Heard Jay Garner press conference on afternoon of 4/24 on C-SPAN. What an arrogant redneck! He's one of those odious chauvinistic good ole boy salesmen types. They intentionally had the microphone system set up so that you could NOT hear one single question posed to him by the reporters present - just mumbling somewhere "off stage." What you could hear loud and clear were Garner's obnoxious answers. And I do mean obnoxious (his colleagues have described his style as "rather aggressive"). To give you an epitomizing example, one of his favorite prefacing phrases was "Lemme tell ya,"...if you've ever cornered by some guy with slicked back hair, Hawaiian print silk shirt and gold neck chain at a third-rate used car lot or collared by some old drunk in a hotel bar well into the cocktail hour during a convention, then you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. When one female reporter (apparently) tried to shout out a question, hoping to be heard, he gave her a totally withering, "shut up honey" attitude. "I'm not gonna answer yer question when you speak out I'll answer yer question when you raise your hand [like a good little girl] I'll look in your direction in just a minute." Turns to a male reporter: "Yes sir?"

Telling moments:
When a reporter apparently addressed him (as directed by the execs at his home media office) as "General Garner." Garner said, "It's Mr. Garner. There's only one general here." (referring to a British general Timothy Cross, who was present). In other words, even Garner realizes the press is pushing the "retired General" bit too far.

He referred to Barbara Bodine as the "Baghdad Coordinator." Don't you just love how these slippery corporate creeps try to keep presenting the public with a moving target so they can't ever be pinned down? Bodine was first going to be called "Mayor" (saw this in an interview with the American ambassador in Israel). Then she was going to be called "governor," but no one was going to let the press know about her even being there....then once it was sprung this week that Bodine - who blocked the hunt for Osama Bin Laden by FBI agent John O'Neill in Yemen in 2000 - was actually in Baghdad, they changed her title to "coordinator" overnight!!

They've been playing the same game with Jay Garner. He was a prominent featured person on the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs website - but then once his appointment to Iraq was being firmed up, they expunged all trace of him. He works for a division of major defense contractor called L-3. But in May 2002, the division, called SY Technology, was changed to SY Coleman, and then to Coleman Research. Now, though Garner is the president of Coleman Research - only on a leave of absence -- they only refer to him as "retired General Garner." SLIPPERY as a slug after a rain storm.

Garner used one of the most feeble and obvious ploys on the books to discount the massive protests against the US: It's all just outside agitators! Probably from Iran...maybe Syria. And, just like Bush discounting American protests against the war, Garner dismissed the protestors as a discontent minority - not representative of the Iraq people. How can you argue with a network of good ole boys like this who have an answer for everything - that, no matter how baseless, is shoved down the world's throat, no questions accepted. The line that the protests are being agitated by outsiders is, I suspect, a stage of "case building" against Iran. Bush badly wants to attack Iran or Syria or both, so that he would have a royal flush in the region in terms of oil. He'd settle for invading Libya in a pinch, probably (in the weeks before the 2004 election maybe) but Iran and Syria would be ever so much more convenient.

Gen. Timothy Cross was like the British version of Garner - an arrogant asshole with a snooty accent. Cross felt it was SOOOO annoying that reporters (apparently) asked the duo what exactly they planned to do about the extremely serious problems in Iraq. He pushed the new propaganda line of the White House, ie., that dissenters, liberals are all just "pessimists." Cross scoffed: "What the nature of many of your questions is that There's a problem here and there's a problem there. What about this? What about that?" In true Bush style, instead of offering anything concrete by way of suggested solutions to these problems, he waxed evangelical: "The Spirit freedom burns in the heart of the Iraqi people...."etc.

The two made it clear that they thought anyone who viewed the whole invade and takeover scheme as a flop was merely a "Peter Pan." Well, Jay, I'd rather be a Peter Pan than a Captain Hook and Smee like you and Tim. Unfortunately for Iraq, Hook and Smee's take on what's going on is pure Tinkerbelle: humanitarian crisis? What humanitarian crisis? Political crises? What political crises? Everyone is just too busy being tickled pink at being "liberated" to have a crisis! Garner said the war was "the most merciful war in the history of warfare" (!!). Yep, Jay, and if we all just clap our hands, those people with their arms and legs blown off , that toxic soup running down through the Euphrates River from factories blown up by smart bombs, those newly orphaned homeless children will just be made all better. Garner said it all about where he was really coming from when he proudly stated that "the infrastructure" of Iraq is still in great shape - the oil wells are still intact." So, who cares if the hospitals, museums, public works and old folks homes have been trashed?! The oil wells are still intact! Praise the Lord! And you folks that don't wanna clap your hands along with us and think we need some sort of plan besides getting the oil wells going are just anti-freedom!!

What really bugged me was how Cross and Garner both blatantly tried to tell the press how and what to think. For example, Cross gushed about his trip to Northern Iraq and how obviously thrilled "everyone" was at being "liberated," then added, with pointed emphasis, "So let's ("us" being the reporters and the public, we assume) see THAT as the really positive part of reconstruction in the future."

In his closing statement Garner sounded like a cross behind Pat Robertson and Boss Hogg. "This is a hard job...this is a tough job," he said with evangelical melodrama "It's very difficult to take people out of darkness and lead em out into the light. But once they been standin' in the light long enough, their eyes adjust...." Then, like Boss Hogg giving a pep talk to reelection campaign supporters,, he said to the reporters, "If you wanna help, you can put down those pads, roll up yer sleeves and come to work for me. This is hard, hard work." Well, Jay, judging from your ample late-lunch-cocktail gut and extra two chins, looks to me like you better start rollin' yore sleeves up and doin' some of that hard work yerself!

Trust us!

The main premise behind the entire Bush philosophy and that of his adoring supporters (such as the folks at the American Enterprise Institute) is that government regulation is bad, and that companies do best when left to police themselves. Yes, and foxes left to police the chickens stay out of the henhouse, too. Here's a great example, just from today's news, of how well this works. General Electric made a phony show of self-policing by proposing a company rule that would have made the outrageous salaries, perk packages and severance deals enjoyed by execs more subject to scrutiny. Of course it was voted right down!

Bush is also trusting all of the lives of those out on the highways to self-policing by the captains of the trucking industry. In a stunning show of Bush logic, it was decided that since truckers driving for 10 hours straight at a time was leading to thousands of fatal accidents each year, that we should increase the allowed drive time to 11 hours! But after 11 hours, should they survive, they must rest for 10. And who's going to enforce this? Why the trucking industry, of course. If I were you, I'd keep my eyes glued to those 18 wheelers next time you have to hit the highway, whilst gripping the wheel with white knuckles, ready for a quick manuver.

An even more glaring example is the promise made by the medical insurance industry back in the mid-1990s when Clinton was trying to promote universal health care coverage. The industry said that it was much better qualified to solve the problem than the government and that if it was left alone it would do so. Yep, and now here we are in 2003, with 10 million MORE Americans without any medical insurace out there than there was when the corporate promise was made.

Presidential Material

I notice Bush is rewarding NASA Chief Sean O'Keefe for making sure that politics always come before competence at NASA. O'Keefe is being feted tonight (4/24) and presented with the Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive. O'Keefe should be proud of this distinction. I hear he beat out Ken Lay, Arthur Anderson and Richard Perle.

Did you know that background checks for federal employees are now performed by a private corporation? The checks were formerly performed by the Office of Personnel Management. But in 1996, 700 investigators were fired and the office turned into a private, company called US Investigations Services. Although this ridiculous move was made initially by Bill Clinton, it wasn't long before the sharks moved in on the scene. Chief among them: the Carlyle Group, one of the most dubious outfits ever to scoop up billions at the expense of the planet's stability. Carlyle, which can best be described as the "old government hawk's club" (Bush, Sr. being a founding member) is one of the top 20 weapons peddlers in the world, and has its tentacles into every pie. Now the company responsible for make or break background checks is a lucrative business that was just sold for $545 million to a group of venture capitalists known as Welsh, Carson, Anderson, and Stowe. I myself wonder how often manipulated background checks are being used now to channel employees with the "right political attitude" into fed jobs while keeping others out?

Bush Plays to Yet another Handpicked Captive Audience

Today Bush is in Ohio, one of the most rightwing states north of Mississippi, pontificating in his new Bily Graham speaking style to the employees of an Abrams tank factory. As I mentioned once before, he can no longer be assured of a supportive audience evern in the elementary schools he used to favor as venues and now usually speaks to military recruits and people working in munitions plants. I heard that he will not speak anywhere unless his PR team can prearrange at least three "enthusiastic segments of applause with some cheering," and one standing ovation. I kid you not. But the main reason he's in Ohio on an intimidation campaign against Sen. Voinivich, a republican who has dared to speak out against the tax cut. Poor misguided Voinivich feels that as Bush has already bankrupt most state governments and is now working on cleaning out the federal treasury, it might not be a good idea to shovel out $720 billion in tax cuts, $700 billion of which will go to the already-wealthy.Bush has also sicced the attack dogs from the Club for Growth on Voinivich. The club spends millions each year to go after politicians who stray from the rightwing party line. They are sort of like the Maoist "reeducation teams," except with a bigger budget and less charm.

Speaking of G. W. : here's a nice summary of our illustrious leader's qualifications to "lead.":

The Impressive Resume of G. W. Bush: Read it and Weep

see http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=39842;show_parent=1

Washington Post Tries to Pressure Supreme Court into Rendering a Decision that will Insure Future Big Buck Revenue for the Paper

The owners and editors of the post have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt what they are made of : corporate greenbacks. In the 4/24 Post, the bottom of the page editorial (sneaked in hoping no one will notice? ) is entitled "Let Nike Speak." Seems the Paper has, along with other corporate toady newspapers, filed a "friend of the court" brief in the US Supreme Court supporting the Nike corporation in a lawsuit under consideration now at the high court. Nike is trying to make the case that spending millions on a propaganda campaign defending itself against reports of its labor abuses in foreign factories is "free speech." What Nike is trying to do, of course, is to levy a price on free speech. If you are a big fat corporation, why, then, you can buy all the free speech you want. It isn't as if individual employees of Nike sat down and wrote letters to the editors of newspapers, or called radio shows or took up a collection in the lunch room to spring for a full page ad in the local newspaper. Nope. It was a full blown campaign designed and executed by the company PR office, complete with full page ads (which costs AT LEAST $50,000 a pop at the da major newspapers). Which brings us to the Washington Post, which charges probably well in excess of $50,000 for a Nike style "free speech" ad. The fact that the Post is filing a brief with the Court is one of the most glaring examples of conflict of interest I have seen in a while - made even more glaring by the editorial audacity in self-righteously boasting about it. Even in the editorial, it lists ads in newspapers as one of the "free speech" avenues of Nike! So, what the Post is doing is trying to pressure the Supreme Court into deciding in Nike's favor, which, of course, will be in the Post's favor. In fact, the brief is, in essence, telling the Court "Hey, we are in a position to make sure you get good press on this if you decide for the corporations." But, of course, the Post's real stake in the case is that it could insure their "constitutional right" to collect $50,000 or more each time a corporation feels the need for "free speech." Meanwhile, the rest of us are confined to single letters which most likely will - like most dissenting letters to the Post and other corporate newspapers - be tossed in the trash, unread.