The story went, back when Bush was trumpeting the Democratization of the Middle East by showcasing Lebanon’s elections, and some vague stirrings in Syria, which was picked up by bloggers of the Instupundit variety (and for that matter The Economist Magazine) with images of attractive women perhaps in clothing appropriate for hot weather, which you presume it tends to be in the Desert (as opposed to a burka), occasionally placed next to an image of a harsh militant with a grimacing face.

The idea is simply: see, these women are LIBERATED! AND HOW!! Hubba Hubba!

Or something.

Looking at this photograph, standing on the Israeli flag, it occurs to me that Israeli bombs flying over Beriut wouldn’t endear anyone in Lebanon to Israel. Throwing it in with how we can Americanize the experience is difficult, and what the “Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigade” would be doing comprable to Hezbollah simply escapes me. Okay, so some members of The Minutemen kidnaps two Mexicans, and Mexico — in order to weed out the Minutemen… where can you find a large conglomeration of Minutemen members, or organizers?, Oh, I know! The nation of Mexico starts bombing Denver suburbs, home of Representative Tom Tancredo.

Which leads to somebody standing on the Mexican flag and using same as toilet paper.

Rumors about a Clinton visit circulated two weeks ago after the former president, in a speech in Colorado, asked why Democrats are trying to end Lieberman’s 18-year Senate career.

“If we allow our differences over what to do now in Iraq to divide us instead of focusing on replacing Republicans in Congress, that’s the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life,” Clinton said.

[…]

“It’s a hell of a comment on the . . . sincerity of Lieberman’s assessment of Clinton eight years ago that he’s the man he turns to at this point,” Goshen-based political analyst and author Kevin Phillips said.

[…]

Phillips speculated another reason for Clinton’s appearance was his own administrations’ concerns about Iraq and now imprisoned dictator Saddam Hussein’s suspected arsenal.

“I’m not a Clinton admirer, but I remember the reason the whole ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (in Iraq) got so far advanced was because the previous runner with the baton was William Jefferson Clinton,” Phillips said. The Bush administration found no weapons after the invasion and has been accused of manipulating intelligence and misleading the public.

The worm turns.

Incidentally, I really hope Steve Laffey defeats Lincoln Chaffee in the Republican primary in Rhode Island — over the objections of the Republican National Committee, mind you. Not just for strictly partisan reasons, ie: Lincoln Chaffee is the only Republican who could possibly win (or, as the case is, maintain) a Senate seat in the state, but because maybe, just maybe it’ll shut up:

Morton M. Kondracke:

If former Greenwich Selectman Ned Lamont beats Lieberman in the Democratic primary, it will represent a signal victory for the MoveOn.org-Michael Moore-DailyKos left wing of the Democratic Party and for vicious name-calling as a political tactic. […]

And it’s now up to Connecticut voters to decide whether hatred- politics will prevail.

And… the like.

Front page news in the Oregonian on this Sunday, published names of famous Oregonians who did not vote in May’s primary election, I assume to embarrass and shame them.

This annoys me utterly. What is next? A published list, come election day, of those who voted and those who did not vote? Maybe, when the combed through the records, they could tell us other strange secrets — apparently Lars Larson is a registered Democrat.

Art Alexakis, lead singer of the band Everclear, who has a half dozen hits in the past decade — or perhaps the same hit half a dozen times, and prominent advocate for the Democrat Party in Oregon… did not vote. He was content to … um.. live beside the ocean, Leave the fire behind, Swim out past the breakers, and just go ahead and Watch the world die. Um… Yeah! Now that I armed with the information that Art Alexakis did not vote in this May primary, I will be sure to picket his appearance at an Oregon Bus Project event with a sign pointing to Art Alexakis’s now not-so-secret shame of not voting. Speaking as a youth, or a yute, I ask the time-honored question: If Art Alexakis does not vote in a May primary, why should I vote at all?

Apparently Oregon’s sports stars do not vote. The University of Oregon’s football coach does not vote. The individual Trailblazers players do not vote. Coach MacMillian does not vote. This is understandable. They’re all probably going to be traded shortly, or will bail out on the team when their contracts expire, so why should they care about the direction the state of Oregon heads?

Nay. I object to this Oregonian article. It smacks of a violation against that which we call a “Secret Ballot”, if not technically than just in spirit. Sure, anyone can pursue these records, but why would they want to?

Cal Thomas, September 1998, after Lieberman made a speech decrying Clinton’s actions as “immoral”. 24 Years after Barry Goldwater led a delegation of Republicans to the White House to tell Richard Nixon his time in office had expired, Mr. Lieberman may soon find himself in a similar position, walking “the last mile” to inform President Clinton of the ultimate in political capitol punishment. […]

Soundings from the White House indicate Mr. Clinton will reach into his familiar trick bag and may try to pick a fight with congressional Republicans again over self-described efforts to “protect our children” and shut down the government. It won’t work this time, not only because we’ve seen this tired act before, but because the Ken Starr report is about to land on Capitol Hill with an impact that will send shock waves throughout the nation. There are reports circulating in Washington of imminent disclosures about affairs the president might have had with other young women under his authority.
Despite his reluctantly offered apologies, Mr. Clinton is damaged goods, and increasing numbers of Democrats know it. The only instinct natural to all politicians is survival, and Democrats see themselves an endangered political species this fall, perhaps losing between 15 and 30 and seats in the House and enough in the Senate to give Republicans a veto-proof majority of 60.

No kidding, the Washington Times even laid out a scenario under the headline “Draft Lieberman!” where the new President Gore will have to pick Lieberman as his new vice presidnet, the only pick sure to get past the newly fortified Republican Senate, and because of — you know — that Buddhist Fundraising Scandal, Lieberamn will get to run in 2000! Praise be to Allah!

The irony of the idea of “Clinton reach[i ng] into his familiar trick bag” “try[ing] to pick a fight with congressional Republicans” is that, for the sake of making sure this does not happen, the Congressional Republicans basically rubber-stamped Clinton’s omnibus budget bill so as to run the 1998 midterm elections on Impeachment. Revisionist history in conservative journals has it that the Republicans succumbing to Clinton’s budget cost them that election. Either way, it kind of puts a damper in the idea of Newt Gingrich as “Idea Man” and pretty well confirms Clinton as master of Political Jujitsu.

From the New Republic of the time, 11-4-1998: And why did Lieberman speak when he knew that the Republicans would exploit his words? “The president wasn’t dealing with this openly,” Lieberman says. “Among Democrats, nobody was talking about it, and, worst of all, nobody was saying anything directly to him. My feeling was that, unless the president and Democrats spoke of these things openly, the situation could only get worse. If the president would speak of this openly, he might be able to rebuild enough trust to finish his term.” On this point Lieberman appears vindicated. Clinton has confessed his errors and expressed penitence; polls show most Americans are giving him a break. Perhaps Clinton would have switched to the contrition strategy without a push from Lieberman. Still, the fact remains that White House humility commenced in the days after Lieberman’s speech.

I think the mass of public opinion wanted little more from Clinton that something that looked like an apology… just something for a ritual cleansing, reminscent of a mother demanding a petulant child to “say it like you mean it.” Thus harping of Clinton’s first comment, and applause for Clinton’s “I have sinned” comment. I, ever the contrarian, was disappointed with the second and happy with the first. Perhaps Lieberman helped facilitate this political advantageous item with his speech, perhaps not.

Lieberman spoke against the president just before the Starr report was delivered to the Hill–a time when the Democratic leadership was pressing party members to echo the White House line or, if they could not, simply to say nothing, avoiding throwing oil on the fire. Instead, Lieberman tossed on napalm. After Lieberman’s speech, two other Democrats, Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, rose to second him; most Democrats winced. His remarks were then praised by Republicans, as Lieberman knew they would be. His best friend in the Senate, Republican Connie Mack of Florida, crossed the aisle to sit next to Lieberman as others debated the speech. Mack was merely making a gesture of camaraderie, but, given the atmosphere, it looked like he was embracing a GOP convert.

Remember that moveon.org’s first mission was to have us “censure the man, than move on.” Clinton himself was aiming for censure. I don’t think you can rightly criticize Lieberman on that score.

I’m sort of obliged to carry these two items forward, even though it’s a sort of blog redundancy. This president is embarrassing. I wonder if we should make his performance at the G-8 an impeachable offense. Thinking about it for a second, that doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. Forget everything else you will see if you type “Impeach Bush” into a search engine (and I note that Portland, Oregon is second only to Madison in googling for Bush’s Impeachment, perhaps there are worst things than alerting future presidents that there will be severe punishment if you do either of the following.

Item #1:

BUSH: I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq, where there’s a free press and free religion. And I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia will do the same thing. I fully understand, however, that there will be a Russian-style democracy.

PUTIN: We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.

See? Why would you even say that? What world does Bush live in?

II:

That’s Germna Chancellor Angela Merkel that Bush is giving an unwelcome back rub to.

I am reminded of the HBO docu-show “Journeys with George”, or interviews regarding, where the (female) journalist says that George Bush in private was … nice, but … (not her words) kind of creepy, always saying “Let’s get you a boyfriend!”

Which translates into this in real life.

Focus on the Family is starting a new campaign targeted at the Born Different campaign which features a dog that moos like a cow.

As of right now, both campaigns are only going to be targeting Colorado Springs, but if it becomes a heated election issue over the next month, both might expand to state wide.

My question for “Focus on the Family” and their pet dog Sherman (who barks because, “that is what dogs do”) is simply “There’s a dog that moos. Is there anything you can do about it?”

GINGRICH: We’re in the early stages of what I would describe as the third World War and, frankly, our bureaucracy’s not responding fast enough and we don’t have the right attitude. And this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel and, frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon, and the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force — not as a political force in the parliament — but as a military force in south Lebanon.

RUSSERT: This is World War III?

GINGRICH: I believe if you take all the countries I just listed that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you have to say to yourself: this is, in fact, World War III.

……………

“I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.” — Albert Einstein

……………….

But Newt Gingrich gave himself away as a political tactician. “Gingrich said he is “very worried” about Republicans facing fall elections and says the party must have the “nerve” to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush’s record.”

James Woolsey already called the Cold War “World War III” and the — um — “Global War on Terrorism” “World War IV”. In this sense, Einstein was wrong. War War III turned out to be fought with proxies and covert operations, the one moment where nuclear weapons were pointed at each other on the tip of Cuba coming to bluster. To anyone who sneers at the idea of the Cold War being “World War III”, because — you know — where is the wanton bloodshed? — tell that to anyone who felt the might of the Soviet or American military, or fell under right-wing dictators or Communist puppets… Death Squads here, there, everywhere.

But nay. I’ll go ahead and have the definition of “World War” as being, you know, something completely like World War I and World War II — the War to End All Wars — as Wilson called the former because, you know, it’s the War to Make the World Safe for Democracy and, you know, Democracies don’t fight each other… World War Two being the “Great Patriotic War” by the Soviet Union because, well, the Russians mid-stream opted out of the first one to tend toward their own Revolution…

World War 3 is this, or this shall be World War 3, you say? Notwithstanding the sort of insularity therein (it’s only a World War if America involves itself — and the Cold War as World War 3 is decidedly America-centric), Look deep in your heart. Is that really you want? A replay of World War 1? A replay of World War 2? Of that sort of “World War”, with all the implications? (World War 1, incidentally, ended with an entire world unsure of what the heck they just spilt an entire generation’s worth of blood over.)

“Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

As though Bush hasn’t been speaking “in stark terms” throughout his presidency.

Really? Are you sure?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Chancellor, thank you very much. Thanks for the invitation. This is a beautiful part of the world, and Laura and I are so honored to come to your constituency and meet some of the friendly people who live here. I remember you coming to the Oval Office, and you said, if you are coming to Germany, this is the part of Germany I want you to see. And now I can see why you suggested it. I’m looking forward to the feast you’re going to have tonight. I understand I may have the honor of slicing the pig.

[…]

I’m optimistic we can still get something done on the Doha Round. It’s going to take work, but G8 is a good place for us to continue the dialogue, and we will.

And I guess that’s about all — we discussed a lot of things, in other words. And thank you for having me. I’m looking forward to that pig tonight. (Laughter.)

I’ll be glad to answer a couple of questions. Do you want to start her off?

[…]

Q A question addressed to you both. You talked about the Middle East, and what is your assessment of the military action of Israel in Lebanon? The French Foreign Minister already said it is disproportionate. Does that give you cause for Europe or the United States to intervene?

And apart from the pig, Mr. President, what sort of insights have you been able to gain as regards East Germany? — (inaudible) —

[…]

PRESIDENT BUSH: Follow up on?

Q On both of these. Does it concern you that the Beirut airport has been bombed? And do you see a risk of triggering a wider war?

And on Iran, they’ve, so far, refused to respond. Is it now past the deadline, or do they still have more time to respond?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I thought you were going to ask me about the pig.

Q I’m curious about that, too. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: The pig? I’ll tell you tomorrow after I eat it.

The Iranian issue is — will be taken to the U.N. Security
………………..

You know the problem with Bush’s sense of humour. It’s hard not to think that maybe, just maybe, he is actually preoccupied and what is central in his mind is … that pig. This is not the first time he was in a press conference where he returned again and again to a superflous item like that as light-hearted jab. (Note: once is fine. Twice you’re treading on thin ice. Thrice and more, I have to wonder about someone with the power of the presidency.)

Reagan’s “The Bombing begins in five minutes”, a somewhat dark joke that may indeed terrify the children, at least has the advantage of pertaining to things that occupy the world stage. It’s not a goddamned pig you’re looking forward to eating.

From the latest issue of Reason, Tim Cavanaugh writes:

On Easter Sunday Stephen A Marsahll, a 20 year old Cape Breton dishwasher visiting Maine, borrowed his father’s truck, rifle, and 2 handguns, shot and killed two men in two different towns, then boarded a bus to Boston, where he was approached by police and shot himself. Marshall’s motive for the murders is still unclear, but his method for selecting victims is not: He found them on Maine’s online registry of sex offenders.

You can decide for yourself whether such a man deserved to be marked for life, let alone murdered. Meanwhile the registries create a conundrum: if the offenders are still menaces to society, why have they been released from prison? And if they are not, why is the state blocking their attempts to return to society?

I have pondered those two questions whenever a new state has set up a sex offender website. The one thing I can say is that you really can’t hold too much sympathy for the individuals on Oregon’s sex offender website: you have to match several criteria before you get listed there — the worst of the worst, so the example posed here: 19 year old who had sex with a 16 year old. As for having been released, that would be another problem, wouldn’t it?

Hm. The situation in the middle east seems to have taken a rather… horrid turn for the worst. All of a sudden I’m just having flashes of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, only with religious zealots of various types thinking they have the key plan for the apocalypse.

But those flashes are always just a scratch under the surface even in relatively calm times.