The president's real goal in Iraq :
"The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the 'American imperialists' that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran."
Read the entire article...
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Monday, November 29, 2004
Mathew Gross: The Politics of Victimization
Mathew Gross: The Politics of Victimization:
"Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”
And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.
They will tell you, every single day.
The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.
As victims we can’t stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can’t seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.
Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won’t; we will never be worthy).
And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.
How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.
First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don’t do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don’t do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don’t resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you’ve learned, and that you aren’t going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it’s better than the abuse."
"Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”
And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.
They will tell you, every single day.
The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.
As victims we can’t stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can’t seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.
Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won’t; we will never be worthy).
And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.
How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.
First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don’t do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don’t do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don’t resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you’ve learned, and that you aren’t going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it’s better than the abuse."
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Friday, November 05, 2004
Quotes from Ben Laden tape
you must admit that Osama bin Laden was far more articulate and direct about the causes of 9/11 than both Kerry and Bush, who call it "terror" and refuse to think about it too much. Like someone else observed, both candidates are asserting "We be tough on terrorism" "I'm tough too, very tough" "terror is evil and I will fight it will he?" "I will fight it harder" as both candidates are desperate not to challenge the comfort of their constituencies with any semblance of thought. God forbid anything that forces self-examination. Because that is exactly what America has done - call it "evil", call it "terrorism", vow to "fight" it (can you really fight an ideology?) and refuse to address any American defects. The "we never do nothing wrong - they are EVIL" rhetorical approach is a wonderful way to avoid addressing real issues. The fact is that America is falling deeper and deeper into an illusionary world, where any show of strength is close enough to actual accomplishment. In truth, far from fighting the ideology created from American imperialism - the ideology that culminated in 9/11 - America has nourished it.
No, no, anything but self-examination. We've branded Osama bin Laden as "evil", so we're not going to listen to him. CNN is going to censor the tape so we don't have to consider any of the more controversial things he said, and in the interests of defending "freedom", U.S. authorities around the Arab world will try to stop his alternate world view being aired at all (al-Jazeera ignored their requests not to air it).
"All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies...And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ... So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." Can anyone deny that Osama bin Laden has been nothing but successful? Al-Qaeda may have been hurt since 9/11 (I personally think they've just become more decentralized), but in the process, America has hurt themselves more. Who is winning in this thoughtless show of "strength"?
Frankly, I am wondering if America is going to strengthen itself into its grave. What Osama bin Laden did on 9/11 was horrific, but was it more horrific than the years and years of the U.S.'s post-WWII interventionist policies? What about their toll, both in civilian lives and in the loss of self-determination, of U.S. foreign policy? Let's think about our world, here. Our world's most powerful nation claims to fight for freedom but suppresses its own citizens' with the Patriot Act and offhand practices like "free speech zones." Our most powerful nation pretends to fight "evil" by killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. So its (new) prime enemy responds to America's brutality with more brutality; America responds in kind. What an uninspiring world this is. Isn't anyone going to do any good? Does such a thing exist? Is there only the pursuit of our own pragmatic interest, the lives of civilians, children be damned? If that's the case, what exactly are the differences between the U.S. and al-Qaeda?
No, no, anything but self-examination. We've branded Osama bin Laden as "evil", so we're not going to listen to him. CNN is going to censor the tape so we don't have to consider any of the more controversial things he said, and in the interests of defending "freedom", U.S. authorities around the Arab world will try to stop his alternate world view being aired at all (al-Jazeera ignored their requests not to air it).
"All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies...And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ... So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." Can anyone deny that Osama bin Laden has been nothing but successful? Al-Qaeda may have been hurt since 9/11 (I personally think they've just become more decentralized), but in the process, America has hurt themselves more. Who is winning in this thoughtless show of "strength"?
Frankly, I am wondering if America is going to strengthen itself into its grave. What Osama bin Laden did on 9/11 was horrific, but was it more horrific than the years and years of the U.S.'s post-WWII interventionist policies? What about their toll, both in civilian lives and in the loss of self-determination, of U.S. foreign policy? Let's think about our world, here. Our world's most powerful nation claims to fight for freedom but suppresses its own citizens' with the Patriot Act and offhand practices like "free speech zones." Our most powerful nation pretends to fight "evil" by killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. So its (new) prime enemy responds to America's brutality with more brutality; America responds in kind. What an uninspiring world this is. Isn't anyone going to do any good? Does such a thing exist? Is there only the pursuit of our own pragmatic interest, the lives of civilians, children be damned? If that's the case, what exactly are the differences between the U.S. and al-Qaeda?
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Are we making more ben Ladins? - M. Kane Jeeves
M. Kane Jeeves: "rage. We know he’s a madman. We are all still outraged about 9/11.
But, if I had to sum up the editorial content of this tape? It boils down to one thing. Actions have consequences. I know it’s an idea that we haven’t heard bandied about for the last four years but, think about it. If bin Laden was inspired by an incident nearly twenty years before 9/11?
Who are we inspiring now in Iraq?
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, conservatively.
What happens if we pull a “Dresden” on Fallujah?
Suppose we are forced to send in more troops because the Iraqi National Guard winds up just not cutting it?
How many more bin Ladens are judging this entire country by this Administration’s Crusade…right now? They’re ten, maybe eleven years old today.
Twenty years from now?
God help us."
But, if I had to sum up the editorial content of this tape? It boils down to one thing. Actions have consequences. I know it’s an idea that we haven’t heard bandied about for the last four years but, think about it. If bin Laden was inspired by an incident nearly twenty years before 9/11?
Who are we inspiring now in Iraq?
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, conservatively.
What happens if we pull a “Dresden” on Fallujah?
Suppose we are forced to send in more troops because the Iraqi National Guard winds up just not cutting it?
How many more bin Ladens are judging this entire country by this Administration’s Crusade…right now? They’re ten, maybe eleven years old today.
Twenty years from now?
God help us."
Ron Suskind claims we are an empire that creates its own reality
The Smirking Chimp: "The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community.'... I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'
-- Ron Suskind talking to senior Bush advisor, The New York Times Magazine"
-- Ron Suskind talking to senior Bush advisor, The New York Times Magazine"
Saturday, October 23, 2004
State sponsored vrs non-state sponsored Terrorism
The Washington Monthly: "STATE vs. NON-STATE TERRORISM....There's all sorts of interesting stuff in Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer's Washington Post article about the Bush record in the war on terror today, but running through it all is a thread that I've mentioned before: George Bush's outmoded focus on state sponsors of terror (the 'axis of evil') vs. John Kerry's focus on al-Qaeda and other non-state terrorist groups as the real problem of the 21st century.
Again: it's not that they aren't both important. But we're not fighting World War II and we're not fighting the Cold War. Radical Islamic terrorism is a fundamentally different problem than either of these previous enemies, and it's not, at its core, state-centric. This is the key blind spot that prevents Bush from effectively prosecuting the war, and it's the key piece of understanding that suggests Kerry could do better."
Again: it's not that they aren't both important. But we're not fighting World War II and we're not fighting the Cold War. Radical Islamic terrorism is a fundamentally different problem than either of these previous enemies, and it's not, at its core, state-centric. This is the key blind spot that prevents Bush from effectively prosecuting the war, and it's the key piece of understanding that suggests Kerry could do better."
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
WebEdge Blog - Rocky Horror Election Song
WebEdge Blog: "For those of you who recall Rocky Horror Picture show, this is one of the funniest things I've seen during this election cycle. Enjoy!
http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/5809/presidential_horror_show.swf
"
http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/5809/presidential_horror_show.swf
"
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The Smirking Chimp -- Whats the Matter with the Republican Party?
The Smirking Chimp:
"What is the matter with the Republican Party? As one born within a tiny, tree-shaded Republican enclave in Missouri, raised by compassionate family-values-oriented Christian conservatives, and whose entire family remains staunchly, even militantly conservative, I think I have earned the right to ask that question.
So--what the hell is wrong with you guys?
History bumps along from dateline to dateline with no regard for party affiliation. That's why last week during the second presidential debate, when President George Bush slid off his stool, assumed his arms-akimbo 'Super Hero' stance and childishly blurted out, 'You can run, butcha can't hide,' I was jerked into the realization that it's not possible for such a horrid, vacuous little creature to be the cause of the rampant madness zigzagging throughout our society today.
Bush is the effect of it -- the natural result of a cruel, thoughtless and destructive movement within the Republican Party that had lain dormant from its inception, but like Stephen King's evil 'Christine,' shivered into life on November 22, 1963.
Both parties have been running and hiding ever since.
This is not a treatise on the assassination of a popular American President, nor of the massive manipulations of an investigative commission to cover it up. That tragic November day marks the 'bump' in our history that began the evolutionary implosion of the Republican Party into neoconservatism and the sheer, bleak cruelty of a loveless Christianity.
Before that fateful 1963 bump, New York Govenor Nelson Rockefeller was truly the face of a kinder, gentler Republican Party. Rich, philanthrophic, and middle-of-the-road, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America in the 1940's, Rockefeller was responsible for the success of FDR's 'Good Neighbor' policy. During his four terms as governor, Rockefeller began large-scale welfare and drug-rehabilitation programs, reorganized the New York transportation system and built major public works projects.
At the 1964 convention, Rockefeller pleaded with a booing crowd to 'keep the Republican party the party of all the people.' He warned them of the danger of allowing extremists to gain influence, and of the threat they posed, not only to the party but to the entire nation. 'These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror,' he said. 'They have no program for America and the Republican Party.'
Rockefeller sounded the alarm that hateful neoconservatism would only get stronger and more destructive. 'They operate from dark shadows of secrecy,' he said, and his warning that 'extremist groups' would ultimately subvert the values and morality of the Grand Old Party were lost in a wave of jeers -- 'We want Barry! We want Barry!
Rockefeller, in what was considered possibly his finest moment, lost the ideological battle for the Party to Arizona's 'Mr. Conservative,' Barry Goldwater. The miracle it would take for either man to win the presidency didn't happen, of course, but the ideology embraced by the conservative wing of the party would result in a Nixon, a Reagan, and two Bushes -- all swept along under the evangelical influence of a Pat Robertson and the warmongering cabal of New World Order neoconservatives.
"
To read entire article, click on the title.
"What is the matter with the Republican Party? As one born within a tiny, tree-shaded Republican enclave in Missouri, raised by compassionate family-values-oriented Christian conservatives, and whose entire family remains staunchly, even militantly conservative, I think I have earned the right to ask that question.
So--what the hell is wrong with you guys?
History bumps along from dateline to dateline with no regard for party affiliation. That's why last week during the second presidential debate, when President George Bush slid off his stool, assumed his arms-akimbo 'Super Hero' stance and childishly blurted out, 'You can run, butcha can't hide,' I was jerked into the realization that it's not possible for such a horrid, vacuous little creature to be the cause of the rampant madness zigzagging throughout our society today.
Bush is the effect of it -- the natural result of a cruel, thoughtless and destructive movement within the Republican Party that had lain dormant from its inception, but like Stephen King's evil 'Christine,' shivered into life on November 22, 1963.
Both parties have been running and hiding ever since.
This is not a treatise on the assassination of a popular American President, nor of the massive manipulations of an investigative commission to cover it up. That tragic November day marks the 'bump' in our history that began the evolutionary implosion of the Republican Party into neoconservatism and the sheer, bleak cruelty of a loveless Christianity.
Before that fateful 1963 bump, New York Govenor Nelson Rockefeller was truly the face of a kinder, gentler Republican Party. Rich, philanthrophic, and middle-of-the-road, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America in the 1940's, Rockefeller was responsible for the success of FDR's 'Good Neighbor' policy. During his four terms as governor, Rockefeller began large-scale welfare and drug-rehabilitation programs, reorganized the New York transportation system and built major public works projects.
At the 1964 convention, Rockefeller pleaded with a booing crowd to 'keep the Republican party the party of all the people.' He warned them of the danger of allowing extremists to gain influence, and of the threat they posed, not only to the party but to the entire nation. 'These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror,' he said. 'They have no program for America and the Republican Party.'
Rockefeller sounded the alarm that hateful neoconservatism would only get stronger and more destructive. 'They operate from dark shadows of secrecy,' he said, and his warning that 'extremist groups' would ultimately subvert the values and morality of the Grand Old Party were lost in a wave of jeers -- 'We want Barry! We want Barry!
Rockefeller, in what was considered possibly his finest moment, lost the ideological battle for the Party to Arizona's 'Mr. Conservative,' Barry Goldwater. The miracle it would take for either man to win the presidency didn't happen, of course, but the ideology embraced by the conservative wing of the party would result in a Nixon, a Reagan, and two Bushes -- all swept along under the evangelical influence of a Pat Robertson and the warmongering cabal of New World Order neoconservatives.
"
To read entire article, click on the title.
Open Letter to President
Open Letter to President: "
Open Letter to President George W. Bush
October 4, 2004
Dear Mr. President:
As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown.
The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes – primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution – has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. In fact, if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is even worse – well in excess of a half a trillion dollars this year alone. Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals you have suggested for a potential second term – from diverting Social Security contributions into private accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent – only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base."
Click link for more......
Open Letter to President George W. Bush
October 4, 2004
Dear Mr. President:
As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown.
The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes – primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution – has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. In fact, if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is even worse – well in excess of a half a trillion dollars this year alone. Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals you have suggested for a potential second term – from diverting Social Security contributions into private accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent – only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base."
Click link for more......
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Michael Moore.com - Republicans prosecute for giving out underware... sigh...
Michael Moore.com : Mike's Message : Mike's Latest News:
"Filmmaker Michael Moore responded Wednesday to the Michigan Republican Party's request that he be prosecuted for offering underwear and food to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.
'It's ironic that Republicans have no problem with allowing assault weapons out on our streets, yet they don't want to put clean underwear in the hands of our slacker youth,' Moore said in a statement. 'The Republicans seem more interested in locking me up for trying to encourage people to participate in our democracy than locking up Bin Laden for his attacks on our democracy.'
Moore said Republicans missed the 'satire' of his giving underwear and food to get young people to vote."
"Filmmaker Michael Moore responded Wednesday to the Michigan Republican Party's request that he be prosecuted for offering underwear and food to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.
'It's ironic that Republicans have no problem with allowing assault weapons out on our streets, yet they don't want to put clean underwear in the hands of our slacker youth,' Moore said in a statement. 'The Republicans seem more interested in locking me up for trying to encourage people to participate in our democracy than locking up Bin Laden for his attacks on our democracy.'
Moore said Republicans missed the 'satire' of his giving underwear and food to get young people to vote."
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief - American Progress Action Fund
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief - American Progress Action Fund: "President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
September 2, 2004, Updated
Download Poster
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: 'I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations.' But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says."
September 2, 2004, Updated
Download Poster
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: 'I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations.' But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says."
Friday, October 01, 2004
Dan Rather Takes A Bullet / While the Right was demonizing the crusty ol' newsman, BushCo got away with murder, again
Dan Rather Takes A Bullet / While the Right was demonizing the crusty ol' newsman, BushCo got away with murder, again: "Oh, come on.
I mean, really now. Like anyone worth their even remotely sober intellect didn't have, during that entire, cute little 'Memogate' scandal, in their mind's eye a slightly oozing picture of BushCo's master puppeteer and most favoritist overfed pit bull Karl Rove, sitting there all puffed up and wheezing and hunched over his grease-stained nail-studded Compaq Presario after yet another three-Martini, four-baby-seal-kabob lunch, hammering out those forged memos about Bush's military ineptitude on his swiped copy of MS Word."
I mean, really now. Like anyone worth their even remotely sober intellect didn't have, during that entire, cute little 'Memogate' scandal, in their mind's eye a slightly oozing picture of BushCo's master puppeteer and most favoritist overfed pit bull Karl Rove, sitting there all puffed up and wheezing and hunched over his grease-stained nail-studded Compaq Presario after yet another three-Martini, four-baby-seal-kabob lunch, hammering out those forged memos about Bush's military ineptitude on his swiped copy of MS Word."
Mark Twain, 1916
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain - 1916
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush
Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush
Prepared text of speech delivered at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, September 28, 2004
Download the speech: PDF version | Word doc
This is the most important election of my lifetime. I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times. President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests and undermining American values. That is why I am sending you this message. I have been demonized by the Bush campaign but I hope you will give me a hearing.
President Bush ran on the platform of a "humble" foreign policy in 2000. If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences. As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and to break the vicious circle.
I grew up in Hungary, lived through fascism and the Holocaust, and then had a foretaste of communism. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of government prevails. I chose America as my home because I value freedom and democracy, civil liberties and an open society.
When I had made more money than I needed for myself and my family, I set up a foundation to promote the values and principles of a free and open society. I started in South Africa in 1979 and established a foundation in my native country, Hungary, in 1984 when it was still under communist rule. China, Poland and the Soviet Union followed in 1987. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, I established foundations in practically all the countries of the former Soviet empire and later in other parts of the world and in the United States. These foundations today spend about 450 million dollars a year to promote democracy and open society around the world.
When George W. Bush was elected president, and particularly after September 11, I saw that the values and principles of open society needed to be defended at home. September 11 led to a suspension of the critical process so essential to a democracy - a full and fair discussion of the issues. President Bush silenced all criticism by calling it unpatriotic. When he said that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," I heard alarm bells ringing. I am afraid that he is leading us in a very dangerous direction. We are losing the values that have made America great.
The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center was such a horrendous event that it required a strong response. But the President committed a fundamental error in thinking: the fact that the terrorists are manifestly evil does not make whatever counter-actions we take automatically good. What we do to combat terrorism may also be wrong. Recognizing that we may be wrong is the foundation of an open society. President Bush admits no doubt and does not base his decisions on a careful weighing of reality. For 18 months after 9/11 he managed to suppress all dissent. That is how he could lead the nation so far in the wrong direction.
President Bush inadvertently played right into the hands of bin Laden. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified: that was where bin Laden lived and al Qaeda had its training camps. The invasion of Iraq was not similarly justified. It was President Bush's unintended gift to bin Laden.
War and occupation create innocent victims. We count the body bags of American soldiers; there have been more than 1000 in Iraq. The rest of the world also looks at the Iraqis who get killed daily. There have been 20 times more. Some were trying to kill our soldiers; far too many were totally innocent, including many women and children. Every innocent death helps the terrorists' cause by stirring anger against America and bringing them potential recruits.
Immediately after 9/11 there was a spontaneous outpouring of sympathy for us worldwide. It has given way to an equally widespread resentment. There are many more people willing to risk their lives to kill Americans than there were on September 11 and our security, far from improving as President Bush claims, is deteriorating. I am afraid that we have entered a vicious circle of escalating violence where our fears and their rage feed on each other. It is not a process that is likely to end any time soon. If we re-elect President Bush we are telling the world that we approve his policies - and we shall be at war for a long time to come.
I realize that what I am saying is bound to be unpopular. We are in the grip of a collective misconception induced by the trauma of 9/11, and fostered by the Bush administration. No politician could say it and hope to get elected. That is why I feel obliged to speak out. There is a widespread belief that President Bush is making us safe. The opposite is true. President Bush failed to finish off bin Laden when he was cornered in Afghanistan because he was gearing up to attack Iraq. And the invasion of Iraq bred more people willing to risk their lives against Americans than we are able to kill - generating the vicious circle I am talking about.
President Bush likes to insist that the terrorists hate us for what we are - a freedom loving people - not what we do. Well, he is wrong on that. He also claims that the torture scenes at Abu Graib prison were the work of a few bad apples. He is wrong on that too. They were part of a system of dealing with detainees put in place by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and our troops in Iraq are paying the price.
How could President Bush convince people that he is good for our security, better than John Kerry? By building on the fears generated by the collapse of the twin towers and fostering a sense of danger. At a time of peril, people rally around the flag and President Bush has exploited this. His campaign is based on the assumption that people do not really care about the truth and they will believe practically anything if it is repeated often enough, particularly by a President at a time of war. There must be something wrong with us if we fall for it. For instance, some 40% of the people still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11 - although it is now definitely established by the 9/11 Commission, set up by the President and chaired by a Republican, that there was no connection. I want to shout from the roof tops: "Wake up America. Don't you realize that we are being misled?"
President Bush has used 9/11 to further his own agenda which has very little to do with fighting terrorism. There was an influential group within the Bush administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney that was itching to invade Iraq long before 9/11. The terrorist attack gave them their chance. If you need a tangible proof why President Bush does not deserve to be re-elected, consider Iraq.
The war in Iraq was misconceived from start to finish -- if it has a finish. It is a war of choice, not necessity, in spite of what President Bush says. The arms inspections and sanctions were working. In response to American pressure, the United Nations had finally agreed on a strong stand. As long as the inspectors were on the ground, Saddam Hussein could not possibly pose a threat to our security. We could have declared victory but President Bush insisted on going to war.
We went to war on false pretences. The real reasons for going into Iraq have not been revealed to this day. The weapons of mass destruction could not be found, and the connection with al Qaeda could not be established. President Bush then claimed that we went to war to liberate the people of Iraq. All my experience in fostering democracy and open society has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means. And, Iraq would be the last place I would chose for an experiment in introducing democracy - as the current chaos demonstrates.
Of course, Saddam was a tyrant, and of course Iraqis - and the rest of the world - can rejoice to be rid of him. But Iraqis now hate the American occupation. We stood idly by while Baghdad was ransacked. As the occupying power, we had an obligation to maintain law and order, but we failed to live up to it. If we had cared about the people of Iraq we should have had more troops available for the occupation than we needed for the invasion. We should have provided protection not only for the oil ministry but also the other ministries, museums and hospitals. Baghdad and the country's other cities were destroyed after we occupied them. When we encountered resistance, we employed methods that alienated and humiliated the population. The way we invaded homes, and the way we treated prisoners generated resentment and rage. Public opinion condemns us worldwide.
The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it. First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for help. First we installed General Jay Garner to run the country, then we gave it to Paul Bremer and when the insurgency became intractable, we installed an Iraqi government. The man we chose was a protégé of the CIA with the reputation of a strong man - a far cry from democracy. First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through, again over his objections. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed," he said publicly. More recently, we started bombing Falluja again.
The Bush campaign is trying to put a favorable spin on it, but the situation in Iraq is dire. Much of the Western part of the country has been ceded to the insurgents. Even the so-called Green Zone (a small enclave in the center of Baghdad where Americans live and work) is subject to mortar attacks. The prospects of holding free and fair elections in January are fast receding and civil war looms. President Bush received a somber intelligence evaluation in July but he has kept it under wraps and failed to level with the electorate.
Bush's war in Iraq has done untold damage to the United States. It has impaired our military power and undermined the morale of our armed forces. Before the invasion of Iraq, we could project overwhelming power in any part of the world. We cannot do so any more because we are bogged down in Iraq. Afghanistan is slipping from our control. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and other countries are pursuing nuclear programs with renewed vigor and many other problems remain unattended.
By invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, we violated international law. By mistreating and even torturing prisoners, we violated the Geneva conventions. President Bush has boasted that we do not need a permission slip from the international community, but our actions have endangered our security - particularly the security of our troops.
Our troops were trained to project overwhelming power. They were not trained for occupation duties. Having to fight an insurgency saps their morale. Many of our troops return from Iraq with severe trauma and other psychological disorders. Sadly, many are also physically injured. After Iraq, it will be difficult to recruit people for the armed forces and we may have to resort to conscription.
There are many other policies for which the Bush administration can be criticized but none are as important as Iraq. Iraq has cost us nearly 200 billion dollars -- an enormous sum. It could have been used much better elsewhere. The costs are going to mount because it was much easier to get into Iraq than it will be to get out of there. President Bush has been taunting John Kerry to explain how he would do things differently in Iraq. John Kerry has responded that he would have done everything differently and he would be in a better position to extricate us than the man who got us in there. But it won't be easy for him either, because we are caught in a quagmire.
It is a quagmire that many predicted. I predicted it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy. I was not alone: top military and diplomatic experts desperately warned the President not to invade Iraq. But he ignored their experienced advice. He suppressed the critical process. The discussion about Iraq remains stilted even during this presidential campaign because of the notion that any criticism of our Commander-in-Chief puts our troops at risk. But this is Bush's war, and he ought to be held responsible for it. It's the wrong war, fought the wrong way. Step back for a moment from the cacophony of the election campaign and reflect: who got us into this mess? In spite of his Texas swagger, George W. Bush does not qualify to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.
There is a lot more to be said on the subject and I have said it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, now available in paperback. I hope you will read it. You can download the chapter on the Iraqi quagmire free from www.georgesoros.com
If you find my arguments worth considering, please share this message with your friends.
I would welcome your comments at georgesoros.com . I am eager to engage in a critical discussion because the stakes are so high.
Contents copyright © 2004 by George Soros. All rights reserved. Privacy policy.
This message is paid for by George Soros and is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
www.georgesoros.com
Monday, September 13, 2004
TIME.com: "I've Been in Worse Situations" -- Sep. 20, 2004
TIME.com: "I've Been in Worse Situations" -- Sep. 20, 2004: "is past month has been pretty brutal for you, between the Swift Boat ads, the Republican Convention and the Vice President saying if you get elected, it would invite another terrorist attack. Have you come to any new conclusions about whom you're running against and what you have to do to win?
KERRY
I think the President's unwillingness to walk away from those comments makes it clear that he and the Vice President will say anything and do anything to get elected and to hold on to power. It was a shameful and outrageous effort.
But you know, I've been in worse situations in my life. The attacks don't attack me as much as they attack Americans and America. They're trying to distract people from the real issues that matter.
America is not as safe as we ought to be after 9/11. We can do a better job at homeland security. I can fight a more effective war on terror. The standard of living for the average American has gone down. People's incomes have dropped. Five million Americans have lost their health insurance. The deficit is the largest it's been in the history of this country. They're taking money from Social Security and transferring it to the wealthiest people in America to drive us into debt. They're shredding alliances around the world with people we have traditionally been able to rely on. That's what bothers me."
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Evaluating 9-11
Informed Comment : 09/01/2004 - 09/30/2004:
"In order to evaluate the aftermath of September 11, we first must understand that event. What did al-Qaeda intend to achieve? Only if we understand that can we gauge their success or failure.
From the point of view of al-Qaeda, the Muslim world can and should be united into a single country. They believe that it once had this political unity, under the early caliphs. Even as late as the outbreak of World War I, the Ottoman state ruled much of the Middle East, and the Ottoman sultans had begun making claims to be caliphs (Muslim popes) from about 1880. In the below map, blue indicates heavy Muslim populations, green means medium, and yellow means the Muslims are a significant minority."
From al-Qaeda's point of view, the political unity of the Muslim world was deliberately destroyed by a one-two punch. First, Western colonial powers invaded Muslim lands and detached them from the Ottoman Empire or other Muslim states. They ruled them brutally as colonies, reducing the people to little more than slaves serving the economic and political interests of the British, French, Russians, etc. France invaded Algeria in 1830. Great Britain took Egypt in 1882 and Iraq in 1917. Russia took the Emirate of Bukhara and other Central Asian territories in the 1860s and forward. Second, they formed these colonies into Western-style nation-states, often small and weak ones, so that the divisive effects of the colonial conquests have lasted. (Look at the British Empire and its imposition on much of the Muslim world, e.g.:)
Read the rest....
"In order to evaluate the aftermath of September 11, we first must understand that event. What did al-Qaeda intend to achieve? Only if we understand that can we gauge their success or failure.
From the point of view of al-Qaeda, the Muslim world can and should be united into a single country. They believe that it once had this political unity, under the early caliphs. Even as late as the outbreak of World War I, the Ottoman state ruled much of the Middle East, and the Ottoman sultans had begun making claims to be caliphs (Muslim popes) from about 1880. In the below map, blue indicates heavy Muslim populations, green means medium, and yellow means the Muslims are a significant minority."
From al-Qaeda's point of view, the political unity of the Muslim world was deliberately destroyed by a one-two punch. First, Western colonial powers invaded Muslim lands and detached them from the Ottoman Empire or other Muslim states. They ruled them brutally as colonies, reducing the people to little more than slaves serving the economic and political interests of the British, French, Russians, etc. France invaded Algeria in 1830. Great Britain took Egypt in 1882 and Iraq in 1917. Russia took the Emirate of Bukhara and other Central Asian territories in the 1860s and forward. Second, they formed these colonies into Western-style nation-states, often small and weak ones, so that the divisive effects of the colonial conquests have lasted. (Look at the British Empire and its imposition on much of the Muslim world, e.g.:)
Read the rest....
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Fighting Words in New York (washingtonpost.com)
Fighting Words in New York (washingtonpost.com): "The Bush campaign knows what it is doing. Bush is a minority president, elected with less than half the votes, and often 50 percent still eludes him in the polls. The campaign is engaged in hand-to-hand combat for just enough votes -- a mandate of one, if need be. It is infused with such a sense of righteousness that, like the Crusaders of old, it can commit atrocity after atrocity on the way to Jerusalem. All that matters is the goal. God understands."
Sorry I haven't posted in a week or so...
1) i am working for the first time in the bush admin... LOL... not really true, but I have been unemployed pretty much full time since Bush took office. Last week I had one of a few minor league paying gigs that I have had over the last few years.
2) My relationship with my girlfriend is going really well. Yeah.. thats it, blame it on her.
3) I Tivo'ed a lot of the RNC and tried to watch it with as open a mind as I could. I did not want to blog about that for some strange reason. There is an infinite amount of text by an infinite amount of monkeys on that subject... (so.. does that make bush Hamlet? (his dad is still alive?) or King Lear? (his daughters didnt seem to be betraying him (or where they? hmmm...) Or perhaps he is Henry the second leading our troops into battle (I am sure thats how Zeller would see it.) But perhaps, just perhaps, he is Richard the 3rd... (Nah... i dont think he had any children killed... whooops... oh yeah, forgot about abu grahab.) Ok... so what is the Shakespearian play that is about a out of touch and not so smart King who is manipulated by his evil ministers? Yeah! that one....
The closest bit of lit which I can think of that parellels what I think of the situation is Lord of the rings... (and really, wont the infinate monkeys come up with this too given infinite time)
Bush is like good old king theoden. Chaney, Wolfawitz and Rummy are like worm tounge.
hmmm... but it turns out Theoden is a good, Legitimate king who is tricked by those guys... and he eventually wakes up.
Bush is a pure puppet with Chaneys hand so far up his ass that you can see Bushes lips move when the Neocon puppet masters move their fingers.
I am sure it will make a great book for someone to write some day in the future...
2) My relationship with my girlfriend is going really well. Yeah.. thats it, blame it on her.
3) I Tivo'ed a lot of the RNC and tried to watch it with as open a mind as I could. I did not want to blog about that for some strange reason. There is an infinite amount of text by an infinite amount of monkeys on that subject... (so.. does that make bush Hamlet? (his dad is still alive?) or King Lear? (his daughters didnt seem to be betraying him (or where they? hmmm...) Or perhaps he is Henry the second leading our troops into battle (I am sure thats how Zeller would see it.) But perhaps, just perhaps, he is Richard the 3rd... (Nah... i dont think he had any children killed... whooops... oh yeah, forgot about abu grahab.) Ok... so what is the Shakespearian play that is about a out of touch and not so smart King who is manipulated by his evil ministers? Yeah! that one....
The closest bit of lit which I can think of that parellels what I think of the situation is Lord of the rings... (and really, wont the infinate monkeys come up with this too given infinite time)
Bush is like good old king theoden. Chaney, Wolfawitz and Rummy are like worm tounge.
hmmm... but it turns out Theoden is a good, Legitimate king who is tricked by those guys... and he eventually wakes up.
Bush is a pure puppet with Chaneys hand so far up his ass that you can see Bushes lips move when the Neocon puppet masters move their fingers.
I am sure it will make a great book for someone to write some day in the future...
Saturday, August 28, 2004
RNC 2004 Weblogs: News Aggregator
Dave Winer (www.scripting.com) has done it again! agrigation oif all the RNC blogs.
RNC 2004 Weblogs: News Aggregator: "A community site for bloggers participating in the RNC, Aug 30-Sep 2 "
RNC 2004 Weblogs: News Aggregator: "A community site for bloggers participating in the RNC, Aug 30-Sep 2 "
Deserter's Delight - letter to bush by Michael Moore
AlterNet: Election 2004: Deserter's Delight: "Dear Mr. Bush: It takes real courage to desert your post and then attack a wounded vet."
We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore by garrison keylor
We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore: How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk? -- In These Times:
We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore
How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?
Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned—and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today’s. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor.
In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of Government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach. The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. “Bipartisanship is another term of date rape,” says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy.
The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.
Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace.
Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy—the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.
The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good."
We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore
How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?
Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned—and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today’s. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor.
In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of Government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach. The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. “Bipartisanship is another term of date rape,” says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy.
The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.
Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace.
Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy—the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.
The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good."
Friday, August 27, 2004
Bush denies lack of focus on korean nukes
The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Bush Dismisses Idea That Kerry Lied on Vietnam: "Mr. Bush also took issue with Mr. Kerry's argument, in an interview at the end of May with The New York Times, that the Bush administration's focus on Iraq had given North Korea the opportunity to significantly expand its nuclear capability. Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons.
He said that in North Korea's case, and in Iran's, he would not be rushed to set deadlines for the countries to disarm, despite his past declaration that he would not 'tolerate'' nuclear capability in either nation. He declined to define what he meant by 'tolerate.''
'I don't think you give timelines to dictators,'' Mr. Bush said, speaking of North Korea's president, Kim Jong Il, and Iran's mullahs. He said he would continue diplomatic pressure - using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran - and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.
'I'm confident that over time this will work - I certainly hope it does,'' he said of the diplomatic approach. Mr. Kerry argued in his interview that North Korea ''was a far more compelling threat in many ways, and it belonged at the top of the agenda,'' but Mr. Bush declined to compare it to Iraq, apart from arguing that Iraq had defied the world community for longer than the other members of what he once called 'the axis of evil.'' Nor would he assess the risk that Pyongyang might sell nuclear material to terrorists, though his national security aides believe it may have sold raw uranium to Libya in recent years."
He said that in North Korea's case, and in Iran's, he would not be rushed to set deadlines for the countries to disarm, despite his past declaration that he would not 'tolerate'' nuclear capability in either nation. He declined to define what he meant by 'tolerate.''
'I don't think you give timelines to dictators,'' Mr. Bush said, speaking of North Korea's president, Kim Jong Il, and Iran's mullahs. He said he would continue diplomatic pressure - using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran - and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.
'I'm confident that over time this will work - I certainly hope it does,'' he said of the diplomatic approach. Mr. Kerry argued in his interview that North Korea ''was a far more compelling threat in many ways, and it belonged at the top of the agenda,'' but Mr. Bush declined to compare it to Iraq, apart from arguing that Iraq had defied the world community for longer than the other members of what he once called 'the axis of evil.'' Nor would he assess the risk that Pyongyang might sell nuclear material to terrorists, though his national security aides believe it may have sold raw uranium to Libya in recent years."
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Village voice on RNC Protest backlash
Note to the Anti-Intellectual Left: "The parallels between Chicago 1968 and New York 2004 are striking.
Then, as now, authorities are besotted with 'less lethal' technology that's intended to prevent disorder (back then it was Mace), but actually increases disorder by lowering the threshold at which cops are willing to use force.
Then, as now, police officials argued that the ACLU and the federal judges were putting them in danger by 'tying their hands.' When the cops lose some of these battles—as they did this year, with rulings against four-sided pens for demonstrators and general searches of bags—they get more afraid. That yields itchy fingers at the triggers of less-than-lethal implements.
Then, as now: the strategic mobilization of 'terrorists'—a word Mayor Richard Daley in 1968 used to describe the Black Panthers, who, some residents of the Cook County jail reported, were planning assassinations. The ever reliable FBI sent 60 extra agents, though the jailbirds had made it all up—which didn't prevent the city from announcing the 'threat' to the press afterward as ex post facto rationalization for law enforcement's rampage.
Then, as now: hovering, ruthless Republican presidential campaign operatives ready to seize on any advantage to win, who suspect that arrant attempts to frame the election as a choice between George W. Bush and 'chaos in the streets' will be enough, for some small margin of voters, to inch themselves to victory.
And, the most uncanny parallel of all: Events have seen to it—perhaps by Republican intention, perhaps not, it hardly matters which—that protesters this time, just like last time, have been rendered ready and eager to demonstrate, on the Sunday before the convention, in a physical location where the city has determined they may not demonstrate. Thus the stage may be set now—as it was then—for disaster.
"
Then, as now, authorities are besotted with 'less lethal' technology that's intended to prevent disorder (back then it was Mace), but actually increases disorder by lowering the threshold at which cops are willing to use force.
Then, as now, police officials argued that the ACLU and the federal judges were putting them in danger by 'tying their hands.' When the cops lose some of these battles—as they did this year, with rulings against four-sided pens for demonstrators and general searches of bags—they get more afraid. That yields itchy fingers at the triggers of less-than-lethal implements.
Then, as now: the strategic mobilization of 'terrorists'—a word Mayor Richard Daley in 1968 used to describe the Black Panthers, who, some residents of the Cook County jail reported, were planning assassinations. The ever reliable FBI sent 60 extra agents, though the jailbirds had made it all up—which didn't prevent the city from announcing the 'threat' to the press afterward as ex post facto rationalization for law enforcement's rampage.
Then, as now: hovering, ruthless Republican presidential campaign operatives ready to seize on any advantage to win, who suspect that arrant attempts to frame the election as a choice between George W. Bush and 'chaos in the streets' will be enough, for some small margin of voters, to inch themselves to victory.
And, the most uncanny parallel of all: Events have seen to it—perhaps by Republican intention, perhaps not, it hardly matters which—that protesters this time, just like last time, have been rendered ready and eager to demonstrate, on the Sunday before the convention, in a physical location where the city has determined they may not demonstrate. Thus the stage may be set now—as it was then—for disaster.
"
The Conscience of Joe Darby - GQ article on Abu Ghraib prison whistle blower
The Conscience of Joe Darby:
(Absolutely amazing article about the effects on Joe's family. Please read the entire article)
"Like, one thing Bernadette didn't know—because almost nobody knows it, because almost everybody who does know has either been lying or keeping it a secret—is the rest of the story, what really happened at Abu Ghraib. Oh, you hear allusions to the fact that certain things haven't been told, like Rumsfeld saying in May that the whole story is 'a good deal more terrible' than what you've seen. But you don't hear Rumsfeld saying any more than that, or explaining what 'more terrible' means.
You don't hear anybody explaining, for example, how Private Lynndie England, the woman in so many of those pictures, the one smiling and laughing and giving the thumbs-up, wasn't even supposed to be in the cellblock, how she didn't have any police authority and shouldn't have been dealing with inmates in the first place. You don't hear much of anything about her job, because the truth is, her job was something else entirely. Lynndie England was an administration clerk; not an MP like Joe but the equivalent of a secretary. 'She was assigned to an MP unit,' says Blake Ellis, a paralegal with England's defense team, 'but she wasn't an MP. She did not have any police authority. She was not supposed to be walking tiers or working with inmates.'
If you don't believe him, how about the brigadier general who ran the whole prison? Janis Karpinski says that England had absolutely no business working with inmates and suggests that the only reason England was on the cellblock was because her boyfriend, Charles Graner, had invited her. 'Graner's original claim, before he clammed up,' Karpinski says, 'was that the interrogators told him to get a female over there and he thought of her immediately.'
Sound like procedure to you?
Then there's Sivits. Guess what? Not an MP, either. No business being in a cellblock, no business interacting with detainees. This is a prison with 300 military police on duty, and they've got a mechanic up at one in the morning taking pictures while they terrorize prisoners."
That it really wasn't about softening prisoners, gathering intelligence, or trying to win the war. That it wasn't even about losing control in the heat of the moment. It was about getting up in the middle of the night and going somewhere you weren't supposed to go, then beating and raping people there. It was premeditated violent crime.
(Absolutely amazing article about the effects on Joe's family. Please read the entire article)
"Like, one thing Bernadette didn't know—because almost nobody knows it, because almost everybody who does know has either been lying or keeping it a secret—is the rest of the story, what really happened at Abu Ghraib. Oh, you hear allusions to the fact that certain things haven't been told, like Rumsfeld saying in May that the whole story is 'a good deal more terrible' than what you've seen. But you don't hear Rumsfeld saying any more than that, or explaining what 'more terrible' means.
You don't hear anybody explaining, for example, how Private Lynndie England, the woman in so many of those pictures, the one smiling and laughing and giving the thumbs-up, wasn't even supposed to be in the cellblock, how she didn't have any police authority and shouldn't have been dealing with inmates in the first place. You don't hear much of anything about her job, because the truth is, her job was something else entirely. Lynndie England was an administration clerk; not an MP like Joe but the equivalent of a secretary. 'She was assigned to an MP unit,' says Blake Ellis, a paralegal with England's defense team, 'but she wasn't an MP. She did not have any police authority. She was not supposed to be walking tiers or working with inmates.'
If you don't believe him, how about the brigadier general who ran the whole prison? Janis Karpinski says that England had absolutely no business working with inmates and suggests that the only reason England was on the cellblock was because her boyfriend, Charles Graner, had invited her. 'Graner's original claim, before he clammed up,' Karpinski says, 'was that the interrogators told him to get a female over there and he thought of her immediately.'
Sound like procedure to you?
Then there's Sivits. Guess what? Not an MP, either. No business being in a cellblock, no business interacting with detainees. This is a prison with 300 military police on duty, and they've got a mechanic up at one in the morning taking pictures while they terrorize prisoners."
That it really wasn't about softening prisoners, gathering intelligence, or trying to win the war. That it wasn't even about losing control in the heat of the moment. It was about getting up in the middle of the night and going somewhere you weren't supposed to go, then beating and raping people there. It was premeditated violent crime.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
The Rambo Coalition - The New York Times
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: The Rambo Coalition:
"After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies - you were being unpatriotic.
As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has played right into Al Qaeda's hands. Thirty years after Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than it kills."
"After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies - you were being unpatriotic.
As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has played right into Al Qaeda's hands. Thirty years after Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than it kills."
Bush on avoiding Vietnam service
American Prospect Online - ViewWeb:
"'I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment,' Bush told the Dallas Morning News in 1990. 'Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.'
Let's parse that quotation phrase for phrase. We do not, of course, know the full context of the conversation he was having with the reporter, and we don't know exactly what question Bush was asked. But his words begin from the presumption that actually going to Vietnam was absolutely not an option. The quote is entirely about how to avoid going. He wasn't prepared to damage his hearing intentionally for the sake of securing a deferment (he probably meant a 4-F classification and confused the two). And he wasn't willing to go to Canada. So he took the third option, the Air National Guard. And note how the choice was about bettering himself, not about thinking of a way to best render service that this child of privilege might -- had he been possessed of the moral fiber and sense of duty of, say, John Kerry -- have considered his obligation, especially considering that, on paper at least, he supported the war."
"'I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment,' Bush told the Dallas Morning News in 1990. 'Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.'
Let's parse that quotation phrase for phrase. We do not, of course, know the full context of the conversation he was having with the reporter, and we don't know exactly what question Bush was asked. But his words begin from the presumption that actually going to Vietnam was absolutely not an option. The quote is entirely about how to avoid going. He wasn't prepared to damage his hearing intentionally for the sake of securing a deferment (he probably meant a 4-F classification and confused the two). And he wasn't willing to go to Canada. So he took the third option, the Air National Guard. And note how the choice was about bettering himself, not about thinking of a way to best render service that this child of privilege might -- had he been possessed of the moral fiber and sense of duty of, say, John Kerry -- have considered his obligation, especially considering that, on paper at least, he supported the war."
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Daily show on Swift Boat Vets
The daily show does it again...
After showing the New York Times article outlining the links of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's connections to the Bush administration, they showed Bush Campaign manager Ken Melman who said on Meet the Press yesterday: "Reading that NYTimes article I was reminded of that old Kevin Bacon game of six degrees of separation".
Then John Stewart says "Thats a fun game.. I remember that... lets see... I used to be really good at it, lets see if I still got it. ok... there is president bush, ok... his top advisor is Karl Rove, ok.. thats one. And he is friends with Bob Perry, who is the chief financier of the swift boat vets. Hey, I did it in Two!
You now what? lets see if I can do better. There is president bush, ahh... There is Ken Cortier who appears in a swift boat ad and is a member of the presidents campaign committee on veterans issues. Wow... I did it again in one!
Wow... I am really good at connecting the dots. You know its interesting, I tried to play that game linking Saddam to Al Quieda... uh... Its much harder."
later...
John Stewart: "So your saying that this back and forth (on vietnam service) is never going to end?"
Rob Corddry: "No. In fact John, a new group has emerged. This one composed of former bush colleges challenging the Presidents activities during the vietnam era. That group: "Drunken Stateside Sons of Privilege for Plausible Deniability". They have apparently have some things to say about a certain Halloween party in 1971 that involve some trash can punch and a sodomized pinata. John, they just want to set the record straight, thats all they are out for. "
After showing the New York Times article outlining the links of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's connections to the Bush administration, they showed Bush Campaign manager Ken Melman who said on Meet the Press yesterday: "Reading that NYTimes article I was reminded of that old Kevin Bacon game of six degrees of separation".
Then John Stewart says "Thats a fun game.. I remember that... lets see... I used to be really good at it, lets see if I still got it. ok... there is president bush, ok... his top advisor is Karl Rove, ok.. thats one. And he is friends with Bob Perry, who is the chief financier of the swift boat vets. Hey, I did it in Two!
You now what? lets see if I can do better. There is president bush, ahh... There is Ken Cortier who appears in a swift boat ad and is a member of the presidents campaign committee on veterans issues. Wow... I did it again in one!
Wow... I am really good at connecting the dots. You know its interesting, I tried to play that game linking Saddam to Al Quieda... uh... Its much harder."
later...
John Stewart: "So your saying that this back and forth (on vietnam service) is never going to end?"
Rob Corddry: "No. In fact John, a new group has emerged. This one composed of former bush colleges challenging the Presidents activities during the vietnam era. That group: "Drunken Stateside Sons of Privilege for Plausible Deniability". They have apparently have some things to say about a certain Halloween party in 1971 that involve some trash can punch and a sodomized pinata. John, they just want to set the record straight, thats all they are out for. "
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Iraqi soccer players upset about Bush campaign ads using team
SI.com - Writers - Wahl: Iraqi soccer players upset about Bush campaign ads using team - Thursday August 19, 2004 4:59PM:
"'Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign,' Sadir told SI.com through a translator, speaking calmly and directly. 'He can find another way to advertise himself.'
Ahmed Manajid, who played as a midfielder on Wednesday, had an even stronger response when asked about Bush's TV advertisement. 'How will he meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women?' Manajid told me. 'He has committed so many crimes.'
They find it offensive that Bush is using Iraq for his own gain when they do not support his administration's actions. 'My problems are not with the American people,' says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. 'They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?'
At a speech in Beaverton, Ore., last Friday, Bush attached himself to the Iraqi soccer team after its opening-game upset of Portugal. 'The image of the Iraqi soccer team playing in this Olympics, it's fantastic, isn't it?' Bush said. 'It wouldn't have been free if the United States had not acted.'
Sadir, Wednesday's goal-scorer, used to be the star player for the professional soccer team in Najaf. In the city in which 20,000 fans used to fill the stadium and chant Sadir's name, U.S. and Iraqi forces have battled loyalists to rebel cleric Moktada al-Sadr for the past two weeks. Najaf lies in ruins.
'I want the violence and the war to go away from the city,' says Sadir, 21. 'We don't wish for the presence of Americans in our country. We want them to go away.'
In fact, Manajid says, if he were not playing soccer he would 'for sure' be fighting as part of the resistance.
'I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists?' Manajid says. 'Everyone [in Fallujah] has been labeled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq.'
'The war is not secure,' says Hamad, 43. 'Many people hate America now. The Americans have lost many people around the world--and that is what is happening in America also.'"
"'Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign,' Sadir told SI.com through a translator, speaking calmly and directly. 'He can find another way to advertise himself.'
Ahmed Manajid, who played as a midfielder on Wednesday, had an even stronger response when asked about Bush's TV advertisement. 'How will he meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women?' Manajid told me. 'He has committed so many crimes.'
They find it offensive that Bush is using Iraq for his own gain when they do not support his administration's actions. 'My problems are not with the American people,' says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. 'They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?'
At a speech in Beaverton, Ore., last Friday, Bush attached himself to the Iraqi soccer team after its opening-game upset of Portugal. 'The image of the Iraqi soccer team playing in this Olympics, it's fantastic, isn't it?' Bush said. 'It wouldn't have been free if the United States had not acted.'
Sadir, Wednesday's goal-scorer, used to be the star player for the professional soccer team in Najaf. In the city in which 20,000 fans used to fill the stadium and chant Sadir's name, U.S. and Iraqi forces have battled loyalists to rebel cleric Moktada al-Sadr for the past two weeks. Najaf lies in ruins.
'I want the violence and the war to go away from the city,' says Sadir, 21. 'We don't wish for the presence of Americans in our country. We want them to go away.'
In fact, Manajid says, if he were not playing soccer he would 'for sure' be fighting as part of the resistance.
'I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists?' Manajid says. 'Everyone [in Fallujah] has been labeled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq.'
'The war is not secure,' says Hamad, 43. 'Many people hate America now. The Americans have lost many people around the world--and that is what is happening in America also.'"
Medical professionals complicit in Abu Ghraib torture, says bioethicist
Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things: "Medical professionals complicit in Abu Ghraib torture, says bioethicist
Dr. Stephen Miles wrote a scathing editorial for UK medical journal The Lancet which says that U.S. military medical personnel were complicit in detainee torture incidents that took place in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to the University of Minnesota bioethicist, 'The US military medical system failed to protect detainees' human rights, sometimes collaborated with interrogators or abusive guards, and failed to properly report injuries or deaths caused by beatings.' Based on data gleaned from government documents, he details cases of alleged abuse participation by medical personnel, and calls for a formal inquiry.
There are isolated reports that medical personnel directly abused detainees. Two detainees' depositions describe an incident where a doctor allowed a medically untrained guard to suture a prisoner's lacertation from being beaten. The medical system failed to accurately report illnesses and injuries. Abu Ghraib authorities did not notify families of deaths, sicknesses, or transfers to medical facilities as required by the Convention. A medic inserted a intravenous catheter into the corpse of a detainee who died under torture in order to create evidence that he was alive at the hospital. In another case, an Iraqi man, taken into custody by US soldiers was found months later by his family in an Iraqi hospital. He was comatose, had three skull fractures, a severe thumb fracture, and burns on the bottoms of his feet. An accompanying US medical report stated that heat stroke had triggered a heart attack that put him in a coma; it did not mention the injuries.
Death certificates of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq were falsified or their release or completion was delayed for months. Medical investigators either failed to investigate unexpected deaths of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan or performed cursory evaluations and physicians routinely attributed detainee deaths on death certificates to heart attacks, heat stroke, or natural causes without noting the unnatural aetiology of the death. In one example, soldiers tied a beaten detainee to the top of his cell door and gagged him. The death certificate indicated that he died of 'natural causes . . . during his sleep.' After news media coverage, the Pentagon revised the certificate to say that the death was a 'homicide' caused by 'blunt force injuries and asphyxia.'"
Dr. Stephen Miles wrote a scathing editorial for UK medical journal The Lancet which says that U.S. military medical personnel were complicit in detainee torture incidents that took place in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to the University of Minnesota bioethicist, 'The US military medical system failed to protect detainees' human rights, sometimes collaborated with interrogators or abusive guards, and failed to properly report injuries or deaths caused by beatings.' Based on data gleaned from government documents, he details cases of alleged abuse participation by medical personnel, and calls for a formal inquiry.
There are isolated reports that medical personnel directly abused detainees. Two detainees' depositions describe an incident where a doctor allowed a medically untrained guard to suture a prisoner's lacertation from being beaten. The medical system failed to accurately report illnesses and injuries. Abu Ghraib authorities did not notify families of deaths, sicknesses, or transfers to medical facilities as required by the Convention. A medic inserted a intravenous catheter into the corpse of a detainee who died under torture in order to create evidence that he was alive at the hospital. In another case, an Iraqi man, taken into custody by US soldiers was found months later by his family in an Iraqi hospital. He was comatose, had three skull fractures, a severe thumb fracture, and burns on the bottoms of his feet. An accompanying US medical report stated that heat stroke had triggered a heart attack that put him in a coma; it did not mention the injuries.
Death certificates of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq were falsified or their release or completion was delayed for months. Medical investigators either failed to investigate unexpected deaths of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan or performed cursory evaluations and physicians routinely attributed detainee deaths on death certificates to heart attacks, heat stroke, or natural causes without noting the unnatural aetiology of the death. In one example, soldiers tied a beaten detainee to the top of his cell door and gagged him. The death certificate indicated that he died of 'natural causes . . . during his sleep.' After news media coverage, the Pentagon revised the certificate to say that the death was a 'homicide' caused by 'blunt force injuries and asphyxia.'"
New Enland Journal of Medicine- Doctors and Torture
NEJM -- Doctors and Torture: "
"There is increasing evidence that U.S. doctors, nurses, and medics have been complicit in tourture and other illegal procedures in Iraq, Afganistan and Guantanamo Bay. Such medical complicity suggests still another disterbing dimension ot this broadening scandal."
Entire article is available as pdf.
"There is increasing evidence that U.S. doctors, nurses, and medics have been complicit in tourture and other illegal procedures in Iraq, Afganistan and Guantanamo Bay. Such medical complicity suggests still another disterbing dimension ot this broadening scandal."
Entire article is available as pdf.
George Bush is Up to His Old Tricks
New Internet Ad: George Bush is Up to His Old Tricks: "The ad, titled “Old Tricks,” features Senator John McCain rebuking then candidate Bush during a 2000 Larry King debate for refusing to disavow or condemn hateful and vicious attacks on McCain’s military record during the South Carolina Republican primary.
McCain’s comments will ring true for Americans who are once again seeing their Commander-in-Chief dishonor America’s veterans through his silent support of the group “Swift Boat Veterans for Bush” while they smear John Kerry’s military service and the service of those who served in great danger with him on the Navy’s Swift Boats.
Beginning today, the Kerry-Edwards campaign will begin a systematic campaign to expose the president’s tactics, with a special emphasis on the veterans community. “Old Tricks” will be emailed to 200,000 veterans activists who will share it in their communities, posted on veterans websites and emailed to the entire Kerry online community of well over 1 million supporters."
McCain’s comments will ring true for Americans who are once again seeing their Commander-in-Chief dishonor America’s veterans through his silent support of the group “Swift Boat Veterans for Bush” while they smear John Kerry’s military service and the service of those who served in great danger with him on the Navy’s Swift Boats.
Beginning today, the Kerry-Edwards campaign will begin a systematic campaign to expose the president’s tactics, with a special emphasis on the veterans community. “Old Tricks” will be emailed to 200,000 veterans activists who will share it in their communities, posted on veterans websites and emailed to the entire Kerry online community of well over 1 million supporters."
Imagine Clinton sliming Dole on his Vietnam record
Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Editorials / Big lies for Bush: "IMAGINE IF supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. After all, Dole was given a Purple Heart for a leg scratch probably caused, according to one biographer, when a hand grenade thrown by one of his own men bounced off a tree. And while the serious injuries Dole sustained later surely came from German fire, did the episode demonstrate heroism on Dole's part or a reckless move that ended up killing his radioman and endangering the sergeant who dragged Dole off the field?
ADVERTISEMENT
The truth, according to many accounts, is that Dole fought with exceptional bravery and deserves the nation's gratitude. No one in 1996 questioned that record. Any such attack on behalf of Clinton, an admitted Vietnam draft dodger, would have been preposterous.
Yet amazingly, something quite similar is happening today as supporters of President Bush attack the Vietnam record of Senator John Kerry.
The situations are not completely parallel. Bush was not a draft dodger, but he certainly was a Vietnam avoider, having joined the Texas Air National Guard rather than serving in the regular military.
Kerry, on the other hand, may have done more than Dole to qualify as a genuine war hero. Although his tour in Vietnam was short, on at least two occasions he acted decisively and with great daring in combat, saving at least one man's life and earning both a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. That's not our account or Kerry's; it is drawn from eyewitnesses and the military citations themselves."
ADVERTISEMENT
The truth, according to many accounts, is that Dole fought with exceptional bravery and deserves the nation's gratitude. No one in 1996 questioned that record. Any such attack on behalf of Clinton, an admitted Vietnam draft dodger, would have been preposterous.
Yet amazingly, something quite similar is happening today as supporters of President Bush attack the Vietnam record of Senator John Kerry.
The situations are not completely parallel. Bush was not a draft dodger, but he certainly was a Vietnam avoider, having joined the Texas Air National Guard rather than serving in the regular military.
Kerry, on the other hand, may have done more than Dole to qualify as a genuine war hero. Although his tour in Vietnam was short, on at least two occasions he acted decisively and with great daring in combat, saving at least one man's life and earning both a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. That's not our account or Kerry's; it is drawn from eyewitnesses and the military citations themselves."
Thursday, August 19, 2004
John Stewart is amazing...
GW Bush: "The new plan will help us fight and win these wars of the 21st centruy."
John Stewart: "Im sorry, did you say plural? Was that war's? Did you say... uh... How many more of these do you have in mind?"
later...
GW Bush: "No one cares more about curing diseases than Laura and me. I mean, thats one of our responsiblities."
John Stewart: "One of our responsiblities? Since when is the President responsible for curing diseases? Isn't that what we got the doctors for? Thats you too? You do a lot... How do you have so much time for vacation? It really is suprising."
later...
GW Bush: "I do think its important for us to promote a culture of life in America.
John Stewart: "Culture of life is of course the title of the 8th grade film strip the President bases most of his social policies on."
and finally,
GW Bush: "Stem cells is one issue, another is theraputic human cloning. Which I am against. I think that leads down a slippery slope for people to, you know... uh... to kind of... you know.. designer clones.
John Stewart: (in his Bush voice) "and once you have designer clones, they can only be controled with a robot army. We dont have the kind of army for a robot army right now. You see... designer clones will fight the robot army and then the Preditor will come in and then the aliens...... You see where were leading here??? Thats John Kerry's America!"
John Stewart: "Im sorry, did you say plural? Was that war's? Did you say... uh... How many more of these do you have in mind?"
later...
GW Bush: "No one cares more about curing diseases than Laura and me. I mean, thats one of our responsiblities."
John Stewart: "One of our responsiblities? Since when is the President responsible for curing diseases? Isn't that what we got the doctors for? Thats you too? You do a lot... How do you have so much time for vacation? It really is suprising."
later...
GW Bush: "I do think its important for us to promote a culture of life in America.
John Stewart: "Culture of life is of course the title of the 8th grade film strip the President bases most of his social policies on."
and finally,
GW Bush: "Stem cells is one issue, another is theraputic human cloning. Which I am against. I think that leads down a slippery slope for people to, you know... uh... to kind of... you know.. designer clones.
John Stewart: (in his Bush voice) "and once you have designer clones, they can only be controled with a robot army. We dont have the kind of army for a robot army right now. You see... designer clones will fight the robot army and then the Preditor will come in and then the aliens...... You see where were leading here??? Thats John Kerry's America!"
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
WR Pitts letter to Bush
Brain Dead, Made of Money, No Future at All
By William Rivers Pitt
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081704A.shtml
Tuesday 17 August 2004
To: George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear George:
A pretty awful joke has been making the rounds lately. Some might say it's an awful joke because of the comparison. Most, however, think it's an awful joke because it isn't funny. It's too close to the truth to be funny.
The joke: What is the difference between President George W. Bush and President Ted Bundy?
The answer: Bush killed more people than Bundy.
See? I told you it was a terrible joke. On the one hand, it is in poor taste by commonly accepted standards to compare a sitting President to a notorious serial killer. On the other hand, though, the 943 dead American soldiers in Iraq, the more than ten thousand dead Iraqi civilians, the more than five thousand dead civilians in Afghanistan, and let's not forget the large crowd of Americans you toddled off to the Texas killing bottle while Governor, pretty much means you have left Mr. Bundy in the deep shade when it comes to the body count.
....
Three more American kids got killed in Iraq today, George. That makes 30 dead American soldiers in the first 16 days of August. That's thirty more names to be added to the commemorative wall which will appear somewhere in Washington DC someday. Thirty more etchings in ebon stone, thirty more people who would not now be dead but for your decisions and your actions and your appalling dishonesty.
I'm pretty bored with those commonly accepted standards that are supposed to be applied in the treatment of a sitting President. Too many people have been playing patty-cake with you over the last three years, George. Too many journalists looking to keep their sweet seat in the press crunch at the White House, too many television news anchors who think research and context is for other people, too many media outlet owners - read: 'massive corporations' - whose profit margins are intimately wed to your suicidal policies, and, frankly, too many politicians for the 'loyal opposition' who have been tested in the forge of true crisis these last years, and been found to be sorely wanting.
So let's not have any patty-cake between us, George. Let's get down to brass tacks. Your people compared Senator Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein during the 2002 midterm campaign. Cleland left two legs and an arm in Vietnam, but your people did that to him anyway. A little hard talk, East Texas style, shouldn't be anything new to you.
A wiser man once wrote this:
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure....if, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I can see it, if you don't.'"
The wiser man who wrote these words was Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to his law partner Billy Hendron. Lincoln wrote this letter in 1848 while serving in the House of Representatives, years before he himself would assume the office of the Presidency. Lincoln became, in the fullness of time, a war President who unwillingly inherited his war, and then pursued it with grim determination.
....
You fancy yourself a war President, right? "I'm a war President," you said on television not long ago. "I make decisions in the Oval Office with war on my mind." Your war in Iraq is a war of choice, not of necessity. It had nothing to do with September 11, weapons of mass destruction, or bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. It had nothing to do with defending the American people.
Your boys wanted to get paid. Cash money on the barrelhead for Halliburton, right? Almost twelve billion dollars they've made to this point. Hey, it's good work if you can get it. All you had to do was use September 11th against your own people for months, scare them to death, denigrate the work of the weapons inspectors you agreed to send in there, flap around some claims about weapons of mass destruction (26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX gas, per your own words from your 2003 State of the Union Address), and then fly onto an aircraft carrier and declare victory while your people were still dying.
As if that wasn't bad enough, you're also losing your war of choice.
Hard to believe, isn't it? Your daddy rolled up Iraq like a windowshade when it was his turn at the big wheel. Your daddy made it look easy, which is perhaps why you thought you could take care of business over there on the cheap. Do you have trouble looking daddy in the eyes these days?
....
I worry about you, George. You live in a stark black-and-white world, and you actually think God speaks to you. There are a lot of people in padded rooms, wearing coats that button up the back, because they have had similar delusions. You see monsters everywhere. Some of them do exist, to be sure, but I am forced to remember the words of Frederich Nietzsche: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.'
By William Rivers Pitt
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081704A.shtml
Tuesday 17 August 2004
To: George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear George:
A pretty awful joke has been making the rounds lately. Some might say it's an awful joke because of the comparison. Most, however, think it's an awful joke because it isn't funny. It's too close to the truth to be funny.
The joke: What is the difference between President George W. Bush and President Ted Bundy?
The answer: Bush killed more people than Bundy.
See? I told you it was a terrible joke. On the one hand, it is in poor taste by commonly accepted standards to compare a sitting President to a notorious serial killer. On the other hand, though, the 943 dead American soldiers in Iraq, the more than ten thousand dead Iraqi civilians, the more than five thousand dead civilians in Afghanistan, and let's not forget the large crowd of Americans you toddled off to the Texas killing bottle while Governor, pretty much means you have left Mr. Bundy in the deep shade when it comes to the body count.
....
Three more American kids got killed in Iraq today, George. That makes 30 dead American soldiers in the first 16 days of August. That's thirty more names to be added to the commemorative wall which will appear somewhere in Washington DC someday. Thirty more etchings in ebon stone, thirty more people who would not now be dead but for your decisions and your actions and your appalling dishonesty.
I'm pretty bored with those commonly accepted standards that are supposed to be applied in the treatment of a sitting President. Too many people have been playing patty-cake with you over the last three years, George. Too many journalists looking to keep their sweet seat in the press crunch at the White House, too many television news anchors who think research and context is for other people, too many media outlet owners - read: 'massive corporations' - whose profit margins are intimately wed to your suicidal policies, and, frankly, too many politicians for the 'loyal opposition' who have been tested in the forge of true crisis these last years, and been found to be sorely wanting.
So let's not have any patty-cake between us, George. Let's get down to brass tacks. Your people compared Senator Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein during the 2002 midterm campaign. Cleland left two legs and an arm in Vietnam, but your people did that to him anyway. A little hard talk, East Texas style, shouldn't be anything new to you.
A wiser man once wrote this:
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure....if, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I can see it, if you don't.'"
The wiser man who wrote these words was Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to his law partner Billy Hendron. Lincoln wrote this letter in 1848 while serving in the House of Representatives, years before he himself would assume the office of the Presidency. Lincoln became, in the fullness of time, a war President who unwillingly inherited his war, and then pursued it with grim determination.
....
You fancy yourself a war President, right? "I'm a war President," you said on television not long ago. "I make decisions in the Oval Office with war on my mind." Your war in Iraq is a war of choice, not of necessity. It had nothing to do with September 11, weapons of mass destruction, or bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. It had nothing to do with defending the American people.
Your boys wanted to get paid. Cash money on the barrelhead for Halliburton, right? Almost twelve billion dollars they've made to this point. Hey, it's good work if you can get it. All you had to do was use September 11th against your own people for months, scare them to death, denigrate the work of the weapons inspectors you agreed to send in there, flap around some claims about weapons of mass destruction (26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX gas, per your own words from your 2003 State of the Union Address), and then fly onto an aircraft carrier and declare victory while your people were still dying.
As if that wasn't bad enough, you're also losing your war of choice.
Hard to believe, isn't it? Your daddy rolled up Iraq like a windowshade when it was his turn at the big wheel. Your daddy made it look easy, which is perhaps why you thought you could take care of business over there on the cheap. Do you have trouble looking daddy in the eyes these days?
....
I worry about you, George. You live in a stark black-and-white world, and you actually think God speaks to you. There are a lot of people in padded rooms, wearing coats that button up the back, because they have had similar delusions. You see monsters everywhere. Some of them do exist, to be sure, but I am forced to remember the words of Frederich Nietzsche: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.'
Jeff wants to know if we can kill em all now
On Aug 18, 2004, at 4:30 PM, Jeff Evans wrote:
--A report on May 28 in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that an Iranian intelligence unit has established a center called “The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening.” The paper claimed that it had obtained a tape with a speech by Hassan Abbassi, a Revolutionary Guards intelligence theoretician who teaches at Al-Hussein University. In the tape, Mr. Abbassi spoke of Tehran’s secret plans, which include “a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization.”
“Woe to the enemy if Khamenei commands me to wage jihad,” Mr. Khamenei said, “If someone harms our people and invades our country, we will endanger his interests anywhere in the world.” --
May we kill them now?
-------------------------------------------
Winterbear responds:
You can kill em now... but it wont do any good. In fact, it makes things worse.
First of all, people in the USA write/say goofy shit like this every day. Listen to Art Bells show every night... or read the writings of the various conspiracey theorists or religious fundamentalists. Or the neocons of the Bush admin for that matter. The best thing to do is just ignore it.
If the transendental meditation new age Californians invaded Texas for no reason and were breaking into our houses and torturing our kids in captured prisions... well, we might draw up a document called "a strategy drawn up for the destruction of new age california civilization."
dont mess with texas....
real point? Radical islam is tiny today... very few people actual support it and even less are willing to take part in the violence. It only has credence in a few places. Its about the size of the KKK in this country at its hight in the 1920's.
But as long as we poke the moderate people in the eyes, ignorantly lumping all Moslems into the same basket and we keep treating em like subhuman morons, they are going to keep getting stronger until they actually become a real threat to our civilization. Gandhi had it right, Violence is not the answer and only makes the enemy stronger. For every one you kill, 3 more pop up.
9-11 was a crime, not an act of war. We could suffer a 9-11 style act ever few months and it would not "destroy our civilization". It would suck but as long as opportunists like Karl Rove didnt use it for political gain and another opportunity to invade another country, it wouldnt amount to much. Most of the damage we have suffered in the west since 9-11 has been self inflicted. Either by blind fear of this tiny marginalized threat or by over reaction by people that have a selfish financial interest in US hegmony, colonial conquest and militarism.
less than 4000 people have died from Terrorist activity in the USA in the last 20 years. Dude, thats a bad labor day weekend on our highways...
If re-elected the neocons are going to use documents like this as an excuse to invade Iran. If for no other reason, we should throw them out of office for this.
The best thing that could happen is to get the relations between Iran and the US normalized like the way we have done in Vietnam. Sure, there are some radical elements both inside and outside of Iranian government that hate us. Same can be said about the US radicals hating Iran. But if we will stop acting unilaterally and doing stupid obnoxious things on the world stage we can strenghthen the moderate majority inside Iran. There is no reason to go to war with these people. Just like Iraq (in fact worse, because they have a real army) its a loose/loose situation for all involved... in fact, it could lead to WW4 if it goes nuts. Which seems to be something our nut job right wing wants to see happen.
Just like our olympic basketball team learned on sunday... the USA will not win every contest for ever and ever, amen. Some day our republic will crumble into dust. That day will be all the sooner if we allow the morons who have hijacked the Republican party to invading Iran and widen our conflict with Islam to the rest of the world and it becomes the next world war. That ain't good for nobody, old friend.
--A report on May 28 in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that an Iranian intelligence unit has established a center called “The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening.” The paper claimed that it had obtained a tape with a speech by Hassan Abbassi, a Revolutionary Guards intelligence theoretician who teaches at Al-Hussein University. In the tape, Mr. Abbassi spoke of Tehran’s secret plans, which include “a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization.”
“Woe to the enemy if Khamenei commands me to wage jihad,” Mr. Khamenei said, “If someone harms our people and invades our country, we will endanger his interests anywhere in the world.” --
May we kill them now?
-------------------------------------------
Winterbear responds:
You can kill em now... but it wont do any good. In fact, it makes things worse.
First of all, people in the USA write/say goofy shit like this every day. Listen to Art Bells show every night... or read the writings of the various conspiracey theorists or religious fundamentalists. Or the neocons of the Bush admin for that matter. The best thing to do is just ignore it.
If the transendental meditation new age Californians invaded Texas for no reason and were breaking into our houses and torturing our kids in captured prisions... well, we might draw up a document called "a strategy drawn up for the destruction of new age california civilization."
dont mess with texas....
real point? Radical islam is tiny today... very few people actual support it and even less are willing to take part in the violence. It only has credence in a few places. Its about the size of the KKK in this country at its hight in the 1920's.
But as long as we poke the moderate people in the eyes, ignorantly lumping all Moslems into the same basket and we keep treating em like subhuman morons, they are going to keep getting stronger until they actually become a real threat to our civilization. Gandhi had it right, Violence is not the answer and only makes the enemy stronger. For every one you kill, 3 more pop up.
9-11 was a crime, not an act of war. We could suffer a 9-11 style act ever few months and it would not "destroy our civilization". It would suck but as long as opportunists like Karl Rove didnt use it for political gain and another opportunity to invade another country, it wouldnt amount to much. Most of the damage we have suffered in the west since 9-11 has been self inflicted. Either by blind fear of this tiny marginalized threat or by over reaction by people that have a selfish financial interest in US hegmony, colonial conquest and militarism.
less than 4000 people have died from Terrorist activity in the USA in the last 20 years. Dude, thats a bad labor day weekend on our highways...
If re-elected the neocons are going to use documents like this as an excuse to invade Iran. If for no other reason, we should throw them out of office for this.
The best thing that could happen is to get the relations between Iran and the US normalized like the way we have done in Vietnam. Sure, there are some radical elements both inside and outside of Iranian government that hate us. Same can be said about the US radicals hating Iran. But if we will stop acting unilaterally and doing stupid obnoxious things on the world stage we can strenghthen the moderate majority inside Iran. There is no reason to go to war with these people. Just like Iraq (in fact worse, because they have a real army) its a loose/loose situation for all involved... in fact, it could lead to WW4 if it goes nuts. Which seems to be something our nut job right wing wants to see happen.
Just like our olympic basketball team learned on sunday... the USA will not win every contest for ever and ever, amen. Some day our republic will crumble into dust. That day will be all the sooner if we allow the morons who have hijacked the Republican party to invading Iran and widen our conflict with Islam to the rest of the world and it becomes the next world war. That ain't good for nobody, old friend.
Florida's new voting machine
timmerca.com: funny stuff: florida's new voting machine: florida's new voting machine (tiny): "florida's new voting machine
"
"
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Bush's Brain : A Review
The Talent Show: Bush's Brain : A Review:
URL to movies web site: http://www.bushsbrain.com
"Let's face it, Karl Rove is a political genius. He wouldn't have gotten as far as he has if he was sloppy enough to get caught. So while the film builds a persuasive case (at least to those of us who go into the film ready to accept its conclusions), there's nothing in this film that couldn't be refuted by a competent spin doctor. So if the film is primarily an attack on Karl Rove, it's a failure.
The more important story told in the film is the list of dirty tricks that seem to follow every campaign that Rove is associated with. From his early days in which he 'allegedly' planted a bug in his own office a few days before the election in order to make the Democrats look like crooks, to the 2000 election in which rumors that John McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh was the result of an affair he'd had with a black prostitute, clearly Rove campaigns have a dark side that follows them. Even if Rove isn't personally responsible for attacks like these, the fact that his campaigns are an environment in which dirty tricks are deemed acceptable is enough the convict the man for me."
URL to movies web site: http://www.bushsbrain.com
"Let's face it, Karl Rove is a political genius. He wouldn't have gotten as far as he has if he was sloppy enough to get caught. So while the film builds a persuasive case (at least to those of us who go into the film ready to accept its conclusions), there's nothing in this film that couldn't be refuted by a competent spin doctor. So if the film is primarily an attack on Karl Rove, it's a failure.
The more important story told in the film is the list of dirty tricks that seem to follow every campaign that Rove is associated with. From his early days in which he 'allegedly' planted a bug in his own office a few days before the election in order to make the Democrats look like crooks, to the 2000 election in which rumors that John McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh was the result of an affair he'd had with a black prostitute, clearly Rove campaigns have a dark side that follows them. Even if Rove isn't personally responsible for attacks like these, the fact that his campaigns are an environment in which dirty tricks are deemed acceptable is enough the convict the man for me."
World War Four? thats the dumbest thing I ever heard
Commentary - July-August 2004:
In an article by Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient Norman Podhoretz called "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win", Norman argues that our current "war on Terrorism is like the second world war.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
9-11 WAS A CRIME! It was not an act of war. The few thousand members of AlQuida are laughing their asses off ever time they think about what has happened after 9-11. They killed people in a criminal act and they got the USA to over react and invade a country run by a secular dictator that they hated. We played right into the hands of this tiny group of criminal terrorists. Today they are stronger, more famous and credible than ever.
The appropriate response to 9-11 was to work with the worlds various police forces and to bring the criminals to justice. We should have hunted the leaders down and made the world a very unsafe place for these people to operate. Instead, the neocons in the administration used this tragedy as an excuse to invade Iraq.
George Bush started calling himself a "war president" the minute Karl Rove made up the term "War on Terror" on or about September 12th. Look at the gleam in his eye when he says that he is beyond all critisism because he is the War president. Like the war on drugs, its not a real war.
We have only gone to war in the country a few times. The Revolution was not really a war, it was a rebellion. But its more of a war than the War on Terror. The War of 1812 was our first real war. Then you have Mexico, Civil, Spanish and then the 1914 war we call WWI. WWII which began in 1939 was a real war for the united states only after it was declared and voted on in 1941. Hitlers adventures during the Spanish revolution, his invasion of french controled Rhur Valley, the annexing of Austria and Czech Sudatanland were not wars. It wasnt until the German invasion caused the English and French to honor their treaty obligations that WWII became a real war.
The Police action in Korea was never officially a real war. The kids protesting the Vietnam police action were quite daring when they called that conflict a war. The dozens of invasions the USA launched into Central America over the last 100 years are not officially wars.
All this has gotten very muddy under G.W. Bush. What we did in Afganistan was more of a police action than a war. The Iraq Invasion is more troublesome because the president got war powers from congress but kind of forgot to declare war. One of the reasons he did this was to avoid the rules of war. Among many other things, this allowed him to ignore the Geneva conventions which lead to the tortures in Abu Grahab prison and the suspension of legal rights of the people held in Guantanamo Bay.
Wars are fought between states. Its a very formal state of being. When a country goes to war, then all sorts of treaty obligations are invoked. After WWII we set things up (Nato) so that if any of our friends (UK, Germany, and yes, France) were attacked, then we would all attack the agressor. War is serious business. Shame on us for using this term so lightly.
The war on terror... the wars on drugs, Poverty, Polio, Dandruff... These are just semantical tricks. Every year in Dallas they have a war between Texas and Oklahoma at the state Fair. But OU vrs Texas Football game is not really a War... its just called one. There is no war here. Marketing/PR flacks came up with these terms to hijack the gravitas of the real thing.
What is currently happening is not World War 4. Its much harder to say that the situation in Iraq is not a War" today, now that the USA has committed an act of war by invading Iraq and toppling its government. Our president has used the crime of 9-11 as an excuse to invade an unrelated country so that he can establish bases that can project US power into the region. We would be at peace right now if the administration had not invaded Iraq. We would still be in a "war on Terror" but thats just a tern of phrase and nothing real at all.
We are not at war with Islam right now. There is no way we ever will be. Islam is a Religion. And while Bush and Rove may decide some day that it is politically expediant to publically declare that we are at "war with islam", this cannot happen. Wars are between states.
I do not mean to say that our ill advised adventures in Iraq will not lead to WW4 type situation. Especially if GW Bush gets re-elected and the neocons get their wish and we invade Iran. If it then spreads to other places and god forbid eventually into a full blown shooting war with China.... Ok, Norman, you were right, we are in the early days of WW4. But if Kerry gets elected and we pull back from our recent experiment with unilateral exstremist militarism and avoid any more invasions for a few years, Norman is dead wrong. Only time will tell.
But based on this article, I know one thing: Norman Podhoretz is a war monger and a sensationalist.
In an article by Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient Norman Podhoretz called "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win", Norman argues that our current "war on Terrorism is like the second world war.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
9-11 WAS A CRIME! It was not an act of war. The few thousand members of AlQuida are laughing their asses off ever time they think about what has happened after 9-11. They killed people in a criminal act and they got the USA to over react and invade a country run by a secular dictator that they hated. We played right into the hands of this tiny group of criminal terrorists. Today they are stronger, more famous and credible than ever.
The appropriate response to 9-11 was to work with the worlds various police forces and to bring the criminals to justice. We should have hunted the leaders down and made the world a very unsafe place for these people to operate. Instead, the neocons in the administration used this tragedy as an excuse to invade Iraq.
George Bush started calling himself a "war president" the minute Karl Rove made up the term "War on Terror" on or about September 12th. Look at the gleam in his eye when he says that he is beyond all critisism because he is the War president. Like the war on drugs, its not a real war.
We have only gone to war in the country a few times. The Revolution was not really a war, it was a rebellion. But its more of a war than the War on Terror. The War of 1812 was our first real war. Then you have Mexico, Civil, Spanish and then the 1914 war we call WWI. WWII which began in 1939 was a real war for the united states only after it was declared and voted on in 1941. Hitlers adventures during the Spanish revolution, his invasion of french controled Rhur Valley, the annexing of Austria and Czech Sudatanland were not wars. It wasnt until the German invasion caused the English and French to honor their treaty obligations that WWII became a real war.
The Police action in Korea was never officially a real war. The kids protesting the Vietnam police action were quite daring when they called that conflict a war. The dozens of invasions the USA launched into Central America over the last 100 years are not officially wars.
All this has gotten very muddy under G.W. Bush. What we did in Afganistan was more of a police action than a war. The Iraq Invasion is more troublesome because the president got war powers from congress but kind of forgot to declare war. One of the reasons he did this was to avoid the rules of war. Among many other things, this allowed him to ignore the Geneva conventions which lead to the tortures in Abu Grahab prison and the suspension of legal rights of the people held in Guantanamo Bay.
Wars are fought between states. Its a very formal state of being. When a country goes to war, then all sorts of treaty obligations are invoked. After WWII we set things up (Nato) so that if any of our friends (UK, Germany, and yes, France) were attacked, then we would all attack the agressor. War is serious business. Shame on us for using this term so lightly.
The war on terror... the wars on drugs, Poverty, Polio, Dandruff... These are just semantical tricks. Every year in Dallas they have a war between Texas and Oklahoma at the state Fair. But OU vrs Texas Football game is not really a War... its just called one. There is no war here. Marketing/PR flacks came up with these terms to hijack the gravitas of the real thing.
What is currently happening is not World War 4. Its much harder to say that the situation in Iraq is not a War" today, now that the USA has committed an act of war by invading Iraq and toppling its government. Our president has used the crime of 9-11 as an excuse to invade an unrelated country so that he can establish bases that can project US power into the region. We would be at peace right now if the administration had not invaded Iraq. We would still be in a "war on Terror" but thats just a tern of phrase and nothing real at all.
We are not at war with Islam right now. There is no way we ever will be. Islam is a Religion. And while Bush and Rove may decide some day that it is politically expediant to publically declare that we are at "war with islam", this cannot happen. Wars are between states.
I do not mean to say that our ill advised adventures in Iraq will not lead to WW4 type situation. Especially if GW Bush gets re-elected and the neocons get their wish and we invade Iran. If it then spreads to other places and god forbid eventually into a full blown shooting war with China.... Ok, Norman, you were right, we are in the early days of WW4. But if Kerry gets elected and we pull back from our recent experiment with unilateral exstremist militarism and avoid any more invasions for a few years, Norman is dead wrong. Only time will tell.
But based on this article, I know one thing: Norman Podhoretz is a war monger and a sensationalist.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Naming a war before it is fought is obscene
Thanks To Some 'REAL' National Heroes | BaltimoreChronicle.com:
Naming a war before it is fought is obscene, but it's also proof that the 'war' was pre-planned. The Bush thugs named this war 'Infinite Justice,' and even had commercial merchandise made up with that name on it. I bought some as proof--pins and buttons and uniform decorations for the military. Then, realizing their religious blunder, the war-criminals planning this massacre re-named their corporate raid 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.'
Freedom, my ass. Only in Orwellian terms has anyone been freed in this disaster. 'Operation Iraqi Destruction and Construction' would have been more like it. Corporate warfare. May the Islamic world forgive us.
'Iraqi Freedom'? The Iraqi people reported yesterday that there are 37,000 Iraqis now 'free' since we started dropping the bombs on March 19th, 2003--'liberated to death' by our President and his puppet masters, with their neocon dreams of (perceived) power and world domination. And almost 1000 of our own friends, children, sisters, brothers, husbands, and wives have tasted 'Iraqi Freedom.' These 'freed' people are the ultimate heroes."
"Thank you to the soldiers in the field, who from the beginning realized that they were on 'Mission Impossible,' not 'Operation Infinite Justice,' as the Bush war-planners had named their 'corporate war.' You deserve much, much, better than to be forced to stay in the military against your wishes, as thousands of you are right now. Continue to speak out. Who can doubt the words of those who are there?
Naming a war before it is fought is obscene, but it's also proof that the 'war' was pre-planned. The Bush thugs named this war 'Infinite Justice,' and even had commercial merchandise made up with that name on it. I bought some as proof--pins and buttons and uniform decorations for the military. Then, realizing their religious blunder, the war-criminals planning this massacre re-named their corporate raid 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.'
Freedom, my ass. Only in Orwellian terms has anyone been freed in this disaster. 'Operation Iraqi Destruction and Construction' would have been more like it. Corporate warfare. May the Islamic world forgive us.
'Iraqi Freedom'? The Iraqi people reported yesterday that there are 37,000 Iraqis now 'free' since we started dropping the bombs on March 19th, 2003--'liberated to death' by our President and his puppet masters, with their neocon dreams of (perceived) power and world domination. And almost 1000 of our own friends, children, sisters, brothers, husbands, and wives have tasted 'Iraqi Freedom.' These 'freed' people are the ultimate heroes."
"Thank you to the soldiers in the field, who from the beginning realized that they were on 'Mission Impossible,' not 'Operation Infinite Justice,' as the Bush war-planners had named their 'corporate war.' You deserve much, much, better than to be forced to stay in the military against your wishes, as thousands of you are right now. Continue to speak out. Who can doubt the words of those who are there?
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Response to bush's new ad
The Smirking Chimp: "Maybe I should be 'grateful' that I live in Virginia, a solid red state, and am thus not subjected to a constant barrage of insane Bush ads.
Like Bush, I also can't imagine the agony of which child to pick up first on September the 11th. I'll probably just wait at the bus stop and pick up both of my daughters at the same time when they get out of school. It's not that agonizing, really.
"
Like Bush, I also can't imagine the agony of which child to pick up first on September the 11th. I'll probably just wait at the bus stop and pick up both of my daughters at the same time when they get out of school. It's not that agonizing, really.
"
Here in texas we once counted George out of the race....
In 1996 against Ann Richards the Bush was considered totally out of the race in the months before his vicotry. Everyone thought he was toast....
I cant count the number of folks who I know that are kicking themselves for passing up that vote. Most people just thought he was a moron and had no chance against a very popular governor. They were right about the first part but forgot that you have to VOTE against someone to beat them.
now is not the time to get complacent. This thing is far from over and George has lots of experiance in this kind of thing. Karl Rove is just getting started and he has a huge bag of dirty tricks. See the movie "Bush's Brain" http://www.bushsbrain.com
dont look for him to fold...."
I cant count the number of folks who I know that are kicking themselves for passing up that vote. Most people just thought he was a moron and had no chance against a very popular governor. They were right about the first part but forgot that you have to VOTE against someone to beat them.
now is not the time to get complacent. This thing is far from over and George has lots of experiance in this kind of thing. Karl Rove is just getting started and he has a huge bag of dirty tricks. See the movie "Bush's Brain" http://www.bushsbrain.com
dont look for him to fold...."
Media group think made Bush appear to be a leader for a while
The Smirking Chimp: "Rove can spin and spin as much as he wants, he can never make the Shrub into a great leader.
I saw George II after 9/11 and I'm truly sorry but I bought into the whole 'Strong Leadership for uncertain times.' It was pumped out by the media 24/7. I felt sorry for America's loss and looked for a leader to rise above the terrible tragedy and deal with the threat of terrorism. At first, I thought that George II was rising to the occasion. Later, I realised that was what the Media Groupthink wanted me to think.
See, I thought things were going ok. Then the Patriot Act was rammed through congress. I thought, why is an act that allows for the searching of library records refered to as patriotic. I did wonder how 2 000 men who liked to hang out in caves were somehow a greater threat to American National Security than the Nazis and the Soviets combined. However, he was the leader and I'm sorry, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Afghanistan started out ok and all the media outlets were harping on it and America was fighting back. But for all the major terrorists we supposedly caught, for all the triumphs reported, Osama Bin-Laden eluded us, as did most of the Taliban. There weren't that many troops in the area either to search for them. I was a little unsettled. Then they mysterously stopped talking about Bin-Laden except in relation to Saddam.
I was really worried. Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Yet he was being portrayed as somehow in cahoots with Bin-Laden in an imminent plan to nuke the US using drone aircraft. The Media Groupthink was pumping it out 24/7 on American TV. When the UN inspectors kept coming back and saying 'there's no weapons here' Bush was on the TV screaming about how Saddam was deceiving Hans Blix. Then the Dixie Chicks spoke out against this war, and the GOP gleefully boycotted the 'traitors.'
I guess my last shred of respect for Bush was the Aircraft carrier 'Mission Accomplished' stunt. It was so shamefull in exploiting serving men and women for shrub's re-election campaign. I can't imagine FDR landing on the USS Lexington in Tokyo Bay movie camaras rolling. I certainly can't imagine him landing after the Battle of Midway and declare victory even though there was much hard fighting ahead.
You see, I have come to the conclusion that George II is probably the worst leader of the United States of America since it's inception. There have been many indifferent presidents, incomptent ones, and corrupt ones. George on his best day falls short of all of them on their worst days.
No President since probably FDR in World War II has been given such a wonderful opportunity. It was a tragic day that united Americans together and united the world behind America. France's Le Monde ran a headline 'Today we are all Americans' and my heart strongly agreed. Moderate Muslim's condemmed the actions of a madman. Shrub pissed this all away.
Never has America's motivations been so questioned. Never has America's hands been so bloodied by the torture at Abu Graib. Never has the Muslim world looked so dimly on America. Never has America's long standing allies felt such disdain for the most powerful man on the planet. (I wouldn't trust dumbya near my dvd player let alone the button).
It doesn't take a historian or a political scientist to realize that the 'I'm a Uniter not a Divider' has managed in under 3 years to take the monumental spirit of unity in the aftermath of September 11th and divide America in two, and piss of pretty much the rest of the world. If there was a championship for idiots, 2001-2004 would be the final competition and Bush would have won it easily."
I saw George II after 9/11 and I'm truly sorry but I bought into the whole 'Strong Leadership for uncertain times.' It was pumped out by the media 24/7. I felt sorry for America's loss and looked for a leader to rise above the terrible tragedy and deal with the threat of terrorism. At first, I thought that George II was rising to the occasion. Later, I realised that was what the Media Groupthink wanted me to think.
See, I thought things were going ok. Then the Patriot Act was rammed through congress. I thought, why is an act that allows for the searching of library records refered to as patriotic. I did wonder how 2 000 men who liked to hang out in caves were somehow a greater threat to American National Security than the Nazis and the Soviets combined. However, he was the leader and I'm sorry, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Afghanistan started out ok and all the media outlets were harping on it and America was fighting back. But for all the major terrorists we supposedly caught, for all the triumphs reported, Osama Bin-Laden eluded us, as did most of the Taliban. There weren't that many troops in the area either to search for them. I was a little unsettled. Then they mysterously stopped talking about Bin-Laden except in relation to Saddam.
I was really worried. Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Yet he was being portrayed as somehow in cahoots with Bin-Laden in an imminent plan to nuke the US using drone aircraft. The Media Groupthink was pumping it out 24/7 on American TV. When the UN inspectors kept coming back and saying 'there's no weapons here' Bush was on the TV screaming about how Saddam was deceiving Hans Blix. Then the Dixie Chicks spoke out against this war, and the GOP gleefully boycotted the 'traitors.'
I guess my last shred of respect for Bush was the Aircraft carrier 'Mission Accomplished' stunt. It was so shamefull in exploiting serving men and women for shrub's re-election campaign. I can't imagine FDR landing on the USS Lexington in Tokyo Bay movie camaras rolling. I certainly can't imagine him landing after the Battle of Midway and declare victory even though there was much hard fighting ahead.
You see, I have come to the conclusion that George II is probably the worst leader of the United States of America since it's inception. There have been many indifferent presidents, incomptent ones, and corrupt ones. George on his best day falls short of all of them on their worst days.
No President since probably FDR in World War II has been given such a wonderful opportunity. It was a tragic day that united Americans together and united the world behind America. France's Le Monde ran a headline 'Today we are all Americans' and my heart strongly agreed. Moderate Muslim's condemmed the actions of a madman. Shrub pissed this all away.
Never has America's motivations been so questioned. Never has America's hands been so bloodied by the torture at Abu Graib. Never has the Muslim world looked so dimly on America. Never has America's long standing allies felt such disdain for the most powerful man on the planet. (I wouldn't trust dumbya near my dvd player let alone the button).
It doesn't take a historian or a political scientist to realize that the 'I'm a Uniter not a Divider' has managed in under 3 years to take the monumental spirit of unity in the aftermath of September 11th and divide America in two, and piss of pretty much the rest of the world. If there was a championship for idiots, 2001-2004 would be the final competition and Bush would have won it easily."
CBS News; Hecklers Banned At Bush Rallies
CBS News | Hecklers Banned At Bush Rallies | August 13, 2004 21:09:18:
"(CBS) There was a full-throated roar of support for President Bush at a New Mexico rally -- adoring crowds and a beaming candidate -- the stuff great political theater is made of -- and it's no accident, reports CBS New White House Correspondent Bill Plante.
Said a rally organizer, 'I wanna hear lots of cheering in there for the president!'
The event tickets went to busloads of pre-screened party faithful -- who poured in hours in advance -- to be greeted and organized by Bush campaign staffers.
'We don't want anybody with a dry throat. We want you yelling for the president!' they were told.
The art of TV-friendly political stagecraft reaches new levels in this campaign. At 'Ask President Bush' events, even the president makes no bones about the fact that he's speaking to invited guests."
"(CBS) There was a full-throated roar of support for President Bush at a New Mexico rally -- adoring crowds and a beaming candidate -- the stuff great political theater is made of -- and it's no accident, reports CBS New White House Correspondent Bill Plante.
Said a rally organizer, 'I wanna hear lots of cheering in there for the president!'
The event tickets went to busloads of pre-screened party faithful -- who poured in hours in advance -- to be greeted and organized by Bush campaign staffers.
'We don't want anybody with a dry throat. We want you yelling for the president!' they were told.
The art of TV-friendly political stagecraft reaches new levels in this campaign. At 'Ask President Bush' events, even the president makes no bones about the fact that he's speaking to invited guests."
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Insane nuclear strategy
War and Piece: : "The Bush administration has voted to kill the crucial 'inspection and verification' component of a nuclear non proliferation treaty:
In a significant shift of US policy, the Bush Administration has announced that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty to ban production of nuclear weapons materials.
For several years the US and others have been pursuing the treaty, which would ban new production by any state of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons.
At an arms control meeting in Geneva last week the US told other countries it supported a treaty, but not verification.
. . .
Arms control specialists said the change in the US position would greatly weaken any treaty and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. They said the US move virtually killed a 10-year international effort to persuade countries such as India, Israel and Pakistan to accept some oversight of their nuclear production programs.
This administration is insane. I have no words.
Hard right conservatives and neocons have always disdained arms control treaties saying 'Why bother? They can't be verified.' But by killing the verification component of this treaty which would ban production of nuclear materials, they have surely made that a fait accompli. To what end? It surely couldn't hurt, and it's not like the US has such a good track record of intelligence on WMD issues in India, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, or Libya."
In a significant shift of US policy, the Bush Administration has announced that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty to ban production of nuclear weapons materials.
For several years the US and others have been pursuing the treaty, which would ban new production by any state of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons.
At an arms control meeting in Geneva last week the US told other countries it supported a treaty, but not verification.
. . .
Arms control specialists said the change in the US position would greatly weaken any treaty and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. They said the US move virtually killed a 10-year international effort to persuade countries such as India, Israel and Pakistan to accept some oversight of their nuclear production programs.
This administration is insane. I have no words.
Hard right conservatives and neocons have always disdained arms control treaties saying 'Why bother? They can't be verified.' But by killing the verification component of this treaty which would ban production of nuclear materials, they have surely made that a fait accompli. To what end? It surely couldn't hurt, and it's not like the US has such a good track record of intelligence on WMD issues in India, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, or Libya."
Playing dirty tricks with terrorist suspects
The Washington Monthly: "Last month The New Republic reported that Pakistani officials were under pressure from the Bush administration to find some al-Qaeda bad guys before the election. What's more, a high-profile capture during the Democratic convention would be really great.
Sure enough, on the last day of the convention the Pakistanis announced they had captured an al-Qaeda terrorist who was one of the FBI's most wanted.
Then, on Monday, we learned that the heightened security alert in New York was due to information on a laptop computer that had been taken from a captured al-Qaeda terrorist after a 25-hour gun battle in mid-July — in Pakistan.
The Pakistanis sure as busy. I wonder why they couldn't do this in the summer of 2002. And the summer of 2003. Why did we wait until the summer of 2004 to put the screws on them?
And how many more miraculous captures of al-Qaeda operatives by the Pakistanis can we look forward to between now and November 2? The question kind of answers itself, doesn't it?"
Sure enough, on the last day of the convention the Pakistanis announced they had captured an al-Qaeda terrorist who was one of the FBI's most wanted.
Then, on Monday, we learned that the heightened security alert in New York was due to information on a laptop computer that had been taken from a captured al-Qaeda terrorist after a 25-hour gun battle in mid-July — in Pakistan.
The Pakistanis sure as busy. I wonder why they couldn't do this in the summer of 2002. And the summer of 2003. Why did we wait until the summer of 2004 to put the screws on them?
And how many more miraculous captures of al-Qaeda operatives by the Pakistanis can we look forward to between now and November 2? The question kind of answers itself, doesn't it?"
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Time To Get Out The Bush / How do you know it's time for a major change in American leadership? Let us count the signs
Time To Get Out The Bush / How do you know it's time for a major change in American leadership? Let us count the signs:
"You know it's time for a serious change when the president of the United States actually mutters the infantile, instantly infamous line, 'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we,' just after finishing phonetically spelling out his name, in his favoritest red crayon, on yet another budget-reaming $417 billion defense-spending bill.
And you know it's time for a change when not a single one of the rigid and spiritually curdled military yes men standing around the ceremonial signing table, those sad automatons with their wooden smiles and stiff spines and bone-dry souls, not one broke into a hysterical bout of sad, suicidal laughter, followed by uncontrolled wailing and the rending of flesh and the muttering of oh my freaking God what the hell is this man doing as leader of the free world."
"You know it's time for a serious change when the president of the United States actually mutters the infantile, instantly infamous line, 'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we,' just after finishing phonetically spelling out his name, in his favoritest red crayon, on yet another budget-reaming $417 billion defense-spending bill.
And you know it's time for a change when not a single one of the rigid and spiritually curdled military yes men standing around the ceremonial signing table, those sad automatons with their wooden smiles and stiff spines and bone-dry souls, not one broke into a hysterical bout of sad, suicidal laughter, followed by uncontrolled wailing and the rending of flesh and the muttering of oh my freaking God what the hell is this man doing as leader of the free world."
TheStar.com - Stewart gets serious, why won't reporters?
TheStar.com - Stewart gets serious, why won't reporters?: "The Bush administration continues to massacre the truth with almost no contradiction from the media. Last week, there was Vice-President Dick Cheney, lying again, in a speech in Minnesota, where he repeated the popular Republican refrain of how Kerry and Edwards are the number one and four 'most liberal'' members of the Senate.
It's a line that the right has been using to beat up the Kerry-Edwards ticket for weeks — but never had I seen it explained or sourced by anybody on TV. Not, at least, until last Tuesday's Daily Show.
Stewart interviewed the too-slick-for-his-own-good Texan congressman Henry Bonilla, who worked on the Republican's truth squad during the convention. It was his job to counter the Democrat spin.
Fair enough. But not fair when it's a load of bull re-heated and served up by Big Media. Those who watched the convention coverage picked up the stink.
Stewart, on the other hand, did not allow Bonilla off the hook. He kept jabbing until Bonilla looked like an obfuscating fool. The best moment came when Bonilla implied that all kinds of objective groups were involved in compiling the rankings.
'You have conservative groups on our side, there are business groups, there are people who track tax bills and spending bills and things like that, trial lawyers track us, unions, and all of these groups are kind of the, ah, understood authorities,' he said.
Replied Stewart: 'You know who seems to be the only people not tracking you? The American public. We're the only ones!'"
It's a line that the right has been using to beat up the Kerry-Edwards ticket for weeks — but never had I seen it explained or sourced by anybody on TV. Not, at least, until last Tuesday's Daily Show.
Stewart interviewed the too-slick-for-his-own-good Texan congressman Henry Bonilla, who worked on the Republican's truth squad during the convention. It was his job to counter the Democrat spin.
Fair enough. But not fair when it's a load of bull re-heated and served up by Big Media. Those who watched the convention coverage picked up the stink.
Stewart, on the other hand, did not allow Bonilla off the hook. He kept jabbing until Bonilla looked like an obfuscating fool. The best moment came when Bonilla implied that all kinds of objective groups were involved in compiling the rankings.
'You have conservative groups on our side, there are business groups, there are people who track tax bills and spending bills and things like that, trial lawyers track us, unions, and all of these groups are kind of the, ah, understood authorities,' he said.
Replied Stewart: 'You know who seems to be the only people not tracking you? The American public. We're the only ones!'"
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Bush struggles with defining sovereignty
Taegan Goddard's Political Wire: "The Scripting of the President"
'When President Bush picks up a microphone, bounds onto a stage and engages his cheering audience in a rambling discussion of topics from Iraq to the economy, it comes off as relaxed, informal and largely spontaneous,' USA Today reports. 'But these 'Ask President Bush' campaign forums... leave little to chance.'
'Depending on the message Bush wants to put across,' the local campaign office 'lines up some carefully chosen locals to take the stage with him and explain how Bush's policies are helping them afford college, buy a home, save money on health insurance or expand a business. They are given 'talking points' ahead of time.'
One reason these events are so carefully scripted can be explained when listening to President Bush's response last week to a question not on the official talking points."
Questioner: "What do you think tribal soverignty means?"
Bush: "Tribal soverignty means that, its sovereign. I... ah.. I mean... your a ... You've been given sovereignty and your viewed as a sovereign entitiy. And therefore the relation between the fedral government and the tribes is one between sovereign entitys."
Audio of this exchange:
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/Bush%20-%20Tribal%20Sovereignty.mp3
I am so glad our leader has such a comprehensive handle on the one thing we have given over to the people of Iraq since we invaded their country.
'When President Bush picks up a microphone, bounds onto a stage and engages his cheering audience in a rambling discussion of topics from Iraq to the economy, it comes off as relaxed, informal and largely spontaneous,' USA Today reports. 'But these 'Ask President Bush' campaign forums... leave little to chance.'
'Depending on the message Bush wants to put across,' the local campaign office 'lines up some carefully chosen locals to take the stage with him and explain how Bush's policies are helping them afford college, buy a home, save money on health insurance or expand a business. They are given 'talking points' ahead of time.'
One reason these events are so carefully scripted can be explained when listening to President Bush's response last week to a question not on the official talking points."
Questioner: "What do you think tribal soverignty means?"
Bush: "Tribal soverignty means that, its sovereign. I... ah.. I mean... your a ... You've been given sovereignty and your viewed as a sovereign entitiy. And therefore the relation between the fedral government and the tribes is one between sovereign entitys."
Audio of this exchange:
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/Bush%20-%20Tribal%20Sovereignty.mp3
I am so glad our leader has such a comprehensive handle on the one thing we have given over to the people of Iraq since we invaded their country.
Friday, August 06, 2004
The Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak
A very well documented article about the claims bush made to justify the invasion of Iraq and how almost all of them were deliberate falsification.
They Knew...: Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak -- In These Times: "Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak"
They Knew...: Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak -- In These Times: "Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)