Sunday, October 08, 2006

Dispatch from the State of Delusion: exposing the myth of the American "mission" in Iraq

Bush will not only preside over a military defeat in Iraq, he has already ushered in a new era —the end of the "American Century", the end of American ascension, the end of American empire. The new era is already characterized by increased nuclear proliferation and defiance, the decline of Democratic ideals and outright opposition to US interests all over the world. Much was made of the "de-stabilization" of Iraq. More should have been made of the consequences of our failure. More attention should have been paid to the good will that Bush has now pissed away —perhaps forever.

Bush's only argument in favor of staying in Iraq is itself the most damning indictment of his utterly failed and catastrophic administration. That argument was put forward by former Secretary of State Jim Baker to George Stephanopoulus on ABC: pulling out now will plunge the middle east into chaos and Iraq into civil war. But Baker failed to state the obvious conclusion: staying in Iraq will accomplish the same thing but at greater cost.

Iraq is already engaged in a civil war, a war made worse by the continued US presence. The Middle East is already inflamed. Our allies have already turned against us. The war on terrorism is already failed. The recent report of some 16 US intelligence agencies support that conclusion: the war on Iraq has made "terrorism" worse. When it became abundantly clear that an occupation — intended to last 90 days —began to unravel, Bush and Bushies came up with a seemingly endless string of absurd ex post facto rationales for the war in Iraq. Nevertheless, none were true; none addressed the issue! All were spin born of an article of GOP faith that the only thing that really matters is what you can trick or convince people into believing —even if it's a lie.

In fact, Bush never articulated an American mission in Iraq and declared its accomplishment prematurely. Rather, Bush took this nation to war without a mission. Bush took this nation to war upon lies, meaningless slogans, and various hoaxes —not clearly defined objectives! The occupation, we were told, was to last 90 days. Instead, after Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" and some four years of bloody occupation and now civil war, more headless bodies, most of them civilians, turn up every day. It is also increasingly clear that "terrorists" have little if anything to do with it. The violence is sectarian in nature, most certainly a civil war waged amid a growing guerrilla war against the illegal US occupation. This war was lost before it began.

Only in fairy tales is straw spun into gold —but the situation in Iraq has turned into an epithet much less attractive than mere straw. If Bush withdraws from Iraq, there is no lie, no spin, no re-framing technique that will make gold of the stinking mess that Bush has created and will leave dumped and unburied in Iraq.

Arguably —no country has been more widely emulated, if not admired, than the US. Though we often did not live up to them, the values we ostensibly advocated —individual liberty, due process of law, the rule of law, and the ideal of equality of opportunity —made of us a beacon of hope at a time when Adolph Hitler ground millions beneath his Nazi boot and Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with an iron fist. Our prosperity was at once envied and resented. But we were forgiven because of our ability to change and face our problems however painful the result: the labor movement, the struggle for racial equality; the still unrealized dreams of equal opportunity regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or religion.

Until the recent wave of ugly, jingoistic, GOP posturing, we were open to debate and ideas. That is not to say that we never made horrific mistakes. Vietnam, for example, is a lasting shame and tragedy that need not have happened but for a fatal American flaw: hubris!

Today, that flaw is epitomized by George W. Bush, the ruler of the states of denial and delusion. The Mark Foley scandal —as repugnant as it is —is more so because it's the last straw. When millions have already said enough is enough, Foley pulls the rug from beneath the well-oiled GOP propaganda machine. Now —even George Will quips that Republicans must awaken each day with but one thought: "What can we do to offend the base?" Even Tony Blankley has been heard muttering that maybe the GOP ought to lose. Don't lose sleep over it, Tony. Just give us a free and fair election and count the votes. The people will speak.

Indeed, the Foley scandal —more properly, the cover up and handling of it by the GOP leadership —has proven for all time that the GOP mission since the ascension of Ronald Reagan, since the Contract with America, has all been an abominable fraud.

An update:

Bush and Republicans are sinking under the weight of the Iraq war and the Capitol Hill sex scandal

... according to a flurry of polls, endangering their control of Congress in the November 7 elections.

Democrats hold a growing advantage heading into the final four weeks of the campaign, with analysts moving more Republican-held seats into the high-risk category and improving the odds of Democrats seizing control of at least the House of Representatives.

The polls, all taken after the sex scandal surfaced, show Democratic candidates with huge leads over Republicans amid broad public unhappiness about the Iraq war, Bush's leadership and the Republican-led Congress.

"These polls seem to suggest the public has decided to just 'throw the bums out,"' said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

"These are huge, huge, numbers and they are very bad for Republicans," she said. "There is not a shred of good news in these polls for Republicans."
Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann's strongest commentary to date, calling Bush out, telling the "President" that he is a liar:

TIME declares end of the Republican One-Party Reign of Error

The End of a Revolution

Sex, lies and power games are just the latest symptoms of a Republican Party that has strayed from its ideals


Every revolution begins with the power of an idea and ends when clinging to power is the only idea left. The epitaph for the movement that started when Newt Gingrich and his forces rose from the back bench of the House chamber in 1994 may well have been written last week in the same medium that incubated it: talk radio. On conservative commentator Laura Ingraham's show, the longest-serving Republican House Speaker in history explained why he would not resign despite a sex scandal that has produced a hail of questions about his leadership and the failure to stop one of his members from cyberstalking teenage congressional pages. "If I fold up my tent and leave," Dennis Hastert told her, "then where does that leave us? If the Democrats sweep, then we'd have no ability to fight back and get our message out."

That quiet admission may have been the most damning one yet in the unfolding scandal surrounding Florida Congressman Mark Foley: holding on to power has become not just the means but also the end for the onetime reformers who in 1994 unseated a calcified and corrupted Democratic majority. Washington scandals, it seems, have been following a Moore's law of their own, coming at a faster clip every time there is a shift in control. It took 40 years for the House Democrats to exhaust their goodwill. It may take only 12 years for the Republicans to get there. ...

There is a temptation to relax as Bush and his endemically crooked party seem headed for political oblivion. Unfortunately, that's not the case. The cornered sewer rat is dangerous:

Torture, Murder, Bush, Kissinger and The Mothers of the Disappeared in Argentina: America on the Brink of Horror


October 9, 2006

Dateline -- Buenos Aires, Argentina

For some 30 years, the Argentine women known as the Madres (Mothers) de La Plaza de Mayo have marched every Thursday in front of the Presidential Palace of Argentina. They gather in memory of their children and grandchildren, who were among the estimated 30,000 people who disappeared during "Operation Condor." Another 50,000 people were murdered.

"Operation Condor" reached its peak in the 1970s. With assistance from the United States, and the support and knowledge of Henry Kissinger, five of the southern cone South American nations conducted a campaign of unspeakable torture and killing against their own citizens.

When you look at the photos carried by many of the Madres de La Plaza de Mayo, you see middle class men in suits and ties and nicely dressed women. You see young children with smiling faces.

What happened during Operation Condor is so horrific – all done in the name of the safety and security of "the nation" – that it is barely speakable. The torture included one of the Bush Administration’s favorite techniques – waterboarding – and many other methods. Families were forced to watch or listen to their love ones being mutilated. Friends were required to conduct torture on those that they knew. Pregnant women were allowed to stay alive until their babies were born, then they were murdered. Their children were given to military families who adopted them.

In a New Yorker article a few years back, a former member of the Argentinian military recalled flights over the Atlantic where drugged and bound Argentinians, whose interrogation was finished, were thrown alive into the ocean. Bodies of the already killed were dumped into the Rio de la Plata, which divides Argentina and Uruguay.

Many Americans will say that this horror cannot happen in the United States, but they are wrong. Legally, as a result of the legislation passed in September, it is now quite possible.

As was the case in Argentina, America now allows the President or his designate to declare a person an "enemy combatant" (or enemy of the state) without any judicial process. In short, a person becomes an "enemy of America" on the mere basis that Bush or his designate says so.

The fundamental problem with such power is that it allows tyrannical authority to detain anyone, without the right of habeas corpus, on the mere whim or suspicion of the executive branch of government. No one will be informed of the detention, no court will review it, no recourse will be allowed the relatives or friends of the detained.

They will become the new "disappeared," as many foreigners have already become in the CIA gulag of secret prisons, and the not-so-secret jails in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The new law is vague enough that the Bush Administration, which drives a Mack truck through loopholes or openly disregards congressional laws, can justify arresting American citizens it simply declares are providing support to those it declares are enemies of America.

It is "Operation Condor" all over again.

What one must remember about "Operation Condor" and Gitmo, for example, is that they were basically horrifying fishing expeditions. One did not need to be guilty of anything. One was adjudged guilty merely because a state authorized agent declared one so. In "Operation Condor" – as at Gitmo – the vast majority of people were detained and tortured merely on the suspicion that they might have some knowledge of value. And if they didn’t, it was their bad luck – and their detention would be a sacrifice paid for the "security of the nation."

It is not a large leap – however much Americans would like to think otherwise – from the summary arrest, torture and occasional murder of foreigners to applying the same process to residents of the United States. Suspicion or politically-motivated accusations of the government become equivalent to a sentence of guilt. Bush has already declared persons who disagree with his Iraq policies "tools of the terorrists."

To those who say that the recently passed legislation may allow Bush to authorize torture as he deems fit, but that it prohibits murder, we have two words: Abu Ghraib. How quickly we have forgotten that a number of detainees at Abu Ghraib were tortured to death, with no one in the Bush Administration held accountable.

One cannot fully control torture as if it were a thermostat. When you start down the road of torture, people are going to die accidentally. And then when the culture of torture becomes ingrained in the military, people will start to be murdered. It is hard to contain torture; it is impossible to just torture the "guilty." Soon, it becomes – as it did in "Operation Condor" – a nightmare combination of "trolling" and "cleansing" the political opposition.

In such an environment, torture is the first step on a descent into state-authorized murder to achieve political goals, not necessarily "national security."

The mothers of the disappeared, clutching photos now more than three decades old, know this truth.

It is said, in Bob Woodward’s book "State of Denial," that Henry Kissinger is now privately advising Bush and Cheney on the Iraq War.

It was Henry Kissinger who brought us a prolonged war in Vietnam, the bombing that led to the Khmer Rouge massacre in Cambodia, the death squads in Central America, the East Timor slaughter, and Operation Condor -- among other potential war crimes.

It is not a coincidence that he has allegedly returned as an advisor to Bush and Cheney on the debacle in Iraq – and perhaps on other matters. Kissinger believed and believes that murder in the name of some vague notion of "American supremacy" is justified (although he won’t publicly acknowledge it). More than 80,000 victims of Operation Condor are murdered testaments to his worldview. (Kissinger will not travel to several nations, including France, because he would face judicial questioning in these countries about his role in Operation Condor.)

He now has the ear of a man who has been given Operation Condor-like authority. Yes, it is true that murder per se is not sanctioned in the new Congressional legislation; but how would we know if someone has been murdered if we are not told why or by whom they have been detained?

That is how the children and grandchildren of the Madres de La Plaza de Mayo came to be "los desaparecidos."

The mothers and fathers who march in Plaza de Mayo each Thursday are now senior citizens. Their losses are three decades behind them, but still they demand accountability for the nightmare of abduction, torture and death that gripped their nation and the surrounding countries of Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile and Bolivia.

When the mothers first began marching, Operation Condor was still in place. So it followed that some of them, including the founder, "disappeared" because they demanded the right of habeas corpus for their loved ones.

It is early October and the beginning of spring in the Southern Hemisphere. "Operation Condor" appears a distant memory amidst the bustling city of Buenos Aires. Trees and flowers are blossoming. Lovers openly embrace and kiss in the many parks. It is the annual time of seasonal renewal in Argentina.

For some nations, their long nightmare of people being declared "enemies of the state" by faceless men, then tortured and killed is over.

For the U.S., the long nightmare of the disappeared is just beginning to take shape.

And, if that were not scary enough, CNN reports on Donald Rumsfeld's role in North Korea getting nuclear weapons. What was the extent of Donald Rumsfeld's involvement in a US sale of nuclear reactors to North Korea?

Rummy's North Korea Connection What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB's deal to build nuclear reactors there? And why won't he talk about it?

By Richard Behar Research Associate Brenda Cherry

May 12, 2003

(FORTUNE Magazine) – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rarely keeps his opinions to himself. He tends not to compromise with his enemies. And he clearly disdains the communist regime in North Korea. So it's surprising that there is no clear public record of his views on the controversial 1994 deal in which the U.S. agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program. What's even more surprising about Rumsfeld's silence is that he sat on the board of the company that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors.

The company is Zurich-based engineering giant ABB, which signed the contract in early 2000, well before Rumsfeld gave up his board seat and joined the Bush administration. Rumsfeld, the only American director on the ABB board from 1990 to early 2001, has never acknowledged that he knew the company was competing for the nuclear contract. Nor could FORTUNE find any public reference to what he thought about the project. In response to questions about his role in the reactor deal, the Defense Secretary's spokeswoman Victoria Clarke told Newsweek in February that "there was no vote on this" and that her boss "does not recall it being brought before the board at any time."

Rumsfeld declined requests by FORTUNE to elaborate on his role. But ABB spokesman Bjorn Edlund has told FORTUNE that "board members were informed about this project." And other ABB officials say there is no way such a large and high-stakes project, involving complex questions of liability, would not have come to the attention of the board. "A written summary would probably have gone to the board before the deal was signed," says Robert Newman, a former president of ABB's U.S. nuclear division who spearheaded the project. "I'm sure they were aware."

FORTUNE contacted 15 ABB board members who served at the time the company was bidding for the Pyongyang contract, and all but one declined to comment. That director, who asked not to be identified, says he's convinced that ABB's chairman at the time, Percy Barnevik, told the board about the reactor project in the mid-1990s. "This was a major thing for ABB," the former director says, "and extensive political lobbying was done."

The director recalls being told that Rumsfeld was asked "to lobby in Washington" on ABB's behalf in the mid-1990s because a rival American company had complained about a foreign-owned firm getting the work. Although he couldn't provide details, Goran Lundberg, who ran ABB's power-generation business until 1995, says he's "pretty sure that at some point Don was involved," since it was not unusual to seek help from board members "when we needed contacts with the U.S. government." Other former top executives don't recall Rumsfeld's involvement.

Today Rumsfeld, riding high after the Iraq war, is reportedly discussing a plan for "regime change" in North Korea. But his silence about the nuclear reactors raises questions about what he did--or didn't do--as an ABB director. There is no evidence that Rumsfeld, who took a keen interest in the company's nuclear business and attended most board meetings, made his views about the project known to other ABB officials. He certainly never made them public, even though the deal was criticized by many people close to Rumsfeld, who said weapons-grade nuclear material could be extracted from light-water reactors. Paul Wolfowitz, James Lilley, and Richard Armitage, all Rumsfeld allies, are on record opposing the deal. So is former presidential candidate Bob Dole, for whom Rumsfeld served as campaign manager and chief defense advisor. And Henry Sokolski, whose think tank received funding from a foundation on whose board Rumsfeld sat, has been one of the most vocal opponents of the 1994 agreement.

One clue to Rumsfeld's views: a Heritage Foundation speech in March 1998. Although he did not mention the light-water reactors, Rumsfeld said the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea "does not end its nuclear menace; it merely postpones the reckoning, with no assurance that we will know how much bomb-capable material North Korea has." A search of numerous databases found no press references at the time, or throughout the 1990s, noting Rumsfeld was a director of the company building the reactors. And Rumsfeld didn't bring it up either. ...

The Existentialist Cowboy


daveawayfromhome said...

If conservative mouthpieces are saying the GOP ought to lose, it's because they believe what I believe - two more years of Republican rule will sink the party for good (or rather, destroy the current powers within it), whereas a Democratic win will give the Rove spin-machine someone to blame as the inevitable chickens come home to roost.
If I believed that the Democrats were capable of doing the kind of investigation needed to gut the party and remove the Cabal that is destroying the country, I wouldnt worry so much, but I dont think they are. I wish they were, but I dont. If the current internal GOP power structure stays the same, they will be back (probably in '08), picking up wherever they leave off in '06, and continuing the country down its current dark path.

If (when?) the Dems retake power this election, there needs to be a lot of pressure brought to bear to make sure that the crimes of the Bush Cabal are thoroughly investigated, and the public is given all the details.
And when the Republicans cry "partisan politics!", wouldnt it be nice if the Democrats said, "So, what of it?"

Dante lee said...

Great post, Len. This is indeed this lack of a mission that is eroding and splitting the Republican party by the hours. But you know what? And I thank God for this present crop of Repugs lacks indeed any vision !

I have never liked nor understood that picture comparing Bush to Hitler. For example, the comparison between Saddam and the Fuhrer by Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz was, as we know, not even a totally reliable propaganda tool. Too few of us, even among Repugs, have ever bought that argument.

These quick and easy comparisons are only made to satisfy the need to express the concern that the Bushies are acting despotically to the folks who are not history savvy, or, from the Bushies, to utterly simplify the rhetoric about the need for regime change in Iraq, toward the vast majority of Americans who watch their news on Fox and who don't have the time or the drive to seek more balanced news on the web.

Unfortunately for Europe, Adolf Hitler had a vision, a mission, a strategy and a plan. In comparison, Neo-cons only had just a few crazy ideas, somewhat of a mission, but certainly no strategy and no plan.

The split between Evangelical Christians along with fundamentalists and the Bushies has not started with the Foley scandal. This was the Terry Shiavo stuff that really found a way into that GOP rock, froze inside into solid ice and split it apart.

Kevin Phillips, had, perhaps, published “American theocracy” within the time this marriage of convenience was still honeymooning for a bit, but the author already sensed, a couple of years ago already, that a ugly split may occur one day. The problem is this: The Christians and the Bushies never had a common mission: Neo-cons, corporate Repugs and Jesus freaks just needed each other in order to accomplish their own respective goals, that is all.

But the corporatists obviously earned an overwhelming share of the cake, compared to the other groups. Worse: these corporate Repugs have used Neo-cons as a mere stepping stone, just as Neo-cons used the Christian coalition in the same manner. The sad thing is, even corporate Repugs got faded in turn by rich Lobbyists, the latter coming out of this sordid story as the greatest winners of all despite what you've heard about Abramoff – the Abramoff scandal being just a sad story of a killing of a chicken that has never scared any monkeys.

Now, of course, with all these groups feeling betrayed by the all the others, it's a real zizany among Repugs. And now, that the Foley stuff just hit the fan less than five weeks before the election, it's just a plain good old civil war that is emerging within Goppers. (well, just like Bushies say, “we don't buy the argument that there is going to be a civil war”. Let's just say the GOP mess is some kind of “ethnic tension”...).

Thus, of course, we must all feel good lately, watching the demise of the Repugs. We've got this urge to dance in the street, feeling like a Taliban in the morning of 9/11.

Well, don't count me in. Because the damage on the United States and its people is done and the deluge is here to stay after the Goppers are gone. I'm afraid that our problems are now irreversible, even more given that Democrats are today almost fully founded by lobbyists. Gone is the time when workers Unions were the driving force behind the party's many victories.

In November 3th, Repugs will depart, leaving our economy decimated - even if we don't feel it quite yet - , our Military broke , the American reputation in ashes, the Middle-East on the verge to explode, and even a crazy haired leader from broke-ass country of 23 millions who is about to press the atomic test button, laughing out loud from his bunker.

My God: You'd think six small years were only like a mere nanosecond compared to the age of our planet. The Repugs were not just clever are re-writing History, it appears they were also quite good at shrinking it. They were pretty skilled in stage décor too: the Bushies, hoping to dictate over us, have set and passed, for the last five or six years, a whole new body of repressive laws... now ready to serve any new crazy, clever, and suddenly powerful asshole with a vision, a mission, a strategy, and a plan.

Len Hart said...

Dante wrote: Unfortunately for Europe, Adolf Hitler had a vision, a mission, a strategy and a plan. In comparison, Neo-cons only had just a few crazy ideas, somewhat of a mission, but certainly no strategy and no plan.

You are absolutely correct in this respect: Hitler not only had a plan, he told the the whole world about it. He even boasted: I have waged war against the Jew in full view of the world! Bush, by contrast, has cloaked his real plans for purely political reasons. Those plans are the plans made by Dick Cheney and the "Energy Task Force". It is THOSE plans that are the Bush administration's real agenda and it is THOSE plans that are most like those of Adolph —even down to the oil.

Though Hitler was more upfront with his plans than Bush, the substance of Bush's real agenda is pure Nazism: world domination, seizure of control of the world's natural resources, and the enslavement of any group that gets in the way. Just as the Nazui plan had "racial" overtones, Bush's use of the term "terrorist" is in no small part racist.

In short, the only difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler was upfront about his "mission"; Bush is not. Both, however, sold their "missions" with empty platitudes [See: Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich], scapegoated non-existent enemies, attempted to conquer the world, claimed the right of pre-emption, conducted widespread atrocities and attempted enslavement, effected unfair trade practices, trounced legitimate dissent, scapegoated a minority group, and attempted the widespread incarcertation and "enslavement" of portions of a defeated "enemy".

Len Hart said...

Dave wrote: If (when?) the Dems retake power this election, there needs to be a lot of pressure brought to bear to make sure that the crimes of the Bush Cabal are thoroughly investigated, and the public is given all the details.

Yep! Nothing will have been gained if the Democrats do not UNDO everything that Bush has done.

And when the Republicans cry "partisan politics!", wouldnt it be nice if the Democrats said, "So, what of it?"

Similarly, when "liberals" stop running away from what is, in fact, a GREAT word, the irrational demonization of the world "liberal" —which means free —will end immediately. It's time we TOOK BACK and defended with our "sacred honor" our values and the LIBERAL values which are, in fact, the very basis of Western Civilization are among them.


supergirlest said...

that line in the who song, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" keeps edging it's way into my head EVERY time i think about the upcoming election. sad, yes, but i ain't lying.

found you courtesy of hillcountry gal. she compared us. :) nice to meet you. i'll be back.

Len Hart said...

Welcome to the "Cowboy"...I know the song well. Richard Nixon was still in the White House —but the "Who" could not have done a better job of describing the "Reagan/Republican Revolution" that was just around the corner, a "revolution" that has all but destroyed the American economy:

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?


—The Who

jae said...

I just read your latest and had to say Thank You. The lack of transparency in the plans of the Loonies in charge is frustrating and frightening.

Having been a most dedicated WHO fan for 31 years, I've watched Townshends politial statements inspire like no other. He is truly one of a kind.

supergirlest said...

len, thanks for having me! good ole reagan. i don't know that we'll ever recover from that.

soooooooo, i hear you're a student of sartre - i must then implore you to cruise over by my blog and jump in! i posted up one of his pieces yesterday - and would love to have your thoughts!

Anonymous said...

This IS the plan. As the US army causes chaos in Iraq, the US gov't clamps down on our rights at home by suspending habeas corpus, conducting warrant-less wiretaps, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, rigging elections and starting wars based on lies. Soon, another false-flag operation will occur (9/11 with nukes) causing the frightened masses to beg for the 'safety' of One World Gov't led by neo-cons and Zionists.
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

Christopher I said...

North Korea's undergound nucleat test, and all the brouhaha it has created in the media will divert the public's attantion away from Iraq and Mark Foley, whch is exactly what the White House wants.

Perhaps Kim Jung Il needs an undamaged George Bush for his own reasons, and has timed the nuclear test to ensure a Republican victory next month to ensure that George Bush can carry on as before.

Add this to the fact that gas prices have been dropping, and it would take an intrepid better (one who bets) to bet against Republicans retaining control of both houses.

Would a Republican victory be any stranger than the American people electing George Bush not just once, but twice?

Dante lee said...

No Christopher, you don't get it:

It's just the same Kim Jung Il going, "Me, ME, MEEEEE !!!!"

I believe this is indeed another bad reminder of the Bushies's incredible incompetance at all level of foreign policy and diplomacy. I think it actually looks pretty bad on Bush, 4 weeks before the election.

But to tell you the truth, the fact that a little crazy dude like Kim jung Il was able to blow a mountain, while warning the world over and over that he was about to do so, and that the whole world did not give a damn and looked the other way while begging another "power" to deal and "talk" with NK leaders... Now, that's a real shame on anyone; i mean, China, Russia, Europe and the United States.

Human beings from all over the World: we can finally unite in our imbecility: we all truly suck!

Thinker said...

Great write up Len. Though my concern is there is no light on. Or rather, no light at the end of the tunnel. To the best of my reakoning the Dem's are "in on it" as well. So, now it is up to the little people & we need some mighty brave folks to stop the rot.

For the people commenting on is a sneaky game. Most don't understand how it is going to be played out, but if it carries on schedule it will "connect the dots".

Some assert that alien species have a vested interest in the security of this planet. Has anyone noticed how much UFO sightings have escalated in recent years. Oh hell, maybe people are just noticing more these days!

damien said...

Caligula had his horse. Bush has got Barney. Unless he's been humping some pages legs I say "Barney for Speaker"!

damien said...

The police state actions that you refer to Len could be closer than we imagine:

"The only journalist to have interviewed al-Qaida leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri since the 9/11 attacks is coming to the U.S. to address a [neo-con] conference. Hamid Mir, WND reported, recently warned that the new al-Qaida field commander in Afghanistan is calling for Muslims to leave the U.S. in anticipation of a major terror attack to rival Sept. 11. Mir, based in Pakistan, says the attack is being coordinated by Adnan el-Shukrijumah, a trained nuclear technician and accomplished pilot who has been singled out by bin Laden and Zawahiri to serve as the field commander for the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Adnan, of course, is a typical, fully integrated Muslim American -

El-Shukrijumah represents the perfect "sleeper agent," since he speaks English without the slightest hint of an accent and possesses the uncanny abilities to blend into a crowd, to alter his looks, and to assume a multitude of identities. He is the proverbial Mr. Cellophane. Nothing about el-Shukrijumah indicates his radical Islamic orientation. In other words, the perfect excuse to start rounding up every other ordinary Muslim American in mass detention sweeps.

Len Hart said...

This IS the plan. As the US army causes chaos in Iraq,

Of course it's the plan..but it's a lousy plan even by GOP standards. Sure...Bushco had always intended to stay hence the construction of permanent bases so that the oil could be exploited more easily. But even Darth Cheney did not foresee or plan for the level of sectarian violence. Additionally, the GOP "cover story" has been blown. Whatever the details of their "plan", this criminal cabal could not have wanted that!

Indeed, an inflamed middle east puts those permanent bases forever in jeopardy. And if the Bushies haven't figured that out yet, they are even more stupid than I thought. Besides —the chaos, the loss of civilian life, an entire middle east inflamed was never necessary. Bush just wanted to get off order the torture of people while strutting around with a cod piece on aircraft carriers. Even the radical right wing idiots who wanted to steal Iraqi oil right out from under them must be appalled at Bush whose personal perversions have now become counterproductive.

Anonymous said...

"Howard Zinn: "I came to the conclusion that, given the technology of modern warfare, war is inevitably a war against children, against civilians. When you look at the ratio of civilian to military dead, it changes from 50-50 in World War II to 80-20 in Vietnam, maybe as high as 90-10 today… When you face that fact, war is now always a war against civilians, and so against children. No political goal can justify it, and so the great challenge before the human race in our time is to solve the problems of tyranny and aggression, and do it without war." —Howard Zinn

Fuzzflash said...

Len,I love it when a philosopher takes no prisoners. Great post. Woderful comments,all.
Only 28 days remain before Bushco attempt the great poll swindle of 2006. Exept this time the roots are ready for it. Pity about the Dem poobahs.

There's something fishy about BushCo's response to the North Korea proton-rattling. Sure, the Sgt."I know nussink" Schultz pageboy predation and cover-up has resulted in GOP collateral poll damage, but why hasn't the War President gone medieval on Kim Jong-Il's ass? Strutted and huffed and puffed a la Il Duce. Is it because the GOP are beyond rallying? Karl could have made political hay with this from KA-BOOM gitgo. I really think the rot's set in,in WHIG and PNACland. Iraq's a bloody "Fiasco". Perhaps they're too focused on saving their own miserable butts,as losing Congress will bring them major legal grief. Feral cornered rats, as we've discussed at more lenght than a B.F. Skinner behavioralist, will literally "shoot the works", therefore, "surgically" whacking Iran in a Made-for-Fox Shock and Awefest, to fuel an orgy of jingoism ahead of Nov.7, cannot be excluded.

Certainly,as a global attention getting device, Kimmy's timing has been perfect, as BushCo simply don't have the cerebral, or strategic nous to cope. Follicularly challenged, Kim may be, but at least he is devoid of the diplomatic dandruff that accompanies deFoleyation.

Len Hart said...

Fuzzflash: Is it because the GOP are beyond rallying?

That plus the increasingly clear fact that Bush was just shooting his mouth off about the "Axis of Evil". The Bushies never thought past the mere rhetoric; they never thought about the practical implications of pure, GOP pure bullshit, just as they never thought about what has, in fact, happened in Iraq. Either they knew what would happen in Iraq or they knew and didn't care. With respect to NK, there is a lot of history that the Bushies should review. MacArthur did an end run an Inchon, but US forces were eventually forced to withdraw after having crossed the 38th parallel. MacAthur, truthfully, had gone nuts. He wanted to unleash a "holy war" even to the point of nuking NK. Given the history and Bush's recent rhetoric, it is not surprising that NK would seek a deterrant.

McArthur, of course, got fired by a wiser old head. At least MacArthur had a good line with which to exit stage "right": "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away".

Fuzzflash said...

Dante Lee, I note from your comments on maestro’s previous post that you were impressed with Bob Woodward’s latest “tome’’. With the greatest respect, comrade, I think a little balance is in order here.

Sidney Blumenthal performs a pathologically precise vivisection on Tumbledown Bob Woodward in his latest essay. Sidney suggests that Bobby is currently a lightweight who Fausted out in ’98. He claims “State of Denial’’ author Bob:

1) Was an outsider who thought he was an insider, thereby compelled to trawl power’s periphery for poisonous tit-bits.
2) Completely ignored the House of Saud/House of Bush longtime and ongoing connections.
3) Shamelessly shilled the Iraq War.
4) Never once uses the word neoconservative or neoconservatisim in the book.

Despite this, Sidney concedes,
“Woodward’s latest volume has provided further documentary evidence to buttress criticisms of Bush’s incompetence in Iraq and has contributed to the collapse of Bush’s fall political offensive.’’

So, Dante,“State of Denial’’ certainly aids La Cause, but Woodward’s motives are decidedly suspect in my humble opinion. Below every deep throat lies an alimentary canal.

Tapeworm territory.

Vierotchka said...

My feeling is that all this Foley flutter is a diversion, a Rovian tactic to keep our attentions away from the fact that the Neocons are, as always, proceeding according to their sick plan. Indeed, I think their October Surprise will be an attack on Iran - "...the Pentagon had “moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast.” Now, reports that the carrier group has already sailed and is scheduled to arrive in the vicinity of Iran around October 21, at the same time as a second flotilla of minesweepers and other ships." Source

damien said...

I'm not sure any more about these ship movements, Vierotchka. (link)

Dante lee said...

Sorry Fuzz, but you misread me:
I was impressed with "Fiasco", not with "State of Denial" which I still expect to arrive within the next couple days from Amazon...

Vierotchka said...

Damien, that article didn't mention the US military and air-force bases in Azerbaijan, Kirghizstan and Uzbekistan - what with the ones in Iraq and in the Gulf states, the US has Iran pretty much encircled.

Vierotchka said...

Fuzzflash - have you checked your hotmail inbox recently? :)

Freudian Slip said...

When I first saw people comparing Bush to Hitler, it was a bit much to swallow, but more and more I can now understand why. Wow.

Fuzzflash said...

Je suis