Who should be roasted and carved? So many gobblers, so little time.
Serve it with all the trimmings, make it look like a feast, but the Bush White House’s “Name the National Thanksgiving Turkey” vote is rigged.
Big surprise, considering what happened in other elections cooked up by the Bush regime in Florida, Ohio, and Baghdad.
Voting for the national turkey ends at noon today, but don’t rush. You’ve got only five choices, and there’s no room for write-ins. The White House-mandated candidates are:
• Democracy and Freedom
• Blessing and Bounty
• Marshmallow and Yam
Wattle and Snood
• Corn and Maize
Even though it won’t do any good, here are some write-in candidates:
• Shock and Awe: Read Ellen Knickmeyer‘s story this morning in the Washington Post. She notes that Iraq’s new army looks a lot like Saddam Hussein‘s old one. And she does a good job of basting ex-pasha Jerry Bremer with his own juices (Cooking tip: Remove all medal objects from Bremer before roasting him.):
Bremer’s order on May 23, 2003, to disband Hussein’s nearly 400,000-strong army is seen by many critics today as one of the gravest miscalculations by the United States in Iraq. Removing all vestige of Iraq’s army when there were not enough U.S. troops to fully secure the country left borders open, allowed the insurgency to flourish and encouraged the growth of private militias, the critics say. Jobless and embittered, some troops turned to the insurgency.
U.S. officials insist that Hussein’s army effectively disbanded itself — melting away after Americans invaded — and that reinstalling the old, Sunni Muslim-dominated military would have been impossible, and unacceptable.
In fact, Iraq’s American overseers at first never planned to reassemble much of an Iraqi army. The plan was to field a 40,000-man army, one-tenth the size of the old one, only by 2006. Iraqi troops would concentrate on tasks such as disarming land mines while U.S. troops handled the fledgling insurgency, then-senior U.S. military adviser Walter Slocombe said in June 2003.
Knickmeyer’s refusal to take the Bush regime’s words at their ridiculously low face value just proves my point in yesterday’s item about Bob Woodward and Steve Hadley that she’s only one of the many current journalists who are more “foremost” than Woodward. She started throwing the words of George W. Bush‘s handlers back in its faces — politely — long before vise president Dick Cheney vowed to do so to his critics.
• Jack and Mike: Abramoff and Scanlon, the two main characters — not counting their White House and Capitol Hill pals — in the Wampumgate scandal. Susan Schmidt, another Washington Post reporter not named “Woodward,” has been on all the current president’s men in that scandal for years. She co-authored a profile of Scanlon just yesterday.
I could go on, but who’s got time? Let’s just settle on the obvious choice:
• Bush and Cheney
I’m sure we’ll be able to knock some stuffing out of them for you.