, for this one exercise, we’ll look at Christine Hauser’s “Top Candidate to Lead Iraq’s Interim Government Says He Doesn’t Want the Job”, May 27, 2004:

Dr. Shahristani, a Shiite, had established his credentials by breaking with Saddam Hussein over his plans to develop an atomic bomb and spent several years in Abu Ghraib as a result. He escaped to the West in 1991, during the Persian Gulf war, and led an exile group from London in the intervening years.
[…]
A spokesman for Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy who has been leading the effort to build a new government, said Wednesday afternoon that Dr. Shahristani had “clarified that he would prefer to serve his country in other ways.”

That’s right, one of those newsworthy figures received a qualifying clause while the other did not. In other words, it’s assumed that we already know who or what “Abu Ghraib” is, while we need to be reminded who or what this “Lakhdar Brahimi” is or signifies.
Sadly “abuse” will beat “reconstruction efforts” everytime, although in childhood, the opposite always held true: “paper” beats “rock”, right? (This was how the game was played, correct? I honestly don’t recall there being a comparable schoolyard triptych for “mask/women’s underwear/dogs”.)

“Seriously, vote for Bush. I’m fucking serious.”
Yesterday, Attorney general John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, held a news briefing/press conference/photo-show-and-tell to alert the American public of the possibilty that al Qaeda, our arch-nemesis in the War on Terror™, may be planning summertime attacks on the U.S.
While perhaps a few jitney riders and resort-goers may experience some inconvenience due to these quasi-anticipated attacks, rest assured, dear nervous Americans, that the motives of our Great Enemy transcend mere discomfiture.
From the transcript of Ashcroft’s briefing to the press:

“After the March 11th attack in Madrid, Spain, an Al Qaida spokesman announced that 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack in the United States were complete.
The Madrid railway bombings were perceived by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida to have advanced their cause. Al Qaida may perceive that a large-scale attack in the United States this summer or fall would lead to similar consequences.”

Perhaps a translation is in order:

“After al Qaeda attacked hundreds of Spanish commuters shortly before an election, the voting populace in Spain suprised us all by electing an opponent of the U.S.-led war on terror into national office, thereby replacing an official who had stood by President Bush’s side during his unpopular invasion of Iraq. Thus, al Qaeda ‘won’. Furthermore, this means that they shall ‘win’ again if you, the American public, were to elect John Kerry this fall, since he, too, has at times spoken out against the way in which Bush has been embarking on this particular war on terror. But then again, if the attacks take place before the election, do we stop them, and hope that, as with the Spanish example, ‘no attack’ means the re-election of the pro-war candidate? Or do we let the attacks happen and make Spain an example in ‘what not to do’? Fuck. Bush/Cheney 2004!”

Of course, that’s just one reading of the material presented at the press briefing. And it’s not like anyone else has a similar take on yesterday’s event.