"You've got a bunch of people up on Capitol Hill auditioning for Captain Ahab, and I'm Moby Dick."
Karl Rove is a big fish all right. But he is not a victim, and certainly not the idea I have of a noble specie worth preserving from Capitol Hill sharks.
The Architect announced his resignation in The Wall Street Journal, as if it were business as usual, not the last throes of a controversial mastermind under subpoena... Instead of a beautiful whale, an ugly rat* abandoning the ship to save the actual Captain.
* what's in a nickname... "Turd Blossom" isn't as cute as Ratatouille.
Showing posts with label Karl Rove. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Karl Rove. Show all posts
20070814
20070809
Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism
1 - What is fundamentalism ?
At the beginning, the word used to designate a deviant Protestant movement but now, it can be applied to trends found in all major religions.
Fundamentalism means the total submission of a people to a strict set of principles.
Fundamentalism is not about religion (the pretext behind the means), but about politics (the actual aim of the game) ; ultimately, fundamentalism is about the total control of society in a caricature of theocracy.
Fundamentalists are humans who build the set of strict rules and define what is true and what isn't, generally developing a simplistic doctrine based on their own biased interpretation of ancient religious scriptures that can be interpreted in as many ways as there are human beings. Since fundamentalists consider their doctrine as absolute, perfect, good and unfailable, anything growing out of it is necessarily wrong, corrupt and evil, and thus has to be eradicated in order to purify the world. Beyond what people do or say, fundamentalists intend to control and judge what people think.
Fundamentalism is totalitarian because all human activities should abid to the rules, starting with the pilars of democracy : political debate, science, education, justice, information... any field where intelligence can bloom and expose the limits of a basic propaganda.
The same logic can be found in the Discovery Institute’s Wedge strategy : the ultimate goal of Intelligent Design is to undermine science and education, key entry points for fundamentalists. ID has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics, starting with the artificial legitimation of religion at the root of the social system, and ultimately the restoration of theocracy.
The worst enemy of a fundamentalist is a person from the same religion who preaches tolerance, reason, and respect of the differences between individuals and cultures. Charismatic pro-peace leaders who happen to be people of faith, sometimes even former respected warriors : Yitzhak Rabin, Ahmad Shah Massoud…
The most embarrassing enemy of a fundamentalist is a "competing" fundamentalist from the same religion. The sales pitches are basically similar, but it brings the notion that there is not only one good answer to the question. At least one is necessarily wrong, it is more difficult to claim the true version. The best way is to either destroy this enemy or find a way to merge both franchises into a more powerful band.
The best ally of a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist from a "competing" religion. Each one becomes the "evil" of the other one, feeding him with new arguments. The more radical the opponent, the better : fear makes propaganda sound more credible and moderates less audible.
2 - Why did fundamentalisms gain momentum recently ?
Fundamentalist movements have always existed in most religions, but were traditionally limited to small circles around isolated radical doomsayers. They tend to blossom in periods of materialist decadence and crises because they leverage on basic fears : fear for one's own life and future, fear for the loss of identity and values of a whole society... In times of uncertainties, fundamentalists offer simple answers, clear visions of a brighter afterlife… and order. With a full set of golden rules.
Like fascism, fundamentalism feeds from the failures of democracy, from the intolerable gaps between peoples kept in poverty and underdevelopment on one hand, and rich corrupt regimes on the other. "Ideally", people must be fed up with their rulers, and not believe anymore in the rules supposed to hold the society altogether. An ailing dictatorship will provide a perfect background, but the fundamentalists' best moments come when self-proclaimed model democracies give the worst examples to the world. Most islamist fundamentalisms find their roots in the abuses of colonization, the failures of decolonization (not to mention the disastrous management of the creation of Israel or India / Pakistan), and many were infuriated by the aberrations of the Cold War. They usually reach power when Western democracies start sending the wrong signals at the wrong moment.
For fundamentalists from all religions, George W. Bush turned out to be the best person at the best place at the best moment.
His strategy should look like a total failure to whoever considers the Iraq quagmire, the Palestinian fiasco, or the worldwide surge in terror. But to the contrary, Bush's strategy proved a complete success.
Because George W. Bush didn't act as a President of The United States of America in the interest of his country.
And George W. Bush didn't even act as a Republican in the interest of his party.
George W. Bush acted as a fundamentalist in the interest of fundamentalism.
Right after 9/11, the whole world was behind him and the USA, but this man refused to lead the world towards peace and mutual respect. Instead, he decided to send the worst signals to the worst people, deliberately triggering a sick race between fundamentalisms. Bush's first speech after 9/11 was meant to clarify the framework for his fellow fundamentalists thanks to one single word : "crusade". In other words : let's go back to the good old times when people fought for religion, we fundamentalists are ruling the show, and I will play on the very ground Bin Laden hoped I would.
Because "the Sheik" new perfectly what kind of leader he was facing : a (stub)born again Christian fan of fundamentalist Billy Graham, a man who set from the start his mandate in a theocratic frame by saying some Higher Being was in charge and driving his decisions. Dubya not only made Bin Laden the official "evil" figure of his crusade, but he happily obliged by becoming the official "evil" figure for Islamists. Everything he did was meant to fuel hatred, sideline the moderates (ie those coward weasels in the West, promoters of the Israeli-Palestinian peace agenda in the Middle East...), and sabotage all attempts of peace or reconciliation. Where multilateralism and pragmatism was the answer, he avoided all forms of debates and sticked to his radical black vs white, us vs them, good vs evil rhetoric.
During the 2004 US presidential campaign, I raised a few eyebrows a couple of years ago by dubbing Bush a fascist, pointing out the disturbingly accurate echoes of Benito Mussolini’s definition of fascism in BC00’s Amerika. The propaganda reacted with a karlrovishy counterattack on the weak point : all of a sudden, Bush was facing “Islamofascists”. The actual fascists were at the other end of the spectrum… but that other end is a mirror, and fundamentalism fueling fundamentalism, propaganda feeding counter-propaganda, extremists ideas became mainstream. Beyond fundamentalism, other forms of radicalism could gain momentum across the world. In Far-East Asia, ultra-nationalists took over Japan, and state revisionism became common in the Archipelago as well as in China.
Bush did not wage a war on terror but in favor of it : instead of focusing on terrorist networks and reducing their ground (ie by fighting injustice and poverty, promoting peace in the region and especially between Israel and Palestine), he deliberately infuriated the muslim world and helped fundamentalists recruit new flocks of followers. And he targeted a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 but everything to do with peace in the region. A new playground for international terrorism, the end of Iraq as a united country, civil war here, the rise of a new form of fundamentalism in Iran when reformers were "threatening" the Khomeini generation, the failure of Fatah and the victory of Hamas... all this was not collateral damage but the very aim of his sick game.
The war in Iraq has been misunderstood as a war for oil led by neocons. The fact is theocons used neocons because they could sell the war to SIGs and thus to Congress. The hidden agenda was not about securing energy sources but about spreading fundamentalism, and if hardcore neocons truly believed in the democracy spreading agenda, theocons knew perfectly the outcome of this madness.
Paleocons followed because money flew from the budget surplus to the hands of greedy SIGs, with significant crumbs ending up on their own laps. Paleocons followed because the official propaganda combined with Karl Rove’s witchcraft made sure 2004 elections would be a landslide victory for Bush. Paleocons were fooled because they thought it would be a victory for the GOP.
I warned Republican voters before November 2004 : if Bush wins, the Republican party loses its soul and is bound to implode. Letting this man invade Iraq was criminal negligence, (re)electing him a strict liability crime by the American people against American values.
The 2004 elections celebrated the rise of Christian fundamentalism across the US at a level never reached before. If not mainstream at this stage, it gained significant social and political power in areas where demographic tides are changing the very shape of the country. Whatever the outcome of the 2008 elections, the USA are shifting towards more internal and self-centered dynamics, and theocons are more likely to bloom in such an environment.
Bush has been isolating the US from external influences, refusing any kind of accountability for his acts but for the dialogs he pretends to hold permanently with The Lord Almighty. At home, he shunted the Congress and his not so fellow Republicans. Away, he switched off the Kyoto protocol, unplugged the Geneva Convention (with the benediction of his Chief Torture Officer Alberto Gonzales), and tried to destroy the UN from the inside (with the help of Bolton the UN bomber). He even bypassed the WTO with series of bilateral FTAs or rather unilateral PTAs (Protectionist Trade Agreements).
A dedicated fundamentalist, Bush has been methodically destroying America from the inside, corrupting justice, science and education with a caricature of religion and paving the way for theocracy. This man is a total fake : a New England brat pretending to be a Texas hunk, a coward pretending to be a soldier, an amoral fundamentalist pretending to be a compassionate saint, a theocrat pretending to spread democracy, a weak wannabe who should never have been the most powerful man on Earth.
If you think the worst happened in Iraq, consider this : this man is planning an even craziest sequel in Iran.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to George W. Bush he shared the same approach of religion. The fact is both are fanatics who expect important visits in a near future ; respectively the return of the Mahdi and the second coming of the Christ. And along with by a bunch of fundamentalists from all confessions (Christian, Muslim and Jewish), they share a more than weird doomsday scenario: the final clash between Iran and Israel will lead to those much awaited visits.
This Commander in Thief only has a few months before giving up power. He is working on peace all right, but rather of the eternal kind.
Compared to such madhatters, Islamist fundamentalists who kicked the Shah out of Iran back in 1979 look like moderates. No wonder Bush does his best to help Ahmadinejad stay in power.
3 - What can be done to undermine fundamentalism ?
Like fascism, fundamentalism needs a permanent state of fear, war and propaganda to survive, and is defeated by democracy at its best : exemplary, fair, just and respectful.
America cannot be respected if it doesn’t respect its own values ; those of a model democracy.
The war on terror should be waged at its roots : helping Afghanistan out of despair and out of the reach of Talibans, converging towards a fair resolution of the Israel / Palestine crisis, focusing on poverty and injustice across the World.
The only way out of Iraq is to fire those who deliberately misfired. Bush and Cheney should be prevented from spreading more chaos and impeached… Easier said than done, but removing Gonzales would be a significant first step forward.
Moderates should speak up across the political spectrum : Dems or Reps, we share certain values and think our leaders betrayed them. We may not overpower them as quickly as we’d like to, but we want to tell the world that we want America back on track, we are not going to let that happen again, and we will do our best to get rid of fundamentalists among us.
Humility will make America stronger : it takes courage to give up arrogance. Besides, there is no other way to get out of what is basically a moral collapse (not to mention to claim any kind of leadership back in the future).
The aim is not to please atheists and condemn believers but to expose fundamentalists, especially among those who are supposed to defend justice, education or democracy. You don’t want to ignite a witch hunt the McCarthy way (are you or have you ever been a fundamentalist ?), but rather to promote transparency over the hypocrisy and confusion fundamentalists are feeding upon.
I’m asking for a much needed reverse burden of proof : nowadays, lawmakers are terrorized by fundamentalists and it should be the other way round. Instead of harassing the bulk of the candidates with questions regarding their private life, we should be forcing fundamentalists to come out in the open, give democracy the lead over the theocratic agenda. Lawmakers shouldn’t be compelled to demonstrate confusingly why they are good believers, they just should clearly tell that they don’t support fundamentalism and that, whatever they believe in, religion should not mix with politics in this country. Ultimately, if some people want religion to rule politics, let them found their own party like they do in other countries.
Once again, I’m not promoting atheism, but defending democracy. And in the US, a cultural change is needed. The fact is America has always allowed too much confusion between the religious and political spheres ; been too tolerant with sects and fanatics that are not compatible with democracy (partly because it was built by people who sometimes fled Europe for religious reasons - ie the Mayflower pilgrims). For a European such as me, it can be upsetting to hear the leader of a supposedly model democracy finish his acceptance speech with “so help me God”. And it is upsetting to see secular democracies under the pervasive threat of fundamentalists in the EU as well (lobbying for the mention of the Christian heritage in the Constitution, for the promotion of creationism and ID… with the benediction of a rather ambiguous Pope ; Benedict XVI).
Beyond the US and EU political microcosms, all moderates should voice their hope for a sounder and more transparent system. This new “we the people” should reach across the world, wherever moderates are threatened by fundamentalists, and not only in the usual hot spots : the race for juicy market shares is raging all over Asia.
Why not A Universal Declaration of Independence from fundamentalism, that perennial enemy of peace, freedom and democracy ?
blogules 2007
---
ADDENDUM 20090117
"What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives -- from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry" - Barack Hussein Obama (Baltimore, January 17, 2009).
Change has come to America.
---
digg this
At the beginning, the word used to designate a deviant Protestant movement but now, it can be applied to trends found in all major religions.
Fundamentalism means the total submission of a people to a strict set of principles.
Fundamentalism is not about religion (the pretext behind the means), but about politics (the actual aim of the game) ; ultimately, fundamentalism is about the total control of society in a caricature of theocracy.
Fundamentalists are humans who build the set of strict rules and define what is true and what isn't, generally developing a simplistic doctrine based on their own biased interpretation of ancient religious scriptures that can be interpreted in as many ways as there are human beings. Since fundamentalists consider their doctrine as absolute, perfect, good and unfailable, anything growing out of it is necessarily wrong, corrupt and evil, and thus has to be eradicated in order to purify the world. Beyond what people do or say, fundamentalists intend to control and judge what people think.
Fundamentalism is totalitarian because all human activities should abid to the rules, starting with the pilars of democracy : political debate, science, education, justice, information... any field where intelligence can bloom and expose the limits of a basic propaganda.
The same logic can be found in the Discovery Institute’s Wedge strategy : the ultimate goal of Intelligent Design is to undermine science and education, key entry points for fundamentalists. ID has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics, starting with the artificial legitimation of religion at the root of the social system, and ultimately the restoration of theocracy.
The worst enemy of a fundamentalist is a person from the same religion who preaches tolerance, reason, and respect of the differences between individuals and cultures. Charismatic pro-peace leaders who happen to be people of faith, sometimes even former respected warriors : Yitzhak Rabin, Ahmad Shah Massoud…
The most embarrassing enemy of a fundamentalist is a "competing" fundamentalist from the same religion. The sales pitches are basically similar, but it brings the notion that there is not only one good answer to the question. At least one is necessarily wrong, it is more difficult to claim the true version. The best way is to either destroy this enemy or find a way to merge both franchises into a more powerful band.
The best ally of a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist from a "competing" religion. Each one becomes the "evil" of the other one, feeding him with new arguments. The more radical the opponent, the better : fear makes propaganda sound more credible and moderates less audible.
2 - Why did fundamentalisms gain momentum recently ?
Fundamentalist movements have always existed in most religions, but were traditionally limited to small circles around isolated radical doomsayers. They tend to blossom in periods of materialist decadence and crises because they leverage on basic fears : fear for one's own life and future, fear for the loss of identity and values of a whole society... In times of uncertainties, fundamentalists offer simple answers, clear visions of a brighter afterlife… and order. With a full set of golden rules.
Like fascism, fundamentalism feeds from the failures of democracy, from the intolerable gaps between peoples kept in poverty and underdevelopment on one hand, and rich corrupt regimes on the other. "Ideally", people must be fed up with their rulers, and not believe anymore in the rules supposed to hold the society altogether. An ailing dictatorship will provide a perfect background, but the fundamentalists' best moments come when self-proclaimed model democracies give the worst examples to the world. Most islamist fundamentalisms find their roots in the abuses of colonization, the failures of decolonization (not to mention the disastrous management of the creation of Israel or India / Pakistan), and many were infuriated by the aberrations of the Cold War. They usually reach power when Western democracies start sending the wrong signals at the wrong moment.
For fundamentalists from all religions, George W. Bush turned out to be the best person at the best place at the best moment.
His strategy should look like a total failure to whoever considers the Iraq quagmire, the Palestinian fiasco, or the worldwide surge in terror. But to the contrary, Bush's strategy proved a complete success.
Because George W. Bush didn't act as a President of The United States of America in the interest of his country.
And George W. Bush didn't even act as a Republican in the interest of his party.
George W. Bush acted as a fundamentalist in the interest of fundamentalism.
Right after 9/11, the whole world was behind him and the USA, but this man refused to lead the world towards peace and mutual respect. Instead, he decided to send the worst signals to the worst people, deliberately triggering a sick race between fundamentalisms. Bush's first speech after 9/11 was meant to clarify the framework for his fellow fundamentalists thanks to one single word : "crusade". In other words : let's go back to the good old times when people fought for religion, we fundamentalists are ruling the show, and I will play on the very ground Bin Laden hoped I would.
Because "the Sheik" new perfectly what kind of leader he was facing : a (stub)born again Christian fan of fundamentalist Billy Graham, a man who set from the start his mandate in a theocratic frame by saying some Higher Being was in charge and driving his decisions. Dubya not only made Bin Laden the official "evil" figure of his crusade, but he happily obliged by becoming the official "evil" figure for Islamists. Everything he did was meant to fuel hatred, sideline the moderates (ie those coward weasels in the West, promoters of the Israeli-Palestinian peace agenda in the Middle East...), and sabotage all attempts of peace or reconciliation. Where multilateralism and pragmatism was the answer, he avoided all forms of debates and sticked to his radical black vs white, us vs them, good vs evil rhetoric.
During the 2004 US presidential campaign, I raised a few eyebrows a couple of years ago by dubbing Bush a fascist, pointing out the disturbingly accurate echoes of Benito Mussolini’s definition of fascism in BC00’s Amerika. The propaganda reacted with a karlrovishy counterattack on the weak point : all of a sudden, Bush was facing “Islamofascists”. The actual fascists were at the other end of the spectrum… but that other end is a mirror, and fundamentalism fueling fundamentalism, propaganda feeding counter-propaganda, extremists ideas became mainstream. Beyond fundamentalism, other forms of radicalism could gain momentum across the world. In Far-East Asia, ultra-nationalists took over Japan, and state revisionism became common in the Archipelago as well as in China.
Bush did not wage a war on terror but in favor of it : instead of focusing on terrorist networks and reducing their ground (ie by fighting injustice and poverty, promoting peace in the region and especially between Israel and Palestine), he deliberately infuriated the muslim world and helped fundamentalists recruit new flocks of followers. And he targeted a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 but everything to do with peace in the region. A new playground for international terrorism, the end of Iraq as a united country, civil war here, the rise of a new form of fundamentalism in Iran when reformers were "threatening" the Khomeini generation, the failure of Fatah and the victory of Hamas... all this was not collateral damage but the very aim of his sick game.
The war in Iraq has been misunderstood as a war for oil led by neocons. The fact is theocons used neocons because they could sell the war to SIGs and thus to Congress. The hidden agenda was not about securing energy sources but about spreading fundamentalism, and if hardcore neocons truly believed in the democracy spreading agenda, theocons knew perfectly the outcome of this madness.
Paleocons followed because money flew from the budget surplus to the hands of greedy SIGs, with significant crumbs ending up on their own laps. Paleocons followed because the official propaganda combined with Karl Rove’s witchcraft made sure 2004 elections would be a landslide victory for Bush. Paleocons were fooled because they thought it would be a victory for the GOP.
I warned Republican voters before November 2004 : if Bush wins, the Republican party loses its soul and is bound to implode. Letting this man invade Iraq was criminal negligence, (re)electing him a strict liability crime by the American people against American values.
The 2004 elections celebrated the rise of Christian fundamentalism across the US at a level never reached before. If not mainstream at this stage, it gained significant social and political power in areas where demographic tides are changing the very shape of the country. Whatever the outcome of the 2008 elections, the USA are shifting towards more internal and self-centered dynamics, and theocons are more likely to bloom in such an environment.
Bush has been isolating the US from external influences, refusing any kind of accountability for his acts but for the dialogs he pretends to hold permanently with The Lord Almighty. At home, he shunted the Congress and his not so fellow Republicans. Away, he switched off the Kyoto protocol, unplugged the Geneva Convention (with the benediction of his Chief Torture Officer Alberto Gonzales), and tried to destroy the UN from the inside (with the help of Bolton the UN bomber). He even bypassed the WTO with series of bilateral FTAs or rather unilateral PTAs (Protectionist Trade Agreements).
A dedicated fundamentalist, Bush has been methodically destroying America from the inside, corrupting justice, science and education with a caricature of religion and paving the way for theocracy. This man is a total fake : a New England brat pretending to be a Texas hunk, a coward pretending to be a soldier, an amoral fundamentalist pretending to be a compassionate saint, a theocrat pretending to spread democracy, a weak wannabe who should never have been the most powerful man on Earth.
If you think the worst happened in Iraq, consider this : this man is planning an even craziest sequel in Iran.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to George W. Bush he shared the same approach of religion. The fact is both are fanatics who expect important visits in a near future ; respectively the return of the Mahdi and the second coming of the Christ. And along with by a bunch of fundamentalists from all confessions (Christian, Muslim and Jewish), they share a more than weird doomsday scenario: the final clash between Iran and Israel will lead to those much awaited visits.
This Commander in Thief only has a few months before giving up power. He is working on peace all right, but rather of the eternal kind.
Compared to such madhatters, Islamist fundamentalists who kicked the Shah out of Iran back in 1979 look like moderates. No wonder Bush does his best to help Ahmadinejad stay in power.
3 - What can be done to undermine fundamentalism ?
Like fascism, fundamentalism needs a permanent state of fear, war and propaganda to survive, and is defeated by democracy at its best : exemplary, fair, just and respectful.
America cannot be respected if it doesn’t respect its own values ; those of a model democracy.
The war on terror should be waged at its roots : helping Afghanistan out of despair and out of the reach of Talibans, converging towards a fair resolution of the Israel / Palestine crisis, focusing on poverty and injustice across the World.
The only way out of Iraq is to fire those who deliberately misfired. Bush and Cheney should be prevented from spreading more chaos and impeached… Easier said than done, but removing Gonzales would be a significant first step forward.
Moderates should speak up across the political spectrum : Dems or Reps, we share certain values and think our leaders betrayed them. We may not overpower them as quickly as we’d like to, but we want to tell the world that we want America back on track, we are not going to let that happen again, and we will do our best to get rid of fundamentalists among us.
Humility will make America stronger : it takes courage to give up arrogance. Besides, there is no other way to get out of what is basically a moral collapse (not to mention to claim any kind of leadership back in the future).
The aim is not to please atheists and condemn believers but to expose fundamentalists, especially among those who are supposed to defend justice, education or democracy. You don’t want to ignite a witch hunt the McCarthy way (are you or have you ever been a fundamentalist ?), but rather to promote transparency over the hypocrisy and confusion fundamentalists are feeding upon.
I’m asking for a much needed reverse burden of proof : nowadays, lawmakers are terrorized by fundamentalists and it should be the other way round. Instead of harassing the bulk of the candidates with questions regarding their private life, we should be forcing fundamentalists to come out in the open, give democracy the lead over the theocratic agenda. Lawmakers shouldn’t be compelled to demonstrate confusingly why they are good believers, they just should clearly tell that they don’t support fundamentalism and that, whatever they believe in, religion should not mix with politics in this country. Ultimately, if some people want religion to rule politics, let them found their own party like they do in other countries.
Once again, I’m not promoting atheism, but defending democracy. And in the US, a cultural change is needed. The fact is America has always allowed too much confusion between the religious and political spheres ; been too tolerant with sects and fanatics that are not compatible with democracy (partly because it was built by people who sometimes fled Europe for religious reasons - ie the Mayflower pilgrims). For a European such as me, it can be upsetting to hear the leader of a supposedly model democracy finish his acceptance speech with “so help me God”. And it is upsetting to see secular democracies under the pervasive threat of fundamentalists in the EU as well (lobbying for the mention of the Christian heritage in the Constitution, for the promotion of creationism and ID… with the benediction of a rather ambiguous Pope ; Benedict XVI).
Beyond the US and EU political microcosms, all moderates should voice their hope for a sounder and more transparent system. This new “we the people” should reach across the world, wherever moderates are threatened by fundamentalists, and not only in the usual hot spots : the race for juicy market shares is raging all over Asia.
Why not A Universal Declaration of Independence from fundamentalism, that perennial enemy of peace, freedom and democracy ?
blogules 2007
---
ADDENDUM 20090117
"What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives -- from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry" - Barack Hussein Obama (Baltimore, January 17, 2009).
Change has come to America.
---
digg this
20070515
Dismission Accomplished - Red blogule to the other peanut president
LBJ's quagmire, Nixon's scandals, Carter's hostages, not to mention Dubya's own trophies (lies, propaganda, fundamentalism, revisionism, torture...)... This President seems ripe for impeachment, and it's up to the Republicans to get rid of this bunch of Hall of Shamers (Cheney, Rove, Wolfie...). For good, and for the good of this country.
Besides, it would be the only way out of Iraq. And in the 2008 race. The Dems will keep shooting till someone waves a white flag : "why should I catch a bullet ? I should be shooting the darn lame duck along with you instead".
It would be an act of repentance from America too. I made a mistake in 2003, and then I made an even bigger mistake in November 2004. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Here's his head, shall I wrap it up ?
Here is the man. Ecce homo. George Walker Bush eventually meeting the same fate as his favorite philosopher. Atoning not for the sins of mankind but for the sins of one unkind man.
Besides, it would be the only way out of Iraq. And in the 2008 race. The Dems will keep shooting till someone waves a white flag : "why should I catch a bullet ? I should be shooting the darn lame duck along with you instead".
It would be an act of repentance from America too. I made a mistake in 2003, and then I made an even bigger mistake in November 2004. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Here's his head, shall I wrap it up ?
Here is the man. Ecce homo. George Walker Bush eventually meeting the same fate as his favorite philosopher. Atoning not for the sins of mankind but for the sins of one unkind man.
20070415
Red blogule to Wolfie's Personal World Bank
Annus horribilis for neocons (continued) : Paul Wolfowitz, whose World Bank is supposed to give governance lessons, abused his power to raise above the level of decency the pay of his own girlfriend. Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove may be the next members of the crude crew to fall, the Dems only have a few months to restore America and impeach both Lord Dubya, King of the Banana Republic of the Divided States of Amerika, and his puppeteer Lobby Dick Cheney.
Anyway, History will give its verdict sooner or later, and the Bush years will be forever remembered as years of immorality and disgrace.
Anyway, History will give its verdict sooner or later, and the Bush years will be forever remembered as years of immorality and disgrace.
20070216
Red blogule to French oldcons, neocons and cons in general
The French are switching from a Left / Right to a Conservative / Progressive political rift. The defining moment was the vote for the European Constitution, with a significant collateral damage : the end of the Socialist Party (PS) as we've known it since Francois Mitterrand claimed it a couple of decades ago.
Reformers from the PS have more in common with reformers from the UMP than with their fellow party members stuck somewhere in the middle of the XIXth Century. Sarkozy and fellow reformers have successfuly sidelined traditional conservatives within their own ranks - a minority of harmless old farts snoring all day long at the Senate.
I'm sure the French economy would perform well with Nicolas Sarkozy, but I'm rather scared by his attacks on secular legislations and his ability to fuel radicalism and fundamentalism. I don't quite like the idea of this man enjoying the support of both US and Israeli fundamentalists and neocons, and even the presence of a Karl Rove wannabe on his side, Brice Hortefeux.
I'd rather see a more moderate kind of reformer rule the country. Francois Bayrou (UDF) has a clear opening since Dominique Strauss-Kahn lost the PS primaries vs Segolene Royal. Should he reach the second round of these elections, he would crush Royal and could even be a problem for Sarkozy (if socialist voters prefer barring Sarko to abstention).
Segolene Royal is not a moderate reformer. She is neither conservative nor reformist. She is an ambitious person used to follow charismatic leaders and has some trouble turning into a charismatic leader radiating with her own views. She keeps putting all opinions at the same level and refusing to take any clear position. As expected and despite a massive victory in the socialist primaries (60%), Royal proved unable to get full support from her own party. A couple of days ago, a group of VIMs from the left (Very Important Women) were considering a petition to call for her withdrawal from the presidential race - just to make sure this wouldn't be interpreted as yet another proof of France's reactionnary machismo (anytime Royal is under attack, she bites with the issue back).
Bayrou may be closing the gap, Royal is still far ahead of the centrist candidate and she still has a large and motivated core of supporters. But she flunked last week-end's exam, introducing a program that didn't really prove disruptive... but for the national budget. A copycat of Mitterrand's 1981 program, which led that man to the top job but the country to the bottom : a massive budget deficit, a big financial crisis and a total loss of international competitivity at a critical moment. Eric Besson, the man in charge of the financial side of Royal program, timely decided to quit after a clash with Francois Holland, secretary general of the PS and Sego's longtime compagnon.
Right now, Sarkozy enjoys a comfortable lead in the polls. But he has also been trapped into a lousy campaign where everybody promises everything to everyone. Even Bayrou, the apostle of budget orthodoxy, claims a 20 billion Euros program.
Ten years ago, France was ahead of Germany in its reforms. But the PM, Alain Juppe, went too far too quick, and Chirac (not so wisely advised by Villepin) decided to dissolve the assembly. The PS won the 1997 elections and Lionel Jospin surfed on the internet bubble years to post nice growth rates, but also to reform the country the wrong way (more spendings and the mother of all mistakes ; the 35-hour Week). Chirac won again in 2002 but limited new reforms to cautious steps when his neighbor Gerhard Schroeder would take all the risks. Schroeder lost to Merkel but Germany is now much fitter than France to face future challenges.
Here's the new deal for France : an economic breakdown with Segolene Royal, a political gamble with Nicolas Sarkozy. Should Francois Bayrou win next May, he would have the opportunity to form a new party with socialist and UMP moderate reformers. Instead of going down by turning right or left, France must try to go and grow up.
Reformers from the PS have more in common with reformers from the UMP than with their fellow party members stuck somewhere in the middle of the XIXth Century. Sarkozy and fellow reformers have successfuly sidelined traditional conservatives within their own ranks - a minority of harmless old farts snoring all day long at the Senate.
I'm sure the French economy would perform well with Nicolas Sarkozy, but I'm rather scared by his attacks on secular legislations and his ability to fuel radicalism and fundamentalism. I don't quite like the idea of this man enjoying the support of both US and Israeli fundamentalists and neocons, and even the presence of a Karl Rove wannabe on his side, Brice Hortefeux.
I'd rather see a more moderate kind of reformer rule the country. Francois Bayrou (UDF) has a clear opening since Dominique Strauss-Kahn lost the PS primaries vs Segolene Royal. Should he reach the second round of these elections, he would crush Royal and could even be a problem for Sarkozy (if socialist voters prefer barring Sarko to abstention).
Segolene Royal is not a moderate reformer. She is neither conservative nor reformist. She is an ambitious person used to follow charismatic leaders and has some trouble turning into a charismatic leader radiating with her own views. She keeps putting all opinions at the same level and refusing to take any clear position. As expected and despite a massive victory in the socialist primaries (60%), Royal proved unable to get full support from her own party. A couple of days ago, a group of VIMs from the left (Very Important Women) were considering a petition to call for her withdrawal from the presidential race - just to make sure this wouldn't be interpreted as yet another proof of France's reactionnary machismo (anytime Royal is under attack, she bites with the issue back).
Bayrou may be closing the gap, Royal is still far ahead of the centrist candidate and she still has a large and motivated core of supporters. But she flunked last week-end's exam, introducing a program that didn't really prove disruptive... but for the national budget. A copycat of Mitterrand's 1981 program, which led that man to the top job but the country to the bottom : a massive budget deficit, a big financial crisis and a total loss of international competitivity at a critical moment. Eric Besson, the man in charge of the financial side of Royal program, timely decided to quit after a clash with Francois Holland, secretary general of the PS and Sego's longtime compagnon.
Right now, Sarkozy enjoys a comfortable lead in the polls. But he has also been trapped into a lousy campaign where everybody promises everything to everyone. Even Bayrou, the apostle of budget orthodoxy, claims a 20 billion Euros program.
Ten years ago, France was ahead of Germany in its reforms. But the PM, Alain Juppe, went too far too quick, and Chirac (not so wisely advised by Villepin) decided to dissolve the assembly. The PS won the 1997 elections and Lionel Jospin surfed on the internet bubble years to post nice growth rates, but also to reform the country the wrong way (more spendings and the mother of all mistakes ; the 35-hour Week). Chirac won again in 2002 but limited new reforms to cautious steps when his neighbor Gerhard Schroeder would take all the risks. Schroeder lost to Merkel but Germany is now much fitter than France to face future challenges.
Here's the new deal for France : an economic breakdown with Segolene Royal, a political gamble with Nicolas Sarkozy. Should Francois Bayrou win next May, he would have the opportunity to form a new party with socialist and UMP moderate reformers. Instead of going down by turning right or left, France must try to go and grow up.
20060927
White blogule to confusion creators - exposing propaganda
I suggest a Karl Rove Propaganda Award for President Bush following his comment about medias revealing parts of the intel report on terror and Iraq. According to King Dubya, the said medias did "create confusion in the minds of the American people", which could be translated into "did their jobs" or "exposed our propaganda machine".
The POTUS released his own edited version of the intel outside report, insisting on the links between terror and Iraq but without confusing the reader with the fact that he was the one who created the links in the first place.
PS : interesting papers from Newsweek (20061002 issue) about :
- Hizbullah's propaganda machine : "Winning Hearts and Minds"
- The Architect's new proteges (Todd Olsen, Terry Nelson...) : "In Rove's Footsteps"
The POTUS released his own edited version of the intel outside report, insisting on the links between terror and Iraq but without confusing the reader with the fact that he was the one who created the links in the first place.
PS : interesting papers from Newsweek (20061002 issue) about :
- Hizbullah's propaganda machine : "Winning Hearts and Minds"
- The Architect's new proteges (Todd Olsen, Terry Nelson...) : "In Rove's Footsteps"
20060909
Red blogule to the Commander in Thief - The Architect is back
Yes, the Bush camp can still win the 2006 elections. After all, Ken Mehlman remains an ace and Karl Rove the ultimate opponent-destroying-propaganda machine.
The aim of the game, as usual, is to steal the elections by counterfighting where you're supposed to be the weakest. Iraq, for example, about which the Dems are considering the pros and cons of a withdrawal, exposing themselves to an intense guerilla from "Turd Blossom". I wish they instead made clear in the minds of the public the most vital thing for the US is to withdraw from the Bush doctrine. First behave well, then act responsively, sane decisions will come naturally. And they propably won't include a withdrawal of all troops anytime soon. The least America must do is to fix the damage Bush's Amerika has done.
For the moment, the "flip flop" specter is hovering above the Democrats, and Karl will very likely have Bush talk as the boss in charge : we've been waging a nasty war that's true, but we nailed most of 'em bastards and we proved bein' tough could prevent new attacks on our soil. You have the power to decide ; to be either with us or with them - not them Dems, but them terrorist thugs.
The truth should be exposed : right after 9/11, terrorists were the only bad guys around and the whole world was supporting the US, expecting a responsible answer from a model democracy - but this excuse for an Administration managed to damage the image of democracy so badly the US are now considered a rogue state and terrorists heroes. Not only did the US invite terrorists where they weren't (Iraq), they made the World a much less safer place by fueling terror, fanatism and hatred all across the world.
The US need a strong administration all right, but should remain a model democracy as well : you have the choice between supporting fascists and fundamentalists on one hand (those ruling the country these days as well as the terrorists, their supposed enemies), and restoring the values that made America respected on the other (all you have to do is to get rid of these madhatters).
The aim of the game, as usual, is to steal the elections by counterfighting where you're supposed to be the weakest. Iraq, for example, about which the Dems are considering the pros and cons of a withdrawal, exposing themselves to an intense guerilla from "Turd Blossom". I wish they instead made clear in the minds of the public the most vital thing for the US is to withdraw from the Bush doctrine. First behave well, then act responsively, sane decisions will come naturally. And they propably won't include a withdrawal of all troops anytime soon. The least America must do is to fix the damage Bush's Amerika has done.
For the moment, the "flip flop" specter is hovering above the Democrats, and Karl will very likely have Bush talk as the boss in charge : we've been waging a nasty war that's true, but we nailed most of 'em bastards and we proved bein' tough could prevent new attacks on our soil. You have the power to decide ; to be either with us or with them - not them Dems, but them terrorist thugs.
The truth should be exposed : right after 9/11, terrorists were the only bad guys around and the whole world was supporting the US, expecting a responsible answer from a model democracy - but this excuse for an Administration managed to damage the image of democracy so badly the US are now considered a rogue state and terrorists heroes. Not only did the US invite terrorists where they weren't (Iraq), they made the World a much less safer place by fueling terror, fanatism and hatred all across the world.
The US need a strong administration all right, but should remain a model democracy as well : you have the choice between supporting fascists and fundamentalists on one hand (those ruling the country these days as well as the terrorists, their supposed enemies), and restoring the values that made America respected on the other (all you have to do is to get rid of these madhatters).
20060811
Red blogule to Dubya - "Islamo-fascists" don't enjoy a monopoly
Once again, George W. Bush uttered the "islamic fascist" expression. This time, it was all about a Heathrow plot uncovered at the most convenient time : Bush and Blair are said to have talked about this issue a couple of days earlier but didn't warn their partners, which means either they didn't care for them, or the emergency wasn't that critical. Anyway, Bush and Blair clearly needed a terror fix to go back up in the polls and to give some support to Olmert, also going down for his military failures. The message : war on terror is difficult but it has to be lead whatever the cost ; it's a noble cause, a moral one. Significantly, Jacques Chirac just used the term "immoral" to warn the US : not reaching a ceasefire agreement would be "immoral"... a clear echo to the messianic War on Terror propaganda.
This is not the first time Bush uses the "Islamic fascism" expression* ; in a typically Karlrovish move, he's counterattacking with the very words that are being relevantly** used against his Administration and now protégés.
* see "Red blogule to the first amendment - Land of Opportunity for Nazis, Land of Plenty for fascism" (20051016).
** see "Let's face it they're fascists" (20040527)
This is not the first time Bush uses the "Islamic fascism" expression* ; in a typically Karlrovish move, he's counterattacking with the very words that are being relevantly** used against his Administration and now protégés.
* see "Red blogule to the first amendment - Land of Opportunity for Nazis, Land of Plenty for fascism" (20051016).
** see "Let's face it they're fascists" (20040527)
20060601
Red blogule to Justice as defined by The White House
George W Bush once more uttered his favorite mantra : "Those who violated the law, if they did, will be punished." This time, it's about 24 Iraqi civilians killed by US Marines. But this time, Dubya is likely to go all the way and punish the actual decision makers ; after all, these soldiers do not rank high in the hierarchy. Those in charge of the cover up do, but they shouldn't fear anything considering the history of justice and punishment for wrongdoings under Dubya's rule.
Here, Justice means praising the likes of Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld. Here, Justice is monitored by Alberto Gonzales, the man who made Abu Ghraib possible. Here, Justice is said to be in the hands of God but meant for the sole protection of the President and his interests.
I'm confident this man doesn't stand a chance facing the judgement of History. The problem is till then, the whole world is paying for the damage done.
Here, Justice means praising the likes of Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld. Here, Justice is monitored by Alberto Gonzales, the man who made Abu Ghraib possible. Here, Justice is said to be in the hands of God but meant for the sole protection of the President and his interests.
I'm confident this man doesn't stand a chance facing the judgement of History. The problem is till then, the whole world is paying for the damage done.
20060415
Red blogule to Silvio Desperate Jail Life Berlusconi
This man just can't stand losing. Even Karl Rove and a Florida scenario didn't help him keep his job. Now he wants to build a grand national coalition, provoque new elections, do anything to escape judgement day.
His right wing partners are ready to wage a gerrilla against the future government, which tells how much they care for the country compared to their own interests. Berlusconi already spent the bulk of his ruling time increasing and protecting his wealth, devoting his energy to an indecent fight against law.
Prodi is weak enough to be overwhelmed by Hurricane Silvio but how strong is Italian democracy ?
His right wing partners are ready to wage a gerrilla against the future government, which tells how much they care for the country compared to their own interests. Berlusconi already spent the bulk of his ruling time increasing and protecting his wealth, devoting his energy to an indecent fight against law.
Prodi is weak enough to be overwhelmed by Hurricane Silvio but how strong is Italian democracy ?
20060224
Red blogule to the DP World - P&O deal's Architects and winners
When Karl Rove claims total transparency and George W Bush puts his veto in the balance, something pretty vital for the Bush Administration must be under way.
We're just talking about a takeover of the P&O Group (The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company), which happens to operate all major US ports on the East Coast, New Orleans, Florida and Texas included. Some are worrying because national security is at stake and the new owner, DP World (Dubai Ports World), is wholly owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm sure DP World will do as good a job as P&O - if not better. The issue lies elsewhere and quite a few questions burn my lips :
. why are the Bush Administration so eager to push the takeover, defend DP World and take as many risks in an election year ?
. what can they get in exchange for DP World's new entry points, and not only in North America (ie Asia - including Russia, India, Indonesia and China -, France, the UK, not to mention P&O Estates' 25 million ft² of property in Western countries and Australasia ?
. what role did Dave Sanborn play during his one year of service at DP World (as a Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America) to deserve a nomination by Dubya himself as MarAd (Maritime Administrator - under Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta) ?
. why was the recent replacement of Russ Peters by Helen Deeble as P&O's CEO announced by, among all the company's top guns, Sir John Parker* ?
. what promises were made by Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, Chairman of DP World and so much respected by the Haves More of the world (also Chairman of Nakheel, the owner of The Palm and The World luxury resorts) ?
. why did DP World overpay so quickly and overwhelmingly for P&O, far beyond what PSA could ever consider realistic (this Singapore-based competitor also coveted the UK operator and immediately gave up), and to the point they even had to admit by themselves the price was excessive ?
. ...
Looks like DP World's takeover of P&O was not only accepted by, but made possible by the Bush Administration. If not how, time will tell why.
* An advisor to the Defense Academy and a President of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Sir John has been cruising in the naval circles for ages (Carnival Corporation, National Grid Transco, P&O...), claims a few prestigious memberships or chairmanships (Court of the Bank of England, General Committee of Lloyds Register of Shipping, Lloyds Technical Committee...), but also seems to know quite a lot about lobbying in the US :
- Brambles Industries plc (support services for heavy industries),
- Babcock International Group plc (technical services and engineering, aerospace and defense, a major contractor in Afghanistan and Iraq),
- Chairman of the RMC Group plc (alias Cemex, the leader of concrete in the US)...
We're just talking about a takeover of the P&O Group (The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company), which happens to operate all major US ports on the East Coast, New Orleans, Florida and Texas included. Some are worrying because national security is at stake and the new owner, DP World (Dubai Ports World), is wholly owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm sure DP World will do as good a job as P&O - if not better. The issue lies elsewhere and quite a few questions burn my lips :
. why are the Bush Administration so eager to push the takeover, defend DP World and take as many risks in an election year ?
. what can they get in exchange for DP World's new entry points, and not only in North America (ie Asia - including Russia, India, Indonesia and China -, France, the UK, not to mention P&O Estates' 25 million ft² of property in Western countries and Australasia ?
. what role did Dave Sanborn play during his one year of service at DP World (as a Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America) to deserve a nomination by Dubya himself as MarAd (Maritime Administrator - under Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta) ?
. why was the recent replacement of Russ Peters by Helen Deeble as P&O's CEO announced by, among all the company's top guns, Sir John Parker* ?
. what promises were made by Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, Chairman of DP World and so much respected by the Haves More of the world (also Chairman of Nakheel, the owner of The Palm and The World luxury resorts) ?
. why did DP World overpay so quickly and overwhelmingly for P&O, far beyond what PSA could ever consider realistic (this Singapore-based competitor also coveted the UK operator and immediately gave up), and to the point they even had to admit by themselves the price was excessive ?
. ...
Looks like DP World's takeover of P&O was not only accepted by, but made possible by the Bush Administration. If not how, time will tell why.
* An advisor to the Defense Academy and a President of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, Sir John has been cruising in the naval circles for ages (Carnival Corporation, National Grid Transco, P&O...), claims a few prestigious memberships or chairmanships (Court of the Bank of England, General Committee of Lloyds Register of Shipping, Lloyds Technical Committee...), but also seems to know quite a lot about lobbying in the US :
- Brambles Industries plc (support services for heavy industries),
- Babcock International Group plc (technical services and engineering, aerospace and defense, a major contractor in Afghanistan and Iraq),
- Chairman of the RMC Group plc (alias Cemex, the leader of concrete in the US)...
20051025
White blogule to John McCain vs cruel, inhuman, or degrading Amerika
The Reps have their moral leader back on time for 2006 and 2008. Karl Rove managed to ruin his 2000 campaign but Senator John McCain once again proved how great he could be as the commander-in-chief.
His amendment specifying no "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment should be performed by the US against detainees puts the Commander-in-thief in front of a dilemma : if I veto the bill (since, as McClellan put it, it "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism"), I may have to renegociate a $400bn check. If I don't veto it, I'm losing the face as a commander-in-chief.
McCain said : "The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy. But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies." How about Saddam's trial ?
Saddam Hussein's trial is only about who he is, not about who we Western democracies are : the only charge is about a massacre of villagers. Relevant, but nothing about gassing the populations (with gas manufactured in Germany or in Iraq with French & US facilities). Nothing about the ugly war against Iran (sponsored by the US and "old Europe"). Nothing about the post Gulf War I retaliation on Kurds (abandonned by Dubya's father). Nothing about the honoris causa Doctor Hussein behind the evil Mister Saddam.
His amendment specifying no "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment should be performed by the US against detainees puts the Commander-in-thief in front of a dilemma : if I veto the bill (since, as McClellan put it, it "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism"), I may have to renegociate a $400bn check. If I don't veto it, I'm losing the face as a commander-in-chief.
McCain said : "The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy. But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies." How about Saddam's trial ?
Saddam Hussein's trial is only about who he is, not about who we Western democracies are : the only charge is about a massacre of villagers. Relevant, but nothing about gassing the populations (with gas manufactured in Germany or in Iraq with French & US facilities). Nothing about the ugly war against Iran (sponsored by the US and "old Europe"). Nothing about the post Gulf War I retaliation on Kurds (abandonned by Dubya's father). Nothing about the honoris causa Doctor Hussein behind the evil Mister Saddam.
20051018
Red blogule to the White House's Upper Deck - Trading Card and dis-Carding scapegoats
The scapegoat has eventually been found : he is Karl Rove's boss and no decision is taken in the White House without his knowledge. This powerful leader must quit at once.
Andrew H. Card Jr is responsible for everything*, from the disastrous handling of Katrina to the surrealistic nomination of Harriet E. Miers. He is certainly the one who said there were WMDs in Iraq and for all we know, he could even have shot JFK.
So the great decision maker who spends less time finding a scapegoat when he's under attack than reading "my pet goat" when his country's under attack, the great thinker who writes down such powerful memos as the now famous "I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible ?", The Great King Dubya, Lord of the Banana Republic of the Divided States of Amerika, will once again prove his wisdom and his character : He will fire His Chief of Staff or rather dis-Card him.
God bless Amerika and someone bring me a barf bag.
"Crises Raise Criticism of Bush's Chief of Staff" (NYT 20051018)
?pagewanted=1&ei=5053&en=14db9bdc918be2d0&ex=1130212800&adxnnl=1&partner=NYTHEADLINES_HP&adxnnlx=1129637736-pVU+DGQ2yhhhld3brimhqQ"
Andrew H. Card Jr is responsible for everything*, from the disastrous handling of Katrina to the surrealistic nomination of Harriet E. Miers. He is certainly the one who said there were WMDs in Iraq and for all we know, he could even have shot JFK.
So the great decision maker who spends less time finding a scapegoat when he's under attack than reading "my pet goat" when his country's under attack, the great thinker who writes down such powerful memos as the now famous "I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible ?", The Great King Dubya, Lord of the Banana Republic of the Divided States of Amerika, will once again prove his wisdom and his character : He will fire His Chief of Staff or rather dis-Card him.
God bless Amerika and someone bring me a barf bag.
"Crises Raise Criticism of Bush's Chief of Staff" (NYT 20051018)
?pagewanted=1&ei=5053&en=14db9bdc918be2d0&ex=1130212800&adxnnl=1&partner=NYTHEADLINES_HP&adxnnlx=1129637736-pVU+DGQ2yhhhld3brimhqQ"
20051011
Red blogule to the Gunshine State - shootfirstlaw.org Hammered down by the NRA
Remember this excellent ad sponsored by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Well. One week after its publication, theShootFirstLaw.org website is down... or should I say it's been Hammered down ?
I would then pay a well deserve tribute to a former NRA president, Marion P. Hammer, now head of Unified Sportsmen of Florida and the main lobbyist behind this amazing law signed by Jeb Bush last april ("44" proudly declared the so called "Castle Doctrine" a "good, common sense, anti-crime issue").
The crime is to let these gangsters run the country. The Far West is heading further to the extreme right and still no sheriff in sight.
And where on Earth are the Dems ? They should be the ones shooting on sight : consider what a Rove could do with all the material this excuse for an administration delivers every day, how come no Dove is able to expose it ?
20050916
Red blogule to Europe's Genetically Modified candidates
While Dominique de Villepin exposed his ego to the UN spotlights among actual world leaders, Nicolas Sarkozy paid a visit to a fellow White House nominee for the Supreme Court of New Europe Courtisans, Poland's Donald Tusk.
Tusk had already met with yet another neocon favorite, Angela Merkel, and received the support of a longtime US Christian Fundamentalists' icon, Lech Walesa. Sarkozy also shook the hand of this great servant of Mother Amerika.
Merkel is suffering a tough campaign but Tusk is left with no opponent since Wlodziemierz Cimoszewicz, the man who weeks ago was supposed to win the elections, gave up after a smear campaign so perfectly led it could have been directed by The Great Architect himself (a walk in the park considering the quality of the building material : oil scandal).
Now that W.C. has been flushed down the toilets of History, press group from all across the world rejoice : they won't have to invest massively in Scrabble boxes and can save time each time they write about both Tusk and the ennemy of "Old Europe", Donald Rumsfeld.
Tusk had already met with yet another neocon favorite, Angela Merkel, and received the support of a longtime US Christian Fundamentalists' icon, Lech Walesa. Sarkozy also shook the hand of this great servant of Mother Amerika.
Merkel is suffering a tough campaign but Tusk is left with no opponent since Wlodziemierz Cimoszewicz, the man who weeks ago was supposed to win the elections, gave up after a smear campaign so perfectly led it could have been directed by The Great Architect himself (a walk in the park considering the quality of the building material : oil scandal).
Now that W.C. has been flushed down the toilets of History, press group from all across the world rejoice : they won't have to invest massively in Scrabble boxes and can save time each time they write about both Tusk and the ennemy of "Old Europe", Donald Rumsfeld.
20050911
Red blogule to Halliburton and the 40 thieves
Remember last sunday, when George W. Bush was criticized for not acting quickly enough in the Hurricane Katrina aftermath ? To the contrary, the Prez proved to show a lot of compassion for his most beloved citizens, Halliburton management : on monday, The Houston Business Journal noticed Kellog Brown & Root had already begun work on a $500 M U.S. Navy contract in the Gulf (the Hurricane Katrina damaged Gulf of Mexico, that is*).
No wonder both the Administration and Cheney Inc set the same priorities : earlier this year, the company subsidiary hired Joe Allbaugh, Bush's former campaign manager. A man who would know all about spotting a potential jackpot since he chaired the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) after leading Dubya to the crown in 2000.
Wars and natural disasters meant as business opportunities. Budget deficits built for big corporation profits. An again, please don't show any picture of these dead bodies, will you ? Let the official Propaganda celebrate the 4th anniversary of the destruction of the Twin Towers and The Pentagon by Saddam Hussein. Welcome to the Banana Republic of the Divided States of Amerika.
Impeachment ? No way, unless the Reps flunk badly next year, which I doubt since The Architect, the ultimate Intelligent Designer of smear campaigns, the very Karl Rove who should be charged for treason, is at work too.
* Regarding the other Gulf, more about "Ali Burton and the forty thieves" in my 2003-2004 hand-made blogules.
No wonder both the Administration and Cheney Inc set the same priorities : earlier this year, the company subsidiary hired Joe Allbaugh, Bush's former campaign manager. A man who would know all about spotting a potential jackpot since he chaired the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) after leading Dubya to the crown in 2000.
Wars and natural disasters meant as business opportunities. Budget deficits built for big corporation profits. An again, please don't show any picture of these dead bodies, will you ? Let the official Propaganda celebrate the 4th anniversary of the destruction of the Twin Towers and The Pentagon by Saddam Hussein. Welcome to the Banana Republic of the Divided States of Amerika.
Impeachment ? No way, unless the Reps flunk badly next year, which I doubt since The Architect, the ultimate Intelligent Designer of smear campaigns, the very Karl Rove who should be charged for treason, is at work too.
* Regarding the other Gulf, more about "Ali Burton and the forty thieves" in my 2003-2004 hand-made blogules.
20050727
Red blogule to semantic transfusions
A recent recent NYT article quoted by the Center for Media and Democracy explains how "Terror War Gets New Slogan" : "A new emphasis on reminding the public of the broader, long-term threat to the United States may allow the administration to put into broader perspective the daily mayhem in Iraq and the American casualties" as "global struggle against violent extremism" replaces "global war on terror".
Could this also mean the "last throes of neocons against World peace" (did Dick dig that one ?) or an end to the "global destruction of the American ideal by warmonger fanatics" ? No way Jose : they're talking about "violent extremism", which is so much unlike White House extremism. When a "violent extremist" performs torture, he is attacking civilization. When a White House extremist makes torture legal, he is protecting the nation.
It took them four years to realize the solution was "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military" ? It won't take long for the World to remember diplomacy and economy are in the hands of Lobby Dick Cheney while politics remain in the pristine claws of Karl Rove.
Could this also mean the "last throes of neocons against World peace" (did Dick dig that one ?) or an end to the "global destruction of the American ideal by warmonger fanatics" ? No way Jose : they're talking about "violent extremism", which is so much unlike White House extremism. When a "violent extremist" performs torture, he is attacking civilization. When a White House extremist makes torture legal, he is protecting the nation.
It took them four years to realize the solution was "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military" ? It won't take long for the World to remember diplomacy and economy are in the hands of Lobby Dick Cheney while politics remain in the pristine claws of Karl Rove.
20050719
Red blogule to deniers
Dubya doesn't mind Karl taking a leak.
Tony doesn't see any link whatsoever between Iraq and 7/7.
Ariel doesn't understand how his Gaza trick could terminate the peace process.
The fact is Rove deliberately crossed the line.
The fact is Blair deliberately betrayed his fellow citizens.
The fact is Sharon deliberately sticks to his usual hardline : he turned the Gaza strip into an unmanageable ghetto, getting rid of it will unknot the demographic dilemma for Israeli radicals, and the inevitable failure of "independant Gaza" will end all talks about Cisjordania (not to mention Jerusalem).
The fact is no one can stop them as they keep insulting History.
Shame on terrorists, but furthermore shame on those who were supposed to eradicate terror.
Tony doesn't see any link whatsoever between Iraq and 7/7.
Ariel doesn't understand how his Gaza trick could terminate the peace process.
The fact is Rove deliberately crossed the line.
The fact is Blair deliberately betrayed his fellow citizens.
The fact is Sharon deliberately sticks to his usual hardline : he turned the Gaza strip into an unmanageable ghetto, getting rid of it will unknot the demographic dilemma for Israeli radicals, and the inevitable failure of "independant Gaza" will end all talks about Cisjordania (not to mention Jerusalem).
The fact is no one can stop them as they keep insulting History.
Shame on terrorists, but furthermore shame on those who were supposed to eradicate terror.
20050714
White blogule to Yee-haoo! Mail
This time, Howard Dean's spam got all my attention : "I agree with George Bush" is not precisely the kind of title you would expect from this Democratic National Committee Chairman. The e-mail was worth the click, thanks to this interesting quote : "Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." (speech given by George W. Bush on April 26, 1999).
I'm not proud of revealing the source of this quote but I love the idea : Karl Rove as the traitor and NYT's Judith Miller as the hero.
I'm not proud of revealing the source of this quote but I love the idea : Karl Rove as the traitor and NYT's Judith Miller as the hero.
20050628
Red Blogule to JFK - Out of the blue(s) ?
I read "The Speech the President Should Give" by John F. Kerry in the NY Times dated 20050628. Including the laconic footer "John F. Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts".
Not as thrilling as "I was a teenage mutant presidential candidate", but better than "John Edwards is a former North Carolina senator and now a sorry podcaster (does One America Committee have more than one member ?)".
The said speech doesn't bring any news but the fact Senator Kerry is still alive and not kept hostage in a dark Abu Ghraib / Gitmo / Congress cell. Yet the torture must have been intense : being deprived of media exposure for over half a year can drive any warrior insane. But Senator Kerry is not insane. Just unlucky enough to have faced Karl Rove at his best - that is at his worst.
In the meanwhile, my Yee-haaoo! Mail box got saturated by Howard Dean's deep thoughts. The laxative kind you got for attending the second part of Saturday Night Live. Only not as funny.
In the meanwhile, Hillary tries to raise other things than eyebrows in front of her latest hairdo.
In the meanwhile, Barack does his job and listens to the next plans of the Architect for Illinois.
Not as thrilling as "I was a teenage mutant presidential candidate", but better than "John Edwards is a former North Carolina senator and now a sorry podcaster (does One America Committee have more than one member ?)".
The said speech doesn't bring any news but the fact Senator Kerry is still alive and not kept hostage in a dark Abu Ghraib / Gitmo / Congress cell. Yet the torture must have been intense : being deprived of media exposure for over half a year can drive any warrior insane. But Senator Kerry is not insane. Just unlucky enough to have faced Karl Rove at his best - that is at his worst.
In the meanwhile, my Yee-haaoo! Mail box got saturated by Howard Dean's deep thoughts. The laxative kind you got for attending the second part of Saturday Night Live. Only not as funny.
In the meanwhile, Hillary tries to raise other things than eyebrows in front of her latest hairdo.
In the meanwhile, Barack does his job and listens to the next plans of the Architect for Illinois.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search my personal portal :
