Author: jp

By way of Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo, today’s Washington Post features a story about the dishearteningly negative reception the “new and improved” national flag has been given by Iraqi citizens, who question why it was changed in the first place, and even if that were necessary, why the new design lost the traditional Arab-affiliated colors of red, green, and black.
Oh, and this last point apparently didn’t help things much, either: Iraq’s new flag is in many ways a dead ringer for Israel’s flag.
According to the U.S.-appointed Governing Council, the new flag is the work of an Iraqi artist named Rifaat Chaderchi, and was selected from a pool of a whopping 30 entries.
Most aesthetes agree: worst product redesign since the old Brawny Man was reinvented as the new, de-gayed Brawny Man (who, incidentally, now looks suspiciously like an Israelite).

In response to a foolishly hypocritical (and, of course, highly manipulative, and, therefore, effective) media campaign of Republican party attacks on presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s record as a Vietnam War veteran, including Bush communications mastermind-cum-housewife-cum-communications mastermind Karen Hughes’ nonsensical “did he or didn’t he” questioning of Kerry’s disposal of military “ribbons” or “medals” after returning home in 1971, the war veteran came out with his swift boat’s fifty-caliber machine guns metaphorically blazing.
His weapon of choice? The declaration that “I’m not going to stand for it,” which, unfortunately, Senator Kerry seems to stand for all too often when it comes to defending his Vietnam war record.
April, 2004:

“This is a controversy that the Republicans are pushing,” Mr. Kerry said on “Good Morning America” on ABC. “The Republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me, and this comes from a president and a Republican Party that can’t even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. I’m not going to stand for it.“

February, 2004:

“If they’re going to try to question my commitment to the defense of our country, then I’m going to fight back,” Kerry said at a February campaign event. “Because they did that to Max Cleland … and I’m not going to stand for it.“

February, 2004:

“Defense of nation is exactly that. Yes, that’s exactly what they did. They put Osama bin Laden’s photograph up with Max Cleland Cleland and suggested he was weak–Max Cleland, weak–on the defense of our nation. Now here’s a man who left three of his limbs on the battlefield in Vietnam. To have someone who, you know, has never served suggest that someone who has is weak on defense is simply unacceptable, and I’m not going to stand for it.“

And in the interest of the “equal time rule,” Bush, too, has been known to wield this same principled “stand” on occasion, including in his remarks on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security at the National Republican Senatorial Committee Annual Dinner.
September, 2002:

“Unfortunately, some senators — not all senators, but some senators — believe it is best to try to micromanage the process, believe the best way to secure the homeland is to have a thick book of regulations which will hamstring this administration and future administrations from dealing with an enemy that could care less about thick books of regulations. Unfortunately, some in the Senate — not all in the Senate — want to take away the power that all Presidents have had since Jimmy Carter. And I’m not going to stand for it.“

Come on, guys, mix it up a bit.
“I will not tolerate that.” Or, “I gaze upon these mistruths, and I see that which battles honesty, and I do declare myself to be decidedly antagonistic towards this selfsame deception, such that I verily seek to destroy, nay, annihilate said behavior.” Or maybe just “I am so against this shit.”

What a week, eh? It’s not yet “Humpday,” but in the past 48 hours, the Bush administration has had to endure three distinct diplomatic blows at the hands of international allies. The term “allies”, of course, refers to nations that at one point agreed with the U.S. administration’s ideology on issues of global relations – that is, until they realized they’d been manipulated, lied to, and disingenuously dealt with.
SPAIN: “Spain’s new leader firm on Iraq”

Spain’s new leader is standing firm in his pledge to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq, despite U.S. and British pressure…Last week, Zapatero rejected an appeal from U.S. President George W. Bush to stand by the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.

HONDURAS: “Honduras to pull troops out of Iraq”

The US-led coalition in Iraq suffered its second defection in 24 hours yesterday when Honduran President Ricardo Maduro said he would withdraw his nation’s 368 troops “as soon as possible”.

JORDAN: “Jordan’s King Delays Bush Meeting, Cites Mideast Stance”

Jordan’s King Abdullah postponed a meeting with President Bush scheduled for tomorrow, citing concerns about Washington’s position on the Middle East peace process, officials said yesterday.

Wait! Don’t forget this extra-special bonus round of glum spirits and/or outright defections:
THAILAND: “Honduras to pull out troops, and Thais look shaky”

The Thai Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, said of his troops: “If we get hurt or killed, I will not keep them there.” The Thai Senate began a debate yesterday on a resolution calling for the troops to come home.

THE PHILIPPINES and SOUTH AMERICA: (also from “Honduras to pull troops out of Iraq”, referenced above)

Philippines President Gloria Arroyo said she was “unlikely” to withdraw 100 soldiers and police officers stationed in Iraq. Mrs Arroyo, who faces a tight election on May 10, has been slammed by opposition politicians for the Iraq commitment.
“She loves President Bush more than her countrymen,” Senate candidate Juan Ponce Enrile said.
[…]
The Honduran troops are attached to the Spanish regiment in Iraq, along with 374 Salvadoran and 302 Dominican troops who are due to go home in July. Nicaragua’s 115 troops left Iraq in February and were not replaced.

These weak-willed foreign leaders, so clearly cowering in their boots, having been influenced by the Madrid terror attacks…Oh, wait, that was just Spain, and their voting population was already 90 percent against their nation’s policy in Iraq before last month’s presidential election, and that was before former President (and Bush ally) Jose Maria Aznar’s administration lied to the public about Basque separatist responsibility for the terror attacks.
The American public, meanwhile, can rest assured that we must be getting the “correct” news, as opposed to all this discouraging foreign nonsense about dishonesty and deception, since a CNN/USA Today poll released Monday shows President Bush leading presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry by 51 percent to 46 percent in a survey of likely voters taken this past weekend.

During today’s visit to Red China, Vice President Cheney spoke at Shanghai’s Fudan University, using the opportunity to praise China’s economic reforms that have enabled the monstrously large nation to be less “red” and more, well, “red” in their approach to free markets and capitalism.
Oh, there was also some stuff about the need to bring a genuine democratic movement over there, as well. As we’ve seen, spreading democracy, of course, is the central theme of the Bush 43 Administration, even though this leitmotif may not have effectively seeped into the mindset of those students handpicked to engage in the eventual question-and-answer session:

The students, asking polite and respectful questions, did not pick up on Cheney’s theme of democracy, choosing instead to ask about economic and regional issues, such as the U.S. sales of arms of Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province.
To laughter, however, one student showed a keen understanding of inter-administration politics. “It is said you are the the most powerful vice president in U.S. history,” she asked. “I ask, how do you play a role in the Bush administration?”
“That is not a question I had anticipated,” Cheney said.