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."
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
WebEdge Blog - Rocky Horror Election Song
WebEdge Blog: "For those of you who recall Rocky Horror Picture show, this is one of the funniest things I've seen during this election cycle. Enjoy!
http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/5809/presidential_horror_show.swf
"
http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/5809/presidential_horror_show.swf
"
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The Smirking Chimp -- Whats the Matter with the Republican Party?
The Smirking Chimp:
"What is the matter with the Republican Party? As one born within a tiny, tree-shaded Republican enclave in Missouri, raised by compassionate family-values-oriented Christian conservatives, and whose entire family remains staunchly, even militantly conservative, I think I have earned the right to ask that question.
So--what the hell is wrong with you guys?
History bumps along from dateline to dateline with no regard for party affiliation. That's why last week during the second presidential debate, when President George Bush slid off his stool, assumed his arms-akimbo 'Super Hero' stance and childishly blurted out, 'You can run, butcha can't hide,' I was jerked into the realization that it's not possible for such a horrid, vacuous little creature to be the cause of the rampant madness zigzagging throughout our society today.
Bush is the effect of it -- the natural result of a cruel, thoughtless and destructive movement within the Republican Party that had lain dormant from its inception, but like Stephen King's evil 'Christine,' shivered into life on November 22, 1963.
Both parties have been running and hiding ever since.
This is not a treatise on the assassination of a popular American President, nor of the massive manipulations of an investigative commission to cover it up. That tragic November day marks the 'bump' in our history that began the evolutionary implosion of the Republican Party into neoconservatism and the sheer, bleak cruelty of a loveless Christianity.
Before that fateful 1963 bump, New York Govenor Nelson Rockefeller was truly the face of a kinder, gentler Republican Party. Rich, philanthrophic, and middle-of-the-road, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America in the 1940's, Rockefeller was responsible for the success of FDR's 'Good Neighbor' policy. During his four terms as governor, Rockefeller began large-scale welfare and drug-rehabilitation programs, reorganized the New York transportation system and built major public works projects.
At the 1964 convention, Rockefeller pleaded with a booing crowd to 'keep the Republican party the party of all the people.' He warned them of the danger of allowing extremists to gain influence, and of the threat they posed, not only to the party but to the entire nation. 'These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror,' he said. 'They have no program for America and the Republican Party.'
Rockefeller sounded the alarm that hateful neoconservatism would only get stronger and more destructive. 'They operate from dark shadows of secrecy,' he said, and his warning that 'extremist groups' would ultimately subvert the values and morality of the Grand Old Party were lost in a wave of jeers -- 'We want Barry! We want Barry!
Rockefeller, in what was considered possibly his finest moment, lost the ideological battle for the Party to Arizona's 'Mr. Conservative,' Barry Goldwater. The miracle it would take for either man to win the presidency didn't happen, of course, but the ideology embraced by the conservative wing of the party would result in a Nixon, a Reagan, and two Bushes -- all swept along under the evangelical influence of a Pat Robertson and the warmongering cabal of New World Order neoconservatives.
"
To read entire article, click on the title.
"What is the matter with the Republican Party? As one born within a tiny, tree-shaded Republican enclave in Missouri, raised by compassionate family-values-oriented Christian conservatives, and whose entire family remains staunchly, even militantly conservative, I think I have earned the right to ask that question.
So--what the hell is wrong with you guys?
History bumps along from dateline to dateline with no regard for party affiliation. That's why last week during the second presidential debate, when President George Bush slid off his stool, assumed his arms-akimbo 'Super Hero' stance and childishly blurted out, 'You can run, butcha can't hide,' I was jerked into the realization that it's not possible for such a horrid, vacuous little creature to be the cause of the rampant madness zigzagging throughout our society today.
Bush is the effect of it -- the natural result of a cruel, thoughtless and destructive movement within the Republican Party that had lain dormant from its inception, but like Stephen King's evil 'Christine,' shivered into life on November 22, 1963.
Both parties have been running and hiding ever since.
This is not a treatise on the assassination of a popular American President, nor of the massive manipulations of an investigative commission to cover it up. That tragic November day marks the 'bump' in our history that began the evolutionary implosion of the Republican Party into neoconservatism and the sheer, bleak cruelty of a loveless Christianity.
Before that fateful 1963 bump, New York Govenor Nelson Rockefeller was truly the face of a kinder, gentler Republican Party. Rich, philanthrophic, and middle-of-the-road, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America in the 1940's, Rockefeller was responsible for the success of FDR's 'Good Neighbor' policy. During his four terms as governor, Rockefeller began large-scale welfare and drug-rehabilitation programs, reorganized the New York transportation system and built major public works projects.
At the 1964 convention, Rockefeller pleaded with a booing crowd to 'keep the Republican party the party of all the people.' He warned them of the danger of allowing extremists to gain influence, and of the threat they posed, not only to the party but to the entire nation. 'These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror,' he said. 'They have no program for America and the Republican Party.'
Rockefeller sounded the alarm that hateful neoconservatism would only get stronger and more destructive. 'They operate from dark shadows of secrecy,' he said, and his warning that 'extremist groups' would ultimately subvert the values and morality of the Grand Old Party were lost in a wave of jeers -- 'We want Barry! We want Barry!
Rockefeller, in what was considered possibly his finest moment, lost the ideological battle for the Party to Arizona's 'Mr. Conservative,' Barry Goldwater. The miracle it would take for either man to win the presidency didn't happen, of course, but the ideology embraced by the conservative wing of the party would result in a Nixon, a Reagan, and two Bushes -- all swept along under the evangelical influence of a Pat Robertson and the warmongering cabal of New World Order neoconservatives.
"
To read entire article, click on the title.
Open Letter to President
Open Letter to President: "
Open Letter to President George W. Bush
October 4, 2004
Dear Mr. President:
As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown.
The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes – primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution – has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. In fact, if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is even worse – well in excess of a half a trillion dollars this year alone. Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals you have suggested for a potential second term – from diverting Social Security contributions into private accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent – only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base."
Click link for more......
Open Letter to President George W. Bush
October 4, 2004
Dear Mr. President:
As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown.
The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes – primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution – has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. In fact, if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is even worse – well in excess of a half a trillion dollars this year alone. Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals you have suggested for a potential second term – from diverting Social Security contributions into private accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent – only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base."
Click link for more......
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Michael Moore.com - Republicans prosecute for giving out underware... sigh...
Michael Moore.com : Mike's Message : Mike's Latest News:
"Filmmaker Michael Moore responded Wednesday to the Michigan Republican Party's request that he be prosecuted for offering underwear and food to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.
'It's ironic that Republicans have no problem with allowing assault weapons out on our streets, yet they don't want to put clean underwear in the hands of our slacker youth,' Moore said in a statement. 'The Republicans seem more interested in locking me up for trying to encourage people to participate in our democracy than locking up Bin Laden for his attacks on our democracy.'
Moore said Republicans missed the 'satire' of his giving underwear and food to get young people to vote."
"Filmmaker Michael Moore responded Wednesday to the Michigan Republican Party's request that he be prosecuted for offering underwear and food to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.
'It's ironic that Republicans have no problem with allowing assault weapons out on our streets, yet they don't want to put clean underwear in the hands of our slacker youth,' Moore said in a statement. 'The Republicans seem more interested in locking me up for trying to encourage people to participate in our democracy than locking up Bin Laden for his attacks on our democracy.'
Moore said Republicans missed the 'satire' of his giving underwear and food to get young people to vote."
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief - American Progress Action Fund
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief - American Progress Action Fund: "President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
September 2, 2004, Updated
Download Poster
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: 'I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations.' But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says."
September 2, 2004, Updated
Download Poster
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: 'I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations.' But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says."
Friday, October 01, 2004
Dan Rather Takes A Bullet / While the Right was demonizing the crusty ol' newsman, BushCo got away with murder, again
Dan Rather Takes A Bullet / While the Right was demonizing the crusty ol' newsman, BushCo got away with murder, again: "Oh, come on.
I mean, really now. Like anyone worth their even remotely sober intellect didn't have, during that entire, cute little 'Memogate' scandal, in their mind's eye a slightly oozing picture of BushCo's master puppeteer and most favoritist overfed pit bull Karl Rove, sitting there all puffed up and wheezing and hunched over his grease-stained nail-studded Compaq Presario after yet another three-Martini, four-baby-seal-kabob lunch, hammering out those forged memos about Bush's military ineptitude on his swiped copy of MS Word."
I mean, really now. Like anyone worth their even remotely sober intellect didn't have, during that entire, cute little 'Memogate' scandal, in their mind's eye a slightly oozing picture of BushCo's master puppeteer and most favoritist overfed pit bull Karl Rove, sitting there all puffed up and wheezing and hunched over his grease-stained nail-studded Compaq Presario after yet another three-Martini, four-baby-seal-kabob lunch, hammering out those forged memos about Bush's military ineptitude on his swiped copy of MS Word."
Mark Twain, 1916
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain - 1916
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush
Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush
Prepared text of speech delivered at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, September 28, 2004
Download the speech: PDF version | Word doc
This is the most important election of my lifetime. I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times. President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests and undermining American values. That is why I am sending you this message. I have been demonized by the Bush campaign but I hope you will give me a hearing.
President Bush ran on the platform of a "humble" foreign policy in 2000. If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences. As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and to break the vicious circle.
I grew up in Hungary, lived through fascism and the Holocaust, and then had a foretaste of communism. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of government prevails. I chose America as my home because I value freedom and democracy, civil liberties and an open society.
When I had made more money than I needed for myself and my family, I set up a foundation to promote the values and principles of a free and open society. I started in South Africa in 1979 and established a foundation in my native country, Hungary, in 1984 when it was still under communist rule. China, Poland and the Soviet Union followed in 1987. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, I established foundations in practically all the countries of the former Soviet empire and later in other parts of the world and in the United States. These foundations today spend about 450 million dollars a year to promote democracy and open society around the world.
When George W. Bush was elected president, and particularly after September 11, I saw that the values and principles of open society needed to be defended at home. September 11 led to a suspension of the critical process so essential to a democracy - a full and fair discussion of the issues. President Bush silenced all criticism by calling it unpatriotic. When he said that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," I heard alarm bells ringing. I am afraid that he is leading us in a very dangerous direction. We are losing the values that have made America great.
The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center was such a horrendous event that it required a strong response. But the President committed a fundamental error in thinking: the fact that the terrorists are manifestly evil does not make whatever counter-actions we take automatically good. What we do to combat terrorism may also be wrong. Recognizing that we may be wrong is the foundation of an open society. President Bush admits no doubt and does not base his decisions on a careful weighing of reality. For 18 months after 9/11 he managed to suppress all dissent. That is how he could lead the nation so far in the wrong direction.
President Bush inadvertently played right into the hands of bin Laden. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified: that was where bin Laden lived and al Qaeda had its training camps. The invasion of Iraq was not similarly justified. It was President Bush's unintended gift to bin Laden.
War and occupation create innocent victims. We count the body bags of American soldiers; there have been more than 1000 in Iraq. The rest of the world also looks at the Iraqis who get killed daily. There have been 20 times more. Some were trying to kill our soldiers; far too many were totally innocent, including many women and children. Every innocent death helps the terrorists' cause by stirring anger against America and bringing them potential recruits.
Immediately after 9/11 there was a spontaneous outpouring of sympathy for us worldwide. It has given way to an equally widespread resentment. There are many more people willing to risk their lives to kill Americans than there were on September 11 and our security, far from improving as President Bush claims, is deteriorating. I am afraid that we have entered a vicious circle of escalating violence where our fears and their rage feed on each other. It is not a process that is likely to end any time soon. If we re-elect President Bush we are telling the world that we approve his policies - and we shall be at war for a long time to come.
I realize that what I am saying is bound to be unpopular. We are in the grip of a collective misconception induced by the trauma of 9/11, and fostered by the Bush administration. No politician could say it and hope to get elected. That is why I feel obliged to speak out. There is a widespread belief that President Bush is making us safe. The opposite is true. President Bush failed to finish off bin Laden when he was cornered in Afghanistan because he was gearing up to attack Iraq. And the invasion of Iraq bred more people willing to risk their lives against Americans than we are able to kill - generating the vicious circle I am talking about.
President Bush likes to insist that the terrorists hate us for what we are - a freedom loving people - not what we do. Well, he is wrong on that. He also claims that the torture scenes at Abu Graib prison were the work of a few bad apples. He is wrong on that too. They were part of a system of dealing with detainees put in place by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and our troops in Iraq are paying the price.
How could President Bush convince people that he is good for our security, better than John Kerry? By building on the fears generated by the collapse of the twin towers and fostering a sense of danger. At a time of peril, people rally around the flag and President Bush has exploited this. His campaign is based on the assumption that people do not really care about the truth and they will believe practically anything if it is repeated often enough, particularly by a President at a time of war. There must be something wrong with us if we fall for it. For instance, some 40% of the people still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11 - although it is now definitely established by the 9/11 Commission, set up by the President and chaired by a Republican, that there was no connection. I want to shout from the roof tops: "Wake up America. Don't you realize that we are being misled?"
President Bush has used 9/11 to further his own agenda which has very little to do with fighting terrorism. There was an influential group within the Bush administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney that was itching to invade Iraq long before 9/11. The terrorist attack gave them their chance. If you need a tangible proof why President Bush does not deserve to be re-elected, consider Iraq.
The war in Iraq was misconceived from start to finish -- if it has a finish. It is a war of choice, not necessity, in spite of what President Bush says. The arms inspections and sanctions were working. In response to American pressure, the United Nations had finally agreed on a strong stand. As long as the inspectors were on the ground, Saddam Hussein could not possibly pose a threat to our security. We could have declared victory but President Bush insisted on going to war.
We went to war on false pretences. The real reasons for going into Iraq have not been revealed to this day. The weapons of mass destruction could not be found, and the connection with al Qaeda could not be established. President Bush then claimed that we went to war to liberate the people of Iraq. All my experience in fostering democracy and open society has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means. And, Iraq would be the last place I would chose for an experiment in introducing democracy - as the current chaos demonstrates.
Of course, Saddam was a tyrant, and of course Iraqis - and the rest of the world - can rejoice to be rid of him. But Iraqis now hate the American occupation. We stood idly by while Baghdad was ransacked. As the occupying power, we had an obligation to maintain law and order, but we failed to live up to it. If we had cared about the people of Iraq we should have had more troops available for the occupation than we needed for the invasion. We should have provided protection not only for the oil ministry but also the other ministries, museums and hospitals. Baghdad and the country's other cities were destroyed after we occupied them. When we encountered resistance, we employed methods that alienated and humiliated the population. The way we invaded homes, and the way we treated prisoners generated resentment and rage. Public opinion condemns us worldwide.
The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it. First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for help. First we installed General Jay Garner to run the country, then we gave it to Paul Bremer and when the insurgency became intractable, we installed an Iraqi government. The man we chose was a protégé of the CIA with the reputation of a strong man - a far cry from democracy. First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through, again over his objections. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed," he said publicly. More recently, we started bombing Falluja again.
The Bush campaign is trying to put a favorable spin on it, but the situation in Iraq is dire. Much of the Western part of the country has been ceded to the insurgents. Even the so-called Green Zone (a small enclave in the center of Baghdad where Americans live and work) is subject to mortar attacks. The prospects of holding free and fair elections in January are fast receding and civil war looms. President Bush received a somber intelligence evaluation in July but he has kept it under wraps and failed to level with the electorate.
Bush's war in Iraq has done untold damage to the United States. It has impaired our military power and undermined the morale of our armed forces. Before the invasion of Iraq, we could project overwhelming power in any part of the world. We cannot do so any more because we are bogged down in Iraq. Afghanistan is slipping from our control. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and other countries are pursuing nuclear programs with renewed vigor and many other problems remain unattended.
By invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, we violated international law. By mistreating and even torturing prisoners, we violated the Geneva conventions. President Bush has boasted that we do not need a permission slip from the international community, but our actions have endangered our security - particularly the security of our troops.
Our troops were trained to project overwhelming power. They were not trained for occupation duties. Having to fight an insurgency saps their morale. Many of our troops return from Iraq with severe trauma and other psychological disorders. Sadly, many are also physically injured. After Iraq, it will be difficult to recruit people for the armed forces and we may have to resort to conscription.
There are many other policies for which the Bush administration can be criticized but none are as important as Iraq. Iraq has cost us nearly 200 billion dollars -- an enormous sum. It could have been used much better elsewhere. The costs are going to mount because it was much easier to get into Iraq than it will be to get out of there. President Bush has been taunting John Kerry to explain how he would do things differently in Iraq. John Kerry has responded that he would have done everything differently and he would be in a better position to extricate us than the man who got us in there. But it won't be easy for him either, because we are caught in a quagmire.
It is a quagmire that many predicted. I predicted it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy. I was not alone: top military and diplomatic experts desperately warned the President not to invade Iraq. But he ignored their experienced advice. He suppressed the critical process. The discussion about Iraq remains stilted even during this presidential campaign because of the notion that any criticism of our Commander-in-Chief puts our troops at risk. But this is Bush's war, and he ought to be held responsible for it. It's the wrong war, fought the wrong way. Step back for a moment from the cacophony of the election campaign and reflect: who got us into this mess? In spite of his Texas swagger, George W. Bush does not qualify to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.
There is a lot more to be said on the subject and I have said it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, now available in paperback. I hope you will read it. You can download the chapter on the Iraqi quagmire free from www.georgesoros.com
If you find my arguments worth considering, please share this message with your friends.
I would welcome your comments at georgesoros.com . I am eager to engage in a critical discussion because the stakes are so high.
Contents copyright © 2004 by George Soros. All rights reserved. Privacy policy.
This message is paid for by George Soros and is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
www.georgesoros.com
Monday, September 13, 2004
TIME.com: "I've Been in Worse Situations" -- Sep. 20, 2004
TIME.com: "I've Been in Worse Situations" -- Sep. 20, 2004: "is past month has been pretty brutal for you, between the Swift Boat ads, the Republican Convention and the Vice President saying if you get elected, it would invite another terrorist attack. Have you come to any new conclusions about whom you're running against and what you have to do to win?
KERRY
I think the President's unwillingness to walk away from those comments makes it clear that he and the Vice President will say anything and do anything to get elected and to hold on to power. It was a shameful and outrageous effort.
But you know, I've been in worse situations in my life. The attacks don't attack me as much as they attack Americans and America. They're trying to distract people from the real issues that matter.
America is not as safe as we ought to be after 9/11. We can do a better job at homeland security. I can fight a more effective war on terror. The standard of living for the average American has gone down. People's incomes have dropped. Five million Americans have lost their health insurance. The deficit is the largest it's been in the history of this country. They're taking money from Social Security and transferring it to the wealthiest people in America to drive us into debt. They're shredding alliances around the world with people we have traditionally been able to rely on. That's what bothers me."
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Evaluating 9-11
Informed Comment : 09/01/2004 - 09/30/2004:
"In order to evaluate the aftermath of September 11, we first must understand that event. What did al-Qaeda intend to achieve? Only if we understand that can we gauge their success or failure.
From the point of view of al-Qaeda, the Muslim world can and should be united into a single country. They believe that it once had this political unity, under the early caliphs. Even as late as the outbreak of World War I, the Ottoman state ruled much of the Middle East, and the Ottoman sultans had begun making claims to be caliphs (Muslim popes) from about 1880. In the below map, blue indicates heavy Muslim populations, green means medium, and yellow means the Muslims are a significant minority."
From al-Qaeda's point of view, the political unity of the Muslim world was deliberately destroyed by a one-two punch. First, Western colonial powers invaded Muslim lands and detached them from the Ottoman Empire or other Muslim states. They ruled them brutally as colonies, reducing the people to little more than slaves serving the economic and political interests of the British, French, Russians, etc. France invaded Algeria in 1830. Great Britain took Egypt in 1882 and Iraq in 1917. Russia took the Emirate of Bukhara and other Central Asian territories in the 1860s and forward. Second, they formed these colonies into Western-style nation-states, often small and weak ones, so that the divisive effects of the colonial conquests have lasted. (Look at the British Empire and its imposition on much of the Muslim world, e.g.:)
Read the rest....
"In order to evaluate the aftermath of September 11, we first must understand that event. What did al-Qaeda intend to achieve? Only if we understand that can we gauge their success or failure.
From the point of view of al-Qaeda, the Muslim world can and should be united into a single country. They believe that it once had this political unity, under the early caliphs. Even as late as the outbreak of World War I, the Ottoman state ruled much of the Middle East, and the Ottoman sultans had begun making claims to be caliphs (Muslim popes) from about 1880. In the below map, blue indicates heavy Muslim populations, green means medium, and yellow means the Muslims are a significant minority."
From al-Qaeda's point of view, the political unity of the Muslim world was deliberately destroyed by a one-two punch. First, Western colonial powers invaded Muslim lands and detached them from the Ottoman Empire or other Muslim states. They ruled them brutally as colonies, reducing the people to little more than slaves serving the economic and political interests of the British, French, Russians, etc. France invaded Algeria in 1830. Great Britain took Egypt in 1882 and Iraq in 1917. Russia took the Emirate of Bukhara and other Central Asian territories in the 1860s and forward. Second, they formed these colonies into Western-style nation-states, often small and weak ones, so that the divisive effects of the colonial conquests have lasted. (Look at the British Empire and its imposition on much of the Muslim world, e.g.:)
Read the rest....
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Fighting Words in New York (washingtonpost.com)
Fighting Words in New York (washingtonpost.com): "The Bush campaign knows what it is doing. Bush is a minority president, elected with less than half the votes, and often 50 percent still eludes him in the polls. The campaign is engaged in hand-to-hand combat for just enough votes -- a mandate of one, if need be. It is infused with such a sense of righteousness that, like the Crusaders of old, it can commit atrocity after atrocity on the way to Jerusalem. All that matters is the goal. God understands."
Sorry I haven't posted in a week or so...
1) i am working for the first time in the bush admin... LOL... not really true, but I have been unemployed pretty much full time since Bush took office. Last week I had one of a few minor league paying gigs that I have had over the last few years.
2) My relationship with my girlfriend is going really well. Yeah.. thats it, blame it on her.
3) I Tivo'ed a lot of the RNC and tried to watch it with as open a mind as I could. I did not want to blog about that for some strange reason. There is an infinite amount of text by an infinite amount of monkeys on that subject... (so.. does that make bush Hamlet? (his dad is still alive?) or King Lear? (his daughters didnt seem to be betraying him (or where they? hmmm...) Or perhaps he is Henry the second leading our troops into battle (I am sure thats how Zeller would see it.) But perhaps, just perhaps, he is Richard the 3rd... (Nah... i dont think he had any children killed... whooops... oh yeah, forgot about abu grahab.) Ok... so what is the Shakespearian play that is about a out of touch and not so smart King who is manipulated by his evil ministers? Yeah! that one....
The closest bit of lit which I can think of that parellels what I think of the situation is Lord of the rings... (and really, wont the infinate monkeys come up with this too given infinite time)
Bush is like good old king theoden. Chaney, Wolfawitz and Rummy are like worm tounge.
hmmm... but it turns out Theoden is a good, Legitimate king who is tricked by those guys... and he eventually wakes up.
Bush is a pure puppet with Chaneys hand so far up his ass that you can see Bushes lips move when the Neocon puppet masters move their fingers.
I am sure it will make a great book for someone to write some day in the future...
2) My relationship with my girlfriend is going really well. Yeah.. thats it, blame it on her.
3) I Tivo'ed a lot of the RNC and tried to watch it with as open a mind as I could. I did not want to blog about that for some strange reason. There is an infinite amount of text by an infinite amount of monkeys on that subject... (so.. does that make bush Hamlet? (his dad is still alive?) or King Lear? (his daughters didnt seem to be betraying him (or where they? hmmm...) Or perhaps he is Henry the second leading our troops into battle (I am sure thats how Zeller would see it.) But perhaps, just perhaps, he is Richard the 3rd... (Nah... i dont think he had any children killed... whooops... oh yeah, forgot about abu grahab.) Ok... so what is the Shakespearian play that is about a out of touch and not so smart King who is manipulated by his evil ministers? Yeah! that one....
The closest bit of lit which I can think of that parellels what I think of the situation is Lord of the rings... (and really, wont the infinate monkeys come up with this too given infinite time)
Bush is like good old king theoden. Chaney, Wolfawitz and Rummy are like worm tounge.
hmmm... but it turns out Theoden is a good, Legitimate king who is tricked by those guys... and he eventually wakes up.
Bush is a pure puppet with Chaneys hand so far up his ass that you can see Bushes lips move when the Neocon puppet masters move their fingers.
I am sure it will make a great book for someone to write some day in the future...
Saturday, August 28, 2004
RNC 2004 Weblogs: News Aggregator
Dave Winer (www.scripting.com) has done it again! agrigation oif all the RNC blogs.
RNC 2004 Weblogs: News Aggregator: "A community site for bloggers participating in the RNC, Aug 30-Sep 2 "
RNC 2004 Weblogs: News Aggregator: "A community site for bloggers participating in the RNC, Aug 30-Sep 2 "
Deserter's Delight - letter to bush by Michael Moore
AlterNet: Election 2004: Deserter's Delight: "Dear Mr. Bush: It takes real courage to desert your post and then attack a wounded vet."
We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore by garrison keylor
We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore: How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk? -- In These Times:
We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore
How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?
Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned—and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today’s. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor.
In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of Government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach. The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. “Bipartisanship is another term of date rape,” says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy.
The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.
Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace.
Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy—the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.
The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good."
We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore
How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?
Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned—and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today’s. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor.
In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of Government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach. The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. “Bipartisanship is another term of date rape,” says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy.
The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.
Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace.
Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy—the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.
The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good."
Friday, August 27, 2004
Bush denies lack of focus on korean nukes
The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Bush Dismisses Idea That Kerry Lied on Vietnam: "Mr. Bush also took issue with Mr. Kerry's argument, in an interview at the end of May with The New York Times, that the Bush administration's focus on Iraq had given North Korea the opportunity to significantly expand its nuclear capability. Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons.
He said that in North Korea's case, and in Iran's, he would not be rushed to set deadlines for the countries to disarm, despite his past declaration that he would not 'tolerate'' nuclear capability in either nation. He declined to define what he meant by 'tolerate.''
'I don't think you give timelines to dictators,'' Mr. Bush said, speaking of North Korea's president, Kim Jong Il, and Iran's mullahs. He said he would continue diplomatic pressure - using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran - and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.
'I'm confident that over time this will work - I certainly hope it does,'' he said of the diplomatic approach. Mr. Kerry argued in his interview that North Korea ''was a far more compelling threat in many ways, and it belonged at the top of the agenda,'' but Mr. Bush declined to compare it to Iraq, apart from arguing that Iraq had defied the world community for longer than the other members of what he once called 'the axis of evil.'' Nor would he assess the risk that Pyongyang might sell nuclear material to terrorists, though his national security aides believe it may have sold raw uranium to Libya in recent years."
He said that in North Korea's case, and in Iran's, he would not be rushed to set deadlines for the countries to disarm, despite his past declaration that he would not 'tolerate'' nuclear capability in either nation. He declined to define what he meant by 'tolerate.''
'I don't think you give timelines to dictators,'' Mr. Bush said, speaking of North Korea's president, Kim Jong Il, and Iran's mullahs. He said he would continue diplomatic pressure - using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran - and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.
'I'm confident that over time this will work - I certainly hope it does,'' he said of the diplomatic approach. Mr. Kerry argued in his interview that North Korea ''was a far more compelling threat in many ways, and it belonged at the top of the agenda,'' but Mr. Bush declined to compare it to Iraq, apart from arguing that Iraq had defied the world community for longer than the other members of what he once called 'the axis of evil.'' Nor would he assess the risk that Pyongyang might sell nuclear material to terrorists, though his national security aides believe it may have sold raw uranium to Libya in recent years."
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Village voice on RNC Protest backlash
Note to the Anti-Intellectual Left: "The parallels between Chicago 1968 and New York 2004 are striking.
Then, as now, authorities are besotted with 'less lethal' technology that's intended to prevent disorder (back then it was Mace), but actually increases disorder by lowering the threshold at which cops are willing to use force.
Then, as now, police officials argued that the ACLU and the federal judges were putting them in danger by 'tying their hands.' When the cops lose some of these battles—as they did this year, with rulings against four-sided pens for demonstrators and general searches of bags—they get more afraid. That yields itchy fingers at the triggers of less-than-lethal implements.
Then, as now: the strategic mobilization of 'terrorists'—a word Mayor Richard Daley in 1968 used to describe the Black Panthers, who, some residents of the Cook County jail reported, were planning assassinations. The ever reliable FBI sent 60 extra agents, though the jailbirds had made it all up—which didn't prevent the city from announcing the 'threat' to the press afterward as ex post facto rationalization for law enforcement's rampage.
Then, as now: hovering, ruthless Republican presidential campaign operatives ready to seize on any advantage to win, who suspect that arrant attempts to frame the election as a choice between George W. Bush and 'chaos in the streets' will be enough, for some small margin of voters, to inch themselves to victory.
And, the most uncanny parallel of all: Events have seen to it—perhaps by Republican intention, perhaps not, it hardly matters which—that protesters this time, just like last time, have been rendered ready and eager to demonstrate, on the Sunday before the convention, in a physical location where the city has determined they may not demonstrate. Thus the stage may be set now—as it was then—for disaster.
"
Then, as now, authorities are besotted with 'less lethal' technology that's intended to prevent disorder (back then it was Mace), but actually increases disorder by lowering the threshold at which cops are willing to use force.
Then, as now, police officials argued that the ACLU and the federal judges were putting them in danger by 'tying their hands.' When the cops lose some of these battles—as they did this year, with rulings against four-sided pens for demonstrators and general searches of bags—they get more afraid. That yields itchy fingers at the triggers of less-than-lethal implements.
Then, as now: the strategic mobilization of 'terrorists'—a word Mayor Richard Daley in 1968 used to describe the Black Panthers, who, some residents of the Cook County jail reported, were planning assassinations. The ever reliable FBI sent 60 extra agents, though the jailbirds had made it all up—which didn't prevent the city from announcing the 'threat' to the press afterward as ex post facto rationalization for law enforcement's rampage.
Then, as now: hovering, ruthless Republican presidential campaign operatives ready to seize on any advantage to win, who suspect that arrant attempts to frame the election as a choice between George W. Bush and 'chaos in the streets' will be enough, for some small margin of voters, to inch themselves to victory.
And, the most uncanny parallel of all: Events have seen to it—perhaps by Republican intention, perhaps not, it hardly matters which—that protesters this time, just like last time, have been rendered ready and eager to demonstrate, on the Sunday before the convention, in a physical location where the city has determined they may not demonstrate. Thus the stage may be set now—as it was then—for disaster.
"
The Conscience of Joe Darby - GQ article on Abu Ghraib prison whistle blower
The Conscience of Joe Darby:
(Absolutely amazing article about the effects on Joe's family. Please read the entire article)
"Like, one thing Bernadette didn't know—because almost nobody knows it, because almost everybody who does know has either been lying or keeping it a secret—is the rest of the story, what really happened at Abu Ghraib. Oh, you hear allusions to the fact that certain things haven't been told, like Rumsfeld saying in May that the whole story is 'a good deal more terrible' than what you've seen. But you don't hear Rumsfeld saying any more than that, or explaining what 'more terrible' means.
You don't hear anybody explaining, for example, how Private Lynndie England, the woman in so many of those pictures, the one smiling and laughing and giving the thumbs-up, wasn't even supposed to be in the cellblock, how she didn't have any police authority and shouldn't have been dealing with inmates in the first place. You don't hear much of anything about her job, because the truth is, her job was something else entirely. Lynndie England was an administration clerk; not an MP like Joe but the equivalent of a secretary. 'She was assigned to an MP unit,' says Blake Ellis, a paralegal with England's defense team, 'but she wasn't an MP. She did not have any police authority. She was not supposed to be walking tiers or working with inmates.'
If you don't believe him, how about the brigadier general who ran the whole prison? Janis Karpinski says that England had absolutely no business working with inmates and suggests that the only reason England was on the cellblock was because her boyfriend, Charles Graner, had invited her. 'Graner's original claim, before he clammed up,' Karpinski says, 'was that the interrogators told him to get a female over there and he thought of her immediately.'
Sound like procedure to you?
Then there's Sivits. Guess what? Not an MP, either. No business being in a cellblock, no business interacting with detainees. This is a prison with 300 military police on duty, and they've got a mechanic up at one in the morning taking pictures while they terrorize prisoners."
That it really wasn't about softening prisoners, gathering intelligence, or trying to win the war. That it wasn't even about losing control in the heat of the moment. It was about getting up in the middle of the night and going somewhere you weren't supposed to go, then beating and raping people there. It was premeditated violent crime.
(Absolutely amazing article about the effects on Joe's family. Please read the entire article)
"Like, one thing Bernadette didn't know—because almost nobody knows it, because almost everybody who does know has either been lying or keeping it a secret—is the rest of the story, what really happened at Abu Ghraib. Oh, you hear allusions to the fact that certain things haven't been told, like Rumsfeld saying in May that the whole story is 'a good deal more terrible' than what you've seen. But you don't hear Rumsfeld saying any more than that, or explaining what 'more terrible' means.
You don't hear anybody explaining, for example, how Private Lynndie England, the woman in so many of those pictures, the one smiling and laughing and giving the thumbs-up, wasn't even supposed to be in the cellblock, how she didn't have any police authority and shouldn't have been dealing with inmates in the first place. You don't hear much of anything about her job, because the truth is, her job was something else entirely. Lynndie England was an administration clerk; not an MP like Joe but the equivalent of a secretary. 'She was assigned to an MP unit,' says Blake Ellis, a paralegal with England's defense team, 'but she wasn't an MP. She did not have any police authority. She was not supposed to be walking tiers or working with inmates.'
If you don't believe him, how about the brigadier general who ran the whole prison? Janis Karpinski says that England had absolutely no business working with inmates and suggests that the only reason England was on the cellblock was because her boyfriend, Charles Graner, had invited her. 'Graner's original claim, before he clammed up,' Karpinski says, 'was that the interrogators told him to get a female over there and he thought of her immediately.'
Sound like procedure to you?
Then there's Sivits. Guess what? Not an MP, either. No business being in a cellblock, no business interacting with detainees. This is a prison with 300 military police on duty, and they've got a mechanic up at one in the morning taking pictures while they terrorize prisoners."
That it really wasn't about softening prisoners, gathering intelligence, or trying to win the war. That it wasn't even about losing control in the heat of the moment. It was about getting up in the middle of the night and going somewhere you weren't supposed to go, then beating and raping people there. It was premeditated violent crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)