Terry Jones —What Makes Bush & Blair Tick

[Patrick Degan]

Linky

Invade Iraq? It's a no brainer

Terry Jones on what makes our leaders tick

Monday April 19, 2004
The Guardian

Everyone agrees that President George Bush's lobotomy has been a tremendous success.

Dick Cheney, the vice-president, declared that he was fully satisfied with it from his point of view.

"Without the lobotomy," Mr Cheney told the American Academy of Neurology, "it might have proved difficult to persuade the president to start wars all around the world without any good pretext. But the removal of those parts of the brain associated with understanding the outcome of one's actions has enabled the president to function fully and without hesitation. Even when it is clear that disaster is around the corner, as it is currently in Iraq, the chief executive is able to go on TV and announce that everything is on course and that he has no intention of changing tactics that have already proved disastrous.

"I would like to commend the surgeons, nurses and all involved with the operation," said Mr Cheney.

Similarly, Donald Rumsfeld regards the surgery as an unqualified success. He writes in this month's American Medical Association Journal: "The president's prefrontal leucotomy has successfully removed all neural reflexes resistant to war-profiteering. It is a tribute to the medical team who undertook this delicate operation that, no matter how close the connection between those instigating military action and the companies who benefit from it, the president is able to carry on as if he were morally in the right."

Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence, is also delighted at the beneficial effect that medical intervention has had on the president. "Just imagine how the president might have responded to Ariel Sharon's crazy schemes if we hadn't had the foresight to take out the neural pathways normally connected with perception and understanding," Mr Wolfowitz told a meeting of the Association of Muslim Neurosurgeons For An All-Jewish Israel. "The president is now capable of treating the man responsible for the massacres at Shatila and Sabra as a decent human being, whose advice on how to deal with the problems of Israel is worth not only listening to, but also taking."

With all this acclaim for the US president's lobotomy, it is scarcely surprising that Tony Blair, should have decided to follow suit and undergo similar psychosurgery.

Thanks to the inhibition of specific presynaptic terminals, Mr Blair now appears to feel totally comfortable giving his support to the US massacre in Falluja and to the activities of US snipers who have been so busy in that city shooting women, children and ambulance drivers in revenge for the murder of four mercenaries.

It is also believed that intervention in the motor speech area of his cortex now enables Mr Blair to describe Iraqis who respond negatively to having their houses blown up as "fanatics, extremists and terrorists".

Similarly ablation of the oculomotor nerve means that Mr Blair is now able to see Israeli plans to retain Jewish settlements in the West Bank as a big step forward in the Middle East peace process.

What has come as a complete surprise, however, is the recent revelation that Mr Blair's brain surgery may even predate President Bush's. For without the removal of large portions of his cerebellum, it is hard to understand how the British prime minister could have turned down Mr Bush's no-strings offer to keep British troops out of combat in Iraq.

Political commentators are thus finding it impossible to say whether it is Mr Bush or Mr Blair who has pioneered the use of executive lobotomies in the war against terrorism.

· Terry Jones is a writer, film director, actor and Python

terryjones.cjb.net

[Keevan_Colton]

And the Python still has it!

[Supreme_Warlord]

Article

A lobotomy would imply that Bush posessed a decent sized brain which could be excised. I prefer to think of him more as the so called "Prince of Darkness" Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz's s sock puppet.

[Edi]

Brilliant! I got a good laugh out of this one!

[HemlockGrey]

Very funny, but what "massacre at Falluja"?

[Edi]

That's the part where between 500 and 700 Iraqis were killed during the recent fighting in Fallujah, and not nearly all of them were resistance fighters.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

Compare the tactics used at Waco (where there were an undisclosed number of innocents holed up with hostiles) with Fallujah (where there were an undisclosed number of innocents holed up with hostiles).

The ironic thing is that a lot of the same people who went apoplectic over the relatively hands-off Waco tactics seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to use area-effect weapons like artillery against insurgents in crowded streets in Iraq.

[Keevan_Colton]

Compare the tactics used at Waco (where there were an undisclosed number of innocents holed up with hostiles) with Fallujah (where there were an undisclosed number of innocents holed up with hostiles).

The ironic thing is that a lot of the same people who went apoplectic over the relatively hands-off Waco tactics seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to use area-effect weapons like artillery against insurgents in crowded streets in Iraq.

"But, but, they're not americans!"

[Glocksman]

Thanks to the inhibition of specific presynaptic terminals, Mr Blair now appears to feel totally comfortable giving his support to the US massacre in Falluja and to the activities of US snipers who have been so busy in that city shooting women, children and ambulance drivers in revenge for the murder of four mercenaries

Either the piece is sarcastic on more than one level or he's just a blithering idiot for believing this tripe.

[Glocksman]

Compare the tactics used at Waco (where there were an undisclosed number of innocents holed up with hostiles) with Fallujah (where there were an undisclosed number of innocents holed up with hostiles).

The ironic thing is that a lot of the same people who went apoplectic over the relatively hands-off Waco tactics seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to use area-effect weapons like artillery against insurgents in crowded streets in Iraq.

It's hardly 'relatively hands off' to flood the building with flammable tear gas (and there are nonflammable ones available) and then watch everyone in it burn alive.

The FBI claims it was an accident. Given the FBI's institutional penchant for ending such sieges with a fire (several of the more notorious survivalist whackos for example), I don't believe that for a second.


Maybe we should call in the FBI at Fallujah.

[Darth Wong]

It's hardly 'relatively hands off' to flood the building with flammable tear gas (and there are nonflammable ones available) and then watch everyone in it burn alive.

I see you were asleep during the long standoff, the repeated attempts to resolve the problem diplomatically despite the other side having initiated hostilities by murdering police officers, and the fact that they did use tear gas rather than fucking artillery.

The FBI claims it was an accident. Given the FBI's institutional penchant for ending such sieges with a fire (several of the more notorious survivalist whackos for example), I don't believe that for a second.

Maybe we should call in the FBI at Fallujah.

Yes, I'm sure tear gas would be far more destructive at Fallujah than artillery strikes

[Glocksman]

Tear gas that's flammable into a building where there are known to be open flames (Coleman stoves and lanterns), as the Davidians had no electricity for lighting or cooking.


There are nonflammable tear gases available, so why did the FBI choose the flammable one? Like I said, the FBI has a history of ending standoffs with radicals by fire. I don't believe the 'accident' claim for a second.

My point was that 'relatively hands off' doesn't consist of holding a barbeque after employing 'diplomatic' tactics that your agency's own negotiations people tell you are doomed to fail.

Analogies between Waco and Fallujah are flawed in that Waco was a law enforcement operation that encompassed a single building, whereas Fallujah was a military operation against a city in rebellion.

It's regrettable, but its a fact of life that there will be civilian casualties in urban combat unless the civilians flee the town.

Frankly, I don't trust most of the reports of large scale massacres and snipers shooting at women and children

Two of the victims, woman and small child, were brought in simultaneously. Both had been shot in the neck by what witnesses said was a US sniper. Medical personnel expected neither to survive the injuries.

So Marine snipers are ignoring the AK toting dudes to shoot at kids and women? Riight.

US forces are using aerial bombardments in addition to ground forces. Drones can be spotted flying overhead, dropping bright flares, scanning the cityscape for targets. Some patients at the clinics have shrapnel and burn wounds they say resulted from the use of cluster bombs.

I wonder how many of the 'patients' at these clinics are indeed resistance fighters?


I don't trust everything the US government says, but these reports are over the top.

Yes, I'm sure tear gas would be far more destructive at Fallujah than artillery strikes

Don't tell me you thought I was being serious?
I would have thought the emoticon would have shown I wasn't.

[Cromag]

Thanks to the inhibition of specific presynaptic terminals, Mr Blair now appears to feel totally comfortable giving his support to the US massacre in Falluja and to the activities of US snipers who have been so busy in that city shooting women, children and ambulance drivers in revenge for the murder of four mercenaries

Where did this come from? I don't recall seeing anything about snipers taking out innocents. The rest of the piece, I can see the source of the satire, but this bit is disturbing if there is some real basis to the claims.

[Glocksman]

Thanks to the inhibition of specific presynaptic terminals, Mr Blair now appears to feel totally comfortable giving his support to the US massacre in Falluja and to the activities of US snipers who have been so busy in that city shooting women, children and ambulance drivers in revenge for the murder of four mercenaries

Where did this come from? I don't recall seeing anything about snipers taking out innocents. The rest of the piece, I can see the source of the satire, but this bit is disturbing if there is some real basis to the claims.

The usual Indymedia bullshit reports like this one and this one

Two of the victims, woman and small child, were brought in simultaneously. Both had been shot in the neck by what witnesses said was a US sniper. Medical personnel expected neither to survive the injuries

[HemlockGrey]

I'm not sure I would really trust the accuracy of anyone's "eyewitness" accounts right now.

[Darth Wong]

Tear gas that's flammable into a building where there are known to be open flames (Coleman stoves and lanterns), as the Davidians had no electricity for lighting or cooking.

There are nonflammable tear gases available, so why did the FBI choose the flammable one?

I am not an expert on tear gases. Why would anyone have flammable tear gases at all? And under what conditions is this gas flammable? Frankly, this sounds like a load of bullshit to me; the FBI probably used standard-issue tear gas and then wild-eyed conspiracy theorists made up a lot of bullshit to justify their claim that it was deliberate murder.

Like I said, the FBI has a history of ending standoffs with radicals by fire. I don't believe the 'accident' claim for a second.

My point was that 'relatively hands off' doesn't consist of holding a barbeque after employing 'diplomatic' tactics that your agency's own negotiations people tell you are doomed to fail.

Yes it does, when you're comparing it to the use of artillery strikes in built-up residential areas. Holy shit, do you seriously think that a long standoff and repeated attempts at diplomatic negotation are not relatively hands-off compared to the use of artillery in residential areas, for fuck's sake?

Analogies between Waco and Fallujah are flawed in that Waco was a law enforcement operation that encompassed a single building, whereas Fallujah was a military operation against a city in rebellion.

Funny; I thought the Bush Administration was saying that it was only a small number of malcontents. Thanks for clarifying that the entire city is considered enemy territory and will be treated as a military target by its so-called "liberators".

It's regrettable, but its a fact of life that there will be civilian casualties in urban combat unless the civilians flee the town.

Interestingly enough, this false dilemma depends entirely on the assumption that the Americans must enter and control the town, rather than simply blockading it and attempting negotiation as they did at Waco.

Frankly, I don't trust most of the reports of large scale massacres ...

Even the US military openly acknowledges the use of airstrikes and artillery against insurgents in residential areas; they no doubt regard those as unavoidable collateral damage in their campaign against the insurgents. But once again, it calls into question their claim of being there to help the people, doesn't it?

So Marine snipers are ignoring the AK toting dudes to shoot at kids and women? Riight.

This from the same person who insists that the FBI deliberately burned people alive because they supposedly used the wrong kind of tear-gas

I wonder how many of the 'patients' at these clinics are indeed resistance fighters?

No doubt the snipers have the same question, and many of them decide to make a snap judgement, right or wrong.

I don't trust everything the US government says, but these reports are over the top.

For someone who believes wholeheartedly that the FBI deliberately engaged in mass-murder at Waco, this is pretty fucking funny. Thanks for demonstrating that my original point was completely correct.

Yes, I'm sure tear gas would be far more destructive at Fallujah than artillery strikes

Don't tell me you thought I was being serious?

I wouldn't have thought you were serious when you claimed that the FBI deliberately engaged in mass-murder at Waco either, but you appear to be dead serious on that point. If you can swallow that, anything goes.

I would have thought the emoticon would have shown I wasn't.

It might have, if you weren't running around claiming with a perfectly straight face that the FBI routinely engages in deliberate mass-murder of American citizens.

[HemlockGrey]

Wong, where are you getting the stuff about artillery? I did a search and I can only come up with one article about gunship artillery firing on an insurgent-controlled building in the industrial section.

[Darth Wong]

Wong, where are you getting the stuff about artillery? I did a search and I can only come up with one article about gunship artillery firing on an insurgent-controlled building in the industrial section.

The British say that the American SOP is to use counterbattery artillery to respond to mortar attacks. And CNN has reported on the use of airstrikes in Fallujah. In any case, all of it is clearly much more reckless of bystander safety than the use of "the wrong kind of tear gas", which Glocksman considers to be outright murder.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Wong, where are you getting the stuff about artillery? I did a search and I can only come up with one article about gunship artillery firing on an insurgent-controlled building in the industrial section.

The British say that the American SOP is to use counterbattery artillery to respond to mortar attacks. And CNN has reported on the use of airstrikes in Fallujah. In any case, all of it is clearly much more reckless of bystander safety than the use of "the wrong kind of tear gas", which Glocksman considers to be outright murder.

They also used Strike Eagles to strafe the streets with their handy-dandy 20mm rotary cannon. Not exactly surgical, but it doesn't risk soldiers and is far quicker.

I don't see any of the other Coalition nations doing that.

[Keevan_Colton]

The British say that the American SOP is to use counterbattery artillery to respond to mortar attacks. And CNN has reported on the use of airstrikes in Fallujah. In any case, all of it is clearly much more reckless of bystander safety than the use of "the wrong kind of tear gas", which Glocksman considers to be outright murder.

They also used Strike Eagles to strafe the streets with their handy-dandy 20mm rotary cannon. Not exactly surgical, but it doesn't risk soldiers and is far quicker.

I don't see any of the other Coalition nations doing that.

It's basically as I said the "But they arent americans!" attitude. There really isnt much more to it that can explain it. It's summed up with this whole law enforcment angle, basically we (the coalition) are the law and law enforcment there for now, as the occupying power, these civillians are our responsibility to protect as much as our own back home. But, the US has been getting advice from Israel on this kind of thing...so basically, civillian casualties are just how you do things.

If Chicago went into uprising, you sure as fuck would hear Americans complaining about airstrikes, but hey, "its far away and brown people" so fuckit.

[Glocksman]

I wouldn't have thought you were serious when you claimed that the FBI deliberately engaged in mass-murder at Waco either, but you appear to be dead serious on that point. If you can swallow that, anything goes.

There was a time that I wouldn't have believed it myself, but after an FBI HRT sniper shot dead a woman holding an infant at Ruby Ridge, I don't automatically discount such stories anymore.
However in this case, I was mistaken. It turns out that the FBI did use flammable gas, but not at the main building that caught fire.

Concession offered.

Funny; I thought the Bush Administration was saying that it was only a small number of malcontents. Thanks for clarifying that the entire city is considered enemy territory and will be treated as a military target by its so-called "liberators".

You won't find me defending Dubya's handling of Iraq and the aftermath. I'm still pissed about the deliberate lies told to stampede us into the war.

At this point, my only concern is the safety of the Marines and soldiers in Iraq.

Even the US military openly acknowledges the use of airstrikes and artillery against insurgents in residential areas; they no doubt regard those as unavoidable collateral damage in their campaign against the insurgents. But once again, it calls into question their claim of being there to help the people, doesn't it?

You know why I discount the Indymedia reports? Because of over the top bullshit reports of 'US snipers deliberately targeting women and kids'.
Indymedia reports are like reading a Robert Fisk story, only the authors don't have Fisk's talent for writing. And there's a reason 'fisking' is now a verb.
I don't believe the US government's accounts totally either, but there's too much obvious bullshit in the 'OMG EVIL US MASSACRE' stories for me to take them at face value.

And as far as helping the people rationale goes, we both know that the real reason we're in Iraq is to do Israel's dirty work because the neocons can't get their lips off of Sharon's dick.

Helping the people is nice, but it's not the real reason we're there.

[Darth Wong]

I wouldn't have thought you were serious when you claimed that the FBI deliberately engaged in mass-murder at Waco either, but you appear to be dead serious on that point. If you can swallow that, anything goes.

There was a time that I wouldn't have believed it myself, but after an FBI HRT sniper shot dead a woman holding an infant at Ruby Ridge, I don't automatically discount such stories anymore.

She was not being held hostage against her will by the psycho; she was an accomplice, wasn't she?

However in this case, I was mistaken. It turns out that the FBI did use flammable gas, but not at the main building that caught fire.

Concession offered.

Thanks. I still remember seeing the assault live on CNN. They were, like it or not, very careful.

You won't find me defending Dubya's handling of Iraq and the aftermath. I'm still pissed about the deliberate lies told to stampede us into the war.

At this point, my only concern is the safety of the Marines and soldiers in Iraq.

Question: why was it so important to march right into Fallujah?

You know why I discount the Indymedia reports? Because of over the top bullshit reports of 'US snipers deliberately targeting women and kids'.

Since the US is accusing the insurgents of using those women and kids for cover, it's actually not surprising at all that they would be deliberately firing through them to hit their targets.

Indymedia reports are like reading a Robert Fisk story, only the authors don't have Fisk's talent for writing. And there's a reason 'fisking' is now a verb.

I don't believe the US government's accounts totally either, but there's too much obvious bullshit in the 'OMG EVIL US MASSACRE' stories for me to take them at face value.

Take them at face value, no. But dismiss them as total lies just because the face-value is a bit extreme, I have to say no to that as well.

And as far as helping the people rationale goes, we both know that the real reason we're in Iraq is to do Israel's dirty work because the neocons can't get their lips off of Sharon's dick.

I certainly can't argue with that.

Helping the people is nice, but it's not the real reason we're there.

True, but that's the story Condi Rice and Bush et al. are now selling.

[Joe]

And as far as helping the people rationale goes, we both know that the real reason we're in Iraq is to do Israel's dirty work because the neocons can't get their lips off of Sharon's dick.

Actually, assuming this war was in fact the administration throwing a bone to the neocons, that's exactly why we're there.

[Glocksman]

She was not being held hostage against her will by the psycho; she was an accomplice, wasn't she?

Sure she was. But shooting her was a direct violation (that the sniper was ordered to commit) of the ROE that permitted the sniper to fire only at an armed target and only when the life of an officer was in danger.

In this case, the government basically admitted guilt when they paid Weaver and his surviving children a few million dollars to settle the wrongful death lawsuit he filed.

Question: why was it so important to march right into Fallujah?

Good question. Fear of the rebellion spreading unless decisive action was taken? Dick waving contest between the insurgents and the US commanders? At this point, I'm not sure.

Since the US is accusing the insurgents of using those women and kids for cover, it's actually not surprising at all that they would be deliberately firing through them to hit their targets.

Stories of artillery barrages and airstrikes causing 'collateral damage' I can accept. But the deliberate targeting of individual women and kids by US snipers?

I don't buy that one.

[Glocksman]

If you're interested in the Weaver case, CourtTV's Crime Library has a decent evenhanded article on it.