Thursday, May 27, 2004


REMEMBER the finger pointing and blame games that took place between the FBI, INS and CIA post 9/11? America got a good look at the petty infighting, sniping and generally childish shennanigans that characterized the relationship between these agencies and it wasn't pretty. In fact, it was deadly for some.

Despite the recent 9/11 commission hearing refreshing our memories about those failures as well as the character flaws of the bureaucrats and politicians in charge, it seems that Washington still doesn't get it. This can only mean one thing: we're as vulnerable today as we were almost three years ago.

THE next time the idea of privitizing part or all of Social Security comes up, we should remember a recent government investment scheme that has come up short. Over the past four years, the State Department and the DOD has been funding Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress to the tune of $340,000 a month . That funding was recently halted due to the discovery of some allged conflict of interest activities Mr. Chalabi had with members of the Iran (a spoke in the axis of evil) government.

In return for our investment, we have received the following payback from Mr. Chalabi: trumped up information on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and bogus claims of Al-Queda ties to Saddam Hussein. Since Chalabi's deceits served to bolster the administration's rationale for going to war in Iraq, what have we netted from our multi-million dollar investment in Ahmed Con? Let's see, a $150+ billion dollar war and occupation, 800+ dead and thousands wounded, no end in sight to the mess and of course, hundreds of trailer porn quality pictures of naked, hooded Iraqis sporting dog collars and tethered to leashes.

This is the level of ROI I'd expect if I spent a night in Vegas fortified with six martinis, three grams of coke and having not eaten for two days. Which leads to the inevitable question, where was George II, Rummy and Condi right before the war?

SOME people know when to fade away from the spotlight and do so gracefully. Others are so terrified of becoming insignificant that they must be removed in straight jackets and given librium chasers in order to prevent harm to them and others. As an example of the latter, I give you Albert Gore.

And if you don't think he is insignificant, I challenge you to find a single follow up story to yesterday's Howard Dean impersonation. Bob Herbert of the NY Times doesn't apply here because its his job to write about all things insignificant.

ECO-FANATICS will have the opportunity to see their wildest erotic fantasies flashed on the screens of their local cineplex with the premiere of "The Day After Tomorrow". Vice squads should be on the alert that a spate of Pee Wee Herman like onanism may break out in theatres nationwide as the wet dreams of these pseudo-scientists and professional publicity stalkers is given a two hour showing.

I don't buy the argument that as long as the film raises conciousness about important issues it's OK to fudge the facts. First of all, 95% of the population has ADD so their conciousness lasts about as long as it takes light to travel 186,000 miles. Second, relying on lies to publicize a cause - no matter the reason - plays directly into the hands of the opposing team. Lies will only serve discredit the movement and inject instant scepticism into any substantive debate.

Perhaps the Eco-Fanatics think this movie will prove to be a recruiting tool to their cause. Emotionalism seems to work exceptionally well for these groups so keeping reality out of the discusssion may be what they want.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?