Thanks to JetBlue’s TV and my esteemed L.A. hosts, I didn’t miss either of the week’s most important television broadcasts yesterday. Here’s how they stacked up against each other:
- Neither President Bush nor anyone at the Grammys had a reasonable explanation as to why, given the lack of any weapons of mass destruction, the invasion of Iraq had to be done so hastily. Bush came somewhat close with “In other words, we looked at the intelligence. And we remembered the fact that he had used weapons, which meant he had weapons… In other words, he was a dangerous man. And that was the intelligence I was using prior to the run up to this war.” Not terrible, but it doesn’t quite answer the question. OutKast was more lucid about the dicey nature of reading intelligence reports: “You think you’ve got it, Ohh, you think you’ve got it. But got it just don’t get it til’ there’s nothing at all.” True enough, and it’s clear that whether or not there was “nothing at all,” we thought we’d got it, and thus had to go into Iraq and “shake it like a polaroid picture.”
- On the issue of building an international coalition, Bush once again equivocated. He underscored the threat that the world was ignoring - “(We can’t) Let’s let us, kind of, try to contain him. Containment doesn’t work with a man who is a madman.” But his explanation of our failure to get a new UN resolution and decision to act without their blessing was spotty: “In other words, the worlds of the U.N. Security Council said we’re unanimous and you’re a danger. So, it wasn’t just me and the United States. The world thought he was dangerous and needed to be disarmed.” The White Stripes were more forthright in expressing their doctrine of unilateral action: “I’m gonna fight ‘em off, a seven nation army couldn’t hold me back. They’re gonna rip it off, taking their time right behind my back.” Clearly, we were being given the runaround. Unlike, Bush, the White Stripes also offered plan for completing the mission and withdrawing from Iraq: “All the words are gonna bleed from me and I will think no more. And the stains coming from my blood tell me go back home.” See? There ARE levels of casualties that are unacceptable.
- When asked, “Why do people hold you in such contempt?” Bush wasn’t extremely analytical: “Heck, I don’t know… I think that people when you do hard things, when you ask hard things of people, it can create tensions. And I heck, I don’t know why people do it. I’ll tell you, though, I’m not going to change, see? I’m not trying to accommodate.” In this, he echoed Christina Aguilera, who put it a little more eloquently: “I am beautiful no matter what they say. Words can’t bring me down I am beautiful in every single way.”
Neither Bush nor anyone at the Grammys had much to offer when it came to the question of why a wartime President would break with tradition and lower taxes, resulting in rivers of red ink that will have to be paid by future generations. I have to say that this leaves me very disappointed with Justin Timberlake, Beyonce, and the President.





20 comments
Rusty
February 9, 2004 at 7:39 pm
1Hey, be fair to Timberlake. He sang, “Cry me a River” or something like that. Clearly a prognostication about a Union floudering in debt. Yeah, I’m sure he’s got that kind of depth to him.
At least I think that’s what he sings. I find it difficult to understand falsetto-lad. Next I suppose you’re going to tell us he doesn’t write his own songs (which he might, but if bets were being taken….).
Eva
February 9, 2004 at 7:54 pm
2There are rumors that there will be a V.P. position open on Bush’s ticket for 2004- you gave the perfect solution: OutKast. I mean that song is catchy and I think it would go well with the otherwise cliche falling balloons at the convention. Can’t you see OutKast and Laura Bush “gettin jiggy” with it on stage? It would get more press than the famous Al and Tipper kiss of 2000…… It would also give more incentive for the twins to show up since the parties would be a lot better than the normal GOP bashes.
Murray
February 9, 2004 at 10:26 pm
3Back in the 80’s Sadam had weapons but was not a threat, then he became a threat but had no weapons.
It takes a certain kind of logic to see your way through that one.
historyenne
February 9, 2004 at 10:51 pm
4Murray, it seems that threats–and possibly also weapons–are in the eye of the beholder.
Chicory
February 10, 2004 at 12:06 pm
5As the prez said, “….and I believe it is essential — I believe it is essential — that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It’s too late if they become imminent.”
Sort of like planning for the unexpected.
Corwin Haught
February 10, 2004 at 12:47 pm
6One problem: OutKast is two people. Why don’t the Republicans run an Andre/Big Boi ticket (Andre being on top because of his ability to lead the crowd into chants of “Ice Cold!”).
Eva
February 10, 2004 at 4:33 pm
7Shows what I know! OutKast is 2 people! I hear Powell might be out of work too in the second term so one could fill that job. The rest of the world already thinks we are a big joke so it shouldn’t affect things much.
Gordon the Magnificent
February 11, 2004 at 2:01 am
8Stop the Press! Bush AWOL from the Texas Coast Guard!
fanatic
February 11, 2004 at 10:00 am
9“Neither Bush nor anyone at the Grammys had much to offer when it came to the question of why a wartime President would break with tradition and lower taxes, resulting in rivers of red ink that will have to be paid by future generations.”
Does this mean you’re OPPOSED to lowering taxes? Red ink? What does red ink matter when the currency itself isn’t backed by gold?
How about this idea - let’s work on getting a President in office who lowers taxes AND tells people to stop depending on government for all the answers and start taking a little responsibility for their own lives and commmunities. May the Fed die a slow and painful death.
Murray
February 11, 2004 at 10:32 am
10You bet Fanatic.
We want a country where the lowest bidder gets to do our air traffic control and the bill goes directly on the plane ticket. Meat inspection? For wimps. Social security? Medicare? It’s unfortunate that those old geezers vote, otherwise we’d turn them out on their ear. Highways? What’s wrong with dirt roads? Environment? What’s wrong with filling the skies with soot and heavy metals, if some one can make money? Who cares about animals and plants? If they don’t make money for me what good are they? Help the poor? Let them live in slums and get what they need from the town dumps, they deserve it anyways. Education? If rich people can afford it why should anyone else need it? Defense? Why if you’re rich enough, you can hire your own army, the way some folks do in Columbia and Mexico.
Fanatic what government program would you like to get rid of?
What is the financial benefit of putting the bill on a credit card other than making it easier now at the expense of later?
Lowering taxes means cutting services, which don’t you want to pay for?
The Bush tax cut allows the people who benefit most from our system to pay much less then their share for it.
Check out David Cay Johnston’s book “Perfectly legal” to see how the working class is subsidizing the super wealthy. If you think that your taxes are too high, they probably are. Most people pay most of their taxes in FICA a very regressive tax that hits the poor and lower middle class hardest. Unless you make more than $75,000 this would be your biggest burden.
Here is a question.
A contractor who makes $85,000 and Bill Gates each has to pay FICA, who pays the most?
The contractor pays TWICE as much as Bill. The tax ends when you hit $85,000 and self employed people have to pay both the employee’s and employer’s share.
If you aren’t really rich, (in which case you have a fairly easy ride), your burden is FICA and you have every right to complain about how unfair that is. Or would you just rather have the country descent into anarchy?
Chicory
February 11, 2004 at 11:07 am
11Good reply Murray. Shall we also discuss the ridiculous ending of the inheritance tax? Another tax cut for the wealth.
But the (possible) cutting of my job isn’t an economic problem. Right!
Bob
February 11, 2004 at 12:07 pm
12You go, Murray!
Eva
February 11, 2004 at 12:51 pm
13Another cheer for Murray!!!
tess
February 11, 2004 at 2:32 pm
14murray — produce a gaggle of prodigious children to counter those dirty drunken sluts– i mean, the bush twins.
Kerry
February 11, 2004 at 8:36 pm
15Good answer Murray.
The thing I don’t get is why anyone earning less than $250,000 a year would ever vote republican. It just doesn’t pay.
Murray
February 11, 2004 at 9:21 pm
16Tess-
Already have 4 grandchildren under 5 years old all of whom appear to be better raised than the twins. I always wonder about the far right which talks about family values and turns out sub par kids.
Kerry- Republicans are shameless, democrats are gutless, and Americans are idiots.
This explains almost everything.
Chicory- As soon as the Republicans were able to call a tax on some one who inherits money a “death tax”, they won the game. No one thinks a tax on dieing is fair. Democrats should have called it “free money from the sky” tax.
Bob
February 11, 2004 at 10:32 pm
17I don’t see how inheritance tax can be called a death tax; last I checked, you don’t pay it, you still die.
I like to think of the inheritance tax rollback as the Paris Hilton Windfall Tax Break.
Kevin
February 11, 2004 at 11:11 pm
18Murray, you forgot Medicare… Although not as regressive as FICA still pretty bad for low income and self employed. I am self employed and it saddens me to see the Shrub doing everything he can to destroy both programs. Over the years I have donated several hundred thousand (that’s right) to these programs combined and I do not believe that they will be there to serve me when I get to retire at 80-85 years old. Sigh…
Kerry
February 12, 2004 at 10:27 pm
19Kevin, after this administration is done plundering the federal cookie jar, what makes you think you’ll even be able to retire at 85?
And just to make sure, are you who I think you are?
Kevin
February 14, 2004 at 8:37 am
20Kerry, Don’t think so. I am from that liberal commie state MA north of Boston.