Why does everyone assume he had to go number 1 rather than number 2?
Why assume he had to go number 1 or 2? He was after all a little close to Condi.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 17 2005 8:23 utc | 4

Also available in AWOL Yellow, GOP Red and New Orleans Brown.
It’s just one laugh after another with you Billmon…

Posted by: Trilby | Sep 17 2005 8:28 utc | 6

re Watchdogs: The US really does seem to be a third world country living on the remnants of its past glories. I remember reading about one person who was going to vote Bush because he felt that it would be the quickest way of ending US international intervention – bankrupt the country. Looking good so far. Too bad that Canada’s along for the ride.

Posted by: edwin | Sep 17 2005 12:42 utc | 8

Surely Reuters publishing the picture of Bush’s tentative pre-request for a toilet trip (or proposition for something else..) to Condi da-black-boots is significant?
While it can pass as a bit of a joke, pointing out that Our Leaders are Human, they need bathrooms like the rest of us, it is good to be reminded of that, etc, it demeans him terribly.
It makes him look like a high school student, controlled and dependent, subject to higher authority (toilet pass).
A person whose personal, impromptu notes can be made public, shown to the class or here the whole world.
Someone who has no privacy rights, whose purely personal communications are fair game. The argument that public figures, pols, presidents and the like are legitimatly (sp?) subject to media scrutiny does not hold for this example.
An ordinary citizen might quite likely successfully bring a suit after a publication like that.
I’m no lawyer – but stars regularly win re. this kind of paparazzi muck..and even if the ordinary citizen lost, he would have had his day in court and in the media, with a lot of people sympathising with his outrage.
The Reuters article is a serious violation of conventional norms. The picture was taken in the UN moreover. (If it is real – as published by Reuters it must be accepted as ‘real’ unless contested, denounced.)
Its below-the-waist content, with its possible sexual undertones, is bizarre.
What it all means exactly I don’t grasp.
Meanwhile, Chavez got a standing ovation.

Posted by: Noisette | Sep 17 2005 14:18 utc | 10

Noisette-
Chavez was on Nightline with Ted Koppel last night…one of those “important” one on one interviews. The link goes to the transcript.
I’ve been in revolt for years against ignominy, against injustice, against inequality, against immorality, against the exploitation of human beings.
One of the greatest rebels, who I really admire: Christ. He was a rebel. He ended up being crucified. He was a great rebel. He rebelled against the established power that subjugated. That is what rebellion is; it’s rebellion out of love for human beings. In truth, that is the cause, the cause of love: love for every human being, for every women, for every child, for every man, for every brother.
I believe you to be a brother. I don’t see you as above or below. I don’t feel superior or inferior to you. We’re on an equal basis. Your cameraman, your photograph are equal. The men and women who are seeing you, who are seeing us are equal. They’re true brothers.
One jaw-dropping moment is when Chavez talks about Operation Balboa, what he says is a U.S. attempt to invade Venezeula and, of course, take out Chavez. (and earlier talks about his doctors being forced to remain on his plane, and more)
Chavez says it would be a 100 year war, with other nations in the S.A. continent joining in, that gas would go to 100/b……and then Koppel asks…
…can you understand why people might think you are unfriendly toward the United States. !!!!!!
…this is astounding, considering Palast gave everyone the heads up on the April 2002 coup attempt months ahead of time…the U.S is the one who has tried to overthrow this guy, and Koppel asks about HIM being unfriendly toward the U.S.
Uh, well, why not try something different and let other nations have sovereignty and create their own cultures and leave them the fuck alone and trade fairly rather than try to control access to any and all oil in the world?!?!?!
silly me.

Posted by: fauxreal | Sep 17 2005 16:21 utc | 12

Well, you know, it’s ALWAYS about us. That’s what imperialism is all about.
evea-body SING!
You put your right-wing dictator in
You take your right-wing dictator out
You put his replacement in
And you shake a country all about
You do the imperialist hokey-pokey
and you turn lives upside down
That’s what it’s all about.

Posted by: fauxreal | Sep 17 2005 18:09 utc | 14

@anna missed:

I don’t know, Fidel isn’t a bad person to be compared to—a leader vastly unpopular with U.S. right-wingers, who is repeatedly conspired against, but who manages not only to hold on to power, but to be fairly popular. And comparing him with Saddam isn’t such a wise move if they’re pushing war—to me, the subconscious message is “taking this guy out will cost more than we can afford.”

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Sep 17 2005 20:55 utc | 16

“Fidel is a fucking vampire dictator”….hmmm, razor, perhaps you are right about that, but…..Have you ever been to Cuba?
Or, to Venezuela?
Just curious, because I see no links to check for myself the validity of your qualifier of Fidel being ” (worse) than a (…) Confederate Republican”.

Posted by: Werner Dieter Thomas | Sep 17 2005 23:50 utc | 18

Knowing that, in many cases, English is not necessarily a poster’s first language, I just wanted to say that I ordinarily do not jump on typographic issues here … but, Razor, the grammatic problems combined with the content made your statement a truly, truly bizarre bit of reading to me.

Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 18 2005 0:13 utc | 20

@razor:

What, is Moon of Alabama giving away free t-shirts to each poster with unresolved issues or something? Get a grip before those jerking knees knock you right off your chair. I suppose I shouldn’t presume to give an opinion, since I have never been to Cuba, but everyone I know who has been there has said the same thing: although people there aren’t lining up to kiss Fidel’s feet, they dislike his rule much less than, say, most of the people of the United States currently dislike the rule of Bush. The rabid anti-Castro people that I know of are mostly the ones who live in the U.S., and a great number of them seem to be as disconnected from reality as Bush. Maybe the people I know are all wrong and the anti-Castro people I’ve read about are uniformly non-representative—but an angry ad hominem outburst with no supporting facts like the one you posted isn’t going to convince me of it. Quite the opposite, in fact.

My point is that if the media is going to try to suggest a subconscious link between Chavez and other “targeted” leaders in the past, I’d far rather they use ones which come with a built-in “targeting this one was a big failure and we shouldn’t have bothered” vibe instead of a “this person was effectively destroyed by our interference” one. From this perspective, “impervious” (Castro) or “waste of effort” (Saddam) beats “successfully removed” (Mossadegh), no matter how much better of a person the latter may have been. Sadly, reality seldom packages all desireable traits together at once, and longevity is the one that enables all the others to take effect.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Sep 18 2005 0:15 utc | 22

it should come as no surprise that, given the massive efforts of ideological indoctrination that the u.s. has put into creating & maintaining villians, people are programmed to respond, irrationally, of course, to the evocation of specific stimuli
on the subject of chavez, amy good(“to have you with us”)man will spend the hour this coming monday interviewing him on democracy now
ya’ll are punishing yourselves watching corporate tv. what are you expecting them to say?

Posted by: b real | Sep 18 2005 2:54 utc | 24

I wonder why, when his handlers knew he had to be in public and at least appear to be attentive and understanding for more than 15 minutes, they didn’t ask Georgie if he needed to do a “squeezy pee” first? This has proven very effective with my 5 year old daughter and 2 year old son.
This, along with making him button his own shirt for the big New Orleans speech with the obvious risk of his getting those darn buttons out of sequence, makes me wonder if his babysitters – I mean handlers – are getting tired or rebellious.
Is there something about being a cartoon front man that is soul-destroying? He’s starting to remind me of Reagan in the later years.

Posted by: PeeDee | Sep 19 2005 0:08 utc | 26

Well
Truth gets vicious when you corner it
you have made the old equivealency that finds Castro a superior moral exemplar the United STates should learn from. Didn’t have to, but, you did, didnya.
Know, you calmly claim reason as your defense.
My point, ad homimen as it was and must be to have a prayer of a chance of getting through, not that it is much of a chance, is that there is a price to be paid for this bullshit. Having made the choice, accept the price, powerlessness in American civics.
And it is a just powerlessness, as Cuba is a country where people aren’t allowed to leave, and America is a country where people lie cheat and steal to get in and work their asses off, and whoever can’t handle this type of life and death drive to the border and see it for yourself reality is more like the windy old fool of fifty than the infant drawing its first breath.
And, if case you have missed it, most references to George W and the republicans on this site are ad hominem. Certainly, I work to make mine that way.

Posted by: razor | Sep 19 2005 4:54 utc | 28