State Of The Union(s)

Emmanuel MACRON: 'Please don't go'
Angela MERKEL: 'You know I don't need translation when you talk to me that way'
Donald TRUMP: 'I should build a wall between these two. Maybe Russia will pay for it, I'll ask Vlad'
Melania TRUMP: 'Did I pick the right vert-de-gris color? The mustard of my pollution mask matched so well, but after the colonial helmet disaster in Kenya, my staff advised against keeping it on'
...

This great shot (by François MORI / AP) tells a lot about how differently close two couples can be, even when each member is only one chair apart from their partner.

But don't get fooled. Merkel is on the way out, Macron remains dangerously low in the polls, and both are likely to receive major blows at the upcoming European elections. If Donald Trump lost the House, he did increase his control where it mattered most over the past few weeks: the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Without any moral leadership in sight (R.I.P. McCain, Flake, Corker), GOP lawmakers remain totally under his spell. They didn't lift a finger when Trump fired Jeff Sessions to illegally elevate to acting A.G. an open critic of Robert Mueller's Russia probe (Matt Whitaker), when Rod Rosenstein was supposed to get the position.

Democracy is losing ground to nationalism, extremism, hatred. And in this world of strongmen, the free world doesn't have any strong leader in sight. 

But we do see and hear swarms of them. We do see inspiring new faces taking a stand for human rights or gun control, strengthening diversity in Congress. We do hear powerful voices, that resonate even more when they're silenced (Anna Politkovskaya and Jamal Khashoggi had Vladimir Putin and MBS expose themselves as murdering despots).

And sometimes, we do see a majority of citizens cast a ballot against the destructive tide.

blogules 2018
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 nuclear option

Devin Nunes proves, once again with the help of Paul Ryan, that he would do anything to defend Donald Trump and torpedo the Russia Probe. And just like last year, his fellow GOP lawmakers seem ready to remain complicitly "speechless" (I seriously wonder how much kompromat Putin and his friends have on these guys).

This time, Nunes, who had to recuse himself from the case (a 'nothing burger' that already produced at least two guilty pleas from campaign members), wrote a dangerously misleading memo denounced by the very man Trump chose to replace James Comey: new FBI chief Christopher Wray warned the White House that this memo shouldn't be published. As if it weren't enough, Adam Schiff revealed that Nunes edited it without consulting the committee.

Like the POTUS he so desperately wants to protect, Devin Nunes acts guilty in a such blatant way it would be laughable if so much weren't at stake. US democracy is under attack, and Trump is seriously considering the mother of all diversions: preemptive strikes on North Korea. 

Victor Cha toyed with the concept (see "Alert!") before refusing to be the Ambassador in charge of evacuating tens of thousands of US citizens from the peninsula.

Let's be clear: there is no guarantee preemptive strikes would incapacitate Kim Jong-un's nuclear program, and there is no scenario where they wouldn't lead to mass destruction in Seoul and South Korea. We're talking hundreds of thousands if not millions of victims.

Normally, there shouldn't be any scenario where Nunes and Trump avoided impeachment. We know that Republicans won't lift a finger before mid-term elections, but the gimchi is expected to hit the fan long before that - White House hawks seem willing to strike after the Pyeongchang olympics.

Brace for a funeral March.


blogules 2018
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

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

The Rising Sun Flag Brought Shame Upon Japan - Ban It

There is no debate whatsover about the Nazi flag in Germany: glorifying this symbol of abomination is a crime, as the "use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations".

Imperial Japan's Rising Sun flag is as infamous as the Nazi swastika, and yet there is no law to prevent its use. Worse: part of Japan's "Self-Defense Forces" - you know, the ones supposed to remain 'defensive' whatever happens - have been using a variant as their official flag for decades. Even worse: Imperial Japan's war crimes were never recognized by any Japanese institution and nowadays, praising Imperial Japan or denying its war crimes is not only tolerated, but the only way to succeed as a politician in Japan.

Of course, you cannot expect the fascist clique that controls this peaceful nation and tries very hard to reverse the constitution back to Imperial Japan's bellicose mode, the government that just unveiled a "destroyer" flying the dreaded colors, to ban this Rising Sun flag.

The parade followed the controversial South Korea - Japan soccer game where Japanese nationalists waved the Rising Sun and Korean nationalists the portrait of a resistant to Imperial Japan, and a banner stating in Korean "The nation that forgets history has no future", a direct reference to the incredible revisionist tsunami washing over the archipelago*. Infuriated, the Japanese extreme right confirmed its full support to the flag**.

So what the international community must do is to expose the abomination, and to ask the peaceful people of Japan to rise against the true enemies of their nation, to refuse Shinzo Abe's agenda (see "The main threat against Japan? Its own leader"), and to demand a ban of the Rising Sun flag.

The Rising Sun flag and the Nazi Swastika - These flags brought shame upon Japan and Germany, destruction across the World - Ban them


What could be worse than Shinzo Abe taking care of Japan? Shinzo Abe taking care of Japan AND Fukushima, maybe.



twitter.com/theseoulvillage/status/365371757760245760




The Prime Minister decided to step in and help TEPCO deal with the mess because he had no choice: the risks are too high for his government to lose support for his key constitutional reform, he must appear as a strong leader, with a strategic vision.

And you cannot at the same time push as hard as you can in favor of militarism against dubious threats from overseas, and do nothing against massive radioactive leaks at home.

How much time does Shinzo Abe have before the mud hits the fan at the economic or at the environmental level? Hard to tell. Both Abenomics and the handling of the nuclear incidents in Daiichi are more and more criticized as further disasters in the making.

#ShinzoAbe takes a leak (#Fukushima's).
Boy, this man is truly radioactive. #abeignomics
twitter.com/theseoulvillage/status/365355493465669632

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)

* see previous episodes, particularly those featuring Shinzo Abe
** "世界に嘘つきまくる韓国の“奇妙”、横断幕事件でも稚拙な嘘、嘘…身のほどわきまえない“欲深さ”が理由" (Sankei Shimbun 20130808)

The main threat against Japan? Its own leader

On July 21, 2013, Shinzo Abe's LDP will probably win the House of Councillors elections, and the controversial Prime Minister move closer to his dreams of revising the Constitution, discarding the peaceful nature of Post-War Japan, and restoring the belligerent nature of Imperial Japan. The publication of the annual white paper "Defense of Japan" is the perfect occasion to mobilize the base ahead of the elections.

Abe has made no secret of his intentions to modify the fundamental Article 9 of the Constitution, which clearly defines Japan as a peaceful nation ("Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes"*), and prior to that, to change the Article 96, which makes it difficult to change the Constitution itself. Right now, you first need the two thirds of each of the two Houses to vote the change, then a popular vote to ratify the text**.

In order to optimize his victory in elections that vast moderate majority don't perceive as vital for the future of Japan, Abe needs a strong mobilization from his ultra-nationalist base. That's one of the reasons why his government has recently been reviving tensions with Japan's neighbors around Dokdo, Senkaku, or Kuril islands. And should uproar and anger explode across the region, they would once more be used to trick the peaceful people of Japan into believing that this anti-democratic government is actually protecting the interests of a people surrounded by hot-tempered barbarians.

Very significantly, the "Defense of Japan 2013" annual white paper issued on July 9 by the Ministry of Defense justifies the first increase in Japan's defense budget in 11 years by depicting East Asia as a region on the brink of war, where everybody's beefing up their military capacities, and where diplomacy is not even mentioned as an option: North Korea's nuclear threats got more serious than ever, "China’s activities in the sea/air area surrounding Japan involve its intrusion into Japan’s territorial waters, its violation of Japan's airspace and even dangerous actions that could cause a contingency situation", "Russia continues to intensify its military activities", and even Southeast Asian countries are forced to modernize their military forces.

Of course, the Abe Government has been pouring oil on every possible fire to make diplomacy as irrelevant as possible, and the document hints at more than just increases in Defense spendings: towards a structural revision of the National Defense Program Guidelines and the Basic Policy for National Defense, and potentially a redefinition of key concepts such as "military power", "self defense", "right for belligerency" or, why not, "control over the military by democratic political authority".

The new National Defense Program Guidelines expected by the end of the year - in other words after the elections - are expected to include the capacity, for Self Defense Forces - provided the name sticks -, "of striking military targets in enemy countries" (see "White paper echoes Abe's plans to strengthen Japan’s defense" - Asahi Shimbun 20130710).

What we'd like to hear is Shinzo Abe state loud and clear, here and now, ubi et orbi, and with all the specifics, his precise vision and his ultimate goals, how he would rewrite the Constitution, in which terms he would redefine the nation, what would be allowed and not allowed for its defense. But unlike Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto, Shinzo Abe always wisely / cowardly comes short of fully speaking his mind out. And if he never leaves any room for misinterpretations, he knows how to use symbols and circular references when he's venturing into the most outrageous territories, as he recently proved during his sick tribute to the infamous Unit 731 (see "Can't top that? Shinzo Abe posing as Shiro Ishii, the Josef Mengele of Imperial Japan").

So will the right for peace triumph over the right for belligerency? With an opposition unwilling to risk infuriating the ultra-conservative minority that corrupts and controls Japan's whole political system, the population remains overwhelmingly unaware of the dangers. But one thing is sure: belligerence being defined as an aggressive or warlike disposition or behavior, Shinzo Abe himself is more than ready for action.

And in this most defining moment, the main question remains***: will the great people of Japan wake up at last, and say no to Shinzo Abe, or will it let him continue saying and doing whatever he fancies, and let the whole nation follow him along this suicidal path?

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)

* Note that the repudiation of pacifism happens to be the first article in the definition of fascism, as written by Benito Mussolini himself in 1932: "Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death". Note also that the last element of Mussolini's definition of fascism refers to imperialism, another key ingredient in today's Imperial Japan nostalgia: "For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence". (source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp - long time no recycling for this definition - see "Red Blogule to neo-fascists - LET'S FACE IT THEY'RE FASCISTS" - 2004/05/27)

** see previous episodes, and on Seoul Village: "ABE forced to back down a bit. For the moment. Next PR stunt: KIM Jong-un"

*** see "Dear Japan, Say No To Fascism"

USS War Censorship Sunk

Robert Gates announced the end of the ban on photographing caskets of war dead*, a ban initiated by George H. W. Bush during the 1991 Gulf War.

To me, this tells a lot about a country willing to make peace and end war, and puts an end to a shameful tradition of hiding the truth to the US audience.

Remember how US Weapons of Mass Disinformation used to make a show of "surgical strikes" and other "clean war" impostures ?

Remember how the first pictures of scores of caskets, lined up in an army aircraft on its way from Baghdad, caused a scandal not because of the reason why those unlucky people where sent to death in the first place, but because such "un-American" images could undermine the morale of a nation at war ?

Remember how W. got reelected because he had the courage to take the decision of going to war, and not kicked out of the White House because he was coward enough to dodge his own military duties decades earlier, and crazy enough to take that doomed decision on the sole basis of his own fundamentalist's hidden agenda ?

Of course, let us not be fooled by the timing of Gate's announcement : the Defense Secretary is not only speeding up the withdrawal process (now US viewers must all understand it's better to get the heck out of Iraq as scheduled), but also pointing out fundamental differences between Obama and Bush at the very moment when journalists take notice of some similarities in the way war is being waged.

The Bush-Cheney propaganda era may be over, some positive spin can't hurt.

Can it ?


* as long, of course, as each family agrees - see "Pentagon OKs media photos of war dead overturning Bush's 1991 ban" (NY Daily News 20090226)

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 ?"

October Surprise : W. delivers FL to McCain

Dubya eventually picked Syria to deliver the October Surprise McCain needed (red flag provoquing an artificial tension). Smart move : putting economy behind security was one thing, but boosting AIPAC vs JStreet may help the GOP keep FL red.

W. : "Here is the October Surprise you needed, John. My unprovoqued aggression of Syria will put economy behind security, and Florida is yours."

Mc : " Thanks, my friend. Do I need to put the bombs on my campaign budget ?"

PS (addendum 20081027) - the US attack Syria because the US didn't defend Syria enough : "Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem of Syria accused the United States earlier this year of not giving his country the equipment needed to prevent foreign fighters from crossing into Iraq. He said Washington feared Syria could use such equipment against Israel."(IHT 20081026 "US choppers attack Syrian village near Iraq border")

Bonus : TNL endorsement of McCain-Palin by Ferrell / Bush :

McCain has been "tested" as a soldier, not as the decision maker

McCain used the Cuba nuclear crisis to make his point "I've been tested, not that one"*.

The fact that he pictured himself on the USS Enterprise in a plane loaded with nuclear weapons, which he was not supposed to have ever piloted, should be enough to backfire on him. But more fundamentally, in this situation, McCain was tested as a soldier, not the decision maker. And after all, he wasn't tested all the way : he didn't even take off.

JFK was the one tested as a President, not him.

Now following the first wave of the financial krach, both McCain and Obama received the same 3 AM call. And guess who reacted as a leader and who reacted as a follower...

The point is McCain is not a good decision maker. He lacks judgement. But he does take decisions... only of the suicidal kind : ending up in the hands of the enemy and thus endangering the nation, picking the most dangerous person for the most vital job...

McCain is not a Maverick : he is a daredevil and a compulsive gambler**.

My friends, John McCain has been tested, and proven totally unfit for the job of President of the United States of America.

* "I was on board the USS Enterprise. I sat in the cockpit, on the flight deck of the USS Enterprise, off of Cuba. I had a target. My friends, you know how close we came to a nuclear war. America will not have a president who needs to be tested. I've been tested, my friends."
** see "A Maverick or a Gambler ?"

October 29 Surprise ?

I just received Joe Biden's robomail for Barack's 10/29 special :

"Next Wednesday, October 29th, is a perfect night for supporters like you to
host a party in your home. Barack will appear on TV at 8:00 p.m. Eastern for 30
minutes. He'll share a positive message with Americans and discuss his plans for
healthcare reform, economic recovery, and a responsible end to the war in Iraq."

And I thought to myself hold on a minute. I'm John McCain, I don't have a dime to spare and my opponent is trusting prime time TV. My only way out is to have something else making the headlines that day. My new pal Dubya happens to be at a position where strings can be pulled...

If something really huge must hit the fan before November 4 (e.g. China invades North Korea), I'm ready to bet a buck on that very date.

---
addendum 20081027 (see cartoon)

Dubya eventually picked Syria to deliver the October Surprise McCain needed (red flag provoquing an artificial tension). Smart move : putting economy behind security is one thing, but boosting AIPAC vs JStreet may keep FL red.

The McCainistan War

"I know how to win wars".

Don't bother checking the facts. John McCain never won any war.

Actually, he is losing one.

This is a civil war opposing a respected soldier and fundamentalists of the worst kind (the Christian equivalent to Talibans - they don't stone women but carpet bomb their own people with Weapons of Mass Disinformation*).

This war is staged in Maccainistan, an old country which survived violent attacks (torture from VCs, smear campaign from GWB / KR...) and is now fighting for its own survival.

Fundamentalists seem to be winning this war : they killed the maverick who could have defeated them 8 years ago, and the old man who replaced him is doing everything he can to please them.

Maccainistan is already broken in at least two parts : one one side, dry lands where only memories of glory can grow - on the other, vast puppy fields, ready to make America even more dependent on fantasies of peace, democracy, and freedom, while pushing it deeper in war, theocracy, and submission.


* as usual, see "Universal Declaration of Independence from fundamentalism"

Iraq - 5 years of success for fundamentalists

"Mission Accomplished" : five years later, Iraq is dead. Around one million Iraqis are dead. Around four million Iraqis have been displaced by the war. Collateral damage : moderates from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, USA, and the rest of the World are, more or less literally, either already dead or on their way.

Five years later and as expected and announced in these virtual pages*, fundamentalism is blooming because from the start this war was meant by fundamentalists in favor of fundamentalisms (of all shapes and sizes - Islamists, Christian, Jewish... you name it).

The war in Iraq ? Five years of total success for George W. Bush.

I'm talking about the fundamentalist, not the POTUS. His Mission is Accomplished indeed : he served a second term and further destroyed the US democracy from the inside, he boosted the influence of Christian fundamentalism across the US and made possible its revival across Europe, he put creationism and theocracy back on the national and international maps... His one last task to perform ? The most important and beautiful to his own eyes : to ignite the mother of all wars between Israel and Iran in order to provoque the return of the Christ**.

Just to remind you things can go even worse than the combination of a military defeat, a moral collapse, and a massive recession.

If you happen to be a US citizen, you have the power to stop this. Unite and lobby your representatives, and vote wisely.

And remember this : of the 3 remaining major candidates for Bush's job (as a POTUS), only one had from day one a sound vision of what's happening in Iraq and the World beyond. And still now, only Barack Obama condemns this war as a wrong answer to terror and as a gift to the ennemies of democracy.


* and beyond, thanks to wonderful readers from America, France, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and so many other wonderful places where such blogules as the "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism" (20070809) have been quite popular.
** see "Iran : who wants war and why" (20070925)

WWIII : playtime

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon".

The man who said that is a fundamentalist leader who wants to destroy peace and democracy. The man who actually provided Iran with the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon : Bush's United States of America had research documents forwarded to Ahmadinejad's Iran, supposedly with the intention of leading that country to a wrong track, but we know better, don't we* ?

If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing this man from remaining in power : impeach Bush and Cheney before it's too late.

The Democrats are having fun putting things in order with History (genocide against Kurds in Turkey, a medal of honor for the Dalai Lama), it's time for members of Congress who really love democracy to go one decisive and much needed step further.


* see "Iran : who wants war and why" (20070925). Note that this declaration follows critics by Putin on how Bush deals with Iran, and his warnings about murder attempts (see "Archduke Vladimir Putin's assassination attempt" (20071015).

Archduke Vladimir Putin's assassination attempt

You want to watch for false flags these days. Cheney and other trigger happy hawks are desperate to ignite World War III and deliberately putting out fires with gasoline. The yet-to-be-confirmed terror attack on Putin during his yet-to-be-started trip in Iran definitely smells like Dubya's dream team spirit.

All fundamentalist doomsayers know History and remember which incident ignited WWI : the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Este in Sarajevo. Back then, the Balkans were the hotspot for warmongers, and now, all the heat is on Tehran.

Vlad the Impaler knows how to orchestrate terror and is quite an expert himself in false flag operations. Russia's next lifetime Prime Minister is transferring the pressure, but off Ahmadinejad's shoulders and directly towards Bush : I know you are up to something but I cannot tell what nor when, I know you want to make people believe Iran is responsible for your dream war but I want the public to make no mistake : if anything happens to me or anyone else, you will be the one holding the smoking gun.

Iran : who wants war and why

Some influent people want Iran at war with Israel at any cost, whatever the motive, ideally before the end of this year but anyway before the end of George W. Bush's mandate.

Don't look for rational explanations for this war.

Just like with Iraq, this war has nothing to do with WMDs, nor with removing a despot and spreading democracy. And just like with Iraq, this even isn't about oil.

No wonder we see exactly the same pattern : Cheney preparing false flag scenarios, Weapons of Mass Disinformation brainwashing US minds to turn Iran into the Evil Kingdom, hawks forging "proofs" including illegal smuggling of nuclear designs while the intelligence community tells the opposite, the local leader dubbed "the new Hitler", a clear and immediate danger of nuclear attack denied by the international agency in charge of the inspections... and of course the same warnings by experts : be careful, such a war would be a terrible mistake for the Iranian people, for the future of democracy in the region, for the international fight on terror, and to the contrary a perfect boost for the enemies of democracy.

Because this war is about religion. Or kind of. And the people most eager to ignite it are fundamentalists : Islamist fundamentalists who believe in the return of the Mahdi, Christian fundamentalists who believe in the second coming of the Christ. According to their crazy prophecies, Israel must face Iran in a final war that will lead to these joyful events and the rule of God himself*. Never mind the fact that the bulk of the World's population gets erased from the map in the process.

So here we are, John and Jane Smith, sitting on a sofa and watching madhatters pretending to take care of the countries that put them in charge : Ahmadinejad praying the same prayer as George W. Bush, both wanting the same bloodbath for similar reasons.

Here are John and Jane Smith, complaining about the way Bush deals with Iraq and ready to follow him in another crusade, even crazier and more suicidal.

Here are John and Jane Smith, horrified by a President having an affair with an intern but not at all alarmed by a President ready to cause a human tragedy thousands of times more catastrophic than the war in Iraq.

Here are John and Jane Smith, with the only weapon able to stop this mess : impeachment.

Will John and Jane Smith be found guilty for not doing anything ?

* see : "Jesus vs Mahdi prophecy"

General Petraeus in "surge" of credibility

As Lobby Dick Cheney taught us a while ago, insurgents are in their "last throes" in Iraq. And the US army is winning the war on terror. And Osama bin Laden is about to be "smoked out".

And "the surge" in US troops to Iraq has been a complete success, adds General Petraeus.

What is the outcome of the said "surge", Sarge ?

Baghdad looks a little bit quieter these days, because fewer US troops are killed there these days, not fewer Iraqi civilians.

Baghdad looks a little bit quieter these days, because it is being "pacified". Not by your troops but by the civil and sectarian war you ignited with this invasion. The traditional Sunni-Shi'ite mix belongs to the past, an ugly separation wall to the present, and the partition of Iraq to the future.

Baghdad looks a little bit quieter these days, because the surge helped insurgents to export chaos and terror in parts of the country that had been relatively spared until now. Parts that would have proved useful come the time of reconstruction.

Bush wanted this surge to accelerate the collapse of Iraq and the final destruction of any hope of reconciliation between the parties. And now he is asking for more time to fulfill this agenda.

Bush should be the one to answer the questions, not Petraeus.

Bush should be the one accused of betrayal, not Petraeus*.


* see MoveOn's ad "General Petraeus or General Betray Us ?"

Can't buy me love

The US sponsors peace process in the Middle East : 30 billions for Israel and 12 for Egypt. The sums are already allocated for weapons made by Uncle Sam. The White House's PR artists found that system more PC than their usual sale pitch ("we widened the Federal deficit by giving away 42 more billions to US death industries"). Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries added 20 billions to the pool in order to get the same Weapons of Mass Destructions as their neighbors.

France sponsors environmental policies in Africa : Nicolas Sarkozy helps Libya get drinkable water and Gabon restore its forests. The Elysee Palace's PR artists preferred that version to their usual sale pitch ("we sold a nuclear plant to Muammar al-Qaddafi and we gave 50 millions to Omar Bongo"). To make good measure, France will generously allow Libyans to purchase 100 millions worth of weapons Made In France.

Diplomats, no. Deep loot mats, si.

Di's is cast - When Harry met sandy

Prince Harry wants to fight. The boy doesn't want to end up like his dad, remembered as a ugly clumsy veggie wearing the kilt, sipping tea and playing polo. The boy loves the uniform. Any kind of uniform, as we previously noticed*.

"Wales" is allowed to join Iraq the day Tony Blair announces his withdrawal plan for the troops. As a clear message to the British Army : see, we are not gonna let you down - and with such a soft target, we sure are not gonna let your ennemies let you down either.

Princess Diana cared for the victims of landmines, his son decides to earn a different kind of respect in a sick shooting game, kicking some ass or camel in the desert.

Tu quoque, mi fili... Di's is cast.


* remember "When Harry met nazis" (20050116) ?

White blogule to the NYT - The State of the Union in Words

Dear compassionate reader,

Last year, I would release a scoop for your eyes only : the State of the Union speech as initially written by George W. Bush. A few days later, you could measure the gap between his fundamentalist way of thinking and the official propaganda*.

This year, a new face joined the sitcom for Season VII : behind the Kommander in Thief sitted Lobby Dick Cheney, as usual and with his trademark snarl, but also Nancy Pelosi, completing a perfect Good vs Evil picture.

And the New York Times offered an exciting gimmick to fully enjoy the show : an online search engine comparing the usage of keywords during all SotU speeches since 2001**. For example, the words Iraq/Iraqi(s) were never used in 2001, twice in 2002, and respectively 21, 24, 27, 16 and 34 times the following years. There is even a graphic showing the positions of all occurences in all speeches.

If you compare "Security" with "Social Security", you can notice all 15 occurences of the former were actually associated with the latter in 2001. One year later, only 2 of 19 occurences of Security had something to do with health.

Bush bats a steady 5,000 words and 53.5 "America" per speech, plus 5.7 for "United States". "China" is not exactly at the top of his mind : he uttered it once this year, tying the humble record of years 2002, 2003 and 2006. The "World" ? Dubya didn't care for it when he took office (2 mentions), gave it some consideration after 9/11 (19-26-13-15-27 between 2002 and 2006), and put it back to the bottom drawer in front of a semi-hostile audience yesterday (10).

The word "peace" has never been so unpopular in his mouth : 3 miserable appearances in 2007 after a solid 6- 5- 10- 5- 12- 8 streak. On the other hand, "war" is back to its peak levels : 11 vs 2-13-13-12-5-2.

Don't be fooled by this overall rather balanced 46-58 "peace-war" ratio : from 2001 to 2007, the POTUS mentioned only 19 "liberty" and 20 "democracy" vs 44 (non-social) "security" and 145 "terror".

Another propaganda favorite looks almost abandoned this year : the "Freedom" agenda knocked only 3 times at our door (vs 8-14-5-8-21-17). W seems to have some trouble selling values this season, so he sticks to less vague concepts and pitches below the waist, where Joe Sixpack can catch a neither fast- nor knuckle- ball. Significantly, the part of "freedom" in the overall occurences of "free" is also at its lowest point : 27% vs an average 65%, after last year's staggering peak (94.4%!).

Anyway... what George W. Bush said is one thing, how he looked another and what he'll do yet another. The actual State of the Union remains that of the Divided States of Amerika.

* "White blogule to the State of the Union speech - complete and uncut edition" (20060126), followed by "Red blogule to Demokracy - professor Bush's vision" (20060204)
** see nytimes.com/ref/washington/20070123_STATEOFUNION.htmlx

White blogule to Barack Obama's run for Presidency

What do we know about Senator Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois ?
Unlike Hillary, he wasn't born in Chicago from a Welsh lineage but in Hawaii, from a Kansas - Kenya combo.
Unlike Hillary, he still needs to gain the favors of the Afro-American minority.
Unlike Hillary, he wasn't raised a Methodist but decided to become a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ.
Unlike Hillary, he seems happily married. Anyway, Michelle Obama would be as great a First Lady as Bill Clinton a First Male First Lady.
Unlike Hillary, he said "no" to the war in Iraq, but so did Joe Biden.
Unlike Hillary, he looks cool, but so does Bill Clinton.
Unlike Hillary, he looks kind and good, but so did John Edwards.
He has already won (some hearts in) New Hampshire, but so did Wesley Clark.
Barack Obama looks too good to be true.
Up to now, he was overprotected. A candidate at the Federal level, he must face the ugliest side of politics and media. If he survives the attacks, a nice spot on the Democratic ticket seems guaranteed. The top spot won't be easy : Hillary Rodham Clinton has been claiming for eight years the role of Commander in Chief for the two terms to come.