En for what it’s worth:

En for what it’s worth: zelfs de CIA en de FBI zijn het niet meer eens met de Bush-administratie:

President Bush’s case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.

Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports which back the administration’s line, the Guardian has learned. In response, some are complying, some are resisting and some are choosing to remain silent.

“Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there’s a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA,” said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA’s former head of counter-intelligence. [The Guardian]

16. ARI FLEISCHER Misdeeds:   Wherever

16. ARI FLEISCHER

Misdeeds:   Wherever he ends up placed on this list will not be high enough. This motherfucker carries G.W. Bush’s demon seed in his anal womb, gestates a fresh offspring a couple times a day and produces a few Rosemary’s steamers at press conferences with all the non-chalance of a Spot Coffee latte jerk. Fleischer is the very bold assertion, by the powers that be, that Americans and their media representatives are too whip-shy to just say, “Wait a fucking minute. You’re telling a goddamned lie, Fleischie.” He is a brazen challenge from the tri-laterals and Bildenbergs, etc., that they know that we, as the TV umbilical-cable-dependent, won’t do anything to jeopardize our little no-compulsory-military-service, double-mocha-under-a-self-contained, climate-controlled indoor-suburban-shopping-theme-park-with-a-Botox-safety-net dream.

Aggravating Factor:   He is less life-like than every other who has stood in his rank. Within weeks, there promises to be empirical evidence that Fleischer was produced by the same laboratory that gave us Nixon tron John Dean.

De vijftig meest hatelijke mensen

De vijftig meest hatelijke mensen in de VS. Tiens, wie staat daar op 48?

Not an American, but might as well be: being America’s bitch counts. It used to be that politicians sold out their constituents to larger domestic interests; now, with power and money largely spread across borders and centered in transnational companies, politicians have the option of selling out entire countries. Blair’s recent pronouncements about the Iraqi threat were so obviously scripted in Washington, it was embarrassing.

Adam Curry heeft een nieuwe

Adam Curry heeft een nieuwe website op. Ik vind het persoonlijk niet goed–Macromedia heeft hetzelfde als wat daar staat al vroeger en stukken beter gedaan. Bovendien vind ik (nog eens, persoonlijk!) het ontwerp behoorlijk oubollig. Ik bedoel maar, so 2000.

Maaarr! het werkt wel. Ik denk dat dat het de magnetische persoonlijkheid van meneer Curry zelf is.

Niet dat het ergens mee te maken heeft, trouwens, maar het logo van de Nederlande Staatsloterij-één van de klanten van Curry’s outfit–lijkt mij verdacht veel op een reclame van Avis uit de jaren ’70: een klein visje dat Avis moet voorstellen en een grote vis die hem bijna opeet, met de byline “We Try Harder”, met de boodschap dat Avis ook maar een kleine vis is, en dat die voor moet blijven op de concurrent of opgegeten wordt.

En o ja, nu ik er toch aan denk: als Adam Curry zegt “interesseert het u niet, druk dan nu op skip intro”, en de “skip intro”-knop doet het niet, dan is dat iets dat mij redelijk off kan pissen.

Zou het niet wijs zijn

Zou het niet wijs zijn moest Tony Soprano écht een blog hebben?

Here?s what kills me about this Iraq thing. I was reading today in the Star-Ledger that some of Saddam?s lieutenants tried to whack him, which I frankly find ridiculous; a man in his position is not likely to have a sit down where anybody but his most trusted associates have come heavy. It?s one of those check-your-coats-at-the-door situations. But let?s say, I don?t know, they surprise him in some Bagdad steak house, al-fuckin? Sparks or somethin?. And bang, bang, he?s gone. Whaddya do then? In the old days, you?d either leave him there so the Daily News could take a photo suitable for framin?. Or you find a guy who?ll let you use his bathtub and you ruin a coupla hacksaws on the mope. Point is you are careful to recede into the background.

Detroit Free Press, afdeling Sport

Detroit Free Press, afdeling Sport ?! Mitch Albom, sportschrijver dus, over Irak en de amerikanen.

Why is the average American confused about Iraq? Let me count the ways:

One side says Saddam Hussein is a madman aiming for our destruction.

The other side says he is a fourth-rate dictator who can barely threaten his neighbors.

One side says in three months Hussein could have a nuclear bomb ready to use against us.

The other side says Hussein is five to 10 years away — and only if he gets help.

One side says Saddam and Al Qaeda are buddy-buddy terrorists, united by a thirst for American blood.

The other side says Saddam and Al Qaeda have long been enemies and would like nothing better than to see the other destroyed.

One side says Saddam will share his weapons with Osama bin Laden.

The other side says: “Come on. Why arm a man who might use those arms against you?”

One side says Saddam has chemical and biological weapons.

The other side says the best way to ensure he uses them is to attack him.

One side says the war on Iraq would require only 50,000 troops and be quick, tactical and efficient.

The other side says the war would be quicksand, sucking 250,000 troops into street-to-street combat.

One side says “remember 1991” and how no one thought we could do that either.

The other side says in 1991 we had half the world supporting us and helping to pay the costs.

One side says a Sept. 11 hijacker had some kind of Iraqi connection, reason enough to take out the regime.

The other side says 15 of those hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and we’re not threatening to blow that country to pieces.

What about the economy?


One side says, “Wait for the UN.”

The other side says, “Bleep the UN.”

One side says, “Saddam has violated UN resolutions!”

The other side says, “We’re about to violate a UN resolution!”

One side says: “Come on. We can easily find and kill Saddam Hussein.”

The other side says, “We haven’t found Osama bin Laden yet.”

One side says a war in Iraq could cost up to $200 billion and would sink our already wobbly economy.

The other side says our economy is strong and look how much Sept. 11 already has cost us.

One side says an attack on Iraq would turn the Arab world against us.

The other side says an attack on Iraq would privately please many Arab nations.

One side quotes the president, who last year said, “We are not in the business of nation building.”

The other side quotes the president, who last week said, “We will help rebuild a liberated Iraq.”

What about assassination?


One side says it would never politicize the war, that the stakes are too high for that.

The other side waves a memo from the president’s top political adviser that says, “Stress the war.”

One side says it’s un-American for three Congressmen to go to Iraq and they should “come home and shut (their) mouths.”

The other side says what’s really un-American is to tell elected officials where they can’t go and what they can’t say.

One side says U.S. law prohibits the assassination of any foreign leader.

The other side says assassination “costs a lot less” than a war — wink, wink.

One side says this is about freedom, security and the American way.

The other says this is all about oil.

One side says, “He who hesitates is lost.”

The other side says, “Fools rush in.”

And so the people in this great country say: stay, go, trust, don’t trust, be patient, be proactive, kill, don’t kill, protect, endanger, attack, prepare, depose, disarm, listen, don’t listen, war, peace.

You want to know why the average American is confused about Iraq?

Ask our leaders. On both sides.