Sunday, October 31, 2004
Will Osama Help W.?
A must-read column by Maureen Dowd on the NYT.
Excerpt:
The Bushies' campaign pitch follows their usual backward logic: Because we have failed to make you safe, you should re-elect us to make you safer. Because we haven't caught Osama in three years, you need us to catch Osama in the next four years. Because we didn't bother to secure explosives in Iraq, you can count on us to make sure those explosives aren't used against you.
You'd think that seeing Osama looking fit as a fiddle and ready for hate would spark anger at the Bush administration's cynical diversion of the war on Al Qaeda to the war on Saddam. It's absurd that we're mired in Iraq - an invasion the demented vice president praised on Friday for its "brilliance" - while the 9/11 mastermind nonchalantly pops up anytime he wants. For some, it seemed cartoonish, with Osama as Road Runner beeping by Wile E. Bush as Dick Cheney and Rummy run the Acme/Halliburton explosives company - now under F.B.I. investigation for its no-bid contracts on anvils, axle grease (guaranteed slippery) and dehydrated boulders (just add water) .
Read the whole article here.
Despite its hapless, aimless and mindless strategies, which have put America in growing dangers, the Bush administration rides the horse of panic, stubbornly boasting to be able to "keep Americans safe", as if objective facts did not matter. As if people were gullible fools. The very concern for security, one of the many fields where Bush failed miserably, surely leads to look elsewhere for competence.
T. L. Friedman endorses Bush... (the FATHER though!)
Thomas L. Friedman has written a very sensible and documented column on the New York Times, listing all the achievements of George Herbert Walker Bush, father of the current president.
"The more I look back on the elder Bush - Bush 41 - the more I find things to admire and the more I see attributes we need in our next president." writes Friedman. And lists Bush Senior's capacity for dialogue, fiscal responsibility, his "healthy balance between realism and idealism, unilateralism and multilateralism, American strength and American diplomacy", his capacity to create real strong alliances
Friedman also mentions George senior's choice not to invade Baghdad in 1991.
"The alliance that Mr. Bush, Brent Scowcroft and James A. Baker III built to drive Saddam out of Kuwait had so many allies it virtually turned a profit for America. Mr. Bush chose not to invade Baghdad in 1991. Right or wrong, he felt that had he tried, he would have lost the coalition he had built up to evict Saddam from Kuwait. He obviously believed that the U.S. should never invade an Arab capital without a coalition that contained countries whose support mattered in that part of the world, such as France, Egypt, Syria or Saudi Arabia."
This and other examples (policies regarding Russia, China, Israel, and even his preparatory work which allowed later to have the NAFTA free-trade accord) show, says Friedman, that elder Bush "understood the importance of acting in the world - but acting wisely, with competence and preparation."
The conclusion, according to Friedman, is that one should vote whom is closer to the "ethos of George H. W. Bush - the old guy". Friedman does not say the name. But it appears clear that elder Bush's real political heir does not necessarily bear the same last name.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
From guerrillanews.com:
Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000
War on my mind
By Russ Baker
Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:59:47 -0700
Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer
Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”
Read the whole article here.
From salon.com:
NASA photo analyst: Bush wore a device during debate
Physicist says imaging techniques prove the president's bulge was not caused by wrinkled clothing.
By Kevin Berger
Oct. 29, 2004 | George W. Bush tried to laugh off the bulge. "I don't know what that is," he said on "Good Morning America" on Wednesday, referring to the infamous protrusion beneath his jacket during the presidential debates. "I'm embarrassed to say it's a poorly tailored shirt."
Dr. Robert M. Nelson, however, was not laughing. He knew the president was not telling the truth. And Nelson is neither conspiracy theorist nor midnight blogger. He's a senior research scientist for NASA and for Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and an international authority on image analysis. Currently he's engrossed in analyzing digital photos of Saturn's moon Titan, determining its shape, whether it contains craters or canyons.
For the past week, while at home, using his own computers, and off the clock at Caltech and NASA, Nelson has been analyzing images of the president's back during the debates. A professional physicist and photo analyst for more than 30 years, he speaks earnestly and thoughtfully about his subject. "I am willing to stake my scientific reputation to the statement that Bush was wearing something under his jacket during the debate," he says. "This is not about a bad suit. And there's no way the bulge can be described as a wrinkled shirt."
Read the whole article on salon.com.Sent to a pointless war, without protection
What can I say? When I read that not only are young kids sent to a pointless war, but are not even given the necessary gear to protect themselves, and that relatives end up buying armors and radios that they should have in the first place (click here to read the article), I get utterly pissed off.
A pointless war, based on deception, where some die, and others make money.
A comment after Osama Bin Laden's new video appearance
The video of Osama Bin Laden might have the power to awaken the worst fears. Legitimately.
He is definitely the most dangerous living enemy of the United States. And his power does not appear to have been influenced by Bush's politics after 9/11. Nay, thanks to George W. Bush, it has probably increased, just like increased is likely the number of those who see Osama as a leader for the islamic world, particularly after the war on Iraq. Many western political analysts have stated that the Iraqi war was probably the biggest gift given by Bush to Osama: a war diverted from Osama and directed towards Iraq which was not a threat nor was behind 9/11; a war that could easily be perceived by many arabs as the evidence of often heard anti-American lines; a war that could appear to many arabs as a nightmare-come-true of an Israeli-American attack to their countries. A war that for these very reasons has likely created new breeds of hateful terrorists. A wrong war that, in short, has made everything worse and more difficult.
This consideration is important in that it suggests that the mindless and aimless 'resolve' of Bush, not balanced by proper information, judgement and strategy, has turned out to increase the dangers for America. And it also suggests that the most appropriate answer to Osama's new video is certainly a steadfast determination to keep people safe in all ways possible, but by using not force only, but brain too.
What's next? What impact can Osama's video message have on American people? Probably not much at this point. But one thing is certain. The danger must be faced with lucidity and proper actions. But actions must be directed against the people actually responsible of crimes (Osama), without using those very crimes as a pretext for mindless, unjustified and counterproductive wars. And there must absolutely be an awareness of the problems of the Middle East and efforts and wise policies to solve them justly.
As an Italian journalist has noted, Osama appears to have read Michael Scheuer, former CIA chief of the Bin Laden Unit who, in his book "Imperial Hubris" has stated that Osama fights against America "not because he hates freedom", but because "he hates our policies". And coincidentally, in his video speech, Osama has given a rationale of terrorism as answer to US aggressive policies (as said by Michael Scheuer), rather than a fight against freedom, stating "if we hate freedom, why have we not attacked Sweden?".
This is what Michael Scheuer writes:
"The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society."
There cannot be any excuse for violence against innocent people. Terrorism cannot be acceptable, ever. But if America wants to be safer, a new path ought to be taken which do not rely on aimless force but, rather, on efforts with wider scope: intelligence, military and diplomacy. And balanced, wise policies in the Middle East, not unilaterally leaning on Israel, but pursuing just terms for all parties involved, and respecting the cultural peculiarities of each country and their rights to self-determination. My personal opinion is that this wide array of efforts are not within the political capacities and vision of George W. Bush.
The responsible American voter has got to read this:
100 Facts and 1 Opinion
The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration
[Please circulate the above link, people deserve to know]
I put Eminem's Mosh video on top, but posts get updated below....
eminem - mosh
From Mosh:
If it rains let it rain, yea the wetter the better
They ain't gonna stop us they can't, we stronger now more than ever
They tell us no we say yea, they tell us stop we say go
Rebel with a rebel yell, raise hell we gonna let em know
Stomp, push, shove, mush, Fuck Bush, until they bring our troops home (c'mon)
[...]
Let the president answer a higher anarchy
Strap him with an Ak-47, let him go, fight his own war
Let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our own soil
No more psychological warfare, to trick us to thinking that we ain't loyal
If we don't serve our own country, we're patronizing a hero
Look in his eyes its all lies
The stars and stripes, they've been swiped, washed out and wiped
And replaced with his own face, Mosh now or die
If I get sniped tonight you know why,
Cause I told you to fight.
More on the video showing Bush giving the finger
I have been criticised for posting, as a comment in a blog, the link to a video showing George W. Bush giving the finger. People have suggested that the video only reveals that Bush is an ordinary guy, and there is nothing bad about this. I would like to tackle this topic more in detail.
The video showing Bush giving the finger could indeed be considered funny and revealing that Bush is a funny, ordinary, beer-buddy-like guy. Except, if one watches the video carefully, not only the finger but the whole attitude, and reflects more carefully, a second thought comes to mind: "This guy looks like any tipsy weirdo in a bar late at night, telling tired jokes that are not funny. But, wait a minute. This guy is the president of the United States!". A disturbing moral, or psychological, incongruity emerges from this video.
Now, I know there is a certain rhetoric regarding the president as being "one of the guys". One might like exactly the fact that in this video Bush comes across as an ordinary person.
Yet, I am sure that the most indulgent person, with sincere hopes for the well-being of his (or her) country will have doubts whether a person like this is really the best candidate for presidency and the best commander-in-chief. Are ordinary persons necessarily like this? I don't think so. One would want to see something, a sign showing some qualities that suggest - at least to some extent - some judgment, maturity, dignity, prudence. No, this guy, who appears flushed, agitated, even amphetaminic, does not appear ordinary. He appears as someone whom any decent person would not not like to be in company with, let alone see as a credible leader of a country like the United States.
In this video, Bush shows his real personality. He comes across as a spoiled, immature grown-up (he has grey hair, but looks like a kid on coke). He shows his fundamental redneckness. And I use this term to represent a moral category, a certain roughness and dull vision of reality, not literally to represent a given social class. In fact, there are millions of normal workers who appear more serious and mature and decent than the Bush of this video. All this does, no doubt, raise perplexity. If not alarm.
This is the real Bush. The same Bush who calls "asshole" a journalist of the New York Times (read here). The same Bush who shows arrogance and stubborn incapacity to admit mistakes. The same Bush who encourages a religious-like 'faith' in him, which happens to be the most formidable way to elude the merciless test of objective facts.
More and more, one realizes that with age Bush may have refined his acting skills and the ways to use power. But this only makes him more unfit for his position. Any citizen concerned for the well-being of his (or her) country should not allow blind faith to prevail on facts.
The importance of recognizing mistakes
While searching the internet for some info I cam across a quite interesting text. It is the transcript of a speech of George Soros, "Why We Must Not Re-elect Bush", delivered at the National Press Club.
Excerpt:
Let me inflict on you a brief lecture in philosophy.
An open society such as ours is based on the recognition that our understanding of reality is inherently imperfect. Nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth. As the philosopher Karl Popper has shown, the ultimate truth is not attainable even in science. All theories are subject to testing and the process of replacing old theories with better ones never ends.
Faith plays an important role in an open society. Exactly because our understanding is imperfect, we cannot base our decisions on knowledge alone. We need to rely on beliefs, religious or otherwise, to help us make decisions. But we must remain open to the possibility that we may be wrong so that we can correct our mistakes. Otherwise, we are bound to be wrong.
End of lecture.
President Bush has shown that he is incapable of recognizing his mistakes. He insists on making reality conform to his beliefs even at the cost of deceiving himself and deliberately deceiving the public. There is something appealing in the strength of his faith, especially in our troubled time. But the cost is too high. By putting our faith in a President who cannot admit his mistakes we commit ourselves to the wrong policies. We are the most powerful nation on earth. No external power, no terrorist organization, can defeat us. But we can defeat ourselves by getting caught in a quagmire.
[Read the whole speech here]
Friday, October 29, 2004
In this video, George W. Bush gives the finger
How statesmanlike!
In this video, George W. Bush gives the finger.
This born-again "compassionate" guy reveals his very nature in the video. Moreover he looks like he is on something. The finger is very metaphoric of his attitude towards Americans. Maybe deep inside he already knows. He knows about the tax cuts given to his billionaire friends, while millions of Americans struggle every day, often without work and without medical care. He knows of the abyssal deficit. He knows he will be able to exploit terror and panic for his own power. He knows he will start an unnecessary war, without a clue of strategy, and offer lucrative contracts to his friends for the 'reconstruction' of Iraq, even at the cost of thousands of American soldiers killed, sent not properly equipped, and of 100,000 Iraqi people killed, 50% of which were children and women.
He knows, and indulges in the thought of future deceptions. He knows he can fool many.
Despite the rhetoric, the Bush administration has let down the troops
Interesting article on the New York Times, Letting Down the Troops by Bob Herbert
Excerpt:
We have not done right by the troops we've sent to Iraq to fight this crazy, awful war. We haven't given them a clear mission, and we haven't protected them well. I'm reminded of the famous scene in "On the Waterfront" when Terry Malloy, the character played by Marlon Brando, tells his brother: "You shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit."
The thing to always keep in mind about our troops in Iraq is that they were sent to fight the wrong war. America's clearly defined and unmistakable enemy, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, was in Afghanistan. So the men and women fighting and dying in Iraq were thrown into a pointless, wholly unnecessary conflict. [...]
In May of 2003, President Bush thought the war was over. It had barely begun. Many thousands have died in the long and bloody months since then. Even now, Dick Cheney, with a straight face, is calling Iraq "a remarkable success story."
It's time to change
Evidences of Bush's never-ending failure keep rolling out
In these last days before Election Day, evidences of failure of this president keep rolling out. And they don't seem to be able to stop.
The scandal of 380 tons of high density explosives stolen at Al Qaqaa - a quantity which would theoretically allow thousands of terroristic attacks - is only one of the many scandals which prove this administration has not a freaking clue.
As Paul Krugman on the New York Times writes "Al Qaqaa is hardly the only tale of incompetence and mendacity to break to the surface in the last few days."
Paul Krugman lists a few of the failures emerged in these last few days (in italic the text from Krugman's article):
"Letting Osama get away Just before the story about Al Qaqaa broke, the Bush-Cheney campaign was frantically trying to debunk
But what can you expect? In 2002, Bush had said about Osama: "I truly am not that concerned about him."
"Letting Zarqawi get away On Monday The Wall Street Journal confirmed an earlier report that in 2002 the military drew up plans for a strike on the base of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in an area of Iraq not under Saddam's control. But civilian officials vetoed the attack - probably because they thought it might undermine political support for the war against Saddam. So Mr. Zarqawi, like Osama, was given the chance to kill another day."
"The situation in Iraq Dick Cheney is telling supporters that Iraq is a 'remarkable success story.' But the news from Iraq just keeps getting worse. After 49 Iraqi National Guard recruits were killed, execution style, even Ayad Allawi, the Iraqi prime minister - who usually acts as a de facto spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign - accused coalition forces of 'gross negligence.' It's now clear that the insurgency is much larger than U.S. officials initially acknowledged, and that Iraqi security forces have been heavily infiltrated."
We should also remember that the Lancet study, of which I spoke yesterday, has proved that this 'Shock and Awe' Iraq alleged liberation has cost a dreadful toll of 100,000 Iraqi people, half of whom children and women. And of course keeps costing American lives.
"$70 billion more. Earlier this week The Washington Post reported that administration officials were planning to seek an additional $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan after the election."
Further evidence, if necessary, that the Iraqi mess produced by Bush keeps sucking money out of American pockets. While of course the rich billionaires get their fabulous tax cuts.
In those sensitive to the destinies of America and the world, every time each scandal evokes the last straw. But last straws keep coming out. And the camel's back has undergone multiple fractures by now!
Stop Bush! And I am being gentle, Eminem would articulate differently!
Go out and vote on Novemeber 2nd. And kick these money suckers, fake 'compassionate' liers out of their office. Let people breathe and be relieved. We have had enough!
100,000 civilians dead in Iraq, says studies. At least half of them children and women killed in airstrikes.
A new Lancet study (carried out by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore) reveals that about 100,000 Iraqi people have died since the invasion of the US-led 'coalition', at least 50% of them children and women.
Given these enormous numbers of casualties, Bush's mindless and hasty (non)strategy in Iraq, defined self-indulgently 'Shock and Awe", is far from being reasonably credible as a 'liberating war'.
All these deaths, which have triggered hate and despair, and produced new breeds of terrorists, could have been avoided. The war was not necessary: Iraq was a wreck not a threat. War is supposed to be the last resort, not a blood-stained oil-seeking rushed aggression which spreads death and destruction.
While US-coalition soldiers too died (Americans for the most part), often not properly equipped and in insufficient numbers, the rich and the privileged, who almost never take part in a war, were enjoying their umteenth gift from their friend George W., under the guise of large tax cuts.
This world of deception, violence and injustice must change for the better. But Bush is not the man for this.
The "Compassionate" Tax Cutter
[The following text was found here]
The vast majority of the help [from my tax cut] goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.... After my plan is in place, the wealthiest Americans will pay a higher percentage of taxes than they do today, and the poorest of Americans, 6 million families, 7 million people, won’t pay any tax at all.” - George W. Bush - October 3, 2000
Reality:
Wealthiest 5 percent of taxpayers get over 50 percent of Bush Administration tax cut. In its first four years, the Bush Administration tax plan will provide the top five percent of taxpayers with 53.3 percent of the overall tax break. In addition, almost two-thirds of the tax cuts will go to the wealthiest 10 percent. [Source: Citizens for Tax Justice, May 22, 2003; Institute for America’s Future and Economic Policy Institute, April 2003]
Meanwhile, 60% of taxpayers receive less than $100 each. Bush’s 2003 tax cut gives low- and middle-income families (the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers) less than $100 each. These taxpayers received less than 8 percent of the overall tax cut – even though they are 60 percent of the population. [Source: “Final Tax Plan Tilts Even More Toward Richest,” Citizens for Tax Justice, 5/22/03]
Bush increased the burden on the middle class. “President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families…People in the top 20 percent of incomes … saw their share of federal taxes decline… In contrast, middle-class taxpayers … bear a greater tax burden. [They] had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5 percent of all payments in 2001 to 19.5 percent this year.” [Source: USA Today, 8/13/04]
Thursday, October 28, 2004
I have watched Eminem's video various times.
It contains many details with meaning. One should see the video a few times to notice them all properly. The beginning evokes the well known video (shown also in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11) in which Bush sits calmly in a school, after being told about 9/11 attack.
Eminem's video, now and then, shows a TV set. Interestingly, because much of the narrated 'official' reality comes from the media. As "Mosh" proceeds with its dark, grim, menacing atmosphere, the TV shows a Christian cross, and white-hooded people, suggesting the danger of fundamentalist violence "in the name of God", the clash of irrational forces. In another scene, a soldier, happy to be back from Iraq, arrives home only to see his wife holding a paper with "Re-assigned to Iraq" written on it (backdoor draft). And while Bush announces tax cuts for the rich, a woman receives a notice of eviction. The TV also shows Bin Laden: at his back Rumsfeld and Cheney are laughing. To suggest that the representation of terror, the panic produced, are useful to political plans. To create "loyalty". To trick people into thinking that "loyalty" is a sign of "patriotism". Towards the end, a mass of people who are sick of the whole situation and don't want "blood for oil" because "we got our own battles to fight on our own soil", go and register to vote. Because they have the power, the power to change things through their vote.
These are only a few of the elements contained in the video. As I said the video is rich with references to reality.
But the most beautiful scene is the final one. One sees two kids from the back. One is obviously Muslim (the head is covered). But they stand one next to the other and their childlike laughter can be heard. A scene of hope.
What voting is about
It is quite paradoxical how Kerry gets attacked on his Vietnam record by opponents who have never stepped into a real fighting situation and who would never send their children to war, letting the poorer go and get slaughtered.
In these elections rational thinking has often been replaced by name-calling, panic-strategy, irrationality and religious zealotry. To divert people attention. To blur their mind from objective facts.
But people, this is not a football game, nor is a medieval fight between sects of zealots. Everybody has the responsibility to choose the best president for everybody. Not based on panic, hate or irrationality, but on careful, well-balanced, rational considerations.
In their foolish attempt to claim the "bigger balls" and muscles, I am afraid the Republicans tend to leave judgement behin, as if it were irrelevant. That is not a good approach.
Moreover, let's consider one thing: even not in a war context (which however Kerry faced without escaping responsabilities), is it not heroic the fact of working for the well-being of everybody, and not just that of the rich?
Is it not heroic to be true to people instead of deceiving and scaring them?
Is it not heroic to fight for a change and for justice, without prying on the most obscure, negative and irrational forces that can be found in people?
Is it not heroic to fight for a world where every religion and vision of life can stay next to each other without risk of incurring into lynching and intolerance?
And is it not heroic to do one's own job well? And can anyone imagine Bush doing what Kerry did, not only in war, but in civil life? Check here: http://alternet.org/election04/20268/
I think blind faith (religious or political) is dangerous, it befuddles the mind, and brings out the worst in people.
Personally I would not have a problem to vote for anybody, irrespectively of the political label, provided that he made more sense and persuaded me rationally. I would not vote out of scare, irrationality or anything that resembles even remotely the attitude of a football fan or of a pious medieval flagellant.
People, don't forget one thing: this is not a matter of Kerry or Bush as factions. This is matter of choosing the best president for everybody ofr the next four years. The best one that will enhance the best features of America come out. Not only muscles and tanks, but judgement, tolerance, social justice, vision, tolerance of diversity, respect for science, sincerity with people.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
QUIZ: who is this guy?
1. First he acts, then he tells you why he acted. Between action and final rationale, he may state a couple of provisional rationales.
2. He is agitated, does not really reflect over things.
3. He seems to believe that resolve is of utmost importance. Judgement is optional.
4. He says he relies on guts, instinct and faith.
5. He also says he does not read newspapers. However he gets fed by others.
6. He has replaced an addiction with compulsive religious thinking. One could say that religion is the final mutation of the bottle.
7. He is not able to recognize errors, he probably thinks he does not do any.
8. However, everything he does is hard work, very hard work. He seems to believe that people should reward his dedication, irrespectively of results.
9. He sounds a cordial chap. One of those you'd go out and have a beer with. However, many would argue that this feature is not of primary importance for his job.
10. He has this unequalled capacity to rip you off, while helping some honourable billionaires, and still make you believe he is so very compassionate.
Eminem: "People think their votes don't count, but people need to get out and vote. Every motherfuckin' vote counts."
Watch Eminem's "Mosh" video
The video of Eminem's song "Mosh" is available online and can be watched here.
If the loading is slow, be patient. It's really worth it. It is a powerful video with very powerful lyrics.
Some of the lines:
If it rains let it rain, yea the wetter the better
They ain't gonna stop us they can't, we stronger now more than ever
They tell us no we say yea, they tell us stop we say go
Rebel with a rebel yell, raise hell we gonna let em know
Stomp, push, shove, mush, Fuck Bush, until they bring our troops home (c'mon)
[...]
Let the president answer a higher anarchy
Strap him with an Ak-47, let him go, fight his own war
Let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our own soil
No more psychological warfare, to trick us to thinking that we ain't loyal
If we don't serve our own country, we're patronizing a hero
Look in his eyes its all lies
The stars and stripes, they've been swiped, washed out and wiped
And replaced with his own face, Mosh now or die
If I get sniped tonight you know why,
Cause I told you to fight.
The Bush-Messiah
When asked if he consulted his father before starting a war on Iraq, Bush - presumably with a very pious and grave expression that would move to tears the herds of fans of 'The passion of the Christ' - stated: "There's a higher father that I appeal to".
This is not empty anecdotalism. Bush really tends to present himself as an instrument of God, and many perceive him so. Pat Robertson, founder of the U.S. Christian coalition had said about Bush that "the blessing of heaven is upon him".
In an article on the Washington Post - Is God an American Voter? - Jefferson Morley makes an account of the "broad and deep backlash in the international online media" caused by the religious fervor of President Bush's supporters.
"Even in news sites that supported President Bush's invasion of Iraq, pundits assert that the president's religiosity is a menace" writes Morley.
Then reports some examples drawn from international media. I recommend reading the whole article. However Morley reports that "Correspondents for El Correo (in Spanish) in Bilbao, Spain, and the Guardian in London attended Bush rallies in New Jersey and came away 'shaken' by Bush's religious appeal".
"People said 'amen' when he spoke - one Norwegian correspondent said - "It was chilling to see who are his followers.", reports Morley.
And adds that "Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes, who likens contemporary America to pre-Nazi Germany, tells Red Voltaire, a leftist Spanish-language Web site, that Bush's religiosity makes him want to start drinking again."
Why is Bush fundamentalism a danger for America and for the whole world? Because a leader driven by the pretension of being an instrument of God will more likely be, rather, an instrument of intolerance and arrogance. More likely he will not admit his errors, nor his supporters will hold him accountable for them, blinded by faith. And the power deriving from irrational faith, not mitigated by the ordinary logic of political consent can produce dreadful outcomes.
Moreover, nowadays' multiethnical and multireligious world requires a vision that is the opposite of cocksure Christian fundamentalism which holds its tenets as absolute.
Let's not forget that Bush is not the leader of a tiny country somewhere in Africa or South-America.
The leader of the most powerful nation in the world must have qualities and vision that encourage alliances, convergence and mutual acceptance amongst countries with different visions, in order to prevent conflicts.
Let's also not forget that right after 9/11, President Bush said the following: "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while". Crusade really evokes a 'Christian Jhiad' and was not a smart thing to say (and in fact, Bush apologized afterwards. Although the effects of his mindless remark probably were not completely wiped by his apologies). Let's also remember the insistence on the concept of 'evil-doers' which also has something 'religious' that intends to suggest "others are evil, or sometimes not so evil, but WE are surely always inherently good".
This type of apocalyptic, manichean fundamentalism is not what the world ought to have. Conflicts are already intense and do not need to be inflamed even more with herds of xenophobic, crusaders blinded by faith.
America needs a president with a different vision, a president who does not present himself as a Messiah to whom people say "Amen".
Now if you think I am exaggerating, check the cover of a DVD that has been released this month and was planned to be distributed in 300,000 copies to American churches. The title is "George W. Bush: Faith in the White House", though the unofficial title is "The Passion of the Bush".
This is note a joke. It is true. Check on Amazon.com, here. It can make you laugh but surely it is also somewhat scary. And sad. Sad that a product like this can even be conceived. Many Europeans actually perceive the peculiar American mix of puritanism and democratic values as quite outlandish. But with Bush, this mix also appears menacing in its potential to trigger irrationality and intolerance.
What else could come out if this Armageddon-vision-driven Bush Messiah is re-elected?
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Bush to request $ 70 billions more for war
Excerpt:
The Bush administration intends to seek about $70 billion in emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan early next year, pushing total war costs close to $225 billion since the invasion of Iraq early last year, Pentagon and congressional officials said yesterday.
Read the rest of the article on the Washington Post.
Artists against Bush
Eminem: "We gonna let him know / Stomp, push, shove, mush, fuck Bush! / Until they bring our troops home.
After the Tour for a Change, where various artists, including Bruce Springsteen and R.E.M., toured the USA to support Kerry, other voices are raising against the war and Bush. A new album will be released by A perfect Circle on Nov. 2nd, the Election Day, 12 songs against the Iraqi war.
Eminem too will release a new album, on Nov. 16, but his song "Mosh", against Bush, can already be found in the Internet.
From Rollingstone.com:
In the Dr. Dre-produced track, the rapper denounces the war in Iraq. "Rebel with a rebel yell, raise hell," Eminem raps. "We gonna let him know/Stomp, push, shove, mush, fuck Bush!/Until they bring our troops home." Later in the song, he adds, "Let the president answer on higher anarchy/Strap him with an AK-47, let him go fight his own war/Let him impress daddy that way . . . No more blood for oil."
"[Bush] has been painted to be this hero, and he's got our troops over there dying for no reason," says Eminem in an upcoming Rolling Stone cover story (on stands November 5th). "I think he started a mess . . . He jumped the gun, and he fucked up so bad he doesn't know what to do right now . . . We got young people over there dyin', kids in their teens, early twenties that should have futures ahead of them. And for what? It seems like a Vietnam 2. Bin Laden attacked us, and we attacked Saddam. Explain why that is. Give us some answers."
The thirty-two-year-old rapper says he has registered to vote for the first time -- but stops short of endorsing a candidate. "Whatever my decision is, I would like to see Bush out of office," Eminem says. "I don't wanna see my little brother get drafted -- he just turned eighteen. People think their votes don't count, but people need to get out and vote. Every motherfuckin' vote counts."
Bush relatives launch pro-Kerry web site
They checked the programs of the two candidates and they decided that family loyalty should count less than persuasion that Kerry's vision is better for America. Or as a line in the web site says: "Because blood is thinner than oil".
Read the article here.
And (ta-dah!) this is the web site:
www.bushrelativesforkerry.com
Monday, October 25, 2004
By adopting a 'panic tactic' Bush tries to hide his gargantuan failures. Not exactly flattering for Americans, to be treated like shlemiels. On this topic, read the editorial by Bob Herbert (New York Times).
Excerpt: "Unable to counter the bad news with stories of major successes, the Bush campaign has turned almost exclusively to the so-called war against terror. The message in a nutshell: be very afraid."
But this tactic is shadowed by an ineptitude that has become too obvious and turns Bush's pretension into something not only deceving but pathetic (see previous posts).
The current American administration keeps showing dangerous ineptitude
380 tons of explosives stolen: is this the way George W. Bush 'keeps Americans safe'?
380 tons of high-density explosives, have been stolen from a facility that was supposed to be under American control, near Baghdad. This means higher risks for military forces in Iraq, for Iraqi population and for the whole world in that the explosive can easily be smuggled abroad..
380 tons are nearly 760,000 pounds. Less than one pound was sufficient to bring down the Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.
The Bush administration keeps stressing the cocksureness of the current president as if it were a quality. But 'resolve' without judgement and strategy simply leads to continuous disasters. They had planned to protect oil facilities but they did not give a damn about preventing conventional weapons and explosives from being stolen. And they knew very well such an incredible quantity of explosives was there. How smart is that?
This administration is like a blind, awkward elephant which creates damages as it moves aimlessly, counting on mere force.
Accountability for continuous failures is a healthy criterion to prevent even more dreadful disasters. Americans should reflect on this.
Sen. Kerry has declared: "George W. Bush, who talks tough -- talks tough -- and brags about making Americans safe, has once again failed to deliver," Kerry said. "After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this president failed to guard those stockpiles where nearly 380 tons of highly explosive weapons were kept. Today we learn that these explosives are missing, unaccounted for and potentially in the hands of terrorists. Terrorists could use this material to kill our troops, our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings."
"Now we know that our country and our troops are less safe because this president failed to do the basics. This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration. The incredible incompetence of this president and his administration has put our troops at risk and put our country at greater risk than we ought to be."
Bush exploits suffering of 9/11, says Carter
Read the article here
British think tank: invasion aided al-Qaida
Read the article here
Israeli think tank: War in Iraq 'distraction' in war on terrorism
Read the article here
What patriotism should be like in the USA
The best form of patriotism in America nowadays is rejecting blind ideology, insularity and deception and maintaining the capacity to analyze facts.
Unsurprisingly, Bush relies a lot on fundamentalist groups which are not exactly an example of rational thinking and tolerance.
380 tons of explosives vanished in Iraq
Incompetent!
So, listen to this.
Bush started a war with the pretext of imaginary weapons of mass destruction.
But his administration let 380 tons of the most powerful real conventional explosives disappear from a facility south of Baghdad, an area supposedly under American military control! The explosives likely went in wrong hands.
Americans had been repeatedly warned about this facility and knew very well about it, and yet they let the explosives unattended. What a strategy uh?
They made sure to protect oil facilities (which does not surprise me for some reasons!) but not a facility containing 380 tons of explosive (not to mention museums, which have been looted etc.). It is feared that this huge quantity might be used by terrorists for dozens of attacks. According to the article on the New York Times, less than one pound was sufficient for the bomb that brought down the Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.
Once more, this episode underlines the utter incompetence of the Bush administration in planning and strategy. Each day one learns about a new story that underlines the ineptitude of this administration. An endless sequence of errors.
Read the article on the New York Times.
Lifelong Republican decides to vote for Kerry
Excerpt from the Seattle Times:
"I have been a lifelong Republican. I proudly served as a senior political appointee in the Reagan and elder Bush administrations. But today I am supporting John Kerry for president because I personally witnessed his courage, tenacity and leadership when he waged war against a dangerous international criminal enterprise. Because of that experience, I believe that he is best qualified to lead our country in an era of fundamental threats to our national security.
In 1988, Kerry began an investigation of international drug connections as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations. He discovered that the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, a powerful global financial institution, was laundering drug money for Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and serving as banker for some of the world's most notorious terrorists, criminals and despots, including Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
At that time, I was the U.S. Commerce Department official responsible for Panama and other Latin American countries involved in the drug trade. I held a top-secret security clearance and read CIA reports bluntly describing the bank's role in drug-money laundering and other illegal activities. I was aware of Kerry's efforts to stop BCCI's activities.
Read the rest here.
Another longer article here. (Originally seen on Amanda's blog. Thanks)
Sunday, October 24, 2004
The Washington Post endorses Sen. John F. Kerry for president
Today the Washington Post has endorsed John F. Kerry for president. In an editorial, the newpaper lists in a balanced way the pros and the cons of each candidate, and analyses their programs, both for foreign and for domestic policies, concluding that John F. Kerry is the best candidate for America.
Excerpt fron the Washington Post's editorial endorsing John F. Kerry:
We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the intelligence given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily. Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar reconstruction. The damage caused by that willful indifference is incalculable. There is no guarantee that Iraq would be more peaceful today if U.S. forces had prevented postwar looting, secured arms depots, welcomed international involvement and transferred authority to Iraqis more quickly. But the chances of success would have been higher. Yet the administration repeatedly rebuffed advice to commit sufficient troops. Its disregard for the Geneva Conventions led to a prison-torture scandal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that has diminished for years, if not decades, the United States' image and influence abroad. In much of the world, in fact, U.S. prestige is at a historic low, partly because of the president's high-handed approach to allies on issues ranging far beyond Iraq.
These failings have a common source in Mr. Bush's cocksureness, his failure to seek advice from anyone outside a narrow circle and his unwillingness to expect the unexpected or adapt to new facts. These are dangerous traits in any president but especially in a wartime leader. They are matched by his failure to admit his errors or to hold senior officials accountable for theirs.
[...]
...the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are considerable. He pledges both to fight in Iraq and to reach out to allies; to hunt down terrorists, and to engage without arrogance the Islamic world. These are the right goals, and we think Mr. Kerry is the better bet to achieve them.
