Bush is Tops!


On the worst list:

President Bush has set a record he'd presumably prefer to avoid: the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, 28% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing; 69% disapprove. … The previous record of 67% was reached by Harry Truman in January 1952, when the United States was enmeshed in the Korean War.

…Assessments of Bush's presidency are harsh. By 69%-27%, those polled say Bush's tenure in general has been a failure, not a success.

…His approval rating hasn't reached as high as 50% since May 2005.
Good thing impeachment was taken off the table by the Democrats, whose constituents' disapproval of Bush is 91%.

273 days.

Sigh.

Open Wide...

'Cause ya know, it's the victim's fault...

by Shaker Lena

The defense attorney for the alleged killer in the hate-crime murder of Lawrence King argues it's the victim's fault for not conforming to gender norms.

King, who was openly gay and had begun wearing make-up, earrings, and high-heeled boots to his junior high school, had been harassed by other students, including Brandon McInerney, 14, who is charged with shooting King twice in the back the head during an English class shortly after school started. Fellow students said they witnessed confrontations between the two in the days before the shooting, including King's teasing McInerney and telling him that he liked him.

But to hear McInerney's defense attorney tell it, the problem was that King should have been closeted and straight-acting:

[Senior Deputy Public Defender William] Quest said he believes school administrators supported one student expressing himself and his sexuality — King — and ignored how it affected other kids, despite complaints. Cross-dressing isn't a normal thing in adult environments, he said, yet 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds were expected to just accept it and go on.
Now if you've ever been around a courthouse, you'll know that blaming victims, sullying their reputations, and/or claiming they provoked the accused are part of the standard repertoire of the defense, whose job it is to raise doubts. Disappointingly, I've heard comments on various LGBTQ blogs that McInerney's attorney is "just doing his job" and obligated to make the best argument he can for his client. But while the latter is true, there are a variety of arguments that aren't allowed in court because society considers them illegitimate and unacceptable.

If a student killed another student for dressing "differently" because they wore a yarmulke or a head scarf, or a t-shirt with a biblical quote on it, we'd call it for what was: religious bigotry.

If a white student killed a black student for creating a "disruption" simply by attending school, we'd call what it was: racist.

If a teenage boy shot a girl he didn't like because she kept flirting with him, we wouldn't consider that a justifiable provocation.

Society and the law don't consider any of these valid excuses for the accused's actions, or reasons for lesser punishment; in fact, California specifically outlawed the infamous "gay panic" defense in the wake of the public revulsion about its use by the murderers of trans woman Gwen Araujo—a law that Quinn seems to be trying to do an end-run around by claiming it was King who was doing the harassing, when in fact King was just standing up to a bigger, stronger bully. A bully who allegedly decided to put the "uppity faggot" in his place: six feet underground. This wasn't a panic. This wasn't a provoked killing. It was a planned, cold-blooded execution.

Being different shouldn't be a death sentence, and a "back to the closet" defense shouldn't be tolerated.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Tammy

Open Wide...

Diamond Mining

John McCain, who has always said he's above reproach when it comes to doing favors for friends, may have some explaining to do about his friendship with Arizona developer Donald Diamond.

A longtime political patron, Mr. Diamond is one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain’s current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far. At home, Mr. Diamond is sometimes referred to as “The Donald,” Arizona’s answer to Donald Trump — an outsized personality who invites public officials aboard his flotilla of yachts (the Ace, King, Jack and Queen of Diamonds), specializes in deals with the government, and unabashedly solicits support for his business interests from the recipients of his campaign contributions.

Mr. McCain has occasionally rebuffed Mr. Diamond’s entreaties as inappropriate, but he has also taken steps that benefited his friend’s real estate empire. Their 26-year relationship illuminates how Mr. McCain weighs requests from a benefactor against his vows, adopted after a brush with scandal two decades ago, not to intercede with government authorities on behalf of a donor or take other official action that serves no clear public interest.

In California, the McCain aide’s assistance with the Army helped Mr. Diamond complete a purchase in 1999 that he soon turned over for a $20 million profit. And Mr. McCain’s letter of recommendation reinforced Mr. Diamond’s selling point about his McCain connections as he pursued — and won in 2005 — a potentially much more lucrative deal to develop a resort hotel and luxury housing.

In Arizona, Mr. McCain has helped Mr. Diamond with matters as small as forwarding a complaint in a regulatory skirmish over the endangered pygmy owl, and as large as introducing legislation remapping public lands. In 1991 and 1994, Mr. McCain sponsored two laws sought by Mr. Diamond that resulted in providing him millions of dollars and thousands of acres in exchange for adding some of his properties to national parks. The Arizona senator co-sponsored a third similar bill now before the Senate.

A spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, Jill Hazelbaker, said the senator, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, “had done nothing for Mr. Diamond that he would not do for any other Arizona citizen.”
Yeah, as long as they raise money for his campaign.
Mr. Diamond, 80, met Mr. McCain when he was a former prisoner of war running for Congress in 1982. “I liked him right away because I respected what he went through in Vietnam,” Mr. Diamond recalled. When he got to know Mr. McCain and his wife, Cindy, Mr. Diamond said, “it became a love fest.”
Oh, thank you so much for that image.
To raise money for Mr. McCain, Mr. Diamond invites local Republicans to make fund-raising calls from his Tucson office. Ray Carroll, a member of the council that controls zoning in Pima County, Ariz., said Mr. Diamond followed up on one fund-raising session with a thank-you note “on behalf of Mr. McCain,” sending a copy to the senator.

“To reciprocate, if you need any zoning in the county, let me know,” Mr. Diamond wrote. (Mr. Diamond said it was the kind of joke he often made.)

Mr. McCain has campaigned as a critic of the corrupting influence of money and politics, saying he had learned a lesson from a late 1980s scandal over his part in an intervention with banking regulators examining a savings and loan controlled by a patron, Charles Keating. Since then, Mr. McCain vowed to embrace ethics standards that set him apart from many colleagues.

“I have carefully avoided situations that might even tangentially be construed as a less than proper use of my office,” he wrote in his memoir, “Worth the Fighting For” (Random House, 2002).

Mr. McCain once publicly criticized Mr. Diamond as lobbying too hard for his own financial interests. In 1995, Mr. McCain called it “unheard of” that Mr. Diamond had hired a Washington lobbyist to try to block construction of a federal building in Tucson that threatened to take away some of his rental income. “I didn’t talk to him for one year,” Mr. Diamond said of Mr. McCain. “I was annoyed.”
But not so annoyed that he didn't help sponsor bills that benefited Mr. Diamond. Money, you see, talks.

But it's okay; Republicans are supposed to be the ones who are cozy with big business. The Democrats are the ones who lose money on land deals with friends and trigger a $60 million federal investigation (see Whitewater, investigation of).

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Suggested by Shaker TA, in comments: "What was your first record (or album) and what was your first concert?"

(We've done these before, but not for a long time, and they're always fun!)

The first single I bought with my own money was a 45 of "Rockin' Robin" by The Jackson 5, which I purchased at a neighborhood garage sale. The first album I bought was Wham! Make It Big.

My first concert (if you discount seeing Gordon from Sesame Street perform at the local mall when I was three) was The Monkees, with opening act Weird Al Yankovic. I was probably 11.

If I remember correctly, I also attended a Tina Turner concert in utero.

Open Wide...

Seen

Earlier today, in my rearview mirror on the way to the post office: One fat little old lady, approximately 75 years of age, clad in helmet, jeans, and pink t-shirt reading "got issues?" while riding a ginormous Harley.

I totally rolled down my windows, gave her the thumbs-up, and blasted The Smiths' "Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others" on the stereo in her honor.

-----------------------

(I can't believe I forgot to post that immediately when I got home! I blame the oldies station.)

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"Your elections are wild. They really go on too long."—My (oft-mentioned) Londoner Andy, on the phone earlier today.

Ya think?

Open Wide...

Mama's Got One Good Nerve Left—and People Are Gettin' on It!

Open Wide...

Caption This Photo



OK if I use the bathroom real quick?

(Via CuteOverload)

Open Wide...

Impossibly Beautiful

Dear Straight Dudez:

Next time you have an urge to throw up your hands and say, "All women are crazy!" because your partner is fretting needlessly (in your estimation) about the way she looks, I would like you to remember this actual headline from the Telegraph: Now fashion mags make models 'fatter'.

For reals, Straight Dudez.

If you suspect your female partner is mad, well, she just might be—only it's not something intrinsic to womanhood, I can assure you. It's the constantly moving goalposts of Impossible Beauty, and that shit is some serious crazymaking, unless and until you learn to ignore it—which is not easy.

Love,
Liss

P.S. Keep reading…

-----------------------

First things first. Let's take a look at a sample image that illustrates what we're dealing with here:


Okay, so, this is what you need to shoot for, girls: Hollowed-out cheeks (but not too hollow!), thin limbs (but not too thin!), hip bones showing (but not too much!), a flat stomach (but not too flat!)…are we clear yet?

The Telegraph article says that this new trend is "a response to critics who blame images of so-called 'size zero' models for the rise in eating disorders in young girls," but I think Ann gets it right here:
At its core, I don't believe this type of Photoshopping is about deflecting criticism that models and celebrities are dangerously thin. I think this is about perpetuating an even more unrealistic beauty standard than unattainable thinness (something I never thought possible): the message is that you should be super, super skinny, borderline skeletal, but without any of the things that come with the territory, like jutting hipbones or small boobs. So even the skinniest celebrities STILL require Photoshopping to meet this standard. You can be less than a size zero and still lose this game. And that's pretty frightening.
Indeed.

And if that doesn't illustrate it's a game none of us should even bother playing, I don't know what will.

[Impossibly Beautiful: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen.]

Open Wide...

Old

I just heard "Born in the USA" on the oldies station. What the fook?! Thanks a ton for making me feel old as dirt, oldies station!

I was 10 when that album came out. I played the hell out of it. There was much dancing around my bedroom with a hairbrush, singing "Glory Days" and "I'm on Fire" at the top of my lungs, with nary the faintest clue what either song meant until many years later.

I also recall writing an essay about Bruce Springsteen, something about heroes or people we'd like to meet or something like that, and misspelling his last name "Springstein." It must have been an over-the-Christmas-break homework assignment, because my grandma was visiting from NYC; I remember giving her the essay to read and having her tell me "It's s-t-e-e-n, Lisser," then taking a long drag on her cigarette.

Open Wide...

Insert Misogyny Here

I'm not sure what Slashfilm expected to happen when they posted a screen cap from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull of Shia LaBeouf's character about to punch Cate Blanchett's character and solicited suggestions about what "Shia's character says right before he socks her," but if they didn't expect a comments thread filled with "bitch," then they're fucking idiots and need an Internetz 101 refresher course.

Then again, posts deliberately provoking a deluge of misogynist spewage are all the rage these days—so I guess they're just being "edgy."

Because, ya know, it's totally hip and fresh to demean women.

[H/T Tracey.]

Open Wide...

No Solicitation Left Behind

From Houston, TX comes a 2-for-1 story about education and hypocrisy.

The Parkway Christian School was founded, and is currently run, by LaVern Jordan. In addition to his predictable God-speak during the course of the school year, Jordan has quite a bartering racket. While most kids in this country get a diploma through passing grades, Jordan will give you a diploma if you got the cash:

A fee to the school and some course work can get students a diploma without passing the required state test at Parkway Christian School, where the Web site boasts, "a program based on Christian character, morals, values and integrity."
That last bit comes into play when we delve into what else Mr. Jordan would take in trade for a diploma: Sex.

Reporter Wayne Dolcefino at KTRK teamed up with a student's mother to record the entire conversation where Jordan outright asks the mother for sexual favors in return for taking care of the student's enrollment fee (transcript below the fold).

While this isn't directly related to the topic at hand, I'd like to take the opportunity to point something out. There are people like LaVern Jordan who run around with a bible in their hand and require political candidates to have religious beliefs that align with their own. They even go so far as to demean atheists as being amoral, and that they should not have a voice in this country.

Well, let me say this: I think you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who would think that soliciting sex for education is appropriate. If you choose to be stubborn and feel otherwise, then read this story again and comprehend who's doing what.

[H/T to RawStory]
Jordan on tape: "Do you have sexual relationships often anymore? Are you seeing a man now?"

Mother: "No. Nuh-uh."

Jordan had already promised to waive the $300 school enrollment fee for a much different kind of payment.

Jordan: "For the uh, enrollment fee and stuff like that, maybe you and I can do something, you think?"

Mother: "Yeah, what, I mean what, what, you gonna wipe out all the fees?"

Jordan: "All the enrollment fees."

Mother: "All the enrollment fees?"

Jordan: "Three hundred dollars."

Mother: "So you gonna wipe everything if me and you get together?"

Jordan: "The enrollment fee, yeah."

Mother: "Ok."

Jordan: "If you and I get together."

Mother: "What you mean? I mean, what?

Jordan: "Excuse me and I don't mean to be so blunt but I am talking about f------ you."

Mother: "You talking about what?"

Jordan: "F------ you."

"I couldn't believe someone was saying such things like that," the mother told us. "I couldn't believe it."

And the tape shows Jordan wasn't just talking about a one time thing.

Jordan: "For the $300 I would expect maybe we could get together several times, you think?"

Mother: "Several times, whatcha mean several times?"

Jordan: "Well I don't know, you might like whatcha getting."

Jordan was ready for action right then.

Jordan: "If you're not in like just a great big hurry, I know uh, of a place not too far that we can go and I can just do that we can just do some play around a little bit. Would you like that?"

Jordan: "We could go and we could do some t--ty play."

Jordan wanted to make sure no one else would know.

Jordan: "Nobody else will know nothing?"

Mother: "Nuh-uh."

Jordan: "Can I touch you?"

Open Wide...

Monday Blogaround

Sock it to me, Shakers!

Recommended Reading:

Matttbastard: Misplaced Empathy

Mary: The Handmaid's Tale

Steve: McCain's Muddled and Meandering Message

Andy: Co Senator Pulls "Short People" Stunt to Mock Gay Discrimination

Pam: Evolution of the Gay Press

Echidne: Overheard on Saturday

Open Wide...

Congratulations, Danica Patrick!

Shaker Jim H. sent me the link to this story about Andretti Green Racing team member Danica Patrick making history this weekend as "the first woman to win a major auto race by capturing the IndyCar Series' event at the Twin Ring Motegi circuit in Japan."

Patrick, led by a smart call by team manager Kyle Moyer, Monrovia, Ind., went the final 51 laps without a pit stop to become the surprise winner of the Indy Japan 300.

Patrick passed two-time Indianapolis 500 winner Helio Castroneves three laps from the finish to take the lead as the front-runners pitted.

…"It's a long time coming," Patrick said on ESPN's television broadcast. "Finally!"
Woot!

Of course, you knew it was only a matter of time before the bullshit started. Under the headline "Putting Patrick's victory in perspective," Bob Margolis helpfully explains that "Danica Patrick's first IndyCar win in the Japan 300 was more a triumph in public relations than auto racing." Of course it was.

Shaker Stayss tears that article a new asshole via email:

Bob Margolis: The win was the result of a well-calculated move—pure and simple.

Stayss: As is every other fucking win in racing, asshole.

BM: And after tiring of fending off questions about when she would win, she distracted her detractors by posing in swimsuits and making suggestive ads for her sponsors.

Stayss: You know...cause the boys shun sponsors and work for fucking free.

BM: It may be a model of how persistence, a pretty face and the willingness to take the heat can pay off in the end.

Stayss: And thank fucking God she's pretty, because if she were not, she'd certainly have miscalculated her pit strategy.

BM: And cast no doubts about it. Her victory is the first ever by a woman in Indy cars.

Stayss: ...but the point is to do just that and say it doesn't matter and highlight that it'll most likely not happen again, or all the boy's penises will fall off or whatever other tragedy could result from her success. Jesus.

BM: Until [she wins again], this win leaves itself subject to scrutiny.

Stayss: You know, my heart absolutely bleeds for those who have to go first.

Mine, too. But always remember: Every time some dude has to spend 799 words explaining why a woman's victory isn't a real victory, another feminist gets her wings.

Open Wide...

Can Someone Please Give Obama the "John McSame" Memo?

So, here's the thing: In an election when every Democrat and/or progressive is angling to make the case that a McCain presidency would effectively be a third Bush term (which is no exaggeration, given his stances on the war, torture, tax cuts, LGBTQ- and reproductive rights, faithfulness to cronyism, unwillingness to hear criticism, newfound tolerance for the dirtiest politics, etc. etc. etc.), this would be the totally. wrong. thing. to. say:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Sunday that Republican rival John McCain would be better for the country than President Bush has been over the past eight years.

"You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain," Obama said to cheers from a rowdy crowd in central Pennsylvania. Then he said: "And all three of us would be better than George Bush."
Ugh.

What really irritates me most about that statement is that it's just. not. true. McCain wouldn't be better than Bush. Not now. Perhaps, if he'd won his party's nomination in 2000, and then won (or "won" like Bush) the election, the country would have been better served. But in the intervening years, the country has changed, the Republican Party has changed, and John McCain has changed. And now he will, without question, be every bit as bad as George Bush and, in some ways, quite possibly worse. Obama totally undermined the Democrats' best case against McCain to say something that's not even accurate.

It was hella stupid for several reasons (not least of which is giving even an inch to McCain, which he doesn't deserve) when Hillary Clinton said that McCain could "cross the commander-in-chief threshold," but at least it didn't subvert the "McSame" narrative. And yeah, Obama went on to add: "But what you have to ask yourself is who has the chance to actually really change things in a fundamental way so that 10 years from now or 20 years from now you can look back and you can say boy we really moved in a new direction and we put the country on a better path," but I'll give you one guess as to whether that's going to make the sound bite if Obama wins the nomination and he, or any other Democrat, tries to make the case that McCain is Bush Part Three.

Mannion:
There are countless Republicans, Conservatives, and fellow-traveling Independents who know that George Bush has been a disaster. They want him gone as much as the rest of us do. But they don't agree on the reasons. It may have dawned on some of them that Bush has been such a spectacular failure not because he's not a compassionate conservative, but because he's a conservative period and they might be considering voting for a Democrat for the first time in their lives because they're coming around to the idea that Democratic and liberal positions are saner, wiser, more economic, more practical, and better all around for the country. But most of the rest are thinking, It's that goddamn Bush! And they're considering voting for not Obama, not Clinton, but Not-Bush.

They're willing to put up with President Not-Bush for four years, if the only President Not-Bush they can have is a Democrat.

But they'd rather have a President Not-Bush who's also not a liberal.

Now Obama has gone and told them that there is another, Republican Not-Bush. A conservative Not-Bush.
That's the Republican message. That's also the mainstream media's message. It is not the Democratic message.

Someone get Obama back on message, stat.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

The Lancelot Link Secret Chimp Hour


Where was the ASPCA during this show? Forcing poor, innocent chimps to portray human stereotypes that would make even Mickey Rooney blush is beyond cruel and unusual.

Open Wide...

McCain: At Least He Doesn't Throw Punches!

The WaPo is the latest media outlet to notice (or drag themselves reluctantly to finally cover) what McCain watchers have been saying about him forever: He's a full-tilt asshole got a temperament problem. It's the usual litany of ugly behavior, going back to when he was a kid, although it's worth a read just to get a feel for how reprehensibly vindictive McCain is, in addition to having a hair-trigger temper.

Just one quick comment: I thought it was pretty amusing that not once but twice, recounted incidents of McCain's altercations with fellow Republicans ended with the pathetically low benchmark at least he didn't punch anyone.

It is unclear precisely what issue set off McCain that day. But at some point, he mocked Grassley to his face and used a profanity to describe him. Grassley stood and, according to two participants at the meeting, told McCain, "I don't have to take this. I think you should apologize."

McCain refused and stood to face Grassley. "There was some shouting and shoving between them, but no punches," recalls a spectator, who said that Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey helped break up the altercation.

...Reports recently surfaced of Rep. Rick Renzi, an Arizona Republican, taking offense when McCain called him "boy" once too often during a 2006 meeting, a story that McCain aides confirm while playing down its importance. "Renzi flared and he was prickly," McCain strategist Mark Salter said. "But there were no punches thrown or anything."
As I've said before, are a lot of scary things about the possibility of a President McCain, but the fact that he could make Bush look like a model statesman has to be right at the tippy-top of the list. I cannot even begin to convey what a terrible idea a McCain presidency would be for this reason alone, not to mention all the others. If you think Bush was an embarrassment as a paradigm of diplomacy, McCain could conceivably be even worse.

Shudder.

[McNasty Parts One, Two, Three, Four.]

Open Wide...

FYI


[FYI 1; FYI 2; FYI 3; FYI 4; FYI 5; FYI 6; FYI 7; FYI 8; FYI 9; FYI 10; FYI 11; FYI 12; FYI 13. Hint: They're better if you click 'em!]

Open Wide...

The Puppetry of the Pentagon

The New York Times details how the military analysts for the major TV news outlets have been bought and paid for by the Pentagon, how the analysts were fed all the talking points and the spin, how some of these analysts parlayed their inside connections for favorable business contracts, how many of the networks like CNN and NBC looked the other way when questions of conflicts of interest were raised, and how the Pentagon used these retired soldiers to push the Bush administration's political agenda.

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.

As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.

“Night and day,” Mr. Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”
Read the entire article. It gives a detailed account of what the White House and the Pentagon went through to make sure that only its message and view of the war got out, how they retaliated against those people, both inside the government and out, who did not toe the line, and there are transcripts of conferences and briefings where the outcome of the war and the rebuilding of Iraq wasn't as important as making sure that America got what it wanted.
An analyst said at another point: “This is a wider war. And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.”
And a regime that will supply us with cheap oil for the next 200 years.

Dr. Goebbels would be impressed.

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...