Interesting site I found

[golddustdragon]

Apparently the Bush family has a long history of being the corporate fascists that they are known for now. Check this out:

http://www.winterboy.com/dejavu.html

[macfanken]

Well, they're not called The Bush Crime Family for nothing! :distress: They're THUGS!

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Yes it's amazing..put on a nice grin, give a nice wink..and all of a sudden to half of America he's "sent from God" -- "leader" "steadfast" "strong-willed" "courageous" ---he is "W - The President"

Yeah right

Chris

[Sapphire Girl]

I thank God that George W. Bush is in the White House and that Commie-loving, U.N. butt-kissing John F. Kerry isn't.

[GateandGarden]

I thank God that George W. Bush is in the White House and that Commie-loving, U.N. butt-kissing John F. Kerry isn't.I never really got that he was a Commie lover.

[dissention]

I thank God that George W. Bush is in the White House and that Commie-loving, U.N. butt-kissing John F. Kerry isn't.

I know, it's hard to fathom that we may have actually had a president with a measurable IQ.

[GateandGarden]

I thank God that George W. Bush is in the White House and that Commie-loving, U.N. butt-kissing John F. Kerry isn't.Be sure to thank God you're heterosexual as well, in that case.

[dissention]

Oh I know. There's so much that can be learned from the Third Reich and it's so great to see it's potential sneaking up into life in the modern western world.

Have you read the book Bush wrote about his plans and world views yet? It's quite hilarious.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1410102033/qid=1117421077/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/104-3011296-1128725?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[GateandGarden]

Have you read the book Bush wrote about his plans and world views yet? It's quite hilarious.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1410102033/qid=1117421077/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/104-3011296-1128725?v=glance&s=books&n=507846:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I thought you were serious when I first saw the post and I thought Surely it's a picture book! :lol:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I thank God that George W. Bush is in the White House and that Commie-loving, U.N. butt-kissing John F. Kerry isn't.


Yes thank God--W is a man of God...right?

Lol..

Here's a few good quotes from Capmag.com

"Jesus, they correctly point out, doesn't say to turn the other cheek unless you're a 21st century American attacked by terrorists; He says to turn the other cheek, period. "

"He doesn't say to love your enemies unless they're really nasty people like Hussein or bin Laden; He says to love them, period. He doesn't say to forgive others unless it's inconvenient--e.g., they're trying to murder you; He says to forgive them, period. "

"Well, if self-sacrifice for the sake of your enemies is moral, as the Sermon on the Mount indicates, then that means self-defense is immoral. You can't have it both ways. "

[macfanken]

I thank God that George W. Bush is in the White House and that Commie-loving, U.N. butt-kissing John F. Kerry isn't.

Yes!! Thank GOD for GW!! He brings us closer to The Rapture everyday! :] I can't wait!! :eek:



http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/macfanken/sample_2.gif

[amber]

Oh I know. There's so much that can be learned from the Third Reich and it's so great to see it's potential sneaking up into life in the modern western world.
:laugh: :lol:
That's what I thought too. And perhaps, as history repeats itself, people will once again not learn anything!!!!

[GateandGarden]

:laugh: :lol:
That's what I thought too. And perhaps, as history repeats itself, people will once again not learn anything!!!!It was intended to be funny but it's sad, really. :distress:

[macfanken]

It was intended to be funny but it's sad, really. :distress:


I could never understand how the Nazis gained power in Germany... now I see how it could happen. We're living in scary times. :distress:

[amber]

I could never understand how the Nazis gained power in Germany... now I see how it could happen. We're living in scary times. :distress:
Fascism tends to rise during severe economic depression. That's one factor.

[strandinthewind]

I could never understand how the Nazis gained power in Germany... now I see how it could happen. We're living in scary times. :distress:

The Nazi Party's advance to power in Germany under Socialism has little significant correlation to the present US political system. In a nutshell, the Nazis came into power because the treaty which ended WWI in June 1919, was devasting to Germany and is what brought the Nazis to power. Here is an excerpt:

The Versailles Treaty was an agreement at the end of WWI where the “Big Four” as they were called, America's Woodrow Wilson, Vittorio Orlando of Italy, Georges Clemenceau of France, and David Lloyd George of Great Britain, met to decide Germany’s consequences for WWI. The Germans believed that the treaty would be based on President Wilson’s Fourteen Points, which offered a framework for a just peace, and the hopes that any future international tension would be prevented. The Germans believed the Fourteen Points would have resulted in drastically less devastation to Germany if used in the treaty. But, the Big Four were determined to punish Germany for the war, and so they did.

This treaty held Germany solemnly responsible for WWI. They were forced to pay reparations totaling 132,000,000,000 in gold marks, they lost 1/8 of all its land, all of its colonies, all overseas financial assets, a new map of Europe was carved out of Germany, and the German military was basically non-existent. To the German people they were being ruthlessly punished for a war not only they were responsible for and fought.

The treaty devastated Germany politically and economically. As a result of the treaty many Germans were desperate to find a new leader to get them out of the Great Depression, which they blamed on the extravagant reparations they had to pay to the Allies. They found this leader in Adolf Hitler. Hitler believed Germany had given up to easily to the allies and still had a chance to win the war because there had been no fighting on German soil. He encouraged many German’s feelings of being betrayed by their own government and therefore thought they had no obligation to follow the treaty; this group became the Nazi’s. They still felt like they had more fighting to do and the Versailles Treaty fueled their anger. It created aggressive resentment and nationalism in Germany. There was a lot of increasing hostility towards the allied nations. Leaders like Hitler saw this treaty as something that weakened the great empire he was striving for. He didn’t sign it and he wasn’t about to follow it. But because of this treaty he was able to conquer and manipulate people by justifying his actions on the unfairness of the Versailles Treaty, and making stronger nations pity him.

Was Germany’s reaction to the Versailles Treaty really a shock or was it asking for disaster? The Versailles Treaty was the final straw that gave Germany and Hitler the excuse to take revenge on the nations that had previously hurt Germany.

http://www.pomperaug.com/socstud/stumuseum/web/mrcidea6vt.htm

This site has a pretty good timeline with an explanation

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm

That factual scenario is not present in today's world :shrug:

I get that Bush is a jerk and has been abominable to human rights as we acknowledge such today. We are not putting people in concentration camps solely because they are Jewish or gay. I get that we have the detainees Gitmo and are denying probably less than 100 other people,citizens rights to a lawyer, etc., but that is a far cry from putting people in a death camp for no reason and for the specific purpose of killing them. At least we do it under the guise of they are a threat to us, which many have turned out to be :shrug: Before everyone jumps on me, let me emphasize that I am not in any way defending the use of these two things, I am just noting that while they are horrid and think we should not have them, they are far from what Hitler and he Nazi's did, which was to the tune of human skin lampshades, ovens to burn the thousands of corpses of the Jews and gays in the camps, vats of acid to do the same, biological testing on live humans which I will no go into detail about, etc. So, in the end, Bush and his cronies (which interestingly include most Democrats in the end - see the voting to the war in Iraq, DOMA, prior Iraq invasions, Oil for Food, etc. ) are really, really bad, but not letting gay people have the same rights automatically given to traditionally married people (which is a bad thing) - is hardly putting them in a camp and gassing them :shrug: Thus, while it is somewhat darkly funny to call W "Hitler" sort of like one might refer to their severe teacher in college, the reasoning behind any tue comparison is specious and unsupported by the facts.

Again and in an effort to stave off any misconception, I think W is perhaps the worst President in the history of this country, and that is saying a lot. I cannot stand him or his policies. I think he is an abomination to human rights and, despite his hiding behind The Bible, the most anti-Christian, as that term was defined by Jesus, President we have ever had because of his lack of compassion for the poor and meek - these are the least of us that Chirst so loved. I am just noting that Hitler was far, far worse.

[strandinthewind]

Fascism tends to rise during severe economic depression. That's one factor.


Well, in Germany, it rose under the guise of Socialism and their economy (due to the end of WWI) was far far worse than the US economy. I am not saying the US economy did not stall in the last five or so years, I am just noting that it hardly rose to the level of post WWI Germany, to wit:

The Treaty of Versailles blamed Germany for the First World War. As a result of this Germany was also held accountable for the cost of the war and the Treaty dictated that compensation would have to be paid to the Allies. These payments, called reparations, would be paid monthly and would total some £6,600 million (This figure was agreed by the Allies in 1921). It is important not to take this figure in isolation though. remember that the economic might of Germany had been stretched to the limits during the war, and she would have to reconstruct her own economy at the same time as paying Reparations. In addition, Germany had lost some of her most precious sources of Raw materials as her colonies, and some of the areas ceded to other countries, were rich sources of income. These factors would make it harder for the German economy to cope. Further to this it is important to note the casualties suffered during the war. Germany lost some 1.7 million men during the war, and a further 4.2 million are listed as being wounded.

http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/week4_versailles.htm

another site:

http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/week6_economicrecovery.htm

Anyway - food for thought

[GateandGarden]

I'm with you, Jason. It's awful but it's not nearly as awful as that situation was, and even by saying that I'm making a grand understatement. I do think there are parallels, though. I think that fear and the need for direction guided many people in our last election here as it did in Germany (though there was no free election when Hitler came to power). In the case of Germany, they were in need of someone to help their economic situation and they feared that their country was going to stay in its unfavorable and hated position without a leader like Hitler guiding them. There were many more complicated issues with Germany and the time period, I believe, but I think that fear and need for a clear direction came into play in this past election. We wanted someone who promised to prevent terrorism (however ridiculously ambitious that is) and we needed to feel safe, like the country could be like it was before 9/11. I imagine that came into play with voters, though I know well that it was a false sense of security.

[Sapphire Girl]

I know, it's hard to fathom that we may have actually had a president with a measurable IQ.
George W. Bush has enough intelligence not to be a liberal Socialist. How about you? Do you have enough intelligence not to be a liberal Socialist? Yes or no?

[GateandGarden]

George W. Bush has enough intelligence not to be a liberal Socialist. How about you? Do you have enough intelligence not to be a liberal Socialist? Yes or no?I really don't think that what political affiliation one chooses is a measure of intelligence at all.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I really don't think that what political affiliation one chooses is a measure of intelligence at all.



I don't either...but we all know George W. Bush is not the brightest crayon in the box, right?

Chris

[Sapphire Girl]

I could never understand how the Nazis gained power in Germany... now I see how it could happen. We're living in scary times. :distress:
Interesting how people always bring up the Nazis but always ignore the Communist regimes. Why is that when over 20 million people died under Stalin?

[dissention]

George W. Bush has enough intelligence not to be a liberal Socialist. How about you? Do you have enough intelligence not to be a liberal Socialist? Yes or no?

Obviously not, since I am a "liberal Socialist." ;)

A big one.

[GateandGarden]

I don't either...but we all know George W. Bush is not the brightest crayon in the box, right?

ChrisWell, I can't argue with that. But I certainly don't think that's becuase he's a Republican. I'm sure he was born stupid.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Well, I can't argue with that. But I certainly don't think that's becuase he's a Republican. I'm sure he was born stupid.

Yes I'm sure he got his stupidity from Daddy...anyway

While I dont consider myself a socialist on most fronts..I think Bushie could benefit atleast some if he gained some intelligent from a smart liberal socialist like Dissention!

Chris

[GateandGarden]

Interesting how people always bring up the Nazis but always ignore the Communist regimes. Why is that when over 20 million people died under Stalin?People don't "always" ignore them. They are equally evil and destructive, IMO. Some people always ignore them. But then you're probably referring to a couple of people on this message board, which is hardly a measure of anything.


Trujillo and Castro were/are equally damaging in my opinion.

[GateandGarden]

It would have come as a shock to the Germans and it will come as a shock to many Americans but there's no doubt that it's not a conspiracy, in the future the world will know and learn about the current America in very damning light.You think our country is currently involved in something equally as shameful as Nazi-Germany was?

[GateandGarden]

Peope don't bring up Stalin?? Where have you been? Until terrorism took the throne all we heard about was those bastard commies.That's a good point. I'm not arguing with the assertion that Communism is a destructive form of government but we did spend years and years obsessing over it and calling anyone who we deemed strange in any way a Communist. That's pretty hard to forget, I'm thinking.

[sparky]

Read the Kitty Kelley book, The Family. The way they have married to attain political power, and allied themselves with wealth to finance campaigns..it is compelling information. It's been genius, actually. They got what they wanted. I think the ultimate outcome is wretched for the country, but it is a hell of a story.

[dissention]

Yes I'm sure he got his stupidity from Daddy...anyway

Nah, his daddy is a smart man. A total tool, but a smart cookie. He, after all, isn't the one who proclaimed kethup a vegetable, nor did he say that trees are pollution. Shrub Jr. was just deprived of oxygen when he passed through that holy place Mama Babs calls her birth canal and it has affected him ever since.

"Is our children learning?"

While I dont consider myself a socialist on most fronts..I think Bushie could benefit atleast some if he gained some intelligent from a smart liberal socialist like Dissention!

Aww, thank you. But Bush trying to develop intelligence is akin to a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.

[dissention]

Interesting how people always bring up the Nazis but always ignore the Communist regimes. Why is that when over 20 million people died under Stalin?

A Communist? What's that? Never heard of one.

[strandinthewind]

I'm with you, Jason. It's awful but it's not nearly as awful as that situation was, and even by saying that I'm making a grand understatement. I do think there are parallels, though. I think that fear and the need for direction guided many people in our last election here as it did in Germany (though there was no free election when Hitler came to power). In the case of Germany, they were in need of someone to help their economic situation and they feared that their country was going to stay in its unfavorable and hated position without a leader like Hitler guiding them. There were many more complicated issues with Germany and the time period, I believe, but I think that fear and need for a clear direction came into play in this past election. We wanted someone who promised to prevent terrorism (however ridiculously ambitious that is) and we needed to feel safe, like the country could be like it was before 9/11. I imagine that came into play with voters, though I know well that it was a false sense of security.

I agree with that and, interestingly, the D's are not really weak of the fighting of terrorism. I mean Clinton prevented an attack and caught the people responsible for the successful ones. Conversely, W allowed the "big" attack to happen here because all facts have demonstrated that essentially out of arrogance, sheer stupidity, and blind hatred of anything asociated with Clinton, W did not consider OBL a threat on American soil and was focused pretty much solely on Iraq, despite being told by just about every expert there is that OBL was THE threat and that is where the focus should be. Then, after America is horribly caught with her pants down, he does not catch OBL, though to be fair, his admin. has caught an insignificant amount of Al-Q operatives though perhaps many perished in Afgan - so there is at least that. Then, what does W do after Afgan? Does he learn his lesson? Inexplicably, no he did not. He instead refocuses on Iraq and SH. He successfully and outright fraudulantly linked OBL and SH (when in reality there was no significant connection) in an effort to sell an invasion he was unable to sell without such a link. And that invasion did NOTHING to protect America from Al-Q - the people who attacked us. What it did do, however, was make the small faction of the Arab world that perhaps like us, not like us. Yet, people just continue to incorrectly think W is the divine one who will protect America, when he has done everything BUT that.

Oh well, at least those nasty and uppity gays were put back in their place because Jesus talked so much about how He hated them and how they are the cause of God removing His protection from America :rolleyes:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Also I think there's always been a lot of misinformation out there regarding Stalin as a socialist. Stalin's society was more of a state capitalist society, which really tore down the successful workers revolution in Russia.

Both former Stalinists and many right wingers share the same flawed assumption -- that the Stalinist states were socialist. Under Stalinism, the working class had absolutely no true rights and were absolutely exploited.

In my opinion the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR, had absolutely nothing to do with true socialism.

Chris

[dissention]

Read the Kitty Kelley book, The Family. The way they have married to attain political power, and allied themselves with wealth to finance campaigns..it is compelling information. It's been genius, actually. They got what they wanted. I think the ultimate outcome is wretched for the country, but it is a hell of a story.

The Bush family could all be taking one big collective **** in the woods and if a wild boar came charging after them, they'd all escape unscathed with enough time to yank up their drawers and wipe their pee-pees. Nothing sticks to them, nothing ever will. Bush's brother enjoyed the company of underage Asian hookers on many occasions, yet his wife is the one dragged through the mud. Shrub invades another country for preposterous reasons and two years later, his global clout is stronger than ever. NOTHING STICKS. Things will never change.

[strandinthewind]

Also I think there's always been a lot of misinformation out there regarding Stalin as a socialist. Stalin's society was more of a state capitalist society, which really tore down the successful workers revolution in Russia.

Both former Stalinists and many right wingers share the same flawed assumption -- that the Stalinist states were socialist. Under Stalinism, the working class had absolutely no true rights and were absolutely exploited.

In my opinion the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR, had absolutely nothing to do with true socialism.

Chris


Interetingly and a little off topic, but I think true Communism cannot exist. I think people inherently want to own things and have autonomy, both of which really do not exist in true communism. But, it looks good on paper.

[GateandGarden]

I agree with that and, interestingly, the D's are not really weak of the fighting of terrorism. I mean Clinton prevented an attack and caught the people responsible for the successful ones. Conversely, W allowed the "big" attack to happen here because all facts have demonstrated that essentially out of arrogance, sheer stupidity, and blind hatred of anything asociated with Clinton, W did not consider OBL a threat on American soil and was focused pretty much solely on Iraq, despite being told by just about every expert there is that OBL was THE threat and that is where the focus should be. Then, after America is horribly caught with her pants down, he does not catch OBL, though to be fair, his admin. has caught an insignificant amount of Al-Q operatives though perhaps many perished in Afgan - so there is at least that. Then, what does W do after Afgan? Does he learn his lesson? Inexplicably, no he did not. He instead refocuses on Iraq and SH. He successfully and outright fraudulantly linked OBL and SH (when in reality there was no significant connection) in an effort to sell an invasion he was unable to sell without such a link. And that invasion did NOTHING to protect America from Al-Q - the people who attacked us. What it did do, however, was make the small faction of the Arab world that perhaps like us, not like us. Yet, people just continue to incorrectly think W is the divine one who will protect America, when he has done everything BUT that.

Oh well, at least those nasty and uppity gays were put back in their place because Jesus talked so much about how He hated them and how they are the cause of God removing His protection from America :rolleyes:
Great ending there! :laugh:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Interetingly and a little off topic, but I think true Communism cannot exist. I think people inherently want to own things and have autonomy, both of which really do not exist in true communism. But, it looks good on paper.


I agree also

It's really kind of hard for any to really truly exist in the purest of forms--Democracy, Communism, Socialism, whatever...maybe tyranny is the only one that can truly exist...and who wants that--

Chris

[dissention]

I agree with that and, interestingly, the D's are not really weak of the fighting of terrorism.

Try to sell that to the American people. George W. Bush is our savior and protector, don't you forget it, bub. I just don't know how vulnerable those people in Cowpoke, Alabama would be to a terrorist attack if a Democrat was the president!

[strandinthewind]

The Bush family could all be taking one big collective **** in the woods and if a wild boar came charging after them, they'd all escape unscathed with enough time to yank up their drawers and wipe their pee-pees. Nothing sticks to them, nothing ever will. Bush's brother enjoyed the company of underage Asian hookers on many occasions, yet his wife is the one dragged through the mud. Shrub invades another country for preposterous reasons and two years later, his global clout is stronger than ever. NOTHING STICKS. Things will never change.

Interestingly and for sake of civil argument, I think that while the Bush family has that teflon quality in the private world, they really do not so much in public life. His father, though a private global player on a large scale, certainly did not have it to the extent that he siffered a humiliating defeat after a lackluster first term.

Also, I think it was 9/11 that handed it to W, who was falling out of favor fast prior to then. So, while W may have some teflon quality, it is the assertion of the prevention of terrorism coupled with most Americans outright hatred of Arabs that allows W the power he has. That assertion could be granted to anyone though :shrug:

Anyway - food for thought :cool:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Try to sell that to the American people. George W. Bush is our savior and protector, don't you forget it, bub. I just don't know how vulnerable those people in Cowpoke, Alabama would be to a terrorist attack if a Democrat was the president!


well as a hick friend of mine once told me "If Bush doesnt win this election, we're all gonna die, dont u know that??"

Chris

[strandinthewind]

Try to sell that to the American people. George W. Bush is our savior and protector, don't you forget it, bub. I just don't know how vulnerable those people in Cowpoke, Alabama would be to a terrorist attack if a Democrat was the president!


Well, Kerry did and lost :shrug: And - I think the main reason he lost was he was unwilling to take a hard line against terrorism and stick to it. Sad - very true.

[macfanken]

Again and in an effort to stave off any misconception, I think W is perhaps the worst President in the history of this country, and that is saying a lot. I cannot stand him or his policies. I think he is an abomination to human rights and, despite his hiding behind The Bible, the most anti-Christian, as that term was defined by Jesus, President we have ever had because of his lack of compassion for the poor and meek - these are the least of us that Chirst so loved. I am just noting that Hitler was far, far worse.


I'm definitely not trying to compare anything Bush has done to anything the Nazis did in WWII... I'm not THAT far out there! :lol: I've been to Dachau and Bergen-Belsen and have seen the mass graves, the ovens and what's left of the concentration camps... nothing our government has done compares to the horrors of the Holocaust. (Although I do consider Bush a war criminal.)

I guess my point was that before WWII, most Germans probably thought that Hitler was good for Germany... just as today many in this country think that Bush is good for America. Hitler played on Germans' fear, anger and resentment to consolidate his power... sounds A LOT like the tactics Rove and Bush used during last year's election.

[GypsySorcerer]

well as a hick friend of mine once told me "If Bush doesnt win this election, we're all gonna die, dont u know that??"

Chris

And don't forget that gun rights are safe. ;)

[strandinthewind]

I want anarchism.


personally, politically, or both ;)

[strandinthewind]

. . .

I guess my point was that before WWII, most Germans probably thought that Hitler was good for Germany... just as today many in this country think that Bush is good for America. Hitler played on Germans' fear, anger and resentment to consolidate his power... sounds A LOT like the tactics Rove and Bush used during last year's election.

and - on that we agree :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

sorry if I misconstrued your intent :angel:

[strandinthewind]

He didn't promote fear nor the idea of national glory to a degree anywhere near Bush did. It's more scary than sad really.


Well, he did promote it in 98 or so when it came time to kick around Iraq again :shrug: But, I agree, W was far severer than Kerry. OMG - we agree :eek:

[Dark Angel]

Apparently the Bush family has a long history of being the corporate fascists that they are known for now. Check this out:

http://www.winterboy.com/dejavu.html

Well, that was an interesting, and scary read. Not that any of it comes as a shock to me. :rolleyes:

[GateandGarden]

He didn't promote fear nor the idea of national glory to a degree anywhere near Bush did. It's more scary than sad really.I agree with you.

[strandinthewind]

And don't forget that gun rights are safe. ;)


AND - though we are a "culture of life," we essentially could sell raffle tickets to the pull the switch for the execution of criminals :eek:

[GypsySorcerer]

AND - though we are a "culture of life," we essentially could sell raffle tickets to the pull the switch for the execution of criminals :eek:

And even though we are a culture of life, we can't further fund stem-cell research to possibly find cure for horrible diseases.

[GateandGarden]

And even though we are a culture of life, we can't further fund stem-cell research to possibly find cure for horrible diseases.We can't even use embryos that would have been thrown away otherwise to help find those cures. :distress:

[GateandGarden]

I think we made Sapphire Girl leave the board.

[gldstwmn]

Read the Kitty Kelley book, The Family. The way they have married to attain political power, and allied themselves with wealth to finance campaigns..it is compelling information. It's been genius, actually. They got what they wanted. I think the ultimate outcome is wretched for the country, but it is a hell of a story.

That book is a very thorough look at the rise to power of the family. And I think she held back.

[gldstwmn]

His father, though a private global player on a large scale, certainly did not have it to the extent that he siffered a humiliating defeat after a lackluster first term.



No, he just lacked the charisma to beat Clinton.

[gldstwmn]

I thank God that George W. Bush is in the White House and that Commie-loving, U.N. butt-kissing John F. Kerry isn't.

Enjoy it while you can. The articles of impeachment are a comin'. Mark my words.
BTW, if anything should happen to President Clinton (God forbid) you can bet your last nickel that Hillary will win on the sympathy vote alone.

[gldstwmn]

I'm definitely not trying to compare anything Bush has done to anything the Nazis did in WWII... I'm not THAT far out there! :lol: I've been to Dachau and Bergen-Belsen and have seen the mass graves, the ovens and what's left of the concentration camps... nothing our government has done compares to the horrors of the Holocaust. (Although I do consider Bush a war criminal.)

Well, 9/11 was our Reichstag fire. :shrug:
100,000 people dead, for what? I'm assuming you've heard about the Downing St. memo. This whole thing hasn't been played out yet.
The scale may not be the same but there are certainly many eerie similarities.

[macfanken]

Enjoy it while you can. The articles of impeachment are a comin'. Mark my words.


I hope you're right... the Dems finally seem to be getting something close to a backbone. The Downing Street Memo, which is mostly being ignored by the "press" in this country, is reason enough to start the impeachment process.

[strandinthewind]

We can't even use embryos that would have been thrown away otherwise to help find those cures. :distress:

AND - the pro lifers who cannot conceive do not mind having a few embryos planted in them knowing full and well that if they are lucky, one will make it to gestation.

[strandinthewind]

No, he just lacked the charisma to beat Clinton.


Well, I agre, but Diss was talking about how the Bush family is not held accountable like most are. I think the "read my lips" thing sank Bush I and that is accountability - at least politically. Bush I is, however, in no way accountable in his private life and business dealings, which have been with the bin ladens, including Osama :eek:

[gldstwmn]

I hope you're right... the Dems finally seem to be getting something close to a backbone. The Downing Street Memo, which is mostly being ignored by the "press" in this country, is reason enough to start the impeachment process.

Yes it is. And Conyers is going to do it. He needs 100,000 signatures. Anyone interested in furthering the process can sign at www.afterdowningstreet.org
BTW, it's not Conyer's first time at this rodeo. He was instrumental in the process that led to Nixon's resignation and one of the best damn Congressmen this country has today.

[strandinthewind]

Yes it is. And Conyers is going to do it. He needs 100,000 signatures. Anyone interested in furthering the process can sign at www.afterdowningst.org
BTW, it's not Conyer's first time at this rodeo. He was instrumental in the process that led to Nixon's resignation and one of the best damn Congressmen this country has today.


It will never happen IMO because the D's are too much in bed with W on the war in Iraq, which is on what they could possibly impeach him. They cannot impeach him for poor judicial nominees, promotion of Christianity, etc. But, they can impeach him, possibly, on the Iraq scandal. Plus, the Senate will never vote against W unless a smoking gun is found and it would have to be white hot.

In the end, I hope they do not because I do not want to see two consecutive Pres. impeached, much less three in three decades is just too much.

On edit - the Valarie Plame (sp.?) name leaking could take Bush down as well. But, Novak aint spilling any beans anytime soon nor will they ever prosecute him because he knows too much, namingly who told him. I think it was Rove. If that is true, then W cannot be impeached for Rove's actions if W did not know about it. Proving W knew about it would be next to impossible absent concrete evidence like taped conversations, which I do not think we will ever see. Thus, that woman was wronged and no one will pay for it, not that anyone cared about it in the general public anyway.

[gldstwmn]

In the end, I hope they do not because I do not want to see two consecutive Pres. impeached, much less three in three decades is just too much.

That's a weak excuse. Did you read the Downing Street memo? Are you telling me the bastard doesn't deserve to be impeached?
If the Dems take back the House in '06 the will most certainly milk this as a set up for the '08 election.

[strandinthewind]

May 01, 2005

The secret Downing Street memo





SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY


DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.


(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Some Senate Republicans think they have the votes to override Bush's threatened Veto of the stem cell bill,although a couple of staunch conservative Senators have quote said "we learned a lot from the Democrats about how to keep this from even reaching the Senate floor" -- so if it reaches the floor, the stem cell thing could very well pass the Senate, and unlike the House it could pass the Senate with enough to override a veto..

I do think it would be kind of hard for the Democrats to try to impeach Bush on Iraq, when most of them voted to give him the authority to use for force..and while we all know that is much diff than what he actually did with that authority, most ppl. seem to think it's the same

Chris

[SuzeQuze]

...
I do think it would be kind of hard for the Democrats to try to impeach Bush on Iraq, when most of them voted to give him the authority to use for force..and while we all know that is much diff than what he actually did with that authority, most ppl. seem to think it's the same

Chris

This may be an argument the Rs use against impeachment, however, respectfully it does not hold water because the Ds voted for this war on false information. Which brings us back to the lie that could fry Bush's ass.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

This may be an argument the Rs use against impeachment, however, respectfully it does not hold water because the Ds voted for this war on false information. Which brings us back to the lie that could fry Bush's ass.

True enough but the Republicans will claim that Bush supported the military action based on false intelligence also..

The real case here to me is-- Bush did not even do what he told Congress he would do if they voted to give him the authority to use force. Also as John Kerry, tried to explain in the 2004 election,although obviously some ignorant Americans did not get it---that you can vote to give a President the authority to make a best fit military decision, and later not agree with how he uses , OR abuses that authority given to him by the Congress...as many Democrats do

Chris

[dissention]

True enough but the Republicans will claim that Bush supported the military action based on false intelligence also..

You hit the nail on the head. Bravo!

He'll never be impeached, especially not over anything that has to do with Iraq. The Democrats are just as culpable as he is in that arena and they won't open that can of worms, ESPECIALLY since they want the White House in '08. They won't risk more embarassment.

The real case here to me is-- Bush did not even do what he told Congress he would do if they voted to give him the authority to use force. Also as John Kerry, tried to explain in the 2004 election,although obviously some ignorant Americans did not get it---that you can vote to give a President the authority to make a best fit military decision, and later not agree with how he uses , OR abuses that authority given to him by the Congress...as many Democrats do

But as this last joke of an election proved, Kerry was splitting hairs and the American public didn't buy it. He has a valid point, but it's seen to most people as a way to dodge any responsibility he had in authorizing Bush to go to Iraq. Once the vote(s) were cast, there was no turning back for any Democrat, especially one who was challenging Bush for his job. It didn't exactly help that when he was confronted by the press, he said that knowing what we now know about the intelligence, he still would have voted to authorize Bush that power. What a wanker.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

But as this last joke of an election proved, Kerry was splitting hairs and the American public didn't buy it. He has a valid point, but it's seen to most people as a way to dodge any responsibility he had in authorizing Bush to go to Iraq. Once the vote(s) were cast, there was no turning back for any Democrat, especially one who was challenging Bush for his job. It didn't exactly help that when he was confronted by the press, he said that knowing what we now know about the intelligence, he still would have voted to authorize Bush that power. What a wanker.

That was a pivitol point in the election for sure...showing that Kerry didn't even know why he voted to give him the authorization to use force.. And while I knew he was just misspeaking, and couldn't really explain these difficult Senate votes in plain words--I knew Americans wouldn't buy it, atleast not enough of them...

Which is why I can't understand everyone saying he will run again in 08, seems to me the same questions of his words will come again and be rehashed again..the swift boat idiots will come out again--seems like he would be a losing uphill battle in 08

Had Kerry never voted to let Bush use force, things wouldve been much easier..but in reality the whole thing was a lose-lose.. Had he not voted YES, he would have been called a wimp, yadayada, and had he not voted to for the funding (the first time) he would have been accused of trying to fail to support the military

Chris

[SuzeQuze]

True enough but the Republicans will claim that Bush supported the military action based on false intelligence also..

But the Rs were told not to use the false intelligence and they used it anyway. The false information was deliberately manipulated by the Bush administraton. They cherry picked intelligence to suit their Iraq war agenda.


The real case here to me is-- Bush did not even do what he told Congress he would do if they voted to give him the authority to use force. Also as John Kerry, tried to explain in the 2004 election,although obviously some ignorant Americans did not get it---that you can vote to give a President the authority to make a best fit military decision, and later not agree with how he uses , OR abuses that authority given to him by the Congress...as many Democrats do

Chris

[dissention]

But the Rs were told not to use the false intelligence and they used it anyway. The false information was deliberately manipulated by the Bush administraton. They cherry picked intelligence to suit their Iraq war agenda.

:nod:

Their main source was Curveball.

[strandinthewind]

This may be an argument the Rs use against impeachment, however, respectfully it does not hold water because the Ds voted for this war on false information. Which brings us back to the lie that could fry Bush's ass.


Well, not really. Essentially that same info was used by Clinton to send ,missles over to Iraq. That same info was used by Clinton to perpetuate the Oil for Food Program, which was as we now know a sham and illegal money making device that cost thousands of lives. So, to say that the D's were innocent of knowing of this false information is factually innacurate. They had been relying on it for years to do essentially the same thing and also to try and get SH overthrown by his own people. Then, when W changed that policy to one of we were going to overthrow SH using our military in a direct invasion, again based essentially on the same info., the majority of the D.'s went along. Thus, it is hard to have your cake and eat it too. It really just amazed me how no one wants to attribute any fault to the D's in this. I mean if Diss and anyone who read anything knew that the Iraq info was mostly bogus before the war, don't you think the D's know :shrug:

Sorry for the rant - but it just bugs me when people act like the D's would never ever do anything like what W did, when the facts show they went, for the most part, hand in hand with him and had been sentencing Iraqis to death for years before W ever took power :shrug:

Again and so there is no confusion, I think W is a horrible person and am sad he is in office. But, that does not change the fact that the D's are horrible as well.

[strandinthewind]

You hit the nail on the head. Bravo!

He'll never be impeached, especially not over anything that has to do with Iraq. The Democrats are just as culpable as he is in that arena and they won't open that can of worms, ESPECIALLY since they want the White House in '08. They won't risk more embarassment . . . .

It is Memorial Day indeed when we agree :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

But the Rs were told not to use the false intelligence and they used it anyway. The false information was deliberately manipulated by the Bush administraton. They cherry picked intelligence to suit their Iraq war agenda.

As did Clinton with the full support, indeed urging, of Kerry when we killed thousands in the missle strikes of 1998 and risked an all out war in the Middle East if SH had sent missles to Isreal in retaliation as he did in the First Gulf War. Again, I get that we did not invade Iraq then, but that is hardly a distinction with a difference to the people who died or were hurt and their families :shrug: Thus, I again conclude the W will never be impeached on Iraq because the D's were right there in bed with him. In fact, the D's gave him the road to do it with their actions in 1998. To hear people say it, one could conclude W was the first ever to imply much less state SH was a terrorist who refused to comply with his obligation to demonstrate he had destroyed the WMD that the world thought he had (which he never did) , which is just not true.

[gldstwmn]

On edit - the Valarie Plame (sp.?) name leaking could take Bush down as well. But, Novak aint spilling any beans anytime soon nor will they ever prosecute him because he knows too much, namingly who told him.

The word for a while was that Novak had already been in front of the grand jury. Now, whether he sang or invoked the fifth is not known.

[strandinthewind]

The word for a while was that Novak had already been in front of the grand jury. Now, whether he sang of invoked the fifth is not known.


I despise him and wish they would take Novak down, but I think it will never happen. He is too powerful. I can only begin to imagine after 30 or so years in that business that he does not have beef on just about every politician there is. Personally, I think he invoked the priviledge argument and if that did not worl, the Fifth, though the latter imlies guilt, which it is unclear he has any of in this case.

[gldstwmn]

I do think it would be kind of hard for the Democrats to try to impeach Bush on Iraq, when most of them voted to give him the authority to use for force..and while we all know that is much diff than what he actually did with that authority, most ppl. seem to think it's the same
Chris

The point is not to impeach but to draw the articles of impeachment.

[strandinthewind]

The point is not to impeach but to draw the articles of impeachment.


Explain please. If you mean do what they did to Clinton, impeach with no effect, IMO why bother. Unless it gets him out of office, which I think will never happen because the R's control the Senate, I am uninterested in it.

[SuzeQuze]

Well, not really. Essentially that same info was used by Clinton to send ,missles over to Iraq. That same info was used by Clinton to perpetuate the Oil for Food Program, which was as we now know a sham and illegal money making device that cost thousands of lives. So, to say that the D's were innocent of knowing of this false information is factually innacurate. They had been relying on it for years to do essentially the same thing and also to try and get SH overthrown by his own people. Then, when W changed that policy to one of we were going to overthrow SH using our military in a direct invasion, again based essentially on the same info., the majority of the D.'s went along. Thus, it is hard to have your cake and eat it too. It really just amazed me how no one wants to attribute any fault to the D's in this. I mean if Diss and anyone who read anything knew that the Iraq info was mostly bogus before the war, don't you think the D's know :shrug:

Sorry for the rant - but it just bugs me when people act like the D's would never ever do anything like what W did, when the facts show they went, for the most part, hand in hand with him and had been sentencing Iraqis to death for years before W ever took power :shrug:

Again and so there is no confusion, I think W is a horrible person and am sad he is in office. But, that does not change the fact that the D's are horrible as well.

Clinton isn't president and wasn't when we went into Iraq and had nothing to do with that vote. Why are you bringing him up? Not once have I said the Democrats are angels or completely without blame. You've made assumptions based on a brief post. However, am I laying most of the blame for this war with the president? Yes, because he intended to go into Iraq before 9/11 and leveraged it as a way to go in there, even though the terrorists were mostly Saudis. Are you saying the dems also intended to go into Iraq before 9/11?

Honestly, I do not know the details of the oil for food program and so cannot make a comparison. It just isn't the same thing as getting rid of an entire regime. These seem to me to be two separate situations.

[strandinthewind]

Clinton isn't president and wasn't when we went into Iraq and had nothing to do with that vote. Why are you bringing him up?

Because it is impossible to consider Iraq in the contect of only what happened in the Bush Administration. Regardless of who was Pres. in the 90's - the fact of the matter is the US attacked Iraq in more than one way throughout the 90's. So, to suddenly fault W for following the natural extension of that policy after 9/11 is a little disingenuous, esp. considering most of the D's have been right there with him.

Are you saying the dems also intended to go into Iraq before 9/11?

They did. The no fly zones effectively established a US presence in most of Iraq. Also, the Oil for Food program, which is estimated to have killed more than the entire current war, was also a way in which the US put its presence their to a detrimental effect :shrug:

Honestly, I do not know the details of the oil for food program and so cannot make a comparison. It just isn't the same thing as getting rid of an entire regime. These seem to me to be two separate situations.

Here are some of the dtails on it

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/sanclook.htm

http://www.reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/072100-03.htm

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160007

I mean I think even Diss will agree with me that the Oil For Food was the biggest non-war war there ever was. It was a horrid thing that a handful of realy rich people made a ton of money on. It also was a tool SH used to stay in power.

In the end and as I mentioned before, W must share most of the resp. for the invasion of Iraq. But, my point is the D's will never impeach him because they were right there with him and in the years before W had advocated killing Iraqi's on essentially the same info. and they gave W the power to invade and would had to have been horse's assess not to have known what W was up to.

On edit - I see little difference between starving around 500,000 children to death and sending deadly missles over based on the WMD info. and a well supported by both sides all out invasion in the sense that both kill and were based on false stuff. So, if I fault one, I have to fault the other :shrug:

[dissention]

That was a pivitol point in the election for sure...showing that Kerry didn't even know why he voted to give him the authorization to use force.. And while I knew he was just misspeaking, and couldn't really explain these difficult Senate votes in plain words--I knew Americans wouldn't buy it, atleast not enough of them...

Which is why I can't understand everyone saying he will run again in 08, seems to me the same questions of his words will come again and be rehashed again..the swift boat idiots will come out again--seems like he would be a losing uphill battle in 08

Had Kerry never voted to let Bush use force, things wouldve been much easier..but in reality the whole thing was a lose-lose.. Had he not voted YES, he would have been called a wimp, yadayada, and had he not voted to for the funding (the first time) he would have been accused of trying to fail to support the military

Chris

Have you ever read Andrea Dworkin's piece on why she was voting for Kerry? If not, you can now because I searched high and low for it just for you, dear. ;) It's a good read, but I liked Dworkin, anyway. I can hear Jason laughing his ass off right now at that little confession, too.

My Gamble
Given the choice between two dud candidates, Andrea Dworkin doesn't usually bother to vote. But this time, with a heavy heart, she's going for Kerry.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1340476,00.html

I live in Washington, DC now, after nearly 30 years of living in New York City. Washington is built on swampland, literally, an origin that signals its character. It was designed to look like Paris. There are boulevards, monuments, museums, along with a dangerous, desolate, and impoverished inner city, still not rebuilt from the 1968 riots triggered by the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Citizens of Washington, DC do not have any voting representatives in Congress. There was and is no state entity as such. Washington is a district, not quite a city, sleepy and southern in its habits, not fully enfranchised. We are not so much citizens as members of a colony, like Guam or Puerto Rico.

Yet this is a swamp devoted to politics. The players in this company town live on political barter, while amassing personal fortunes for themselves. I am not a player. I experience instead an adumbrated form of democracy, articulated most eloquently by the invitation every four years to vote for a president and vice-president.

I accept the vote as a primitive expression of democracy out of respect for my suffragist foremothers. They fought so hard for women's civil and economic equality and ended up settling for the vote. I measure this up against a rape or an honour killing and I don't think it counts for much.

Anyway, I am supposed to vote for one or the other of two men who are differentiated by style, not by policies. They have more in common with each other than either has with me. They also both lie.

I'm voting for John Kerry, and I'm not happy. In 1972, during the Vietnam war, I refused to vote for anti-war candidate George McGovern, even though I had spent most of my young adult life in opposition to the war, because he was anti-abortion. I refused to vote for über-liberal, pro-civil rights, all-around good guy Hubert Humphrey because he did nothing while demonstrators were being beaten up by police in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic Convention. In 1976, while my feminist colleagues organised for Jimmy Carter, I refused to sign petitions or vote for him because he was anti-abortion. The first thing Carter did when elected was to have his health secretary end all federally funded abortions, which was the only access poor women had. (Yes, my sisters learned something. Now the legality of abortion, not access, is the feminist litmus test - too little, too late).

In 1984, I couldn't bear Geraldine Ferraro as the first woman vice-presidential candidate because her husband, John Zaccaro, owned a warehouse filled with pornography. The Washington Post reported that year that Zaccaro refused to comply with requests for full income and tax disclosures. I voted the first time (in 1992) for Bill Clinton because, on a lecture tour in Texas, I heard George HW Bush - known fondly in retrospect as 41 (George W being 43) - accuse Clinton of un-American activities, which he inferred from a trip Clinton had made to Moscow when he was at Oxford as a student. In 2000, I voted for Ralph Nader. I don't recommend myself as a model for citizenship, except to say that I have always abhorred the lesser-of-two-evils philosophy, and Al Gore let himself be dressed by Naomi Wolf.

I couldn't be bothered to vote most of the time because it was almost always a choice between the corrupt and the more corrupt. There is the primordial sludge and then the more pristine amoeba. My guy's the amoeba; the other guy's the sludge. This is a recipe for madness, otherwise known as the American president.

Of course, who could have imagined September 11, 2001, and Bush, the war president? And if one were to strike out against state sponsors of terrorism, who could imagine mistaking Iraq for Iran, even though in English they appear nearly the same? This is a George W kind of error.

Let me tell you about my amoeba, Kerry. He voted for the Iraq war. Asked if he, knowing then what he knows now (no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear arsenal), would have voted differently, he said no. He is vaguely committed to putting more soldiers on the ground. He showed up for his political convention as a Vietnam war combatant, not as an anti-war protester, which he was, with honour. He is a multi-millionaire married to a multi-billionaire. His running mate, John Edwards, is more pro-war than he is, less ambivalent and less ambiguous. Edwards is also a multi-millionaire.

My amoeba talks about the middle-class; he has conveniently forgotten about the poor. (Edwards used to talk about poverty before he was absorbed into Kerry's attempted seduction of the middle class.)

My amoeba calls prostitution a "nuisance" instead of a crime against women. Some 25 years ago my amoeba was a prosecutor. He prosecuted at least one rape case, which he won. He was responsible for setting up counselling for rape victims. This was precocious and superb.

Fast forward: two weeks before the election, my amoeba recognised that American women make 76 cents against every male dollar and decided to draw attention to this fact. Such is the gratitude of women that my amoeba beats the primordial sludge by as much as 10 percentage points among women in the subsequent polls. He is especially popular with single women who, needless to say, have to support themselves.

My amoeba promises improvement. He will support pay-equity legislation. (Have I been in a deep sleep? Is this 1970?) In the parlance of his campaign, he has a plan. He keeps the specifics to himself. He will also raise the minimum wage over several years from $5.15 an hour to $7 an hour which, his campaign reckons, will give 9.2 million women another $3,800 a year. How pathetic is that? He has a plan for health insurance and another plan to produce jobs and a plan to protect social security, that tiny safety net that older Americans, especially women, have against utter poverty. In any other year, this wouldn't be enough to differentiate him from the primordial sludge, because mostly it is not true. It's either the Iraq war or health care, not both.

Now look at what George W offers me. First, he gives me his middle initial: "W is for Women". I don't want his initial inscribed on me. I find the idea repugnant. He does not recognise the pay differential between men and women. On the other hand, he is against sex trafficking and has said so when addressing the UN. He has strong evangelical support for this position. He is for bringing equality to women in the Arab and Islamic world. I may want it and work for it in the US, but he and his most anti-feminist rightwing advisors, including David Frum and Richard Perle, want women's liberation in the Gulf region, and I do not mean the Gulf of Mexico. Anywhere but here seems to be the general plan.

And what is the price for these women's rights? It's a small one. Many bombs must fall and many innocents must die.

The Bush/Cheney argument for reelection comes down to this: in Iraq we have created a new site for terrorists and they are so busy there that they won't come here. Vote for us and you'll be safe. Vote for Kerry/Edwards and you'll likely die. One has a choice between massacres there or here. Vote Bush/Cheney. Choose there.

Despite the American disdain for irony, electoral politics in the US is nothing if not a lesson in irony. Richard Nixon the anti-communist went to China and ended the Vietnam war. Clinton, prince of Democratic post-liberals, joined with Republicans - in fact, led them - to get African-American single mothers kicked off welfare and to create political cover for those politicians abandoning the poor. He then had the honour of being proclaimed, by Toni Morrison no less, the first black president. And, in this land of political hallucination, maybe he was. He also may be the only black president.

What Kerry will do is this: he will get European and even Arab allies to pony up in Iraq; he will intensify the war there; he will bring in more troops. This policy will make it impossible for the Democratic candidate who follows him, or he himself if he runs again, to have anything but a pro-war policy. A rightwing Republican, maybe even a woman, plain-spoken and Reaganesque (or Thatcheresque), will triumph by promising an end to the Iraq war either four or eight years from now. He or she will deliver because the war will be over and the US and its many allies will have lost. This will be another generation's Vietnam with the blame having a certain global quality. As at his convention, Kerry the combatant will have trumped Kerry the anti-war protester.

So why is it that I'm voting for Kerry? Oh, right, it's because my Massachusetts amoeba is better than Texas primordial sludge. Make no mistake: I have regional emotions. When someone from Massachusetts, the centre of abolitionist activism, and someone from Texas, in our day and age a symbol of the Confederacy, mix it up, our civil war is being refought. Kerry represents those brilliant abolitionists - and he does it badly. Shame on him.

The thing is that I'm scared to death that Bush will win. If Bush wins, we get more terror, charmingly diverted to countries not the United States. I call that a plan. I admire its simplicity. Who said that boy is stupid? Oh, I did, a few paragraphs up: the whole Iraq/Iran confusion. Of course, being dyslexic is not the same as being stupid.

The Bush/Cheney plan is the equivalent of a moral sewer. I don't want to roll in that dirt. It's someone else's blood and it doesn't wash off (cf the Scottish play).

We dream, some of us, of being able to be good in a better world. The morally reprehensible - the Bush/ Cheney strategy - smacks us between the eyes; and then, and only then, do we vote for the lesser of two evils. But don't forget that they are two evils. Sick to my stomach because he will stay in Iraq, I'm voting for John Kerry.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

That was a great read..thanks so much...My favorite line was this :

"Vote for us and you'll be safe. Vote for Kerry/Edwards and you'll likely die"

I love that lol..so typical

Chris

[dissention]

That was a great read..thanks so much...My favorite line was this :

"Vote for us and you'll be safe. Vote for Kerry/Edwards and you'll likely die"

I love that lol..so typical

Chris

I love this passage:

So why is it that I'm voting for Kerry? Oh, right, it's because my Massachusetts amoeba is better than Texas primordial sludge. Make no mistake: I have regional emotions. When someone from Massachusetts, the centre of abolitionist activism, and someone from Texas, in our day and age a symbol of the Confederacy, mix it up, our civil war is being refought. Kerry represents those brilliant abolitionists - and he does it badly. Shame on him.

Preach it, sister. :laugh: For all of her bluster and dirt-kicking, she was a smart cookie. A pornographer herself, but still one helluva smart individual. I think she went a little insane during the last few years of her life, but that piece proved she hadn't totally lost it.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I'm watching a video of Senator Clinton speak on cspan.org at the the 2005 Democratic Farmer Labor Party's Hubert H Humphrey Dinner in Minneapolis.

Some good quotes from her speech :


"we continue to try to make sure that PROGRESS occurs in the congress and we stand against the reactionary radical right wing agenda of the Congress and the White House!"


"I know I dont need to tell you how important it is that we fill Mark Dayton's seat in the Senate, with the right kind of person..we CANNOT fill that seat with someone who will mindlessly rubberstamp the agenda of this administration...we DO NOT NEED anymore members of Congress who act like extras in the move 'I Robot' ..we need leaders who will stand up against the special interests, and stand up for the public interests.. "

"they control the levers of power, they flaunt that power, they adhere to a rigid ideology that is well outside the mainstream of American politics, it's an ideology that ignores some of the most basic priniciples of our founding fathers..like the accountability of checks and balances in government...now their determination to do this I think has taken a lot of Americans by surprise..it seems so out of sync with where we believe our country should be..so no wonder so many Americans now believe that we are on the wrong track. "

"we find ourself in a struggle against terrorism..and yet we see our nation alienating many of our allies, by a prideful unilateralism..and we find our government is not planning for the future.."

"we cannot just believe that America can just decide what we want to do, and direct the rest of the world to follow our orders, merely because we said so!"

" at a time when we need to recognize our connection to the world, this administration, is pursuing both an international and domestic agenda that veers to the right, and threatens to just literally knock our country off course.."

"for five years they had no domestic agenda, people are now finding out what they really have in mind for us, and i think you will see Democrats coming back starting in 2006 and beyond."

"take this battle over social security..at its root is an idealogical rejection of the whole idea of government sponsered insurance.. we must not be fooled, this is not a legitimate debate over which policy course to take....to safegaurd the future of Social Security. what they intend for social security is part and parsol, of what they intend of a whole range of policy...they are working to push our govt and society furthur to the right..and working to consolidate power in away i've never seen.."

[strandinthewind]

LOL - I voted for Kerry for essesntially the same idea - I realize that makes me a hypocrite - but the lesser of two evils is better than nothing I guess. Thanks for posting that.

[dissention]

LOL - I voted for Kerry for essesntially the same idea - I realize that makes me a hypocrite - but the lesser of two evils is better than nothing I guess. Thanks for posting that.

You're welcome. I think that piece is one of the best and most brutally honest about the last election. A lot of people wouldn't admit that they were voting Kerry because he wasn't Bush, nor would they admit that Kerry was essentially Bush-lite. Leave it to that brilliant quack and The Guardian to print that. :laugh:

I read a lot of her books when I was in college (though Mercy was a bit too much for me to read) and always thought that if she had dropped the extremity of her anti-porn schtick and concentrated more on politics, she would have been much more effective.

"The First Amendment was written by slave traders!" :laugh: