This is a brilliant piece of propagandizing by omission from an AP article, "
Iranian President Derides U.S. Threats" in today's
New York Times:
"The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," [undersecretary of state for political affairs Nicholas] Burns said Tuesday in an address to influential think-tank Gulf Research Center, based in the United Arab Emirates.
If you'll notice, the proper name of the
Persian Gulf - with the operative adjective being "Persian" - is shortened here to just "the Gulf." America, my beautiful country on the opposite side of the globe with the Atlantic Ocean on its right side and the Pacific on its left, America telling the Persians that they should not have a say over the Persian Gulf . . . well, it chafes a bit, is all.
Labels: fud, iran, sham
There's
an article in Friday's
New York Times about
Senator Jay Rockefeller's (Democrat - West Viriginia) negative response to the Bush administration's rhetorical buildup against Iran. Here are some of the highlights:
Mr. Rockefeller was biting in his criticism of how President Bush has dealt with the threat of Islamic radicalism since the Sept. 11 attacks, saying he believed that the campaign against international terrorism was "still a mystery" to the president.
"I don't think he understands the world," Mr. Rockefeller said. "I don’t think he's particularly curious about the world. I don't think he reads like he says he does."
He added, "Every time he's read something he tells you about it, I think."
Does anybody disagree with this sentiment, any more? One of the good ways to have access to "reality" is to read about it, but since "
reality has a well-known liberal bias," perhaps it's best to avoid reading altogether. Unless it's the "good" book.
Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said in response to Senator Rockefeller's comments that Iran was taking provocative actions both inside Iraq and elsewhere, and that American allies were united in efforts to end what intelligence officials believe is a covert nuclear weapons program inside the country.
Yellowcake. Cylinders. Mobile Labs. Centrifuges. Act two.
"It has been clear for some time that Iran has been meddling in Iraq, and the Iraqis have made the concerns known to the Iranians," Mr. Johndroe said.
Let there be no mistake: we (i.e. the Bush administration)
really respect the concerns of the Iraqis and we don't like the idea that somebody (
*cough* else
*cough*) might "meddle" in that country.
He noted that the administration has said it would be willing to begin direct talks with Iran — which have not occurred since 1979 — if Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.
We stopped talking to them when they stormed our embassy and held our people hostage for 444 days. But we figure it might be time to set those differences aside . . . nah, we just busted up their consulate in Iraq. Booya!
Labels: george bush, iran, iraq, sham, war
There should have been some lame, effeminate and ineffectual
Transformers called the
Emoticons who kept getting beaten up by the
Autobots and the
Decepticons. They would have written and performed bad music. Also, they would have been misogynistic, perhaps because of their own gender confusion. If that had happened, I think there would be a church of Optimus Prime - just for his prescience: if he had known about the latest evil trends in underground rock years in advance, maybe he could bring world peace! Then again, Optimus Prime
is Jewish:
. . . and we all know what happened the last time people formed a church around a Jewish savior. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't world peace.
Labels: emoticons, family guy, joke, religion, transformers
Apparently, JCPenney has been selling dog-fur coats and, naturally, animal-rights activists are angry about it. That's fine, I suppose, but I wondered about this:
"We sold a lot of them during Christmas," said a saleswoman at a Penney store in North Carolina who spoke on condition of anonymity because she feared losing her job. "I hope people who bought those coats aren't animal-lovers. But I guess if they're wearing fur, they're not."
The implication of her statements is that she is, indeed, an "animal-lover." Perhaps I'm being speculative, but I bet she also loves the way animals taste.
It should also be clear that this would not have even been considered newsworthy if the fur trim on the clothing had actually been raccoon fur instead of dog fur. Apparently, "animal-lovers" are free to hate raccoons.
Labels: activism, animal rights, sham
