So there I was, face to face with the Prince of Darkness, Richard Perle.
According to my intelligence sources I’d have been justified in launching a unilateral strike in his ‘crotchal’ region, yelling “Whose your Baghdaddy now, bitch?!!!
But before I could act a nervous young man handed me his camera so that he, the only fan of Perle’s out of nearly 500 attendees, might have a memento of the day he met one of his heroes. He offered a paperback copy of one of Perle’s screeds for an autograph whilst I preserved the moment of political porn.
The dirty deed was done and then it was my turn.
Neuron’s fired chemo-electric charges across myriad synapses commanding my muscles into action and in the blinking of an eye I was shaking Perle’s hand and telling him “Good job!” and then he simply disappeared into the darkness from whence he came.
No, I wasn’t having a nightmare.
Perle was attending as a panelist in one of a series of town-hall discussions being conducted by PBS, anchored on its new documentary series America at a Crossroads which will air in April.
This particular event was hosted at DePaul University’s Merle Reskin Theater (under the auspices of DePaul’s Offic of Islamic Studies in conjunction with the Global Voices lecture series) in Chicago and I just happened to be helping-out.
Why, given the opportunity, didn’t I take Perle to task for his active promotion of a policy that has killed many thousands of innocents?--because it would have been pointless; my complaints would have fallen on deaf ears, and besides there was no need.
Perle did actually do a “good job” during the discussion and the question period. Maintaining his usual specious arguments, flawed logic and revisionist rhetoric he clearly demonstrated his inadequate intellect, willful ignorance and the bankruptcy of the neo-con philosophies and policies.
Although he has opined of late that his fellow neocons have mismanaged US policy he still maintains the absurd underlying neocon philosophy of an imperial, militarily aggressive America ultimately benefits the global community. And though he no longer officially advises on US policy his fellow neocons are still entrenched in positions of power and influence.
Having committed to several more appearances anchored on the PBS series in which he will invariably face skeptical audiences Perle has unwittingly begun to knot the rope with which he will ultimately hang himself (and by association condemn his fellows) in full view of the public.
So ultimately that’s why I shook his hand and encouraged him, instead of berating him or punching him in the face. He has chosen to step into the light, he will shrivel under it, and there will be no one to blame except himself. And we all get to watch.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Playing President
George Washington shakes hands with actor George Bush playing president, as the nation observes President's Day.
(Thanks to AP for the photo and Fox News for contributing to the caption).
"The Army You've Got"
The Washington Post this week highlights in disturbing detail how the Pentagon and this administration “supports” our troops and “thanks” them for their service—by treating their medical needs and the troops themselves as an irritating post-war expense.
Little wonder then that the Bush administration and its lackeys in the US military have similar contempt for their “coalition” partners and allies that they so often tout in their press releases and speeches.
Four years after two Air National Guard A-10 pilots strafed a clearly-marked patrol, killing one and injuring four British soldiers, the US finally released—only to the official government inquiry and the soldier’s families and NOT to the public—the cockpit video/audio recordings of the attack, and only after the footage had been leaked and published.
Little wonder then that the Bush administration and its lackeys in the US military have similar contempt for their “coalition” partners and allies that they so often tout in their press releases and speeches.
Four years after two Air National Guard A-10 pilots strafed a clearly-marked patrol, killing one and injuring four British soldiers, the US finally released—only to the official government inquiry and the soldier’s families and NOT to the public—the cockpit video/audio recordings of the attack, and only after the footage had been leaked and published.
The US claimed “security” concerns in not releasing the tapes until now, an excuse of transparent breathtaking stupidity and arrogance they maintained for four years. And even now they refuse to let the pilots and the mission controller be interviewed or give written testimony to the UK inquiry.
The US was similarly uncooperative in another official inquiry into the shoot-down by a US Patriot missile battery of a returning British Tornado strike aircraft that killed the two-man crew, also very early in the Iraq war.
The Guardian is now reporting on yet another four-year old case of American obstruction and obfuscation regarding the actions of its troops against its allies.
The US was similarly uncooperative in another official inquiry into the shoot-down by a US Patriot missile battery of a returning British Tornado strike aircraft that killed the two-man crew, also very early in the Iraq war.
The Guardian is now reporting on yet another four-year old case of American obstruction and obfuscation regarding the actions of its troops against its allies.
From The Guardian--
US army officials are due in London this week to interview Corporal Jane McLaughlan, Staff Sergeant James Rogerson, Corporal Stephen Smith and their interpreter, Khalid Allahou, almost four years after all were seriously injured when their Land Rover was struck twice from behind by the US transporter. McLaughlan, who was driving, was unable to keep control and the Land Rover crashed off the road. All four passengers were thrown from the vehicle.
Although the initial British investigation managed to identify the American military unit and driver involved, the US authorities denied any record of the incident. Only after substantial pressure, said Doyle, did the Pentagon admit the existence of a three-page statement by the US National Guard convoy involved in the incident, which mentioned they 'had run some guys off the road'.
In the crash, McLaughlan, 35, sustained multiple skull fractures, brain damage and punctured internal organs. Rogerson, from Scotland, received head and spinal injuries and is understood to be due to leave the military this year as a result of his injuries. Allahou, who lives in Folkestone with a British wife and had volunteered as a translator for the British army, is also understood to have suffered long-term effects.
In the crash, McLaughlan, 35, sustained multiple skull fractures, brain damage and punctured internal organs. Rogerson, from Scotland, received head and spinal injuries and is understood to be due to leave the military this year as a result of his injuries. Allahou, who lives in Folkestone with a British wife and had volunteered as a translator for the British army, is also understood to have suffered long-term effects.
It seems the US just might actually own up to the incident (but not the cover-up of course) and possibly for the very first time pay compensation for just these three British soldiers injured through US military criminal incompetence.
But meanwhile US soldiers injured by the administrations policies are abandoned in the halls of Walter Reed or dumped at home without support. Bush is now proposing to reduce the budget of the VA even as its services are and will be more needed than ever.
The callous use and abuse of soldiers by Bush and his Pentagon cronies is criminal and sickening.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
The Camel's Back
NOTE: Apparently I have a couple of Polish readers and I just want to say hello to Grazyna!
According to Bush and most of the Republicans US troops must stay in Iraq in order to deliver the functioning publicly accountable government, social and legal equality, professional, meritocratic defense force, progressive economy, improve quality of life and stabilize the region.
Otherwise, they say, terrorists “emboldened” by the US withdrawal will have Iraq’s resources at their disposal to launch devastating attacks against American “interests”, foment Sunni-Shia conflict throughout the region, and threaten US allies and conduct major attacks against America itself.
Could the Republicans be right, for once? Would staying in Iraq prevent a region-wide conflagration and facilitate more and larger-scale attacks against the US?
Not likely.
The essential problem with the Republican argument is that it assumes that the political and religious dynamics in the Middle East are monolithic—which they demonstrably are not.
In all the Middle East conflicts and radical political shifts in power since WWII each country has pursued its own particular interests above anything else. Alliances and opposition have shifted according to rational need more than emotional desire.
The 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War against Israel involved respectively Egypt, Syria and Jordan, then just Egypt and Syria. No other Arab nations got involved in any relevant way.
The 1975-1985 Lebanese Civil-War ostensibly pitted Christians against Muslims (the majority, but of many sects). The Sunni Syrians got involved for strategic reasons. The Palestinians in Lebanon goaded Israel into the fight. But all the other Arab nations in practical terms steered clear of the conflict.
In 1979 the Shah of Iran was overthrown and Shia rule began. The Shia population in Suadi Arabia was not inspired to overthrow the ruling family.
Also in 1979 Saddam Hussein became the president of Iraq. Iran did not then rush to the aid of its Shia brethren who were already being discriminated against.
The 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war was started by Hussein over control of waterway and not because of religious differences (Hussein favoring Sunnis of course). Egypt and Syria, having both Sunni leadership and Sunni public majorities and being political active, did not rush to the aid of Iraq as it struggled against the Iranians. Saudi Arabia, Sunni-ruled but with a Shia public majority, stayed out of the conflict.
Incidentally when Israel bombed Hussein’s Osirak Nuclear reactor in 1980 (finishing the job the Iranians had begun) no major action was taken by other Arab nations against Israel.
The Russian occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980’s was defeated by the CIA arming and training Afghanis with 50% of the costs secretly provided by the Saudis. No other Arab nations provided any significant aid to their Muslim Afghani brothers fighting against the godless Communists.
In the 1991 Gulf War Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was either opposed by other Arab nations or garnered only mild and obtuse rhetorical support from some.
The 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan in pursuit of Bin Laden was overwhelmingly supported by Middle Eastern governments and significantly supported by the “Arab street” despite some cheering for the 9-11 attacks.
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was not very well supported but it wasn’t that strenuously objected-to either as Hussein was quite the irritant and not much of a champion of Arab causes (certainly not religious ones). The subsequent occupation however is widely condemned but nonetheless there has once again been no significant action by Arab governments against the US.
The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War (it was NOT a “conflict”) only elicited rhetorical condemnations but again no action by Arab governments.
In all these conflicts and wars Middle Eastern nations have overall maintained a status quo in their governments and their societies. The Iranian revolution was not driven just by religion but more by social politics. The Lebanese civil war was driven by politics as well.
Religion is a tool of politics, something that allows politicians to exploit mass emotions for a particular cause and to conveniently identify supporters and opponents of a cause.
All the strife in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter) is a result of politics not religion. Does anyone really think that the average professional Iraqi or Iranian or Saudi really gives a damn about establishing a Caliphate or making the whole world Muslim? Does anyone really think the average Arab farmer or cook or shepherd or nomad give a damn about such ambitions? Did the average Briton demand an Empire that covered one quarter of the globe? Of course not!
The majority, anywhere and everywhere, has far more limited ambitions—to be able to get by at least and maybe enjoy life at best. That’s it. For the majority religion is personal—if it weren’t then everyone would be busy trying to convert everyone else to their faith or killing the faithless, or else refusing to interact at all.
So I really don’t see religious strife encompassing the Middle East should the US depart Iraq. And as to leaving national resources for terrorists to exploit—what exactly would be left? First of all the Iraqi’s would have to sort themselves out before they could exploit anything—there’s a few years right there. Other Arab nations have demonstrated their caution often enough so they aren’t likely to rush in to the mess—add another few years of cuatious low-key involvement .
Those with the ambition to attack the US and western interests will continue to do so with limited resources and limited support. How effective they might be has little to do with the Middle East and far more to do with US and western actions and reactions.
For six years the Republicans have painted everyone and every issue with the broadest brush possible and they are doing so again in their prognostications regarding a US withdrawal from Iraq. Not only is there no reason to believe them this time around, there is no reason to believe them according to historical and present evidence.
Leaving Iraq will mean leaving a bloody mess, one that will continue in that country. It’s a horrible choice but no worse than the choices that have been made thus far. But it’s not going escalate enmity towards the US (most Iraqis want the US to leave) and it’s not going to create any more terrorists than it already has.
The Republican policies have increased global terrorism not diminished it and it is not withdrawal but escalation on their part that would fulfill their dire scenario.
If Bush decides on even a limited strike against Iran under the guise of his "war on terror", that might well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
According to Bush and most of the Republicans US troops must stay in Iraq in order to deliver the functioning publicly accountable government, social and legal equality, professional, meritocratic defense force, progressive economy, improve quality of life and stabilize the region.
Otherwise, they say, terrorists “emboldened” by the US withdrawal will have Iraq’s resources at their disposal to launch devastating attacks against American “interests”, foment Sunni-Shia conflict throughout the region, and threaten US allies and conduct major attacks against America itself.
Could the Republicans be right, for once? Would staying in Iraq prevent a region-wide conflagration and facilitate more and larger-scale attacks against the US?
Not likely.
The essential problem with the Republican argument is that it assumes that the political and religious dynamics in the Middle East are monolithic—which they demonstrably are not.
In all the Middle East conflicts and radical political shifts in power since WWII each country has pursued its own particular interests above anything else. Alliances and opposition have shifted according to rational need more than emotional desire.
The 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War against Israel involved respectively Egypt, Syria and Jordan, then just Egypt and Syria. No other Arab nations got involved in any relevant way.
The 1975-1985 Lebanese Civil-War ostensibly pitted Christians against Muslims (the majority, but of many sects). The Sunni Syrians got involved for strategic reasons. The Palestinians in Lebanon goaded Israel into the fight. But all the other Arab nations in practical terms steered clear of the conflict.
In 1979 the Shah of Iran was overthrown and Shia rule began. The Shia population in Suadi Arabia was not inspired to overthrow the ruling family.
Also in 1979 Saddam Hussein became the president of Iraq. Iran did not then rush to the aid of its Shia brethren who were already being discriminated against.
The 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war was started by Hussein over control of waterway and not because of religious differences (Hussein favoring Sunnis of course). Egypt and Syria, having both Sunni leadership and Sunni public majorities and being political active, did not rush to the aid of Iraq as it struggled against the Iranians. Saudi Arabia, Sunni-ruled but with a Shia public majority, stayed out of the conflict.
Incidentally when Israel bombed Hussein’s Osirak Nuclear reactor in 1980 (finishing the job the Iranians had begun) no major action was taken by other Arab nations against Israel.
The Russian occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980’s was defeated by the CIA arming and training Afghanis with 50% of the costs secretly provided by the Saudis. No other Arab nations provided any significant aid to their Muslim Afghani brothers fighting against the godless Communists.
In the 1991 Gulf War Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was either opposed by other Arab nations or garnered only mild and obtuse rhetorical support from some.
The 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan in pursuit of Bin Laden was overwhelmingly supported by Middle Eastern governments and significantly supported by the “Arab street” despite some cheering for the 9-11 attacks.
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was not very well supported but it wasn’t that strenuously objected-to either as Hussein was quite the irritant and not much of a champion of Arab causes (certainly not religious ones). The subsequent occupation however is widely condemned but nonetheless there has once again been no significant action by Arab governments against the US.
The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War (it was NOT a “conflict”) only elicited rhetorical condemnations but again no action by Arab governments.
In all these conflicts and wars Middle Eastern nations have overall maintained a status quo in their governments and their societies. The Iranian revolution was not driven just by religion but more by social politics. The Lebanese civil war was driven by politics as well.
Religion is a tool of politics, something that allows politicians to exploit mass emotions for a particular cause and to conveniently identify supporters and opponents of a cause.
All the strife in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter) is a result of politics not religion. Does anyone really think that the average professional Iraqi or Iranian or Saudi really gives a damn about establishing a Caliphate or making the whole world Muslim? Does anyone really think the average Arab farmer or cook or shepherd or nomad give a damn about such ambitions? Did the average Briton demand an Empire that covered one quarter of the globe? Of course not!
The majority, anywhere and everywhere, has far more limited ambitions—to be able to get by at least and maybe enjoy life at best. That’s it. For the majority religion is personal—if it weren’t then everyone would be busy trying to convert everyone else to their faith or killing the faithless, or else refusing to interact at all.
So I really don’t see religious strife encompassing the Middle East should the US depart Iraq. And as to leaving national resources for terrorists to exploit—what exactly would be left? First of all the Iraqi’s would have to sort themselves out before they could exploit anything—there’s a few years right there. Other Arab nations have demonstrated their caution often enough so they aren’t likely to rush in to the mess—add another few years of cuatious low-key involvement .
Those with the ambition to attack the US and western interests will continue to do so with limited resources and limited support. How effective they might be has little to do with the Middle East and far more to do with US and western actions and reactions.
For six years the Republicans have painted everyone and every issue with the broadest brush possible and they are doing so again in their prognostications regarding a US withdrawal from Iraq. Not only is there no reason to believe them this time around, there is no reason to believe them according to historical and present evidence.
Leaving Iraq will mean leaving a bloody mess, one that will continue in that country. It’s a horrible choice but no worse than the choices that have been made thus far. But it’s not going escalate enmity towards the US (most Iraqis want the US to leave) and it’s not going to create any more terrorists than it already has.
The Republican policies have increased global terrorism not diminished it and it is not withdrawal but escalation on their part that would fulfill their dire scenario.
If Bush decides on even a limited strike against Iran under the guise of his "war on terror", that might well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Friday, February 09, 2007
It Polls For Thee
Of all George Bush’s many hobbies (such as pretending, hoping, praying, believing, and decidering being just a few) his most favoritest is ignoring—his dad, responsibility, reason, the Constitution and of course, polls.
And well he should as his approval rating in the US has lately been no higher than 30%.
Let me put it this way: If ten randomly selected Americans got on a plane piloted by George Bush, seven of them would rush the cockpit.
Well, now there’s a new poll for Bush to ignore.
Every year a survey of six Arab countries is conducted in which the respondents are asked this simple question: Who do you dislike the most? The respondents aren’t given a list of likely people they’d dislike but are free to choose absolutely anyone.
And the winner is…
George Dubya Bush!
The award invariably goes to whoever is the Israeli Prime Minister but this year for the first time ever an American president has received this distinction! (In fact Bush got more votes than Ehmud Olmert and ex-Israeli PM Ariel Sharon combined--kudos to the comatose Sharon for such a strong showing!).
Congratulations, George! All that freedomating and democratizing finally paid-off!
The mystery prize package will be addressed to you, George W. Bush, but when you hear the doorbell ring don’t bother to get up, don’t ask for whom the bell tolls—the American people will get it.
Monday, February 05, 2007
RIght-Wing 'Comedy' Kills Me!
Over at the very estimable Red Tory blog a lengthy discussion ensued as to the amusement-ocity or some-such of right-wing 'comedians'.
Red Tory and about 50 commenters all posited that right-wing politics and humor are about as compatible as fried eggs and the floor.
But long-time (yet plucky) Red Tory heckler 'Biff' countered that there was at least one (well, only one...) right-wing comedian to counter the thousands of lefty comedians—none other than Dennis Miller who Biff thinks is “very, very funny.”
Whilst I was impressed that Biff didn’t also offer up self-appointed-comedians-when-they-risk-hate-speech-lawsuits Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, I couldn’t agree less with Biff.
Dennis Miller is the Hillary Clinton of right-wing comedy—both Miller and Clinton are the only names everyone recognizes but only half of everyone actually likes.
Nonetheless the right-wing does in fact have a pantheon of brilliant humorists who, like the jazziest of jazz musicians, are really only appreciated by those who listen beyond what sounds like random noise and in the discordant melee of invented musical notes, find elements of fundamental truthinessand thus joy.
Without a doubt the Miles Davis’s and Stockhausen’s of right-wing fundamental funsters are of course Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson and Neil Cavuto of Rupert Murdoch's Fair and Balanced Circus.
I’ll report their latest comedic stylings, and let you decide:
From Bill O’Reilly--(the Jack Benny of Fox, master of the deadpan delivery)
"For my money, pardon the pun, capitalism is a good thing. It gives opportunity to people like me who started with zero money to work our way up…Republicans generally believe you should work for what you get and not take other people's money."
From John Gibson--(Fox's Jerry Seinfield; just two shallow observations can be turned into an entire episode of comedic gold):
"I like ‘Big Oil’-company profits because I think every American should have the opportunity to buy shares in a hugely profitable enterprise, as the oil companies have demonstrated they are."
From Neil Cavuto--Fox News'..umm…Tony Danza? Or maybe Beaver Cleaver? (OMG I just realized how hilarious that name is for an 8-year old boy!)
"Two years. It's a long time. But to most in the media, it's a waste of time. Too little to get too much done—so he's [Bush] done. I don't know about you, but two years is a pretty long time to me.
That's about two-thirds of JFK's entire presidency. That's two Thanksgivings. Two Christmases. Two New Years. Two years from now we'll be two years older than we are now. A lot can happen in that time. Look what's happened in the last two years. Two years ago Pope John Paul II was alive. So was Terri Schiavo — remember her?"
Dennis Miller isn't even fit to be smeared by these comedic geniuses. And why? Because Dennis Miller tries to be ironic whereas O'Reilly, Cavuto and Gibson were born ironic! ( And they don't do "blue" material!)
Funny?!! Funny like looking for non-existent WMD's under your desk!
And that’s just Common Sense, My Word and today’s Most Ridiculous Item.
Red Tory and about 50 commenters all posited that right-wing politics and humor are about as compatible as fried eggs and the floor.
But long-time (yet plucky) Red Tory heckler 'Biff' countered that there was at least one (well, only one...) right-wing comedian to counter the thousands of lefty comedians—none other than Dennis Miller who Biff thinks is “very, very funny.”
Whilst I was impressed that Biff didn’t also offer up self-appointed-comedians-when-they-risk-hate-speech-lawsuits Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, I couldn’t agree less with Biff.
Dennis Miller is the Hillary Clinton of right-wing comedy—both Miller and Clinton are the only names everyone recognizes but only half of everyone actually likes.
Nonetheless the right-wing does in fact have a pantheon of brilliant humorists who, like the jazziest of jazz musicians, are really only appreciated by those who listen beyond what sounds like random noise and in the discordant melee of invented musical notes, find elements of fundamental truthinessand thus joy.
Without a doubt the Miles Davis’s and Stockhausen’s of right-wing fundamental funsters are of course Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson and Neil Cavuto of Rupert Murdoch's Fair and Balanced Circus.
I’ll report their latest comedic stylings, and let you decide:
From Bill O’Reilly--(the Jack Benny of Fox, master of the deadpan delivery)
"For my money, pardon the pun, capitalism is a good thing. It gives opportunity to people like me who started with zero money to work our way up…Republicans generally believe you should work for what you get and not take other people's money."
From John Gibson--(Fox's Jerry Seinfield; just two shallow observations can be turned into an entire episode of comedic gold):
"I like ‘Big Oil’-company profits because I think every American should have the opportunity to buy shares in a hugely profitable enterprise, as the oil companies have demonstrated they are."
From Neil Cavuto--Fox News'..umm…Tony Danza? Or maybe Beaver Cleaver? (OMG I just realized how hilarious that name is for an 8-year old boy!)
"Two years. It's a long time. But to most in the media, it's a waste of time. Too little to get too much done—so he's [Bush] done. I don't know about you, but two years is a pretty long time to me.
That's about two-thirds of JFK's entire presidency. That's two Thanksgivings. Two Christmases. Two New Years. Two years from now we'll be two years older than we are now. A lot can happen in that time. Look what's happened in the last two years. Two years ago Pope John Paul II was alive. So was Terri Schiavo — remember her?"
Dennis Miller isn't even fit to be smeared by these comedic geniuses. And why? Because Dennis Miller tries to be ironic whereas O'Reilly, Cavuto and Gibson were born ironic! ( And they don't do "blue" material!)
Funny?!! Funny like looking for non-existent WMD's under your desk!
And that’s just Common Sense, My Word and today’s Most Ridiculous Item.
Friday, February 02, 2007
More Dirt!
Hillary to Donors: “No Money to Anyone Else” is the title of a new “article” on The Huffington Post.
Hillary Clinton is personally putting out the word that she has no intention of sharing the wealth: "She's calling all the big-hitter fundraisers and saying, 'I want you to understand: NO money to anybody else. You cannot play both sides of the street,'" in the '08 presidential race, says a longtime Democratic operative who has worked for the Clintons in the past but turned down a role in the current campaign, and is so far sitting this one out.
And what's the reaction been? "People don't like it, but they're afraid of her." Yet the far more palpable fear for Democrats, discussed constantly, is that she'll have so much money she'll sail to the nomination.
There is no verifiable attribution to this 'report". Both 'quotes' are paraphrases from an anonymous source. Democrats are really afraid of Hillary Clinton! (if Democrats are afraid, imagine how shit-scared Republicans ought to be!).
Who is this “longtime Democratic operative who has worked for the Clintons in the past but turned down a role in the current campaign, and is so far sitting this one out”? We aren’t told. Maybe it’s the author or the source who are scared.
And how is this source who isn’t involved in the campaign, privy to Hillary’s (or her staff’s) calls to major contributors?
Why is this person “sitting this one out”, when Hillary already has a huge campaign chest and the Democratic Party is favored over the Republicans; where win or lose this well-connected person could still make a useful living from working on the campaign?
It is impressive how this story fits the Obama Madrassa/Hillary Political-Hardball sham; anonymous author, anonymous source "close to Clinton", NO evidence and Clinton painted as a manipulative calculating ambitious bitch.
And then there is this NewsMax post, from September 21, 2003:
Dick Morris: Hillary Discourages Donors to Other Dems
"U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton is actively discouraging potential donors from contributing to any of the announced Democrat presidential candidates, so they'll have political cash on hand if she decides to run next year.
So says Dick Morris, who pointed to a meeting two weeks ago between Bill and Hillary Clinton and 150 party fat cats held at the former first couple's mansion in Chappaqua, N.Y."
Dick Morris worked for Bill Clinton on his 1996 re-election campaign but resigned on the day Bill Clinton accepted the Democratic presidential nomination due to Morris’s extra-marital affair with prostitute Sherry Rowlands. The vast majority of his political consulting work had been for Republican governorship candidates, but since the Rowlands affair he has not actively consulted US politicians.
He has however made a partial career as a Hillary Clinton critic in the print press and as a frequent pundit for FOX News where the vast majority of his insights and predictions about Hillary Clinton’s political career have so far proven to be wrong.
The anonymous Huffpo piece may not actually be Dick Morris's work--after all he's been publicly gunning for Hillary for years now--but any like-minded person can plagiarize him for their own coincednetal poltical purpose.
Crtiticism and dissent ought to be based on reasoned and substantiated argument, not unexamined rumor and emotional manipulation. But these days "debate" is not chaired by a disinterested obudsman but by partisans where unsubstantiated utterances are not only given the same consideration as carefully developed arguments but are actually promoted with zealous deference.
This story might actually be true, but if so it should be able to stand the test of open debate and disclosure. Truth is defined by the tests of disagreement, lies are revealed by them. But until the champion of this story stands up to be tested, it remains only a story a particle of the common soil, deserving of disinterested until its quality is revealed and houses might be built from it.
But thus far this looks like dirt to me, not clay.
Hillary Clinton is personally putting out the word that she has no intention of sharing the wealth: "She's calling all the big-hitter fundraisers and saying, 'I want you to understand: NO money to anybody else. You cannot play both sides of the street,'" in the '08 presidential race, says a longtime Democratic operative who has worked for the Clintons in the past but turned down a role in the current campaign, and is so far sitting this one out.
And what's the reaction been? "People don't like it, but they're afraid of her." Yet the far more palpable fear for Democrats, discussed constantly, is that she'll have so much money she'll sail to the nomination.
There is no verifiable attribution to this 'report". Both 'quotes' are paraphrases from an anonymous source. Democrats are really afraid of Hillary Clinton! (if Democrats are afraid, imagine how shit-scared Republicans ought to be!).
Who is this “longtime Democratic operative who has worked for the Clintons in the past but turned down a role in the current campaign, and is so far sitting this one out”? We aren’t told. Maybe it’s the author or the source who are scared.
And how is this source who isn’t involved in the campaign, privy to Hillary’s (or her staff’s) calls to major contributors?
Why is this person “sitting this one out”, when Hillary already has a huge campaign chest and the Democratic Party is favored over the Republicans; where win or lose this well-connected person could still make a useful living from working on the campaign?
It is impressive how this story fits the Obama Madrassa/Hillary Political-Hardball sham; anonymous author, anonymous source "close to Clinton", NO evidence and Clinton painted as a manipulative calculating ambitious bitch.
And then there is this NewsMax post, from September 21, 2003:
Dick Morris: Hillary Discourages Donors to Other Dems
"U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton is actively discouraging potential donors from contributing to any of the announced Democrat presidential candidates, so they'll have political cash on hand if she decides to run next year.
So says Dick Morris, who pointed to a meeting two weeks ago between Bill and Hillary Clinton and 150 party fat cats held at the former first couple's mansion in Chappaqua, N.Y."
Dick Morris worked for Bill Clinton on his 1996 re-election campaign but resigned on the day Bill Clinton accepted the Democratic presidential nomination due to Morris’s extra-marital affair with prostitute Sherry Rowlands. The vast majority of his political consulting work had been for Republican governorship candidates, but since the Rowlands affair he has not actively consulted US politicians.
He has however made a partial career as a Hillary Clinton critic in the print press and as a frequent pundit for FOX News where the vast majority of his insights and predictions about Hillary Clinton’s political career have so far proven to be wrong.
The anonymous Huffpo piece may not actually be Dick Morris's work--after all he's been publicly gunning for Hillary for years now--but any like-minded person can plagiarize him for their own coincednetal poltical purpose.
Crtiticism and dissent ought to be based on reasoned and substantiated argument, not unexamined rumor and emotional manipulation. But these days "debate" is not chaired by a disinterested obudsman but by partisans where unsubstantiated utterances are not only given the same consideration as carefully developed arguments but are actually promoted with zealous deference.
This story might actually be true, but if so it should be able to stand the test of open debate and disclosure. Truth is defined by the tests of disagreement, lies are revealed by them. But until the champion of this story stands up to be tested, it remains only a story a particle of the common soil, deserving of disinterested until its quality is revealed and houses might be built from it.
But thus far this looks like dirt to me, not clay.
Dirty Politics, Dirty Pundits and the Dirty Press
“The first anonymous smear of the 2008 presidential race illustrated how easily dubious information can spread” writes New York Times journalist David D. Kirkpatrick in his article Feeding Frenzy for a Big Story, Even if It’s False in which he follows the progress of an anonymously-sourced and anonymously written political story that major news outlets deemed worthy of 11 days of serious coverage.
The original story was posted at InsightMag.com on January 17th 2007 with this lede: .
"Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama. "
But as Kirkpatrick notes not even the gossipy and often standards-free Drudge Report that frequently links to Insight paid any attention to the story.
“So, as usual, (empahasis added) [Kuhner] e-mailed the article to producers at Fox News and MSNBC” whereupon it then got the exposure Kuhner seemed to think it needed on TV, in the print press and on radio
CNN and ABC, already publicizing the story. felt obliged to confirm it given its obvious lack of provenance. On the 22nd of January John Vause of CNN reported from the “maddrassa” that it was in fact and always had been a secular school.
ABC reporters checked with Obama’s political strategist David Axelrod who instead of exploiting the article’s claim by simply saying that it ‘might be possible’ instead said he "did not believe ... for a second" the story's claim against the Clinton camp.
With the “maddrassa” assertion proven false and the Clinton ‘attack by proxy’ unfounded the only source left was Insight’s editor Jeffrey T. Kuhner. But he refused to even name the author and offered nothing to substantiate the story other than to say:
“CNN's claim that Obama attended a multi-confessional, secular public school needs verification by other news outlets -- such as FOX News -- who will look the facts straight on, without a vested ideological interest in downplaying Obama's Muslim heritage.”
At this point much of the media began to distance themselves from the story and thus also neatly ignored their own roles in peddling it. David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times however went searching for the story behind the story—and then studiously ignored his own research.
“In an interview Sunday, Mr. Kuhner, 37, said he still considered the article, which he said was meant to focus on the thinking of the Clinton campaign (emphasis added), to be “solid as solid can be.” But he declined to say whether he had learned the identity of his reporter’s sources, and so perhaps only that reporter knows the origin of the article’s anonymous quotes and assertions” writes Kirkpatrick.
So the story wasn’t investigative journalism; it was an unsubstantiated opinion piece with a political purpose. So what does Kirkpatrick conclude?
“And at the start of a campaign with perhaps a dozen candidates hiring “research directors” to examine one another, the Insight episode may be a sign of what is to come.”
Oddly enough FOX hack John Gibson arrived at a similar though more specific and partisan conclusion on January 22nd –a week before Kirkpatrick’s article:
"Saying Obama attended a madrassa is tying Obama's name to terrorism. And that, my friends, is real political hardball in action…Are Hillary's fingerprints on the story? Doesn't seem so because they can deny these stories with a straight face…My point is simply this: The senator from Illinois is going to get a baptism by fire if he thinks he's going to challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination."
Gibson properly identifies one function of the fake report (to smear Obama) and perpetuates the second function (to smear Clinton) by strongly implying that Clinton will probably engage in such tactics (the tertiary smear of Democrats overall is thus a 'given') .
Gibson actually gives the game away, and what is Kirkpatrick’s revelation?
Not that a right-wing hack of record pushed a propaganda piece onto biased media outlets that ignored professional standards and willingly turned it into national “news”, but that campaign staff in general may increasingly use websites as a back-channel for political dirty tricks!
The facts are that Kuhner could count on FOX to give the story legs and could count on its rival MSNBC to put competition before professionalism. Others followed suit, giving the lies relevance through mere repetition.
And yet even Kirkpatrick (who bothered to apply some professional diligence) misses the real story—which is that right-wing operatives (not left-wing) employed these “dirty tricks” and will continue to do so because they will invariably be abetted by the pseudo-journalists and ignorant pundits that infect today’s MSM--and neither will be held to account.
Of course there will be more to come but it will likely be mostly from the Republicans and the right-wing who have the greatest motivation and the greatest means, thanks to the MSM (this event is just the latest in a long line) that will be sure promote each and every smear the right generates
To quote Mr Kirkpatrick, “as usual”.
The original story was posted at InsightMag.com on January 17th 2007 with this lede: .
"Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama. "
But as Kirkpatrick notes not even the gossipy and often standards-free Drudge Report that frequently links to Insight paid any attention to the story.
“So, as usual, (empahasis added) [Kuhner] e-mailed the article to producers at Fox News and MSNBC” whereupon it then got the exposure Kuhner seemed to think it needed on TV, in the print press and on radio
CNN and ABC, already publicizing the story. felt obliged to confirm it given its obvious lack of provenance. On the 22nd of January John Vause of CNN reported from the “maddrassa” that it was in fact and always had been a secular school.
ABC reporters checked with Obama’s political strategist David Axelrod who instead of exploiting the article’s claim by simply saying that it ‘might be possible’ instead said he "did not believe ... for a second" the story's claim against the Clinton camp.
With the “maddrassa” assertion proven false and the Clinton ‘attack by proxy’ unfounded the only source left was Insight’s editor Jeffrey T. Kuhner. But he refused to even name the author and offered nothing to substantiate the story other than to say:
“CNN's claim that Obama attended a multi-confessional, secular public school needs verification by other news outlets -- such as FOX News -- who will look the facts straight on, without a vested ideological interest in downplaying Obama's Muslim heritage.”
At this point much of the media began to distance themselves from the story and thus also neatly ignored their own roles in peddling it. David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times however went searching for the story behind the story—and then studiously ignored his own research.
“In an interview Sunday, Mr. Kuhner, 37, said he still considered the article, which he said was meant to focus on the thinking of the Clinton campaign (emphasis added), to be “solid as solid can be.” But he declined to say whether he had learned the identity of his reporter’s sources, and so perhaps only that reporter knows the origin of the article’s anonymous quotes and assertions” writes Kirkpatrick.
So the story wasn’t investigative journalism; it was an unsubstantiated opinion piece with a political purpose. So what does Kirkpatrick conclude?
“And at the start of a campaign with perhaps a dozen candidates hiring “research directors” to examine one another, the Insight episode may be a sign of what is to come.”
Oddly enough FOX hack John Gibson arrived at a similar though more specific and partisan conclusion on January 22nd –a week before Kirkpatrick’s article:
"Saying Obama attended a madrassa is tying Obama's name to terrorism. And that, my friends, is real political hardball in action…Are Hillary's fingerprints on the story? Doesn't seem so because they can deny these stories with a straight face…My point is simply this: The senator from Illinois is going to get a baptism by fire if he thinks he's going to challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination."
Gibson properly identifies one function of the fake report (to smear Obama) and perpetuates the second function (to smear Clinton) by strongly implying that Clinton will probably engage in such tactics (the tertiary smear of Democrats overall is thus a 'given') .
Gibson actually gives the game away, and what is Kirkpatrick’s revelation?
Not that a right-wing hack of record pushed a propaganda piece onto biased media outlets that ignored professional standards and willingly turned it into national “news”, but that campaign staff in general may increasingly use websites as a back-channel for political dirty tricks!
The facts are that Kuhner could count on FOX to give the story legs and could count on its rival MSNBC to put competition before professionalism. Others followed suit, giving the lies relevance through mere repetition.
And yet even Kirkpatrick (who bothered to apply some professional diligence) misses the real story—which is that right-wing operatives (not left-wing) employed these “dirty tricks” and will continue to do so because they will invariably be abetted by the pseudo-journalists and ignorant pundits that infect today’s MSM--and neither will be held to account.
Of course there will be more to come but it will likely be mostly from the Republicans and the right-wing who have the greatest motivation and the greatest means, thanks to the MSM (this event is just the latest in a long line) that will be sure promote each and every smear the right generates
To quote Mr Kirkpatrick, “as usual”.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Active Denial System. A Military Metaphor
To perfectly complement the political ‘active denial system’ that Bush and the neocons have been using lo these many years, the US military this week publicly demonstrated its own high-tech hardware-based Active Denial System.
The military ADS focuses skin-penetrating millimeter waves that make a person up to five-hundred yards away feel like they are being cooked.
The whole idea is to disperse gatherings of people who might not like you without charging them down on horseback with drawn sabers or pelting them with rubber bullets, tear gas, water cannon, regular bullets or cluster-bombs.
The director of the ADS development program, Marine Colonel Kirk Hymes thinks that “non-lethal weapons are important for the escalation of force, especially in the environments our forces are operating in”.
Given that the Marines are mostly operating in Iraq and that the ADS won’t be deployed until 2010 (5 years later than originally promised), I can only assume the Colonel anticipates a re-run of the 2006 mid-term elections.
When news of the ADS first surfaced, various civil-rights groups expressed concern that it might be used domestically against peaceful demonstrators to quell political dissent—but of course that would require some kind of fascist sensibility of the government and administration to happen, wouldn’t it? And that’s not what the ADS system is for--says the military.
Instead it is intended to protect our troops from crowds of foreign civilians that may or may not be plotting against our soldiers to prevent them from accomplishing their mission without resorting to lethal means, which is where the real benefit lies--says the military.
After all, what civilian wouldn’t be grateful for being zapped with microwaves rather than being shot or blown up? What soldier wouldn’t be grateful for not having to shoot someone he or she is not certain isn’t actually a civilian? And what politician wouldn’t prefer that a soldier sent into a foreign country to liberate its citizens and establish democracy inflict only momentary pain and discomfort on liberated citizens from 500 yards rather than kill them all and sort everything out later, lest ‘freedom’ prove to be messier than anticipated?
To illustrate how this system would work let us imagine a scenario:
Real US troops have overthrown an evil dictator ‘Sodom’ in the imaginary country of Mesopotaminarnia.
Despite having been greeted with sweets and flowers, the old dictator’s minions plot to repel the noble US forces who have just established sweet, sweet democracy. So the die-hards exploit the new democratic principles they’ve been given and organize a protest march.
The participants proceed to the nearest contingent of the new democratic authority, the US Army, to present their demands and grievances.
The US Army, having been subjected to random attacks from an informal collection of ‘Sodomites’ and with limited communication between the soldiers and the civilians, will be obliged to assume that the protest is just a tactic of the insurgents and might have to resort to lethal response.
However, with the new ADS they could simply ‘zap’ the crowd before they got too close and thus preserve democracy and freedom without killing anyone in the process by persuading them not to assemble or petition authority through the scientific magic of focused millimeter waves!
The US Army, having been subjected to random attacks from an informal collection of ‘Sodomites’ and with limited communication between the soldiers and the civilians, will be obliged to assume that the protest is just a tactic of the insurgents and might have to resort to lethal response.
However, with the new ADS they could simply ‘zap’ the crowd before they got too close and thus preserve democracy and freedom without killing anyone in the process by persuading them not to assemble or petition authority through the scientific magic of focused millimeter waves!
Now let us imagine a real scenario for Colonel Kirk Hymes to ponder:
Several hundred clearly unfriendly locals converge and march towards a US military enclave in an urban area. The US military can’t tell the agitators from the ordinary civilians, but the threat to their authority is clear—the civilians are challenging US military authority. Rather than using deadly force to repel the perceived threat they employ the ADS and dissuade the mob from proceeding.
As an ADS unit is directed against the mob, it begins to disperse. But as the ADS is a Humvee with a 5-foot square vertical slab on top and requires “line of sight” deployment it’s pretty easy to spot. So whilst the $350,000(?) ADS is being concentrated on the mob an auxiliary in a nearby building or a car (that the ADS beam can’t penetrate and isn’t focused-on anyway) can destroy it with an $1,000 RPG or just disable it with a $15 clip of 7.62 mm AK-47 ammo fired at its beam-focusing array.
One Iraq-based soldier said his base was often approached by Iraqis that he suspected were actually reconnoitering in preparation for a future attack and that the ADS would be useful to prevent that sort of thing.
Well, soldier, if that guy approaching your base might be “the enemy” on a recce, why don’t you just fire an 18-cent warning shot instead of waiting 3 years until you can warn him away with a half-million dollar microwave? Or you could kill him, just to be on the safe side—it’s not like you’ll go to jail for it.
According to Global Security the ADS cost $40 million to develop and I can only assume the unit cost would fall somewhere in the $100,000 to $250,000 range (not including the Humvee and assuming KBR isn’t providing it).
Also ADS was commissioned to provide non-lethal troop protection against small-arms fire which is universally reckoned at 1000 yards—the ADS range is actually only half that. Oh, and it has to be a nice day to be effective too. One other thing; apparently the military hasn’t tested it against anyone using a dustbin lid as a shield .
The beam apparently takes 1-2 seconds to have its complete effect (supposedly without residual harm), and the pain disappears immediately when out of the beam (assuming the military isn’t lying about this).
Also ADS was commissioned to provide non-lethal troop protection against small-arms fire which is universally reckoned at 1000 yards—the ADS range is actually only half that. Oh, and it has to be a nice day to be effective too. One other thing; apparently the military hasn’t tested it against anyone using a dustbin lid as a shield .
The beam apparently takes 1-2 seconds to have its complete effect (supposedly without residual harm), and the pain disappears immediately when out of the beam (assuming the military isn’t lying about this).
I’ve found nothing yet on the focus area of the beam which would indicate how many individuals might be targeted at one time, so how big and how spread-out would the hypothetical mob have to be before a single ADS unit would be overwhelmed by the “threat” and the troops have to resort to tear gas or ;ethal force?
The whole supposition of this system is that if an unarmed coordinated mob of a specific size approaches an armed group of soldiers along a direct and restricted path and in plain view then the soldiers can disperse them with the ADS instead of killing them.
As a general rule that kind of activity doesn’t take place in the middle of an internal shooting war, nor when a foreign military occupation serves as the ultimate authority over civic life—because who the hell is going to march in the streets en-masse when just going shopping can get you killed, and who is going to protest en-masse against armed foreign soldiers without the support of an effective civil-rights infrastructure to protect them?
The only circumstance in which ADS can be optimally employed is when civilians engage in urban organized public protest where and when they can have the confidence and the right to do so granted by civil authority, without the potential of significant bodily harm.
Though ADS may well have been sincerely developed as a combat weapon, it is essentially useless in that regard. As a civilian control weapon it holds much more promise.
When you spend tens of millions of dollars on something you thought was a neat idea only to find out it is crap (which if you’d actually thought about it you would have realized long ago), the choice is either to abandon your efforts or re-apply them and that’s much easier to do when the money spent wasn’t your own and the people who approved of your idea are as stupid as you are. Ergo instead of acknowledging your idiotic and wasteful mistake you simply move the goalposts, re-task the project and thereby negate your incompetence. Rinse and repeat.
A public majority has finally challenged the conceptual and civil 'active denial system' of Bush and the Republicans but the system remains and continues to be deployed.
By the same token the physical, military Active Denial System also remains and is intended to be deployed.
Both systems are useless to the public and to the military. Dismantling the political 'active denial system' will take years, but dismantling the ADS need only take days.
Both systems are useless to the public and to the military. Dismantling the political 'active denial system' will take years, but dismantling the ADS need only take days.
All the research conducted could conceivably be redirected to medical and industrial applications that might provide social benefits, given some careful consideration and critical informed imagination.
But that’s never been the hallmark of Bush’s administration, nor the military that has been once again but perhaps more significantly than ever suborned to political rather than military objectives.
The military Active Denial System is a perfect physical complement to the philosophical and “intellectual” political and cynically pragmatic 'active denial system' of the entrenched Republican Party and its current titular chief, President Bush.
Both systems depend on denial of practical reality and sound reason to exist and flourish; the political system succeeded for a time precisely because of denial but though it has finally been proven to be a failure it has yet to be fully excised.
The military Active Denial System is also literally built around denial as I think I’ve already illustrated and it too can be disproved but without ever having to be applied in the real world.
It cannot serve its stated military purpose and its only other possible function is to serve a political purpose—to suppress organized political dissent by the very people who have paid for the system with their tax dollars and will pay a much heavier price should the ADS be allowed to flourish.
As it did with the politicians in the mid term elections the public can and should employ its own active denial system and stop further development and deployment of the ADS--not because of its ironic symbolism but becuase it is an insiduous device and a complete waste of money.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
State of the Union 2007
On September 20th 2001 George Bush addressed the Congress and the nation thusly:
In the normal course of events, Presidents come to this chamber to report on the state of the Union.
Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the American people.
I doubt he’ll use that line this time, what with election results and his approval ratings and all.
In this speech the least hardest-working President in politics revealed his and the nation’s future:
Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated…we will direct every resource at our command…to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.
But rather than draw a comparison to WW II as he and his cohorts have done subsequently, Bush drew on a more recent and more limited example of war;
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion
Indeed, why would the Global War on Terror be like the regional Gulf War? As the public majority has known for at least two years Bush’s declared “global war” was already focused primarily on the territory of Iraq (even before the invasion of Afghanistan) and the swift conclusion of Iraq's ‘liberation’.
In this speech the least hardest-working President in politics revealed his and the nation’s future:
Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated…we will direct every resource at our command…to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.
But rather than draw a comparison to WW II as he and his cohorts have done subsequently, Bush drew on a more recent and more limited example of war;
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion
Indeed, why would the Global War on Terror be like the regional Gulf War? As the public majority has known for at least two years Bush’s declared “global war” was already focused primarily on the territory of Iraq (even before the invasion of Afghanistan) and the swift conclusion of Iraq's ‘liberation’.
But at this time even the best-informed skeptics couldn’t know the true import of this single remark.
Bush, the Republicans and a conservative cabal chose to use the most impressive “irregular” attack in history to launch a war of aggression using the world’s most powerful military against a weak but oil-rich country under false pretenses to satisfy their egos, their bank accounts and their lust for power over America and the world by exploiting like-minded supporters and bullying dissenters; bending all government resources not to preserve and promote freedom for all but to destroy it for all, save for a privileged few.
It is this powerful minority that has chosen to define America in the 21st Century not by the principles of its constitution and its Bill of Rights; not by self-evident truths, nor government of, by and for the people but by a war of aggression and the illegal occupation of a single country, Iraq, for the interests of a self-righteous, self-important and self-serving few.
But in 2007 a majority in America now holds these truths to be self-evident:
"That whenever any Form of Government become destructive to these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Bush, the Republicans and a conservative cabal chose to use the most impressive “irregular” attack in history to launch a war of aggression using the world’s most powerful military against a weak but oil-rich country under false pretenses to satisfy their egos, their bank accounts and their lust for power over America and the world by exploiting like-minded supporters and bullying dissenters; bending all government resources not to preserve and promote freedom for all but to destroy it for all, save for a privileged few.
It is this powerful minority that has chosen to define America in the 21st Century not by the principles of its constitution and its Bill of Rights; not by self-evident truths, nor government of, by and for the people but by a war of aggression and the illegal occupation of a single country, Iraq, for the interests of a self-righteous, self-important and self-serving few.
But in 2007 a majority in America now holds these truths to be self-evident:
"That whenever any Form of Government become destructive to these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
In 2007 absolute "Tyranny over these States" is not being impressed by a King of Great Britain, but by a King in our capitol, George Bush, propped on his throne by legions of courtiers.
The real State of the Union is much as it was at the moment of its inception, and as insurmountable as the power and rule of government appears to be today, it appeared so then when England ruled.
It is not a King nor a single misbegotten adventure that defines the state of a nation, nor the President that defines the State of the Union—it is We, The People.
Just as the Colonies warned the King, so the November elections warned the President—change your policies or we will make our own. Govern according to our needs or we will govern ourselves.
According to the latest Newsweek poll 68% oppose Bush’s escalation of troop deployments to Iraq, his personal approval rating is it 31%, on Iraq is just 32%, and not forgetting the post- election exit polls that showed the majority's major policy concerns were inversely proportional to Republican political priorities.
In 2007 absolute "Tyranny over these States" is not being impressed by a King of Great Britain, but by a King in our capitol, George Bush, propped on his throne by legions of courtiers.
The real State of the Union is much as it was at the moment of its inception, and as insurmountable as the power and rule of government appears to be today, it appeared so then when England ruled.
It is not a King nor a single misbegotten adventure that defines the state of a nation, nor the President that defines the State of the Union—it is We, The People.
Just as the Colonies warned the King, so the November elections warned the President—change your policies or we will make our own. Govern according to our needs or we will govern ourselves.
According to the latest Newsweek poll 68% oppose Bush’s escalation of troop deployments to Iraq, his personal approval rating is it 31%, on Iraq is just 32%, and not forgetting the post- election exit polls that showed the majority's major policy concerns were inversely proportional to Republican political priorities.
So after six year’s of exclusively Republican rule Bush and his cohorts have largely united this nation not behind them but against them. Whatever verbal concessions Bush might make about “mistakes” in his 2007 address, the people have spoken and continue to speak against his policies and his party’s rule.
The State of the Union is a shambles (to put it kindly) not through circumstance but precisely because of his and his Party’s direct ‘governance’.
If there is any reason to listen to Bush’s State of the Union address at this juncture it is not to search for hope in his singular American vision but to confirm once and for all the hope in our collective vision for a united nation, a truly United States of America.
As Bush famously said in his speech that September of 2001, “You’re either with us or against us”.
If there is any reason to listen to Bush’s State of the Union address at this juncture it is not to search for hope in his singular American vision but to confirm once and for all the hope in our collective vision for a united nation, a truly United States of America.
As Bush famously said in his speech that September of 2001, “You’re either with us or against us”.
President Bush has been against ‘us’ for six years now, and now the majority is against him, personally and politically. The only meaningful acknowledgement of that fact would be if he were to announce his resignation.
In essence that is the real State of the Union.
In essence that is the real State of the Union.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
