Posted on 02/10/2003 9:01:25 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs
When asked about the transition from actor to director, Clooney said the demands made on directors are a lot higher. "When you're acting in a film no one questions your intellect. When you're directing, everyone is asking 'what's he trying to say with that?'" WashPost
No one even tries to put "intellect" and "Clooney" in the same sentence, don't worry about it, George.
But the attack of sharps, flats and frets is as nothing compared to the iambic pentameters locked and loaded by the Poets Against the War. The poets have promised no quarter. They intend to take no prisoners and promise no mercy for anyone caught in the line of fire of their stanzas, caesuras and dangling participles.
Freepers are up in arms that Lord of the Rings was not nominated in every catagory. They are practically appalled that any other movie would even be considered.
You wouldn't believe the sites that came up when I searched on "women and cigars"!
Thoughts of Hershel Chicowitz
I gotta' tell you, the Iraq thing really has me on edge. And if it has me on edge, imagine what it must be doing to the people in charge! Do we have to spend $60 billion and kill thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians to get rid of this guy. Or should we just declare victory, pick up our deadly toys and go home?
Or... is there another way to deal with this?
The Bush administration appears to be willing to consider another option. Supposedly, a gutsy Saudi Arabian diplomat has gone to Baghdad to try to talk Saddam Hussein into bailing out... cashing in his billions of ill-gotten gold, packing up his things and his family, and going into exile.
So... it looks like we got ourselves a deal, bobba-louie!
The problem is... where would he go? If he goes anywhere in the Middle East, Israel's Mossad would eventually find him and do what 400 trillion dollars of American military power could not. Now, I would not be at all opposed to that. But surely Saddam is as aware of that reality as I am. So, that's not gonna' fly.
I suppose we could send him to Antarctica, Bayonne, New Jersey, or some other desolate place. But something just does not sit right with me about that. Besides, it would be an insult to the good folks of Bayonne. So, it is a problem that had been simmering on the back burner, and continued to concern me.
Then, over the weekend I saw a seemingly unrelated story that provided me with an idea. "Entertainment This Weekend" reported that Michael Jackson is looking for a new home. He apparently rejected a $14 million dollar mansion in Palm Beach - not enough space. Nonetheless, he is restless and on the hunt.
Well, during a commercial break, it hit me like a thunderbolt: Michael Jackson for Saddam Hussein.
That's right. Let's trade Michael Jackson and his family for Saddam Hussein and his. We'll send Michael Jackson, his kids... his entire entourage, to live in Saddam's soon-to-be-abandoned - or destroyed palaces. Surely there is enough room there for Michael to entertain himself, Prince Michael, and all the little Jacksonettes. In return, Saddam and his clan can live out their lives on Jackson's Neverland Ranch. You know, it'll be sort of like the Beverly Hillbillies of the 21st century.
Neverland is Michael Jackson's private haven in the beautiful California valley of Santa Ynez, about 75 miles from Santa Barbara. Named for Michael's favorite character's base camp, Neverland is a full scale amusement park with Ferris wheel, bumper cars and the Sea Dragon. It's also a colorful park with thousands of flowers, statues, forests and lakes. In the zoo you'll find monkeys, lions, white tigers, elephants and cats. There is also an private film theater and, of course, Michael's palatial house.
Now, I know what all of you are thinking: "Come on, this will never work!"
But think about it... it is a perfect match. They are both embarrassing freaks of nature, living in their own bizarre fantasy worlds, are they not? Why, I'll bet that neither of them would even know the difference.
In Iraq, Michael would look positively white! No more ugly, plastic surgery. He doesn't like the press he is getting? Shucks, he can simply have them beheaded. Nothing out of the ordinary in Baghdad.
He and his family will have all the palaces and toys he could ever imagine... enough to last a lifetime.
Most of the Iraqi citizens, I imagine, have never heard of him. So instead of having to pull up new material from a well that ran dry a decade ago, Michael can recycle all his stuff from the 70s and 80s. He can teach the people all about the English language and American customs.
*sigh* Still hoping for an early spring.
 |
You wouldn't believe the sites you come up with when you search "earth mother"... |
Before we get to today's humiliation of Maddy by Sectary Powell, let's watch her try to spin, twist, lie and finally give up on why when given the chance, clintoon and conpany dropped the ball on bin Laden.
MR. RUSSERT: Secretary Albright, you mentioned al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden. This is a New Yorker magazine article from the year 2000. Let me just show it to you. “In May of 1996, under pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia, the Sudanese government asked bin Laden to leave, and he returned to Afghanistan permanently, accompanied by two military transport planes carrying some of his wealth, more than a hundred of his Afghan Arab fighters, his four wives. Between two and three thousand of his loyalists fanned out into Europe and across East Africa. ‘It was like sending Lenin back to Russia,’ an American diplomat said. ...‘At least in Sudan we could indirectly monitor some of his activities.’” Osama also stopped in the country of Qatar to refuel with his planes, and we could have apprehended him then. Was it a mistake to let Osama bin Laden leave Sudan or at least not apprehend him in Qatar on his way to Afghanistan?
MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, as I understand it—and I was ambassador to the U.N. at the time—was that, basically, we felt that he was too intricately involved with some of the activities in Sudan, which was a major issue for us, and that it was better to get him out of there. Obviously, in hindsight, one would wish that some other action had been taken. But for the most part, that was the decision made on the basis of information at that time that he was playing the terrorist game there and that there had, in fact, been terrorist activities. As you know, there was an attempt on President Mubarak’s life that came out of that area, and that it was probably better to move him out.
MR. RUSSERT: But why not capture him, apprehend him when he was refueling in Qatar?
MS. ALBRIGHT: I can’t answer that question.
Tim wusses out here and goes on the question Schwarzkopf.
Bad Tim!!
Now Maddy will tell us why the president just doesn't have it quite right.
MR. RUSSERT: Madam Secretary, let me show you what you said last September 2002 and see if it still represents your view. “Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the administration was ‘over-dramatizing’ the threat posed by Iraq...‘I not share in the irrational exuberance for conflict,’ she said.” Is that still your view?s,ps. MS. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Yes, pretty much. I mean, I think that clearly Iraq is a very, very serious problem, but I am concerned about al-Qaeda and the war against terrorism, and I am concerned about North Korea, which I think is much more dangerous. And for me, while Iraq is a very serious problem, and clearly has a lot of weapons of mass destruction, it is the timing of it that I worry about, and I think that we have so many other things on our plate that are being avoided. And I believe President Bush when he said that the war on terrorism was our major concern. We are now at orange alert and, therefore, I think that we ought to be focusing on that. And, as I understand it, there is a report coming out by the FBI that indicates that the threat of al-Qaeda is as great as it ever has been, so that is why I am concerned about Iraq and not about fighting the war on terrorism.
MR. RUSSERT: How is the administration overdramatizing the threat posed by Iraq, and who is expressing an irrational exuberance for war?
MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that we have known, in fact, that they obviously had a lot of weapons of mass destruction and, as it turns out, the inspectors destroyed more of it in the Gulf War, and that we were assuming that there were weapons there being increased and some danger of them being weaponized. But I believe that we had Saddam Hussein in a box. We are not sure what was in the box with him, and I think by hitting it, we are creating a variety of issues and problems. Now, I do believe that it has gotten obviously much more dramatic in the last few days, and I think Secretary Powell did a brilliant job of briefing the Security Council, and there clearly is a lot of proof. But for me the issue still is why are we not dealing with these other issues? Why is it that we—you know, President Bush never even mentioned Osama bin Laden’s name in the State of the Union message. And I beg to differ, but I think North Korea is a crisis. [Yea, thanks a heap for leaving us with that mess!] Link to transcript.
But then! Just today we learn this:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said today that a new statement believed to be from Osama bin Laden talks of the "partnership" the terrorist leader feels with Iraq.
"This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored," Mr. Powell told the Senate Budget Committee.
"We see disturbing signs that Al Qaeda has established a presence in both Iran and Iraq," C.I.A. Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee. "In addition we are concerned that Al Qaeda continues to find refuge in the hinterlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan." He told senators that he, too, had heard there was a new bin Laden message. [snip]
"All those who cooperate with the Americans against Iraq are hostile to Islam," said the voice, broadast over a file photograph of Mr. bin Laden. The voice, speaking in Arabic, said the United States was seeking, through the occupation of Iraq, "to achieve the Zionist dream of establishing a Greater Israel."
The United States has not accused Iran, Iraq or North Korea — the three members of the "axis of evil," as President Bush has described them — as having any part in the Sept. 11 attacks. But the Bush administration has said repeatedly that Iraq in particular is sympathetic to terrorists and gives them refuge. NYTimes
Golly Maddy, seems going after Iraq is fighting the war on terrorism, just like we been saying for more than a year. I can't express how grateful I am you and your worthless team of reprobates are no longer running this country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.