Fluctuat nec mergitur

Following Friday's attacks, I posted this image of Paris from my mobile phone:

That's a simple map of my hometown, with its motto in Latin.

'Fluctuat nec mergitur' means that even when tossed around in stormy waters, the city never sinks.

I considered using the official coat of arms, but it's too loaded in symbols, particularly with these protective walls, and the King's colors:

The last things I wanted were to celebrate warfare, to mention 'divine blood' in the middle of a carnage, or to bring monarchy into this new Republican challenge*.

I opted for a satellite image showing Paris as it is. Unfortunately, that crappy app cropped the map, severing even neighborhoods that had been struck by the terrorists, adding insult to death.

When I noticed that, I considered trying again, but somehow that failure made sense: you can't sum up the horror in one picture, and humanity as a whole had been assaulted anyway. 

Humanity is not sinking.

But among humans who are sinking, a few are tempted to join extremism, which feeds upon our weaknesses, particularly when our democracies fail.

And from France, more is expected than just 'staying afloat' and surviving terror attacks. This democracy can't afford failing to honor its own motto, 'liberty, equality, fraternity'. 

---ADDENDUM 20151118---
Thank you dear Annabel Park for your kind words to the French people:

(see also the French version on blogules V.F.: "Un message d'Annabel Park")

---

blogules 2015
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

* the year that started with "#JeSuisCharlie" keeps being dotted with atrocities across the globe

#JeSuisCharlie

Je Suis Charlie.

Well. Actually, I'm rather Canard Enchaîné than Charlie Hebdo (I only purchased once a copy of the latter, about thirty years ago), but that doesn't matter.

They assassinated our Grand Duduche.

Cabu's Le Grand Duduche - twitter.com/theseoulvillage/status/552810111194783744

They murdered journalists, satirists, officers of the Republic in charge of their protection. 

But you can't kill Charlie Hebdo (for that matter, that rag is perfectly able to commit "Hara Kiri" by itself).

And by shooting on anticlerical anarchists, they shot on the Republic and on Islam. 

And post-1/7 France is not post-9/11 USA: unlike George W. Bush, François Hollande won't start a pseudo-war on terror that actually fueled worldwide terror and fundamentalism.

Ces connards ont réussi à nous réunir:

"Ces connards ont réussi... ... à nous réunir"

blogules 2015
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

Thank you, Bibi, for shooting yourself in the foot

A great classic, the pounding of Gaza on a US election year*. But this time, Benjamin Netanyahu went too far too early, losing critical support at a critical moment.

Of course he didn't get rid of Hamas, because that's not what he wants, remember? Radicals need radicals at their doorsteps to play ping pong and justify their own stronghold. The idea was to surf on the ISIS panic wave, to weaken key entry/exit points for awhile, and by fueling fear in Israel and hatred in Palestine, to comfort both governments (the Hamas, Bibi) as the only ones legitimate to defend the land against bad guys (Bibi, the Hamas).

The problem is that US elections haven't really started, and that these are mid-term elections, not presidential ones. Big guns were not compelled to publicly pledge allegiance during the conflict. Worse: more candidates might seize the opportunity to emancipate themselves from a declining, hawkish AIPAC, and to support Israel via J Street**, which represents the moderate views of a growing majority of US Jews, and a much more sustainable path to peace.

If Bibi doesn't care about international outrage, he cares about support from the US. And because he went too far, at long last, the US internal political debate about Israel has suddenly become mainstream. Most recently and notably - and significantly location / media-wise:
- The Times refusing to publish a diatribe by Elie Wiesel comparing the Hamas to Nazis
- the ad run in The New York Times where 327 survivors of the Holocaust denounce "the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza" and calling for a complete boycott of Israel
- articles condemning the AIPAC, such as the recent "Friends of Israel" by Connie Bruck in The New Yorker

Now that bad guys are exposed on both sides, it's OK to publicly challenge the AIPAC and to mention J Street. It's soon going to be not only OK, but totally P.C. to support Israel by criticizing its government.

Yes, Barack Obama needs a strategy against ISIS, but showing progress between Israel and Palestine would send very strong messages across the World. The US can truly help Israel. If John F. Kerry can't do much, mainstream American moderates have the power to help moderates become mainstream in Israel.

blogules 2014
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

* e.g. "Deja vu all over again", "Israel accepted as true the choice between its security and its ideals"
** more than ever, "J Street : It's Time"!

ISIS the end of Iraq?

Again, the end of Iraq was sealed in 2003 with the invasion led by the Theocon-Neocon duet Bush-Cheney (as usual, from my 7-year-old "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism"):

"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.

(...)

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."

If George W. Bush deliberately set the region on fire, Barack Obama proved a poor fireman. He got Bin Laden and pulled out the troops as promised, but couldn't fix the whole mess. Furthermore, his sincere goodwill was not really rewarded, like that lovely Nowruz speech: it did lead to an Iran Spring, but didn't come with any back-up when the regime crushed it. Spinned by the GOP ahead of the elections, the Benghazi fiasco deprived the POTUS from all hope of convincing the rest of Washington to act in Syria or anywhere else. 

So for now, the new Bin Laden, self-proclaimed Caliph Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, is fearing much less Uncle Sam than Vladimir Putin or - who knows - Xi Jinping. Heck, even Francois Hollande looks scarier. 

All al Baghdadi needs to make it perfect is a GOP victory this November.

blogules 2014
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

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")?

al Qaeda and Amerika on trial

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed goes on trial in NYC, and GOP hardliners are angry.

Make that "scared". Because this is the kind of justice they don't feel comfortable with : fair justice, public justice... Justice, period.

What will be exposed is the process that leads to abomination : on one hand terror, on the other torture.

Because Mr. Mohammed is now more famous for surviving over a hundred waterboarding sessions than for his responsibility in 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration added insult to murder, betrayed the families of 9/11 victims, disgraced America and the very values they were supposed to defend.

That administration was recently confirmed as "repugnant to the Constitution" by Republican appointed judges.

Obama, who rejected as false the choice between security and ideals, appointed Eric Holder to clean the mess. Both share the same vision of justice* : not the twisted tool of a corrupt administration, but an independent power able to reach any other power, particularly administrations going rogue.

blogules 2009

* see previous episodes, including "We reject as false the choice between our social security and our ideals"

They did it

I just tuned in to my news provider and I'm reading the 6th title or so when a new line appears higher on my computer screen.

They did it

I don't remember the exact title (probably "a plane hits a WTC tower in NYC"), but as soon as I read it I think "this time they did it".

As I click on the link, two images cross my mind : the 1993 attack on the WTC, the failed 1994 attempt to crash an hijacked plane on the Eiffel Tower.

The web is very slow, giving me time to shape images of the tragedy in my mind. From the ground, without looking up. I imagine the first devastated floors of a building, mixing snapshots from previous attacks (Oklahoma City, US embassies) with my memory of the Word Trade Center, with a more claustrophobic feeling, and darkness (more fire, denser surroundings)... Death, but without any human being, dead or alive, in the picture.

The first actual image I get is distant : black smoke rising over lower Manhattan. No details given in the short article, beyond the shock and awe. Similar results on other sites.

I'm not shocked. I'm not awed. Not even surprised. But at the same time sad and angry, empty and very tense, willing to interact with a human being. I spring out of my office and tell colleagues about the attack. I send a few mails, even joking in one (isn't humor all about coping with death ?).

All this takes less than 10 minutes : I have to keep going for a busy day in a busy office tower. And I've got this stupidly important presentation to perform later this afternoon.

A quick peek at news websites every now and then to keep up to date - but the cold brain is still running the show, speculating, and preventing the heart from taking over.

The said "important" meeting will be interrupted by an alert : the tower must be evacuated (we're in France's only high rise area). Masks off.

On the way back home, the cold brain is playing a new movie and this time it features actors. And it's not a silent movie.

I won't see the images of the collapse until I'm back home. Alone in front of a screen much bigger than reality in my memory. That evening, I don't know how many times I zapped to watch again and again the collapse. Like a titanic stake driven into a best friend's heart, pulling the shirt and streets around in a silent scream.

But revulsion and anger peaked later, when the man supposed to fix things uttered the word "crusade".

Scoop : Cheney is not a democrat... but why this 5 month delay ?

Leon Panetta put the last nail on Dick Cheney's coffin.

As soon as he learned, on June 23rd, the existence of a secret CIA counterterrorism program hidden from Congress for 8 years (guess which years), Panetta closed it and alerted both Congress intelligence committees, revealing the fact that this secrecy was imposed by direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney*.

I can't see how Lobby Dick can avoid justice now (he'll probably have to answer to other criminal charges**). David Addington is also in the line of fire on that one. At last, Eric Holder can start the cleaning and America a fair inventory of the doomed Bush Legacy***.

So Dick Cheney is a soon to be convicted felon, an enemy of the State and democracy... nothing new under the sun.

The key question here is : why did it take 5 months to brief Panetta ?

According to CIA Spokesman Paul Gimigliano : "It's not agency practice to discuss what may or may not have been said in a classified briefing. When a C.I.A. unit brought this matter to Director Panetta's attention, it was with the recommendation that it be shared appropriately with Congress. That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive action to put it into effect."

Well the team was not swift at all. Unless Cheney's orders were to go beyond the Bush-Cheney administration. The time to solve technical issues, like paper jams in the shredder room.



* see "Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project" (New York Times - Scott Shane -20090711)
** see previous blogules on Lobby Dick, including "Welcome on Waterboard", "Yoo got mail"... or on a lighter side "Lobby Dick tries to retire, fails to retract.
*** BTW: Holder is considering - at last - probing Bush torture policy : see "Independent's Day".

Khamenei's death wish

It's over now. As expected*, even if Khamenei manages to crush the opposition, the Supreme Leader has totally lost the battle against himself.

Iran rulers are now led to the classic desperate straits of a fascist regime lacking confidence in their discredited leader. Since they cannot anymore pretend to bring the Iranian people together around the figures of Ahmadinejad or Khamenei, they forge a case for terror attacks on the father figure of the 1979 Revolution ("suicide bomber" near Khomeini Mausoleum), and fuel nationalism by mentioning foreign agent provocateurs**.

Official media exhibit demonstrators attacking policemen as a proof of their terrorist nature, but the very image of demonstrators defying the explicit orders of Ali Khamenei is in itself a major blow to the country's most important Ayatollah.

Terror and foreign agent provocateurs are a reality, though. But terror perpetrated by the State, foreign agents invited by the State (some Iranian policemen refuse to hit their own kind, some militiamen talked only Arabic and not Farsi...).

Official propaganda remains strong and powerful, but Iran's level of education and international overture makes it impossible to control minds as tightly as in other countries.

Mousavi brilliantly exposed Khamenei's contradictions, putting a true believer's mirror in front of his face and caricature of faith. Who is the true guardian of the spirit of the revolution ? Who is the true defensor of the Islamic Republic ? Who would be a true martyr if he were to die ? And on the other side, who is this imposteur posing as a Supreme Leader ? Who is this deviant liar ? Who must "face the consequences" ?

The stronger the repression, the quicker the implosion. Khamenei seems ready to go all the way and probably won't concede. The key now is to see who wants to join him as he fullfills his death wish.


* see "Ahmadinejad Alienates Iranian People Today, Iranian Clerics Tomorrow" and "Party Unity My Ayatollah ?"
** UK explicitely named by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. BBC's Jon Leyne asked to leave (BBC in Farsi too independent for the regime).

Memo : the case is about abuses in Gitmo, not about closing Gitmo

In an unsigned tribune ("Bush's Gitmo Vindication" - 20090522), the Wall Street Journal accuses President Obama of vindication against President Bush's Pristine Heritage in his great speech delivered yesterday. According to the unknown author, closing Guantanamo was a mistake.

"Obama still hasn't said where the worst terrorists will go".
=> Well. After seven years of outrages, Guantanamo still hasn't said whether detainees were terrorists or not. Obama just took office a few months ago, remember ?

To Jim Webb, who said "We spend hundreds of millions of dollars building an appropriate facility with all security precautions in Guantanamo to try these cases. There are cases against international law", the courageous author adds "That was the Bush Administration's point all along."
=> First, a reminder : Bush's Amerika spent hundreds of billions of dollars building an inappropriate war in favor of terror instead of an appropriate war on terror.
=> Second, what Obama and the World point all along is this : of course terrorists are against international law ! But Gitmo abuses were against international law, the Bush Administration was against international law, Bush's Amerika was against international law. The case is not about closing Guantanamo but about what went wrong there.

"Mr. Obama called all of this a "mess" that he had inherited, but in truth the mess is of his own haphazard design. He's the one who announced the end of Guantanamo without any plan for what to do with, or where to put, KSM and other killers".
=> It's like the economy, stupid. You need to stop the wrongs but it's not that easy because the mess is really deep and nasty. What did you expect Obama to say in front of the collapse of the World economies last autumn ? "Good job ! Keep Going" ? Same here : we first say this must stop, and then we work on a solution.
=> "Haphazard design" is not deciding to close Guantanamo. "Haphazard design" is deciding to promote torture, committing Abu Ghraib abuses, and giving a boost to worldwide terror in the process.

"Tell us again why Gitmo should be closed?"
=> my pleasure, dear unknown fascist coward : "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".

Last Throes of Democracy : India Votes

The World's biggest democracy votes. Ahead of Iran, and after Israel (another candidate for theocracy*).

Soon, we can actually measure the "Lessons from Mumbai" : either fundamentalists and nationalists gain ground, or moderates secure the country. Or politics at its worst wins : an unnatural coalition cripling democracy and fueling the rise of hatred upon which radicals feed.

Manmohan Singh is far from being Mr Perfect, but he somehow managed to minimize the impact at home of Pakistan's gradual collapse under Pervez Musharraf. India is far from being a model democracy, and it suffered its share of terror well before Mumbai, but the central Government kept some distance from fundamentalism as well as from ultranationalism.

Yet the main issues for voters will be economy, inegalities, not politics. But precisely : beyond these elections, the best way to prevent radicalism from rising is to eradicate poverty and unfairness. May India strengthen its so rich and diverse identity around that noble mission, may India sent the right message of mutual respect to our troubled world.


* "Beyond the Iranian people, Obama is addressing Israel"
see "Justice in America, No Democracy in Israel ?" in "Bush's Farewell : Mission Accomplished... as Fundamentalist in Chief"

Next Stop : Pakistan

They have fled Iraq for Afghanistan. For many, it was a way back to where it all started. Others learned their trade in Iraq, a giant terrorist training camp created by George W. Bush in his fundamentalist crusade in a country that really didn't need this kind of touristic resorts.

Now that a surge is on the way to Kabul and Southern Afghanistan, they are touring Pakistan beyond their usual Northern safe havens.

Pakistan is not safe, and the economical, social, and political situation worsened since last November, when I wrote these already gloomy lines (see "Lessons from Mumbai ?") : "The main target in the Mumbai attacks was Pakistan, the weaker link, and the democracy the most likely to fall for fundamentalism if the international community fails to help it help itself."

44 started using the same military quick fixes as 43/36* : air strikes as "surgical" as Israel's bombs on Lebanon or Gaza. But make no mistake : diplomacy is on its way. Not the naive, vintage dovish kind of diplomacy, but resolute and fair.

Diplomacy is on its way, and Barack's most lethal weapons are on their way : ahead of Hurricane Hillary, "diplomatic equivalent of a hydrogen bomb" AfPak envoy Richard Holbrooke met with Hamid Karzai... and The H. Bomb clearly avoided the kind of toasts Carter shared with Shah Reza Pahlavi over 30 years ago.

Last week, a local governor made an international show of a bonfire of puppy crops and illegal drugs seized in his region. A small step for Afghanistan, but a major leap out of the loop for ever the media magnet Karzai.

A surge on the ground, elections and potentially new faces at the helm of the country... change is probably coming to Afghanistan.

A Taliban surge, a catastrophic economic downturn, déjà vu short sighted legal and constitutional compromises with fundamentalists, radical factions fueling the seeds of civil war... change is surely coming to Pakistan.

President Obama must keep his eyes on the ball. Keeping in mind the fact that dancers are once again changing ballrooms.


* not Lyndon Baines Johnson but George Walker Bush : 43 has just been awarded the 36th position in the best POTUS contest. Dubya's behind Hoover but before Fillmore - the latter does have the name of a villain in a Harry Potter book, while W. enjoys the fame of Daddy Herbie (41 went up from #20 to #18).

Bush's Farewell : Mission Accomplished... as Fundamentalist in Chief

"There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions, but there can be little debate about the results".

Well. The least one could say is that George W. Bush was not very open to debate before nor during these decisions, but I agree with him on this : "there can be little debate about the results". Thanks to him, Muslim, Christian and Jewish fundamantalists are far better off than before 9/11.

Because George W. Bush never acted as a POTUS for the good of his country,
and George W. Bush never even acted as a Republican for the good of his party
George W. Bush always acted as a Fundamentalist for the good of fundamentalism.

So Mission Accomplished, Mr Fundamentalist in Chief.

Now, let History do its job and put "The Bush Legacy" into perspective.

Justice in America, No Democracy in Israel ?

Yesterday, Eric Holder confirmed that waterboarding was torture, and that "Adherence to the rule of law strengthens security by depriving terrorist organizations of their prime recruiting tools". In other words : yes, the Bush-Cheney Administration fueled terrorism by disgracing the very values they were supposed to defend. No wonder Karl Rove wants Holder's head before he get yours, Dubya.

Once again (see "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism"), the only way of fighting against terror and fundamentalism is at their roots : poverty, unjustice, and wrongdoings of supposedly model democracies.

Once again (see "The Stolen Election"), America has only gone halfway towards redemption by electing Barack Obama, and will finish the job by bringing actual justice to the people who insulted her. Gonzales must pay, Cheney must pay, Rumsfeld must pay, Bush must pay. Their desperate attempts of rewriting History are bold revisionism (see "The Bush Legacy").

Meanwhile, Israel confirms its wrong choices (cf "Come Feb. 10th, Will Israel Embrace History Or Vote Bush-Cheney 2004 ?") : by banning two Arab parties from upcoming elections, the Government clearly stated its poor consideration of democracy and its will to exclude from the Nation its non-Jewish citizens.

Muslim Israelis (about 16% of the population) were already asking themselves questions : they pay taxes but don't think the money is well spent in the Gaza invasion. Actually, extremists from both sides would love to see them turn into radicals.

At this stage, the Hamas alibi doesn't stand. It's not about Israel v. Hamas but about Israel v. Israel. Like Amerika v. America. Israeli voters are entitled to know where this Government actually wants to go. Keeping digging deeper and deeper as if there were no limits is totally suicidal.

Israel cannot postpone an official declaration about how it defines itself in the XXIst Century, its nature, its values, its political project.

Presented at birth as the State of the Jewish People, this country chose democracy and republic, and Non-Jews represent 20% of its population.

But the 1948 project of Constitution failed because of disagreements between fundamentalists and partisans of secularism, and nothing has really changed ever since.

It's time to stop kidding and play out in the open : does Israel want to become a democracy among peers or a Jewish sidekick to Iran-style Islamic Republics ?

If Israel prefers the latter, it only has to keep insulting fundamental values and rights, refusing international law, and of course giving terrorists "prime recruiting tools" by multiplying illegal exactions and usages of WMDs...

But the USA may not keep using their veto rights to absolve them much longer...

Obama pledged to close Guantanamo et restore Justice and Democracy at home. I sincerely hope he will help democracy in Israel even quicklier.

---
PS: "Six Days Seven Nights" - Jon Stewart on W.'s farewell speech, mistakes, disappointments, and soul sales :

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Six Days Seven Nights

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Come Feb. 10th, Will Israel Embrace History Or Vote Bush-Cheney 2004 ?

Israel 2009 mirrors America 2003 : a “war on terror” deliberately meant to fuel hatred and secure the victory of hawks in upcoming elections¹, outright propaganda with daily lines carefully edited by spin doctors, and media either kept in the dark or turned into weapons of mass disinformation.

In 2003, Americans overwhelmingly supported the invasion and in 2004, America embraced Bush's Amerika.

Israeli moderates have a choice : making sure Israeli embraces post Nov 4th History, or remaining silent and letting their country vote for Bush-Cheney 2004.

Barack Obama will have one shot and about 3 weeks to put his weight in the balance.


1- see "A Christmas Gift for Fundamentalists ?"

Allahwood's Walk of Shame

Muntazer Al Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist turned terrorist was caught launching Weapons of Mass Destruction at George W. Bush¹.

Broken arm and ribs for the victim... "the victim" referring not to the target, but to the journalist... That should be Retaliation Size 10 on the Bush-Cheney Torture Scale, I guess.

Zaidi lost his honor as a journalist², but made his point as a revolted citizen.

Nikita Khrushchev made his point by banging his own shoe on his desk... History will remember different tales about 43 : choking on a pretzel, asking for permission to pee, taking a lesson about My Pet Goat instead of his responsabilities, and once again³, exposing his formidable talent for dodging, ducking, and even lame-ducking.


1 - 9/11 Truthers ("9/11 Truthers Knockin' At Your Door" - 20081207) claimed that the shoe had been tele-guided by CIA operators so that it would crash on the US flag instead of the POTUS - a false flag scenario meant to trigger a war between US and Middle Eastern shoe manufacturers.
2 - an interesting twist of fate when you consider how journalism has been handled with during Bush's terms (see "How much for a journalist ?" - 20050113)
3 - meet "The Washington Dodgers" (20080925), the nut house that George built.

Lessons from Mumbai ?

This is vintage terror, classic asymetric warfare, and certainly nothing new under the Indian sun. Maybe more mediatic exposure because big networks don't have much fish to fry in this lame duck season - nobody cares for Congo and the audience is fed up with financial news.

There is no way to prevent 100% of such attacks from happening, but there is a way to make them look irrelevant, to undermine the undermining effect of terror.

The message from the Mumbai terrorists is : we want people to hate each other because we fundamentalists need war and hatred to survive, we want Hindis to go at Muslims, we want Jews to go at Muslims, and most of all we want moderate Muslims to be silenced and overwhelmed by fundamentalists. The masses will follow us because we will accurately claim that Muslims are once again the actual victims of the attacks.

The main target in the Mumbai attacks was Pakistan, the weaker link, and the democracy the most likely to fall for fundamentalism if the international community fails to help it help itself. Manmohan Singh must not finish the mission of the terrorists and blame Pakistan, but help fellow victim Asif Ali Zardari win over enemies from within, and together they must expose the fundamentalists' agenda which as always is only about politics, not religion.

The best way and the only way to tackle terror is to go at its roots : to recognize the existence of unfairness and to start doing something about poverty, to denounce fundamentalism as foul politics masquerading as religion, and to let the moderates speak.

The opinion should be prepared for that, and the community bracing itself through positive and sound values, and neither through fear, nor nationalism. Let's not make the same mistakes as after 9/11, please.

The terrorist attack on Mumbai clearly echoes Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" because both are proposing the same imposture : this clash of civilizations, these religious wars are artificial, man-made, and deliberately fueled by people who want them to happen. No wonder Huntington's book is a bible for the neocons and theocons who sold the invasion of Iraq and dream of provoking a war between Israel and Iran. Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush offered the worst answer to the 9/11 attacks, but the best ones from the terrorists' point of view.

The worst answer to the Mumbai would be for India to retaliate against Pakistan.

Afghanistan was not guilty for 9/11 : the World let it fall into the wrong hands. Pakistan is not guilty for the Mumbai attacks : the World must prevent it from falling into the wrong hands.

The World, united, must declare its independence from fundamentalism.

AIPAC Hillary v. J Street Barack

My first reaction when I heard about the Clintons being vetted for Secretary of State and Chief Bubbassador was disappointment : I get the "good-cop - bad-cop" concept but to me, this looks like XXth century politics and XIXth century diplomacy.

My second reaction was : that's a darn good way of getting rid of the Clintons. Billy Boy will never accept to open his books (Prez library and beyond), and once again, turn into a liaBillity for the person who made a President Of The United States out of a cool dude from Hope, AR.

I guess we'll have to watch the usual good cop bad cop flick after all. The NYPD veteran swallowing her pride after the rookie took the medal she'd been coveting for decades, and now ready to catch a bullet for a not so cool dude from Hope, HI she wished (in her wildest dreams*) would catch one first.

Scenarists pushed the cliché all the way to the young tall Afro-American / old short blond Caucasian stereotypes. Their car is an old Detroit survivor with dented bumpers and a battered exhaust pipe spitting more tar than a chain smoker on his deathbed. The tough veteran can read NYC's mid forties streets like the palm of her own hand and would never miss an AIPAC meeting. The soft speaking toddler in an Hawai'ian shirt is more the J Street** kind of guy, but not the kind of person to sport bumper stickers for this kind of causes either.

Both have the full support of Police chief Biden a.k.a. Frank Drebin, their white haired, gaffe prone boss who knows the city best and can use a gun when needed.

This squad may not catch the most wanted terrorist but together, they can do a lot of damage to his network. Not to mention a lot of good things if scenarists truly really want the new series to become a hit.

Season I premieres Jan. 20.

* remember that old black & white movie, "Dial Hillary for murder" ? Feels like it was released eons ago.
** see "J Street - at last"

Driving Mister Crazy

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama Bin Laden's Yemeni driver, enjoyed his 15 Wharolian minutes.
Bonus : 7 years in Gitmo Resort, and more to come.

Hamdan has eventually been found guilty of something. Amerika's justice simply could not let this pathetic figure walk away without losing what's left of its own credibility : this nobody symbolically won all previous bouts, including the fabled Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case. For one good reason : this whole mock-up of a judicial framework was proven inconstitutional. And the only way to maintain him in the Guantanamo limbo was to label him "Enemy combatant" (turning his car into a Mobile Weapon of Mass Destruction with SA-7 missiles).

So Hamdan is guilty. For serving Dubya's partner* in his Good vs Evil crusade. For exposing the failures of freedom, justice, and democracy in a country that was supposed to disseminate freedom, justice and democracy**. For masterminding a plot against the cover-ups, lies and forgeries of an Administration that insulted the values of its nation.

So the driver will pay. But the madman who's been driving the USovA down the gutter of infamy shall remain un-prosecuted. In spite of all the recent "revelations" from former White House members who should have blown the whistle a long time ago. Yeah, Dennis Kucinich did mention impeachment but this masquerade was too little too late, and only an expedient for Nancy Pelosi to clinch a minor deal***.

Actually, I can't prove that George W. Bush was a member of al Qaeda but History will probably charge him for "engaging in hostilities against the US", "conspiracy", and "providing support for terrorism".



* see "Universal Declaration of Independence from fundamentalism"
** both Dubya's experts in justice (Harriet E. Miers and Alberto Gonzales) should actually end up in jail, and his record consists of the disastrous handling of the cases of two underbrained misfits (Zacharias Moussaoui pairing with Salim Hamdan) and one former dictator (see "Smokescreened him out - Saddam 1-1 Slobodan - Red blogule to justice in 2006" 20061230).
*** in her own crude words, she even claimed to have saved the POTUS from self-inflicted torture ("We pulled the president's chestnuts out of the fire")

The Talk of the Toon

What game are Advanced Publications playing ?
"Hussein" painted as a Muslim and Michelle as a terrorist, congratulating each other by a fireplace where the US flag is burning under the portrait of Osama bin Laden... I'm sure this brilliant piece of NYC humor will make people laugh in Colorado Springs, CO, but is this caricature really supposed to help the Obamas take over the White House ?*
I'm not sure The New Yorker are supporting Obama as frankly as they did for Kerry 4 years ago. Kerry as a IRA fighter or worse, a "cheese eating surrender monkey" (the Simpsons / FOX cute name for Frenchman back in 2003) ? Oh my, that would have raised some eyebrows at the Club.
This would be satire if there were some distance to it. Like O'Reilly holding this cover and saying "while we're at it why not add a suicide belt for Michelle ?"
The editor's answers don't hold a second :
"Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover." The editor noted that the magazine includes two "very serious" articles about Obama -- a commentary and a 15,000-word reporting piece on the candidate's political education and rise in Chicago. (see AFP)
Seriously, everybody knows the power of image. The impact of one caricature relayed everywhere is ten billion times stronger than 15,000 words only a few will go through.
And regarding the people holding this "mirror" : I'm not a constant New Yorker reader but if I were I don't know how I'd take it.
Letters to the editor are probably going to outscore 15,000 words...


* not to mention help American Muslims be at last treated like other US citizens (as Juan Cole pointed out, "virtually no one is talking about how demeaning it is of American Muslims" - 20080715 in "Obama Caricature Offensive to Muslims").

5-4. Still standing

Guantanamo prisoners have a right for justice, ruled the Supreme Court. Habeas Corpus still means something in Bush's Amerika.
But that was a close call : 5-4.
And there were a lot of comments from both sides.
From Justice Anthony Kennedy, this sound and relevant comment : "Liberty and security can be reconciled and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."
For Justice (?) Antonin Scalia, this ruling is an "incursion into military affairs".
And from the 4 Justices (?) who voted against the ruling (the same Scalia + Samuel A. Alito Jr, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice (?) John G. Roberts Jr, Dubya's latest pick), this written comment, a clear incursion into political affairs : "America is at war with radical Islamists"..
Amazing.
US voters should definitely make sure John McCain is not elected.
And the 5 last defensors of genuine Justice in their country should definitely watch for their health until next spring.