Once Upon a Time...:

"The attacks of 9/11 tore aside a significant part of the veneer of civilization that had shrouded us from certain continuing, ugly truths about ourselves. In the wake of the attacks of that day, many of us -- led by our president, cheered on by the neoconservatives, and also by many conservatives and liberventionists (those alleged "libertarians," who think government should stay out of our lives at home but should simultaneously seek to rearrange the globe by military force -- and who appear to think it represents the apex of intellectual integrity never to even acknowledge this contradiction, let alone try to justify it) -- enthusiastically embraced a simple storyline: Western civilization, more particularly the United States, constitutes the highest point of possible human development. It is only "freedom" and "democracy" as practiced in the West that can guarantee a future of peace. (Never mind the West's uninterrupted history of warfare within its own ranks, and never mind the West's unending, centuries-long interference with the rest of the world.)The West has the answer to successful human life. Since it does, and because certain elements in the rest of the world have now chosen to attack us on our own ground (and never mind that we have invaded and ruled over vast portions of the rest of the world since time immemorial), we must enlighten those benighted portions of the globe in our defense. Our chosen method of enlightenment is brute military force, to be deployed even against countries that did not threaten us. The lack of a genuine threat is no argument against spreading our version of "civilization," for our mission is grounded not only in self-defense: it is also a moral mission. Our success and our "peace" directly correlates to our virtue. Those countries and those civilizations that do not enjoy the same success and peace are without virtue. In the most extreme (and, one could argue, most consistent) version of this tale, non-Western parts of the world are less than human -- and they are subhuman by choice. They are immoral, and sometimes even evil. Since we represent the good and they represent the evil, we are surely entitled to improve them, by invasion and bombing if necessary. If they do not threaten us today, they might at some indeterminate time in the future. And while we might kill many innocent civilians in our campaign of civilization, those who survive will be infinitely better off than they would have been otherwise. Besides, how "innocent" can any of them be -- since they are members of inferior, less than fully human civilizations, and since they are so by choice?">Once Upon a Time...: Myths of New Orleans: Poor, Bad Blacks -- Who Got What They Deserved: "The attacks of 9/11 tore aside a significant part of the veneer of civilization that had shrouded us from certain continuing, ugly truths about ourselves. In the wake of the attacks of that day, many of us -- led by our president, cheered on by the neoconservatives, and also by many conservatives and liberventionists (those alleged 'libertarians,' who think government should stay out of our lives at home but should simultaneously seek to rearrange the globe by military force -- and who appear to think it represents the apex of intellectual integrity never to even acknowledge this contradiction, let alone try to justify it) -- enthusiastically embraced a simple storyline: Western civilization, more particularly the United States, constitutes the highest point of possible human development. It is only 'freedom' and 'democracy' as practiced in the West that can guarantee a future of peace. (Never mind the West's uninterrupted history of warfare within its own ranks, and never mind the West's unending, centuries-long interference with the rest of the world.)The West has the answer to successful human life. Since it does, and because certain elements in the rest of the world have now chosen to attack us on our own ground (and never mind that we have invaded and ruled over vast portions of the rest of the world since time immemorial), we must enlighten those benighted portions of the globe in our defense. Our chosen method of enlightenment is brute military force, to be deployed even against countries that did not threaten us. The lack of a genuine threat is no argument against spreading our version of 'civilization,' for our mission is grounded not only in self-defense: it is also a moral mission. Our success and our 'peace' directly correlates to our virtue. Those countries and those civilizations that do not enjoy the same success and peace are without virtue. In the most extreme (and, one could argue, most consistent) version of this tale, non-Western parts of the world are less than human -- and they are subhuman by choice. They are immoral, and sometimes even evil. Since we represent the good and they represent the evil, we are surely entitled to improve them, by invasion and bombing if necessary. If they do not threaten us today, they might at some indeterminate time in the future. And while we might kill many innocent civilians in our campaign of civilization, those who survive will be infinitely better off than they would have been otherwise. Besides, how 'innocent' can any of them be -- since they are members of inferior, less than fully human civilizations, and since they are so by choice?"

Abraham Lincoln, letter to William Elkins, Nov 21, 1864

HaloScan.com - Comments:

"'I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. The money powers preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy.

It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me & the financial institutions at the rear, the latter is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.'

-Abraham Lincoln, letter to William Elkins, Nov 21, 1864 (after the passage of the debt causing National Bank Act [June 3, 1864])"

Latest Mark Morford (SF gate) article: George W. Bush Still Rocks

All:

Mark has always had a rapier-like writing style; this time
he skewers with great abandon.

Note: not for the squeamish. But Mark usually isn't.

WinterBear

========================


George W. Bush Still Rocks!
Stop criticizing! The rich man's CEO president is
executing his job requirements perfectly
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

By Mark Morford, San Francisco Gate columnist
Friday, September 9, 2005


Everyone is slamming poor Dubya. Everyone is saying,
oh my God, he's more inept than we ever imagined, he
has no idea what's really going on, he's oblivious and
in denial and he pretty much let all those poor black
people die in filth and misery, and he basically
ignored the massive Katrina disaster for days before
finally being pressured into cutting his umpteenth
vacation short and actually taking action.

This is what they're saying. Kanye West was right,
Bush doesn't care about black people, or the poor, or
anything that doesn't directly serve his handlers'
agenda or flatter his monochromatic ego or anything
that isn't spelled out for him in nice simplistic pie
charts and reassuring matronly tones.

And lo, the darts are slinging in from around the
world, according to SF Gate's own World Views column:
"Maddening incompetence ... reminiscent of a
drought-stricken African state," says Britain's Daily
Mail. "Can't get it together," says a major paper in
Italy. "A plethora of grim tales of disaster," says
the Scotsman. "Superpower or Third World?" asks the
Spanish daily Noticias de ?lava. Why did BushCo fail
its first great national-security test since Sept. 11,
despite having two days' advance notice of Katrina's
wrath? asks Le Monde. And on it goes, the world's
powers looking on in one part shock and one part
disgust and all parts repugnance for Bush's rampant
ineptitude and America's apparent inability to take
care of its own.

But it's so unfair, isn't it, to attack poor Dubya
like this? Just a little misplaced? After all, Bush
has always been the rich white man's president. He is
the CEO president, the megacorporate businessman's
friend, the thug of the religious right, a big
reservoir-tipped condom for all energy magnates,
protecting against the nasty STDs of humanitarianism
and progress and social responsibility.

He has always been merely an entirely selective
figurehead, out of touch and eternally dumbfounded, a
hand puppet of the neoconservative machine built and
fluffed up and carefully placed for the very specific
job of protecting their interests, no matter what.
Repeat: No. Matter. What. Flood hurricane disaster war
social breakdown economic collapse? Doesn't matter.
Corporate interests ?ber alles, baby. Protect the
core, reassure the base, screw everyone else unless it
begins to affect the poll numbers and then
finger-point, deflect, prevaricate. All of a piece,
really. Because Bush, he was never actually meant to,
you know, lead.

So maybe it's time to stop with the savaging of poor
Dubya. He is, after all, doing a simply beautiful job
of kowtowing to his wealthiest supporters while
slamming the poor and running the nation into a deep
hole and creating the largest deficit in American
history, all while his cronies in oil and industry and
military supply and Big Energy gain immense and
staggering wealth and pay less and less tax on it.
This is what he was hired to do. This is why he is in
office. Hell, the day after Katrina, Bush flew right
by Louisiana and headed straight to San Diego to party
with his Greatest Generation cronies. Reassure the
masters, first and foremost, eh Shrub? Understood.

Is this not what we all expected? Can you reasonably
say you thought it would be different? Just look. All
major social services are being gutted. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency is a joke, second in line
only to the ungodly useless Homeland Security
Department, which has become about as reassuring and
trustworthy and humane an organization as a prison in
Guant?namo.

The Associated Press reported that the Army Corps of
Engineers asked for $105 million for hurricane and
flood programs in New Orleans just last year. The
White House hacked that down to about $40 million,
even as it passed the most bloated and nauseatingly
pork-filled $12.3 billion energy bill in recent
history, one that guaranteed we'd be sucking at the
tit of foreign oil and kneeling before Bush's pals in
Big Energy for decades to come, even as more and more
teenagers die in Iraq for Bush's inept and failed war.
Yay politics.

Why didn't National Guardsmen from Louisiana and
Mississippi march into New Orleans immediately after
Katrina exited to take charge and keep the peace? Why,
because most of them are serving in that same violent
and brutally costly war in Iraq, silly. Fully 30
percent of the guard is stuck over there, along with
50 percent of their equipment. Yay Vietnam 2.0.

Why did FEMA chief Michael Brown wait hours after
Katrina struck to timidly plead with his parent
company, Homeland Security, for some backup, not to
actually get their hands dirty but rather to help
"convey a positive image" about the government's
response to the victims? Why, because he's an
incompetent lackey Bush appointee who was fired from
his former job as head of something called the
International Arabian Horse Association. Yay pathetic
nepotism.

Just look. Senate majority leader Sen. Bill Frist,
icon of hollow self-righteousness and the energy
magnate's friend, has already leveraged the Katrina
nightmare to argue for more drilling in Alaska, much
in the way BushCo whored Sept. 11 to cram the Patriot
Act down the nation's throat and make fear and
xenophobia a national pastime. And let's not forget
trusty profit-sucking sidekick Halliburton, which has
already scored a sweet deal to help repair Katrina
damage, thanks to the fact that the former director of
FEMA is now a Halliburton lobbyist. Ah, war and death
and tragedy. They are just so goddamn profitable,
right, Dubya?

And then, the kicker. Then you read that Bush has
actually ordered an official probe into the botched
Katrina relief efforts, a formal federal investigation
into what went wrong, which is a bit like a shark
ordering an investigation into what happened to all
the fish. Unless this probe starts and ends in the
White House, unless it hangs Bush himself up by his
monkey ears and dangles him over a river of toxic
Louisiana sewage, it's merely useless and insulting
and more than a little sad.

Let's say it outright. The truest measure of any
president, of any leader, is how well he takes care of
his own people. And Bush, well, Bush has done a simply
spectacular job of taking care of exactly his own
people -- the wealthy, the corporate, the extreme
religious right, his core base of supporters -- while
happily and fiercely ignoring, restricting,
condemning, destroying the rest. Are you educated or
progressive or liberal or alternative-minded or
sexually open or homosexual or anti-war? This means
you. Are you dirt poor and belong to a minority and
don't drive an SUV and contribute six figures per
annum to the RNC and maybe live in a flooded swamp in
the Louisiana bayou? This means you, squared. Sucker.

Here, then, is the new American motto, as reimagined
by BushCo: Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled
masses, and we'll let them die in a filthy and
decrepit storm-ravaged American football stadium while
our president languishes on vacation and ponders his
oil futures and fondly remembers his good ol' days of
getting drunk at Mardi Gras before going AWOL from the
military. God bless America.

Fox gets a Clue. Wow.

OMFG.... who woulda thunk it.

Fox. Yep, Fox News. yes, the mouthpiece of the NeoCons... That Fox.

Fox Gets a Clue. Astonishing.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169041,00.html

for more stuff on Fox News check out the blog:

www.newshounds.com

Winterbear

Who to blame, who to blame

Blanche,

I have seen this kind of thing talked about in various news outlets, web sites and on msnbc and cnn. Nobody is faulting the federal response before the event. The problems is what happened from Tuesday until now and into the future.

Local and state wide failures were also horrendous. if your going to start assigning blame, mayor and the Governor are for sure on the list.

But, the failure of the federal government was huge and I think the reasons for that failure were the following:

1) Lowering the status of FEMA from a Cabinet Position to a sub organization within HomeLand Security. In a time of Crisis, this extra level of bureaucracy got people killed.

2) In the last 4 years FEMA has been given a lot more to do (Terrorist response) while having its budget cut. One former employee of FEMA claims that this lack of focus on FEMA's traditional role got a lot of people killed. Many current and former FEMA employees are speaking out and expressing same in whats happened to their organization.

3) The last two directors of FEMA have been hand picked political appointees who have almost no experience at disaster relief and have made some terrible decisions that got a lot of people killed. Both were appointed to this "Plum" posting because of the work they did for the election campaigns.

4) Michael Brown, Current director of FEMA has no executive management experiance, has no experiance with any form of disaster or emergency response. His previous job was with the International Arabian Horse Association as a lawyer. According to people at the association, he was fired for gross incompetence and the association had to change its name because it was bankrupted.

5) President Bush didnt get engaged and didnt take this seriously quickly enough. That got a lot of people killed. He has created an environment around himself where no one tells him bad news so he didnt really find out there was a problem until late wednesday. And they he did not take charge of the situation and kick butts to fix the problem until Friday and some are saying that was pretty weak. He congratulated his cronies for doing a good job when things were completely out of control.

Blanche, please stop watching fox news. They are trying to spin this whole thing as a failure at the local level. It was that, but its shameful how the Bush administration is ultimately to blame for the failure at the federal level.

We live in a wonderful time where incompetent politicians can no longer control information. Google around a bit and find people who are reporting the truth. Dont trust the left wing blogs or the right wing either... but get the real story... its out there and available via the net.

Who's on First, FEMA addition

HorsesAss.Org: "Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and FEMA director Michael Brown: make headway%u2026
Chertoff: All I%u2019m tryin%u2019 to find out is what%u2019s the guy%u2019s name in charge of food and water.
Brown: : Oh, no, wait a minute, don%u2019t switch %u2018em around. What is in charge of evacuation.
Chertoff: I%u2019m not askin%u2019 you who%u2019s in charge of evacuation.
Brown: : Who is on food and water.
Chertoff: I don%u2019t know!
Brown: : He%u2019s in charge of media spin%u2026now we%u2019re not talkin%u2019 %u2019bout him.
Chertoff: Now, how did I get on media spin?
Brown: : You mentioned his name!
Chertoff: If I mentioned the media spin guy%u2019s name, who did I say is in charge of media spin?
Brown: : No%u2026Who%u2019s in charge of food and water.
Chertoff: Never mind food and water, I wanna know what%u2019s the guy%u2019s name in charge of media spin.
Brown: : No, What%u2019s in charge of evacuation.
Chertoff: I%u2019m not askin%u2019 you who%u2019s in charge of evacuation!
Brown: : Who%u2019s in charge of food and water.
Chertoff: I don%u2019t know!
Brown: : He%u2019s in charge of media spin.
Chertoff: Aaah! Would you please stay on media spin and don%u2019t go off it?
Brown: : What was it you wanted?
Chertoff: Now who%u2019s in charge of media spin?
Brown: : Now why do you insist on putting Who in charge of media spin?
Chertoff: Why? Who am I putting over there?
Brown: : Yes. But we don%u2019t want him there.
Chertoff: What%u2019s the guy%u2019s name in charge of media spin?
Brown: : What is in charge of evacuation.
Chertoff: I%u2019m not askin%u2019 you who%u2019s in charge of evacuation.
Brown: : Who%u2019s in charge of food and water.
Chertoff: I don%u2019t know.
Brown: & Chertoff: MEDIA SPIN!!
Chertoff: You got someone in charge of fixing the levees?
Brown: : Oh yes!
Chertoff: The guy%u2019s name?
Brown: : Why.
Chertoff: I don%u2019t know, I just thought I%u2019d ask you.
Brown: : Well, I just thought I%u2019d tell you%u2026"

Hughes for America: Barbara Bush: First Moron

Hughes for America: Barbara Bush: First Moron: "Barbara Bush: First Moron

What the hell was Barbara Bush thinking when she said this today on National Public Radio's 'Marketplace' (Crooks and Liars has the audio)?In a segment at the top of the show on the surge of evacuees to the Texas city, Barbara Bush said: 'Almost everyone I%u2019ve talked to says we're going to move to Houston.'

Then she added: 'What I%u2019m hearing is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality.

'And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this %u2013 this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them.'Yeah, if by 'working very well' you mean 'their worst fear realized,' then you'd be onto something, Barbara. Making light of the victims being underprivileged while also making light of the fact they're displaced largely because of your incompetent son's criminal negligence: Now that's what I call a Texas two-step!"

-----------------
Barbra is like an awful lot of older American women who voted for George W in the last election. I know for a fact that her thought process here is exactly like that of my mother.

My Mom doesnt want to hear about any bad news. She watches Fox because "there are lots of possitive things going on in Iraq too." and she would rather hear stories of happy evacuees in shelters than about floating bodies and hellish conditions at the convention center.

So, she can honestly say "everything appears to be going well... the problems are being taken care of. This was a massive disaster and some people got hurt but you cant blame the Hurricane on the president"

I call it the "Happy Happy Hurrican Syndrome". Fox and to some extent the other news channels have made it possible for people to watch hours and hours of the news and never see anything that is in the least bit disturbing to their world view that everything is going well.

Florida compared to New Orleans - Bush's election year response to disaster

Whiskey Bar: Where There's a Will: "This catastrophe isn't a product of the anti-government biases of the conservative true believers; it's a product of the uses to which government has been put by the Mayberry Machiavellis and their GOP ward heelers in Congress.

Even the legally blind can see the Rovians are serious about the essential functions of government. It's just that in their value system, funneling federal money to sympathetic interest groups while simulatenously redistributing the tax burden away from those same groups are the two essential functions of government.

Likewise, the Bush family is prepared to spend almost unlimited amounts of federal money on preventative measures -- that is, on efforts to prevent them from losing an election.

It's instructive, on that score, to compare the current response to Hurricane Katrina (in which the Three Stooges apparently have seized control of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in a bloodless coup) with the administration's efforts on behalf of the voters of Florida following last year's triple storms -- Charley, Frances and Ivan.

True, the 2004 disasters didn't completely take down a major metropolitan area by turning its urban center into a bowl of shit soup. But the difference in the federal goverment's performance before, during and after those storms had passed is stlll rather striking. It appears there's something special about years divisible by two -- and particularly every other year divisible by two -- that can inspire amazing feats of bureaucratic energy and competence, at least in large, populous swing states."

Head of FEMA has an unlikely background

THE NEWS BLOG: "Head of FEMA has an unlikely backgroundBY MATT STEARNS AND SETH BORENSTEINKnight Ridder NewspapersWASHINGTON - (KRT) - From failed Republican congressional candidate to ousted 'czar' of an Arabian horse association, there was little in Michael D. Brown's background to prepare him for the fury of Hurricane Katrina.But as the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Brown now faces furious criticism of the federal response to the disaster that wiped out New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast. He provoked some of it himself when he conceded that FEMA didn't know that thousands of refugees were trapped at New Orleans' convention center without food or water until officials heard it on the news.'He's done a hell of a job, because I'm not aware of any Arabian horses being killed in this storm,' said Kate Hale, former Miami-Dade emergency management chief. 'The world that this man operated in and the focus of this work does not in any way translate to this. He does not have the experience.'Brown ran for Congress in 1988 and won 27 percent of the vote against Democratic incumbent Glenn English. He spent the 1990s as judges and stewards commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association. His job was to ensure that horse-show judges followed the rules and to investigate allegations against those suspected of cheating.'I wouldn't have regarded his position in the horse industry as a platform to where he is now,' said Tom Connelly, a former association president."

The 14 characteristics of Fascism

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

tonypierce.com busblog

This president of ours, youre right, had to do something after 9/11, but what he did was start a trillion dollar war with a country that had no wmds, no ties to al queda, and was not responsible for 9/11.

He turned a terrible moment which had created the largest outpouring of support for the usa into what we have now which is a moment in time when we are currently despised by more nations than ever before.there are times when we can show our teeth but we have to show them to the right people and we have not done that. there are times when we should dethrone tyrants but we chose the wrong tyrant.the majority of the terrorists of 9/11 were saudi, a land of run by much more stronger tyrants than saddam and a country that most say are supplying the majority of insurgents. but we wont fight the real fight because bush is in bed with the saudis. if anything we have proven that the us military, as strong as it is, cannot win battles alone, and the world is too smart to enter into wars that they know are unjust. this is not a world war. this is the us and the brits fighting a war that they lied about against a phantom enemy that did not attack us four years ago.

We will continue to lose, and there will continue to be anarchy in that country until we get out of there and let the iraqi people stand up for themselves and determine their own future, which very well may be another dictator.

All george bush has done is kill hundreds of thousands of people, ruin our relationships with the world, and waste money we didnt have."

The Project for the New American Century

The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required.

William Rivers Pitt: 02/25/03

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.

VERBATIM QUOTES FROM WHEN CLINTON WAS COMMITTING TROOPS TO BOSNIA

DW: "VERBATIM QUOTES FROM WHEN CLINTON WAS COMMITTING TROOPS TO BOSNIA:

'You can support the troops but not the president.'--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

'Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.'--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

'Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?'--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

'[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.'--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

'American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.'--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

'If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.'--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

'I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.'--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

'I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today'--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

'Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.'--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) "

Someone Tell the President the War Is Over - New York Times

Someone Tell the President the War Is Over - New York Times: "Someone Tell the President the War Is Over

By FRANK RICH

Published: August 14, 2005

LIKE the Japanese soldier marooned on an island for years after V-J Day, President Bush may be the last person in the country to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over. 'We will stay the course,' he insistently tells us from his Texas ranch. What do you mean we, white man?
Skip to next paragraph

A president can't stay the course when his own citizens (let alone his own allies) won't stay with him. The approval rate for Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq plunged to 34 percent in last weekend's Newsweek poll - a match for the 32 percent that approved L.B.J.'s handling of Vietnam in early March 1968. (The two presidents' overall approval ratings have also converged: 41 percent for Johnson then, 42 percent for Bush now.) On March 31, 1968, as L.B.J.'s ratings plummeted further, he announced he wouldn't seek re-election, commencing our long extrication from that quagmire."

STONES PUT TODAY'S ROCK STARS TO SHAME

LOW RENT RAT ...blog it with attitude...: "STONES PUT TODAY'S ROCK STARS TO SHAME
Why is it that The 60 plus Rolling Stones are willing to stand up against the Bush cult while others do nothing?


Back in 91 they wrote Highwire, one of the few, if any, anti-war songs about the first Gulf War:

We sell 'em missiles, We sell 'em tanks
We give 'em credit, You can call the bank
It's just a business, You can pay us in crude
You love these toys, just go play out your feuds
Got no pride, don't know whose boots to lick
We act so greedy, makes me sick sick sick

14 years and another Bush presidency later, the Stones are back speaking truth to power:

You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite,

You call yourself a patriot. Well, I think you are full of shit!

The Stones! The fucking Rolling Granda Pa Stones!

Why is it that they are doing what this generation has failed so miserably to do? HUH?

Where are the Hip hop stars? Too busy rappin about bling?

Where are the rock stars? Too busy being afraid? Don't want to piss off the corporate media who will ban you from MTV's cribs?

Do you mean to tell me when Rage against the Machine left, they took the only set of balls that today's music 'artist' have?

In this day and age. An age were young people are dying in an unjust war.

Where a president acts like a gangsta. That we have NO ONE speaking out against it in the music community is a damning statement about our society today.

Are we that infatuated with bullshit? With reality TV? With wanting to be a fucking Hilton, that we no longer care????
Sweet Jesus! We are wallowing in the toilet bowl of history...



"

we did it to ourselves...

We did it to ourselves incrementally and with few misgivings.

Huge personal info databases? We created the technology and wrote the code to make it possible. We gave the information when asked, because we didnt want the hassle that would occur when we said "no, thats none of your business".

We accepted the notion of Social Security and believed the government when they told us that SS's would *never* be used for identification except by the SSA.
We elected officials based on the performance of the economy which encouraged them to stay out of the way of businesses as they tracked, junk-mailed, and spammed us.

We accepted the transition from cash to credit cards because we liked the convenience never blanching at the fact that we were leaving a paper trail for ourselves every month.

We accepted the notion that the First Amendment was all about the right to any kind of free speech whatsoever, even commercial junk mail by corporations, who are persons only as a legal convenience.

We were so scared of sexual predators in our schools that we willingly asked the government to take fingerprints of every school employee to match against their databases.

And above all, we clamored for greater security in our own countr. We accepted the 9/11 commission report because losing all of our rights seemed more palatable and *less likely* than our becoming the next Twin Towers victims.

Has government and business taken away our privacy? Yes... but only because we wanted them to."

Why World War IV Can't Sell - by John Brown and Tom Engelhardt

Why World War IV Can't Sell - by John Brown and Tom Engelhardt: "

''I have to infer from that (statement) that you would be happier if Saddam
Hussein were still in power.' - Paul Wolfowitz.

'It's the classic retort given by neocons and other war supporters when
anyone questions the wisdom of the Iraq War. But let's say I get disturbed
by a spider crawling the garage wall. I slam the car into it at 50 miles an
hour, destroying the car and causing a few thousand dollars in damage to the
garage. When my wife objects, I say: 'I have to infer from that statement that
you would be happier if that spider were still crawling up the wall.' No, schmuck,
she says, I'd be happier if we still had a car and didn't have to fork out ten
thousand dollars to fix the garage.'"

Did Bush's opertunistic terror alert and claims of arrests cause the London bombings?

This is amazing... and is one of the most incompetent things the Bush admin has ever done.


Bush admin may be responsible for botching effort to thwart London bombing

NPR : Maintaining Focus: Rove and Iraq War Data

NPR : Maintaining Focus: Rove and Iraq War Data: "NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr says that the real issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war, and how America was misled into that war.

SOCIOECONOMICS: 7/7 Attacks and Arrogance

SOCIOECONOMICS: 7/7 Attacks and Arrogance: "Be it Al-Qaida or not, most people today are suffering from the actions of those who believe to be in the possession of ultimate truth, and do not feel a need to check their premises or try and see the world from other viewpoints."

The Mess You Have Made Will Take Generations to Clean Up

Take it to Karl: "Army Aviator: The Mess You Have Made Will Take Generations to Clean Up
From the mailbag:Karl Rove politicized one of the darkest days in American history, and rather than apologize he says he was 'refering to MoveOn.org' or some other lie, and it makes me sick. These neo-cons are causing American men and women to die daily for a lie, they are running up an Enron style debt and they refuse to take responsibility for their actions. Quote this: Their slow but deadly hemorraging of this country's resources and their naive and boneheaded disaster in Iraq is a much greater threat to our security than al Quada and all the terror organizations anywhere in the world. Combined. The mess you have made will take generations to clean up. "

The US war with Iran has already begun

Aljazeera.Net - The US war with Iran has already begun
: "

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself.�But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence gathering phase.The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun.�As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself.�But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.� President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq. Perhaps the adage of 'one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist' has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror."

Two Years Before 9/11, Bush was Already Talking About Attacking Iraq

Two Years Before 9/11, Bush was Already Talking About Attacking Iraq: "Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

'He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,' said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. 'It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade�.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. 'Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker.'

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush's unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters - well before he became president."

the people can be lead into war if they think they are attacked - Herman Goering

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Questionable Quotes (Hermann Goering):

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

"Goering was one of the highest-ranking Nazis who survived to be captured and put on trial for war crimes in the city of Nuremberg by the Allies after the end of World War II.

His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:


"We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
'Why, of course, the people don't want war,' Goering shrugged.

'Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.'

'There is one difference,' I pointed out. 'In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.'

'Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.'"

I Used To Be a Neocon by Drew O'Neill

I Used To Be a Neocon by Drew O'Neill: "This
is a difficult trick that requires the media to be an active participant
in government deception. To imply that they do so knowingly would
be too conspiratorial, and it would be too grand an operation to
be plausible. In truth, the mainstream media does not believe they
are participating in lies.

During the build-up to the war they were being pulled without knowing it,
by the engine of the U. S. government. This swarm of nationalism
begat a pro-American media, a complacent media, a lapdog media and
a corporate media that to this day will not inform the American
public.

When the Bush Administration was found to be creating fake news propaganda
for public consumption the media did not inform the public. When
the Bush administration marched towards pre-emptive war with Iraq
the media was a lapdog instead of a watchdog. When the Bush administration
described the assault on the Iraqi public as Shock and Awe, the
media used that phrase to scroll alongside the words 'War on
Terror' without questioning if the assault on Iraq had anything
to do with terrorism. When the Bush Administration tore into the
U. S. Constitution with the Patriot Act, causing the illegal imprisonment
of American citizens while denying them counsel, the media acted
more like a timid cocker spaniel than an aggressive Doberman pincher,
and failed to defend a sacred American document. When the Downing
Street memo implicated the Bush Administration as being hell bent
on a pre-emptive invasion on Iraq before even going to the UN, the
American media was silent and once again failed to inform the public.

But the tiny wheels still want to call the media liberal. The tiny wheels
still want to say the media is not reporting the good things happening
in Iraq. Most of all the tiny wheels do not know about the big wheel
that is pulling them. But now I do. That is why I am an ex-neocon
and I am in recovery. It is more clear to me now than ever that the
most American thing one can do is speak out against the actions
of their country because it means you love your country.

And in the end it does not matter if we are liberals or conservatives
because all that matters is that we are on the side of the U.S.
Constitution and of international law. Both of which have been thrown into the
toilet by this administration. At least the Quran has company."

Startling new underground group spreads lack of panic!

Startling new underground group spreads lack of panic!
Citizens declare themselves "relatively unafraid" of threats of undeclared rationality. People can still go to France, terrorist leader says.

Jon Carroll
Friday, April 8, 2005

The following is the first communique from a group calling itself Unitarian Jihad. It was sent to me at The Chronicle via an anonymous spam remailer. I have no idea whether other news organizations have received this communique, and, if so, why they have not chosen to print it. Perhaps they fear starting a panic. I feel strongly that the truth, no matter how alarming, trivial or disgusting, must always be told. I am pleased to report that the words below are at least not disgusting:

Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States. We are Unitarian Jihad. There is only God, unless there is more than one God. The vote of our God subcommittee is 10-8 in favor of one God, with two abstentions.Brother Flaming Sword of Moderation noted the possibility of there being no God at all, and his objection was noted with love by the secretary.

Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States! Too long has your attention been waylaid by the bright baubles of extremist thought. Too long have fundamentalist yahoos of all religions (except Buddhism -- 14-5 vote, no abstentions, fundamentalism subcommittee) made your head hurt. Too long have you been buffeted by angry people who think that God talks to them. You have a right to your moderation! You have the power to be calm! We will use the IED of truth to explode the SUV of dogmatic expression!

People of the United States, why is everyone yelling at you??? Whatever happened to ... you know, everything? Why is the news dominated by nutballs saying that the Ten Commandments have to be tattooed inside the eyelids of every American, or that Allah has told them to kill Americans in order to rid the world of Satan, or that Yahweh has instructed them to go live wherever they feel like, or that Shiva thinks bombing mosques is a great idea? Sister Immaculate Dagger of Peace notes for the record that we mean no disrespect to Jews, Muslims, Christians or Hindus. Referred back to the committee of the whole for further discussion.

We are Unitarian Jihad. We are everywhere. We have not been born again, nor have we sworn a blood oath. We do not think that God cares what we read, what we eat or whom we sleep with. Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity notes for the record that he does not have a moral code but is nevertheless a good person, and Unexalted Leader Garrote of Forgiveness stipulates that Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity is a good person, and this is to be reflected in the minutes.

Beware! Unless you people shut up and begin acting like grown-ups with brains enough to understand the difference between political belief and personal faith, the Unitarian Jihad will begin a series of terrorist-like actions. We will take over television studios, kidnap so-called commentators and broadcast calm, well-reasoned discussions of the issues of the day. We will not try for "balance" by hiring fruitcakes; we will try for balance by hiring non-ideologues who have carefully thought through the issues.

We are Unitarian Jihad. We will appear in public places and require people to shake hands with each other. (Sister Hand Grenade of Love suggested that we institute a terror regime of mandatory hugging, but her motion was not formally introduced because of lack of a quorum.) We will require all lobbyists, spokesmen and campaign managers to dress like trout in public. Televangelists will be forced to take jobs as Xerox repair specialists. Demagogues of all stripes will be required to read Proust out loud in prisons.

We are Unitarian Jihad, and our motto is: "Sincerity is not enough." We have heard from enough sincere people to last a lifetime already. Just because you believe it's true doesn't make it true. Just because your motives are pure doesn't mean you are not doing harm. Get a dog, or comfort someone in a nursing home, or just feed the birds in the park. Play basketball. Lighten up. The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone.

Brother Gatling Gun of Patience notes that he's pretty sure the world is out to get him because everyone laughs when he says he is a Unitarian. There were murmurs of assent around the room, and someone suggested that we buy some Congress members and really stick it to the Baptists. But this was deemed against Revolutionary Principles, and Brother Gatling Gun of Patience was remanded to the Sunday Flowers and Banners committee.

People of the United States! We are Unitarian Jihad! We can strike without warning. Pockets of reasonableness and harmony will appear as if from nowhere! Nice people will run the government again! There will be coffee and cookies in the Gandhi Room after the revolution.

The president's real goal in Iraq

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...

testing one two three...

this is just a test of MarsEdit.

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."

Pictures from Fallujah that probably won't be on your television.

Fallujah in Pictures

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?

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."

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"

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."

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
"

Dear Mr. President...

Dear Mr. President...

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.

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......

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."

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."

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."

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

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

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."

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....

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...