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.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
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...
"The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the 'American imperialists' that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran."
Read the entire article...
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Monday, November 29, 2004
Mathew Gross: The Politics of Victimization
Mathew Gross: The Politics of Victimization:
"Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”
And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.
They will tell you, every single day.
The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.
As victims we can’t stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can’t seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.
Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won’t; we will never be worthy).
And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.
How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.
First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don’t do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don’t do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don’t resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you’ve learned, and that you aren’t going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it’s better than the abuse."
"Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”
And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.
They will tell you, every single day.
The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.
As victims we can’t stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can’t seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.
Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won’t; we will never be worthy).
And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.
How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.
First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don’t do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don’t do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don’t resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you’ve learned, and that you aren’t going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it’s better than the abuse."
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Friday, November 05, 2004
Quotes from Ben Laden tape
you must admit that Osama bin Laden was far more articulate and direct about the causes of 9/11 than both Kerry and Bush, who call it "terror" and refuse to think about it too much. Like someone else observed, both candidates are asserting "We be tough on terrorism" "I'm tough too, very tough" "terror is evil and I will fight it will he?" "I will fight it harder" as both candidates are desperate not to challenge the comfort of their constituencies with any semblance of thought. God forbid anything that forces self-examination. Because that is exactly what America has done - call it "evil", call it "terrorism", vow to "fight" it (can you really fight an ideology?) and refuse to address any American defects. The "we never do nothing wrong - they are EVIL" rhetorical approach is a wonderful way to avoid addressing real issues. The fact is that America is falling deeper and deeper into an illusionary world, where any show of strength is close enough to actual accomplishment. In truth, far from fighting the ideology created from American imperialism - the ideology that culminated in 9/11 - America has nourished it.
No, no, anything but self-examination. We've branded Osama bin Laden as "evil", so we're not going to listen to him. CNN is going to censor the tape so we don't have to consider any of the more controversial things he said, and in the interests of defending "freedom", U.S. authorities around the Arab world will try to stop his alternate world view being aired at all (al-Jazeera ignored their requests not to air it).
"All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies...And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ... So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." Can anyone deny that Osama bin Laden has been nothing but successful? Al-Qaeda may have been hurt since 9/11 (I personally think they've just become more decentralized), but in the process, America has hurt themselves more. Who is winning in this thoughtless show of "strength"?
Frankly, I am wondering if America is going to strengthen itself into its grave. What Osama bin Laden did on 9/11 was horrific, but was it more horrific than the years and years of the U.S.'s post-WWII interventionist policies? What about their toll, both in civilian lives and in the loss of self-determination, of U.S. foreign policy? Let's think about our world, here. Our world's most powerful nation claims to fight for freedom but suppresses its own citizens' with the Patriot Act and offhand practices like "free speech zones." Our most powerful nation pretends to fight "evil" by killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. So its (new) prime enemy responds to America's brutality with more brutality; America responds in kind. What an uninspiring world this is. Isn't anyone going to do any good? Does such a thing exist? Is there only the pursuit of our own pragmatic interest, the lives of civilians, children be damned? If that's the case, what exactly are the differences between the U.S. and al-Qaeda?
No, no, anything but self-examination. We've branded Osama bin Laden as "evil", so we're not going to listen to him. CNN is going to censor the tape so we don't have to consider any of the more controversial things he said, and in the interests of defending "freedom", U.S. authorities around the Arab world will try to stop his alternate world view being aired at all (al-Jazeera ignored their requests not to air it).
"All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies...And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ... So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." Can anyone deny that Osama bin Laden has been nothing but successful? Al-Qaeda may have been hurt since 9/11 (I personally think they've just become more decentralized), but in the process, America has hurt themselves more. Who is winning in this thoughtless show of "strength"?
Frankly, I am wondering if America is going to strengthen itself into its grave. What Osama bin Laden did on 9/11 was horrific, but was it more horrific than the years and years of the U.S.'s post-WWII interventionist policies? What about their toll, both in civilian lives and in the loss of self-determination, of U.S. foreign policy? Let's think about our world, here. Our world's most powerful nation claims to fight for freedom but suppresses its own citizens' with the Patriot Act and offhand practices like "free speech zones." Our most powerful nation pretends to fight "evil" by killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. So its (new) prime enemy responds to America's brutality with more brutality; America responds in kind. What an uninspiring world this is. Isn't anyone going to do any good? Does such a thing exist? Is there only the pursuit of our own pragmatic interest, the lives of civilians, children be damned? If that's the case, what exactly are the differences between the U.S. and al-Qaeda?
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Are we making more ben Ladins? - M. Kane Jeeves
M. Kane Jeeves: "rage. We know he’s a madman. We are all still outraged about 9/11.
But, if I had to sum up the editorial content of this tape? It boils down to one thing. Actions have consequences. I know it’s an idea that we haven’t heard bandied about for the last four years but, think about it. If bin Laden was inspired by an incident nearly twenty years before 9/11?
Who are we inspiring now in Iraq?
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, conservatively.
What happens if we pull a “Dresden” on Fallujah?
Suppose we are forced to send in more troops because the Iraqi National Guard winds up just not cutting it?
How many more bin Ladens are judging this entire country by this Administration’s Crusade…right now? They’re ten, maybe eleven years old today.
Twenty years from now?
God help us."
But, if I had to sum up the editorial content of this tape? It boils down to one thing. Actions have consequences. I know it’s an idea that we haven’t heard bandied about for the last four years but, think about it. If bin Laden was inspired by an incident nearly twenty years before 9/11?
Who are we inspiring now in Iraq?
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, conservatively.
What happens if we pull a “Dresden” on Fallujah?
Suppose we are forced to send in more troops because the Iraqi National Guard winds up just not cutting it?
How many more bin Ladens are judging this entire country by this Administration’s Crusade…right now? They’re ten, maybe eleven years old today.
Twenty years from now?
God help us."
Ron Suskind claims we are an empire that creates its own reality
The Smirking Chimp: "The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community.'... I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'
-- Ron Suskind talking to senior Bush advisor, The New York Times Magazine"
-- Ron Suskind talking to senior Bush advisor, The New York Times Magazine"
Saturday, October 23, 2004
State sponsored vrs non-state sponsored Terrorism
The Washington Monthly: "STATE vs. NON-STATE TERRORISM....There's all sorts of interesting stuff in Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer's Washington Post article about the Bush record in the war on terror today, but running through it all is a thread that I've mentioned before: George Bush's outmoded focus on state sponsors of terror (the 'axis of evil') vs. John Kerry's focus on al-Qaeda and other non-state terrorist groups as the real problem of the 21st century.
Again: it's not that they aren't both important. But we're not fighting World War II and we're not fighting the Cold War. Radical Islamic terrorism is a fundamentally different problem than either of these previous enemies, and it's not, at its core, state-centric. This is the key blind spot that prevents Bush from effectively prosecuting the war, and it's the key piece of understanding that suggests Kerry could do better."
Again: it's not that they aren't both important. But we're not fighting World War II and we're not fighting the Cold War. Radical Islamic terrorism is a fundamentally different problem than either of these previous enemies, and it's not, at its core, state-centric. This is the key blind spot that prevents Bush from effectively prosecuting the war, and it's the key piece of understanding that suggests Kerry could do better."
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
WebEdge Blog - Rocky Horror Election Song
WebEdge Blog: "For those of you who recall Rocky Horror Picture show, this is one of the funniest things I've seen during this election cycle. Enjoy!
http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/5809/presidential_horror_show.swf
"
http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/5809/presidential_horror_show.swf
"
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The Smirking Chimp -- Whats the Matter with the Republican Party?
The Smirking Chimp:
"What is the matter with the Republican Party? As one born within a tiny, tree-shaded Republican enclave in Missouri, raised by compassionate family-values-oriented Christian conservatives, and whose entire family remains staunchly, even militantly conservative, I think I have earned the right to ask that question.
So--what the hell is wrong with you guys?
History bumps along from dateline to dateline with no regard for party affiliation. That's why last week during the second presidential debate, when President George Bush slid off his stool, assumed his arms-akimbo 'Super Hero' stance and childishly blurted out, 'You can run, butcha can't hide,' I was jerked into the realization that it's not possible for such a horrid, vacuous little creature to be the cause of the rampant madness zigzagging throughout our society today.
Bush is the effect of it -- the natural result of a cruel, thoughtless and destructive movement within the Republican Party that had lain dormant from its inception, but like Stephen King's evil 'Christine,' shivered into life on November 22, 1963.
Both parties have been running and hiding ever since.
This is not a treatise on the assassination of a popular American President, nor of the massive manipulations of an investigative commission to cover it up. That tragic November day marks the 'bump' in our history that began the evolutionary implosion of the Republican Party into neoconservatism and the sheer, bleak cruelty of a loveless Christianity.
Before that fateful 1963 bump, New York Govenor Nelson Rockefeller was truly the face of a kinder, gentler Republican Party. Rich, philanthrophic, and middle-of-the-road, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America in the 1940's, Rockefeller was responsible for the success of FDR's 'Good Neighbor' policy. During his four terms as governor, Rockefeller began large-scale welfare and drug-rehabilitation programs, reorganized the New York transportation system and built major public works projects.
At the 1964 convention, Rockefeller pleaded with a booing crowd to 'keep the Republican party the party of all the people.' He warned them of the danger of allowing extremists to gain influence, and of the threat they posed, not only to the party but to the entire nation. 'These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror,' he said. 'They have no program for America and the Republican Party.'
Rockefeller sounded the alarm that hateful neoconservatism would only get stronger and more destructive. 'They operate from dark shadows of secrecy,' he said, and his warning that 'extremist groups' would ultimately subvert the values and morality of the Grand Old Party were lost in a wave of jeers -- 'We want Barry! We want Barry!
Rockefeller, in what was considered possibly his finest moment, lost the ideological battle for the Party to Arizona's 'Mr. Conservative,' Barry Goldwater. The miracle it would take for either man to win the presidency didn't happen, of course, but the ideology embraced by the conservative wing of the party would result in a Nixon, a Reagan, and two Bushes -- all swept along under the evangelical influence of a Pat Robertson and the warmongering cabal of New World Order neoconservatives.
"
To read entire article, click on the title.
"What is the matter with the Republican Party? As one born within a tiny, tree-shaded Republican enclave in Missouri, raised by compassionate family-values-oriented Christian conservatives, and whose entire family remains staunchly, even militantly conservative, I think I have earned the right to ask that question.
So--what the hell is wrong with you guys?
History bumps along from dateline to dateline with no regard for party affiliation. That's why last week during the second presidential debate, when President George Bush slid off his stool, assumed his arms-akimbo 'Super Hero' stance and childishly blurted out, 'You can run, butcha can't hide,' I was jerked into the realization that it's not possible for such a horrid, vacuous little creature to be the cause of the rampant madness zigzagging throughout our society today.
Bush is the effect of it -- the natural result of a cruel, thoughtless and destructive movement within the Republican Party that had lain dormant from its inception, but like Stephen King's evil 'Christine,' shivered into life on November 22, 1963.
Both parties have been running and hiding ever since.
This is not a treatise on the assassination of a popular American President, nor of the massive manipulations of an investigative commission to cover it up. That tragic November day marks the 'bump' in our history that began the evolutionary implosion of the Republican Party into neoconservatism and the sheer, bleak cruelty of a loveless Christianity.
Before that fateful 1963 bump, New York Govenor Nelson Rockefeller was truly the face of a kinder, gentler Republican Party. Rich, philanthrophic, and middle-of-the-road, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America in the 1940's, Rockefeller was responsible for the success of FDR's 'Good Neighbor' policy. During his four terms as governor, Rockefeller began large-scale welfare and drug-rehabilitation programs, reorganized the New York transportation system and built major public works projects.
At the 1964 convention, Rockefeller pleaded with a booing crowd to 'keep the Republican party the party of all the people.' He warned them of the danger of allowing extremists to gain influence, and of the threat they posed, not only to the party but to the entire nation. 'These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror,' he said. 'They have no program for America and the Republican Party.'
Rockefeller sounded the alarm that hateful neoconservatism would only get stronger and more destructive. 'They operate from dark shadows of secrecy,' he said, and his warning that 'extremist groups' would ultimately subvert the values and morality of the Grand Old Party were lost in a wave of jeers -- 'We want Barry! We want Barry!
Rockefeller, in what was considered possibly his finest moment, lost the ideological battle for the Party to Arizona's 'Mr. Conservative,' Barry Goldwater. The miracle it would take for either man to win the presidency didn't happen, of course, but the ideology embraced by the conservative wing of the party would result in a Nixon, a Reagan, and two Bushes -- all swept along under the evangelical influence of a Pat Robertson and the warmongering cabal of New World Order neoconservatives.
"
To read entire article, click on the title.
Open Letter to President
Open Letter to President: "
Open Letter to President George W. Bush
October 4, 2004
Dear Mr. President:
As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown.
The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes – primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution – has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. In fact, if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is even worse – well in excess of a half a trillion dollars this year alone. Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals you have suggested for a potential second term – from diverting Social Security contributions into private accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent – only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base."
Click link for more......
Open Letter to President George W. Bush
October 4, 2004
Dear Mr. President:
As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown.
The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes – primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution – has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. In fact, if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is even worse – well in excess of a half a trillion dollars this year alone. Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals you have suggested for a potential second term – from diverting Social Security contributions into private accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent – only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base."
Click link for more......
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Michael Moore.com - Republicans prosecute for giving out underware... sigh...
Michael Moore.com : Mike's Message : Mike's Latest News:
"Filmmaker Michael Moore responded Wednesday to the Michigan Republican Party's request that he be prosecuted for offering underwear and food to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.
'It's ironic that Republicans have no problem with allowing assault weapons out on our streets, yet they don't want to put clean underwear in the hands of our slacker youth,' Moore said in a statement. 'The Republicans seem more interested in locking me up for trying to encourage people to participate in our democracy than locking up Bin Laden for his attacks on our democracy.'
Moore said Republicans missed the 'satire' of his giving underwear and food to get young people to vote."
"Filmmaker Michael Moore responded Wednesday to the Michigan Republican Party's request that he be prosecuted for offering underwear and food to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.
'It's ironic that Republicans have no problem with allowing assault weapons out on our streets, yet they don't want to put clean underwear in the hands of our slacker youth,' Moore said in a statement. 'The Republicans seem more interested in locking me up for trying to encourage people to participate in our democracy than locking up Bin Laden for his attacks on our democracy.'
Moore said Republicans missed the 'satire' of his giving underwear and food to get young people to vote."
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief - American Progress Action Fund
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief - American Progress Action Fund: "President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
September 2, 2004, Updated
Download Poster
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: 'I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations.' But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says."
September 2, 2004, Updated
Download Poster
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: 'I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations.' But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says."
Friday, October 01, 2004
Dan Rather Takes A Bullet / While the Right was demonizing the crusty ol' newsman, BushCo got away with murder, again
Dan Rather Takes A Bullet / While the Right was demonizing the crusty ol' newsman, BushCo got away with murder, again: "Oh, come on.
I mean, really now. Like anyone worth their even remotely sober intellect didn't have, during that entire, cute little 'Memogate' scandal, in their mind's eye a slightly oozing picture of BushCo's master puppeteer and most favoritist overfed pit bull Karl Rove, sitting there all puffed up and wheezing and hunched over his grease-stained nail-studded Compaq Presario after yet another three-Martini, four-baby-seal-kabob lunch, hammering out those forged memos about Bush's military ineptitude on his swiped copy of MS Word."
I mean, really now. Like anyone worth their even remotely sober intellect didn't have, during that entire, cute little 'Memogate' scandal, in their mind's eye a slightly oozing picture of BushCo's master puppeteer and most favoritist overfed pit bull Karl Rove, sitting there all puffed up and wheezing and hunched over his grease-stained nail-studded Compaq Presario after yet another three-Martini, four-baby-seal-kabob lunch, hammering out those forged memos about Bush's military ineptitude on his swiped copy of MS Word."
Mark Twain, 1916
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain - 1916
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush
Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush
Prepared text of speech delivered at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, September 28, 2004
Download the speech: PDF version | Word doc
This is the most important election of my lifetime. I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times. President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests and undermining American values. That is why I am sending you this message. I have been demonized by the Bush campaign but I hope you will give me a hearing.
President Bush ran on the platform of a "humble" foreign policy in 2000. If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences. As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and to break the vicious circle.
I grew up in Hungary, lived through fascism and the Holocaust, and then had a foretaste of communism. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of government prevails. I chose America as my home because I value freedom and democracy, civil liberties and an open society.
When I had made more money than I needed for myself and my family, I set up a foundation to promote the values and principles of a free and open society. I started in South Africa in 1979 and established a foundation in my native country, Hungary, in 1984 when it was still under communist rule. China, Poland and the Soviet Union followed in 1987. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, I established foundations in practically all the countries of the former Soviet empire and later in other parts of the world and in the United States. These foundations today spend about 450 million dollars a year to promote democracy and open society around the world.
When George W. Bush was elected president, and particularly after September 11, I saw that the values and principles of open society needed to be defended at home. September 11 led to a suspension of the critical process so essential to a democracy - a full and fair discussion of the issues. President Bush silenced all criticism by calling it unpatriotic. When he said that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," I heard alarm bells ringing. I am afraid that he is leading us in a very dangerous direction. We are losing the values that have made America great.
The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center was such a horrendous event that it required a strong response. But the President committed a fundamental error in thinking: the fact that the terrorists are manifestly evil does not make whatever counter-actions we take automatically good. What we do to combat terrorism may also be wrong. Recognizing that we may be wrong is the foundation of an open society. President Bush admits no doubt and does not base his decisions on a careful weighing of reality. For 18 months after 9/11 he managed to suppress all dissent. That is how he could lead the nation so far in the wrong direction.
President Bush inadvertently played right into the hands of bin Laden. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified: that was where bin Laden lived and al Qaeda had its training camps. The invasion of Iraq was not similarly justified. It was President Bush's unintended gift to bin Laden.
War and occupation create innocent victims. We count the body bags of American soldiers; there have been more than 1000 in Iraq. The rest of the world also looks at the Iraqis who get killed daily. There have been 20 times more. Some were trying to kill our soldiers; far too many were totally innocent, including many women and children. Every innocent death helps the terrorists' cause by stirring anger against America and bringing them potential recruits.
Immediately after 9/11 there was a spontaneous outpouring of sympathy for us worldwide. It has given way to an equally widespread resentment. There are many more people willing to risk their lives to kill Americans than there were on September 11 and our security, far from improving as President Bush claims, is deteriorating. I am afraid that we have entered a vicious circle of escalating violence where our fears and their rage feed on each other. It is not a process that is likely to end any time soon. If we re-elect President Bush we are telling the world that we approve his policies - and we shall be at war for a long time to come.
I realize that what I am saying is bound to be unpopular. We are in the grip of a collective misconception induced by the trauma of 9/11, and fostered by the Bush administration. No politician could say it and hope to get elected. That is why I feel obliged to speak out. There is a widespread belief that President Bush is making us safe. The opposite is true. President Bush failed to finish off bin Laden when he was cornered in Afghanistan because he was gearing up to attack Iraq. And the invasion of Iraq bred more people willing to risk their lives against Americans than we are able to kill - generating the vicious circle I am talking about.
President Bush likes to insist that the terrorists hate us for what we are - a freedom loving people - not what we do. Well, he is wrong on that. He also claims that the torture scenes at Abu Graib prison were the work of a few bad apples. He is wrong on that too. They were part of a system of dealing with detainees put in place by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and our troops in Iraq are paying the price.
How could President Bush convince people that he is good for our security, better than John Kerry? By building on the fears generated by the collapse of the twin towers and fostering a sense of danger. At a time of peril, people rally around the flag and President Bush has exploited this. His campaign is based on the assumption that people do not really care about the truth and they will believe practically anything if it is repeated often enough, particularly by a President at a time of war. There must be something wrong with us if we fall for it. For instance, some 40% of the people still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11 - although it is now definitely established by the 9/11 Commission, set up by the President and chaired by a Republican, that there was no connection. I want to shout from the roof tops: "Wake up America. Don't you realize that we are being misled?"
President Bush has used 9/11 to further his own agenda which has very little to do with fighting terrorism. There was an influential group within the Bush administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney that was itching to invade Iraq long before 9/11. The terrorist attack gave them their chance. If you need a tangible proof why President Bush does not deserve to be re-elected, consider Iraq.
The war in Iraq was misconceived from start to finish -- if it has a finish. It is a war of choice, not necessity, in spite of what President Bush says. The arms inspections and sanctions were working. In response to American pressure, the United Nations had finally agreed on a strong stand. As long as the inspectors were on the ground, Saddam Hussein could not possibly pose a threat to our security. We could have declared victory but President Bush insisted on going to war.
We went to war on false pretences. The real reasons for going into Iraq have not been revealed to this day. The weapons of mass destruction could not be found, and the connection with al Qaeda could not be established. President Bush then claimed that we went to war to liberate the people of Iraq. All my experience in fostering democracy and open society has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means. And, Iraq would be the last place I would chose for an experiment in introducing democracy - as the current chaos demonstrates.
Of course, Saddam was a tyrant, and of course Iraqis - and the rest of the world - can rejoice to be rid of him. But Iraqis now hate the American occupation. We stood idly by while Baghdad was ransacked. As the occupying power, we had an obligation to maintain law and order, but we failed to live up to it. If we had cared about the people of Iraq we should have had more troops available for the occupation than we needed for the invasion. We should have provided protection not only for the oil ministry but also the other ministries, museums and hospitals. Baghdad and the country's other cities were destroyed after we occupied them. When we encountered resistance, we employed methods that alienated and humiliated the population. The way we invaded homes, and the way we treated prisoners generated resentment and rage. Public opinion condemns us worldwide.
The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it. First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for help. First we installed General Jay Garner to run the country, then we gave it to Paul Bremer and when the insurgency became intractable, we installed an Iraqi government. The man we chose was a protégé of the CIA with the reputation of a strong man - a far cry from democracy. First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through, again over his objections. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed," he said publicly. More recently, we started bombing Falluja again.
The Bush campaign is trying to put a favorable spin on it, but the situation in Iraq is dire. Much of the Western part of the country has been ceded to the insurgents. Even the so-called Green Zone (a small enclave in the center of Baghdad where Americans live and work) is subject to mortar attacks. The prospects of holding free and fair elections in January are fast receding and civil war looms. President Bush received a somber intelligence evaluation in July but he has kept it under wraps and failed to level with the electorate.
Bush's war in Iraq has done untold damage to the United States. It has impaired our military power and undermined the morale of our armed forces. Before the invasion of Iraq, we could project overwhelming power in any part of the world. We cannot do so any more because we are bogged down in Iraq. Afghanistan is slipping from our control. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and other countries are pursuing nuclear programs with renewed vigor and many other problems remain unattended.
By invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, we violated international law. By mistreating and even torturing prisoners, we violated the Geneva conventions. President Bush has boasted that we do not need a permission slip from the international community, but our actions have endangered our security - particularly the security of our troops.
Our troops were trained to project overwhelming power. They were not trained for occupation duties. Having to fight an insurgency saps their morale. Many of our troops return from Iraq with severe trauma and other psychological disorders. Sadly, many are also physically injured. After Iraq, it will be difficult to recruit people for the armed forces and we may have to resort to conscription.
There are many other policies for which the Bush administration can be criticized but none are as important as Iraq. Iraq has cost us nearly 200 billion dollars -- an enormous sum. It could have been used much better elsewhere. The costs are going to mount because it was much easier to get into Iraq than it will be to get out of there. President Bush has been taunting John Kerry to explain how he would do things differently in Iraq. John Kerry has responded that he would have done everything differently and he would be in a better position to extricate us than the man who got us in there. But it won't be easy for him either, because we are caught in a quagmire.
It is a quagmire that many predicted. I predicted it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy. I was not alone: top military and diplomatic experts desperately warned the President not to invade Iraq. But he ignored their experienced advice. He suppressed the critical process. The discussion about Iraq remains stilted even during this presidential campaign because of the notion that any criticism of our Commander-in-Chief puts our troops at risk. But this is Bush's war, and he ought to be held responsible for it. It's the wrong war, fought the wrong way. Step back for a moment from the cacophony of the election campaign and reflect: who got us into this mess? In spite of his Texas swagger, George W. Bush does not qualify to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.
There is a lot more to be said on the subject and I have said it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, now available in paperback. I hope you will read it. You can download the chapter on the Iraqi quagmire free from www.georgesoros.com
If you find my arguments worth considering, please share this message with your friends.
I would welcome your comments at georgesoros.com . I am eager to engage in a critical discussion because the stakes are so high.
Contents copyright © 2004 by George Soros. All rights reserved. Privacy policy.
This message is paid for by George Soros and is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
www.georgesoros.com
Monday, September 13, 2004
TIME.com: "I've Been in Worse Situations" -- Sep. 20, 2004
TIME.com: "I've Been in Worse Situations" -- Sep. 20, 2004: "is past month has been pretty brutal for you, between the Swift Boat ads, the Republican Convention and the Vice President saying if you get elected, it would invite another terrorist attack. Have you come to any new conclusions about whom you're running against and what you have to do to win?
KERRY
I think the President's unwillingness to walk away from those comments makes it clear that he and the Vice President will say anything and do anything to get elected and to hold on to power. It was a shameful and outrageous effort.
But you know, I've been in worse situations in my life. The attacks don't attack me as much as they attack Americans and America. They're trying to distract people from the real issues that matter.
America is not as safe as we ought to be after 9/11. We can do a better job at homeland security. I can fight a more effective war on terror. The standard of living for the average American has gone down. People's incomes have dropped. Five million Americans have lost their health insurance. The deficit is the largest it's been in the history of this country. They're taking money from Social Security and transferring it to the wealthiest people in America to drive us into debt. They're shredding alliances around the world with people we have traditionally been able to rely on. That's what bothers me."
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Evaluating 9-11
Informed Comment : 09/01/2004 - 09/30/2004:
"In order to evaluate the aftermath of September 11, we first must understand that event. What did al-Qaeda intend to achieve? Only if we understand that can we gauge their success or failure.
From the point of view of al-Qaeda, the Muslim world can and should be united into a single country. They believe that it once had this political unity, under the early caliphs. Even as late as the outbreak of World War I, the Ottoman state ruled much of the Middle East, and the Ottoman sultans had begun making claims to be caliphs (Muslim popes) from about 1880. In the below map, blue indicates heavy Muslim populations, green means medium, and yellow means the Muslims are a significant minority."
From al-Qaeda's point of view, the political unity of the Muslim world was deliberately destroyed by a one-two punch. First, Western colonial powers invaded Muslim lands and detached them from the Ottoman Empire or other Muslim states. They ruled them brutally as colonies, reducing the people to little more than slaves serving the economic and political interests of the British, French, Russians, etc. France invaded Algeria in 1830. Great Britain took Egypt in 1882 and Iraq in 1917. Russia took the Emirate of Bukhara and other Central Asian territories in the 1860s and forward. Second, they formed these colonies into Western-style nation-states, often small and weak ones, so that the divisive effects of the colonial conquests have lasted. (Look at the British Empire and its imposition on much of the Muslim world, e.g.:)
Read the rest....
"In order to evaluate the aftermath of September 11, we first must understand that event. What did al-Qaeda intend to achieve? Only if we understand that can we gauge their success or failure.
From the point of view of al-Qaeda, the Muslim world can and should be united into a single country. They believe that it once had this political unity, under the early caliphs. Even as late as the outbreak of World War I, the Ottoman state ruled much of the Middle East, and the Ottoman sultans had begun making claims to be caliphs (Muslim popes) from about 1880. In the below map, blue indicates heavy Muslim populations, green means medium, and yellow means the Muslims are a significant minority."
From al-Qaeda's point of view, the political unity of the Muslim world was deliberately destroyed by a one-two punch. First, Western colonial powers invaded Muslim lands and detached them from the Ottoman Empire or other Muslim states. They ruled them brutally as colonies, reducing the people to little more than slaves serving the economic and political interests of the British, French, Russians, etc. France invaded Algeria in 1830. Great Britain took Egypt in 1882 and Iraq in 1917. Russia took the Emirate of Bukhara and other Central Asian territories in the 1860s and forward. Second, they formed these colonies into Western-style nation-states, often small and weak ones, so that the divisive effects of the colonial conquests have lasted. (Look at the British Empire and its imposition on much of the Muslim world, e.g.:)
Read the rest....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)