All along, the bedrock of Rove’s political “philosophy” has been the conviction that propaganda will always trump reality — as long as the desired message is consistent with existing popular myths and prejudices.
Back to Main
June 24, 2005
Punch Drunk
Comments
Is this what billmon talks about in his “going to Tehran post w/regards to Gelb’s statement “… it became very apparent to me that these 10 divisions were to fight some future war against Iran.32,000 Kurdish Peshmerga to be drafted into the Iraqi Army turbo proxy wars? You know baby, get them Browns to mow down the other browns for the elite. Is rove’s salavating in his sleep with dreams of pnac?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 24 2005 5:39 utc | 1
Fuck, I hit pot instead of preview…32,000 Kurdish Peshmerga to be drafted into the Iraqi Army
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 24 2005 5:41 utc | 2
Commenting on Billmon’s piece.
First, a losing war can be a propaganda bonanza if you can blame the Socialists, er, I mean, the Jews, er, I mean… Ask the guy with the mustache from that unnamed European *cough*Germany*cough country.
My point is, they know they’ve lost the War; they’re now turning that weakness into a success (or are trying to).
They’ve never lost before (“never understimate the stupidity of the American public”), so watch them.
(“Lost the war” — sort of; our 14 Fort Apaches will likely remain embedded in Iraq for the foreseable future, so even that, they can call a victory for their base.)
So unlike the optimistic guys on Kos (track record: Ahnold will lose, Kerry will win), I see Rove’s present tactic not as a sign of desperation, but a canny move to consolidate power towards the 1000-Year-Reich.
Not that it will suceed; in the long term, they’ll still be buried in the ashes, but (a) it’s not desperation at all, and (b) it will work, and (c) ashes time is not yet.
Second thought.
To me, right now, the America in power, Rove’s America, is Vichy America. To be called “traitor” by them is not only logical and expected, but it is a badge of honor.
For all the snark about French cowardice, at least they had a Resistance and a proper government in exile. At this point, I’d be happy to see new weathermen take Monsieur Rove for a lonk walk off the pier.
I think tryting to prove to them we’re more patriotic than they are is pointless (we;’ll never meet their criteria) and, in final analysis, unwinnable.
We *are* traitors to Vichy, whichever way we cut right. Rove is as right as Pierre Laval was, and I can but hope that someday he meets the same fate.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 24 2005 5:43 utc | 3
Jesus, Billmon. Brilliant, brilliant. One of my first thoughts on hearing this spew was “My God — I can’t believe the President’s Political Advisor is the one who’s coming out and saying this. What the hell is THAT?”
Fear, is what that is. Fear bad enough to use the most shameless attack yet simply to distract.
Posted by: mercury | Jun 24 2005 6:01 utc | 5
“Blame the liberals” offensive is here, but I am getting the sense that all but the Rethuglican base (35-40% of pop.) aren’t buying it.
However, if the Democrats don’t destroy Rove and Bush on this issue, the “blame the liberal” offensive will receive fresh supplies and push forward unrelentingly. Rove slipped, he overreached, and he has created an opportunity for a strong counter by the Democrats. We will soon findout if the Dems. finally have the sacks for it.
Oh and by the way, Billmon, another excellent, excellent piece of writing.
Posted by: jg | Jun 24 2005 6:05 utc | 6
@jg – Rove no more “overreached” than Hitler did in 36, all things being equal. I think it’s a reasonably clever move to turn a failure into an asset, and more, I think it’ll work just fine, as it has before.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 24 2005 6:16 utc | 7
Confucius Analects
Book 13.15
The duke then said, “Is there a single sentence which can ruin a country?” Confucius replied, “Such an effect as that cannot be expected from one sentence. There is, however, the saying which people have-‘I have no pleasure in being a prince, but only in that no one can offer any opposition to what I say!’
“If a ruler’s words be good, is it not also good that no one oppose them? But if they are not good, and no one opposes them, may there not be expected from this one sentence the ruin of his country?”
Posted by: citizen | Jun 24 2005 6:49 utc | 8
How the hell does this imbecile Rove think that the United States can fight terrorists, if it doesn’t understand them?
Any competent military intelligence service spends most of its time trying to understand how its enemies are thinking. Read their intentions wrong – as the Germans did when the concluded that the Allies were going to invade across the Channel rather than invade in Normandy – and you lose.
Had the Bush Administration taken the least trouble to try to understand Al Qaeda, they wouldn’t have played straight into bin Laden’s hands by invading Iraq.
Most of what they have done subsequently reads off as though bin Laden had some kind of mind control over Bush, as Richard Clarke suggested. Abu Ghraib, the disbandment of the Iraqi Army, the destruction of Fallujah. What more could bin Laden have asked for?
Had the Bush Administration attempted to understand their enemies, the thought might have occurred to them that the likely sources of a fundamentalist bomb are 1. Pakistan 2. Russia. It might also have occurred to them that – as Bruce Blair of the Center for Defense Information has repeatedly pointed out – the retention of U.S. nuclear forces on high alert is greatly reducing the difficulties faced by terrorists in acquiring Russian nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, among the invaluable skills that students on the Donald H. Rumsfeld terrorist training programme are learning is the invaluable art of blowing up oil pipelines.
Terrorists do think. When the American people learn that if they want to fight them effectively, they cannot afford to be led by people who don’t?
Posted by: David Habakkuk | Jun 24 2005 7:00 utc | 9
Lupin,
Certainly, the “blame the liberal” strategy might work. My point is that Rove&White House came out too strong. Rove is good but not infallible. There is an opportunity here for Democrats to contain Rove’s plan before it gets a good head of steam.
Posted by: jg | Jun 24 2005 7:06 utc | 10
As I wrote in comments of the previous Billmon post, I remain sceptical that as yet we have turned the corner, based on other poll numbers, like approval of the original decision to attack Iraq and the question of pullout.
Just in the latest Zogby poll: 49% agree somewhat or strongly that the Iraq war was worth it.
That the Rovian strategy of claiming liberals are traitors (following the Goering recipe) still works can be seen from Senator Durbin’s shameful and cowardy ‘apology’.
Also, a war against Iran looms on the horizon (or as Scott Ritter sees it, has already begun, in low-intensity fashion).
Lupe and jp: I mostly agree with Lupin. I also agree with jg that the Democrats have a chance – but I think the currently dominant gang in congress and even more in the Senate is not capable of grabbing that chance. See Durbin. See Biden & co trying to undercut Dean rather than defend him by lashing out at the pro-lynching senators.
I was late to comment on Billmon’s strange criticism of Dean; but here I will say that non-white, non-Christian, hard-working Republican voters do not make Dean’s comments propagandistically problematic – or wouldn’t, would the rest of the Democrats focus on making these people feel assotiated with the wrong guys, make them see themselves as useful idiots or as potemkin facade. A rhetorical strategy with the added benefit of being true: just read Matt Taibbi’s account of his ten weeks undercover in the 2004 Bush campaign in Florida. (Especially the part about the guy named Lorin Jones.)
Lupe and jp: I mostly agree with Lupin. I also agree with jg that the Democrats have a chance – but I think the currently dominant gang in congress and even more in the Senate is not capable of grabbing that chance. See Durbin. See Biden & co trying to undercut Dean rather than defend him by lashing out at the pro-lynching senators.
I was late to comment on Billmon’s strange criticism of Dean; but here I will say that non-white, non-Christian, hard-working Republican voters do not make Dean’s comments propagandistically problematic – or wouldn’t, would the rest of the Democrats focus on making these people feel assotiated with the wrong guys, make them see themselves as useful idiots or as potemkin facade. A rhetorical strategy with the added benefit of being true: just read Matt Taibbi’s account of his ten weeks undercover in the 2004 Bush campaign in Florida. (Especially the part about the guy named Lorin Jones.)
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
— Mahatma Gandhi
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 24 2005 7:45 utc | 15
I hope Billmon reads this comment… “Punch Drunk” was a really great piece of work.
Posted by: Harold Hardcore | Jun 24 2005 8:05 utc | 16
jg also wrote: However, if the Democrats don’t destroy Rove and Bush on this issue…
This is another important issue. Even if optimists are right and the Rovians are out, it would be absolutely essential for the Democrats to destroying them, their criminal network and shady money sources and propaganda weapons, rather than let them regroup and rebuild, and win again even stronger after Democrats fail to sort out the mess the Repubs left behind.
Trying to remember a poll taken in the summer of 2002, when something like that a mid 70 something % of the American people thought the US should not invade Iraq, that the “problem” should be worked out by the UN. Looking back I remember many people perplexed and uneasy at the prospects of invading Iraq (what, why now?). Long story — short, the American puplic was force fed a long yarn spun into a big American flag waved relentlessly by a complicit corporate media — to trust the president.
Most people (I think) held in abeyance the rememberence of Vietnam in a sort of willed deference, reinforced, by the unthinkable magnitude of 911 and the uncertainty unleashed by that event. And relatively, the Afgan project made it look like the presidents men knew what they were doing, so, following the aquessence of the Democrats on the hill, the people erased their collective memory, bought into the , “911 changed everything” snake oil — and little lord georgie got to play commander for real.
Trouble is, that the collective memory that got erased also included the little commander and all his cheerleaders as well, besotted as they were with their delussions of grandure. And so they went for it all. Sadaam was not enough, they had to remake everything, every institution, the economy, every mind had to be tranformed into their ideal. In doing so, every Iraqi at every turn, saw the American dream descend upon them in some nightmare of suffocation executed, as it were, with head shaking eye-rolling unbelievable incompetence and tragedy. It’s no doubt that these undeniable facts on the ground, that the Iraqis experience everyday, that has them unconvinced to the point of armed resistance.
In keeping with this little theme, that there is no irony lost on the fact that much of the resistance has been created by the occupation, they have actually through their ignorance and denial of Vietnam, unwittingly created the monster all over again — where there was none before.
And Rove in having no one to blame, will lash out at those that warned against this possibility, and he (and others) will do this at their own peril for the memory they have brought back for us, will also rekindle the reservasions many had back in 2003 — and those memories were forged out of the blood of Vietnam with the sure intent to avoid what we are no having to live through — again.
Posted by: anna missed | Jun 24 2005 8:16 utc | 18
DoDo
I am as skeptical as you are that the Senate Democrats (and increasingly no one pays much attention to House Dems.) will really go to the mat to force contrition on Rove. Digby noted that Lieberman has joined the calls for an apology from Rove, so this is a sign that perhaps we will see some bloogletting.
Durbin’s humilitating, forced self-flagellation was a sad piece of political theatre. I half expected him to hold his press conference apologia in the Blue Angel nightclub.
Posted by: jg | Jun 24 2005 8:46 utc | 19
I think you’re missing the point.
Rove is not on the defensive, he is on the offensive.
I return to the fact that, properly managed, a defeat can be an asset.
This is not Hitler’s last days, but more like when Lenin decided it was time to start to collectivize agriculture.
Rose sees the current stage as a win-win scenario:
Yes, a “real” PNAC victory in Iraq would have been better, but if not, then a “stab in the back/unify the nation/enemy within/fear” scenario can greatly serve his ends — power, just power — while they retain their 14 Fort Apache bases spo for all intents and purposes (theirs) they still win.
Bottom-line, I don’t see this as a sign reflecting desperation, I see this as Phase II.
And once again, Kossacks-type Dems (Armando-type) are playing right into their hands.
I shudder to think where we’ll be 2 years from now.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 24 2005 8:52 utc | 20
Lupin,
I am not sure who you are talking to in your last comment. I know Rove is on the offensive – the point is I think his opening move was an overreach a “bridge too far” if you will.
We will soon see. Many Democrats think that Rove is infallible. He does make mistakes and maybe just maybe he made one that even the hapless Democrats can take advantage of.
And I too am not a big fan of Armando and a certain species of Kossack. The writing over there has never recoved from lossing Gilliard and Billmon, espicially Billmon.
Posted by: jg | Jun 24 2005 9:07 utc | 21
@jg – I wasn’t singling you out specifically, but I have the feeling that even Billmon is interpreting Rove’s recent foray as a “last hurrah” of some kind. Lashing out in fear, as it were. A sign of desperation.
That is the way I read the overall mood of some comments, here and on Kos.
IMHO, it is not so. I think Rove is cunningly moving on to Phase II of a carefully-organized plan. And so far, my money is on Rove.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 24 2005 9:12 utc | 22
wasn’t rove’s old motto attack your opponent’s strength? (a principle by the way i suspect he picked up from saul alinsky.)
but since when did national security become a dem strength? without even double checking the polling, his attacking on this issue tells me that they are losing their credibility to prosecute terrorism. not suprising. rove is being forced to guard his flank. dems have gained by default, even though they haven’t earned or deserved it.
@hello. I respectfully disagre wuith your analysis.
First I remain unconvinced that they (the neocons) see Iraq as the failure we see. I think they plan to have their bases and stay there forever and at the end of the day, that’s all that counts for them.
Second, I think Rove is cunningly going for a Dolchstosslegende strategy, which I think has every chance to work.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 24 2005 9:46 utc | 24
I know Rove is on the offensive – the point is I think his opening move was an overreach a “bridge too far” if you will. — jg
That’s only true if there’s an opposition. Democrats should be blasting these guys out of the sky before they land and establish a bridgehead.
We could point out that Bush’s own father predicted disaster if we invaded Iraq, as did Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft.
We could trumpet the fact that Bush has consistently ignored the military’s advice — from the # of troops to the yo-yoing them in and out of Fallujah. Maybe — if you want to be really cynical, we could ally ourselves with the military and say that the army could have won this war if only Bush had listened to the generals.
In any case, there’s a lot of ammo here, but it’s not being used, and if the Dems are as scared as they’ve been in the past, Rove will take the bridge and roll up our line.
Posted by: Vin Carreo | Jun 24 2005 10:17 utc | 25
“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”
The first part of Rove’s statement should read :
“Conservatives prepared for war and saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks… as the long awaited ‘catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.’ ”
If we had an opposition party it wouldn’t be asking for an apology, it would be asking questions.
From the neocons’ expressed wish for that “new Pearl Harbor” through the repeated refusals of high-ranking FBI officials in Washington DC to act on reports outlining the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the United States to the gag order slapped on Sibel Edmonds who points out that ” The victims’ [of 9/11] family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for almost four years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under “safeguarding certain diplomatic relations.” it looks more and more like 9/11 was a case of “benign neglect”, that the murders of 3000 Americans were actually allowed to go forward, to further the war plans of the neocons in Washington DC.
But we don’t have an opposition party. We have the Republicrat-Demoplican Axis.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jun 24 2005 10:18 utc | 26
But we don’t have an opposition party.
Exactly the problem. The best democracy that the PNAC can buy.
The end of this shit (if ever) may be a long way down the track – and likely we are just about to witness more dangerous times.
Not loosing. Not Winning. Not Leaving. If they are feeling the heat over the expendable 2.3 per day, that just about leaves Escalation as the only other course of action that I can think of.
Posted by: DM | Jun 24 2005 10:40 utc | 27
Shorter billmon —
The good news: Rove has been reduced to naked scapegoating.
The bad news: Naked scapegoating works.
Billmon’s caution in celebrating the Rovians’ momentary meltdown parallels his caution, in December 2003, in celebrating a momentary rough patch for the neocons.
Posted by: ralphbon | Jun 24 2005 11:52 utc | 28
If you’re going to start your post by using Rove’s quote, why not try getting it right? He said, “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for “moderation and restraint” after the terrorist attacks.
Liberals are now calling for us to abandon Iraq (which would become another Afghanistan terrorist state if we did) and to close down Gitmo (because we are treating prisoners like Nazis). Guess what? Rove was right. 100% right.
If you’re going to start your post by using Rove’s quote, why not try getting it right? He said, “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for “moderation and restraint” after the terrorist attacks.
Liberals are now calling for us to abandon Iraq (which would become another Afghanistan terrorist state if we did) and to close down Gitmo (because we are treating prisoners like Nazis). Guess what? Rove was right. 100% right.
Rove was right. 100% right.
I think you mean “extreme right.”
Posted by: billmon | Jun 24 2005 13:41 utc | 31
@Bill Karl
You’re also an idiot. If you are going to rant here, can you at least learn to post without double-posting.
Posted by: DM | Jun 24 2005 14:07 utc | 34
Oh, no. The posting police are here! And they’ve pulled out the biggest weapon — calling people idiots! Run for your lives!
@Bill Karl
Actually, I’m a socially liberal Giuliani Republican.
Hmmm, considering you’re blog features a turbaned senator (in the Sikh style ?) and mccarthyist references to ‘little red books’ (da constitution)…
You could possibly be better described as one of the Repugs drones, willingly self-deluded and on a mission to proselityze to us prols or are you just out to ‘seed’ hyperlinks to your blog ? Or are you marketing ? Something to flog (sell) ? More likely just demonstrating you’re contemptuous lack of respect for others views/beliefs/opinions (trolling) …
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 24 2005 14:30 utc | 36
Well Bill Karl, I did peruse your web site. But I’m glad you have now figured out how to click the post button.
And it looks like your friends are still trying to did their way out of a hole. If you can now spot the deliberate errors in Cheney’s rendition of historical facts, I will unreservedly apologize for my trite remark.
Cheney Says Downing Street Memo Is Wrong
Fri Jun 24 2005 09:43:30 ET
Vice President Dick Cheney was asked on CNN about the ‘Downing Street memo’ which said the Bush Administration had decided to go to war with Iraq and the intelligence would be fixed around that policy.
Asked if he disputes the memo’s claim, Cheney said, “Of course. The memo was written sometime prior to when we actually got involved in Iraq.
“And remember what happened after the supposed memo was written. We went to the United Nations. We got a unanimous vote out of the Security Council for a resolution calling on Saddam Hussein to come clean and comply with the UN Security Council resolution. We did everything we could to resolve this without having to use military force. We gave him one last chance even, and asked him to step down before we launched military operations.
“The memo is just wrong. In fact, the president of the United States took advantage of every possibility to try to resolve this without having to use military force. It wasn’t possible in this case. I am convinced we did absolutely the right thing. I am convinced that history will bear that out.”
Posted by: DM | Jun 24 2005 14:38 utc | 37
Outraged,
Durbin in a turbin. Yes, that’s called satire. The liitle red book? Yes, that’s exactly what Reid carries around with him, mistakenly thinking there’s something about filibusters in there. Seeding? Marketing? Contemptuous lack of respect for others views? Pah-leeze. More like an affinity for lively banter. Lighten up. You’ll live longer.
Porter Goss: (paraphrase) We know where Bin Laden is, but he’s in a sovereign nation and we respect their borders.
Republicans are the more serious entity about the “war on terror”? Why is Osama still at large — WHEN PORTER GOSS KNOWS WHERE HE IS????
We interrupt this blog with an important announcement. Over to Washington D.C., in an alternate universe.
“My fellow Americans, good evening.”
“Intelligence has located Osama bin Laden. He will be brought to justice. As I speak, American Armed Forces are retreiving this man from a foreign nation that chose to harbor him and other terrorists. Any hostile action taken by this nation will be tantamount to an act of war.
The world needs to know that there is no safe harbor from justice. No nation is exempt from the community of the law-abiding. If you stand with terrorists, you stand against the world.
Thank you. God bless, and good night.”
(Discussion turned over to Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff who describes the action of multiple carrier air wings: F-14’s clearing a path though hostile airspace, AWACS orbiting off coast directing the attack, attack helicopters and special forces securing inserting site, interception of ships)
… so dreams a liberal American when defense of America and Americans is at stake…
Posted by: Phobos Deimos | Jun 24 2005 14:44 utc | 39
I’m going back to my blog now. At least there’s a sense of humor there. Best of luck to you all and nice chatting with you.
I found this Rasmussen poll fascinating. Apparently more Americans believe Bush was responsible for the war than Hussein.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Provoking%20War.htm
Posted by: bcf | Jun 24 2005 15:06 utc | 41
“They’re very well treated down there. They’re living in the tropics. They’re well fed. They’ve got everything they could possibly want,” Cheney said in a CNN interview. “There isn’t any other nation in the world that would treat people who were determined to kill Americans the way we’re treating these people.”
There is a total disconnect with these people.
And on the subject of Gitmo – when the fuck will Americans get their arse out of Cuba?
Posted by: DM | Jun 24 2005 15:13 utc | 42
@BillKarl. What’s so great about patriotism?
Have the US pull out of Iraq, pay reparations and prosecute the Bush Junta as war criminals, then I’ll gladly sing the national anthem every day and twice on Sunday.
Until then, fuck you.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 24 2005 15:18 utc | 43
But it’s worth remembering that the Rovians have been right much more often than they’ve been wrong about the gullibility and ignorance of both the corporate media and the mushy middle.
You’re absolutely right Billmon. If I could have written this post, it’s what I would have said. Bush is headed south of 40 percent, they have failed at everything they’ve done — EVERYTHING — except in the moron American’s perception that they’re tough on “terra.” Going after liberals is about all they have left to play. I agree that it is desperate, but they are desperate. However, I think you’re right too that it may work because the media lets them get away with it, and much of the public is gullible and uninformed and thus perfect prey for them.
My disappointment is with the Democrats Their predictable limp-dick response is to call for an apology or his resignation. Hell, I don’t want either. I want them to use this incident as a opportunity to break it off in Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld. But they won’t. The Democrats have no guts. What’s have they got to lose? If they have learned anything in the last five years, it’s that taking the high road won’t work with these thugs. But Bush isn’t going to roll over on his own. Just like Anybody But Bush didn’t get elected last year.
Posted by: Phil from New York | Jun 24 2005 15:22 utc | 45
But it’s worth remembering that the Rovians have been right much more often than they’ve been wrong about the gullibility and ignorance of both the corporate media and the mushy middle.
You’re absolutely right Billmon. If I could have written this post, it’s what I would have said. Bush is headed south of 40 percent, they have failed at everything they’ve done — EVERYTHING — except in the moron American’s perception that they’re tough on “terra.” Going after liberals is about all they have left to play. I agree that it is desperate, but they are desperate. However, I think you’re right too that it may work because the media lets them get away with it, and much of the public is gullible and uninformed and thus perfect prey for them.
My disappointment is with the Democrats Their predictable limp-dick response is to call for an apology or his resignation. Hell, I don’t want either. I want them to use this incident as a opportunity to break it off in Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld. But they won’t. The Democrats have no guts. What’s have they got to lose? If they have learned anything in the last five years, it’s that taking the high road won’t work with these thugs. But Bush isn’t going to roll over on his own. Just like Anybody But Bush didn’t get elected last year.
Posted by: Phil from New York | Jun 24 2005 15:22 utc | 46
haha. I’m going back to my blog now. sticking to the script, i see.
Re: “Bill Karl”
It’s his real name; I worked with him a few years ago when he was failing at an advertising job. He later went on to fail at screenwriting. Looks like he’s failing at political discourse too.
Don’t expect any follow-ups from him. He’s a coward who types the daily Limbaugh/Hannity talking points, then turns tail and runs.
Posted by: b real | Jun 24 2005 15:24 utc | 47
haha. I’m going back to my blog now. sticking to the script, i see.
Re: “Bill Karl”
It’s his real name; I worked with him a few years ago when he was failing at an advertising job. He later went on to fail at screenwriting. Looks like he’s failing at political discourse too.
Don’t expect any follow-ups from him. He’s a coward who types the daily Limbaugh/Hannity talking points, then turns tail and runs.
Posted by: b real | Jun 24 2005 15:25 utc | 48
b real,
Yes, I’m not afraid to use my real name, b real. At what ad agency did you work with me? And what’s you name? If you don’t have the guts to tell me here, you can e-mail me at team.of.one@comcast.net instead.
As for my advertising career, i’ts going quite well, thank you. I’m on my own now and have my own clients. I’m not at the mercy of an ad agency any more. Are you still working for someone else? Also, my screenwriting prowess is represented by the highly-regarded Gage Group in LA. I’ve done a few “works for hire” and also have an original screenplay under option. In fact, that option was just renewed. Plus, And I just bought the rights to a novel to base a screenplay on. In my downtime, I enjoy engaging in respectful debate on blogs like this.
I was curious as to why you’d attack me so personally — and with complete lies no less. So let me know who you are and when we worked together. Oherwise, I’ll simply have to assume that YOU’RE the one who turns tail and runs.
You see, b real makes anonymous personal attacks, then turns tail and runs. An he (or her) goes by the name b real. Pathetic.
Seems to me the talk about Dems above misses Billmon’s point. Rove isn’t addressing the liberals with his talk; he’s trying to keep Republicans in line. Hagel and McCain are making noises, Jones has defected (on the war) and others are skittish. If more prominent Republicans leave the fold, the rank and file will begin to have conversations and arguments among themselves and Rove lose will lose the liberal vs conservative, traitor vs patriot theme that has worked so far. Rove isn’t afraid of Dems; they can sit in a basement and discuss impeachment while Corporate Media (Milbank, no less, one of the “good guys” until now) makes fun of them. It is Republican defections he worries about – that would make public discussion about the war more acceptable which means Rove loses control of the “conversation.” No more information dominance. Then, bi-partisan opposition could grow. Fox News and lesser wingnut functionaries can handle the Dems; for the serious threats like this one, you need the Party’s heavy hitters. (Note that Bush is not one of them.)The traitor line won’t work when most of the country has lined up against them, so Rove had to act now.
I agree that Rove’s talk is a turning point of some kind, but a turn to what I can’t tell. Could be that Rove will nip at some Republican heels and those that haven’t already escaped will stay with the herd. Many are restive, though, and see the wolves (sometimes called voters) gathering on the hills above them while their little shepherd pretends they are not there. On the other hand, Rove could be right that the voters can be ignored. He has no magic staff, but he does have the Patriot Acts, black boxes, black ops and who knows what else in his little sack. Tough being a Republican these days. Who should you be more afraid of: the voters or Karl Rove?
Posted by: lonesomeG | Jun 24 2005 16:07 utc | 57
AW – what the hell – it’s Friday night.
Follow the LINK.
Your workmate who thinks your a loser is Don Simms
Re: “Bill Karl”
It’s his real name; I worked with him a few years ago when he was failing at an advertising job. He later went on to fail at screenwriting. Looks like he’s failing at political discourse too.
Don’t expect any follow-ups from him. He’s a coward who types the daily Limbaugh/Hannity talking points, then turns tail and runs.
I count five lies in his first paragraph alone. Congratulations, Bill: you’re officially a wingnut!
Pathetic.
Posted by: Don Simms at March 30, 2005 10:52 PM
Posted by: DM | Jun 24 2005 16:08 utc | 58
There’s no writer named Bill Karl on IMDB.
They’re usually very good at indexing even second-tier shows like MUTANT X, VIPER, etc. and small indie movies.
So if you’re not on IMDB, I don’t know what kind of WFH assignment you got (porn?), but it don’t mean shit.
So as far as any screenwriting career is concerned, you’re nobody.
PS: I have an entry on IMDB.
PPS: And you’re still an asshole.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 24 2005 16:11 utc | 59
The link takes me to the same comments made by someone named Don Simms, who I never heard of. Obviously a fake name there too. Cowards don’t respond and I’m not going to waste any more time on pond scum.
bill is hanging out here because there is no stimulating chat w/ the rightie talkingpointers. b’s link, da, was just that , a link, she didn’t claim to writing it. bill, the posters here can chew you up and spit you out as easy as pissing in the wind.you are in way over your head.
as i posted yesterday i still think rove’s comment was bait out of desperation. i’m sure he’s in charge of mcClellan and from the press junket yesterday mc’s response to the querie’s of ‘is the prez backing him’, was’ why don’t the dems DEFEND their philosophy?’ thereby trying to establish, as fact, that rove’s assertion was the truth and we are in the position of defending it. the outcome of this folly of defending would be to have the reps and dems ‘united’ and the dems to be equally responsible for the invasion. bait and switch, diverting the blame. yes , they are desperate, but biding time, time enough to pedal their syria claim, which the syrians are challenging., time enough to screw w/ iran, time enough to get those permanent bases built, time, that’s all they need.
Posted by: annie | Jun 24 2005 16:14 utc | 61
And unless you squeaked in last year’s edition, you’re not in the WGA Directory either. (Writers Guild of America, for non-inbred Hollywood folks.)
Hey, I don’t know what axe your grining against this guy. But iI do know the Writers Guild list is private. And that plenty of mansions have been built in Belair by well-paid but unproduced writers.
Posted by: Ross | Jun 24 2005 18:45 utc | 63
BillKarl wrote:
I’m going back to my blog now. At least there’s a sense of humor there. Best of luck to you all and nice chatting with you.
It’s not that I do not have a sense of humour. It’s just that I feel that a troll’s place is under a bridge and not on a blog.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 24 2005 20:59 utc | 64
I agree with Billmon yet I’m more apt to just let my hair down and call a spade a spade on this ordeal. Trouble is getting the DC Democrats to turn the GOPs slime machines around and getting the middle-road American public to click away from Laurie Dhue’s cleavage long enough to listen.
apparently mr bill didn’t have the courage to beat me up n public so he emailed me at home…”What the heck is that supposed to mean? My link is to MY blog. And, of course, I write the content. So correction. I can chew up you and the posters over there and spit you out as easy as pissing in the wind. It’s easy when you’re dealing with pinheads.”
Bill Karl
wow, i’m scared. off for the weekend . guess i’ll just have to play catch up when i come home.
Posted by: annie | Jun 24 2005 21:46 utc | 66
Oh, check my pulse! Billmon makes me swoon. Nobody says it better…
Conservatives have spent the better part of the past four decades writing “liberals” — a suitably abstract synonym for “enemy” — into the same role filled in other times and places by the Elders of Zion. And two generations of Americans have absorbed the poisonous brew, either directly or indirectly. It is (along with dirty money) the bitch’s milk of the modern GOP machine.
Sharp. Pointed. Accurate. Scary.
annie,
Do you think BK enjoys peeing all over himself as he tries to masticate and then expectorcate us?
From reading his ‘rebuttal’ he sounds kinda freaky.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 24 2005 22:04 utc | 68
@annie
I e-mailed you to save you some embarrassment. When I said, “What the heck is that supposed to mean? My link is to MY blog'” I was responding to your dim retort, “b’s link, da, was just that , a link, she didn’t claim to writing it. bill, the posters here can chew you up and spit you out as easy as pissing in the wind.you are in way over your head.”
She? Chew you up? Pissing in the wind? You don’t even understand your metaphors. Pissing in the wind isn’t “easy” as you say. In fact, it’s hard. But I guess only guys know that. That’s why I e-mailed you privately with the message: “What the heck is that supposed to mean? My link is to MY blog. And, of course, I write the content.”
Boy, you folks are cold. Try to find your heart. Or at least your sense of humor, which IS something you WILL find on my blog. As I said, I’m a socially liberal Giuliani Republican. Not the kind of wing nuts I’m finding here. Get a foot massage or something. It’s Friday, for Christ’s sake.
@Ross
Thank you. You’re absolutely right, Ross. No pun intended. The Writers Guild membership list IS private. And plenty of mansions HAVE been built in Belair by well-paid but unproduced writers. Very well-paid, as a matter of fact. Cha-ching!
@b real
Still hiding, huh, b real.? Making anonymous personal attacks, then turning tail and running. Pathetic. Why don’t you state your name and in what ad agency you worked with me in? Oh, sorry, I forgot. You’re a coward.
@Monolycus
A troll? Because I happen to disagree with you? Jeeze, you guys don’t listen. Or even want to. Or even seek intelligent debate. You’re just misguided missiles. Ready, fire, aim.
However, we’re all inhabiting the same planet, so I wish you all nothing but the best. Bye.
@annie
I e-mailed you to save you some embarrassment. When I said, “What the heck is that supposed to mean? My link is to MY blog'” I was responding to your dim retort, “b’s link, da, was just that , a link, she didn’t claim to writing it. bill, the posters here can chew you up and spit you out as easy as pissing in the wind.you are in way over your head.”
She? Chew you up? Pissing in the wind? You don’t even understand your metaphors. Pissing in the wind isn’t “easy” as you say. In fact, it’s hard. But I guess only guys know that. That’s why I e-mailed you privately with the message: “What the heck is that supposed to mean? My link is to MY blog. And, of course, I write the content.”
Boy, you folks are cold. Try to find your heart. Or at least your sense of humor, which IS something you WILL find on my blog. As I said, I’m a socially liberal Giuliani Republican. Not the kind of wing nuts I’m finding here. Get a foot massage or something. It’s Friday, for Christ’s sake.
@Ross
Thank you. You’re absolutely right, Ross. No pun intended. The Writers Guild membership list IS private. And plenty of mansions HAVE been built in Belair by well-paid but unproduced writers. Very well-paid, as a matter of fact. Cha-ching!
@b real
Still hiding, huh, b real.? Making anonymous personal attacks, then turning tail and running. Pathetic. Why don’t you state your name and in what ad agency you worked with me in? Oh, sorry, I forgot. You’re a coward.
@Monolycus
A troll? Because I happen to disagree with you? Jeeze, you guys don’t listen. Or even want to. Or even seek intelligent debate. You’re just misguided missiles. Ready, fire, aim.
However, we’re all inhabiting the same planet, so I wish you all nothing but the best. Bye.
Wait, I think I got the syntax, but let me check:
Because only guys may know that its hard to piss into the wind, Mr. BK wrote to her privately.
OK, so that was the funny part, right?
Thanks for the laughs.
Posted by: citizen | Jun 25 2005 0:52 utc | 72
@Bill Karl
“A troll? Because I happen to disagree with you? Jeeze, you guys don’t listen. Or even want to. Or even seek intelligent debate. You’re just misguided missiles. Ready, fire, aim.”
One of the motivations of trolling is to derail an intelligent conversation, which is certainly what has occured here. I presumed that was by design. If that was not your intent, and you genuinely wish to debate the merits of Mr. Rove’s comments and not simply make inflammatory remarks to divert traffic to your own blog and boost the number of hits you’re getting, then I am listening.
Failing that promised reasonable discourse, I call bullshit and stand by my observation that your posts here are trolls.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 25 2005 1:32 utc | 73
Monolycus and others:
Why on earth do you continue to bait this troll? A a pretty darn interesting thread turned into nonsense and rubbish by the remarks of a troll and the ensuing chase by the locals.
Posted by: jg | Jun 25 2005 2:07 utc | 74
‘m a socially liberal Giuliani Republican – your wife needs a good lawyer then and cops anxious to sodomize a prisoner with a stick can count on your friendship. I’m fairly tolerant about other people’s lifestyle choices, but people who publically humiliate their married partners and defend perverts in uniform need either a good shrink or a jail term – depending on how “socially liberal” one feels. Besides, national security is important and someone who has the lack of judgement to put the emergency center on top of the biggest target in the world shouldn’t be making any decisions more important than “what pickup line should I use on that babe in the corner before my current wife comes back from the restroom”.
Posted by: citizen k | Jun 25 2005 2:46 utc | 75
it looks more and more like 9/11 was a case of “benign neglect”, that the murders of 3000 Americans were actually allowed to go forward, to further the war plans of the neocons in Washington DC.–John Francis Lee @ 6:18 AM
Comments like this are hard to affirm, because their bluntness is tinged with paranoia (meaning my own paranoia as I read them, concurring with them “in the twinkling of an eye”). Richard Clarke, if memory serves, tells a story about obstinate stupidity, but not a story in which the question of “war plans” would include any decision to let the 3000 murders go forward.
Posted by: alabama | Jun 25 2005 2:52 utc | 76
But Clarke is also talking about a rather narrow area of negligence; more telling, in my view, was the Bush administration’s silent support of Sharon’s brutality during the spring and summer of 2001. It’s not paranoid to insist that the Bush administration knew all along that Sharon was provoking a response; I certainly remember thinking throughout that summer (and rather obsessively) that something was coming down. I was getting this from the papers (it takes no visionary talent to get the drift of such things), but I don’t know of anyone in Washington who actually discussed it (whence the sense of dread in the air), and I suppose it was assumed, in any event, that the “something coming down” would have to occur in the Middle East. So I’m bound to modify John Francis Lee’s comment just a bit, to the effect that “a murderous event (in the Middle East) was allowed to go forward, but the Middle East, to the surprise of many, proved to include the World Trade Center”. A minor distinction, finally, it being the major point that “an event was allowed to go forward” (simply by letting Sharon do his thing). Do we have any documented testimony on this score? Did the CIA, for example, ever speak to the point?
Posted by: alabama | Jun 25 2005 2:53 utc | 77
@Ross. Didn’t it occur to you that I’m a member of the Writers Guild and therefore could check if this guy was “real” or not?
Also “unproduced” has NOTHING to do with Guild membership.
All majorv studios and virtually all Producers operating in Hollywood are bound to the Guild by the MBA (Masters Basic Agreement) and can only hire WGA members.
So if you get hired to write an episode, say, of STAR TREK, or if Universal wants to buy your spec script, you MUST join the Guild if you’re not a member already in order for the contract to be signed and you to be paid — whether or not your episode or show is produced.
The only exceptions are non-union and foreign production companies, outside of the system. (There are however reciprocal agreements with some other countries.)
In other words, Bill Karl lied about his Hollywood career. Like folks who put non-existent jobs on their resume.
Bill Karl is a liar.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 25 2005 6:23 utc | 78
Okay, Lupin. Point made. I know I’m not a “moderator” or anything like that, but I pointed out that this guy was disrupting to be disruptive (or to increase traffic to his site) and offered him the opportunity to have the discussion he allegedly wanted. Bill Karl’s credentials have nothing to do with the topic of Karl Rove’s statements/motives… which is what I thought this thread was for. I’m with jg’s comment at 10.07.
Unfortunately, at this particular moment, I have no great questions or observations about Rove’s statements/motives that have not already been voiced. Yes, the rhetoric sounds very much like the wheels are falling off the the Republican machine, but it’s anyone’s guess as to how that is going to work itself out for you and I.
What I find interesting is that you don’t need the Downing Street Minutes to make a war crimes case out of the Iraq invasion, but so far, I haven’t seen anyone approach the subject from this perspective. Everything else aside, the justification given to go into Iraq (making it internationally “legal”)was that Saddam Hussein was in violation of UN resolution 1441 (he was allegedly amassing restricted weapons of mass destruction).
Whether this excuse was flimsy or not, these weapons were never found which means that any legal premise the US might have had for their actions is evaporated. This is not a case of simply not finding evidence of a crime after obtaining a search warrant… the absence of evidence means that Hussein was never in violation of UN sanctions… which further means the US is in violation of international treaty.
Rove invoking 9/11 is what stage magicians call misdirection. 9/11 was one of a few post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments given for the US presence in Iraq, but in the absence of any connections between the Baath regime and Al Quaeda it is a popular, but not a legal, justification. The scapegoating of liberals as traitors is also rhetorical but legally groundless. During an election campaign, Rove has used this approach effectively and he might simply be a one-trick pony. Unfortunately (for Rove), there is not an election currently going on so his scapegoating tactic is seen as desperate sciamachy.
But what really makes Rove’s name-calling seem downright amateurish to me is that with all the byzantine scandals and coverups this administration has perpetrated, it apparently did not seem necessary to them to plant conveniently “discovered” WMDs in Iraq… the one thing that would have made their actions semi-legal. Also, they thought flag-waving stories like the Private Jessica Lynch debacle were a better use of their ability to manufacture false news than the invention of some suspicious ties between the Baath regime and Al Quaeda. Everyone on the planet knows that the Bush/Cheney administration is perfidious enough to have covered those bases… so why didn’t they? I mean, really, it comes across as one of those “serial killers that secretly want to be caught” legends.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 25 2005 9:02 utc | 80
I think Rove’s move was an act of desperation. Bush has lost on private accounts. The war is going badly and most Americans don’t like it. Americans are even beginning to doubt Bush on the WOT, his other strong point. The House has defied Bush on Stem Cell research,238-194, something very important to Bush’s fundie base. The Senate will do the same. Bush will be forced to veto this bill to maintain the support of Dobson, Falwell, etc., but that will put him at odds with the vast majority of Americans.
All in all, I see Rove’s 2004 election coalition falling apart.
I totally disagree. They’ve now gotten what they sought in Iraq. Mission accomplished.
They can now wrap up the “public” war, blame its failure on the Opposition, use that political capital to fire up their base, cling power and move on.
Where you see failure or panic, I see blitzkrieg.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 25 2005 9:41 utc | 83
citizen
Syntax? Is that all you’ve got? I think this guy Bill was treated unfairly here. I also think b real is a real asshole.
[Deleted ten other comments/double posts from this troll and banned his IP address from commenting. June 25, 2005 09:35 AM; b]
Posted by: theo | Jun 25 2005 11:26 utc | 84
um, theo, how come you have the same email address as Bill. Are you his partner?
Bill Karl
Advertising Creative Director & Sometime Screenwriter
You can contact me at:
team.of.one@comcast.net
Posted by: DM | Jun 25 2005 11:38 utc | 85
I don’t know, rapt. Maybe I do give them too much credit. My post from 5.02AM was written during an insomniac bout in which I was (yet again) spending far too much time trying to make sense of the senseless.
Part of me very much agrees with Lupin about there existing two wars (one public, one “secret”), but I have difficulty wrapping my head around the scope of these implications. My contention is that the war-behind-the-scenes has nothing to do with Iraq, oil or no oil. If the “secret war” were about establishing 14 bases in the middle east, securing oil and natural gas reserves, making de facto American colonies and et cetera, then it would stand to reason that they would have been more careful to make the public face of the war appear more legitimate. The rationale that the neocons “believe their own lies” doesn’t cut it. They invented these boogeymen specifically to frighten people and sell their product.
But if they don’t actually believe their own propaganda, if they really knew Hussein’s Iraq was no threat, why haven’t they manufactured more credible evidence that he was? The invasion of Iraq is obviously not important enough to them to bother trying to “legitimise” it. It’s just a show to get people on board with their programme. It’s no different than 9/11 in that respect. Just something to point to, but not the end-all-be-all or they wouldn’t be half-assing the premises the way they do.
They should, at the very least, bother trying to help me suspend my disbelief. They haven’t felt the need to create a convincing antagonist (I’m sorry, but dialysis-dependent, cave-dwelling supervillians who run global terrorist networks in their downtime doesn’t even work on a B-movie level) or even a believable premise (“Yes, very nice, but where are the WMDs from the first act?”). A producer who cared would have, at the very least, built a convincing set on which to stage their epic drama (even if they hadn’t gotten around to finishing the script), and the statue-toppling, conquering-hero-in-a-codpiece, damsel-Marine-in-distress subplots are nothing less than insulting.
This is the arrogance of a team of hack writers who thinks that the yokels don’t need substance if they have their car chases… and the laziness of a team of producers who have more important things to worry about than building a convincing set for their sideshow.
So what is the “secret war” that has occupied their attention? It seems to me that in conjunction with the sweeping changes recently made to civil (but not corporate!) bankruptcy law in conjunction with a million other instances of class warfare, I don’t think that the “secret war” is much of a secret. Iraqi insurgents and “terrorists” make good cardboard cut-out villains in the Hollywood-style production we call The War On Terror… but the true enemy of the Cheney administration– the ones they are really taking the fight to– is the middle class on down.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 25 2005 21:27 utc | 87
“…trying to make sense of the senseless.”
That is what this discussion has finally come to; I see it spreading. First there was the rush to invade – who or what set that urgent deadline?
And then there are the multiple (too many to list here) instances of unexplainable, inhuman atrocities against human life (WTC and Falluja are two examples) which have no practical justification in terms of winning a war or gaining power or self-enrichment. There are other better more acceptable ways of doing these things, but the choice has been to cause as much pain and death as possible. This is true in many more subtle ways too.
Although I am apparently still in a tiny minority, my proposition is and has been that there is a non-human force under it all, perhaps best represented by Cheney (his body suit and makeup are excellent don’t you think?) or Sharon, and of course Rove. I know this because I have seen movies in which a guy who looks and sounds perfectly normal turns out to be a monster in a rubber suit.
Posted by: rapt | Jun 26 2005 14:41 utc | 88
Since this thread is about to disappear down into the bowels of the blog after one more front page submission, I suppose it makes it a good place for me to let go ahead and let loose a bit with no reservation.
The David Icke approach to understanding the world (that it is secretly being run by reptiles who pose as human beings) should be viewed as a metaphor. After World War II, the Japanese collectively made a metaphor of the atomic age in their new national hero of Godzilla. It’s not an unprecedented psychological phenomenon. The metaphor works on the level of understanding “cold-bloodedness” or “inhumanity” in others by literally ascribing those qualities to them. Of course, I have yet to see any lizards (barring possibly the spokeslizard of a certain insurance agency) who would actually take delight in human misery, the metaphor comforts us and helps us to come to grips with an extremely unpleasant reality.
Apart from not being wholly accurate, I think there is a danger in subscribing to these views. Dehumanisation is a very effective technique used by governments to facilitate atrocities. See the two dimensional charcters we made of the Japanese in WWII when we were ushering them off into US versions of concentration camps. After sufficient dehumanisation of our “enemy”, LIFE magazine could safely run a cover photo of a Japanese man being burned with a flamethrower without being accused of undermining the war effort. This was not true in Vietnam when photos of napalmed children or men being gunned down execution-style in the streets had a profound effect on public opinion.
Dehumanisation is what fosters inhuman behaviour. Could Abu Ghraib or nameless overseas torture facilities occur by human beings to human beings…? Of course not. Atrocities are being done to “terrorists”, “illegal non-combatants(!)” and “evil doers”… not human beings. This goes back at least as far as the Inquisition and the Crusades where one can behave inhumanely to “the infidel” or a dangerous “heretic”… but not a human being with a family that loves him or her. This is why soldiers have to use epithets like this against their enemies… they are not fighting people, they are fighting “the hun”, “Charlie”, “Ivan” or “those hadjis”. And now Rove wants to use the same technique domestically and make “liberal” a similar dehumanising label.
But we run the same risk when we fall back to regarding “the Right” as “less than human”. It’s easy and makes sense. That is why they behave so inhumanely. That’s why they look like those 19th century political caricatures. They aren’t human.
The unpleasant reality is that human beings do behave inhumanely to one another. Being human isn’t really saying much, despite our romantic notions about some inherent nobility our species should have. And the more you practice this technique of turning your opponents into non-humans, the less humane you, yourself, become (see Cheney).
The Icke metaphor is comforting because it belies a painful truth. If our enemies removed their faces, they would have flesh and blood and bone beneath them. They are entirely human. And there isn’t any monster in the Universe that is more frightening than that.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 26 2005 19:33 utc | 89