Invasion of Iraq: The Bush Legacy in 3 Impostures

It's been 10 years since the invasion of Iraq, and I won't repeat my usual rant. In case you missed the previous episodes, here are 3 messages you should remember:
 

***

1) The invasion of Iraq was meant to spread fundamentalism worldwide, not democracy in Iraq:

Always keep this in mind: "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."

I wrote the "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism" to expose the imposture of fundamentalism (a totalitarian, political program advertised as a universal, religious program), the way it undermines both democracy and religion, and the ways to defuse the sick ping pong between supposedly opposed extremists.

As I posted for the 5th anniversay of this masquerade ("Iraq - 5 years of success for fundamentalists"), the invasion of Iraq was a triumph: as expected, it boosted fundamentalism and terror worldwide. "Mission accomplished".

And we should consider ourselves lucky these lunatics didn't go all the way (see "Iran : who wants war and why").


***

2) Oil was the means of corruption, not the aim of the game, and the undermining of US democracy was not just collateral damage:

To make it short: theocons set the agenda with the help of neocons (what better duet than Bush-Cheney to achieve this?), and sold the war to paleocons*.

In other words: the aim of the game was to undermine democracy (the theocon - fascist purpose), and the official cause an intervention to free a country from its dictator (typical neocon stuff), but in order to launch the war, the blessing from the oil and defense lobbies was needed (enter the paleocons).

The only thing missing was an alibi for immediate action. A clear and immediate danger. The outrageous lies and forged cases about WMDs or Saddam-al Qaeda ties did the trick.

Of course, there was always the risk of nosy reporters doing their jobs, of citizens exercising their rights to transparency.

The Patriot Act became effective more than one year before the invasion. The trickier part was the media, and the Bush Administration offered a deal to US majors: don't get at us until after the 2004 elections** and we'll help you consolidate your power. At the head of the FCC, the son of Colin Powell did his best to alter competition laws, and was instrumental in the concentration that followed at a critical moment in the history of traditional press, broadcasting, and internet. Michael Powell went as far as organizing a phony forum to settle the case just weeks ahead of the invasion. He later joined the RAND Corporation.

In general, the Bush administration more or less successfully tried to undermine the separation of powers at the root of democracy:
. executive? too far (right) reaching, and totally unaccountable.
. legislative? corrupt, and producing anti-democratic laws
. judicial? promoting torture and the negation of all rights
. media? at best embedded, at worst accomplice
. netizens? brainwashed by pervasive propaganda, monitored by a dystopian state
. ....
. and, of course, the theocons' priority: destroying secularism, the pilar of democracy. Again, mixing religion with politics, education, science... is the best way to attack democracy and religion at the same time (see "France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one")

Yes, a lot of money was at stake. For the religious lobbies that pushed against the separation of church and state as well as for the military and oil lobbies. And the mass plundering of Iraqi resources is only one side of a scheme that turned record surplusses into record deficits (among other vital rescue missions: saving private Halliburton... a charity movement that continued in another Gulf, following Kathrina - see "Red blogule to Halliburton and the 40 thieves").

But the corruption reached much deeper, to the very fundamentals of democracy.
 

***

3) The Arab Spring owes nothing to the Iraq War, to the contrary:

 
George W. Bush and his fan club try to sell us the Arab Spring as the consequence of his invasion of Iraq, a "liberation war" that "spread democracy across the region", but this imposture is totally unacceptable.
 
First, Bush's crusade contributed to silencing moderates, and strengthening radical islamists as the only political force capable of taking power.
 
Second, his illegal invasion for anti-democratic purposes cannot be compared to self determination movements aiming at genuine freedom and democracy. The only nation Bush ever tried to build was a theocracy: he may be an inspiration for islamists, certainly not for actual freedom fighters.
 
Third, the Bush administration did serve as an example in the region, but not in the arab world (see "Israel accepted as true the choice between its security and its ideals").


 
***
Justice has yet to be done, and I guess the last words of Tomas Young (in "The Last Letter") are worth remembering:
"A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran": "I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.".

And as always, we should expose and denounce the impostures, and blow the whistle each time a government tries to alter the separation of powers or to play with the fundamentals of democracy.


blogules 2013
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)


* ... and if the "anticons" were not yet in the picture, they're not a model for democracy either: "the Tea Party is not just an alternative to the Republican or the Democratic parties, but the very negation of the republic, the very negation of democracy" (see "Grand Old Parting - enter the anticons")
** Heck, even until the 2008 elections for most of them (see "The Silence of the Lambs (War in Iraq and US networks)"). How dare collaborators give lessons after such a disgrace (see "What Fareed Zakaria got wrong")?

Lobby Dick Tries To Retire, Fails To Retract

As the newly reformed League of Justice (D.C. Serious Comics) consider putting behind bars the Supervillains who disgraced America over the past 8 years, one of their most abject leaders resurfaces.

Last time we saw The Evil Doctor Cheney, he was pitifully escaping with his master Victor von Dumb in an helicopter. Their lair had just been raided by Captain America, who even humiliated von Dumb in public with his most powerful weapon ; a loud and concise X-ray speech exposing the imposter. The hero then threw this protective shield over the nation : "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".

It's hard to tell whether von Dumb will ever recover from his wounds. Somewhere deep into the darkest swamps of Amerika, The Rover is probably trying to revive his creature. D.C. Serious Comics declined to comment, but a sequel could be in the making under the title "Amerika Doomed : The Legacy".

We do know for sure the man known as Lobby Dick is still alive. Yesterday, he even rose from his armchair to deliver a "State of the Union with John King" address on CNN.

The Anchorman's hulk of a body was protected by a 8-inch adamantium-reinforced glass table, but for good measure King cast a few spells on The Creepy Veep, using quick hand gestures on his Magic Screen : as some of the Supervillain's most shameless moments were instantly brought back to life, there was no chance anyone in the audience could misinterpret his snarl for a friendly smile.

King first asked Doc Dick what he thought about Captain America's first weeks in power :
- "This League of Justice is dangerous : they are changing the very definitions of democracy, justice, freedom, science... cancelling all the much needed reforms we brought to the dictionnary over the last eight years. Next thing you know, even listening to Rush Limbaugh will be considered cruel and unusual punishment".
- "Well... isn't it already, I mean technically ? And what do you think about the use or abuse of the new superpower called Stimulus ?"
- "You sometimes do need a stimulus to get things going. For instance, when I don't get an answer or when I get an answer that I don't like, electroshocks can prove useful. But this Stimulus is a joke. Let's be clear : this country needs bullets, not bullet trains. Tax cuts for the rich, ax cuts for the poor. And a nationwide pipeline network".
- "... connected with new oil fields in Alaska, I presume ?"
- "Nah... oil should keep circulating on trucks, gas-guzzling trucks doing circles, virtuous circles. This country needs pipelines for water."
- "Pardon me... did I hear "water" ?"
- "You did. Getting water all across the nation is a major challenge for this millenium : we want to democratize waterboarding - no child left behind."
- "But that's insane !"
- "Yeah. Look how poor John McCain lost his bearings... I'm sure he refuses to promote waterboarding because Arizona is too dry."
- "Wasn't it because he was tortured in Vietnam ?"
- "That's a question of vocabulary. There was no CNN at the Hanoi Hilton back then, talk about cruel and unusual punishment..."

King offered the criminal an opportunity to redeem himself : "come on, Doc, now that your ruling days are behind you, now that you have nothing to lose... why not confess that you could have done or said things a better way ?"

Hissing and shrugging, von Dumb's sidekick refused to retract :
- the collapse of the Twin Towers ? "The DemoTeam did it, we tried to save Freddie and Fannie, but this infamous gang deliberately refused to strip them from their most dangerous powers when it was still possible"
- the Deficit ? "yet another creature from the DemoTeam - we found the fingerprints of The Dude all over it. Plus we had to reprint all procedure manuals... and by the way, do you know how much it costs to build a soundproof torture chamber ?"
- the Big Bang ? "We were caught in a global tempest and had to cope with the same crisis as our allies - rumors that the crisis originated from our own labs, our very homes, are bold lies"
- Shock and Awe ? "My only regret : the CIA didn't do their job and provided us with poor intel... but luckily enough, I was there to correct them and forge the case for the invasion of Iraq. Going at a Supervillain was the right thing to do. Everybody is definitely better off now, don't you think ? Iraq has ceased to exist as a united nation, Persia has recovered its Superpower status, new enemies keep popping up from all over the planet... more than ever, this World needs Amerika."

- "And how about The Scoot ?"

The Dark Lord's face turned even more somber as The Anchorman mentioned the case that almost tore the Doc Cheney - von Dumb couple apart in the last throes of their assault on democracy : "Victor and I slightly disagreed on that one, granted. I think it has something to do with my partner's hypocrisy. That's probably the reason why he keeps hiding his true fundamentalist face behind a mask of compassion. But make no mistake : he is as dangerous as I am."

9/11 Truthers Knockin' At Your Door

A "discussion" with a 9/11 Truther is similar to a visit from a Jehovah's Witness : about 30 seconds into his monologue, you wish you never opened the darned door... and the fanatic won't leave until he's managed to either convert you, or extort from you the pledge to read the tons of brochures he came with.

And it works : the cult claims every day more followers, and because of the network effect (now that more and more people talk about it around me, it sounds more plausible), "skeptics" now refer to the few naïves who keep refusing to believe in The Obvious Truth. At the speed of light or almost (not everybody is optical fiber connected, but the internet surely helps), an underground streamlet becomes the powerful mainstream.

By the end of 2006, more than one third of Americans thought that 9/11 was somehow masterminded by their own Government (cf "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away" - Time Magazine 20060903). At that stage, this alternative propaganda reached the levels of the official propaganda circa 2004 elections. By "official propaganda", I mean the neocon/theocon spin (Saddam did it), not the plain facts (al Qaeda did it).

Of course, the vast majority of believers have nothing to do with the minority of activists from the far left and the far right who designed this now indestructible perpetual motion device. The aim of the game is not to reveal truth but to keep masses of faithful citizens very angry against the media, democracy or justice... and thus ready to switch to something radically different.

In an ultra-conservative's "best of all possible worlds", the Democratic Party, which somewhat managed to sideline the more or less nihilist "ultra-liberals" who doomed its federal elections for decades, could face the same turmoil as the Republican Party facing its own fundamentalist "minority" (see "GOP : Time to Split"). In a nutshell : US extreme right, in its last throes, resuscitating US extreme left... now we're talking conspiration theories, GOPdamnit !

I've already made¹ the parallel with fundamentalism and explained how decent citizens, legitimately demanding accountability and transparency, are being shamelessly fooled, how 9/11 revisionist movements actually serve both the terrorists who committed the crimes, and the excuse for an administration that deliberately betrayed the victims and lied to its own people.

You want to elaborate on this parallel.

In the endless and strange alternative swamps roam self-proclaimed Keepers of The Truth About 9/11. I guess this breed of fundamentalists, "Truthers", owe their name to the same guys who came up with "pro-life" for "anti-abortion rights". Just like with religious fundamentalists, you can find an infinity of Truths, sects, and charismatic preachers. The difference is that each one of them publishes his own Holy Book.

Speaking of which... one of the main reasons why conspiration theories keep multiplying is the fact that the supposed reference book happens to be a total joke for everyone, including its own authors. Doomed from the start, The 9/11 Commission Report was reluctantly initiated more than one year after the attacks (at that time, even the name of the House Majority Leader was DeLay), and carefully monitored and edited in order to spare the Bush-Cheney ticket... Unsurprisingly, when the final report was issued (July 2004), 9/11 revisionists had more fish to fry than 11/2 conspiratists.

Aggravating circumstances : the whole 9/11 affair is plagued with all the ingredients needed for vintage conspiracy theories. Secret services from Western and Eastern countries alike were aware of the eminence of a massive terror attack in the US involving planes, the White House dismissed the threats, neocons (and Darth Vader himself, the very Lord of False Flags) were waiting for the occasion to spread wealth for corporate lobbies and mayhem for enemies of democracy, the operation leveraged on al Qaeda's comprehensive network and often from US friendly countries, and the public opinion had been relentlessly carpet bombed by Dubya's Weapons of Mass Disinformation... enough stuff to feed one successful thriller trilogy, two sequels, five prequels and a pretzel - no sweeteners needed, thank you.

Anyway... Truthers are pumped up to the max, and they want to expose everything about 9/11. Well... almost everything. For instance, they refuse to see those plane debris around the Pentagon, they don't want to consider the potential links between the collapse of the WTC and the minor dent caused by a small boeing passing by, and they have no clue whatsoever how a peaceful santa claus look-alike meditating in the Afghan mountains could have any connection with this American tragedy.

As Michelle Malkin nailed it the other day, "The plain truth will never mollify a Truther"².

Truthers are the masters of cover-up : everyday, they overwhelm facts with thick layers of new documents, analysis, and theories. Everyday, this fertile soil welcomes more fundamentalists eager to grow everyday more greenbacks. Too bad the said theories are not as sustainable as this profitable ecosystem...

Which may explain why, when it comes to claiming justice, those guys are more successful at building Facebook petitions than bulletproof cases for the usual legal path.

I mean come on, this is America, a country where even before gas prices took a hike, there were more lawyers per capita than cars (I'm wrong ? Sue me). This is Amerika, a country where the First Amendment makes sure the Nazi Party can parade in Ohio or sponsor a highway in Oregon³. This is America, back on track, where even the President's Vice and his former Chief Torture Officer can be brought to justice⁴. This is America, where even O. J. Simpson can run, but can't hide.

The day someone actually finds the proof that al Qaeda didn't commit 9/11, and the day this person actually wants to make his Truth triumph in the arms of Justice, he will succeed. You betcha.

The question is who's gonna win the Race of the Millenium : the fundamentalists desperately waiting for the WTC Messiah, or the fundamentalists ready to provoke the second coming of the Christ / Mahdi via their own false flag⁵ ?

---

1 - sorry dear compassionate reader, but you'll have to visit my French website for that blogule ("Propagande + contre-propagande = tout bénef pour les extrémistes"). Ditto for the parody I recently committed about a mythical French 9/11 ("11 Septembre français : l'incroyable vérité"). Needless to say Truthers didn't enjoy the joke and retaliated. I decided to expose them once again in "Baggy Truthers", a blogule which I decided to follow-up with a translation into my broken English (the very pamphlet you're reading right now).

2 - "The plain truth will never mollify a Truther. There’s always a convoluted excuse – some inconsequential discrepancy to seize on, some photographic “evidence” to magnify into a blur of meaningless pixels – that will rationalize irrationality." ("Truthers to the left of me, truthers to the right" 20081205).
NB: yeah, I know... I'm a subscriber to Karl Rove's e-mails and I sail dangerous seas over the web. But browsing the site of a "conservative syndicated columnist, author, and Fox News Channel contributor" can be rewarding sometimes. Check this banner out : what a lovely souvenir I fished on her homepage yesterday - Santa GOP has already come to town ! I voted McCain and all I got is this lousy Palin 2012 T-shirt ! =>

3 - see "Red blogule to the First Amendment - Land of Opportunity for Nazis, Land of Plenty for Fascism"

4 - see "Everybody loves Raymondville, TX"

5 - see "Iran : who wants war and why"

Sarah Palin and the Segolene Royal Syndrome - The GOP on the same path as the French Socialist Party

The long overdue implosion of the GOP (see "GOP : time to split") has started.

McCainiacs are as dead as their leader. They are the only Americans who'd love to see their country in the position of the underdog, who believe a suicidal planecrasher can fix the damage he himself contributed to cause, and who think a man who pledged allegiance to George W. Bush can't follow the same dangerous path.

Paleocons, as usual, have nowhere to go. They keep roaming the vast plains, grazing aimlessly and wondering which one of them will survive all the others.

Reaganians don't want the party to remain under the dark Bush-Cheney umbrella, and the smartest of them are now supporting Barack Obama, a strong but cool leader with great ambitions for America and the power to change the world.

Reformers, the future of the party, need to look for each other and start building something together. The most difficult task will be to find a leader. Romney lost a big chunk of his credibility courting traditionalists and theocons.

Speaking of which.

Sarah Palin is claiming Bush's thecon fellowship as well as Cheney's neocon legacy, the very combo which ruined and disgraced America. She has the convictions and stamina, but no substance whatsoever.

Palin may become USA's Segolene Royal : an ambitious person more focused on her own self, or rather fascinated by her own Candidate avatar, and unable to lead a massive flock of followers in any consistent direction.

Just like in France, where Nicolas Sarkozy orchestrated in the media the rise of Segolene Royal, her victory at the 2006 PS primaries, and her mediatic come back earlier this year, the confirmation of Sarah Palin as a major figure would prevent her own party from evolving towards a much needed cultural revolution, and strengthen the other party.

It's definitely time to split for the GOP. True Republicans should let this theocon circus spin off and focus on what truly matters : what does this country need and how can they help ?

Right now, the best thing to do is obviously to vote for Obama.

---
Addendum 20081101 - Sarah Palin Got Pranked (Canadian pranksters impersonating Sarkozy and making a fool of her big time) :

I had a nightmare

Hillary found her voice but America's eventually hearing Obama's.

This looks too good to be true : Barack gaining momentum (and even lately, the support of Bill's 1992 campaign manager David Wilhelm), theocons and neocons infuriated by McCain's lead, America has never been closer to restoring its core values and turning its back to obscurantism...

I should be rejoicing but I'm actually feeling kind of scared.

Fundamentalists won't let it go that easily and actually, I guess Romney was the one to "surrender to terror", escaping from an ever sicker race to the GOP Convention (that's God's Osama-style Party).

I've been fearing an assassination of Obama from Day One but unlike Doris Lessing, I don't think those madhatters would wait for him to be elected. They would even love the idea of celebrating the 40th anniversary of the murders of Martin Luther King and Bobby K.

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

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.

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.

Bush : Cultural Learnings of Iraq for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of America

Saddam may not be hanging around anymore, Osama may or may not be dead, justice remains to be truly rendered.
The US have a great opportunity to clean the whole mess and restore their status of a great democracy. Actually, impeaching Dubya is its only way out of Iraq.
Don't get me wrong : the US can't abandon what's left of Iraq that soon. It's just that they cannot signify a change in their approach any other way. This country badly needs a regime change and I don't want Dubya to survive 2007 as the oldest G8 leader.
Both George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney must and can be impeached. Treason could be a good start : 2006 was the year a wider audience than this lousy blog's came to understand this Administration's blunders were actually strategical successes for the true W.
George W. Bush didn't act in the interest of his country as a President of the United States.
George W. Bush didn't act in the interest of his party as a Republican.
George W. Bush did act in the interest of fundamentalism as a fundamentalist.
Once again, the war in Iraq was not masterminded by neocons for the benefit of oilcos : the war in Iraq was sold by neocons to SIGs which sold it to the Congress, but it was masterminded by a bunch of crazy theocons who planned from the start the collapse of Iraq and a final showdown between Israel and Iran.
Reelecting Bush-Cheney was an Historical blunder, not impeaching them would be criminal.

Red blogule to Condi Rice - is war "worth the investment" ?

Each war has its purpose and the War in Iraq was sold as a war on terror. It proved to be a war in favor of it... and sold through bold lies.

Democracy ? Bush replaced a cruel dictatorship with an even more lethal chaos. Not to mention such collateral damages as the failure in Afghanistan, or the repeated insults to America's values.

I do hope democracy will prevail in Iraq but it will cost much more in time, money and lives than through the constructive ways of the international community, also crushed by this excuse for an Administration.

Let us consider the "investment" in American lives and dollars mentioned by USA's top "diplomat" (and not consider the losses in Iraqi lives, which Condoleeza Rice must consider yet another "wonderful opportunity") : "I don't think it's a matter of money - along the way there have been plenty of markers that show that this is a country that is worth the investment, because once it emerges as a country, that is a stabilizing factor you will have a very different kind of Middle East".

We'll have a very different kind of Middle East, all right. For a start, Iraq will not emerge as a country (as it used to do) but as several countries. Iran will emerge as the dominant player in the region, which could be considered "a stabilizing factor"... but for the nerves of some neocons / theocons.

Fundamentalism will emerge in Israel, Palestine and Turkey, new herds of terrorists will emerge in Jordan. As planned from the start, Christian fundamentalism will strengthen its base in the US and overseas.

I've been telling the same for years on these pages, Condi : this war in Iraq was definitely worth the investment for the fundamentalists who sold it to such a gullible audience.

VOTE FOR AMERICA - VOTE AGAINST BUSH IF YOU ARE A TRUE REPUBLICAN

If you are a true Republican and if you are a true Conservative, you MUST vote against your party.

Back in 2004, you missed the opportunity to kick George W. Bush out of the White House and restore the values that built America. If you don't realize by now how far you have been betrayed by this President, here are a few wake up calls :

- the Bush Administration doesn't fight terror but feeds it. You've heard about it, you may even understand some of it, but that's not the worst piece of news : all this is done on purpose

- this president turned America into a outlaw and a pariah, insulting the very values he pretends to represent : how can you be proud of your country and how can it remain a model democracy overseas when its leader refuses any kind of accountability before the international community as well as before its own Congress, when it legalizes torture and abductions, when it denies its own citizens basic human and legal rights ? Do you believe this "compassionate republican" ? Do you think this president does what is best for his country or what is best for his own hidden agenda ?

- it is time for you to understand Bush's agenda is neither conservative nor even neo-conservative : the aim of the game is to make fundamentalism mainstream across the world and in the US. And fundamentalism cannot survive in a peaceful environment - fundamentalism feeds from fear, anger, war, frustration, injustice, unfairness, the absence of debate... the very way this Administration is running and ruining the country. Don't expect these guys to lead Amerika nor the World to peace.

- this has nothing to do about genuine faith or religion : this is about changing politics, science, society, about raping the very idea of democracy to please a bunch of madhatters

- if you don't consider US fundamentalists as mad as Islamist fundamentalists, consider this : from the very start, your leaders wanted Iraq to collapse and be parted, Iran to become the superevil it is now and Israel to infuriate its neighbors. All this because the craziest among them believe the final battle between Israel and Evil must happen as soon as possible in order to provoque the return of the Messiah during their lifetime... How is that for an "intelligent design" ?

You may like your Republican representative or your senator but do you really think America can afford two more years of impunity for the Bush Administration ? Do you really want to see what these people (from the White House, not from Capitol Hill) will do to make sure they remain in power after Dubya's second term ?

What will you tell your children and grandchildren ?

Vote for America, vote against Bush.

Red blogule to fundamentalists - bases are loaded

The disarmament of Hezbollah is under way thanks to... Hezbollah itself : the organization is methodically getting rid of its stocks of weapons over Israel. Tel Aviv's attacks are not meant to destroy Hezbollah but to make sure Eretz Israel has strong enemies for the decades to come and thus, to make sure Israeli fundamentalists remain in power. Paradoxically and just like Bush's counterproductive "War on Terror" helps terrorists recruit new followers, new waves of antisemitism will lead more Israelis towards the welcoming arms of their country's extreme right.
Whether from Iran, Israel or the USA, fundamentalists don't want peace : peace means living without fear nor coercion ; peace means opening up and accepting the world as it should be, diverse and tolerant ; peace means the irrelevance of fundamentalism.
Look at them cheer up all over the world : radical Sunnis and radical Shiites applauding each other's victories ; Amerikan New-Born Neo-Cons and Iranian radical islamists using each other as evil witches to be hunted in a sick medieval obscurantism remake...
US "diplomats" don't seem to care much when masses of pro-Hezbollah demonstrators hit the streets in Baghdad. They don't seem to worry when Israel ruins the heritage of Yitzhak Rabin and infuriates the whole world as well as Bush did back in 2003 with an unecessary war doubled by a provocative occupation... The White House's most radical wings are actually rejoicing.
I wonder when the US citizens will eventually realize their country is led by lunatics devoted to putting out fire with gasoline. It will take decades to repair the image of the country overseas (not to mention implementing actual peace) - but judging by the 2004 landslide victory of immoderate conservatism across Amerika, I don't believe the restoration of the values that made America respected to be a priority.

Red blogule to the reconstruction of Afghanistan...'s talibans

9/11 harmed all major airlines but two : CIA Airlines and United Terror. None can be dubbed "no-thrill" and in spite of what the former claims, only the latter is a low cost company with genuine Qaeda members as frequent flyers.
Code sharing allows Chechens and other exotic partners to flock in numbers in Somalia or Afghanistan, where Talibans rule again and whack entire families without much reaction from peacekeepers stretched to the limit by the Rummy Doctrine.
Terrorism is stronger than ever, thank you. US casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq will soon reach 3,000 - not even one tenth of all deaths caused by this so-called "war on terror". Even in Paris, it's getting more and more difficult for a Muslim woman not to wear a scarf.
And the beauty of it is everything was planned from the start : for a majority of neocons who actually thought they would change the World for the better, only a minority of fundamentalists knew exactly what the said change for the better would mean.

White blogule to new signs o' new times

Stunning. Sharon's face as he was listening to his rival's speech. Lost, his own fat self sitting alone, without the ability to communicate thanks to a spectacular sabotage from members of his own party... Let him grow some beard and wear the kaffiyeh and you've got the spitting image of his longtime ennemy Yassir Arafat.
So the old man wrote down his vision for his Likud peers : we had to give up Gaza, you can't cheat demography. And this time, he wasn't the one to ignite the violence in the strip : "harderliners" would drop the bomb from his very right, which proves wider by the day.
Yet, Netanyahu was supposed to win but didn't. Ditto Donald Tusk and Angela Merkel. Le Petit Nicolas Sarkozy should be careful : times they are a-changin for US neocons' faves. The world needs reforms but the people craves for moderate leaders.
Besides, everywhere, fundamentalists and extremists confirm their strong footprints but cannot rule on their own. Radical stances losing ground, they're using less subtle ways to win over democracy : their words proving empty, they just eliminate moderate voices. Bringing fear pays in the short term but not in the long one.
This is certainly not a U-turn (and shouldn't be) but for the first time in 4 years, being the toughest one doesn't pay.

Red blogule to neolibs

(...) A radical counterforce to neocons is gaining momentum across the world, leveraging on Bush's extreme stance and on the popularity of "alternative" themes (no to total deregulation / free market, no to war, no to polluters, no to neocons...) to recruit beyond the traditional extreme left side of the spectrum. Among them, (not always former) Troskyists have a knack for infiltrating the administrations and the youth.
The French press is noticing an infiltration of education by radical "altermondialists" (in today's Le Figaro "Enquête : comment ATTAC infiltre l'école" ). ATTAC are known for supporting the so called "Tobin tax", riots during G8 summits, or the NO vote to the European constitution. There is a fierce debate within the movement : we are acting like a political party, shall we turn into one and nominate a candidate for the 2007 presidential elections ? This could mean the implosion of the socialist party.
An interesting phenomenon is the way these radicals deal with the "weaker" ones, very similar to the high pressure / terror put by hawks on potential doves : if you don't agree with us you are with them, and thus you are a fascist.
What I feared is happening : the extremes feeding each other, the moderates crushed in between, and radicalism getting overall mainstream.
As I see it, Howard Dean seems to extend towards the center right instead of locking the far left (see Newsweek Intl's article on abortion : "A Case of Roh vs. Reality" ). I don't know how long it will take for the two-party system to implode, but it seems to be well protected by the shortness of mandates (4 years).
SM on disinfopedia

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.

Red blogule to private accounts - SoCal Security

Funny how the Americans can sound French when they talk about reforming their Social Security system. The Dems seem reluctant to contribute to a potential Bush victory and say there's no hurry to do what they pointed out as a priority during the campaign while the Reps are having one of these gallic fights where the conservative, the neo-conservative, the ultra-conservative, the not-so-conservative and the don't-tell-ma-i'm-rather-liberal-conservative discuss the consistency of the reform with the Adam Smith dogma. Even Dubya manages talking about being a good civil servant and boosting private accounts. I say if I needed some private security I'd hire Governor Arnold to get rid ov'em bugs. That would be the so-called social SoCal sekurity.