CONTEST!
BUSH IN 30 SECONDS--
A political advertising contest sponsored by MoveOn.org Voter fund
"All eligible submissions will be posted on this web site and rated by visitors. The top rated ads will then be voted on by our panel of esteemed judges, including Michael Moore, Donna Brazile, Jack Black, Janeane Garofalo, and Gus Van Sant. The winning ad idea will be broadcast on television during the week of Bush's 2004 State of the Union address, and the winner will receive a recording of the ad as broadcast."
This and that....
World Net Daily says MSNBC is geting peeved at Chris Matthews for getting too critical of Bush these days.
"In a speech to university students, MSNBC host Chris Matthews characterized President Bush as a shallow-thinking, unlearned man.."
(If you ask me, this is no great, overly-critical, or new revelation. Chris is telling it like it is. We can all guess why GE might be concerned.)
The word is out that Chris Matthews is a Howard Dean-man.
"Matthews acknowledged that his personal favorite in the race is Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who many see as the Democratic front-runner..."
What's up with this Betina Mixon? She had been awake all one night arguing with her husband, was late for an event (which happened to be Bush's speech) and "grew increasingly frustrated as she was turned away from the building at checkpoint after checkpoint. She then "took the matter into her own hands" and crashed through the checkpoint.
I wonder if she realizes this is the kind of thing that gets families killed in Iraq and Palestine nowadays?
Betina was lucky her brains (and those of her children, for Pete's sake) weren't blown out of her skull.
From UPI: Interview with Chief Minister of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province
~~~~~~~~~~
"America wanted to be the sole superpower and the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan was the sine qua non of its quest. Then came Taliban in the vacuum that followed the Soviet withdrawal. Taliban are not just students from madrassas. They are the same jihadis (holy warriors) who chased the Russians out. Many came from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries to fight against the Russian invader. But when they tried to go home, they were treated as criminals and terrorists. Some were barred from returning home and others were sentenced to death or life imprisonment. So they returned to the region where they knew they would be welcome."
~~~~~~~~~~
This is a must-read.
See what the people of the PNF Province believe.
You may find yourself saying "I can't believe they see it that way"....
and in the next paragraph (or the next sentence)
you may be surprised to find yourself agreeing.
I'm certain there is a way to disentangle and reconciliate the disinformation which has caused seemingly wild accusations to be thrown our way by this Pakistani minster (and others like him), but it will never happen while we employ the tactics we are currently utilizing in this "war on terror".
I am certain that GW Bush will never be able to accomplish the difficult task of winning hearts and minds in the Arab world.
Just look at him...he miserably fails to win half of America's hearts and minds.
So where are we headed, people?
Bush is leading a divided nation.
Divided by his policies...policies for which he has had no mandate.
In this dangerous world we see angry, often-invisible, and misunderstood "enemies of the West". We are fools if we can't see that these "enemies" have been encouraged to join the hateful fight against us by the ignorant and aggressive actions of the Bush administration. We cannot trust Bush and his team of NeoCon idealists who have gotten us into a hornet's trap. We've been lied to....taken for fools. Our Congress has bought into the lies and facilitated this war with last year's Iraq Resolution. They should have known better.
It's time we start to listen to these people they like to call "terrorists".
It would behoove us to listen.
Either we listen or we fail.
Do you want us to fail?
Because, frankly, I don't want to see us fail in making this world a kinder and more peaceful place.
I'm not just talking about Kumbayah, either.
It's all about using the good sense we possess instead of our base savage instinct.
Sorry, war fans...
Bombing the hell out of this world and occupying the freshly-fried space just doesn't seem to work.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"....Durrani firmly rejected the accusation that the NWFP's ruling coalition comprises Taliban-like religious zealots. "We are true democrats," he responded, "witness the way we conduct our policies in NWFP, in sharp contrast to the military dictatorship at the center. We also advocate peace with India over Kashmir; again witness the recent journey to New Delhi by one of our three top leaders with an offering of peace. As a result, India has responded with 12 confidence-building measures. The Holy (Koran) book teaches us peace, love and cooperation...."
"....Asked if he was suggesting that Taliban are for the most part foreigners, Durrani said, "in the literal sense (they) were no more than 1,000 at the outset. Later Taliban came to symbolize the entire Afghan nation. You might ask where did Osama Bin Laden come from? Who brought him back to Afghanistan after Sudan asked him to leave? The United States didn't seem too concerned about him in 1996 when he decided to go to Afghanistan. Later America was not interested in a negotiated solution. Imagine what the United States could have done if it had devoted the money it spent on bombing Afghanistan -- about $8 billion according to published reports -- to the reconstruction of the country after two decades of warfare. That would have been statesmanship of the highest order. Instead, you have chosen war and occupation and now you are faced with an increasingly hostile population...."
".....Durrani concluded the interview by saying that a world with one superpower "is very dangerous. There is no counterweight. Things were less dangerous during the Cold War when we had two superpowers. The same applies in a village that only has one elder. He could take unwise decisions with no countervailing force. A village is much safer with two elders. So was the world."
~~~~~~~~
For those of you who may find Durrani's suspicion of any Mossad / 9-11 connection as an insane and preposterous thought, see today's Herald (Glasgow).
While I'm away....
Make yourself at home.
Grab a hot cup (or cold bottle) of your favorite beverage and take a look around.
This October 28 wil mark the 41st anniversary of the end of the Cuban missile crisis.
The world breathed a collective sigh of relief after two superpowers headed off a potential nuclear confrontation.
President John F. Kennedy was praised for his diplomatic skills in averting a nuclear war.
I am very much afraid that our current President has no such diplomatic skill...and this is a far more dangerous time in which we live.
In 1962, the two superpowers found a new appreciation of the danger of nuclear weapons, which led to arms-control accords.
We are now a lone superpower.
We have a President who is not interested in honoring or creating accords.
He seems to have no knowlege or remembrance of the reasons we entered those accords.
We have a President who makes unsophisticated and one-sided demands of his allies as well as his enemies.
If we continue on this path...with this leader unwilling to employ respectful diplomacy...the animosity toward our nation and the people of our nation will be so strong that we will eventually be weakened and/or pulled down to an ugly and unrecognizable version of what was once a great and influential member of an international community.
While I'm away, consider the words of James G. Blight and Philip Brenner one year ago in their article entitled
"Cuban Missile Crisis: The Lessons for Iraq"
Think about all that has occurred this past year...and what we might be saying one year from today.
Take Care,
Jude
"...So one lesson we can learn by looking at Cuba's experience during the 1962 missile crisis is that our approach to weaker powers is fraught with danger and is not likely to achieve the results we seek. The United States tends to expect a weaker power will cower when the superpower roars, but in fact American efforts to intimidate are more likely to produce the opposite effect. Intimidation emboldens the small power, and however irrational the resulting behavior may seem to us, a weaker power may resort to unimaginable acts as a last line of defense. The Central Intelligence Agency recently came to the same conclusion in its assessment that Saddam Hussein would become "much less constrained" if faced with an attack led by the United States.
Ultimately, what Cuba demanded from the United States in 1962 is the same attitude that American allies have been furiously urging the United States to adopt in general and toward Iraq in particular: that the lone superpower act like a "normal" country and accord others the same rights to survival and sovereignty that the United States demands for itself. The allies have implored the United States to engage Iraq diplomatically and to rely on the United Nations and established international legal principles, which recognize that all nations -- great and small powers alike -- should be treated equally.
Is Iraq "another Cuba"? Not exactly. There are many differences between the two cases. But we believe a key similarity between them has received too little attention from those advocating pre-emptive action against Baghdad. It is this: The inability (or unwillingness) of the United States to empathize with those who feel the threat of annihilation -- people who may be willing to fight to the last man, woman, and child and even to use unthinkable weapons -- increases the likelihood that such weapons will be used, with all the horror and uncertainty that would follow.
We now know that the hawks advising Kennedy in October 1962 were dead wrong to recommend attacking Cuba with what they (mistakenly) believed would be an "acceptable" cost and risk. Might those advocating a pre-emptive strike on Iraq also be wrong in their assessment of the likely consequences?
Based on our reading of Cuba's mind-set 40 years ago, we believe it is worth considering that the hawks might also be wrong about Saddam Hussein and Iraq today. It just may be that the events of October 1962 constitute, if not a crisis for all seasons, at least a cautionary tale with disturbing relevance to the season that is upon us."
Take This Test!
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
The social dimension of politics is important. That's the dimension that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So Political Compass has added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.
My result was here:
Close to this fellow:
NOTE: Don't spoil the results by reading the Analysis section before you take the test.
FLORIDA may "big-foot" the DNC Dems into participating in straw poll
Certain DNC Dems' personal campaigns are worried about the straw polls, I'm sure.
I find it curious that all candidates signed a "snub-letter" to the Florida DNC, yet Howard Dean had recently urged Florida to push on with the straw poll. See Palm Beach Post article here.
My personal opinion?
The mainstream media is about nothing if it's not about beauty contests.
We hear the "media mouthpiece" day in/day out without ever being able to talk back en masse.
Media polls are unreliable pieces of doo-doo because they rely on the usual 1000-1500 people who are dumb enough to answer their phones at dinnertime.
That's politics..and with straw polls, we have democracy in a healthy form.
(As opposed to the one-way media).
I say "bring 'em on".
Let's see what the people are thinking.
Warning to DNC and Dems: REMEMBER CALIFORNIA!
The people are desiring more of a voice in politics..ignore them at your own peril.
Here are some quotes from the article highlighted above:
"...Democratic activists on the state party's central committee are scheduled to vote Nov. 16 on whether to hold a straw poll. Even in the face of threatened boycotts, support for a straw poll appears to be overwhelming..."
"...Gov. Howard Dean and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards have assured *him they will be at the convention no matter what."
*speaking about Jon Ausman, a DNC member from Tallahassee
"I don't think any of the top-tier candidates can afford to ignore Florida and alienate the very people they will need."
Florida Democratic Chairman Scott Maddox
"I am announcing Jean-Claude van Damme as the new governor of Montana!"
-quote from Daily Show host John Stewart at 8th Annual GQ Men-of-the-Year Awards
Bush Heckled by Aussie Senator
"I love free speech." GW Bush 10-22-03
ie: go ahead, ass
".... they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is..." Bush Press Secy Ari Fleischer 9-26-01
ie: shuddap, ass
Wal Mart Employees arrested by U.S. government in 61 different stores across the country
I'm certain Wal Mart was more than cooperative in this Ashcroftian crusade.
So the world's largest retailer who imports goods made from some of the cheapest labor in the world doesn't want to promote the same kind of people here in America...let 'em go back to where they belong and make that nickel a day.
I'm sure you'll be happy to know Wal Mart shares were up 4 cents at $58.28 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
Dennis Prager--America's Next Civil War
photo by Iddybud
"......Whatever your politics, you have to be oblivious to reality to deny that America today is torn by ideological divisions as deep as those of the Civil War era. We are, in fact, in the midst of the Second American Civil War..."
"..Added together, the differences suggest people who live in different worlds that are on a collision course...."
Related:
See my blogpost Two Nations Under God??...Indivisible??
In today's news...
"..somebody doesn't like sara lee....."
_ _ _
A Howard Dean Op Ed
The man has a plan.
_ _ _
In today's Washington Post:
1- The Kerry campaign feigns surprise at fellow Dem candidate Dean employing "attack" tactics in early campaign advertising. (Who's actually missing the boat?)
2- Kudos to MoveOn.org in their protest for a more aggressive investigation into the leaking of the name of a CIA operative whose husband had been critical of the Bush administration. (Dare I reprint her name?)
_ _
I'd mention the Rumsfeld admission that Iraq is a total blooming mess, but that really isn't news, is it?
_ _
Columnist Richard Cohen on the current state of Germany-U.S. relations
".....With the collapse of the Soviet Union, German-American relations were bound to change. The common enemy was gone. But whatever differences were going to emerge have been exacerbated by the Bush administration's haughty and abrasive style. Might may make right but, as America will discover when it needs them, it does not make friends..."
Few people know how
to take a walk.
photos by Iddybud
The qualifications are endurance,
plain clothes, old shoes,
an eye for nature, good humor,
vast curiosity, good speech,
good silence,
and nothing too much.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Bush to Sign Partial Birth Abortion Bill
How neat..clean...sterile.
Ooops...this one's a bit too yucky and real.
Like the photos of dead soldiers and civilians.
Get rid of it--quickly!
I support Bush's move on this one.
Trust me, I would fight until I could fight no longer if a woman's right to choose was truly threatened.
Partial birth abortion is murder.
All emotion and partisan politics aside...when you pull out a late-term living human entity and stab it with a steely instrument in order for it to die a painful death, it's murder.
I can't find another name for it.
It's the Achilles' heel of the Democrats. They too often pander to the far-left political groups who tend to forget
what is actually happening when a name for a procedure sweetens over the fact that a bona fide killing is taking place.
NeoCon Controversy
There is one line in this article with which I totally disagree.
It goes:
"Iraq was far more of a threat to the U.S. than a civil war in a far-away province of Yugoslavia. President Bush got the support of Congress for the Iraq war."
It betrays the writer as biased...definitely partisan.
That "far-away" province wasn't so "far-away" on today's global scale.
Make no mistake about this:
An unstable Europe would have allowed for an increase in the strength and activity of Middle Eastern WMD proliferation..right under our eyes.
As the writer himself admits, the Kosovo war, for all the civilians killed, has not stopped murderous desire and hatred amongst the Serbs and ethnic Albanians.
Perhaps Saddam would have actually had WMDs if we were caught up in the middle of an implosion of Eastern Europe.
As in this unjust and ugly Iraq folly, the Kosovo war was just another example of how twisted and result-aberrant the very idea of WAR actually is.
But I will say this:
The rest of this piece deserves a reading.
Any vague reliance upon NeoCons (aka the New Crusaders) will be a danger to America's survival.
Karen Kwiatkowski
Know her?
If not, you should.
Start here.
Abrogate: to treat as nonexistent
Function: verb
Synonyms: abolish, abate, annihilate, annul, invalidate, negate, nullify, quash, undo, vitiate
"When the security of this nation is threatened, Congress and the American people give the president great latitude," We probably have given this president more flexibility, more latitude, more range, unquestioned, than any president since Franklin Roosevelt -- probably too much. The Congress, in my opinion, really abrogated much of its responsibility."
Senator Chuck Hagel R-Nebraska
Oct 20- in a speech at the Gallup Organization World Conference in Omaha.
CENSORED
The Bush administraion worries that its military action in Iraq will lose support once the public sees the remains of U.S. soldiers arriving at air bases in flag-draped caskets.
Their solution?
Cutting off the public from the images by banning media coverage and photography of non-living soldiers' homecomings on all military bases.
It's legal to censor this type of coverage..so Bush is within his rights...though
our respect for Bush as an enabling leader of a free society is greatly diminished.
Politics and propaganda before honoring the beloved dead..that's what politics is all about.
Censorship of the honorable ceremony for the war-dead is a dirty warmongerer's tactic.
Bush is plainly a born-again Christian leader fighting the Islamic fundamentalist world.
This is a holy war, no matter how they try to label it.
The attacks on 9-11 were facilitated and funded by the weak and terrorist-bribing Saudi Arabian government.
Bush has protected them for reasons we do not understand....no reason could make good sense.
He sends our men and women to face death while lying about the reasons for being there.
He prefers all of us to ignore the maimed and the dead.
He enables corrupt regimes to go on...unscathed.
Some of us may not see it with our eyes...but we do not deny the reality because we know it in our hearts.
Decent and caring Americans like Jeff Horton of Stoughton, Wisconsin understand.
In the most recent Zogby poll, more Americans disapprove than approve of Bush's performance.
I can just imagine how those numbers would tank to the depths of poll-hell if Americans were allowed just a glimpse of what is really happening.
Shame on you, Bush!
Beware of "new story" Being Spread by the mysterious "L", courtesy of Conservative Rumor Mills---it's an old and shady story
Two years ago on Frontline(PBS) there was an interview with Iraqi defector Saba Khodada. He spoke of the terrorist camp at Salman Pak.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He was asked:
[Did you hear that some of those training at the camp were working for Osama bin Laden?]
Khodada: Nobody came and told us, "This is Al Qaeda people," but I know there were some Saudis, there were some Afghanis. There were some other people from other countries getting trained. They didn't tell us they were part of Al Qaeda; there's no such thing. ... In this camp, we know that those are Saudis, or Arabs are getting trained. Nobody will talk about Al Qaeda or any other organization.
[They're just people.]
Khodad: Yes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Salman Pak was no great secret to the U.S....nor was it ever proven that activities at Salman Pak were related whatsoever to 9-11.....that is, until now...when Bush and Cheney desperately need it to LOOK that way.
Enter the oh-so-credible "L" and his oh-so-verifiable(???) and new(???)story coming out...
Yet, for over two years it's been spread across the red meat Conserative rumor mills and it is being re-generated with new fevered embellishment at sites like Front Page and World Net Daily.....(the same reputable news source who told us Arafat was dead a couple weeks ago...oye...now they're calling this a "new, breaking exclusive...dear God get me my barf bag!) Other spots I've seen the story: at the "selective Memri"(biased against Arabs) Middle East Media Research Institute. NewsMax loved Salman Pak, too. (Go read their story..they're all hot and bothered that Bush didn't jump on the Salman Pakwagon months ago).
Oh--and look who else loved talking about Salman Pak.
As an American, I'm so sick of being used for lies, innuendo, and exaggertion being used by these liars to make this unilateral attack upon Iraq look as if it was our only choice.
Bullshit, Front Page.
Bullshit, World Net Daily.
Bulshit, Memri.
Bullshit, Newsmax.
Bullshit, Rush.
Bullshit, INC.
Bullshit, "L".
"L" stands for lie. "L" story-- full of holes?
This is like the WMD lie-patrol starting up all over again.
Chalabi sucked Judith Miller in about the WMD stories and the NY Times fell right in line as suckers and made it front-page news.
It turned out to be total horsenuggets.
Here's Chalabi with one of his American bitches
Now Salman Pak is back...with the new and improved credibility of a dude named "L".
The NY Times had best be careful this time before printing this shit as gospel.
The Times already have at least one story (June 2002) about the training camp.
After Jayson Blair and Judith Miller in one year, they cannot afford to get sucked down the credibility drain in their rush to grab headlines from the usual Conservative total-shit rumor.
Read this for more skepticism about this shady story.
It's time we stop allowing ourselves to be brainwashed, people!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the FRONTLINE website: "Sabah Khodada was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. He worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak (see Khodada's hand-drawn map of the camp), an area south of Baghdad. In this translated interview, conducted in association with The New York Times on Oct. 14, 2001, Khodada describes what went on at Salman Pak, including details on training hijackers. He emigrated to the U.S. in May 2001. (Editor's Note: Although U.S. officials acknowledge terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, they say it is unlikely that these activities were related to the Sept. 11 attacks. It should also be noted that the two defectors interviewed for this report have been brought to FRONTLINE's attention by members of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization seeking to overthrow Saddam Hussein.)
Tough Talk from Sierra Times Columnist Means Little
Guest columnist Doug Hagin says of the Democratic party:
"....They have become a party of
pessimism, and a party, which puts America’s interest below their need for power."
First, the Sierra Times should have a better editor.
Their punctuation is horrendous.
Second, think about that statement:
"puts America's interest below their need for power."
Hmmm..do you mean someone who would send troops into dreaded harm's way without a decent plan for their
reasonable safety and security?
Someone who would use lies and exaggerations to lead his people into that same war?
Someone who would stonewall an investigation into the worst attack on America in history?
Someone who would prop and support his business associates in Saudi Arabia..the very nation who virtually attacked Americans in that attack on 9-11?
Someone who would support his business associates and campaign contributors who are raking in $2 out of every
THREE tax-dollars spent on the Iraq war?
Someone who created the most monstrous deficit in American history and asks middle class America for more sacrifice for war costs while asking nothing from..even rewarding his wealthy contributors?
Someone who has been totally ineffective at ensuring airport security as evidenced this week when a young man turned the Homeland security charade upside down?
Someone who nauseatingly hyped Iraq's "imminent threat" while reversing his policy on ignoring Korea's threat to America?
Someone who tells lies *er--I mean careless and ignorant mischaracterizations--* to foreign nations while at the same time overcommits his tired Military and unjustly talks down his own nation's Congress?
This isn't about retaining power?
This isn't about placing power interests before the interests of individual Americans?!
As for Doug Hagin, I'm afraid he's a pathetic sap.
He might as well drink some more of the KoolAid.
Doug lost me when he compared Dennis Kucinich to Elmer Fudd.
The Sierra Times comments on their website:
" any contribution is desperately needed and always accepted."
Their desperation is showing.
If I could talk to Doug Hagin, I'd say
"Get a clue, Doug Hagin. The Democratic party is a party of hope in what seems to be a hopeless time."
Doug should read some Al Franken.
Conservative Becky Miller did...even though she says she had to 'plug her nose' a few times...
Becky said:
"...The leaders we conservatives have trusted have taken advantage of our trust to line the pockets of the wealthy and powerful, and it's time we rose up and drove out these greedy liars. They've hijacked and distorted our belief system for their own gain, and in doing so are destroying our credibility.
And if we decent, honest, hard-working, patriotic, true-blue conservatives of this country neglect the duty we have to our children and grandchildren, we will never be able to work with those decent, honest, hard-working, patriotic, true-blue liberal Americans that these lying creeps have taught us to despise..."
Howard Dean in the News
A doctor in the house
ALEX MASSIE
Scotsman Online
This is an extremely informative article about Gov. Dean.
Excerpt:
"...As Dean criss-crosses the country, his grass-roots rebellion grows in strength. His opponents have stepped up their attacks on him, arguing that he’s a reckless fraud, incapable of winning support in the south, and an electoral disaster waiting to happen. Far from being discouraged by this, Dean’s supporters see it as proof that their man is the only candidate capable of delivering. As they put it, their country is sick and only a doctor can cure its ills - a doctor named Howard Dean."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jerusalem Post:
Candidate Dean hits Saudis on terrorism
By HERB KEINON
Oct. 20, 2003
"......Dean said arms sales to Saudi Arabia should be used as leverage with the Saudis, even though the US is not interested in bringing about a revolution there. He said that, if elected, dealing with Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia would be a focus of his foreign policy.
According to Dean, the US should make public the role Saudi Arabia plays in world terrorism. He took the Bush administration to task for censoring 21 pages of the government's report on the September 11 attacks, saying this was done in order to hide Saudi involvement from the public.
But rather than protecting the Saudis, Dean said, the US should be making them feel uncomfortable..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrats tempted to rethink funding
by Dick Polman
Philadephia Inquirer
20 Oct 2003
".....Howard Dean may soon decide to spurn public financing in 2004 - despite his original promise, uttered in March and repeated in June, to respect the historic reforms that were sponsored primarily by Democrats in the aftermath of Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal in the 1970s. If Dean opts out, rival John Kerry says he may do the same.
With Bush already opting out for the second time, any major Democratic defection would essentially signal a bipartisan renunciation of the system..."
"....Dean strategists now think they may stand a better chance of winning the nomination, and beating Bush, if they run a privatized campaign."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pat Buchanan thinks Dean will be "the one", but stands no real chance of beating Bush
".....If Bush and Karl Rove, using the $170 million they plan to raise by spring, can paint Dean as pro-homosexual weddings, pro-hiking taxes and "soft on Saddam," Dean and the Democrats could face a wipeout
Nothing is certain in politics. Few predicted the Bush swoon of last summer. And the economy could go into that "double-dip" recession some predict. But as of now, it looks like "Four More Years!" for GWB."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Princeton loves Howard Dean
Ambush Teams Strike U.S. Targets in Iraq
By CHARLES J. HANLEY AP Special Correspondent
published 09:39 PM - OCTOBER 19, 2003 Eastern Time
If this article doesn't help you to see just how bad things are going in Iraq, God help you.
JOHN MCCAIN SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHO HE CALLS "INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING NATIONAL SECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES"
Howard Dean has made this recent statement regarding the $87 Billion Appropriation..
in part:
"..I would oppose President Bush's latest request for a blank check unless the President submits a new plan that is paid for out of the tax cut. The new plan must give our troops what they need and bring them home safely, share this burden with other nations, ensure the stabilization and rebuilding of Iraq, and make sure that the billions of dollars we are spending are not wasted and used to pay off big corporations. Congress must demand that the President submit this new plan immediately.
"Too many in my party, like Senators Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman, and Congressman Gephardt allowed the President to get us into this misguided war. It is clear General Clark also supported the war at this time. The right choice would have been voting 'no' last fall; voting 'no' now cannot erase that poor decision. Trying to have it both ways demonstrates neither strong leadership nor good judgment."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TODAY IN THE WASHINGTON POST, WE SEE A QUOTE FROM AZ. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN:
Quotable
"I'm not surprised that Governor Dean would oppose this. I've lost confidence that he has any understanding of the national security responsibilities of a president."
-- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), to whom the formerly insurgent Howard Dean is often compared.
McCain was speaking to the Manchester Union-Leader
about Dean's opposition to the $87 billion requested for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW:
CONSIDER THIS SITUATION FROM 1999- S.J. Res. 20--
"DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. ARMED FORCES TO THE KOSOVO REGION OF YUGOSLAVIA" (Senate - May 04, 1999)
[Page: S4611-Congressional Record]
WHAT IF THIS RESOLUTION HAD PASSED??!!??
If McCain has such "understanding" and others had fallen in line with hawkish-him and Biden in 1999, we would have had
a hell of a lot of dead American troops!
As it turned out, thank God and Clinton and General Clark, there was not one American life lost.
Look at this tripe from McCain in 1999 re: S.J. 20:
Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, I want to speak plainly in the few minutes remaining to me. What I say now may offend some people, even some of my friends who support this resolution. I am sorry for that, but I say it because I believe it is the truth, the important truth, and it should be said. The President of the United States is prepared to lose a war rather than do the hard work, the politically risky work, of fighting as the leader of the greatest nation on Earth should fight when our interests and our values are imperiled.
We all know why in a few minutes this resolution is going to lose. It is going to lose because the President and members of his Cabinet have joined with the opponents to the war **???** and lobbied hard for the resolution's defeat. Do not believe administration officials when they tell you that the resolution would have been defeated even without their active opposition. Had they worked half as hard in support of it as they did to defeat it, the result would have been different today.
No, it is not that they could not win; it is because they did not want to win *???* that we are facing defeat this morning. That is a shame, a real shame.
I have said repeatedly that the President does not need this resolution to use all the force he deems necessary to achieve victory in Kosovo. I stand by that contention. And I have the good company of the Constitution behind me.
I had wanted this resolution considered in the now forlorn hope that the President would take courage from it and find the resolve to do his duty, his duty by us, the American people, by the alliance he leads, and by the suffering people of Kosovo who now look to America and NATO for their very lives. I was wrong, and I must accept the blame for that. The President does not want the power he possesses by law because the risks inherent in its exercise have paralyzed him. Let me identify for my colleagues the price paid by Kosovars for the President's repeated and indefensible ruling out of ground troops..."
To which Senator Tom Daschle replied:
DASCHLE: The distinguished Senator from Arizona made some comments about the President's unwillingness to use ground troops. It isn't just the President. It is all of his Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is everybody in the Pentagon who advises the President who has said, This is not the time; we do not want to commit ground troops at this point, Mr. President; don't request them. And he has not.
It is for this reason, Mr. President, that I reluctantly join in tabling this resolution today...
Until we have given every opportunity for the air campaign to work, moving to a new strategy is premature..."
Here is a Statement of Senator Carl Levin Vote on that same McCain/Biden Resolution:
Washington--The Senate this morning voted 78 to 22 to table the McCain/Biden Joint Resolution that would have authorized the President to use all necessary force, in concert with United States allies, to accomplish United States and NATO objectives in Yugoslavia.
While, I favor the thrust of the resolution, i.e. that NATO must do everything necessary to prevail in this conflict, I do not favor its timing.
The 19 NATO nations are united in their determination that Milosevic's campaign of terror will not be allowed to succeed. If the Senate had adopted this resolution, I believe that we would have put the Senate and this nation in a significantly different position than the rest of NATO in advance of a need to do so. NATO is unified on an air campaign. It is not yet unified on a ground campaign. A premature debate on a ground force could negatively impact on the unity of the Alliance.
I do believe that contingency planning for a NATO ground force should proceed as a prudent step, but there is no need for the Senate to authorize a ground force at this time. We must not be distracted by a premature debate about ground forces. Our focus and our efforts should be on accomplishing the military mission of significantly reducing Milosevic's capability to keep a stranglehold on Kosovo.
Senator Carl Levin
Thank God these men and other men and women like them in Congress had the good sense not to follow hawks McCain and Biden into war folly.
I wish many of those same Congresspeople would have recalled their intelligent 1999 decision when presented with the Iraq resolution in October, 2002.
Instead, many of them acted like frightened and brainwashed boobs....McCain among them...no surprise.
Facing It
by Yusef Komunyakaa
"My black face fades,
hiding inside the black granite.
I said I wouldn't,
dammit: No tears.
I'm stone. I'm flesh.
My clouded reflection eyes me
like a bird of prey, the profile of night
slanted against morning. I turn
this way--the stone lets me go.
I turn that way--I'm inside
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
again, depending on the light
to make a difference.
I go down the 58,022 names,
half-expecting to find
my own in letters like smoke.
I touch the name Andrew Johnson;
I see the booby trap's white flash.
Names shimmer on a woman's blouse
but when she walks away
the names stay on the wall.
Brushstrokes flash, a red bird's
wings cutting across my stare.
The sky. A plane in the sky.
A white vet's image floats
closer to me, then his pale eyes
look through mine. I'm a window.
He's lost his right arm
inside the stone. In the black mirror
a woman's trying to erase names:
No, she's brushing a boy's hair.
Copyright Yusef Komunyakaa 1988
Autumn brings the memory of
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Autumn marks both the birth and the passing of a great American figure, Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Born November 12, 1815.. died October 26, 1902.
On July 19,1848, the first woman's rights convention was called by Stanton and Massachussetts-born Lucretia Mott (who was first President of the American Equal Rights Association.)
The first women's rights convention was held at the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, NY...not far from where I call home.
In Seneca Falls, N.Y.
Wesleyan Chapel, Seneca Falls, N.Y.. as it stands today.
Near the end of her life, the wise and enlightened Stanton penned one of the most meaningful speeches ever made in American history.
At the 1892 National American Woman Suffrage Association convention, Stanton retired as president and delivered her “Solitude of Self” speech, the fullest expression of her feminist philosophy.
The PBS "Not For Our Ourselves Alone" website says: "On January 18, 1892, Elizabeth Cady Stanton delivered her Solitude of Self address to the Congressional Judiciary Committee...." and presents the speech in its entirety.
In 1895, Stanton published the first volume of the Woman’s Bible, the culmination of her life-long interest in correcting biblical passages that are demeaning to women. It became an immediate bestseller and aroused widespread controversy.
Elizabeth did not live to see the 19th Amendment enfranchise women, which occurred on August 26, 1920..eighteen years after her death.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
click photo for Women's Rights National Park site
"...Neither the man movement nor the woman movement had a dated beginning. In the struggle upward toward political freedom, men were called upon to overthrow the universally accepted theory of the Divine Right of Kings to rule over the masses of men; women, the universally accepted theory of the Divine Right of Men to rule over women. The American Revolution forever destroyed the Divine Right of Kings theory in this country, but it left untouched the theory of the Divine Right of Man to rule over woman. Men and women believed it with equal sincerity, the church taught it, customs were based upon it, the law endorsed it, and the causes which created the belief had been so long lost in obscurity that men claimed authority for it in the "laws of God." All opposition to the enfranchisement of women emanated from that theory.
Students of human progress might have predicted at the inception of the American Republic that, should it continue, universal manhood and womanhood suffrage would become inevitable. The official announcement of the causes that led the American patriots into revolution emphasized two maxims as explanatory of all their grievances, namely, "Taxation without representation is tyranny" and "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Although in the minds of the Colonists these aphorisms undoubtedly were limited in application to the relation which the Colonies bore to their Mother Country, it was as clear to individual men and women then, as to hundreds of thousands of them a hundred and forty years later, that a nation that proclaimed these principles upon the one hand and denied them upon the other, applied them to men and refused to apply them to women, presented so untenable an inconsistency that sooner or later professions and deeds would have to be squared..."
Carrie Chapman Catt / Nettie Rogers Shuler
from: "WOMAN SUFFRAGE AND POLITICS-
THE INNER STORY OF THE SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A wonderful book about the Seneca Falls/Finger Lakes region of NY from a unique perspective:
FROM WHERE WE STAND: RECOVERING A SENSE OF PLACE by Deborah Tall deals with ways we can authentically learn about our adopted places of residence.. by the consciousness of the heart and by our educated imagination. We come to discover our true home and roots by doing so.
Liberty and Justice by Degree
By Todd J. Schneider
Free Thinker's Page
12 October, 2003
All my life, or at least since I realized that the socio-political arena was where my game was being played, I have struggled to find the one defining idea for the fight against the right that I could put into words, to share with others. There would be a day when my neurotransmitters were hooked up correctly, and I always imagined that I would sit down and write something that always had the title, “Why We Fight”. But I knew that there was this wonderful fellow named Capra back in the forties that produced the masterpiece of wartime propaganda by that name, which served as a tool to justly beat back one of the greatest tyrants in history. So the title would never stand a chance. Meanwhile, I would visit this quest for the definition of that feeling inside that causes me to shed the fears of a commoner and take a stand. Driving a car, fixing a lamp, in the shower; these were all the forums for my Q&A to myself, always hoping for a conclusion.
So today, I was mowing my lawn and mulling over the statements by Pat Robertson and Joel Mowbray that The State Department could be dealt with as an enemy with a nuclear bomb. And that led to thoughts about the Rove/Novak treason against Valerie Plame and our nation. All that they have to say is “I didn’t do it.” a la Bart Simpson, and the whole thing just goes away! But, should a pip-squeak like myself, or one of you make a similar statement, we’d be on a list faster than you can say phony cowboy. And that was the moment. The dispensation of unequal rights according to wealth and privilege are the reasons I fight. The very fact that one man or woman deserves more protection under the law, according the eternally evil premise that who I know, what favors I’ve done, and how much money I’ve contributed to your election affords me this unequal right, makes me sick to my soul.
To hell with the toys and goodies of the affluent. I could care less about these temporal things. Even the bible says not to envy those of their material goods; they can all be stolen or turn to rust. What I am talking about is the very and only thing that makes America real - and without which our republic is doomed to tyranny. It is the notion that, under the law, Sanjay is no different than Bill; that Betty deserves justice no more than Juanita, and Park has the same chance for prosperity according to his own honest industry. Likewise, these individual rights are a two-sided agreement that counts responsibility as payment. And should the moment present itself, that the friend of the president be held to the same standard of accountability as I or my neighbor.
This idea can be applied to a wide array of issues that define our great land and system of government. Freedom of religion, freedom of the press for example, are based on the simple idea that when the rights of an individual are disregarded, so are the rights of all. But the whole balance of this noble concept of rights and responsibilities is upset when the access to it is defiled by class and political influence. Any one of us that is able to open a book knows that this is not a new phenomenon. This scourge of class and privilege has always hovered around the fringes of our republic; sometimes made to feel more welcome than at other times. Indeed, this has been a struggle that has been a camp follower in the march of history. In most of the story of mankind, the peasant had no say, and ‘the inner circle’ was the dream of many.
But we were going to be different. America was going to take the folly of the past and collectively mold it into something that would benefit the whole of its citizenry. Sure, there would be greed and corruption, which ultimately can only be cured by the voice of one’s own conscience. But, BY LAW, we were for ever after to be counted as equal - the smallest voice as important as the largest - the poorest as rich in justice as the wealthy. Our nation’s history has been a slow, hard-fought battle toward maturity, where someday we’d be a people that rejected race and color. We would be a land where the captains of industry honored their grant to wealth by offering socially responsible business practices, grown of a sense of civil duty. We would be a country that thrilled at the thought that every man, woman or child was truly innocent until proven guilty, and in turn repaid this gift through responsible and honorable actions.
Something’s gone horribly wrong, though. We live in a time when all those notions are turned on their head. A time when favors for profit, profit for elections and a lusting greed for permanent power have elevated a class of citizens to a level where there are no consequences to be paid for them to break the law. Indeed, when the law is broken, there is a formula to deny, distract, then claim victory that is used with impunity by the friends of the bush White House. In other words, “No, I didn’t do it.”, “Maybe someone should have done it.”, and “Ok, I did it. So what? I was right to do it, because it served the interests of commerce or the President’s political motives.” John Ashcroft reveals trial information from a federal case, against all known judicial ethics codes. Karl Rove (or someone who looks, talks, and smells a lot like a ‘turd blossom’) reveals the name of a covert intelligence agent. Or the man who pretends to be our president speaks contemptuous lies on a daily basis. All with no consequences. Meanwhile, Rebecca gets rubber bullets shot at her head because she was at a peace rally, or Bob gets fired from his reporter’s job because he wanted to do a story that presented facts contrary to the administration’s line. Or Jamal gets a lethal injection, even if he’s innocent, because it’s more important for some right wing politician to be seen as being ‘tough on crime’.
These are the reasons we fight. We fight because the inspired doctrine of our land, the Constitution, has been taken from us. This document that gives life to our republic is held in contempt by our new ruling class, only to be paraded before us to serve the interest of some administration-sponsored, political hocus-pocus. And worst of all, this grand parchment, to which all liberty is owed, has become officially a set of laws made conditional upon the amount of influence enjoyed between citizen and White House. Our American way of life has become a system of Liberty and Justice by degree, according to one’s political contribution to, what the White House hopes, will soon be a one-party system. Angrily, I say to you that this is never what the writers of the Constitution intended, and would be standing somewhere on a box, telling us so. I would be honored if they let me join them.
Copyright 2003 Todd J. Schneider
New Blog Dedicated to the Unfortunate Steve Bartman
http://stevebartman.blogspot.com/
First Three Parts of a Five-Part Series:
US Soldiers to America: ''Bring us home now; we’re dying for oil and corporate greed!''
Parts 1-3 in a 5-part series
Interviews by Jay Shaft
Coalition For Free Thought In Media
October 2003
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
'Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy'
From Asia Times Online:
Anti-empire forces strike back
By Jim Lobe
"We are more isolated from the general opinions of mankind than at any time in history." Scott McConnell
"The United States today is far less safe than it was several years ago, because we have weakened the international architecture which helped protect us." Charles Kupchan
Article excerpt:
"....Representatives of a new coalition of prominent foreign policy scholars and analysts whose political views range from right to center-left announced on Thursday that they hope to spearhead opposition to the imperial policies pursued by the administration of US President George W Bush.
Leaders of the "Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy" charged that the administration is moving "in a dangerous direction toward empire", an idea that they said has never been embraced by the US public.
The spokespersons said that they will hold a series of policy forums and conferences around the country, publish papers and articles, and represent an anti-imperial viewpoint on television and radio, media that, since September 11, 2001, have been largely dominated by pro-imperial or pro-war voices...."
SEE: COALITION FOR A REALISTIC FOREIGN POLICY
Joel Mowbray:
Pat Robertson's Partner in Anti-State Dept Terror Threat Thinks Malaysian PM is the Cat's Meow?
This was written by Joel Mowbray, who recently inspired Pat Robertson to articulate his desire to "nuke Foggy Bottom". The article was written in early 2002. His words are interesting, to say the least, when we look back to the Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir's actions this week. It sounds as if Mowbray's either incredibly wrong (although I give him benefit of doubt) or Bush was incredibly unsuccessful in prioritizing his administration's diplomatic agenda this past year and a half.
Was Mowbray asleep at the intellectual wheel..or was Bush the diplomatically drowsy dud?
"....Malaysia has suddenly appeared on the foreign policy radar.....our national security can only be enhanced if we forge stronger ties with Malaysia. Given the succession of high-profile arrests recently in neighboring nations, fostering a greatly enhanced relationship with Malaysia will prove to be a vital component of anti-terror efforts in Southeast Asia....as recent revelations make painfully clear, we cannot wait any longer before fully engaging Malaysia as a strategic partner in our war on terror....Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, leader of the moderate ruling party, is already working to establish a positive relationship with the Bush administration.... Although Malaysia is not a perfect nation, it is an ideal partner for combating terrorism...As we search for new allies, Malaysia must top the list....
The Malaysian PM betrayed the hidden (and sometimes not-so-hidden) abhorrence for Jews that is prevalent
in most Islamic states today.
I wonder if Mowbray still feels the same way about Malaysia today?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my opinion, Mowbray is an intelligent young man with a misplaced anger toward the State Department.
Take this article about Saudi Arabia, for example.
You must ask yourself...in all his finger-pointing, why does he stop with the State Department?
I wonder if, in all fairness, he ever talks about the close business and economic ties between the Bush family and the bin Ladens...or the Bush family and the Saudi royals?
Here's another very recent example of Mowbray's misplaced anger toward the State Department (as if they were totally independent from the Bush administration): "...State Department spokesman Richard Boucher threw a tantrum Thursday. The cause of his ire? Not foreign dictators or nuclear-armed tyrants. Boucher's wrath was targeted at Pat Robertson, whose recent remarks the State Department has blasted as "despicable."
It was despicable...face reality, Joel. Flippant or not flippant, it was despicable.
You fail to mention Bush press secretary McClellan's comments:
Oct 14:
Q Can I follow up on Pat Robertson?
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.
Q Will the President -- besides not finding those comments helpful, I wonder if the President feels that he should have no involvement with Pat Robertson, whatever, going forward, and that Pat Robertson should not play any role in any kind of unofficial way in helping him in reelection, in any kind of supportive role.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, again --
Q Would the President like Robertson to keep his distance?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think that those comments were harmful. And he, himself, said that he should not have said that. I think the comments were wrong, and he has since said so.
Q So it's all forgiven?
*No reply.....*
Protestors Tear-gassed and Arrested for
Wanting Democracy and An End to Terrorism
Saudi protesters call for more freedoms
2003-10-16 / Associated Press /
Hundreds of Saudis staged an illegal protest in the capital, an unprecedented call for reform in this conservative Islamic kingdom.
Police fired tear gas to break up Tuesday's demonstration, which followed months of public debate, also a rarity, over growing terrorism. Critics charge that a lack of democratic freedoms has made the kingdom a breeding ground for extremists.
The Saudi royal family has been under pressure to bring democratic reform to the country since the September 11, attacks and increasing terrorist violence at home. Fifteen of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saudi Princes Claiming Immunity on 9-11 Lawsuit
They have enough money to buy them a great "out", I suppose.
It's not like the U.S. government will put any pressure on them..they get away with murder and the U.S. always finds a new spot on their ass for a new, wet, sloppy kiss.
A historical glimpse of Saudi Arabia's reform movement
See Notes on the War on Terrorism
If terrorism is to truly be diminished, Saudi Arabia MUST change....and America must no longer be held
economic hostage to them.
We'll never be a free nation or a free people while we are so closely tied to the very nation that virtually attacked
us on 9-11.
Nah-nah, Saudi Arabia---
I can say anything I want about you whilst I'm bloggin'....
and STILL keep my noggin!
What a bargain!
Ain't it great to be American!!
The Screwjob: Halliburton--Already Sucking Away Billions of American
Tax-Dollars, Are Allegedly Gouging U.S. in Fuel charges
According to this Boston Globe article, Halliburton 'has so far received more than $1.4 billion in work in Iraq to repair and restore the country's oil industry under a no-bid contract issued in March. In another contract providing logistical support, more than $1.6 billion has been clocked so far, with more in the works'.
And now they are overcharging by as much as 80 cents on each gallon of fuel transported from Kuwait into Iraq.
This seems almost too filthy to be true...let's hope it's not.
U.N. Gives Go-Ahead for Madrid-bound 'Tin-Cup' Bush
They're calling the U.N. resolution a diplomatic victory.
It may be a victory..but, oh---how hollow a victory for America.
Bush got some of what he wanted...the srengthened right to take his tin cup to the donors' conference in Madrid next week.....but never moved an inch to convince anyone to actually assist us in Iraq or admit the war was just.
That's because it wasn't just.
As free as Iraq bcomes, the attack will never be seen as just.
I'm not the only one who thinks so, apparently. The Pope, the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore....oh--and the rest of the world-at-large--seem to agree.
We Americans will pay the price for the unjust actions of American leadership...in precious young lives *we lost four today* and hard-earned tax dollars.
Thanks, Bush. Thanks, Congress.
Sleep well...if you can.
When guilt sets in, there's always Zoloft to get you through.
I'm sure your friends in Pharmaceuticalia will set you up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt from today's NY Times article:
"...No sooner had the prestigious Security Council approved a resolution by 15-0 on Thursday when France, Russia, Germany issued a declaration saying they did not intend to increase contributions for Iraq's recovery.
And Pakistan, a Muslim country Washington hoped would contribute troops, announced it would not do so as long as any force reported to a U.S.-led occupation.
Still, the vote was a diplomatic victory for the United States. It legitimized foreign troops in Iraq by turning them into a U.S.-led multinational force and approved in general U.S.-British policies on Iraqi independence.."
Here's Ben and the Pants-On-Fire Mobile! :)
Click on photo for more!
Unintended Consequences of General Clark's Proposed "Civilian Reserve"?
The Village Voice has an interesting article by James Ridgeway regarding General Wesley Clark's fair-weather friendship with the Clintons which could wind up costing General Clark more than he bargained for. It also discusses the apparent fact that he has few real friends in the Military, and an imporatnt question about the constitutionality of his proposed "Civilian Reserve":
".. On Monday, Clark proposed a 5,000-person civilian reserve, which could be called up for emergencies both here and abroad. The reserve would be open to anyone over the age of 18, and could be mustered at the command of president and the Congress to handle crises like forest fires, earthquakes, and nation-building in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
This proposal has already been criticized as a redundancy, since Clinton's AmeriCorps and Bush's USA Freedom Corps have already spent large sums in efforts to boost volunteerism.
Clark's corps would meet another need, though it's unclear if this is the former general's intention. The U.S. military is severely strained by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld mock the UN, which means, among other things, we will have to shoulder the burden of running international peacekeeping projects when it is in our interest to do so.
This new corps, which would be run directly by the federal government, might help take the strain off the National Guard, but in doing so it would probably plunge the federal government into direct management of disasters at the local level. That is of questionable constitutional legitimacy, since disasters and ordinary operations of the Guard are supposed to be in the hands of state governors, not Washington..."
Retiring Prime Minister of democratic Malaysia, frustrated over lack of Middle East Road Map success, creates a Road Map of his own for Islamic successors to follow.
".....Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on Thursday told a summit of Islamic leaders that "Jews rule the world by proxy" and the world's 1.3 billion Muslims should unite, using nonviolent means for a "final victory"....."
Regardless of how non-violently the Malaysian Prime Minister frames it all, "final victory" sounds violence-related to me.....how about you?
You can understand how this would make Israel uncomfortable...yes?
My question is this:
Are we EVER going to have an American leader who is wise enough to protect his vulnerable friends in Israel while showing an even and honest hand to those who have been separated from human rights and civil society in the region? Will an American leader EVER be able to be honest with an Israeli leader like Sharon and tell him he's
endangering his good people with his twisted and hateful policies?
Will the good people of Israel ever come to unerstand that hateful leaders beget hate?
When they begin to see that Sharon represents as much hatred as those ugly souls who call themselves warriors and use terror as a tool of fear....then perhaps we will get somewhere?
The current attitude and handling of "terror" by both Bush and Sharon is undermining the human rights of all the innocent on both sides of the Middle Eastern conflict.
If there is a G*d and we believe in G*d, how can our G*d-fearing leaders ignore the suffering of the innocent simply because terror reigns? Should we NOT do all we can for the good of mankind while terror reigns?
Why do Bush and Sharon return terror with terror and wait for a far-off day when terror is defeated while innocent people suffer and die?
This is NOT leadership, my friends.
This is a case of men perpetrating violence on top of violence...virtually signing death-warrants for more of the innocent.
Look at what we wind up with:
"....Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on Thursday told a summit of Islamic leaders that "Jews rule the world by proxy" and the world's 1.3 billion Muslims should unite, using nonviolent means for a "final victory."
His speech at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit, which he was hosting, drew criticism from Jewish leaders, who warned it could spark more violence against Jews...."
THERE HAS TO BE BETTER WAY!!!
~~~~~~~~~~
see: There Is No "Road Map" to Peace,
Only the Hard Road Not Taken
By Bernard Weiner
Co-Editor, "The Crisis Papers."
October 14, 2003
"....Can we just acknowledge that there is no "road map" to peace in the Middle East? Under Bush, there is no U.S.-sponsored avenue or boulevard or street or back alley that could possibly take the parties to a solution. In sum, there are no shortcuts to peace.."
".....Extremists on both sides (egged-on, unfortunately, by their elected leaders) believe that their claim to the disputed land is given by God. The Israeli fundamentalists want a Greater Israel, the Palestinian extremists want a Greater Palestine, with no Israel.
Ordinarily, when two religiously-oriented groups claim that God is on their side, there is no room for accommodation, because it is believed that a compromise would be an affront to God.
But in this extraordinary situation, it is not required that either side forsake their God. If and when both sides can finally agree that the continuing slaughter is intolerable, that their economic and social situation are intolerable, that the constant stress is intolerable, that each losing its moral way is intolerable -- if and when they get to that point (which, unfortunately, probably means after Arafat and Sharon have died), then both sides can say to themselves something like this:
"Dear God/Allah: We have remained true to your desires for decades upon decades, but our peoples have grown weary with despair and never-ceasing bloodshed. We want to continue the battle for your rule, but the reality is that neither of us can make the other side disappear. If we don't come to some sort of agreement -- not to like each other but merely to recognize that the others are here and they're not going to go away -- we will provide nothing to our children and grandchildren but hopelessness and despair and perpetual slaughter and unbearable tension. Therefore, in the name of reality -- and, we hope, with your blessing -- we will make a peace. It will not get us everything we and you want, but it will reclaim the likelihood of a future for succeeding generations....."
Re: "On Listening"
by Thomas Friedman
NY Times
Published: October 16, 2003
"..don't limit your associations to people who agree with you.."
Richard H. Brodhead,
Dean of Yale College
Thomas Friedman's column today in the NY Times expresses many of my own reservations and complaints about Dick Cheney's speech in front of the Bush-admin-friendly Heritage Foundation last week.
Excerpt:
"...There was a headline that grabbed me in The Times on Saturday. It said, "Cheney Lashes Out at Critics of Policy on Iraq."
"Wow," I thought, "that must have been an interesting encounter." Then I read the fine print. Mr. Cheney was speaking to 200 invited guests at the conservative Heritage Foundation — and even they were not allowed to ask any questions. Great. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein issue messages from their caves through Al Jazeera, and Mr. Cheney issues messages from his bunker through Fox. America is pushing democracy in Iraq, but our own leaders won't hold a real town hall meeting or a regular press conference.
Out of fairness, my newspaper feels obligated to run such stories. But I wish we had said to the V.P.: If you're going to give a major speech on Iraq to an audience limited to your own supporters and not allow any questions, that's not news — that's an advertisement, and you should buy an ad on the Op-Ed page...."
Mr. Friedman also puts Bush's position (*position??--or failure to act??) in the Middle East in the proper perspective:
"...Thankfully, there is one group of people the Bush team is listening to: Iraq's silent majority. Ironically, Iraq is the one place in the world where the Bush team has chosen not to become obsessed with terrorists, not to focus exclusively on them and their noise, but to just keep on building a better Iraq for Iraqis — the only way to counter terrorism in the long run — despite the bombs bursting in air.
Unfortunately, in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza — where some really sick terrorists claimed three U.S. lives yesterday — the Bush team has decided to fall in behind Ariel Sharon's failed strategy of only listening to the terrorists and postponing any initiatives until they are all defeated. So the only voice we hear there is that of the terrorists. No alternative reality is being built to smother or counter them, and that's just what the terrorists want."
Reminder: International A.N.S.W.E.R. March on Washington and San Francisco
OCTOBER 25, 2003
Bring the troops home now
End the occupation of Iraq
Money for jobs, education & healthcare - Not war
International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & Racism) is organizing marches on Washington, D.C. and San Francisco for Saturday, October 25, 2003 to protest U.S. Wars around the world. Read more about the march, including the call to action and logistical information, on their website.
The 100 greatest novels of all time
"....as the BBC prepares to reveal [Great Britain's] best loved books, The Observer has compiled its own list of essential fiction from the past 300 years..."
How many of these books have you read?
* I hope Anonymoses will appreciate #7*
*This blog particularly appreciates #52*
Two Nations- Under God(?)...Indivisible(?)
The Supreme Court will hear the case of "under God".
They added the Pledge of Allegiance to the docket for its new term on Tuesday, agreeing to consider whether public schools violate the Constitution by requiring teachers to lead their classes in pledging allegiance to the flag of "one nation under God."
I find the whole thing quite silly.
If we want to have a realistic court decision on the Pledge, let's talk about issues which are more tangible and pressing than Deity recogition.
Today, it is more apparent than ever that we are two nations under God.
America is totally polarized. You read it in the papers...you see it on your television screens..you see it in electoral results and public polls. There it is...right under your noses.
Choose your polar labels..Conservative/Liberal; Republican/Democrat; Washington Times reader/Washington Post reader; FOX news fan/ABC Nightline fan; Red State/Blue State; Rush Limbaugh listener/NPR supporter; Christian Right/Progressive; Pro-War/Anti-War...you get the gist of it, don't you?
If Justice Scalia would recuse himself from the "under God" case, who should recuse themselves if the "two nations under God" case should come along?
Every justice save Sandra Day O'Connor would have to step aside, I would think.
After the Selection 2000 case, Justice Sandra is the only Supreme Court justice who may not be hypnotized and infected by polarization.
Or how about letting Justice Sandra recuse herself and let "two nations" come to a 4-to-4 tie...the imagined "two nations" appeals court ruling would automatically be affirmed and the truth would be affirmed.
We are no longer one nation under God....
*if we are indeed under God....rest assured, the Supremes will let us know whether or not we are under God soon.*
We are two nations...the "indivisible" being reserved for another day in court.
William Saletan: As hard as they've tried, confounded 2004 Democratic candidates can't find a way to deter the unstoppable Howard Dean
They just can't get it right
"....You can imagine how angry I am, as a swing voter, to find out these horrible things about Dean. My hands are trembling so violently, I can barely write his name on the check...."
Nuculus of a DunceCap..or Total Eclipse of the Mind?
Colors of the Aura:
Dull Yellow:
A dull yellow indicates jealousy, selfishness and negative outlook.
Washington Whispers 10/20/03
By Paul Bedard
Wilson adds ammo to hit war credibility gap
"Just as former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's story that Bushies blew his CIA wife's cover to get back at his criticism of the war in Iraq was getting old, he has stumbled on new ammo to hit the administration's credibility. Wilson tells us he plans to circulate the text of a briefing by analyst Sam Gardiner that suggests the White House and Pentagon made up or distorted over 50 war stories. You know some tall tales, like the Pvt. Jessica Lynch story. But there's more, says Gardiner, a war gamer who has taught at the National War College. Like how defense officials said the first Iraqi unit marines encountered, the 51st Mechanized Infantry Division, had surrendered four days before it actually did. And he says Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers gave bad or deliberately incomplete info on several topics. Sure, propaganda has always been used in war to deceive and demoralize the enemy. But these guys went way overboard, Gardiner says. "Never before have so many stories been created to sell a war," he insists. "And they probably didn't need it."
Latest poll numbers show voters would rather elect the unknown
than face another four years with a man
who cannot lead successfully
From Washington Post-ABC News poll released today:
46 percent said they would reelect Bush if the election were held today, while 47 percent would vote for the yet-to-be chosen Democratic nominee.
They'd rather have this... 
than this 
People are really beginning to see that our nation is in danger of becoming a military state.
It seems that the rest of this world believes they will be little more than Bush campaign-contributors by caving in to his prideful, stubborn, untrustworthy demands. The EU is hesitant to help Iraq if it means helping Bush get reelected. Our nation, our troops, and the people of Iraq are gravely damaged in the process.
If it takes a new leader to make things safe for all concerned and to set us back on a road to international reconciliation and cooperation, we'll need new leadership in Washington.
Pollyanna Dubya Bush:
PUPPET MAN IN CHARGE
"The person who is in charge is me..They're just wrong about our strategy..We've had a strategy from the beginning.... Since the liberation of Iraq, thousands of new bidnesses have been launched...373 American troops exchanged for all them bidnesses..I'd say we're doing pretty good if I gotta say so myself....Pay no attention to those suicide bombers driving into those buildins...pay no attention to the four U.S. soldiers who sacrificed their lives this past weekend...look...look over here...Iraqis are building roads, for Pete's sake.....HEY!...stop looking at Donny...Condi's here with the good news...like me....me and Condi know what's going on over there, and it ain't like you liberal commie-type media bullies are saying....looks like ol' Pollyanna Dubya's gonna hafta set the record straight hisself..."
From the L.A. Weekly
David Corn: The Novak Affair
How I broke the CIA-leak story, and why nobody noticed
Read David Corn's scrutiny of today's typical Republican damage-control dissembling.
Excerpt:
"....The issue is not who’s screaming about the leak but who did it. Yet if Portman and the Republicans can succeed in presenting the controversy as another one of those same-old bitter face-offs between D’s and R’s — creating a moral equivalency between the leakers and the complainants — they win. Their aim is to exploit the public’s (justifiable) cynicism toward Washington and to battle to an it’s-all-politics draw. This is a good strategy — as long as no indictments materialize..."
Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson
This is a great tongue-in-cheek must-read by Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan.
While you're there, read the rest of his "Informed Comment" site.
In this blog's humble opinion, it is the cream of the blogcrop.
