Politics

Some good stuff is starting to pop up around the ‘net regarding Bush’s State of the Union address last night.

I’m referring, of course, to the claim — repeated yet again in the president’s speech — that his tax cut plan offers an “average” tax break of over \$1000. “Ninety-two million Americans,” Bush told us with a straight face, “will keep this year an average of almost \$1,100 more of their own money.”

This average is a convenient fiction; it’s a statistic that exists only because the enormous benefits accruing to the dividend-owning super-rich skew the “average” — and camouflage the fact that the cuts most middle class taxpayers will receive under Bush’s proposal are piddling. The few rich taxpayers with mega-breaks are statistical “outliers”; if you used a median rather than an average you’d end up with a far lower number — one much closer to what most of us would actually get under Bush’s plan.

I guess I shouldn’t be shocked at this late date that Bush and his administration would continue to use blatantly misleading “facts” to sell their policies; it’s been their economic approach from day one. Still, it’s appalling. And the very consistency of Bush’s willingness to twist simple facts in demonstrably manipulative and sometimes outright deceitful ways has a more pernicious effect than simply discrediting his policies: It leaves us with the sense that the man is deeply untrustworthy.

— Scott Rosenberg, You do the math (Via Robert Scoble)

What Bush said of Saddam’s disarmament record could equally be said of Bush’s domestic record. He has given no evidence of progress. He must have much to hide.

— William Saletan, A reveille, not a record (Via Tom Negrino)

President Bush did his best to scare the bejesus out of his audience Tuesday to make his case for war. And afterward, he was probably the only person to get a good night’s sleep.

— Salon’s wrapup: State of the Union: Frightened

My favorite so far: Microsoft Word’s automatic summary of the State of the Union address: “”Many hospitals tell people, ‘You’ve got AIDS America and the world will not be blackmailed if Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities.”” (Via d kitty)

What the White House thinks about you: You are simple. Parsing the speech reveals that in his 5,366-word speech, the average sentence was 18 words in length. Some might make the case that perhaps Bush isn’t good with long sentences, and we’ll admit the possibility. So you and the President are very simple people with limited attention spans.

— The Raven, Simple Minds (Via Scott Rosenberg)

Shelley Powers (Burningbird) also has a very good breakdown of the key issues, and touches on some of the issues I didn’t have much background information on, such as Bush’s health care plans:

Rather than extend Medicare and Medicaid with a prescription drug plan, the President instead wants to give seniors who need help with prescription drugs the opportunities to go into HMOs. I would suggest you find a senior and you ask them why they would prefer not to go into an HMO.

HMOs operate at a profit. To make this profit, they control costs in many ways, including restricting access to physicians and rewarding physicians for keeping costs down. These plans discourage long-term treatments, and categorize many procedures as ‘experimental’ and therefore not covered. In addition, its more cost effective to treat as many patients as possible with nurse practitioners rather than with doctors directly. NPs aren’t paid as much.

This works contrary to the needs of the elderly, who prefer and need to go to their own physicians, rather than being seen by a nurse practitioner or a different doctor on every visit. In addition, the elderly can require long-term expensive care as well as medical procedures that may be fairly new, or still undergoing research. Alzheimer’s treatments come to mind when I say the latter. HMOs work best with younger, relatively healthy families who suffer from the usual bumps and bruises, flus, and maybe an occasional heart attack or broken bone. HMOs do not work well with the elderly.

— Shelley Powers, Thoughts on the State of the Union

I didn’t get to listen in to the Bush’s State of the Union address tonight, as I was at work, but I just pulled down the CNN transcript to look over. Let’s see what we’ve got…

To protect our country, we reorganized our government and created the Department of Homeland Security, which is mobilizing against the threats of a new era.

Oh, that’s right. This is supposed to be a Good Thing. I keep forgetting that.

To bring our economy out of recession, we delivered the largest tax relief in a generation.

Well, now, that sure worked well, didn’t it? Let me tell you, I’m pretty damn happy that we’re not in a recession anymore. As are the 30,000+ Boeing employees that have been laid off in the past couple years. As are all the people out currently trying to find jobs. As are all the various business that have severely scaled back operations, or closed. As are all the business that have had to drastically slash prices in a desperate attempt to be seen as affordable, and then have to figure out how to meet their bottom lines and stay afloat. As are…as are…as are…

To insist on integrity in American business, we passed tough reforms, and we are holding corporate criminals to account.

We have? We are? I stopped hearing about anything along these lines just a few months after Enron stopped imploding.

This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes, and it will help our economy immediately. Ninety-two million Americans will keep this year an average of almost \$1,100 more of their own money. A family of four with an income of \$40,000 would see their federal income taxes fall from \$1,178 to \$45 per year.

I’m kicking myself for not linking/bookmarking this when I read it, but there was a report earlier this week showing how this statment is true — when you’re speaking in averages. Breaking down the numbers, it’s the same old story, where the biggest breaks are going to the people with the biggest wallets, and the working-class shmoes don’t really see much of this tax cut at all. Damn, but I wish I could find the source for that now, though.

Update: Thanks to Tom Tomorrow, I’ve found the article I was thinking of.

If you look at the average for all taxpayers, this is correct.

However, this average is derived from all income levels and all estimated savings. This skews the number upward.

According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institute, 80 percent of all tax filers would receive less than the \$1,083 average the president mentioned.

Meanwhile, half of all tax filers would get less than \$100.

We asked the Treasury Department, which calculated the figure used by the president, to give us an estimate on the percentage of Americans receiving the \$1,083. A spokesperson said the department could only provide us with the average savings.

Lots more good number-crunching at that link. And now, back to Bush…

These problems will not be solved with a nationalized health care system that dictates coverage and rations care.

Antiwar protesters rallied at the Capitol prior to the State of the Union.

Instead, we must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy, choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need.

This is just a question — did he really say something about anti-war protesters in the middle of talking about health care? Or is this a glitch in CNN’s transcript?

Anyway, I can’t say much about the health care stuff, that’s an issue that I really know little to nothing about.

I have sent you clear skies legislation that mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years.

You also pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto Accord on the basis that global warming really isn’t happening. Mixed message here?

I have sent you a healthy forest initiative to help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife and burn away millions of acres of treasured forests.

Is this the part where we start cutting down the forests so that they won’t burn down?

Tonight I’m proposing \$1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.

Wow. Okay, I’ve gotta admit, this I like. Did he know this was going to be in the speech when he took the stage?

I urge you to pass both my faith-based initiative and the Citizen Service Act to encourage acts of compassion that can transform America one heart and one soul at a time.

Admittedly, I haven’t read up on this “faith-based initiative” nearly as much as I should have, but what little is rattling around in my head about it sounds like it’s really toeing the line of seperation between Church and State. I have nothing against a President who is religious, or whose religious beliefs influence his decisions (to a point), but Bush’s repeated blurring of the line between the two really concerns me.

Tonight I ask Congress and the American people to focus the spirit of service and the resources of government on the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens: boys and girls trying to grow up without guidance and attention, and children who have to go through a prison gate to be hugged by their mom or dad.

Wow — talking about taking a good hard yank on the old heartstrings there. All that needed as a good old-fashioned hamhanded Spielberg movie score to have us all in tears.

Our nation is blessed with recovery programs that do amazing work. One of them is found at the Healing Place Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A man in the program said, “God does miracles in people’s lives, and you never think it could be you.”

Tonight, let us bring to all Americans who struggle with drug addiction this message of hope: The miracle of recovery is possible, and it could be you.

Not-so-subtle message: Jesus Saves! There’s a good chunk of this country’s population that isn’t Christian, and might resent the implications here. Again, see my previous comments re: church vs. state. Focus on what the government is/can be/will be doing, not fundamentalist Bible-thumping (yes, I’m exaggerating here, and I’m quite cognizant of it).

By caring for children who need mentors, and for addicted men and women who need treatment, we are building a more welcoming society, a culture that values every life.

Here comes the anti-abortion bit…

And in this work we must not overlook the weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion.

…and okay, it wasn’t as bad as it could be. He managed to avoid calling for an across-the-board end to abortion, and I can’t honestly say that I’d argue a ban on partial-birth abortions.

Update:

After thinking about this, though, it worries me a bit more than it did at first. Suppose Bush is able to put a couple more conservative judges into the Supreme Court. The suppose a carefully worded bill is passed — one that on presentation, is talked up as being a ban on partial-birth abortions, but that in a later case, could be interpreted to enforce a ban on abortion. If presented well, nobody would be likely to argue a ban on partial-birth (3^rd^ trimester) abortions, but would that be leading us into a legal trap at some point in the future? Definitely worth considering, and not a trap that I want to fall into.

And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity and pass a law against all human cloning.

This, however, has me steamed again. There is a lot that can be done with cloning, that doesn’t involve starting or ending lives in experimentation! Medical technologies, the possibilities of being able to create replacement organs, many other things, and they don’t mean that we’re Xeroxing babies and then cutting them up, which seems to be the knee-jerk association with cloning.

Our founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity, the rights of every person and the possibilities of every life.

Exactly. Too bad the Bush administration has mangled the constitution to the point where they can entirely ignore individuals rights, hold them in prison without trial for indefinite periods of time, detain and harass people for no obvious reason and with no requirement to give a reason….

In Afghanistan, we helped to liberate an oppressed people, and we will continue helping them secure their country, rebuild their society and educate all their children, boys and girls.

We will? Great! When do we start? ‘Cause things have been pretty shabby there ever since we packed up and moved out, leaving behind a lot of promises and not much else.

Across the Earth, America is feeding the hungry. More than 60 percent of international food aid comes as a gift from the people of the United States.

And I’m sure the throngs of homeless American citizens appreciate that as they try to find enough food for themselves to make it through day to day.

All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries.

And many others have met a different fate. Let’s put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.

My god — did he really say this? He is from Texas, isn’t he? Why didn’t he just drop the pretense and say that we dragged them out back, put a gun to their head, and scattered everything above the neck across the ground? The fact that he felt the need to say something like that at all sends chills up my spine. “Don’t worry son — they can’t hurt you if they’re not breathing! Har har har har…”

We’ve got the terrorists on the run. We’re keeping them on the run. One by one the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice.

I’m not sure I want to know the meaning of “American justice” these days.

And this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field a defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles.

Even though there are serious doubts as to whether the “anti-missile missiles” would be accurate or effective enough to make any real difference. Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!

Tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, the CIA, the Homeland Security and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location.

Why do I get the sick feeling that he just re-named the beleagured Total Information Awareness program?

Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power. …we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men…

If that’s true, why are we continually poking at the Middle East and preparing to go to war? I don’t see much will or perserverance there, and a lot of hopes riding on a “triumph of violence.”

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Whether or not we can actually prove that they have these weapons.

These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

This threat is new…

Funny, this threat wasn’t new when King George the First was the one giving and/or selling these weapons to Saddam so that Saddam could use them on his own people prior to Gulf War I.

Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world.

Kind of like when a political contender loses the popluar vote but is given control of the country anyway, then starts trying to dominate a former ally now deemed an enemy, intimidating much of the rest of the world in the process?

We are working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.

Meanwhile, here at home, we pull out of the nuclear disarmament treaty, telling the world that yeah, we’ve got nukes, and we’re keeping ’em, too! Nyeah-nyeah!

Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others.

Oh, damn, and for years I thought that as a voting citizen of the United States, I had some small say over the course of this nation. Guess we’ll just have to start re-writing that part of all those government classes.

In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror.

And in America, we have a government that represses its people (well, at least those that are below a certan income level, or have a heritage other than European), already has the weapons of mass destruction, and, well, I know I’m pretty damn terrified at where our government is taking us.

We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.

Which is why we’re going to war with Iraq.

On the Korean Peninsula, an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and starvation. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime was deceiving the world and developing those weapons all along.

And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions.

Which is why we’re going to war with Iraq.

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq.

Okay — so Iraq isn’t a greater threat than North Korea yet? So why is North Korea being kept a diplomatic issue, while we’re constantly pouring more and more troops into the Middle East as we prepare to give Saddam a good old-fashioned Texas-style ass-whupping?

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct — were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq’s regime is disarming.

Okay, so this is a cheap shot, but I’m surprised he made it this far into the speech before he stumbled.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

Maybe — just maybe — they don’t have the banned weapons!?! It’d make it pretty hard to show them off if they don’t exist! Yes, sure, I’ll grant that they might be there, but the possibility does exist that the reason we can’t find them, or any evidence of them, is because they’re not there! Admittedly, in the following few paragraphs, Bush does give a fairly frightening tally of what Iraq is believed to posess (Update: Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf isn’t convinced [via Tom Tomorrow]), and no, I definitely wouldn’t want to see any of that arsenal unleashed upon any portion of the world. But I still hear more sabre-rattling than rational thought.

The rest of the Iraq portion of the speech does present a pretty grim picture. Still, I hope that in this presentation of Colin Powell’s to the UN on Feb. 5^th^ more actual proof is presented than seems to have been shown so far. Too much of what we’ve heard seems to be operating on the conspiracy-theorists’ old standby of “Of course you can’t see it! That’s how we know that it’s there!” So far, the UN has seemed to be fairly resistant to Bush’s campaign, and I’m willing to accept that after all this, if the US can actually present a strong enough case to convince the UN, then the evidence is probably there.

That said, however, this…

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

…seriously concerns me. More of the “damn the torpedos” mentality — it doesn’t matter whether anyone else thinks we should do this, we’re gonna do this, and the rest of y’all can go take a flying leap. Great. Just the kind of attitude we need in our President.

If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent.

Forced upon us? Upon us? The only one I’ve seen chomping at the bit to go out in a blaze of glory has been Bush, with Tony Blair as a cheerleader. The great collective “us” of the people of the US and Britian have been getting more and more un-sure of this whole gambit the longer things go on — and I’m sure the common people of Iraq are just thrilled about what they may be facing in the months to come.

We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

A grand tradition, started, of course, by Columbus (as I’m sure the native peoples of the time would be sure to attest to), followed up by the pilgrims (just ask the Native Americans), the Founding Fathers (I’m sure their slaves would agree), the US Government as we expanded into the west (again, the Native Americans should be able to back me up on this)…anyway.

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving god behind all of life and all of history.

May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

God, or Allah, or Buddha, or — oh, wait, what? Oh, nevermind.

Anyway, that’s it. I’m sure you can tell, I’m thrilled. Not much else to say right now, other than that this certainly didn’t give me any more confidence in our President or the directions he’s taking our country. On the bright side, the next election gets a little closer every day.

Here’s hoping that all this ends up far better than I’m afraid it’s going to.

Update:

Far, far better speech by Washington Governor Gary Locke giving the Democratic response to the State of the Union address.

A nice ‘State of the Union’ political poster has been released, either for sale or freely downloadable and distributable as a PDF file:

Some people think it’s more important to give a big campaign contribution than to vote…that it’s “the American way” to buy access and influence with big money…that it’s OK if public policy is sold to the highest bidder. Some even think that the only real democracy is in the marketplace, where we all supposedly vote with our dollars.

Well, we at Public Campaign disagree, and we believe so do a lot of other Americans. Which is why we created the “State of the Union” poster. Because we wanted to use one picture to say what a thousand words couldn’t say about the union of big money and Washington.

I just might be printing one of these out at work tomorrow….

I’ve mentioned the Total Information Awareness program a couple times here (More scary gov’t agencies and Everything old is new again), usually in a context of horror and bemused amazement at a program so tailor-made for conspiracy theorists.

Thankfully enough, some of the lawmakers up on Capitol Hill are also a bit put off by the TIA program, and have introduced no less than three bills combatting it to the current legislature session.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) proposed an amendment on Wednesday to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill that would suspend the program’s \$112 million budget for 2003.

On Thursday, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced the Data Mining Moratorium Act of 2003, which “suspends data-mining programs until Congress finishes a complete and total review,” according to Feingold spokesman Ari Geller.

But the first lawmaker to take a shot at the program was Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who introduced his bill last week, though few on Capitol Hill noticed. The bill, the Equal Rights and Equal Dignity for Americans Act of 2003, was one of 12 Daschle introduced and currently has 26 co-sponsors.

Combine these bills with the general uproar from the public, special interest groups such as the ACLU, and questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, and there just might be a chance that this program might not be quite the ace-in-the-hole that Ashcroft and Poindexter would like it to be.

Lots of good links to excellent commentary on the Eldred vs. Ashcroft decision on Copyfight: The politics of IP.

(Via Scripting News)

In one of the (many) stories I’ve been keeping an eye on but haven’t babbled much about, the Supreme Court has been deciding whether Congress overrode the Constitution in 1998 by extending copyrights to stay in effect until 70 years after the death of the creator — 95 years if the copyright is owned by a corporation.

Copyright was originally intended to give an author/creator a specific, finite amount of time to reap profits and rewards from a created work before it was released into the public domain. Originally set to 14 years, the active term has been extended bit by bit over the years. The primary mover behind the extension of copyright terms in recent years, including this most recent extention, has been Disney. Every time Mickey Mouse was in danger of entering the public domain, Disney challenged the copyright laws, and got the terms extended, allowing them to retain control over Mickey.

(Irony alert: This from a company who counts among their many hits “The Little Mermaid,” “Beauty and the Beast,” “Treasure Island,” “Sleeping Beauty,” “Snow White,” “Oliver and Company,” and many other works that they were able to create films from because the original works were in the public domain and not restricted by copyright any longer.)

Today’s Supreme Court ruling upheld this extention, however. Nothing that’s not already in the public domain is likely to get into the public domain anytime soon. Free-speech advocates are in mourning.

More information:

• Lawrence Lessig (the lawyer challenging the case): With deep sadness: “The Supreme Court has rejected our challenge to the Sonny Bono Law.”
• BoingBoing: Supreme Court rules against Eldred, Alexandria burns: “That’s the Supreme Court case that Larry Lessig argued to establish the principle that the continuous extension of copyright at the expense of the public domain is unconstitutional. This blog will be wearing a black arm-band for the next day in mourning for our shared cultural heritage, as the Library of Alexandria burns anew.”
• AP: Supreme Court Keeps Copyright Protections: “The 7-2 ruling, while not unexpected, was a blow to Internet publishers and others who wanted to make old books available online and use the likenesses of a Mickey Mouse cartoon and other old creations without paying high royalties. Hundreds of thousands of books, movies and songs were close to being released into the public domain when Congress extended the copyright by 20 years in 1998.”
• BoingBoing (in Feb 2002): What the copyright ruling really means: “The argument hinges on the constitutionality of the extensions to copyright. The framers originally established a ~~17-year~~ 14-year (thanks, Larry!) term of copyright, as part of the constitutional mandate to provide creators with “a limited monopoly” on their works. With the continual extension (11 times in the past 40 years) of copyright’s term, the monopoly is no longer “limited” in any real sense of the word (the present term of copyright is author’s life plus 70 years, or 95 years for works that belong to corporations).”
• Slashdot: Disney Wins, Eldred (and everybody else) loses: “Did you see Treasure Planet [imdb.com]? Yeah, me neither, I heard it was horrible. But either way, Treasure Island was a book written by Robert Louis Stevenson [kirjasto.sci.fi] in 1883. 114 years from now, if my great-great grandchild wanted to write The Lion King in space (the only discernable difference between Treasure Island and Treasure Planet), Disney would NEVER give them the right to make it, and would sue the pants off them if they tried.” (From the discussion thread.)
• Washington Post: Eldred vs. Ashcroft: A Primer: “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Congress has “wide leeway” to interpret copyright law as set out by the U.S. Constitution. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer were the lone dissenters, saying that extending copyright terms repeatedly denies Americans “free access to the products of inventive and artistic genius.””

Hot damn. Just when I thought that the media was fairly useless, pointless, and completely under the Governmental thumb, along comes something like this transcript from a press breifing with Ari Fleischer:

MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon and happy New Year to everybody. The President began his day with an intelligence briefing, followed by an FBI briefing. Then he had a series of policy briefings. And this afternoon, the President will look forward to a Cabinet meeting where the President will discuss with members of his Cabinet his agenda for the year. The President is going to focus on economic growth, making America a more compassionate country, and providing for the security of our nation abroad and on the homefront.

And with that, I’m more than happy to take your questions. Helen.

Q: At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And I have a follow-up.

MR. FLEISCHER: I refer specifically to a horrible terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds. And the President, as he said in his statement yesterday, deplores in the strongest terms the taking of those lives and the wounding of those people, innocents in Israel.

Q: My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, the question is how to protect Americans, and our allies and friends —

Q: They’re not attacking you.

MR. FLEISCHER: — from a country —

Q: Have they laid the glove on you or on the United States, the Iraqis, in 11 years?

MR. FLEISCHER: I guess you have forgotten about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result of Saddam Hussein’s aggression then.

Q: Is this revenge, 11 years of revenge?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I think you know very well that the President’s position is that he wants to avert war, and that the President has asked the United Nations to go into Iraq to help with the purpose of averting war.

Q: Would the President attack innocent Iraqi lives?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President wants to make certain that he can defend our country, defend our interests, defend the region, and make certain that American lives are not lost.

Q: And he thinks they are a threat to us?

MR. FLEISCHER: There is no question that the President thinks that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

Q: The Iraqi people?

MR. FLEISCHER: The Iraqi people are represented by their government. If there was regime change, the Iraqi —

Q: So they will be vulnerable?

MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, the President has made it very clear that he has not dispute with the people of Iraq. That’s why the American policy remains a policy of regime change. There is no question the people of Iraq —

Q: That’s a decision for them to make, isn’t it? It’s their country.

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, if you think that the people of Iraq are in a position to dictate who their dictator is, I don’t think that has been what history has shown.

Q: I think many countries don’t have — people don’t have the decision — including us.

I have no idea who “Helen” is, but I’d dearly love to. She’s got more cojones than most people I know, that’s for sure.

(Via Megnut)