Jim Lehrer: Bags of Boredom

Jim Lehrer has been boring the world to death for decades. Barely blinking, rarely thinking, this man has never asked the tough questions, always maintains the status quo and thus has been a career-long model American journalist. His "probing" interviews with Dickless Shamey are so penetrating that the White House puts transcripts of them on their website. Way to go Jim! You really know how to use your authority in the media to inform the American public of the criminal activities of the Vice President. Just kidding! You don't.

But significant issues of ethics and journalism aside, his most pressing problem is his desperate need for blepharoplasty. Yes, I realize he hasn't even managed to update his tie collection since 1968 ('that damn Viet Namn war just monopolized all ma time! I'm still tryina ketch up!') but blepharoplasty is not as new as he thinks: it's been around almost as long as he has.

The problem lies in double standards: women are expected to actively make themselves look ugly through plastic surgery techniques like lip collagen, cheek implants, nostril de-enhancement and other techniques meant to improve, but effective only at disproving, beauty. The argument being that women must constantly be appearing to try to look better. Men, on the other hand, are expected to revel in their ugliness and to never seem as if they care that 10 pounds of extra fat and sagging skin is housed under each one of their eyes.

This is wrong.

Jim Lehrer, it is your duty as a "news"man and an American to get them bags off yer eyes. Just think, it might even help you see things clearer.

Condosleaza Vice is a Sociopath

.......................................Does this nasty smirk look familiar? It's been festering in her soul for a lifetime...

Condosleaza Vice, like the vast majority of the administration she's bed-buddies with, is a classic sociopath.

She lacks the overriding characteristic of a human being: the ability to feel emotions, to empathize with fellow human beings. And like many sociopaths, certainly all of the ones who attain heights in politics, this has served her well in the only thing that matters to her in life: to reach the top so she can look down on everyone else.

Psychologically-speaking, there is really only one contributing factor that transforms a healthy newborn into a sociopathic adult: a lack of loving human interaction. Sociopaths live sheltered lives as children and are raised without love or with that quintessential American phrase "tough love." But love is not conditional, it's not tough, and it's the most important thing a child needs to grow up into a healthy adult. Sleaza, like her sadistic compatriots in government and elsewhere, remains the lonely loveless child of her past -- smirking to hide the emptiness in her heart.

The problem with sociopaths is not that they exist -- nobody cares for them as it is -- but that they cause so much damage to others. They kill, they maim, they destroy lives and don't blink because they don't feel.

The Black American columnist Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post spent 3 days in a press entourage with her last year and easily came to the same conclusion: that, just as the world suspected, she has no capacity to feel for others. "A friend of Rice's, Denise McNair, was one of the four girls killed in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church [in September 1963]. That would have left a deep scar on me, but Rice can speak of that atrocity without visible emotion."

No wonder this beast never married, though, according to a biography written by her friend Antonia Felix, she put her life on hold at least twice in order to meet the right man and get married. Once, "during her two-year stint in the first Bush administration, rumor had it in the White House that she wanted to settle down and get married." That never happened. The one time she was engaged in her mid-twenties, also didn't happen. Neither did the one more time after she had settled comfortably at Stanford. Nobody can love someone who cannot love back.

Rice has made some highly advertized press appearances this week where she's clearly been trained and taught to smile and act sweet in front of the camera. But it's hard to act sweet when you're so full of hate that its gleams through your eyes toward the audience and it jolts your anger out even as you try to remain civil. Someone please try to love this loveless creature so that she may stop killing people and spitting her venom across the vestiges of civilization.

The only real hope for civilization and for Condosleaza Vice is that someday there will be a true and just international human rights tribunal and she will be judged the mighty criminal that she is.

Bisharraf Strikes Again

.................................................................Art by "Grumpy Old Indian Man"

Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf, or as the Saccharinist likes to call him, Bisharraf (which is Persian for "dishonorable") has made a farce of his country and himself once again. As we all know, he has led his country into being one of the handful of nations, let alone predominantly Muslim nations, that has fully and openly supported Herr Bushler's crusade against humanity.

(Another embarrassing member of this list is the shanty-town of Afghanistan which is supposedly-led by that former San Francisco restaurateur Hamid "I could have saved my people, but I'd rather kiss US ass" Karzai.)

This week has been a busy week in Bisharraf's diary: his autobiography has been published and is being released and, in an effort to no doubt quell his good friend Bushler's detractors while at the same time try to stay in the good favor of the growing Islamic fundamentalist movement in his country, (including the very pious members of his own government who don't consider themselves fundos but are still conservative and backward in their social beliefs, to say the least: just look at the deplorable condition of laws against the rights of women -- especially rural women -- in Pakistan.) Bisharraf has made some uncharacteristically antagonistic-against-the-US claims in a 60 Minutes interview:

"The intelligence director told me that [Richard Armitage] said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age'," he said about the immediate post-September 11th climate, essentially stating that the US threatened Pakistan if they would not join the coalition against terror. "I think it was a very rude remark," the little man added.

Herr Bushling today has feigned schock at such claims saying he was "taken aback" by these statements -- though obviously Bisharraf never openly implicated him, only an underling in his government. Bisharraf and Bushling then proceeded to smile for the cameras and shake their dirty hands for the world to see.

The Poop Veils the Truth

Like all arrogant leaders of the past, the Poop has further soiled his reputation with a disingenuous apology for an insult and a blunder he has committed.

In the end, after a ridiculously detailed speech in which he not only quoted someone else but offered his own embelleshed assessment of a religion that just so happens to be as significant to over a billion people as his religion is to him, he offered nothing but the rote pseudo-apology that he was sorry for the consequences though not for the act: "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address."

Turkish State Minister Mehmet Aydin summed up the real nature of the Poop's statement to, as the Poop himself has said "appease hearts": "You either have to say this 'I'm sorry' in a proper way or not say it at all - are you sorry for saying such a thing or because of its consequences?" Aydin asked. Clearly it is the latter.

It's getting pretty tedious how Muslims are being belittled and marginalized by Western sentiments of superiority -- Christianity and Judaism are hardly any different in their values than Islam. The reason why it's so easy for the West to target Islam is that so many of the countries where this religion is prominent are stuck in a time warp about basic issues such as gender equality and sexual freedom, amongst other major issues.

The veiling of women alone is a hugely problematic symbol of Islam's shortcomings in progressing with the times. However, it is only fair to note that Islam is about 700 years younger than its predecessor, Christianity -- a religion which, like Judaism, has its own extremely sexist elements even today while also having bypassed its own era of overt sexism in the general populace: let's not forget that it wasn't even until the 1960's that it was acceptable in the West for women to openly discuss such mundane details as brassieres!

Here are a few basic facts describing the persistent elements of sexism in Christianity and Judaism...Did you know?...

...that in the Catholic religion, nuns are completely veiled and required to remain virgins till the miserable day they die?

...in Judaism, Orthodox Jewish women also have the same concern about the frighteningly dangerous threat that women's hair poses to men and their own chastity (just as in Islam)? These women not only cover their hair but shave it off completely and wear a wig in public!

...in fact, in Judaism, the veiling of women was a common practice until the 19th century.

..in Christianity, in the New Testament St Paul says "If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." (I Corinthians 11:3-10)

This list is endless and it demonstrates very clearly that the practices that Islam engages in today were common practice in its predecessor religions, Christianity and Judaism, for centuries. Islam is behind the times, there is no doubt about that, but its evolution has been a shorter time in the making and no doubt because of our new information age, Islam will be much quicker in progressing than Christianity and Judaism were. At least we hope so.

Out of This World

It's been written that Anousheh Ansari couldn't keep the smile off her face from the moment she boarded the flight. She is now at the International Space Station and has submitted her first blog entry from space. Here is an excerpt which can give us some inkling of how profound this journey has been for her even up till now:

"I cannot keep my eyes off the windows. Earth is magnificent and peaceful from up here. You don’t see any of those awful things you hear on the news, from up here. The Earth is so beautiful and if we could all see it this way I’m sure we would do everything in our power to preserve it. I truly hope that more and more people get to experience this trip first hand."

You are truly out of this world, Anousheh!

George Bush es El Diablo

Hugo Chavez has multiplied his fans this week after a remarkable, though at times melodramatic, appearance at the United Nations. During a 23-minute speech, he referred to Jorge W. Bush as the "devil" no less than 8 times, each time accompanied by applause from the audience. Take a look yourselves at the now infamous moment of this speech where he stated that the room still smelled of the sulphur the devil left behind (For a longer clip, look here). He also took a moment to encourage the American people especially, but also the world at large, to read famed linguist and political scholar Noam Chomsky's book "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" . (click here for a brief clip on Chomsky's discussion on the political situation in Latin America)

The interesting thing about Chavez's speeches is that while they do at times contain melodrama (for instance his statement during this speech that Bush's reign was playing like an Alfred Hithcock movie which he suggested would be called "The Devil's Recipe"), he conducts them with a very normal and casual attitude that is not exaggerated or dramatic. Chavez's behavior on the international stage is how many of us wish we could behave if we had the same opportunity, it's also how many diplomats would wish to behave, no doubt.

But only Chavez is taking this risk. Why? Perhaps it is due to the long hours he has spent on grassroots speaking tours throughout the world, meeting with people and leaders of countries as diverse as Iran and Belarus (and many others in between) which have accumulated him a coalition against the US and its imperialist interests. Or perhaps he is like the revolutionaries he is often compared to. Whatever the reason, it is refreshing and necessary that leaders like him exist.

Was it inappropriate for him to refer to Herr Bushler as the devil? No more inappropriate than Bush calling Iran, Iraq and Korea the 'axis of evil,' or derogatorily announcing he'd "smoke 'em outta their holes" when referring to the terrorists, or his endless gibberish about "the evildoers." Bush started this game, Chavez is just taking his cue.

And Chavez is not alone. One of the most downloaded films on the Internet today is a documentary film called "Loose Change" which disturbingly details a long list of inaccuracies about what really happened on 11 September 2001 -- it's worth a look if you are curious to hear a different take on the official explanation for what happened.

What is perhaps more bold than referring to the apparently untouchable US President as El Diablo is that Chavez also did not hesitate to condemn the United Nations system which he called "worthless" because it fails to achieve its intended objectives. "Let's be honest. The UN system born after World War II collapsed. It's worthless." He added that the system "doesn't work." This was on the coatails of his new best friend Ahmadinejad who only the day before announced in his speech to the UN General Assembly that "As long as the UN Security Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective."

It has taken two shunned leaders from developing countries to name and shame the most powerful leaders of the world and give voice to the torrid opinion of a massive and growing percentage of the world's population that is left to stand by helplessly as they become brutally victimized by a warmongering group of criminals that has taken the world hostage.

So be it: at least word is getting out.

Saccharinist's Anniversary

Today marks the one year anniversary of the establishment of the Saccharinist. It's been so fulfilling though it is a tiny blog which I don't put nearly enough time into for updating. Thank you sincerely for all of you who have supported me in this project. I hope to keep the Saccharinist going and develop it further as time permits.

If you're keen on a trip down memory lane, here are some (but not all!!) of my favorite posts:

19 September 2005: Bush Need to Pee Now
23 September 2005: Katrina's Dirty Laundry
12 October 2005: The Ugly Side of Wealth
15 October 2005: Can You Say "Nyet"?
5 December 2005: Little White Jackos
13 December 2005: Tookie Was Killed Today
14 December 2005: Guide to the Plame CIA Leak Case
17 May 2006: Bushinejad
18 May 2006: The United States of Mexico
23 May 2006: George W. Bonobo
24 May 2006: Tea Party for Iran
14 June 2006: Offside Rule Explained
14 June 2006: Evin (Not) Uncovered
18 Julye 2006: "Yo Blair 'Sup?"
21 July: 2006: Yes Sir-kel!
30 July 2006: Headline Killers
11 August 2006: UK Terror Plot: Allied in Hypocrisy
14 September 2006: Katrina Spoke for the World

Anousheh in Space

Today, Anousheh Ansari took flight as the first ever female space tourist. From reading her blog, it seems she is a remarkably positive, unpretentious and goal-oriented person who is experiencing perhaps the most emotional moments of her life these days.

From reading the comments on her blog, it is clear that she is an inspiration to Iranians, women and people everywhere. The Saccharinist wishes her a safe and unforgettable journey into space.

The Fallacious Fallaci Falls

......................................................................................Source: Ulivo Selvatico

Going with today's theme of bigots, it's fitting that Oriana Fallaci has died on the very day the Pope pathetically insults the Muslims of the world. Fallaci, as you may have heard, was a shameless bigot in her own right -- her hatred of Muslims, Arabs, Middle Easterners and a whole host of people who look just like her was so powerful and overwhelming that she spent her days and nights putting it down on paper and publishing her vitriol in hope that it would help her feel better. It never did.

This fallacious so-called journalist grew up in Mussolini's fascist Italy and began her public career by fighting the fascists, but she unintelligently became the very thing she once hated so much -- as aggressive, hateful and inhumane against other religions and races as the fascists she fought in her youth. In other hypocrisy, she claimed to be an atheist though she was even more zealous than many of her fellow Italian Catholics in her personal views -- her stance against women's reproductive rights was so extreme that she was even against artificial insemination.

But she is most famous for her outrageous and unacceptable comments against Islam, Arabs and the Middle East. Her delusional and all-consuming hatred of these things led her to spend great amounts of time and volumes of publication in spreading her theory that Muslims are involved in a massive conspiracy to conquer Europe by breeding.

Yes, Oriana Fallaci was a new breed of Nazi and the most valuable legacy she relinquishes to history is that in the year 2006, extremist and hateful racial prejudice was still not openly condemned or opposed by the institutions of human civilization.

The Pope's Big Slip

When the first German Pope since the 11th century was chosen last year, there was much talk of Germany's recent past and much hope that this representative of Germany would not relive it (despite evidence that he once supported it). Sadly, Pope Benedict has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not as worldly as his predecessor and at times has been outwardly prejudiced and racist.

Today, he has gone the farthest ever in embarrassing his Church and his nation by openly insulting about 1/5th of the world's population. In a speech given in the outskirts of Munich, he insulted Islam and Muslims and, like President Bush and other like bigots before him, chose to make his point by dwelling on the concept of holy war -- a concept that exists in both Judaism and Christianity. At least we can somehow credit Bush for (unknowingly) acknowledging this with his infamous "crusades" comment.

The routine damage control has involved Vatican officials pleading that the Pope's comments were misconstrued and misunderstood. The speech is actually a well-done research effort by someone (we can only assume it was not the Pope himself) and at times provides a fascinating account of history which is not normally read by people who are not religious scholars. Sadly, it unreluctantly ventures into bigotry.

A close examination of the speech itself leaves little room for doubt that the Pope is very comfortable glossing over and minimizing his own Church's extremely violent past but is quite happy to acknowledge the violence in Islam's past. To my continued amazement, these three religions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- refuse to acknowledge how significantly similar they are to each other. In fact, there is very little to distinguish between them, their beliefs, their practices, their history, their concept of an all-powerful God (though, I'm told the Protestants vs. the Catholics do have one major difference in their relationship with God in that they tend not to use mediators: it is an increasingly personal communication that does not require a third party, namely a cleric).

His Holiness cleverly disguises what are obviously his own beliefs by quoting a 14th century Byzantine Emperor who, in a recorded dialogue with a Persian intellectual, apparently said "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". Mr Pope Sir, why don't you show ME any religion, including yours, that DIDN'T spread its faith through violence. The borders between religion and politics continue to be blurred: just as in politics, religious leaders shamelessly rewrite and reapportion history to meet their illogical and inhumane ends.

It is particularly interesting that the Pope himself (we can attribute the speech to him, despite whomever might have written it, since he is the one who spoke its words) goes on to say that "not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature" and that Islam (which, according to the Pope is, as such, contrary to God's nature) is a religion in which God's "will...is not bound up...with rationality." This coming from a man whose own religion demands that its followers blindly accept that their Prophet was born of a virgin, died and came back to life, and will one day return again. Very rational that.

Muslims throughout the world are now protesting this pigeonholing of their religion, which is to some extent understandable, but what they really should be protesting is the Judeo-Christian establishment's hypocritical refusal to acknowledge its own sins. Not one of these religions is above reproach. Not one of them has an inherent respect for human rights and justice. Not one of them is better than the other.

IAEA Calls US Liars

The government of Iran, symbolically led by President Ahmadinejad and actually led by the Supreme Feeder Khamenei, is not an exemplary government. Is not a respectable government. Is not a humane government. Is not a government that takes care of its people. Is not a government that most people, Iranian or not, in Iran or not, would like to remain in power.

But on the matter of this nuclear issue, it has achieved one valuable aim: to demonstrate that today's US government will unhesitatingly lie to shamelessly initiate war with anyone that gets in the way of its economic and hegemonic interests.

As far as we know, this is the single thing that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has also achieved and that's what has brought him international praise amongst the masses of people who are dumbfounded by the impunity with which the US destroys lives, including the ones of its very own people -- Americans do not live the white picket fence lives that they or anyone else may wish to believe they do.

This week, the IAEA miraculously leaked a hugely significant 2-page letter it addressed to the US Congress which states that the US, specifically the Congress's Intelligence Committee, lied about intelligence information and basic facts pertaining to Iran's nuclear program in their report released just a few weeks ago.

What are the truths that have been revealed?

1. Iran has NOT enriched uranium to weapons-grade levels

Iran had enriched to 3.6% whereas weapons-grade levels are anything over 90%. Enough said.

2. Iran had NOT covertly produced polonium-210

The IAEA, according to its own agreements signed with Iran, does not require reporting of production of this substance.

3. The IAEA's major inspector Chris Charlier was NOT removed because he raised concerns about Iran

He was removed because the Iranian government REQUESTED it. This is a right that they, and all states, have according to the agreement signed with the IAEA. According to the report, the IAEA considers the US Congress's report on this matter to be "outrageous and dishonest."

4. The UN Security Council, contrary to the US report, is pleased with the IAEA's handling of the Iran nuclear situation

According to UN resolution 1696 (2006), the UN Security Council "commends and encourages the Director General of the IAEA and its secretariat for their ongoing professional and impartial efforts to resolve all remaining outstanding issues in Iran within the framework of the agency."

The letter is signed by Vilmos Czerveny, the Director of External Relations and Policy Coordination at the IAEA. He closes by adding that the IAEA "stands ready to assist...in correcting the erroneous and misleading information contained in the report."

Why is it always so surprising to see justice being carried out? Because it's so rare. Let's see what comes of this small though significant example of justice, by the UN no less.

Katrina Spoke for the World

It's hard being the Saccharinist -- there's just so much upsetting news in the world, sometimes I just feel like taking a break from acknowledging it but then, once again, something so propels my sense of response that I log back onto Blogger and make it a record for the world to see. The latest thing to so move me has been this documentary by Spike Lee -- "When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Parts" -- a "film document" as Spike calls it, of the reality of Hurricane Katrina.

For those of you who wonder about the decency of the US government, about its humanitarian motivations, its capacity for "spreading democracy" as Mistah Bush has extolled for so long now, just watch this documentary, sit back and wonder about history, about power, about politics and try to figure out why the public of the world remains so silent in the face of incredible injustice. And then, take a breath and realize there's one thing you can always rely on with the public: when things get horrible, they'll finally speak up.

If you don't know about Hurricane Katrina, just know this: it took 5 days after the worst-ever humanitarian disaster in the American South for the federal government and its leader George W. Bush to initiate a response effort including the delivery of such basic necessities as water, food, and medical and hygienic supplies. You heard that right: for 5 long days at least 100,000 American citizens on American soil were stranded helpless, thirsty, hungry and in dire need of medical assistance from their most democratic of governments.

The gist of this documentary and in fact the feeling much of the world got from watching the events unfold a year ago is that if this is what the United States does to its own people, what in God's name (because that's whose name is invoked by this religious government when it proclaims its sanctity and its glory) must they do to other people -- Iraqis, Afghanis, Somalis, Bosnians, Vietnamese, Koreans....the long list is a trail of blood spilling through the annals of time for everyone to see.

If this is what Americans do to Americans, what in hell must they do to anyone else?

From watching the images and interviews of this documentary which was made in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, one gets a real sense of abandonment and mistrust from the victims and observers of this disaster -- black and white. The documentary features a number of intelligent observers of race relations in the US, including the eminent Michael Eric Dyson who has been one of those rare academics who do not shy from being vocal about sensitive issues that may pigeonhole them as unpatriotic by extremists in the US.

Al Sharpton has also made (a first-ever?) respectable presentation in the film. I've never been a big fan of His Reverandship, but ever since he got rid of that ridiculous bouffant, he's started to make more sense (or at least look like it) and what he said is a simple, straightforward account of how people on the ground must have been feeling during those floating-on-water days: “George Bush and Michael Brown are talking politics: they didn’t have information, they were waiting on reports. They could have done what we did: go right there, talk to the people! Activate the National Guard! Activate the military! Oh I forgot, they were in Iraq. Making democracy free for those abroad, while those at home had nothing.”

When the federal government finally did move in to resolve the crisis, they acted in the only way they apparently know how: with aggression. They threatened the people with their weapons and even, according to this documentary, may have shot a few of them. But there is one statement in this documentary that is so complex and yet so simple that I will repeat it here for your analysis -- it's a statement made by a black woman in Louisiana, New Orleans City Council Member Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, and it's all the more powerful for having been made by one of the most ill-treated segments of world society today:

“The feeling that residents had about the National Guard and the State Police and the visiting police that they were in an armed, occupied city – I can’t help but believe that that’s the same way they treated people in any city that we go in and invade. You know, Kosovo or wherever, I don’t know. I guess maybe that’s the way the Iraqis feel sometimes.”

Spike Lee is a revolutionary filmmaker in the United States because he is motivated by the politics of human rights in his filmmaking. No other major American filmmaker can attest to this -- not even Oliver Stone whose idea of political filmmaking is giving rise to theory, rather than commenting on practice. If you like this documentary, also check out 4 Little Girls, his doc about the Birmingham church bomb that killed 4 little girls, one of whom was apparently a classmate of that neo-con self-hating African-American Condosleazea Vice.

The War Within

The business of war has, as expected by the top dogs in power in the US, boosted the two biggest American industries: defense and Hollywood (makes sense, actually). And it's interesting to see which films manage to actually get made but still don't make the cut for Hollywood distribution -- that be-all, end-all powerhouse that determines whether your film has any chance whatsoever of being exposed to the larger public.

"The War Within" didn't make the cut for obvious reasons: the whole premise of the film is about a normal university student who transforms into a would-be suicide bomber in the States after being severely tortured by the CIA for mistakenly being suspected of having links to extremist organizations.

An exceptional cast, led by co-writer Ayad Akhtar, has managed to bring to life the intricacies and sensitivities of this tragic story of the internal conflict of a young man who is deeply entrenched in his Islamic culture and at the same time profoundly in love with a young woman, Duri (in a passionate performance by Nandana Sen), who is completely out of touch with it. In the end, even as we witness his struggle against himself, it is impossible to understand or even to believe it.

"The War Within" like other stories such as "Syriana" and "Paradise Now" helps us to visualize possible motivations and foundations of suicide bombing, all the while questioning the politico-religious ideologies and powers that lead to it. What we most obviously extract from such films is that suicide bombing is sad and it's scary and nobody, even the bomber himself, is at peace with so horrific a consequence.

Eradicating Iraq

As we all know, starting around March of 2003, Iraq was transformed from a peaceful if dictatorially-controlled land to a war-ridden wasteland of human destruction that will haunt Iraq, if not the world, for generations to come. Yes, this is the time to ask: was Iraq better or worse off than it is now? The answer is it is overwhelmingly, indescribably worse off. Iraq was, like all of its neighbors, under the rule of a greedy and ruthless despot who cared little for his 'subjects' but he was, as we all know, supported in that very role for many years by the US government -- obviously this war has done absolutely nothing to alleviate this fundamental issue.

What's interesting and new today is that after many months of trying to convince the American people that Iraq has sectarian violence and internal disputes, the US government has now dramatically altered its position with Bushler openly stating that "Iraq has not descended into a civil war." Why is that, you ask? Well, if you've noticed in that last week alone, the civilian deaths in Iraq have have reached perhaps the highest ever in the history of this relatively brief but massively destructive war:

67 civilians killed and 300 injured in rocket attacks in Baghdad yesterday
at least 50 civilians killed in attacks on 30 August
as many as 74 civilians killed in attacks on 29 August
at least 50 people killed and 70 people injured in attacks on 28 August
at least 47 civilians killed and "scores" of others injured in attacks on 27 August
at least 12 civilians killed in attacks on 24 August

So why is Bush trying to act like nothing horrible is happening? Well, it sure wouldn't look good for him to finally admit that Iraq has spiralled out of control while at the same time telling the American people that US troops aren't leaving any time soon and trying to convince them that a new war in Iran is in their best interests, too.

Nope, Bushie has dramatically altered his propaganda and it remains to be seen in November when the American public is falling for it or not.