Wesley Clark knew the Bush team was wrong-minded about the military well before they stole the election
" CLARK: I’ve never really addressed that issue. I’m considering this candidacy because a lot of people have confidence in me and have asked me to consider it. To me, it’s really about the issues. I saw it starting to go wrong before the [2000] election. I met with Condi Rice.
She told me she believed that American troops shouldn’t be keeping the peace—they were the only ones who could kill people and conquer countries,
and that’s what they should be focused on doing. What she was telling me [was] that she, as a potential Republican national-security adviser,
didn’t support our engagement in Europe. So I saw it going wrong from there.
Then, as the administration took office, I saw more and more what I believed were misunderstandings and missed opportunities."
Article here.
Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
Monday, July 07, 2003
"The media is kind of weird these days on politics," former Vice President Al Gore is quoted as saying in the June 30, 2003 issue of Time Magazine. "There are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party."
Go here.
Listen or read.
Get to Know Your Neo-Cons--
Michael Ledeen -Part Two-
(Part One is here).
Flirting with Fascism
Neocon theorist Michael Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than from the American Right."
Excerpt:
"As Ledeen shows, the Italian fascists expressed their desire “to tear down the old order” (his words from 2002) in terms that are curiously anticipatory of a famous statement in 2003 by the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. In 1932, Asvero Gravelli also divided Europe into “old” and “new” when he wrote, in Towards the Fascist International, “Either old Europe or young Europe. Fascism is the gravedigger of old Europe. Now the forces of the Fascist International are rising.”
Ledeen has his "creative destruction" sights set on Iran.
Think about it.
Get to really know your Neo-Cons.
More reading: The Persistence of Fascist Metapolitics in the Contemporary ‘New Right’
Europe For The Europeans:Fascist Myths Of The New Order 1922 - 1992 Both by Roger Griffin / Professor in History/ Oxford Brookes University Department of History/ Oxford
Can you believe we need to educate ourselves about facism?
It's come to this in America.
A dark day.
More darkness to come if we fail to see the warning signs.
Michael Ledeen -Part Two-
(Part One is here).
Flirting with Fascism
Neocon theorist Michael Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than from the American Right."
Excerpt:
"As Ledeen shows, the Italian fascists expressed their desire “to tear down the old order” (his words from 2002) in terms that are curiously anticipatory of a famous statement in 2003 by the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. In 1932, Asvero Gravelli also divided Europe into “old” and “new” when he wrote, in Towards the Fascist International, “Either old Europe or young Europe. Fascism is the gravedigger of old Europe. Now the forces of the Fascist International are rising.”
Ledeen has his "creative destruction" sights set on Iran.
Think about it.
Get to really know your Neo-Cons.
More reading: The Persistence of Fascist Metapolitics in the Contemporary ‘New Right’
Europe For The Europeans:Fascist Myths Of The New Order 1922 - 1992 Both by Roger Griffin / Professor in History/ Oxford Brookes University Department of History/ Oxford
Can you believe we need to educate ourselves about facism?
It's come to this in America.
A dark day.
More darkness to come if we fail to see the warning signs.
"I think it's pathetic that I'm considered the left-wing liberal," Dean said. "It shows just how far to the right this country has lurched."
I just read a basically informative Washington Post article about Howard Dean with a curiously negative spin..from the title of the article to statements like this:
"Howard Dean was angry. Ropy veins popped out of his neck, blood rushed to his cheeks, and his eyes, normally blue-gray, flashed black, all dilated pupils."
and
"If Dean is the candidate crowds come to hear, he has also become the one pundits have come to watch, for better or worse. They won't soon forget his dour sparring with Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) during the Democratic candidates' first debate in South Carolina in May, or his shaky appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press" two Sundays ago. And that mouth. A product of New York, Dean can speak so fast that words come tumbling out, landing in a messy heap. In recent months he has been called "brusque," "brash," "blunt" and "belligerent"; a few more choice words on his part, and critics will be questioning whether Dean has the diplomatic skills needed to be the leader of the free world."
I'm finding that this is just typical Washington insider-journalist behavior.
Almost as if they are hedging...still not quite "getting it".
Not believing their own eyes and ears...lacking intuition, perhaps lacking courage to come out and admit
they see the forest for the trees.
I often wonder--is it corporate-related career pressure? Influence of some kind?
Why not simply inform us with news articles and cut out the spin?
There was another Washington Post article regarding Tim Russert that was analyzed by Progressive Review's Sam Smith who sees the article itself, by Howard Kurtz, as a spin-platform for Russert and calls Russert "The Establishment's Bill O'Reilly".
Smith brought up an interesting point about the last Meet Ther Press appearance of Howard Dean:
"....Well, you get the idea. Kurtz' log rolling for Russert fails to note a number of interesting questions such as
how much money did Howard Dean raise because voting "outsiders" failed to agree with the assessment of Washington "insiders"
after watching Dean on Russert? Further, Kurtz' paean poops out when he tries to give examples of Russert's excellence in journalism:
"One likely area involves budget deficits and Social Security, a Russert obsession. When he asked Dean about once having called for cutting
Social Security benefits, the former Vermont governor said: 'I don't recall saying that, but I'm sure I did if you have it on your show,
because I know your researchers are very good.' Dean added that Social Security is 'actually in fine shape until, I don't know, 2040 or
something like that.'
"'No, no, no, no, no,' Russert interrupted, adding: 'When the baby boomers retire, we have a real impending crisis.' Dean quickly backed
off.'"
Well, it turns out that Dean was closer to the truth then Russert and Kurtz, probably because the latter spend too much time talking with
politicians and too little looking at the facts.
According to the Social Security trust fund trustees, fund income will fall below fund expenditures in 2024 and will be depleted in 2037.
It should be noted that this figure has been adjusted several times by the trustees; over one four year period that depletion date has been
extended by eight years, which is a deadline that's pretty hard to catch up with.
There are other problems:
- The Social Security fund projections are based on an inordinately dour view of the American economy, essentially predicting
a continuing near recession in the coming decades.
- As the Left Business Observer has pointed out, while there will be a bulge in older Americans, the total ratio of non-working people
(which includes children) to employed Americans will be much better than it has been in the past.
- Finally, the trust fund is an accounting artifice, representing a political and not an economic choice of how money should be spent.
Should it run dry, we might even have to take some money out of the imperial invasion budget of the Pentagon.
But all this would be far too complex for Russert's liking and so he dismisses Dead ex cathedra and Kurtz laps it up. "
He's not the only one spinning..he just makes it incredibly obvious. Establishment spinners know how to hide the rotisserie. Read this entertaining article about Bill from today's Miami Herald.
I just read a basically informative Washington Post article about Howard Dean with a curiously negative spin..from the title of the article to statements like this:
"Howard Dean was angry. Ropy veins popped out of his neck, blood rushed to his cheeks, and his eyes, normally blue-gray, flashed black, all dilated pupils."
and
"If Dean is the candidate crowds come to hear, he has also become the one pundits have come to watch, for better or worse. They won't soon forget his dour sparring with Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) during the Democratic candidates' first debate in South Carolina in May, or his shaky appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press" two Sundays ago. And that mouth. A product of New York, Dean can speak so fast that words come tumbling out, landing in a messy heap. In recent months he has been called "brusque," "brash," "blunt" and "belligerent"; a few more choice words on his part, and critics will be questioning whether Dean has the diplomatic skills needed to be the leader of the free world."
I'm finding that this is just typical Washington insider-journalist behavior.
Almost as if they are hedging...still not quite "getting it".
Not believing their own eyes and ears...lacking intuition, perhaps lacking courage to come out and admit
they see the forest for the trees.
I often wonder--is it corporate-related career pressure? Influence of some kind?
Why not simply inform us with news articles and cut out the spin?
There was another Washington Post article regarding Tim Russert that was analyzed by Progressive Review's Sam Smith who sees the article itself, by Howard Kurtz, as a spin-platform for Russert and calls Russert "The Establishment's Bill O'Reilly".
Smith brought up an interesting point about the last Meet Ther Press appearance of Howard Dean:
"....Well, you get the idea. Kurtz' log rolling for Russert fails to note a number of interesting questions such as
how much money did Howard Dean raise because voting "outsiders" failed to agree with the assessment of Washington "insiders"
after watching Dean on Russert? Further, Kurtz' paean poops out when he tries to give examples of Russert's excellence in journalism:
"One likely area involves budget deficits and Social Security, a Russert obsession. When he asked Dean about once having called for cutting
Social Security benefits, the former Vermont governor said: 'I don't recall saying that, but I'm sure I did if you have it on your show,
because I know your researchers are very good.' Dean added that Social Security is 'actually in fine shape until, I don't know, 2040 or
something like that.'
"'No, no, no, no, no,' Russert interrupted, adding: 'When the baby boomers retire, we have a real impending crisis.' Dean quickly backed
off.'"
Well, it turns out that Dean was closer to the truth then Russert and Kurtz, probably because the latter spend too much time talking with
politicians and too little looking at the facts.
According to the Social Security trust fund trustees, fund income will fall below fund expenditures in 2024 and will be depleted in 2037.
It should be noted that this figure has been adjusted several times by the trustees; over one four year period that depletion date has been
extended by eight years, which is a deadline that's pretty hard to catch up with.
There are other problems:
- The Social Security fund projections are based on an inordinately dour view of the American economy, essentially predicting
a continuing near recession in the coming decades.
- As the Left Business Observer has pointed out, while there will be a bulge in older Americans, the total ratio of non-working people
(which includes children) to employed Americans will be much better than it has been in the past.
- Finally, the trust fund is an accounting artifice, representing a political and not an economic choice of how money should be spent.
Should it run dry, we might even have to take some money out of the imperial invasion budget of the Pentagon.
But all this would be far too complex for Russert's liking and so he dismisses Dead ex cathedra and Kurtz laps it up. "
I read a great editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer Online.
Excerpt: "U.S. soldiers are dying and dodging guerrilla bullets in a hot and hostile country and their commander-in-chief
says, "Bring 'em on"? Mr. President, do you live in a play house or the White House?"
Al Sharpton said of Bush's "Bring 'em on" statement:
"For the president to say, `bring it on,' almost like
daring and provoking Iraqis to kill American soldiers, he sounds more
like a gang leader in South-Central L.A. than one that is trying to
institute a policy of democracy and reconstruction in the world."
If Bush wanted to consider reality, he may want to read these two recent articles...
the first from BBC News
The second from the Christian Science Monitor.
Who knows where this road will lead us? Got a map, George?
The Bush administration likes to make roadmaps. How about a roadmap out of Iraq
Excerpt: "U.S. soldiers are dying and dodging guerrilla bullets in a hot and hostile country and their commander-in-chief
says, "Bring 'em on"? Mr. President, do you live in a play house or the White House?"
Al Sharpton said of Bush's "Bring 'em on" statement:
"For the president to say, `bring it on,' almost like
daring and provoking Iraqis to kill American soldiers, he sounds more
like a gang leader in South-Central L.A. than one that is trying to
institute a policy of democracy and reconstruction in the world."
If Bush wanted to consider reality, he may want to read these two recent articles...
the first from BBC News
The second from the Christian Science Monitor.
Who knows where this road will lead us? Got a map, George?
The Bush administration likes to make roadmaps. How about a roadmap out of Iraq
Bush wants African Oil
Bush still looking for oil.
This time in Africa.
Bush's trip to Africa is causing him follow a Clintonesque path.
God, I'll bet Bush hates that comparison after saying in 2001 that Africa wasn't on his radar.
(I don't think there were too many blips on that radar at all, frankly).
If you hear Bush telling you he wants to get these poor folks out of poverty so they won't turn to terrorism -while he's concentrating on oil development for US interests- consider this (from the article:)
"The problem is that money going into the oil industry tends to fill the pockets of top politicians who grant access for exploration and drilling. Millions in “signing bonuses” and other concealed perks make a handful of people fabulously rich, but do little for the population at large. Indeed, the inflow of foreign exchange to oil tends to create relatively few jobs and allows countries to import, rather than manufacture, the goods they need. In the end, most developing countries that have oil as their economic mainstay are embroiled in conflict and mired in poverty."
The only way Africa has gotten on Bush's radar is OIL.
It's the same old same old.
At present, the United States imports about 18 percent of its oil from Africa. Iraq isn't panning out. OPEC is holding together and keeping their prices up.
There is no cheering in the Arab streets for what we have wrought in Iraq.
I guess it's time for some good old down-home expoitation of Africa.
Just watch. I'll bet Bush, all hubris and Godspoken, will be bold enough to look for the African-American vote
for all his "humanitarian" effort in Africa. Remember all the good he's doing with promised money for AIDS-curing drugs
for Africa...while sliding an ex-pharmeceutical honcho into the number-one oversight position.
If it's not Big Oil, it's Big drugs. It's always Big sumthin' with Bush and his ilk.
If it ain't Big, it ain't bringin' in the campaign contributions.
Money is the ONLY thing that makes Bush-style Republican policy work.
There is no virtue alone that could make today's GOP policy socially appropriate.
Money is their message. We are the United States of Amoney-ka.
If you ain't got the dime, Bush aint got the time.
If Bush really wants to help the poverty-stricken, perhaps he should look a little closer to home.
See this story from the Guardian.
If the following statement from the story is true and it could be proven, Bush should be promptly impeached and imprisoned.
excerpt: "Democrats believe the Republicans are being encouraged by the White House to cause chaos in the hope this will lead to the recall of the Democratic party governor, Gray Davis, and his replacement with a Republican, possibly Arnold Schwarzenegger."
Talk about being anti-american! Dragging your nation's economy down purposefully for political gain? That, my friends, is criminal.
What's happening to what was once such a great, virtuous, and noble nation?
This time in Africa.
Bush's trip to Africa is causing him follow a Clintonesque path.
God, I'll bet Bush hates that comparison after saying in 2001 that Africa wasn't on his radar.
(I don't think there were too many blips on that radar at all, frankly).
If you hear Bush telling you he wants to get these poor folks out of poverty so they won't turn to terrorism -while he's concentrating on oil development for US interests- consider this (from the article:)
"The problem is that money going into the oil industry tends to fill the pockets of top politicians who grant access for exploration and drilling. Millions in “signing bonuses” and other concealed perks make a handful of people fabulously rich, but do little for the population at large. Indeed, the inflow of foreign exchange to oil tends to create relatively few jobs and allows countries to import, rather than manufacture, the goods they need. In the end, most developing countries that have oil as their economic mainstay are embroiled in conflict and mired in poverty."
The only way Africa has gotten on Bush's radar is OIL.
It's the same old same old.
At present, the United States imports about 18 percent of its oil from Africa. Iraq isn't panning out. OPEC is holding together and keeping their prices up.
There is no cheering in the Arab streets for what we have wrought in Iraq.
I guess it's time for some good old down-home expoitation of Africa.
Just watch. I'll bet Bush, all hubris and Godspoken, will be bold enough to look for the African-American vote
for all his "humanitarian" effort in Africa. Remember all the good he's doing with promised money for AIDS-curing drugs
for Africa...while sliding an ex-pharmeceutical honcho into the number-one oversight position.
If it's not Big Oil, it's Big drugs. It's always Big sumthin' with Bush and his ilk.
If it ain't Big, it ain't bringin' in the campaign contributions.
Money is the ONLY thing that makes Bush-style Republican policy work.
There is no virtue alone that could make today's GOP policy socially appropriate.
Money is their message. We are the United States of Amoney-ka.
If you ain't got the dime, Bush aint got the time.
If Bush really wants to help the poverty-stricken, perhaps he should look a little closer to home.
See this story from the Guardian.
If the following statement from the story is true and it could be proven, Bush should be promptly impeached and imprisoned.
excerpt: "Democrats believe the Republicans are being encouraged by the White House to cause chaos in the hope this will lead to the recall of the Democratic party governor, Gray Davis, and his replacement with a Republican, possibly Arnold Schwarzenegger."
Talk about being anti-american! Dragging your nation's economy down purposefully for political gain? That, my friends, is criminal.
What's happening to what was once such a great, virtuous, and noble nation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)