• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
May 14, 2007
Weird
This appears in George Tenet's new book. I assume the Defense Department had some reason for printing up a batch of these in English...though I'm not sure what it might be.
In any case, if I were Tenet, I would have gone with the Arabic version.
Posted at May 14, 2007 10:20 AM | TrackBack
Imagine that. They even lie to people before they tell them they will kill them. Chomsky is looking smarter all the time with his "Mafia Mentality" thesis.
And we wonder why Cuba is a military state...
Who has "Castro's" Cuba invaded by the way?
Posted by: at May 14, 2007 10:29 AMCouldn't they have hired a graphic designer? That layout looks like they slapped it together in Word. Maybe there's some sort of invasion flyer template.
Posted by: darrelplant at May 14, 2007 12:26 PMMy understanding is that Invasion 3.0 is free for one country, regardless of whether or not they welcome you as liberators, as long as you invade and leave before the trial period is over.
In all seriousness, I'm reminded of all the lunk-headed conservos who insisted that it was wrong to discuss al-Ghraib in the US media because it would anger and embitter Iraqis, as if they were more preoccupied with what they might see on satellite tv of the US version of CNN(and of course, Fox News) than what they might hear about locally.
Posted by: Jonathan Versen at May 14, 2007 01:28 PMI give up. Can anyone tell me why we aren't making a bigger thing about the administration's plan to NEVER withdraw from Iraq.
McCain is particularly clear on this, but even most Democrats are with the view: that no matter what we say, we're NOT leaving.
I'm going to be REALLY, REALLY, REALLY surprised if I see a withdrawal within my life. The best I can see is partitioning the country and moving the troops to a friendly position from where we can either a) do the no-flyzone thang, b) enforce sanctions from, or c) conduct a dirty war from.
During the election, I only heard once Kerry say that he'd pull troops out and that he had no plans for a permanent presence (i.e. building permanent bases).
And then right after that it was not heard of again, as if someone pulled him into a closet and pummeled him hard him with busy little fists about his head and shoulders till he came to his senses or woke up.
What's up with that? We should be screaming, "no-permanent bases" at the top of our lungs as the only guarantee of ever getting out.
Posted by: Ted at May 14, 2007 03:39 PMactually, the US House and Senate did pass legislation saying "no permanent bases" in Iraq.
Not that it means anything.
I do think they will leave in my lifetime, and I think that because I believe the Iraqis will kick them out. We aint' seen nothing yet......
Posted by: Susan at May 15, 2007 12:37 AMmy life was much better when I did not pay really close attention to what my government was actually doing - it wasn't until it looked like bush/cheney was going to totally destroy us that I REALLY started paying attention.
well, that was a mistake.....
Posted by: Susan at May 15, 2007 12:39 AM"my life was much better when I did not pay really close attention to what my government was actually doing"
I feel the same yet not paying attention has brought us to the brink.
Posted by: rob payne at May 15, 2007 02:32 AMWhy are WE STILL PAYING these people?
Posted by: Mike Meyer at May 15, 2007 12:34 PMI have to say, even when I wasn't paying really close attention, I still knew more than about 99% of Americans.
I lived in Canada for seven years. That teaches ya stuff.
Posted by: Susan at May 15, 2007 04:55 PMIf these were the final versions that were actually used, then I think that's where you place the blame for why the invasion went so poorly. I hope they've fired the copy-editor who couldn't tell the difference between English and Arabic.
Posted by: Adam Kotsko at May 15, 2007 07:37 PMSusan, I remembered that there were some restrictions put in, and some were pulled out during conference. Still trying to find out if the restriction is real rather than textual and if it was in the defense appropriations bill or somewhere else. Do you have a link? Was this the one that was recently vetoed or in a different bill?
I still think that no permanent bases should be a constant mantra to remind the Iraqis that we're not there forever and to remind the electorate that the politicians won't change their mind after we vote them in. I find it hard to believe that we're actually not building permanent bases because of the size, cost and manning of the Baghdad embassy as well as the infrastructure upgrades at the established (hardened) current bases.
I guess I'll look closer now because it seems that on my doublecheck after your comment, a few of the candidates did come out on "no permanent bases" issue, but it hadn't hit the mainstream as a Democrat talking point; it was sort of whispered in some interviews.
Posted by: Ted at May 16, 2007 07:30 AMI'm perfectly willing to believe that we sent over fliers in English. After all, a number of the incidents where soldiers killed Iraqi civilians in cars that didn't slow down for checkpoints have been attributed by the Army to the fact that they didn;t have signs indicating what they were supposed to do in Arabic, only English.
Posted by: darrelplant at May 17, 2007 06:19 PM