Posted on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 05:34 — by shays
Okay … all you timid souls who refuse to weigh in on your beloved president’s legacy, let’s take a look at it from a different perspective and see if that doesn’t stir a few of you up to defend stupidity and ignorance (if that is what it is).
So, let’s say you declare a war on drugs in 1971. After 36 years, you would think there might be a victory. Or that at least a few successful benchmarks would have been met. The primary strategy of eliminating the supply by paying large sums of money to train cadres of death squads in drug producing countries who in turn are used by undemocratic dictators to suppress their peasant population (er, drug lords and their followers, I mean) should put some kind of dent in the supply of almost any drug being smuggled into the country, shouldn’t it? Use of defoliants and other chemicals sprayed randomly across the countryside of third world countries ought to reduce production, shouldn’t it? And high profile stings of street dealers and the mass incarceration of three-time offenders so that our jails are filled to overflowing and the penal industry becomes one of the major industries of the country should slow down drug use and dependence, too, shouldn’t it?
Of course, using illegal income obtained by secretly selling weapons to the Ayatollah to pay off Contra leaders by purchasing their cocaine (which then could be resold at huge profit in west coast cities) might have boosted the supply at the same time others were ostensibly trying to reduce it. That might explain the wash. So might the destruction of the Taliban, whose puritanical enforcement policies pretty much dried up the supply of opium, hashish and heroin until we drove them from Afghanistan. I guess the price of freedom in Islamic countries is the restoration of the opium trade.
On a different topic, let’s say you want to declare a war on terrorists. Is it really the best way to defeat them by invading a country where they didn’t exist until after we took out a dictator who had once been our surrogate in the region? Do we provide good models for “democracy†by supporting tyrannical regimes in all the surrounding countries? Do we think concepts like democracy and freedom and self-determination will be advanced when we assassinate democratically elected leaders and replace them with monarchs or generals? Do we think the monarchs or generals will ultimately find a way to lead their people to freedom when they are encouraged to use tyrannical secret police trained by our own CIA to oppress any opposition (real or imagined)? Does bombing Baghdad or invading Iraq do a thing to track down and bring to justice the people who perpetrated 9/11?
Either our leaders since 1971 have been incredibly incompetent, choosing exactly the wrong strategies to address the problems of drug abuse or terrorism … or they are extremely competent and are accomplishing exactly what they have set out to accomplish. If you believe the first option, you are a fool to have fallen for the arrogance and the lies put forth by those incompetents (and even more foolish if you find yourself defending their failures). If you believe the latter, you are one of those kooks who believes in conspiracies.
So … which is it?
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
I sort of opt for the latter option. I am not sure there is a "grand strategy" at work, with a centralized nexus of power directing us toward some future heaven or hell. But there most definitely <i>are</i> powerful, hidden, and covert groups working to influence and direct events. As in any human social endeavor, there are groups in competition with one another to exert that influence and to have more influence than the others; just as likely, there are factions within the groups that compete with one another for fulfillment of their own unique vision of the larger vision their group wants. And at all times, the boundaries between competing groups are fluid ... sometimes their goals and objectives are in alignment, and they can cooperate with one another; other times, they betray one another and commit all the Acts once envisioned and described by William Shakespeare throughout his incredible panoply of works.
They are human. They are not infallible. The humans with whom they deal -- individually and in groups -- are unpredictable and don't always follow the script. Additionally, there are outside, uncontrollable variables that set the best laid plans awry.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 74
Bush will be viewed as one of, if not THE worst presidents in U.S. history...Certainly the worst in the last 100 years.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Agreed ...
... but don't write him off as a "goner" just yet.
I was alive and politically active during the Nixon Presidency. I witnessed agents provocateur throw bricks and rocks in order to turn a loud and raucous -- but otherwise peaceful -- demonstrations into police riots. I know that J. Edgar Hoover attempted to blackmail political opponents, and had the more disagreeable ones assassinated. The President's team was listening in on political opponents. Violence and rumors of massive disruption of the electoral process were rife, with the end result that Nixon would declare martial law, cancel the elections, and seize power. 18.5 minutes of silence on an audiotape was his undoing. Beware of those more skilled than Ehrlichman and Haldeman.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 74
"Beware of those more skilled than Ehrlichman and Haldeman."
You mean like Rove and Cheney?
I was also around during the Nixon years. He was screwed up in so many ways, but he was still much more politically savvy than GWB, who is simply a moron and puppet controlled by others.
Agree with you about Hoover. Scary a man like that could have so much power, for so many years. Remember when he tried to blackmail MLK with tapes of him having affairs? I've read he was threatening to expose him, and hoped he would commit suicide. He was convinced everyone was a communist, including MLK.
btw-read many of your posts- you're an impressive writer. Keep it up.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Thank you ... btw, I saw that someone is trolling this forlorn little message thread in order to score posters with whom they disagree a "one". I gave you a five to lift your "score" to a three. But isn't this just a clear indicator of how pathetic and bitter some people lurking on this message board really are?
I am still of a torn mind. Yes ... there are folks out there warning us that Bush intends to stage a coup. Evidence gives credence to their claim, but it does seem a bit fanciful and paranoid. It did at the time of Nixon. However, just seeing the few things I saw gave me good solid reason to pause and be diligent. Thank goodness for honorable CONSERVATIVES like John Dean, and for that missing 18.5 minutes of tape that Nixon refused to turn over. Perhaps, even if we don't find the smoking gun to actually run the current abusers of power from the White House, the fact that people are crying "foul" will hold their feet close enough to the fire that they will not try it.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 74
Yes, I've noticed the "one" vote for many of my postings. Doesn't bother me but thanks for your vote. I did the same.
True conservatives don't bother me at all. As a matter of fact, I loved seeing M.Huckabee win in Iowa. He's probably a bit too conservative for me to vote for him, but he seems like a decent man.
I saw an interview last night with R.Limbaugh- apparently he does not like Huckabee. This just causes me to like him more since I can't stand loudmouth morons like Limbaugh.
I also loved seeing Obama win. IMO, it shows that people on both sides are fed up with the norm and want something different. It should be an interesting election.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Mr. Huckabee, despite his southern baptist credentials and his evangelical appeal, is much too populist an economist for mainstream Republican wonks to accept him. Mark my words ... if he keeps talking about reigning in the big corporations, someone is going to find a h**ker in his closet or a gay boy in his hotel room.
Ron Paul is much more classically conservative than any of the other Republican candidates. It really amazes me that the party of conservatism has to find a "qualified" conservative candidate, and laughs Paul off the stage.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 74
Agree with your comments on Huckabee. He seems to be a social conservative, but seems to truly care about the middle-class, as opposed to caring about big-business, and corporations.
I think he has a chance to succeed with his charm and populist message. He seems very comfortable in his own skin, if you know what I mean. And yes, I think he is truly scaring the crap out of some in the GOP.
I'm already seeing some of the TV/Radio talking heads taking shots at him. I'm sure more will come, but he could use that to his advantage if he plays it properly.
Also agree with you about R.Paul. He's probably the only true conservative, but people just label him a crackpot. Fact is he strongly believes in the Constitution and bases most of his beliefs and principles on it.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
Bush appears to be the worst President only because he is an operative (mole) for corporate interest and signs bills into law that represent corporate elitist goals and values to the detriment of the population both here and abroad. The fact is he does what his handlers tell him to do. His job was to garner back the power of the President seizing it away from Congress and the Courts so that the future Presidents will have a clear field to do the bidding of the corporate interests as stated in the goals of The Project for a New American Century co authored by Grover Norquist who stated that he wants to shrink government down to the size that it can be drowned in a bathtub. The way to do this is to bankrupt it which the neocons are doing very well thank you. If you think there is hope of America ever regaining its stature and wealth by drinking the Kool-Aid of Hillary or Obama I’m afraid we are all going to be very disappointed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#Minimizing_government_power
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
I disagree only slightly with your interpretation. I think Bush is the worst President ever because he confuses the interests of a narrow elite with those of everyone else, thinking that what is good for those who control capital and resources is good for all. To satisfy the interests of the elite means to disregard the interests (and rights) of most Americans. Because the end goal is good, whatever steps are taken to get there are justifiable. Such total disregard for established processes leads to arrogance and calculating coldness. Moral, legal, financial, and institutional corruption follows ... it's okay to consider only the evidence supporting our conclusion; it's okay to doctor the evidence and leave out the "irrelevant" (though contradictory) stuff; our opinions override the science and the data; our friends are the only ones who can get things done quickly and as we want them done; our need to know supercedes anyone's right to privacy; expediency outweighs legitimacy; cash does not need to change hands because rewards come after the act is over.
I continue to be astounded at the blatant expression of this cold arrogance which summarized, in one word, this President's regard for his role and his relation to the people who live in this country. He didn't say it. His Vice President, Richard "Darth Vader" Cheney, did. I have quoted it before, and even started an entire thread about it. It is the best expression of this President's legacy that anyone could make. When reminded that 2/3 of the American people wanted America to get out of Iraq, Vice President Cheney said ...
"So?"
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
Dick Cheney’s response is equivalent to Bush’s statement before the invasion of Iraq when millions were demonstrating against the unstoppable war his remark was “I don’t listen to focus groups”.
Who could disagree with your statement that Bush is confused but I think the global warpath that this administration is taking us on is not confused. To the contrary they have a plan that may not be enlightened and incredibly misguided but in no way are these people confused. If confusion reigns it is with the American people being bamboozled into thinking that this national security state and the corporate ruling class is itself America. We forget that the people in the Whitehouse are the same Contra narco-trafficers that were convicted and pardon by Reagan during the Contra-gate era when cocaine was being transported into the United States by US military aircraft to finance a war that Congress specifically made illegal and refused to fund. Everything this war state does whether bombing Iraq or funding despot dictators to enhance the theft of resources from their countries it does so in the name of democracy and freedom and this is where the confusion comes in. We believe that giving a free hand to corporations to exploit the worlds’ labor markets and resources is the face of Democracy and that unlimited accumulation of private wealth is the highest moral value that man can aspire to and therefore encompasses the entirety of American principles.
If one agrees with this administration’s policies that include war without end and the killing of millions of people to achieve the goal of global corporate dominance they are considered as being objective. If one is against such a plan they are confused and bias. Nowhere in the debates between the candidates is there a moral issue of waging war being discussed, only the damage done to our economy because the war has gone on for so long with no end in sight. You cannot stick a ten thousandths shim between the candidates differences as to what is to be done with Iraq. Everyone agrees that the US will remain in Iraq until the free market globalizers bring Democracy and American values to those poor lost souls even if it kills them.
If you have time I would encourage you to listen to this fifty-two minute lecture concerning the rule group mind by John McMurtry an ethicist based in Canada. On the other hand if reading is more to your liking I will include another link as well that basically states the same thing i.e. the principles of the ruling group mind after 911 that has allowed the US to commit crimes that the WW2 principals involved in Nazi aggressions were hanged for at Nuremberg.
The lecture: http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=25483
The text: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MCM305A.html
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Right now I do not have time to listen to and/or read something that I might have been able to write myself. We have lots of "Good Americans" on this board ... and they represent hundreds of thousands of other "Good Americans" across this country. These are people who are comfortable in their lives ... not always for the same reasons, and certainly not possessing the same degrees of "comfortableness" ... and who in all good faith cannot understand why everyone else is not as comfortable as they are. These are not "bad" or "evil" or even "corrupt" people. For the most part, they have worked hard for what they have, they share willingly with others less fortunate than themselves, they volunteer time to help out as they can afford it, and they stand for family, community and national values that are extremely important to them.
Unfortunately, everywhere they look they see dangers and threats to the things that make them comfortable. For one, there are really bad people out there (at home and abroad) who don't like what they stand for and intend to be really bad, violent things. They call us names and spit at the things we value. They attacked us, for gosh sakes. So we have to take care of that threat. And, because they are dangerous and ruthless people who take advantage of the things we have (and our way of life) to plan and plot against us, and because they will stoop to anything to hurt us where it hurts us the most (and don't believe in any of the rules of combat in which we believe), we need to sacrifice some of the liberties we used to take for granted in our effort to combat and stop them. Secondly, we have worked hard to achieve the standard of living we enjoy, and there are people everywhere trying to take it away from us (whether it is rich sheiks hoarding valuable resources -- and possibly supporting terrorists behind their backs, communists in third world countries, environmentalists screaming that we are destroying the planet, or whatever). Finally (though not lastly), they cannot afford to buy a new car but know for sure that the drug dealer in the next block drives by the house every night in his new Escalade, boom-box blasting to let them know he is there; they don't get the promotions they deserve, but are passed over for the younger, less experienced and darker-skinned peers that don't know squat; and they cannot find a channel on the television or a station on the radio that is not bombarding them with loud, crass, vulgar and at times obscene messages and images.
The world is a vulgar place these days ... the stuff that you used to have to leave your house and scout around to find comes at you 24-7; yes, boys and girls: prostitutes, drugs, scam-artists, thrill-rides, death and violence have always lurked in the back alleys and the piers of this country, in the bars, on the other side of the tracks or in "that" part of town ... but you had to work to find it, and if you wanted to avoid it, that wasn't very hard to do. It is much more difficult to establish an idyllic environment anymore.
So ... when someone promises security, safety, protection, and peace ... well, many people aren't going to ask "at what price"?
In the mid-1930's, most good Germans were good people. But the German economy was in the tank, jobs were hard to find, national pride was broken and wounded on all sides, the whole world seemed out to "get" Germany and Germans. Rights did not disappear over night. They crumbled slowly (and not all people lost them), and each dent was justifiable, understandable, necessary.
The leaders of Germany had a different plan than the one they made public. The plan made public was palatable, understandable, temporary (until things right themselves again). The anger and the blame did not manifest itself until earlier, preliminary steps had been taken to soften the blow and make it more excusable. Madness takes many forms ... sometimes it is overt, but at other times its presence does not reveal itself until too late. Let's hope we wake up, as a people, before we calmly stroll down the path to our own enslavement ... and may we have the vision capable of recognizing when we are enslaving other people, even if they "deserve" it.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
Indeed you have the literary skills to have written the article I posted. The question remains however to what depth have you or anyone on this forum thought as to the 911 events being used as a pretext by the neocons to further their goals of world and economic dominance not for the United States but for their own private wealth and power. Since everything that we are doing at this point in time and how we think hinges on the World Trade Center attacks, the actions of our leaders on that day and why the attacks were allowed to happen by the military is crucial. Remembering that it was seventy minutes after the first plane went off course and seventeen minutes between the first and the second tower being hit and nowhere in sight were there any military jets until after the twin towers and the Pentagon where hit. Normally if a plane strays from its course the military sends up a jet within ten minutes to make eye contact with the pilot. Why was that not done on that day?
Yes there really are bad people out there that would love to destroy our freedoms but you have to question our leaderships complicity in allowing them to achieve that goal. I know there are all kinds of conspiracy theories concerning the felling of the buildings but the fact that it happened and why it could happen is where my questioning begins. Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon was allowed to do so because Dick Cheney ordered the military interceptor jets to stand down thus allowing the event to happen. I would like to know what motivated him to give that stand down order. We can protect ourselves with our lives the enemy beyond our borders but God help us if the enemy is within.
I can imagine that Nazi Germany had dissenters concerning Hitler’s action just as there are dissenters in America concerning Bush in his actions of invading foreign lands and the killing and torturing of peoples that had nothing to do with 911. The difference is that the world stopped Hitler, who will stop us, only we can do that, the question is will we?
Fear is a terrible emotion and suspends all rationale. Until we as a people know what really happened on September 11, 2001 we will remain in its grip feeling justified at whatever destructions we incur on other civilizations anywhere on this planet and will continue to view our leadership and their decisions as sagacious defenders of our freedoms while they rip apart the Bill of Rights and cast it at our compliant feet.
Animated map of the sequence of events: http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/9_11sequenceofevents/flash.htm
Cheney’s stand down order revisited: http://www.prisonplanet.com/911/norad.htm
The end or perhaps just the beginning of the end.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I have to admit that there are an incredible number of unanswered questions about 9/11 that the 9/11 Commission did not address. This is another reason that hearings into criminal neglect, criminal intent, and/or abuse of power must continue.
I must admit I have heard and read quite a few amazing theories about what really happened on 9/11. The fact that 20 foreigners with disparate (and some criminal) backgrounds could assemble in this country and carry out such an elaborate scheme is, the more you think about it, almost impossible without incredible layers of mismanagement and laissez-faire security oversight (and I use the term because of its extremely ironic applicability). We know that this administration discounted anything and everything that carryovers from the Clinton administration told them, in itself hearty arrogance but more patently blind foolishness. We also know that this administration -- ever quick to find the slimmest scrap of useful information in intelligence reports that supported its desires to fight someone -- missed one of the most blatant intelligence reports to cross its desk (Bin Laden determined to attack in U.S.). We have heard about the drone attacks, the planted explosives in Building 7, the military exercises that were taking place, etc. etc. But this is the first I have heard that Darth Vader himself was directing some of those operations, and personally ordered a NORAD officer to allow Flight #77 to continue on its merry way ... directly into the Pentagon ... even after the other two aircraft had already slammed into the Twin Towers. Such dereliction of duty seems unconscionable to me, if nothing else!
What I found even more surprising in the prisonplanet link you provided (down at the very bottom) ... the person who pressed hardest while the VP testified to Congress about his actions was Cynthia McKinney!!! Gee ... guess what happened to her?
Have you heard what Michael Mukasey tried to do the other day (March 27, to be precise)? While speaking before the gloriously open-minded Commonwealth Club of San Francisco about the need for Congress to get with it and give the President a tough FISA law expanding his surveillance powers and providing amnesty to the telecom giants who found a way to give him what he wanted without the need for a warrant, he introduced a brand new smoking gun that had never seen the light of day until that moment. Get ready, this is a big one:
According to Mukasey, we need to be able to eavesdrop on anyone without a warrant so we can prevent some guy in Iraq from calling somone here and giving the order to do something bad ... just like a call came from an al-Qaeda safehouse in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 and we couldn't do anything about it.
Say what?
The Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, asserts that no such call was ever mentioned during testimony to the Commission. Why are we only now hearing about this call? And what does Mukasey mean? Prior to 9/11, FISA permitted interception of calls from overseas to the US without a warrant. Even if the Bush administration misunderstood the law, agents still had access to the 72-hour emergency warrant provision ... they could have tapped that phone for 3 whole days before needing to ask for a warrant. So is Mukasey telling us that the government knew about a call describing a terrorist attack, but didn't follow up on it? What type of responsible action is that? Or is he telling us he knows about the call because we DID follow-up on it, but just didn't do anything about it? That lends itself to support your contention that 9/11 was a set-up job!
But what if he is just lying, in order to create a false dichotomy and pressure Congress into passing a scary power-grab law for the President? Can the Attorney General of the US be allowed to do such stuff?
I will save his telecom immunity comments for a different topic. Look for it. But keep this in mind ... whether planned or assisted by folks within the administration, or merely flubbed badly by wannabe "tough guys"; that attack is the pretext they used to launch the needless invasion of Iraq and put us on the edge of social & economic disintegration.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
I assure you that Dick Cheney can act unconscionably as in nearly blowing the head off of his hunting partner. However I believe on that day he allowed the losing of life and property to happen at the Pentagon, it was totally within his purview of consciousness or lack thereof to do so. The people (Presidential advisers and planers) that are in control allowed 911 to happen knowing from Clinton’s transition team that it would happen, and after all George Tenet was running around with his ‘hair on fire’ warning of an al Qaeda attack in summer of 2001. Dick Cheney by giving the stand down order simply shored up Flight 77 in its success of destruction. His actions help set the stage for the two front invasion and murder of innocent civilians that had been planned for several years but simply needed a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ to initiate. http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america...
If by laissez-fair security you mean the hiring of corporate armies to invade domestic arenas like New Orleans or a foreign theater such as Iraq where a plethora if information concerning the mass murder of civilians goes uninvestigated; the few that do get investigated, the investigators are under the battlefield protection of the investigated; how objective now can the investigators be? Anyway the Justice Dept. is in charge of the mercenaries and for now they are unrestricted by any laws that might prosecute them of criminal conduct, this is indeed the reality. There was a ‘Winter Soldier 2008’ meeting where returning soldiers confessed and narrated with pictures and movies of what is gong on in Iraq concerning war crimes that they as well as others committed. This can only be done with immunity from prosecution. Our laissez-fair security forces can do anything they wish without fear of prosecution anywhere on the planet. After Ollie North was allowed immunity to testify as to the conduct of the US in its involvement in Nicaragua it became the precedent that allows quasi military members to testify as to what they have done no matter how heinous.
I listen to the Commonwealth Club lectures on a regular basis because it is a forum where even the secretive will attend and speak. I listened to Mukasey as he droned on about the successes of the Justice Dept. ad nauseam. One thing you have to say about this gang in the Presidency they all march in lock step. When they speak of failure it is always with the caveat that their hands were tied and that they need more freedom to deprive us of ours.
As for the 911 Commission I still wonder as to whether it was set up as an investigative body or just a ruse to enable the enactment of laws that give the secretive state more power to be even more secretive by way of the Commissions recommendations. I am not so much concerned with the questions they asked and the witnesses summoned as I am with the questions that were not asked and the witnesses not summoned. Not one question asked why 911 occurred nor were the people in the building at the time of the event summoned who spoke of the rapid fire explosions that were heard nor was the subject of Building 7 in its collapse hours later even mentioned. Anyway Lee Hamilton the Chair of the 911 Commission has written a book about questions never asked at the hearings. You might be surprised at the reasons for not asking them. http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=9502
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
I am surprised by nothing ... I was only 15 years old in 1963, but I watched Jack Ruby murder Lee Harvey Oswald on live television (and described the shooter in great ... and accurate ... detail to my parents immediately after the event and while everyone was wondering what had just happened) and even then knew there was more to it than a single gun man. While I am loathe to find conspiracies (and conspirators) under every bed, I also am no fool and realize we have never been told the truth about much of anything that really matters. I suspect the same can be said for the assassinations of Julius Caesar, Czar Nicholas, or any other major political leader who has been rubbed out since the beginning of time. Human beings are vicious little critters ... we are not cute and cuddly. No animal is. But unlike our close cousins in the animal kingdom, we have the capacity to think about what we have done (or wish to do ... i.e., premeditate), construct a rationale for the importance of doing it (or construct fabrications), or dwell upon it long after the fact. We also possess the capacity to control our actions, find solutions to our problems, and to forgive those who trespass against us.
Some acts of commission can never be forgiven. A lot of mistakes can ... or at least understood. I need more evidence before I make a decision about this administration's role (on non-role) in 9/11. It has done plenty of stuff that I know about to make me want to charge them with high crimes and misdemeanors, run them before a panel of peers to assess the degree of their guilt, and then punish them as severely and without remorse as is necessary to make the point that no one does that in a democracy and gets away with it.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
The President can now accept two more feathers for his (dunce) cap:
---> (1) His government has exercised a hidden clause in Legislation authorizing military aid to Egypt. $100 million has been held up for over a year because the Egyptian government refused to comply with agreements it reached with Condi and GW to "liberalize" and "democratize" Egypt and release a list of political prisoners, stop abusing prisoners, and stop oppressing its citizens. Also tied into the agreement was the fact that Egypt would take stronger measures to prevent the smuggling of arms into Gaza to support HAMAS and other rebel Palestinian groups. Yesterday, in a quiet ceremony in Cairo, Condi stood by President Mubarek as the $100 million was given to the Egpyian president. Were the conditions met? No! But, as the President says, sometimes you have to forego want you want to sustain a good working relationship. So, my question returns to a common theme ... why are some dictators Bad Dictators, whom we must overthrow and then add five years of military assistance for cleaning up the mess (some will argue that we are still trying to clean up the mess we made in Iran in 1953, a mere fifty-five years of cleaning up), while others are Good Dictators whom we can praise for "fighting the good fight" or "promising to restore democracy ... someday".
---> (2) For the first time in the history of this nation, Congress has been forced to file a lawsuit against the Administration in order to get two Presidential advisors to honor a subpoena. All they had to do, of course, was show up at the hearings and testify, claiming Executive Privilege or even the 5th Amendment as the reason they could not (or would not) answer a question. No, siree! This President is not about cooperation and working things out ... he is deliberatively confrontational and in your face. About everything.
---> IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
I agree with your views in general however there is a point with which I disagree unless of course it was said in jest; the part about Hamas being a rebel organization. Might I remind you as well as others that Hamas is the legally democratically elect government of Palestine in both Gaza and the West Bank and any reference to Hamas as being a rebel or terrorist group fails in the light of day. Jimmy Carter oversaw the election between Hamas (the resistance) and Fatah (the existing government) and considered the results closer to being the will of the people than even our own Presidential election. Hamas won and whatever purpose might be served by calling them rebels does not serve the purpose of democracy either in fact or theory. Hamas is the elected government by the Palestinian people and whether the US or Israel likes it or not no amount of misspeak will change that fact.
One might ask then why Hamas is considered an outlaw organization by the West. The reason they are deemed as the bad guys is because they resist Israel in its occupation, theft and settlement of Palestinian land. Anything outside of our government’s views concerning Israel or Israel’s views concerning Israel is deemed rebellious and terroristic.
What we have here is a dispute. The jest of this dispute goes something like this: I want to take your land from you and you refuse to give up your land; we now have what is referred to as disputed land. As long as semantics prevail as a tool overriding truth propagandist will continue to persuade us and others in America and I might add Israel that stealing land is a virtue and the resisters are rebels. Until this deception is exposed we will only be duped into a lie that says the problem has been going on for a thousand years and that somehow the Jews have a right to Palestinian land which exceeds all others. The Jews have Israel, let the Palestinians have Palestine that’s all there is to it. Anything else that might be added to the mix in the way of neo factual rewrite in which Israel has some sort of dispute over land rights in Palestine is pure balderdash.
I can’t leave it at that: For the entire existence of the Palestinian resistance to the occupation of Palestine by Israel the PLO leadership of Arafat has been one disastrous giveaway of land rights to Israel after another for which the Palestinians can no longer afford nor contend with in ‘agreements’. Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) was Arafat’s right hand lieutenant. When Arafat died Abu Mazen became the elected Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority party in an election that was so thoroughly disrupted by Israel’s military roadblocks and checkpoints and the jailing of candidates that people simply stayed home and did not vote. This is the same Authority that the Palestinian people rejected when voting for the Hamas party in January of 2006. The Palestinians are weary unto death of Israeli occupation and want a government that will push back at Israel’s land theft. They know that Mahmoud Abbas offers nothing more than capitulation to Israel's demands that Palestine have a ‘hands off’ policy concerning anything that Israel does in Palestine. The fact that the US has sent Fatah millions of dollars worth of arms to stir the civil unrest in Gaza proves that Abu Mazen is the perfect stooge for Israel’s bidding and that the US finances rogue states in the name of democracy much like it did in Nicaragua when financing the Contra anti government forces.
The idea that a country (Israel) can control another country (Palestine) is a concept that goes back to the age of English conquests. The idea that we as a Democracy would abide in such land theft is a concept that goes beyond comprehension.
A thief is a thief and a murderer is a murderer and no amount of deceptive wordspeak by US corporate media will change the fact that in Palestine Israel is both. Nothing will change the fact that Hamas is the elected government by the people in Palestine in spite of Israeli control and US funding of the Fatah party and its conciliatory head.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
I agree with you. One person's "liberation movement" is another person's "rebellion".
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
Thanks for indulging my little diatribe on Palestine and its political conundrum. It just stirs me up what's going on over there in the name of un-resolvability which could be resolved in a heartbeat if Americans looked at that situation through something other than apathy, much the same way they view any events that are off our shores in foreign lands.
I guess everyone really has left this board; even Clayton isn’t here to monitor my rants on the military and political activities of Israel in its freedom reduction and elimination plan for Palestine.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Oh, Clayton is here ... but I am not sure that it is the same persona. Usually somewhat respectful of other people, this Clayton launched into a personal ad hominem attack on me in a different topic that was extremely uncharacteristic and uncalled for. Since then, Clayton refuses to engage any of my posts ... also somewhat uncharacteristic. But get this! Ohso actually responded to a message I posted (didn't respond in the correct place), and then followed that up with a REAL post in the right place that almost was in English!
But you are correct ... this is becoming more of a chore than it is worth.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
Your saying that Clayton may come as a different persona just adds to my own belief that out there somewhere (and it looks like we are down to no more than five as far as I can tell) lies the ghost of the misguided inquisitor The Great Clayton; King of the Jews.
It’s a shame that some fall away into the neverland of personal comfort free of truth and are guided only by self interest to the exclusion of all others while at the same time scorning those that might give a dam about the crap going on concerning living in a rogue state and its malfeasance to humanity in the name of freedom and democracy.
Freedom and Democracy feels wonderfully American. Is there a difference between the two words that serves any purpose other than doubling the impact of saying them together while proudly claiming to have both?
If the rightwing has left the room there is always the option of giving them a beating in effigy, telling them how shameful it is that America will sacrifice its children to again be suckered into a war that was elected by the rich and powerful banking interest and that Democracy is the ruse used from the beginning of modern wars based in the American memory of the Civil War and the freedom of Blacks from slavery. The truth is we have come a long way baby from being a nation of statesmen and scallywags to a nation that no long host statesmen but there are plenty of scallywags of which Bush and Clayton are included having no real beliefs of their own but simply feeding on the controversy possible within the beliefs and disagreements of others.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Don't know about all that, but I do know that the Ponzi Scheme initiated by Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan has morphed into the globalized credit system that threatens to collapse before the current scalawags can scurry away to the safety of Crawford and Wyoming, UNLESS (and this is why the suckers need to be busy fighting their impeachment) they can start up another war complete with all the fear and adrenaline they sadly and incorrectly think warfare pumps into their dying financial system. The hounds of war against Iran are howling louder and louder ... and if we head down that road, then we can kiss just about everything goodbye.
And no one can say they weren't warned (though an awful lot say that these days about the phony-baloney days leading up to the invasion of Iraq ... they have total amnesia about the dire warnings about what a mistake invading Iraq would be, but which were muffled by the drums of war and the mad-dog mouth frothers whipping up the fever pitch necessary to sell it).
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 16
The palestinians deserve all of the grief they have, and more.
Your continued attempts at revisionist history and fallacious "facts" convince and sway no one but yourself.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_expulsion_libel_1948_arab.htm... An excerpt: The war was begun not by Israel, but by the Palestinian Arab leaders and by the governments of the Arab states, in an effort not only to strangle the infant Jewish state in its crib, but also to exterminate its Jewish inhabitants. The Palestinian and other Arab leaders were quite frank about having begun the war. Jamal Husseini, the Acting Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine, told the United Nations Security Council on April 16, 1948:
The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.
Ismayil Safwat, one of the commanders of the Palestinian Arab guerilla-terrorists, admitted in March, 1948 that:
"The Jews haven't attacked any Arab village, unless attacked first."
Nor did the Palestinian and other Arab leaders make any attempt to conceal their genocidal objectives. The supreme Palestinian Arab leader, Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem , exhorted his followers over Radio Cairo,
"I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!"
Other Palestinian leaders made similar pronouncements. As for the objectives of the Arab states' invasion of Palestine-Israel, they were expressed clearly enough by the Secretary General of the League of Arab States. According to a report in The New York Time son May 16, 1948,
"On the day that Israel declared its independence, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, at Cairo press conference declared "jihad", a holy war. He said that the Arab states rejected partition and would set up a "United State of Palestine." Pasha added: ‘This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.' "
============
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
It must be really sweet to have an all-encompassing and perfectly correct view of everything.
The palestinians deserve all of the grief they have, and more.
Personally, I don't think anyone deserves any of the grief being waged over there, and we should all be doing double back-bends to find a way to secure peace. "Realists" tell you there can never be peace between religious fanatics, and perhaps they are correct ... so maybe if we just outlawed all the various gods that people worship, they'd stop fighting over whose is Number One! Nah ... on second thought, anyone who would be willing to kill someone else just to prove that their god is Supreme would only find some other pointless cause over which to fight.
Oh yeah ... since this is a thread about the Bush Legacy, and I like to connect random thoughts to that thread as often as possible, let's talk about the Bush Legacy in terms of bringing peace to the Middle East. I'd say he is batting zero.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
Hamas is the sole provider of food clothing education jobs and medical care for the Palestinians in Gaza, that’s why they were voted in by the people as the sole representatives of their cause. As in any government there is the political side and the military side which may not always agree as to how a fight is to be fought or a goal is to be realized.
One thing is for sure; until Israel comes to grips with the fact the Palestinians are not going to leave Palestine and simply want to have a nice life free from Israel’s cruel and inhuman occupation, Israel will continue to be attacked and will never be totally safe no matter how many walls they build or leaders they murder with drone fighter planes or children they kill with sniper bullets while going to school or sitting in their classrooms.
I enjoyed the pure blarney brought to us by your website American rethinker. It’s wonderful to remember history as one wants as opposed to knowing it the way it really happed. The fact that 750,000 civilians being attacked by British and Israeli military simply made a free will decision to leave their beautiful homeland and go into the desert to become refugees is so preposterous as to be amusing, which I find you to be as well.
I find the propagandist that deny the Nakba even more despicable than those that deny the Holocaust because Palestine is still living under that particular lie brought to us by equally disgusting so called historians that received their PhD’s in Tel Aviv. http://www.alnakba.org/
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Well, I lean towards agreement with you ... as right as it may have been to promise and offer a "homeland" to Jewish people, someone somewhere must have realized that there were already people living there who were going to have some problems with people coming in and squatting on their property. I would like to see what all the Unnamed Sources and People in Clayton would have to say if someone arbitrarily decided that displaced California Native peoples should be given back their traditional lands and those currently living there would have to find a way to live in peace and harmony with them. By giving up their homes and their property. And going somewhere else to live. And having the full force of the United States military leveled against them if they decided that somehow their rights were being violated and refused to leave, or decided that it was their prerogative to "fight back".
As to the "American Thinker" ... it is a shell in the vast network of right wing propagandists that feed one another their talking points so it looks like "intelligent" points of view are being shared from multiple sources simultaneously. But that's okay. People who swallow that cr*p think the left wing is just as well organized and plotting the overthrow of everything they value.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 16
"someone somewhere must have realized that there were already people living there who were going to have some problems with people coming in and squatting on their property."
Didn't happen. More of your lies and revisionist history. No wonder you love warhater so much.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Didn't happen. More of your lies and revisionist history. No wonder you love warhater so much.
Are you trying to tell me that you don't think anyone stopped for a minute to recognize that there were people already living in Palestine? Are you trying to tell me that you actually believe that the first Jews arriving in Palestine thought they were entering something similar to the American frontier ... land that no one already claimed (of course, we Americans were wrong, too) ... and that there would be no opposition to them setting up shop and settling down? I mean, history is always being revised and reinterpreted, so I have no qualms with what you thought and probably intended to be an insult ... but you! You just make stuff up.
As to "loving" warhater, you're barking up the wrong tree. I love my wife. I love my dad. I love a lot of my co-workers. I do not "love" warhater. I agree with a lot of what he says and sometimes take sides with him to let others know that he is not alone in holding many of the ideas he expresses. Ask him ... he and I have exchanged a few heated words over the past couple of years, on occasion. But then, I don't expect too much more from you than junior high-school levels of insult.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
I wonder how much money and misery could have been saved by Israel and the US that supports Israel’s military if instead of taking Palestinian land by force had decided to purchase Palestinian land from its owners. The very idea of stealing land by military force supported by the US and not getting resistance from the owners of that land is in itself preposterous.
The Right talks about Katusha rockets and suicide bombers and whatever else that would place the Palestinians as the guilty party in scuttling the ‘peace talks’ as though the violence is the problem and not the result of the problem. Land theft and occupation is the problem which is never discussed. The Right has always been able to debate any subject while at the same time ignoring the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room and anyone wishing to discuss the gorilla is dismissed as an idiot that needs to get educated on the issue; the issue being that Palestinians are terrorist and it never gets beyond that level because to go in-depth into an issue violates their ideology of institutionalizing the insanity of a military solution to all of the worlds problems.
When you start hearing the Right speak of compensation for the stolen land and the right of return to those Palestinians driven off their land then you will know that the issues necessary for peace are being addressed with an eye toward real peace and not this dog and pony show being trotted out as peace talks that can never bring peace to Israel because it does not address the underlying reasons for the conflict.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Even if incursions into the West Bank would stop, that would help. I am not sure that "compensation" is on the table. Usually you purchase land before you inhabit it. Seizing land always opens you up to future problems (think how long Germans stewed over land stolen from them after WWI ... never-minding that some ancient maybe-German relative had stolen it in the first place; think how long many land deals have festered and steamed because someone originally stole it from someone else).
One day it won't matter any more. We'll either all be gone, only a few of us will be surviving in LOTS of spare territory, or we will all live in one land run by one government and figure out either how to enjoy it or at least survive in it while we continue to moan and b*tch.
THAT'S a seldom mentioned but very common human trait.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
Indeed compensation is at best only a talking point from which to launch an ideal of a just peace and not really an achievable goal. I ‘m not sure if any goal that would achieve peace is even possible within the confines of a world dominated by the Arms industry’s’ purview of influence in the political and media arena. It would appear that peace is off the table and only those that serve the masters of conflict rule the American and Israeli mind.
It’s more than incursions (invasions) into the West Bank; it is what Israel is doing as I write this post. The UN has just declared that they are unable to deliver food into Gaza because of Israel preventing them. The Roman’s the Nazis the Americans the Israelis, what’s the difference, Pol Pot?
On your point of not mattering any more after we are gone you have to ask yourself: Does it matter if a person is tortured to death after they have died? Yes it does matter if we are to call ourselves human f-ing beings.
I see you have no-name hot on your trail; glad to see he’s hanging in there on this nearly impossible to navigate board even if he offers very little enlightenment with his non-consequential and inane opinions. Disregard what I just said. Everyone is entitled to an opinion even if it is wrong and so it is with those sources as yet un-named.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 821
Sometimes I just really have to wonder if human nature, itself, isn't so screwed up that no matter how wisely we choose to govern and behave ourselves, there won't always be some creepy alpha male who has to assert his dominance in some form or another. Meaning, precisely, that if we were to succeed in developing a formula for peace -- not just between Israel and its neighbors, but in the rest of the Middle East, between Irish Catholics and Protestants, between Sudanese Muslims and Christians (etc. etc.) -- someone with a trail of wannabe hanger's on wouldn't come along to find a way to disrupt it just because he could (or because he found a way to wrangle a personal profit from it)?
I am still trying to get through Paul Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal (not that it's a hard read ... I just have a lot of interruptions in my reading time these days), and I suspect he is going to have a positive, hopeful voice at the end. As I am wont to do, my mind uses what I read to explore unmentioned or unrelated (though not irrelevant) ideas that pop into it ... and I find I do this a lot with Krugman's work in this book. Specifically, as relates to this discussion, we had an incredible possibility (or a series of incredible possibilities) opened for us between 1945 and 1973. I am speaking of the postwar economic boom that created the American middle-class that so many fantasizers think has existed all along in America; I am speaking of a practically universal health care, offered by corporations rather than through a single-source taxpaying system; I am speaking of a strong union movement that saw more than 40% of all workers in this country protected in their jobs and receiving benefits from contracts negotiated between unionized workers and their employers (spreading to another huge non-unionized segment who received the same benefits); I am speaking of delivery on the promise of universal "free" public education all the way through college for those willing to pursue it and demonstrating the ability to complete the required work. Though the threat of Ultimate War in the form of conflict with the Soviet Union loomed, most Americans not only had the perception that their lives were better in 1960 than they had been in 1940 (and better in 1970 than they had been in 1960), it would take a very strange and cranky critic to argue that their lives were not in fact better.
It was so glorious that even Walt Disney had these incredible dreams of a bright future for not only America, but the world. He would, of course, turn bitter and cranky near the end ... but the Disney view of the future was so rosy that no one had to wear rose-colored glasses to share it.
So what happened? Why did so many people decide that the promise of equal rights for all Americans was a bad thing? Why did so many Americans become convinced that their rising standard of living was a bad thing? Why were they so willing to let government shut down the unions that brought us those very real salary increases and increases in very real income? Why were they willing to allow real wealth to be transferred to fewer and fewer hands? Why did we allow the Soviets to scare us into squandering our wealth in order to create the largest, most bristling, threatening and powerful military force the world has ever known? Why couldn't we share our wealth with those struggling people's around the world who helped us achieve it ... instead of putting into the hands of fewer and fewer Americans?
I don't know about you, but it is incredibly clear to me that my life is not demonstrably "better" than it was after getting my first, real (unionized) job in the early 70s. While still working up to three years ago, I certainly made more money than I did in the 70s ... but everything was so much less expensive relative to what I earned then that I had absolutely no fears that the whole thing would collapse the next day. In today's world, even with near the top salary that a public school teacher could earn (that may be part of the problem), I was living but one disaster away from day-to-day. There's something inherently wrong with that, especially when talking about life in the US (as opposed to Botswana). And I know I am not alone. I know there are millions (maybe tens or even hundreds of millions) of hard working, decent Americans living one-disaster away from the streets. It's even worse now that I am living on a fixed income, and as we come closer and closer to losing the employer sponsored health care coverage that we have.
It's not like the money and the wealth went away. It's not that American workers (including myself) somehow became less productive and just stopped making stuff, and just stopped generating wealth. No, the wealth is there. It just has been transferred ... mostly by government policy ... upwards to fewer and fewer hands. Or to the military.
Who can dispute that fact? Conservatives talk about socialistic transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, but have gleefully manufactured (or at least stood by and watched) the transfer of wealth from the middle-class to the wealthy elite (or the military). Let me correct that ... most true conservatives see this happening, and are not too happy about it; it is the so-called "neo-conservative" who ... trumpeting the false god Ronald Reagan ... leads us down this path of concentration of wealth and military expansion (and concentration of power in the central government to make both happen).
Their America may be #1, but it is not the same America they dream about.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 212
As far as I can tell most all conflict stems from the few that are made wealthier by conflict. The formula for peace simplified goes something like this; allow the people of the world to have a nice life free of the influence of war mongering profiteers. Make laws that will outlaw the leaders of a nation from going to war such as outlined in the Nuremburg principles and if any nation violates these principles they are subject to prosecution with the intent that the leaders that ordered the invasion of another country will be hanged by hooded men in leather jackets on worldwide television. Also any arms manufacturers that collaborated with any leader of a nation that takes a country into a voluntary war will have its CEO and board members prosecuted and if found guilty taken out and shot in front of a firing squad with the same machine guns they manufacture. The same goes for the owners and pundits of the mass media that promote war as a solution to whatever problems that may exist, and for God’s sake let’s break this unholy allia