Friday, September 12, 2003
SO LONG JOHNNY
First Warren Zevon, then Johnny Cash. It's been a sad week for those who cherish popular music.
Johnny Cash wasn't a rock musician, but he was certainly a Rock Star, in every justifiable sense of the word. And he was, despite numerous personal and professional travails in his life, a far better representative of the title than most who have at one point or another deigned to wear the crown. Here is an extraordinary and obscure factoid about Johnny - he had about as many songs reach the Billboard Top 100, 48, as the Rolling Stones. Of course, most of Cash's hits did not make the Top 40, but realize, he was primarily a folk and country artist in the 60's, swimming against a tide of British Invasion and psychedelic rock and pop bands. It's probable that Cash was the first true "crossover" music star, an artist that could have hits on multiple charts, at least from a C & W standpoint. Yeah, sure, in the 60s you had Roy Clark and Buck Owens and such but none of them had the cultural impact as Johnny Cash.
And it's doubtful that an artist could develop that type of track record in today's marketplace. Remember, in the 60s there was no such thing as a standardized playlist. Radio was far more regional and localized than it is today. Every part of the country had different hit bands and hit songs.
But beyond that, I can't recall anytime that Johnny Cash was truly out of the mainstream for very long. Every career has its ups and downs, but Cash managed to stay relevant for close to fifty years, one way or another. He was never afraid to try something new. The collaboration with Rick Rubin, starting in the early 90s, was proof of the man's golden intuition. Others in his shoes might have easily said, "no, that's just not for me."
And it's a good thing that Cash stayed in the public eye. This is a man that was there at the beginning, with Elvis and Jerry Lee and Carl and Roy at Sun Records. Too many of the original rock and roll era have been shunted aside or looked upon as curiosities - "oldies" as the term goes. This is the biggest problem with rock and roll today.
You see, most people just do not realize what valuable resources are still available in popular music. Rock and roll as a genre is still young enough that a good many of the pioneers are still alive and mostly kicking. I'm talking about Bo Diddley and Chuck Berry and Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis and on and on and on. Sure, they have no commercial relevance in the present day, but the important thing is that they are still alive. In twenty years, they will surely all be gone. Let's not wait until that time to think, "Gee, I wish I had appreciated them more when I had the chance."
Rock and roll has a vibrant history. Fortunately, it is a history that can still be appreciated first hand.
First Warren Zevon, then Johnny Cash. It's been a sad week for those who cherish popular music.
Johnny Cash wasn't a rock musician, but he was certainly a Rock Star, in every justifiable sense of the word. And he was, despite numerous personal and professional travails in his life, a far better representative of the title than most who have at one point or another deigned to wear the crown. Here is an extraordinary and obscure factoid about Johnny - he had about as many songs reach the Billboard Top 100, 48, as the Rolling Stones. Of course, most of Cash's hits did not make the Top 40, but realize, he was primarily a folk and country artist in the 60's, swimming against a tide of British Invasion and psychedelic rock and pop bands. It's probable that Cash was the first true "crossover" music star, an artist that could have hits on multiple charts, at least from a C & W standpoint. Yeah, sure, in the 60s you had Roy Clark and Buck Owens and such but none of them had the cultural impact as Johnny Cash.
And it's doubtful that an artist could develop that type of track record in today's marketplace. Remember, in the 60s there was no such thing as a standardized playlist. Radio was far more regional and localized than it is today. Every part of the country had different hit bands and hit songs.
But beyond that, I can't recall anytime that Johnny Cash was truly out of the mainstream for very long. Every career has its ups and downs, but Cash managed to stay relevant for close to fifty years, one way or another. He was never afraid to try something new. The collaboration with Rick Rubin, starting in the early 90s, was proof of the man's golden intuition. Others in his shoes might have easily said, "no, that's just not for me."
And it's a good thing that Cash stayed in the public eye. This is a man that was there at the beginning, with Elvis and Jerry Lee and Carl and Roy at Sun Records. Too many of the original rock and roll era have been shunted aside or looked upon as curiosities - "oldies" as the term goes. This is the biggest problem with rock and roll today.
You see, most people just do not realize what valuable resources are still available in popular music. Rock and roll as a genre is still young enough that a good many of the pioneers are still alive and mostly kicking. I'm talking about Bo Diddley and Chuck Berry and Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis and on and on and on. Sure, they have no commercial relevance in the present day, but the important thing is that they are still alive. In twenty years, they will surely all be gone. Let's not wait until that time to think, "Gee, I wish I had appreciated them more when I had the chance."
Rock and roll has a vibrant history. Fortunately, it is a history that can still be appreciated first hand.
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
RIAA IN THE NEWS
Guess you've probably already heard the news about how a 12-year old girl from the projects of New York is one of the first to agree to an out-of-court settlement with the RIAA. The NY tabloids had a field day with it. What did I say three months ago? The RIAA was shaking kids down for their lunch money? And clothes and school supplies too! Hope the suits in the glass houses are sleeping better tonight.
On Tuesday there were several articles in the LA Times discussing industry reaction to all of this. Some of it mirrors what I have said somewhere on this web site already. In "Piracy Gets Mixed Reviews" a local musician, Arianna Murray of the band Earlimart, says in part:
"We put a lot of art into our work. Our record is an enhanced CD with videos on it. That's not something you can download, at least not yet."
I feel that is very important. Artists in the future have to concern themselves with presentations that are not inherently downloadable. CD-ROMs appear to be that way now. Live performances will always be that way.
In the same article Janis Ian, of "Seventeen" fame, has this to say:
"The Internet, and downloading, are here to stay . . . Anyone who thinks otherwise should prepare themselves to end up on the slag heap of history."
Agreed. And already previously noted right here.
And on Sept. 5th, the Times ran this editorial "Talkin' Bout my CD Prices" which had this to say:
"Music executives have claimed for years that Internet downloading, not exorbitant pricing, was the cause of slumping sales. But CD pricing has always been about maximizing profit, not attracting new buyers. . .
When the CD replaced vinyl in the early 1980s, manufacturing a compact disc cost less than pressing an LP record. Executives, however, raised prices as fast as possible and quit producing vinyl records just as quickly. . .
Since that industry bonanza, much has gone wrong. In their hunt for Britney Spears-sized jackpots, music executives failed to cultivate offbeat new bands, leading consumers to complain about bland offerings. "
I feel a chill. It's as if someone is channeling my thoughts.
Guess you've probably already heard the news about how a 12-year old girl from the projects of New York is one of the first to agree to an out-of-court settlement with the RIAA. The NY tabloids had a field day with it. What did I say three months ago? The RIAA was shaking kids down for their lunch money? And clothes and school supplies too! Hope the suits in the glass houses are sleeping better tonight.
On Tuesday there were several articles in the LA Times discussing industry reaction to all of this. Some of it mirrors what I have said somewhere on this web site already. In "Piracy Gets Mixed Reviews" a local musician, Arianna Murray of the band Earlimart, says in part:
"We put a lot of art into our work. Our record is an enhanced CD with videos on it. That's not something you can download, at least not yet."
I feel that is very important. Artists in the future have to concern themselves with presentations that are not inherently downloadable. CD-ROMs appear to be that way now. Live performances will always be that way.
In the same article Janis Ian, of "Seventeen" fame, has this to say:
"The Internet, and downloading, are here to stay . . . Anyone who thinks otherwise should prepare themselves to end up on the slag heap of history."
Agreed. And already previously noted right here.
And on Sept. 5th, the Times ran this editorial "Talkin' Bout my CD Prices" which had this to say:
"Music executives have claimed for years that Internet downloading, not exorbitant pricing, was the cause of slumping sales. But CD pricing has always been about maximizing profit, not attracting new buyers. . .
When the CD replaced vinyl in the early 1980s, manufacturing a compact disc cost less than pressing an LP record. Executives, however, raised prices as fast as possible and quit producing vinyl records just as quickly. . .
Since that industry bonanza, much has gone wrong. In their hunt for Britney Spears-sized jackpots, music executives failed to cultivate offbeat new bands, leading consumers to complain about bland offerings. "
I feel a chill. It's as if someone is channeling my thoughts.
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
SO LONG, NORMAN
And if California slides into the ocean
Like the mystics and statistics say it will
I predict this motel will be standing
Until I pay my bill
Warren Zevon - "Desperadoes Under The Eaves"
Warren Zevon was, to me, a genius. He had the ability to wed poetry and melody that was absolutely astounding. For me, actually, it was more than that. Though I can claim hundreds of artists and musicians that I admire, that I listen to continually and constantly, very few of them have had as profound an influence on my own songwriting as Zevon. When I was a teenager, there were Neil Young and Ray Davies of the Kinks, both of whom wrote songs rife with humor and irony, throwing out lines that would just knock you out. Then came Lowell George of Little Feat, Tom Waits and later, David Byrne of the Talking Heads. I can say that this comprises a concise short list of my primary influences as a songwriter (along with the Waddington Brothers) .
Yet it is Zevon that wrote the songs I could most relate to.
Zevon had this biting wit about him that was just devastating. The rest had it too - Young, Davies, George, Byrne - but it was far more subtle and cryptic. As David Letterman said on the Late Show last night, Zevon's songs were like "motion pictures," and it was true. Every song seemed self-contained, a story with a beginning, middle and end. Here are a couple of verses from "Carmelita":
I pawned my Smith-Corona
And I went to meet my man
He hangs out down on Alvarado Street
By the Pioneer Chicken stand
Carmelita, hold me tighter
I think I'm sinking down
And I'm all strung out on heroin
On the outskirts of town
I mean, that is just Raymond Chandler in the form of a rock musician. And it gets even more amazing than that, because the lyrics are so explicitly vivid, like you're standing by that damn chicken stand yourself, and if Zevon was just merely a lyricist, like say Bernie Taupin, he would be eligible for the Hall of Fame for that reason alone. But the melody is a masterpiece too, and the song was later a hit, I believe, for Dwight Yoakum. I'll never forget the time I was at a TV taping of the "Tom Arnold Show" (of all things) and during the warm-up, the emcee got a woman to get up and sing and she belted out "Carmelita." I have no doubts she hadn't a clue who Warren Zevon was, but she knew the song. To do both together, music and lyrics, indicates a talent far beyond us mere mortals.
Zevon's first two records for Asylum, Warren Zevon and Excitable Boy, had zero misfires. Every single track on both were classics. He couldn't keep this up, but then, how many Mona Lisa's do you need to paint in a lifetime? All subsequent Zevon records had at least two or three masterpieces of form, no matter how far out of the mainstream he became.
Inspiration, thy name is Zevon.
One of my all time favorites is one of his less known works from the first album, "The French Inhaler." When I first heard it, coming at the end of a Side One that already included "Frank and Jesse James," "Hasten Down the Wind," and "Poor Poor Pitiful Me" (with the original S & M verse intact, that Linda Ronstadt deleted), it absolutely floored me, I wasn't prepared for it. There have been nights when I have listened to this song a dozen times in a row, wondering how the hell anyone could think of this in the first place, especially the line "with your scarves and your miracles" as well as the horrific description of what happened to the woman's "pretty face." Pure genius. I will reprint the lyrics here, as my elegy for the man I so much admire.
How you going to make your way in the world, woman
When you weren't cut out for working
When your fingers are slender and frail
How're you going to get around
In this sleazy bedroom town
If you don't put yourself up for sale
Where will you go with your scarves and your miracles
Who's going to know who you are
Drugs and wine and flattering light
You must try again till you get it right
Maybe you'll end up with someone different every night
All these people with no home to go home to
They'd all like to spend the night with you
Maybe I would too
But tell me
How're you going to make your way in the world woman
When you weren't cut out for working
When you just can't concentrate
And you always show up late
You said you were an actress
Yes, I believe you are
I--I--I thought you'd be a star
So I drank up all the money
Yes, I drank up all the money
With these phonies in this Hollywood bar
These friends of mine in this Hollywood bar
Loneliness and frustration
We both came down with an acute case
When the light came up at two
I caught a glimpse of you
And your face looked like something
Death brought with him in his suitcase
Your pretty face
It looked so wasted
Another pretty face
Devastated
The French Inhaler
He stamped and mailed her
So long, Norman
And she said, so long, Norman
And if California slides into the ocean
Like the mystics and statistics say it will
I predict this motel will be standing
Until I pay my bill
Warren Zevon - "Desperadoes Under The Eaves"
Warren Zevon was, to me, a genius. He had the ability to wed poetry and melody that was absolutely astounding. For me, actually, it was more than that. Though I can claim hundreds of artists and musicians that I admire, that I listen to continually and constantly, very few of them have had as profound an influence on my own songwriting as Zevon. When I was a teenager, there were Neil Young and Ray Davies of the Kinks, both of whom wrote songs rife with humor and irony, throwing out lines that would just knock you out. Then came Lowell George of Little Feat, Tom Waits and later, David Byrne of the Talking Heads. I can say that this comprises a concise short list of my primary influences as a songwriter (along with the Waddington Brothers) .
Yet it is Zevon that wrote the songs I could most relate to.
Zevon had this biting wit about him that was just devastating. The rest had it too - Young, Davies, George, Byrne - but it was far more subtle and cryptic. As David Letterman said on the Late Show last night, Zevon's songs were like "motion pictures," and it was true. Every song seemed self-contained, a story with a beginning, middle and end. Here are a couple of verses from "Carmelita":
I pawned my Smith-Corona
And I went to meet my man
He hangs out down on Alvarado Street
By the Pioneer Chicken stand
Carmelita, hold me tighter
I think I'm sinking down
And I'm all strung out on heroin
On the outskirts of town
I mean, that is just Raymond Chandler in the form of a rock musician. And it gets even more amazing than that, because the lyrics are so explicitly vivid, like you're standing by that damn chicken stand yourself, and if Zevon was just merely a lyricist, like say Bernie Taupin, he would be eligible for the Hall of Fame for that reason alone. But the melody is a masterpiece too, and the song was later a hit, I believe, for Dwight Yoakum. I'll never forget the time I was at a TV taping of the "Tom Arnold Show" (of all things) and during the warm-up, the emcee got a woman to get up and sing and she belted out "Carmelita." I have no doubts she hadn't a clue who Warren Zevon was, but she knew the song. To do both together, music and lyrics, indicates a talent far beyond us mere mortals.
Zevon's first two records for Asylum, Warren Zevon and Excitable Boy, had zero misfires. Every single track on both were classics. He couldn't keep this up, but then, how many Mona Lisa's do you need to paint in a lifetime? All subsequent Zevon records had at least two or three masterpieces of form, no matter how far out of the mainstream he became.
Inspiration, thy name is Zevon.
One of my all time favorites is one of his less known works from the first album, "The French Inhaler." When I first heard it, coming at the end of a Side One that already included "Frank and Jesse James," "Hasten Down the Wind," and "Poor Poor Pitiful Me" (with the original S & M verse intact, that Linda Ronstadt deleted), it absolutely floored me, I wasn't prepared for it. There have been nights when I have listened to this song a dozen times in a row, wondering how the hell anyone could think of this in the first place, especially the line "with your scarves and your miracles" as well as the horrific description of what happened to the woman's "pretty face." Pure genius. I will reprint the lyrics here, as my elegy for the man I so much admire.
How you going to make your way in the world, woman
When you weren't cut out for working
When your fingers are slender and frail
How're you going to get around
In this sleazy bedroom town
If you don't put yourself up for sale
Where will you go with your scarves and your miracles
Who's going to know who you are
Drugs and wine and flattering light
You must try again till you get it right
Maybe you'll end up with someone different every night
All these people with no home to go home to
They'd all like to spend the night with you
Maybe I would too
But tell me
How're you going to make your way in the world woman
When you weren't cut out for working
When you just can't concentrate
And you always show up late
You said you were an actress
Yes, I believe you are
I--I--I thought you'd be a star
So I drank up all the money
Yes, I drank up all the money
With these phonies in this Hollywood bar
These friends of mine in this Hollywood bar
Loneliness and frustration
We both came down with an acute case
When the light came up at two
I caught a glimpse of you
And your face looked like something
Death brought with him in his suitcase
Your pretty face
It looked so wasted
Another pretty face
Devastated
The French Inhaler
He stamped and mailed her
So long, Norman
And she said, so long, Norman
Sunday, September 07, 2003
GEORGE BUSH IS NOT A LIAR
Wow! Did I say that? Well, far be it from me to offer comfort to our somewhat beleagured president, but if you plug "Bush is a liar" into a Google search you come up with about 20,000 more "hits" than if you plug in "Bush is not a liar." (Diversion: does anybody ever look that far, to say #134, 567? Just wonderin')
So if Bush isn't a liar, what is he? To me he is a master of empty political rhetoric, another lesson he's learned well from Ronald Reagan. You'll find that all of his speeches contain certain signposts and code words that are designed to make his target audience feel all fuzzy, like when he vowed to the American Legion that nothing short of "total victory" would be acceptable in the war on terror. Which begs the question: how exactly do you define "total victory"? The answer is, you likely cannot, at least not in politics. In sports you can, but even then, once the season or the match is over, a new season or match will begin and it won't matter what has happened in the past. Total victory in sports is necessarily temporary, otherwise what would be the point of playing?
What Bush does is select certain key words and harp on them over and over. Some of his favorites, at least since 9/11, have been "freedom" "liberty" and "peace". These terms ring true with Americans, we all have fairly conclusive views that these words are "good" things. However, these words are almost impossible to define. "Freedom" for one person may very well mean "oppression" to another. The same can be said about "liberty" - about as deliberately deceptive a concept as the nation has ever come across.
But the vagueness of the words, and their importance as symbols of America, are precisely why they are effective rhetoric. How can you possibly argue with someone who is defending our freedom and liberty and paving the way for peace? Consider some of these lines from the President's much celebrated and now controversial speech aboard the USS Lincoln, heralding the end of major combat in Iraq:
"In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world."
"Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free."
"In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom."
"Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq."
"And anyone in the world, including the Arab world, who works and sacrifices for freedom has a loyal friend in the United States of America."
"Our commitment to liberty is America's tradition -- declared at our founding; affirmed in Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms; asserted in the Truman Doctrine and in Ronald Reagan's challenge to an evil empire. We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in a peaceful Palestine. The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. Where freedom takes hold, hatred gives way to hope. When freedom takes hold, men and women turn to the peaceful pursuit of a better life. American values and American interests lead in the same direction: We stand for human liberty."
"We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace."
See what I mean? In the one paragraph alone Bush mentions "freedom" five times and "liberty" twice. Why? My guess is that these words are easy for citizens to understand and that they also have the additional benefit of providing an increase in his approval ratings. Plus, how can you argue with these terms? How do you oppose wanting freedom? Yet, what exactly do these terms mean, in reality, not in text? No one knows for sure, but they seem to work for the president.
Besides, this is what America wants to hear. They want to hear that we are "winning" the war on terror. As long as we are winning, the costs of the war - both in dollars and in human lives - are acceptable. The empty political rhetoric works, especially with the country still psychologically fragile since the WTC and Pentagon attacks.
Unfortunately, the enemies didn't get the message. The enemies, not quite all of them vanquished, have soldiered on to fight another day, and another and another. Now, Bush is being held accountable for all the problems administering the peace in Iraq and has come across some fairly sizable bi-partisan criticism. So much so that he must address the nation again tonight.
So it will be interesting how much Bush will rely on the empty rhetoric that has worked so well for him in the past. Freedom, liberty, peace, liberation, patience, terror, security - all of these words will be used in the speech, some several times over. There is no substance to these words, no more than a bellyaching kittycat in its quest for a bowl of food.
The question is - will America let him get away with it again? My intuition tells me - of course. Americans refuse to listen to bad news.
It's just not lies.
NOW, RUMSFELD, THAT'S ANOTHER STORY
The Secretary of Defense, you ask, is he a liar? I think probably so. In my book, he is far more contemptable, because he's the freaking architect of this whole international mess, and he has done it in a swaggering, insulting, arrogant and smug style. This is a man who will refuse to admit he was wrong - even when he admits he was wrong - even on his deathbed.
Finally, yesterday, he admitted what others in the cabal have said, that the pre-war planning concentrated on all the things that didn't happen. None of the things that did happen - looting, resistance, lack of support from citizen Iraqis - were planned for. In the private sector, with the graph arrow taking a huge downward plunge, Rumsfeld would have been canned by now, and replaced. Actually, that's what is happening to everyone below Rumsfeld on the pecking order, yet the man is still trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass by making these stunningly utopian remarks (as reported in today's LA Times)
"For all the difficulties, and there are certainly challenges, the Iraqi people are so much better off than four or five months ago."
Well, I've never been to Iraq. Any Iraqi's out there (and they would be the ones to confirm or deny this, not an American civillian) want to weigh in on the subject? And to top this off, in the same article comes this quote from Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, which seems to completely contradict Rumsfeld:
"A platoon out of any one of my battalions could defeat the threat, readily. I don't need any more forces. We need the Iraqi people to help us and give us the intelligence we need."
Gee, is it just me or am I missing something? If the Iraqi's are so much better off now than before (what with the lack of electricity and all) wouldn't they just be pounding down the door of Central Command to nark out all of the country's enemies?
What's the matter, doesn't the enemy listen to our rhetoric?
Wow! Did I say that? Well, far be it from me to offer comfort to our somewhat beleagured president, but if you plug "Bush is a liar" into a Google search you come up with about 20,000 more "hits" than if you plug in "Bush is not a liar." (Diversion: does anybody ever look that far, to say #134, 567? Just wonderin')
So if Bush isn't a liar, what is he? To me he is a master of empty political rhetoric, another lesson he's learned well from Ronald Reagan. You'll find that all of his speeches contain certain signposts and code words that are designed to make his target audience feel all fuzzy, like when he vowed to the American Legion that nothing short of "total victory" would be acceptable in the war on terror. Which begs the question: how exactly do you define "total victory"? The answer is, you likely cannot, at least not in politics. In sports you can, but even then, once the season or the match is over, a new season or match will begin and it won't matter what has happened in the past. Total victory in sports is necessarily temporary, otherwise what would be the point of playing?
What Bush does is select certain key words and harp on them over and over. Some of his favorites, at least since 9/11, have been "freedom" "liberty" and "peace". These terms ring true with Americans, we all have fairly conclusive views that these words are "good" things. However, these words are almost impossible to define. "Freedom" for one person may very well mean "oppression" to another. The same can be said about "liberty" - about as deliberately deceptive a concept as the nation has ever come across.
But the vagueness of the words, and their importance as symbols of America, are precisely why they are effective rhetoric. How can you possibly argue with someone who is defending our freedom and liberty and paving the way for peace? Consider some of these lines from the President's much celebrated and now controversial speech aboard the USS Lincoln, heralding the end of major combat in Iraq:
"In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world."
"Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free."
"In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom."
"Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq."
"And anyone in the world, including the Arab world, who works and sacrifices for freedom has a loyal friend in the United States of America."
"Our commitment to liberty is America's tradition -- declared at our founding; affirmed in Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms; asserted in the Truman Doctrine and in Ronald Reagan's challenge to an evil empire. We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in a peaceful Palestine. The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. Where freedom takes hold, hatred gives way to hope. When freedom takes hold, men and women turn to the peaceful pursuit of a better life. American values and American interests lead in the same direction: We stand for human liberty."
"We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace."
See what I mean? In the one paragraph alone Bush mentions "freedom" five times and "liberty" twice. Why? My guess is that these words are easy for citizens to understand and that they also have the additional benefit of providing an increase in his approval ratings. Plus, how can you argue with these terms? How do you oppose wanting freedom? Yet, what exactly do these terms mean, in reality, not in text? No one knows for sure, but they seem to work for the president.
Besides, this is what America wants to hear. They want to hear that we are "winning" the war on terror. As long as we are winning, the costs of the war - both in dollars and in human lives - are acceptable. The empty political rhetoric works, especially with the country still psychologically fragile since the WTC and Pentagon attacks.
Unfortunately, the enemies didn't get the message. The enemies, not quite all of them vanquished, have soldiered on to fight another day, and another and another. Now, Bush is being held accountable for all the problems administering the peace in Iraq and has come across some fairly sizable bi-partisan criticism. So much so that he must address the nation again tonight.
So it will be interesting how much Bush will rely on the empty rhetoric that has worked so well for him in the past. Freedom, liberty, peace, liberation, patience, terror, security - all of these words will be used in the speech, some several times over. There is no substance to these words, no more than a bellyaching kittycat in its quest for a bowl of food.
The question is - will America let him get away with it again? My intuition tells me - of course. Americans refuse to listen to bad news.
It's just not lies.
NOW, RUMSFELD, THAT'S ANOTHER STORY
The Secretary of Defense, you ask, is he a liar? I think probably so. In my book, he is far more contemptable, because he's the freaking architect of this whole international mess, and he has done it in a swaggering, insulting, arrogant and smug style. This is a man who will refuse to admit he was wrong - even when he admits he was wrong - even on his deathbed.
Finally, yesterday, he admitted what others in the cabal have said, that the pre-war planning concentrated on all the things that didn't happen. None of the things that did happen - looting, resistance, lack of support from citizen Iraqis - were planned for. In the private sector, with the graph arrow taking a huge downward plunge, Rumsfeld would have been canned by now, and replaced. Actually, that's what is happening to everyone below Rumsfeld on the pecking order, yet the man is still trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass by making these stunningly utopian remarks (as reported in today's LA Times)
"For all the difficulties, and there are certainly challenges, the Iraqi people are so much better off than four or five months ago."
Well, I've never been to Iraq. Any Iraqi's out there (and they would be the ones to confirm or deny this, not an American civillian) want to weigh in on the subject? And to top this off, in the same article comes this quote from Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, which seems to completely contradict Rumsfeld:
"A platoon out of any one of my battalions could defeat the threat, readily. I don't need any more forces. We need the Iraqi people to help us and give us the intelligence we need."
Gee, is it just me or am I missing something? If the Iraqi's are so much better off now than before (what with the lack of electricity and all) wouldn't they just be pounding down the door of Central Command to nark out all of the country's enemies?
What's the matter, doesn't the enemy listen to our rhetoric?
Archives
