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")?

Six Buffoons in Search of a Kingmaker

It takes a looney to know one: Palin just endorsed Gingrich.

And the only sane person in this nuthouse dropped out of the GOP race (not Stephen Colbert, the other one: Jon Huntsman*).

Which leaves us with 6 people: Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Perry, and the future Guest Star.

Who knows from which asylum the nominee shall vet his Veep? And how about a third candidate? Say, from the INETP (INdependent Evangelical Tea Partisans), or from Sarah Palin's LGBT party**?

You know what's missing for GOP candidates this year?

Let me rephrase it: you know who's missing for GOP candidates this year?

Rupert Murdoch.

The Great Kingmaker is out of the race. Posing as a bald monk meditating on some distant hill, chain-twitting pearls of wisdom, but cut off from all wordly matters. Maybe a few eavesdroppings now and then - you can't kick the habit that easily.

Anyway, at Fox News, the whole crew seems to be running headless. Even Theocons need a Qibla.

Ideology-wise, surviving members of the nuthouse can only agree on their greatest common divisors:

1) They want to kick Obama out. On the grounds that...
... the guy's a sissy (he won a Nobel Peace Prize, only used two choppers to kill Osama, and didn't even invade Libya to get Qaddafi)
... he's screaming at oil diggers as soon as they spill a bucket or two in the Gulf
... he's a divisive figure: our dear GOP has never been so divided
... he was not even born in the United States of Amerika, and, for the Grand Wizard's sake, the place is called The WHITE House for a reason, duntcha think?

2) They want to Restore Amerikan Honor. In other words...
... restore the great Amerikan values (teaching creationism at school, and waterboarding at West Point),
... restore the sound economy of 2008
... restore budget orthodoxy by removing all taxes and launching an illegal war
... invest less on schools (to prevent the Steve Jobs of tomorrow from happening), and remove all regulations (to create a land of opportunities for the Kenneth Lays, Bernie Ebberses, and Bernie Maddoffs of tomorrow)

Six buffoons in search of a Kingmaker...

blogules 2012
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!

* who, eventually, didn't get a ticket to ride all the way to Florida (see "Grand Old Parting: fix your party before causing more damage to your country")
** see "Mid-Term Elections : Sarah Palin to run in West Dakota"

France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one

As soon as Nicolas Sarkozy said that Burqas were "not welcome" in France, the debate rippled across the World.

I mean THE debate. Not about the burqa, but about France itself : the country would be intolerant and undermining freedom of religion.

I faced the same misunderstanding from Muslims, Jews, Christians, and even atheists following my blogule "No to Burqa = No to Fundamentalism... Christian Fundamentalism included" ("Non à la Burqa = Non au fondamentalisme... Chrétien y compris").

I should say the same double misunderstanding :

• classic misunderstanding : fundamentalism is about politics, not religion. Claiming independence from fundamentalism is about saving democracy, but also about saving freedom of religion... see my usual pitch about the fundamentalist imposture ("Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
  
• cultural misunderstanding : France's very specific flavor of secularism, and the cultural exception (particularly compared to the US) regarding religion in general

Thus the key point in that blogule : in France more than anywhere else, wearing a burqa is a political statement. France should deal with the issue peacefully, on the grounds of the republican law. It is not and should not become a debate about religion.

So I fully agree with Sarkozy when he says that "Burqa is not a problem of religion" and "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic".

But I have a slightly different position when I consider his full sentences :

=> "Burqa is not a problem of religion, but a problem of dignity of women / Burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement" : yes and yes, human rights are definitely involved, but the cause of enslaved women will be even better defended if we act simultaneously at the political level.

Typically, some woman do wear the burqa of their own free will, and fundamentalists do claim that burqas defend the dignity of women because they are protected from the gaze of men.
We must naturally stand strong in the women's rights and freedom of religion debates, but we must also position ourselves on different planes to embrace the true nature of the subject and the true nature of fundamentalism.
Because burqa is not "a problem of religion", but a problem of politics. And a Burqa doesn't protect a woman from male gaze : integral coverings in general (burqa, niqab, masks hiding the face) withdraw people (male or female, of their own free will or not, those are yet other stories) from the watch of the Republic. Accepting this would mean accepting the most essential claim of fundamentalists : their strict set of principles supercedes the laws of the Republic. And in France, what burqas do is to put people beyond the reach of law in a secular Republic, which makes it even more offensive*.
Actually, Sarkozy didn't raise the burqa issue in Versailles out of the blue (chadri ?) : he merely reacted to many complaints by mayors and representatives of the Republic who noticed the incompatibility of such garments with the exercise of law (not to mention, of course, complaints of human right activists, women, moderate Muslims...).

=> Burqa "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic. We must not be afraid of our values, nor of defending them" : yes and yes, it is a matter of values. But let's be very careful not to fuel mutual hatred within the Republic and beyond.

Sarkozy is talking about a garment, but certain people can interpret his words a very different way : "territory" and "our values" resonate very well in extreme right circles, where xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia... and the ultimate theocon-neocon myth of the "Clash of Civilizations" rule*. Typically, radicals like peroxyde-blond Geerd Wilders, who enjoys full support from Israeli Jewish fundamentalists as well as from European Christian fundamentalists, wants to ban the burqa... but as a part of a more general ban on Islam !
Such hatemongers complain about "the Islamization of Europe" and the threats to "Western values", but Islam belongs to the West as well as to the East, North, South and Center. Besides, European culture owes a lot of its richness and diversity to Islam, Europe wouldn't be Europe without its citizens who happen to be Muslims, and France wouldn't be France without its citizens who happen to be Muslims.
Furthermore, let us not stress obsolete geographical divisions as moderates from all confessions and from over the world are reaching out to each other.
The second key point in my blogule was precisely that a ban on burqa, provided it were carefully and soundly planned and implemented, would undermine fundamentalism well beyond Muslim communities, and particularily Christian fundamentalism, also on the rise in Europe.

French Muslims overwhelmingly reject fundamentalism, and feel ostracized each time a few extremists deliberately provoque intra- and inter-religious tensions, or openly reject State laws.

Dalil Boubakeur, Rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, denounced the rise of communautarism, radicalization, and fundamentalism in France. But as the President of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, he must also respect all the sensibilities represented in this institution. That's the reason why his critic of the burqa per se sounds rather weak : "wearing the burqa is not a formal answer to a prescription of Islam", and is "foreign to our traditions".

And when he praises Sarkozy, Boubakeur smartly manages to point an accusatory finger at the French Islamist minority : "this well balanced position, exposing a great secular conscience from the President of the Republic, can only fortify the recommandations issued by the Great Mosque of Paris and encourage French citizen of Muslim faith to integrate harmoniously republican values". In other words : if the vast majority of French Muslims applauds, a minority of fundamentalists does refuse the Republic - those are the enemies of both Islam and France.

Boubakeur also issued a clear warning to the President after his speech : "but you have to hope, Insha'Allah, that there won't be any ill-feeling, controversies, nor incidents".

The third key point I raised (the logical counterpoint of the second), was more direct : I really don't trust Nicolas Sarkozy on that one. He is the kind of man to fuel tensions instead of removing them, particularily when he has an opportunity to help fundamentalists and undermine the French secular system. The 2004 ban on religious signs for civil servants or in public schools passed well and calmed things down as expected because it was implemented under Jacques Chirac's watch, a man who, as Bush well knows, makes no compromise with fundamentalist imposteurs.

In France, everybody is fully aware of Sarkozy's reputation as a troublemaker, and his more or less direct promotion of fundamentalism is becoming a less and less hidden agenda.

He was the one who created the Council, thus offering an official tribune to Islamists... and putting outspoken moderates like Boubakeur under constraints. He was the one who, as tensions around the 2004 ban on religious signs were receding, and right before US Elections, dared publish "La Republique, les religions, l'esperance", a provocative essay recommanding the revision of the 1905 law, cornerstone of secularism in France. He was the one who pleased Benedict XVI and other Christian fundamentalists with his "laicite positive" concept (see "N'ayez pas peur"). He was the one who almost condemned French secularism in highly controversial speeches delivered in Latran or Riyadh. He was the one who seeked favors from then Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, palled around with Tom Cruise and tried to remove Scientology from the lists of cults under watch in France...

Yet, if Nicolas Sarkozy obviously pledged allegiance to US theocons a few years ago and has ever since repeatedly attempted to undermine secularism, I don't think he is himself a theocon. More prosaically : hardcore fundamentalists aside, there's a lot of money to make for megachurches willing to open franchises in France... Besides, Sarko's ego is more complex than it seems : this man really loves to please powerful or famous people, wants to be recognized as an equal. He is surrounded by theocons, but also by celebs acting as entry points for theocons.

Now let's put aside this big question mark, and consider French secularism as it is or rather, as it was before Sarkozy. That would be the fourth point missing in my blogule, which was written in French and for a mostly French audience, very much aware of this oddity.

As others may not know, French secularism has proven an efficient yet fragile shield for both democracy and religions against fundamentalism.

People ask "What's wrong with France ?"

Is France intolerant ?
I'd rather say "intolerant to intolerance".

Is France extremist ?
I'd rather say "extremely moderate".

Is France persecuting Muslims ?
I'd rather say "preventing persecution of Muslims, victims of a few fundamentalists who want to cut them from their own country and from their own sound religion".

Regarding religion, the cultural gap couldn't be wider between France and the US : there's a religious persecution syndrom in the US and a religious neutrality syndrom in France, and that explains the way each democracy chooses to defend freedom of religion. Both systems have their pros and cons.

Freedom of belief and religion does mean something in the US. Many founders escaped religious persecutions. On the other hand, fundamentalism is very popular, creationism commonly accepted, and extremist cults are highly visible... In fact, many among the worst enemies of US democracy are US citizens who are tolerated in their own country but would be considered as dangerous extremists anywhere else, and not only in France.

In France, many US preachers would be charged for incitation to hatred, many US cults seriously restricted if not forbidden... and the Creation Museum closed for bold revisionism. Of course, people proudly parading in Nazi uniforms would go straigth to jail. And such ayatollahs as Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh would have to tone down a few notches or face the consequences.

Both the US and France have cornerstones for religious neutrality and for separation of church and state, with a common ground dating from the late XVIIIth century, thanks to people like the very francophile Thomas Jefferson :
- the 1789 US Bill of Rights. In particular Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")
- the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In particular : "No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order", "The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it", and "Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law". One could also mention the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights : "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".
- the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
- ..

Separation of church and state is still a raging debate in the US, and fundamentalists are fighting every jurisprudence that secures it. Religion in general is a very big business and partisans of genuine secularism (ie no mention of "God" during inauguration speeches) are a minority.

By contrast, most French are ardent defensors of secularism, and most churches, temples and mosques are poor. Which by the way makes it easier for rich fundamentalist sponsors from overseas.

France put an end to a heated debate on secularism thanks to the December 9, 1905 law on the Separation of the Churches and State, which goes beyond the sentence "the Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion". The Republic's unity was clearly under threat, and mutual hatred bloomed everywhere, with a peak of anti-semitism during the Dreyfus Affair (settled - and in the right direction - soon afterwards, in 1906).

But as History cruelly reminds us, anti-semitism survived in France, and World War II atrocities led to another set of reforms. If French census bureau doesn't collect any data about race, and if French laws strictly forbids databases based on religious beliefs or race***, it's because all humans are considered as one race, but also because the French police collaborated with Nazi occupants and kept files on many citizens, leading to their most tragic fate.

In 1958, France entered its Vth Republic. And the Article 1 of the Preamble of the 1958 Constitution clearly stipulates : "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs" ("It shall be organised on a decentralised basis" being added much later). "Secular" goes with "indivisible", and freedom of religion should not lead to any division.

There is also a cultural issue : in France, religion is considered as something personal, proselytizing as an aggression, and categorizing people as rude. Most French Muslims or French Jews don't want to be singled out as Muslims or Jews. They are true believers, but they want to be simply considered as French citizens. The first thing fundamentalist imams do is to negate Republican laws as a preamble to their own political constitution.

For decades, France enjoyed a relative peace without significant intra- nor inter-religious tensions, fundamentalism remaining well below the radar. But obviously, change has come :

- The first rifts within the Jewish community appeared as a minority took sides in favor of Israeli Jewish fundamentalists or at least in favor of conservative hardliners. The majority of French Jews distance themselves from Israel, and are as sick and tired of the confusion Jew = Tel Aviv Hawks bombing Gaza as Muslims are tired of the confusion Islam = al Qaeda. Yet, there is a French equivalent to an edulcorated AIPAC, but not to J Street. Yet. Regarding the conflict, a majority of French people, beyond Muslims, supports the Palestinian cause, particularily after Arafat gave up terror.

- If wahhabism had a tough time trying to buy its way into France (where moderate Islam has traditionally been sponsored by countries like Morocco), more recent and radical movements leverage on Islamist movements fighting against dictatorship in former French colonies, most notably Algeria. al Qaeda smartly outsourced part of its French operations to GSPC (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat), now known as "al Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Magreb". Clearly, George W. Bush's crusade in Iraq helped the most radical Islamists gain ground, particularily among the younger generation of Muslims, many of North African origins and living in derelict suburbs, where integration failed most spectacularly. Fundamentalists did their "best" to cut those from their parents, who embraced the Republic and integration.

- Christian fundamentalism had been pretty much silenced since Vatican II, until George W. Bush and Benedict XVI revived it. Recently, the latter even lifted the excommunication of four bishops ordained in 1988 by then Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the French leader of the very fundamentalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Among them, Richard Williamson, an outspoken Holocaust negationist.

- Over the past few years, hatemongers of all kinds have been multiplying provocations, including profanations of Jewish or Muslim tombs...

Fundamentalists are clearly waging a war on secular exceptions like Turkey and France. Both countries stand at key cultural crossroads, and see their institutional shields against fundamentalism repeatedly tested. Sunni fundamentalists are methodically working on the destruction of secular Turkey (and European Christian Fundamentalists applauding their efforts), but France sits at the top of the agenda for all breeds of radicals : the "Eldest daughter of The Church" lies at the heart of the EU, and boasts its biggest Muslim and Jewish communities.

Fundamentalists mean to destroy France's very foundations : liberty, equality, and fraternity within the "indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic". And if they don't succeed in amending laws, they try to play "religious freedom" against systems precisely meant to protect, fueling communautarism against integration, forcing people to take sides following their own agenda, to the point that even moderates can sound radical when they talk about them.

Even if French laws and Constitution were clear enough to avoid it, France had to pass a law to specifically ban religious signs in public schools and for civil servants. Islamic headscarves had almost become an obligation in certain areas, where young Muslim women couldn't (and still now can't) go out anymore without a headdress for fear of being violented, and not only verbally. A 2005 poll showed that 77% of French Muslim women wearing headscarf (we're talking the lightest form of garment) don't do it from their own will and wouldn't wear it if given the choice. A Muslim woman founded the association "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" (Neither Whores Nor Slaves) to defend women and particularily Muslim women. This fierce advocate for secularism is now Minister for Urban Policies.

Likewise, these days, France is compelled to position itself for or against burqa. The vast majority of French Muslims are against this import from Islamists, and a bill will probably be needed to specify a ban for burqa and niqab. Even if, unlike headscarves, there are only a few hundred cases in the whole country.

I know that, from a US perspective, such a ban can sound extreme, particularily after Obama's speech in Cairo (see "State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine")****.

But you have to understand how the vital battle under way within the Muslim world impacts this very special country, where fundamentalism is spreading like fire at the expense of the silent moderate minority (particularily young women). Except for a few Islamist radicals, Muslim organizations are in favor of these laws because they are precisely seeking from the state protection from fundamentalism.

Of course, producing the law remains tricky and legislators have to be very careful : it's about bringing everybody together and certainly not antagonizing. And of course, France must do better at the root of extremism, which thrives on poverty and unfairness. The self proclaimed "country of human rights" does support dictatures overseas and tolerate inequalities and discriminations at home.

As you see, France is a strange country... but its laws are not meant against religion but in favor of a clear separation between politics and religion, to better defend democracy and religion from those who want to destroy both.

stephane mot - blogules 2009


* elsewhere, wearing the burqa can be about both religion and politics (fundamentalism rules), or simply about tradition. But even in the case of tradition, the same political statement exists.

** I know that's unfair because positive meanings have been twisted. Some expressions can be most unfortunate, maybe not as criminal as the "crusade" mentioned by W. after 9/11, but "Western values" has unfortunately become almost a moto for the "Clash of Civilization" imposture.

*** Furthermore, every database featuring individuals should be declared to a specific commission, and every individual has the right to have his record deleted if he or she stops subscribing to a service.

**** On the other hand, what sounds extreme to French people is a democracy where the President swears in on a Bible, finishing by the words "so help me God". It's OK when Obama's speaking, but when Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya speaks, the words resonated very differently. I know that JFK said ("considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension"), but I had a dream : Barack Obama has a "Zapatero moment" for his second inauguration (see "So help me Rick Warren").

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) :

A Maverick or a Gambler ?

Jo Becker and Don van Natta Jr from The New York Times delivered a very interesting paper on John McCain and his relationship to gambling and the gambling industry*.

The man is a gambler, and members of his team as well as major sponsors of his campaign have close ties with the industry.

This doesn't come as a surprise and explains a lot about the man, and his behavior... particularily after a week during which the wheel kept turning in the wrong direction for him.

I want to raise the issue of timing. Why raise this issue right now ?

It sounds like more and more people, including in the GOP, are not feeling so comfortable with the McCain-Palin ticket.

Palin is a magnet for theocons, but a scarecrow for voters who want a reliable vice-president instead of a theocon puppet. McCain and Bush will have to invent a major diversion to cancel her "debate" with Joe Biden (even if the format of the meeting protects her : no direct confrontation, this impostor can safely recitate Schmidt's mantras)

McCain was relatively spared, but the media will be more focusing on his character in the days to come : a gambler, often bad tempered, a womanizer who dumped his first wife because she didn't look as nice after a dramatic car incident... not exactly a poster child for the religious right.

True Republicans will feel relieved if this ticket fails. It's the only way of reforming the GOP, of getting rid of the Bush-Cheney theocon-neocon clique who disgraced the party and the country over the past 8 years.

Expect more circumstantiated character destruction about John McCain and Sarah Palin in the days to come.

This character destruction will prevent the character assassination of the US of A**.


* see "McCain and Team Have Many Ties to Gambling Industry" (NYT 20080928)
** see "Change is coming" and Mac "will fight", but for whom and for what ?"

"Change is coming" and Mac "will fight", but for whom and for what ?

What a disgrace for such a great man.

A "Maverick" ?

McCain sold his soul to Bush and other theocons in order to clinch the nomination, and even accepted the humiliation of a Karl Rove sidekick leading his own campaign, 8 years after being thrashed by the same team.

"Change" ?

What do you think McCain had to pledge to these madhatters in order to get their nods ? Over the last few years, he has repeatedly pleaded allegiance to theocons, Intelligent Design advocates and extremists who expect only one thing from him : to put one more ultraconservative justice in the Supreme Court.

George seems to trust John, to be sure he won't take any maverick initiative. And he told it clearly to his fellow fundamentalists at the RNC : "John is a leader who knows that human life is fragile … that human life is precious … that human life must be defended". The message is clear : this guy will destroy Roe vs Wade. And John knows something : his new friends have put a born again ayatollah one heartbeat away from his job... so he'd better enjoy his eighth house quietly, and paint it black without asking too many questions. Sarah Palin is not only a pitbull with lipsync (see her stand-alone gig reading o'reillishly partisan jokes from a prompter), but some kind of "pro-life insurance" for hardcore fundamentalists.

How dare John McCain claim at the same time his independent heritage, the Bush heritage, and the theocon leadership ?

"Change is coming" all right : voting for McCain means voting against America and for Amerika, against democracy and for theocracy. I saw McCain change over the years and I wouldn't like all his fellow Americans to follow the same path.

Will America be fooled once more, or will America wake up on time and declare its independence from theocons ?

Pope Music

Benedict XVI paid a visit to George W. Bush who greeted this fellow fundamentalist like the most important statesman on Earth... which he happens to be from their theocratic point of views.

Benedict XVI denounced paedophilia, nazism, and attacks against human rights (whose universality relies on - guess what ? - "natural law" and a divine origin). He even dared say religion shouldn't be part of any government... which would indeed appear pointless in his World where government is part of religion, and where no law is above God's law.

After six days of lamentation and contrition the show is over. From John Paul II's rock star attitude towards Benedict XVI's self lapidation, nothing changes.

Certainly not those other elderlies rolling stones in front of Scorsese's camera, and selling sympathy for the Devil to the masses.

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

"Kurdistan, the other Iraq"... or "Kurdistan, the other other Vietnam" ?

Iraq's Kurdistan region opened, through the Kurdistan Development Corporation, a lobbying office in Washington, DC*. Headed by Qubad al-Talabani, son of Jalal Talabani, the President of Iraq as a whole (a black hole some may say), this unit officially promotes investments and tourism in the region. Autonomy and independance could be part of the discussions.

I do feel some sympathy for Kurds in general and I do wish them a peaceful future. Yet, I'm not so sure this is the way everybody wants it and even if Talabani were honest, other players would join the lobbying frenzy.

I remember the intense Iraqi lobbying between the two wars. Who could forget Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress ? Among the different approaches for the liberation of Iraq, US theocons deliberately favored the factions that were bound to cause maximum damage. The parting of Iraq and the strengthening of fundamentalists across the region (especially and Iran and Israel) was not only expected but planned from the start.

If I were a US fundamentalist, I surely wouldn't want a democratic and peaceful Kurdistan to emerge in the dead middle of my playground.

A failed proof of concept Kurdistan could not only strengthen radicals in Iran but also infuriate and exacerbate fundamentalists in Turkey. To the contrary, I would seize the opportunity to bring chaos in this relatively protected part of the country, and to exacerbate radicalism everywhere. I would especially infuriate Turkish nationalists and fundamentalists, because as anybody can see these days, the radicalization of Turkey is key to the revival of Christian fundamentalism in Europe.

Don't mistake this initiative as an attempt to put a lock on Kirkuk oil fields : the aim of the game is to get rid of secularism in Turkey.


* see CMD's "The "Other Iraq" Opens a DC Lobbying Office" (20070302)

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.