The Notion

Fear and Smear

posted by greider on 08/12/2006 @ 3:00pm

An evil symbiosis does exist between Muslim terrorists and American politicians, but it is not the one Republicans describe. The jihadists need George W. Bush to sustain their cause. His bloody crusade in the Middle East bolsters their accusation that America is out to destroy Islam. The president has unwittingly made himself the lead recruiter of willing young martyrs.

More to the point, it is equally true that Bush desperately needs the terrorists. They are his last frail hope for political survival. They divert public attention, at least momentarily, from his disastrous war in Iraq and his shameful abuses of the Constitution. The "news" of terror--whether real or fantasized--reduces American politics to its most primitive impulses, the realm of fear-and-smear where George Bush is at his best.

So, once again in the run-up to a national election, we are visited with alarming news. A monstrous plot, red alert, high drama playing on all channels and extreme measures taken to tighten security.

The White House men wear grave faces, but they cannot hide their delight. It's another chance for Bush to protect us from those aliens with funny names, another opportunity to accuse Democrats of aiding and abetting the enemy.

This has worked twice before. It could work again this fall unless gullible Americans snap out of it. Wake up, folks, and recognize how stupid and wimpish you look. I wrote the following two years ago during a similar episode of red alerts: "Bush's ‘war on terrorism' is a political slogan--not a coherent strategy for national defense--and it succeeds brillantly only as politics. For everything else, it is quite illogical."

Where is the famous American skepticism? The loose-jointed ability to laugh at ourselves in anxious moments? Can't people see the campy joke in this docudrama called "Terror in the Sky"? The joke is on them. I have a suspicion that a lot of Americans actually enjoy the occasional fright since they know the alarm bell does actually not toll for them. It's a good, scary movie, but it's a slapstick war.

The other day at the airport in Burlington, Vermont, security guards confiscated liquid containers from two adolescent sisters returning home from vacation. The substance was labeled "Pure Maple Syrup." I am reminded of the Amish pretzel factory that was put on Pennsylvania's list of targets. Mothers with babes in arms are now told they must take a swiq of their baby formula before they can board the plane. I already feel safer.

The latest plot uncovered by British authorities may be real. Or maybe not. We do not yet know enough to be certain. The early reporting does not reassure or settle anything (though the Brits do sound more convincing than former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who gave "terror alerts" such a bad reputation). Tony Blair is no more trustworthy on these matters than Bush and Cheney. British investigators are as anxious as their American counterparts to prove their vigilance (and support their leaders). The close collaboration with Pakistani authorities doesn't exactly add credibility.

One question to ask is: Why now? The police have had a "mole" inside this operation since late 2005, but have yet to explain why they felt the need to swoop down and arest alleged plotters at this moment (two days after the Connecticut primary produced a triumph for anti-war politics).

The early claim that a massive takedown of a dozen airliners was set for August 16 is "rubbish," according to London authorities. So who decided this case was ripe for its public rollout? Blair consulted Cheney: What did they decide? American economist Jamie Galbraith was on a ten-hour flight from Manchester, England, to Boston on the day the story broke, and has wittily reflected on other weak points in the official story line.

The point is, Americans are not entirely defenseless pawns. They can keep their wits and reserve judgment. They can voice loudly the skepticism that Bush and company have earned by politicizing of the so-called "war" from the very start. Leading Democrats are toughening up. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid uses plain English to explain what the Republicans up to--using genuine concerns of national security "as a political wedge issue. It is disgusting, but not surprising."

Instead of cowering in silence, the opposition party should start explaining this sick joke. Political confusion starts with the ill-conceived definition of a "war" that's best fought by police work, not heavy brigades on a battlefield. Forget the hype, call for common sense and stout hearts.

All we know, for sure, is that Bush and his handlers are not going to back off the fear-and-smear strategy until it loses an election for them. Maybe this will be the year.

Comments (271)

  1. couldn't have said it any better myself....

    Posted by darladoon at 08/12/2006 @ 3:35pm

  2. Today, Saturday/12 Aug 2006, MSNBC is reporting that the British did not wish to arrest the 'terrorists' at this time. Reasons -- some did not have passports and none had airline tickets. Bush et al pushed for this media circus arrest of 'terrorists'.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/12/2006 @ 3:39pm

  3. I certainly don't disagree that the Republicans will exploit this for all it's worth, but it's hard for me to believe the rumors that the timing was intentional. Wouldn't it have been better for Bush if the news had come two days *before* the primaries?

    Posted by aaronrp at 08/12/2006 @ 3:47pm

  4. rio--

    is there something in particular with which you disagree, or do you just want to perform your usual non-sensical, hannity-esque ramblings?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/12/2006 @ 4:47pm

  5. I certainly don't disagree that the Republicans will exploit this for all it's worth, but it's hard for me to believe the rumors that the timing was intentional. Wouldn't it have been better for Bush if the news had come two days *before* the primaries?

    Posted by AARONRP 08/12/2006 @ 3:47pm

    They thought Lieberman would win.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/12/2006 @ 5:23pm

  6. I certainly don't disagree that the Republicans will exploit this for all it's worth, but it's hard for me to believe the rumors that the timing was intentional. Wouldn't it have been better for Bush if the news had come two days *before* the primaries?

    Posted by AARONRP 08/12/2006 @ 3:47pm

    Timing it after the primaries is just one of many considerations. (And there was no reason to have it occur before the primaries since no rightwing candidates were at risk). Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan are so much worse than our braintrust was prepared for. Congress is in recess with nothing to show for itself. The oil industry continues to do its part in inciting a revolution.

    What better time to drag out the "nothing to see here but Islamic terrorists who hate our freedom" bag?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/12/2006 @ 5:30pm

  7. Posted by DARLADOON 08/12/2006 @ 4:47pm

    You're sweet to offer him the benefit of the doubt.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/12/2006 @ 5:31pm

  8. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/12/2006 @ 3:54pm NO, the American people are not stupid enough to fall for your analysis Mr. Greider!

    It must be the pure genius of staging the hamstringing of the Islamic terrorists plot AFTER Joe Lieberman, a "War on Terror" supporter, was defeated by the leftwing "cut and runner" Lamont that swung the deal!

    But, don't worry you have already fooled the most gullible and illogical readers!

    They may have been hoping for Joementum to win. Or equally plausibly, they were hoping for Lamont to win, and then get caught off guard while still in celebration mode ... after all, if they truly believe that playing the only card in their deck is going to help, they want it to help in the GENERAL ELECTION.

    Also, quite plausibly, Tony Blair held off on using it until he needed it the most, since he is also facing political problems, and they do not necessarily run on the timetable of American primaries.

    However, the wonderful news is this: there is no need to see this as a partisan political shot by Mr. Greider. It can just as easily be an honest expression of how he sees things.

    Since the actions of the radical reactionary wing of the Republican party have tarred them all with the brush of the party of incompetence in the fight against terrorism, playing the terrorism card will not keep a Republican majority in the House.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/12/2006 @ 5:31pm

  9. Rio Blotto, why don't you pucker your lips and manipulate your dirty forefinger up and down over them while enunciating eehhhhhhh? Do this repeatedly on a busy street corner if you're anywhere near a town. You'll soon have the help you need.

    If you're nowhere near a town or other inhabited place go jump in a lake and sing I'm an Okie from Muskogie 5 times while remaining continuously underwater.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/12/2006 @ 5:32pm

  10. " The jihadists need George W. Bush to sustain their cause. "

    Should read.....

    "The dems need the the jihadists to sustain their cause."

    .....in other words, the worsre the media pronounce the situation, the better it is for the dems...anyone think the MSN ever gets any story right, much less the truth, from Any side of the spectrum?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/12/2006 @ 5:36pm

  11. "They thought Lieberman would win"

    He did, in the long run...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/12/2006 @ 5:37pm

  12. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/12/2006 @ 3:54pm

    Rio....Dumbya and the neonuts have already fooled the most gullible part of the population -you and yours! For instance...you all elected him because he claimed the conservative mandate. Has he conserved ANYTHING during his reign? I think not.... You eleced him becasue he made you beleive 9/11 and Iraq were connected, and then denied, and then said it again. Nearly 50% of the US popualtion still believe it. I'd give pretty fair odds on which crowd that is by and large. And finally, he said he'd make the US safer by eliminating terrorists and the 9/11 mastermind. Of course, he very quickly abandoned the hunt for OBL, and quickly invaded a neighboring country for no specific reason. Now there are actually MORE terrorists and OBL is still out there.

    Great job you and your numb-nutted brethren have done so far. Keep up the good work for a while longer and we'll all be speaking Farsi.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/12/2006 @ 6:03pm

  13. He did, in the long run...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/12/2006 @ 5:37pm

    Since you're standing in mid-November or later, tell me who has won the World Series.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/12/2006 @ 6:36pm

  14. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/12/2006 @ 5:36pm, in editorial mode, advises us that: The jihadists need George W. Bush to sustain their cause. "

    Should read.....

    "The dems need the the jihadists to sustain their cause."

    .....in other words, the worse the media pronounce the situation, the better it is for the dems...anyone think the MSN ever gets any story right, much less the truth, from Any side of the spectrum?

    If only it required the MSM to pronounce on the situation, Bush would be safe. Sadly for his majority in the House, all that is required is for the MSM to report the current events and do their usual "he said / she said" sans pronouncement reporting, and the Republican party's chances are stuffed.

    Of course, we have seen this week that the relationship between the jihadists and the radical reactionary wing of the Redebtlican party runs both ways ... the jihadists grow their ranks as a result of present policy, and the present administration feels that their only hope for electoral victory is to scare the public into forgetting who is in charge at the moment.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/12/2006 @ 7:51pm

  15. maasch---

    perhaps you'd like to explain why the democratic party needs the jihadists to sustain their cause. there is near overwhelming consensus in the intelligence community, a near majority of politicians, and 60% of the american public, who now believe that not only is the iraq war distracting us from securing our selves from attack, but that bush foreign policy, in general, is moving in precisely the wrong direction.

    based on your suggestion, can i properly assume that you believe bush is making good choices, in iraq and the middle east in general? if so, then you're a lot dumber than i thought.

    how do the jihadists benefit the democratic party, even though every time there is a terrorist attack, the media goes hyper over why the dems are weak, and why the repubs are strong? the jihadists are the final thread from which the bush administration hangs.

    maasch, you are pretty weak, young man. if you can't admit that you're wrong on this one, then that's pretty sad.....

    Posted by darladoon at 08/12/2006 @ 7:55pm

  16. let's assume for the sake of argument that these guys are the genuine article = Terrorists. they are not on the level of the keystone-terrorists busted recently in florida witha laughable "plot" to blow up the sears tower.

    so.

    aside from the obvious ruse of a "war", the issue that's left out is that this is precisely what an aggressive response to terror ought to look like. go find the plotters and try them for the applicable crimes under law.

    my guess, given the neo-retarded nature of our/the brits "intelligence" community, is that these guys are wanna-bes... set up by an highly suggestive govt operative.

    whoop.

    de.

    dooo

    Posted by dabar at 08/12/2006 @ 8:30pm

  17. You know, I have heard of the Nation and I always knew that it was very left wing. I had no idea that it was also stupid and delusional, as are its readers. Keep reading your periodical, and ignoring things that a monkey could see in the world. If anyone thinks that there is no terrorist threat in the world, then I feel sorry for you. The Hun is at the gate and its time people stopped trying for peace at any cost and pull their heads out of the sand.

    Posted by Cruisin at 08/12/2006 @ 9:38pm

  18. Oh, and by the way, don't bother responding to this post or my previous one, as I have stomached about as much of this website as I possibly can and will not come back again to read it. I also find it funny that the nation says that Bush is limiting our rights, like that of freedom of speech, while the nation staff will edit or remove comments they don't like. Double standards, but what else can you expect from left wing delusionals.

    Posted by Cruisin at 08/12/2006 @ 9:43pm

  19. Posted by CRUISIN 08/12/2006 @ 9:38pm: things that a monkey could see in the world

    So tell us, dear Cruisin, what does a monkey see?

    (By the way, you write well for a monkey.)

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/12/2006 @ 9:50pm

  20. Posted by CRUISIN 08/12/2006 @ 9:43pm: while the nation staff will edit or remove comments they don't like.

    What comments have the nation staff edited or removed?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/12/2006 @ 9:52pm

  21. Posted by CRUISIN 08/12/2006 @ 9:38pm: The Hun is at the gate

    The Mongolians are at the Gate? How long have they been there?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/12/2006 @ 9:55pm

  22. Such a grave national emergency notwithstanding, neither Bush nor Blair have seen fit to cancel their Summer vacations early. It's shocking that Bush knew about the alledged plot for at least several days without taking any action to stop passengers from carrying liquids aboard planes in order to thwart terrorists. Wait, you mean they knew about the 'liquid threat' for years and are only now making an issue of it? Is it any surprise that once again an election is coming and Bush and Company are sounding the terror alerts left and right? Bush, Cheney, Blair, the Israeli's have no credibility, whether shedding their crocodile tears over the thousands killed in Lebanon and Iraq or pointing fingers at their opposition and screaming 'terrorist.' People head directly to your voting booth and vote these scoundrels OUT!

    Posted by countmyvote at 08/12/2006 @ 10:18pm

  23. Cruisin was pretty funny, wasn't he?

    On a thread called "Fear and Smear" he stepped in to smear everyone involved at The Nation, then ran away with his tail between his legs before anyone could respond to him.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/12/2006 @ 10:51pm

  24. I think that's what's known as 'courage' in the wingnut language. Or is that how they define 'debate'?

    Dangit, where's that wingnut-to-Enlish dictionary?

    Posted by Lillian at 08/12/2006 @ 10:54pm

  25. RB

    At least if Osama was handed to Bush by some county, like say Sudan, I doubt he would have refused the offer!

    The only problem with that argument is that in 1996, bin-Laden hadn't been tied to any terrorist acts. He had been known as a financier of Islamist organizations but his first attack was in 1998 (the embassies).

    I'm glad the nation took such decisive action on that in the 90's just as they did on all the terrorist attacks against the American military, diplomats, citizens and embassies which by the wary ARE American soil!

    Right, because I'm sure you righties wouldn't been accusing him of using the crisis to divert attention from the scandals underway. By the way, he did try to take out bin-Laden in '98, but missed him by an hour or so.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/12/2006 @ 11:14pm

  26. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/12/2006 @ 10:55pm: At least if Osama was handed to Bush by some county, like say Sudan, I doubt he would have refused the offer!

    Hey, it's the scared little boy.

    Hi, scared little boy.

    Hard to say what Dear Leader would have done. He apparently had several opportunities to take out the evildoer Zarqawi prior to the Iraq war, but, for some strange reason, refused the offer.

    And, he did have Osama cornered at Tora Bora, but refused to allow US troops to take him out.

    But whatever Dear Leader did decide to do, it would certainly be the Right thing. Because, as you know scared little boy, Dear Leader is infallible. There's a lotta talk about take out Osama this and take out Osama that, but Dear Leader knows what's best.

    So don't worry. You can come out from under the bed. Dear Leader is protectin you.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/12/2006 @ 11:22pm

  27. "NO, the American people are not stupid enough to fall for your analysis Mr. Greider!" ........

    I registered onto this site to refute this statement that crops up repeatedly without contest. I am sure I remember the 2004 republican convention in NY. And does any one not remember the 10,000 Federal Law Enforcement officers that locked down that city?? Freeing the local NYPD to arrest en mass Citizen protesters??? That time our financial centers were under a creditable threat..They said.. remember, after the convention closed that we found it was info from a captured lap top that had been in US custody for 2 years???.. I say the American people have gone to extraordinary lengths to prove, not just to our fellow citizens, but to the world at large that we as a people have an unfathomed depth of stupidity. Having been privileged to be born FREE in the USA, we are stupid enough to believe one man when he says HE has the right to remove OUR rights. We are so stupid we don't even require grace or articulation from him... We ignore the fact that the same guy that is taking 230 years of treasured Liberty, The guy that lied us into war, was a history major at Yale, a preeminent institution. We ignore the fact that 2 months before he led US to attack a sovereign Nation, with no justification, DID NOT KNOW MUSLIMS HAD TWO SECTS. .......... Any People who would willingly give up the treasure of liberty, freedom, PRIDE this Nation had before this scum usurped the election should feel glad others consider you stupid... because if you gave what your forebears fought and worked for away with out a whimper... Well all that is left is TREASON!!! cliff 567

    Posted by cliff 567 at 08/12/2006 @ 11:24pm

  28. Posted by LILLIAN 08/12/2006 @ 10:51pm

    He may have Lillian but the Black Knight has returned.

    Been reading so much silly American self aggrandisement stuff on this thread that I thought, sweet Lillian at least needs help to lift the fog from her mind. (The others are beyond help).

    Delusions of granduer probably are a consequence of being empire but this is not really about your mob at all (except Bush).

    The significant thing about this is that the erstwhile supporter of the Taliban and by implication Al Qaeda, Pakistan, is the big player. In fact if it weren't for GW's tete a tete with Musharif, Pakistan just wouldn't be in on our Crusade, whoops I meant Jihad, against the terrorists. Take a bow George!

    So stiff shit young Lillian, your mob, left, centre and right, just ain't in on this one. Except of course if the Pakis hadn't fingered those explosive lads, quite a few Yanks could have been sent to kingdom come. But your subset of the larger mob, no doubt, would have seen that eventuality as a salutory reminder (to the wingnuts) that Bush is evil and to hell with the expense.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/12/2006 @ 11:43pm

  29. Posted by LRJONES4 08/12/2006 @ 11:43pm: He may have Lillian but the Black Knight has returned.

    Good Lord! You think of yourself as a knight, LR?

    And a Black one, at that.

    My god, you're as delusional as Rio.

    Go forthwith, O' brave and noble Black Knight, and slay the Evildoers with your trusty and glorious keyboard. Do not waste your time here. Regrettably, you must leave us, for the War is upon us.

    Quickly. The world needs you. Go forth with godspeed, O' brave and noble one.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/12/2006 @ 11:58pm

  30. Posted by LRJONES4 08/12/2006

    Thank you O but I was looking for a smile from the fair maiden who so named me. I think she has bolted, perhaps with ST, for whom she was riding shot gun or its Athurian equivalent, last time we met.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/13/2006 @ 12:31am

  31. rio has suggested that the nation is somehow beholden to the democratic party, despite the fact that, throughout the terms of many past democratic presidents they still managed to sell copies of their journal. in other words, they have criticized many a democratic president.

    so, rio bravo, instead of constantly pointing to cases in which "our party" was at fault, try criticizing what "we" did wrong. got it?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2006 @ 01:51am

  32. and in some senses, this is precisely where lieberman is actually correct in saying that political parties are the problem. why should anyone be beholden to a political party?

    i certainly wouldn't.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2006 @ 01:52am

  33. Posted by CRUISIN 08/12/2006 @ 9:38pm You know, I have heard of the Nation and I always knew that it was very left wing. I had no idea that it was also stupid and delusional, as are its readers. Keep reading your periodical, and ignoring things that a monkey could see in the world. If anyone thinks that there is no terrorist threat in the world, then I feel sorry for you. The Hun is at the gate and its time people stopped trying for peace at any cost and pull their heads out of the sand.

    Glad to see another opponent of the Bush administration drop by at the Notion. I agree that the Bush administration does not take the threat seriously, and should be ousted in favor of those who do. After all, this is an administration that is out trying to talk groups of whackos like that Sonny (mispelled as "Sunni" in their first reports) into planning a terrorist plot so that they can have something to splash on the front pages ... instead of doing the hard work required to find, catch and convict real terrorists. They abandoned the job in Afghanistan before the Mission was Accomplished (and its still not accomplished) in order to go tear assing around Iraq because they thought there was more political "oomph" from a War in Iraq. They brought too few troops for an effective occupation, and started the ball rolling on this present occupation quagmire than is responsible for recruiting new terrorists.

    In fact, it seems that they were aware of the threat of liquid bombs, but refused to do anything about it until the latest threat was made public, and only then did they start working on the security loophole. And because the Department of Homeland Insecurity dropped the ball, they had no idea what quantities of liquid might be dangerous, and so they had to confiscate lip gloss for fear that 50 terrorist women might book the same flight and put together enough liquid for a bomb.

    But there is a typo or two in the text. Reading the first part of the text makes it seem like the ongoing incompetence and failure of the Bush administration is a "leftist" thing. Radical reactionaries like the Bush regime are typically referred to as "right" wing, not "left" wing, and as they have been in charge for the entire series of failures in the defense against terrorism since 9/11, the decision to politicize terrorism and refusal to take it seriously is a "right" wing thing. It has something to do with political history and who sat where in the early days of the French Revolution.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/13/2006 @ 02:12am

  34. Posted by DARLADOON 08/13/2006 @ 01:52am and in some senses, this is precisely where lieberman is actually correct in saying that political parties are the problem. why should anyone be beholden to a political party?

    i certainly wouldn't.

    Indeed, and if Joe had decided to make an independent run from the start on account of this, then I, for one, would not be criticizing him for being a poor loser.

    What I find absurd is that Lieberman would have been happy to accept being the winner, and would certainly have insisted that it meant the end of a Lamont bid ... but refuses to accept defeat when the shoe is on the other foot.

    Its the putting a bet each way -- the willingness to accept the spoils of victory but unwillingness to accept the consequence of defeat -- that is going to lose the respect of a lot of people, as they mull over it, and probably lose Joe the election.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/13/2006 @ 02:17am

  35. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/13/2006 @ 12:51am I'm sure they would have found some acceptable way to satisfactorily surrender the country to Islamic facism and terrorism!

    I'm sure you are following a script, because I heard the Incompetent in Chief use that very phrase, but there is no such thing as Islamic Fascism. Arab Fascism is not Islamic, and Islamic Fundamentalism is not Fascist.

    Its that other kind of right wing evil, intolerant religious fundamentalism. It's just that your Incompetent In Chief could not call it by name, because it would risk offending intolerant religious fundamentalists among his supporters.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/13/2006 @ 02:21am

  36. while the nation staff will edit or remove comments they don't like. Posted by CRUISIN 08/12/2006 @ 9:43pm

    What comments have the nation staff edited or removed? Posted by ORWELL2005 08/12/2006 @ 9:52pm

    he stepped in to smear everyone involved at The Nation, then ran away with his tail between his legs before anyone could respond to him.

    Posted by LILLIAN 08/12/2006 @ 10:51pm

    Lily,

    CRU ran away because he is too intellectually lazy or dishonest to engage in a spirited debate. CRU makes a provocative statement about how The Nation is engaging in "censorship" but then does not supply one single example to back up his claim. Orwell correctly asked CRU to provide an instance where the The Nation staff had edited or removed comments from this site. However, CRU knows he can't "put up" so he decides to "shut up".

    Posted by blue photon at 08/13/2006 @ 02:58am

  37. "and in some senses, this is precisely where lieberman is actually correct in saying that political parties are the problem. why should anyone be beholden to a political party? i certainly wouldn't."

    and this is why the left is nowhere. no party, no progress. don't take the rantings of a tired, old, worn out, corrupt loser and draw conclusions like the one above. without a party, you're forked. the republicans have proved this recently, as was proven in russia in 1917, germany in 1929, and in western europe following ww2 with the emergence of social democratic movements. never mind the ideological differences (not the point here), the issue is that if the political goal is to redirect the priorities of the/a state (as is clearly the case for american progressives now), it cannot be done without a political party = one that is disciplined, ideologically coherent, and for the purposes of the left, committed to democratic values.

    lieberman.. yeesh.

    Posted by dabar at 08/13/2006 @ 02:59am

  38. Posted by CLIFF 567 08/12/2006 @ 11:24pm

    You said it Cliff baby. That's a worry. What is the cause of the stupidity?

    Anyway I'll let you into a little secret. A lot of the world way across the oceans, far away from your home, hasn't liked you (Americans) for a long, long time before this Bush became President. I'm sure your Lefty friends could tell you, for example, all about the fiascos in Central and South America in which the US got embroiled as a cause for that hate.

    That of course was also "unacceptable hegemony" and bloody murder to boot but the haters, apart from your indigenous self-haters, respected your strength.

    All that changed during the last few presidencies before GW. Not only were you still hated but also you were treated with derision by those who like, bin Laden laughed at your cowardice in the face of his "holy warriors" in places like Beirut and Mogadishu. Thus you were not only still hated but you were a laughing stock.

    You may still be hated but Bush has wiped the leer from the faces of many of the mockers. (That new repect of course has implications for negotiations with those (nations and organizations) who may wish to make peace with the US. For all the spluttering and rationalisations about Afghanistan and Iraq there is little evidence to suggest that Al Qaeda has not been seriously destabilised and had its capabilities substantially degraded as a result of both ventures. The Left has not been listening too carefully to its own rhetoric. They are telling us now that Iraq is a sectarian battleground between indigenous Iraqis. Whatever happened to Al Qaeda and its Bush provided Iraq recruiting facility?)

    A more likely cause, I would suggest, is that the US was, in the last half century or so, more generally hated by many out of jealousy and envy as it became a world power and opposed the idol of the Left: the Soviet Union. These attitudes to the US were exploited by the Left to score anti-capitalist political points against the administration of the day.

    The current crop of anti-Bush Lefties are either too young to remember or suffer from amnesia when comparing Bush's America with that of past presidents and administrations. I know that in my country the Left invariably hated and despised everything American, with a great passion, regardless of which party was running the show over there.

    I would suggest America, under GW, has earned the grudging respect of many foreigners who still don't love her and probably never would under any President.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/13/2006 @ 03:39am

  39. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/12/2006 @ 10:55pm

    Actually progressives and academics have tried for decades to do just that - the threat of global warming. However you worshippers of Mammon refuse to listen to reason or to science.....so here we are in its midst and now we start to hear "Why didn't anyone warn us!?"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/13/2006 @ 10:38am

  40. Posted by LRJONES4 08/13/2006 @ 03:39am: You may still be hated but Bush has wiped the leer from the faces of many of the mockers.

    Good Lord, Black Knight, are you serious? Iraq and Afghanistan have, if nothing else, demonstrated the limited effectiveness of conventional US military power.

    Sure, we can kill lots of people and destroy lots of stuff. But, we can't keep order in our occupied terrortories. And we can't afford to occupy countries that are devolving towards anarchy forever.

    Now go away and save us from evil, Black Knight.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/13/2006 @ 11:08am

  41. .

    K A R L

    R O V E

    T H E

    T E R R O R I S T

    . . .

    T H E

    C O N

    G A M E

    Despite his prior illegal actions, Karl Rove still retains his security clearance, and knew for WEEKS prior to London's latest fake terror alert what was coming. The odds that Rove himself advised London precisely what time to make this announcement are approximately 100%.

    This gave Rove the time necessary to plan a full frontal assault on the minds of the American People.

    Bill O'Reilly revealed Classified information in his recent live interview with Mossad Agent Michael Chertoff. While Chertoff wouldn't confirm or deny it, O'Reilly revealed that the FISA PROCESS was utilized to obtain warrants prior to placing wiretaps on some suspects in the US. While none of the suspects in the US was deemed to have been involved, this example was clear proof that the FISA Court WORKS – to the chagrin of Gonzales.

    http://progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1235

    Neo-Con Madmen Strike Again - The London Fear Frenzy

    Well before Wednesday the administration was aware of Britain's plans to launch a raid against a possible terror plot.

    With the knowledge of a terror-scare coming soon, all day Wednesday the entire Neo-Conservative Republican political apparatus had been busy assailing their political enemy's supposed unwillingness to fight terrorism. On Thursday the Neo-Con assault intensified and finally peaked when news of the British scheme was made public. Then, in the most vile and unbecoming manner possible, Republicans accused Democrats of having forgotten the attacks of 9/11. Some Republicans were even gleeful enough to remind reporters that with the anniversary of 9/11 fast approaching their attack on Democrats, coupled with the London conspiracy would do wonders for their lagging poll numbers:

    "Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," one White House official said.

    P L A Y

    B I G ? ? ?

    T E R R O R

    I S

    A

    G A M E ? ? ?

    For Karl Rove, terror is THE GAME.

    The timing of the release of this information was not coincidental. Let's take a look at how many other circumstances coincided with this fake terror scare…

    Lieberman was not the Democratic Party candidate - he was quite literally the Israeli candidate.

    AIPAC lost to Lamont, cracking the door open for an anti-AIPAC rebellion at the polls.

    Less than 36 hours later...

    "TERROR IN THE SKIES" was the headline on all news programming in the United States - and CNN would have you believe that the entire world changed that day (again).

    The world didn't change - but CNN's fear-mongering role in it on behalf of Israel has been clearly exposed.

    All of the President's NeoCons have made it known since Lieberman's loss to Lamont, just how important Lieberman has been to their agenda - the Zionist Agenda.

    They knew that Lieberman would lose, and Rove planned a full frontal attack for the aftermath – which by necessity always leads with a terror scare. Rove even called Lieberman directly to offer his help.

    As part of the game – a CNN talking head asks the question…

    "Lamont is the Al Qaeda Candidate???"

    KARL ROVE WROTE THAT TALKING POINT.

    CNN READ IT ON AIR.

    "When did you stop beating your wife?"

    Equally loaded questions.

    CNN's behavior is not coincidental.

    They're owned by Timer Warner, a company run and owned predominantly by Jews. That's not a racist remark - it is a fact. Just ask Ted Turner his opinion about CNN's propaganda slant toward Israel.

    T H E

    N E W

    I R A E L I

    E S P I O N A G E

    S C A N D A L

    At approximately 11:48 a.m. August 9th, CNN reported that Ariel Weinmann - a US Sailor - had been arrested for espionage committed on behalf of Russia. CNN intentionally lied. They know precisely that Weinmann had spied for Israel, as does the Jewish Media:

    Report: US sailor spied for Israel David Keyes, THE JERUSALEM POST

    Aug. 9, 2006

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525834949&pagename=J

    CNN created a false anonymous source, and claimed that an American Jew was spying for Russia.

    THE CNN LIE:

    From Barbara Starr CNN Washington Bureau Wednesday, August 9, 2006; Posted: 1:57 p.m. EDT (17:57 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A sailor facing espionage and desertion charges has been held at a Norfolk, Virginia, brig since March, the U.S. Navy said Wednesday.

    Ariel Weinmann, 21, is suspected of having worked on behalf of Russia, said military sources close to the case.

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/09/sailor.charge/index.html

    C N N ‘ S

    B A R B A R A

    S T A R

    I S

    A

    C I A

    D I S I N F O M A T I O N

    A S S E T

    Barbara Starr was CNN's correspondent at the Pentagon. The Pentagon is being run in concert with Israel. During the lead up to the Iraqi invasion – Karen Kwiatkowski confirmed that Israeli Generals were free to come and go at will – and NEVER recorded their visits.

    Israeli Mole Larry Franklin worked in the Pentagon – inside Rumsfeld's Office Of Special Plans.

    Franklin was arrested for spying in concert with AIPAC – for Israel.

    Israel calls the editorial shots at CNN.

    This Weinmann spy case is HUGE! As big as the Jonathan Pollard case.

    Notice it is NOT IN THE HEADLINES?

    Yet another story pertaining to Israeli spying was released into the ether during the fake terror hype.

    T H E

    A I P A C

    S P Y

    S C A N D A L

    The Israeli Connection

    http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25108&l=i&size=1&hd=0

    On the morning of February 12th, 2003, a small group of FBI eavesdroppers were listening intently for evidence of a treacherous crime. At the very moment that American forces were massing for an invasion of Iraq, there were indications that a rogue group of senior Pentagon officials were already conspiring to push the United States into another war--this time with Iran.

    A few miles away, FBI agents watched as Larry Franklin, an Iran expert and career employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, drove up to the Ritz-Carlton hotel across the Potomac from Washington.

    T H I S

    H E A D L I N E

    W A S

    B U R I E D

    A M I D

    T H E

    F A K E

    T E R R O R

    S C A R E

    Judge denies motion to toss pro-Israel spy case

    Friday, August 11, 2006; Posted: 10:06 a.m. EDT

    The indictment against Steven Rosen of Silver Spring, Maryland, and Keith Weissman of Bethesda, Maryland, alleges that they conspired to obtain classified reports on issues relevant to American policy, including the al-Qaida terror network; the bombing of the Khobar Towers dormitory in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel; and U.S. policy in Iran.

    Rosen and Weissman, former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, are accused of sharing the information with reporters and foreign diplomats. No trial date has been set.

    K H O B A R

    T O W E R S ? ? ?

    Why was Israel so keen to have Classified information relative to the Khobar Towers incident? Did they want to see if the US Intelligence officials had figured out that Mossad did it?

    S O…

    Are you a Coincidence Theorist?

    Pakistan's Intelligence Service purportedly uncovers a massive terror cell - and the news just happens to hit right on the heels of the biggest AIPAC loss in a decade.

    It couldn't very well have been "revealed" by Mossad" - as that would have been too obvious - so they credit Pakistan's ISI for uncovering the purported plot.

    Sure...you bet.

    9/11

    Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center... CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an instant mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even intelligent people from thinking for themselves.

    This was clearly an inside job.

    Karl Rove had advance knowledge of EVERY TERROR ALERT since Bush took office in 2000.

    Because he creates them.

    "T H E

    A R C H I T E C T"

    O F

    T E R R O R

    I S

    K A R L

    R O V E

    .

    Posted by plunger at 08/13/2006 @ 11:10am

  42. Mr. Greider

    Best article I've read on the Nation blogs in a long time. This needed to be said directly and succinctly. I've heard so many ordinary people, for example on C-span, fumbling to articulate these same suspicions.

    Unfortunately more often than not they muddy the issue and come out sounding so paranoid that it just allows the Right to parody them as a bunch of "conspiracy kooks".

    Obvious as it sounds responsible, rational people need to clarify the debate and to seperate the nutty suspicion that Georgie and Dickie are responsible for deliberately "staging" terror attacks from the undeniable assertion that Georgie and Dickie are "using" terror attacks to their political advantage.

    The Right, because it suits its own purpose, will be working to establish a nexus between the two.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/13/2006 @ 11:13am

  43. i didn't say i support what lieberman is doing, but if we do focus solely on his comment that "parties are the problem", he is precise.

    it's just that his timing was bad for saying so. really, really bad.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2006 @ 11:27am

  44. You know, I have heard of the Nation and I always knew that it was very left wing. I had no idea that it was also stupid and delusional, as are its readers. Keep reading your periodical, and ignoring things that a monkey could see in the world. If anyone thinks that there is no terrorist threat in the world, then I feel sorry for you. The Hun is at the gate and its time people stopped trying for peace at any cost and pull their heads out of the sand.

    Posted by CRUISIN 08/12/2006 @ 9:38pm

    This is the kind of thing I was talking about above. I suspect in this person's case it's just stupidity but there are those who will deliberately try to blur the line between terrorism as a real concern and the growing realization among the public that terrorism is a last desperation political card to be played by this reprehesible Administration for its political usefulness.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/13/2006 @ 11:31am

  45. Posted by DARLADOON 08/13/2006 @ 11:27am

    Very good point. Watching Howard Dean say this morning that he thinks Lieberman should have conceded and stayed out was depressing. I'm no fan of Lieberman, but on what basis can any fan of democracy say that the country is better served by having such n such candidate not run? The clear problem is that in virtually every race voters are faced with two bad options. Adding a third bad option at least has the potential of bringing out the complexity of major issues, issues that rarely have just two possible solutions.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/13/2006 @ 11:44am

  46. dean says a lot of stupid things. i never really liked him....

    Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2006 @ 11:59am

  47. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/13/2006 @ 11:08am

    O,

    What was the objective in Afghanistan?

    Wasn't it the dismantling of the Al Qaeda training camps and the capture of bin Laden?

    The camps were dismantled. Bin Laden is effectively sidelined and that was achieved by overwhelming military superiority and as a bonus the ruling Taleban was removed from office.

    The same military success occurred in Iraq.

    In both cases rogue governments were removed from office by the very effective use of US military power. Whether one agrees with the use of that power or not, that is unadulterated history.

    Insurgencies don't last forever and the ME region is heading for a far better long term future because of Iraq and all that accrues from Afghanistan. (In Iraq that may mean some sort of federalism).

    The US may not have the heart for longer term involvement but the process begun as a result of Bush's initiatives is irreversible and the continuing democratisation and liberalisation of the Arab ME will occur more quickly than if there had been no American intervention. The rate at which it proceeds will depend on the restraints placed on the medievalists.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/13/2006 @ 12:00pm

  48. Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/13/2006 @ 11:31am

    There are far too many people in this country whose lives are so extraordinarily dull that they must hype every potential dramatic moment in their lives to the highest degree. If it's not the Commie Reds looking to blow us to smithereens, it's them damn Muslims looking to separate us from our hard-fought-for American freedom.

    As always, I blame Oprah, who taught us that every moment in life is worth crying about and that crying is best shared with people whom you have never met.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/13/2006 @ 12:02pm

  49. The repugs one sided fear mongering is a distraction from whom is really threatening America:

    OSAMA bin BUSH- The Monstrous Morph Brothers! [osamabinbush.cf.huffingtonpost.com]

    -click on the link to see this evidence of evil. . .

    (this message not endorsed by the repug party, its affiliates or joe lieberman)

    Blog On PLANET REVOLUTION [planetwares.blogspot.com]

    Posted by tfnewkirk at 08/13/2006 @ 12:04pm

  50. I would suggest America, under GW, has earned the grudging respect of many foreigners who still don't love her and probably never would under any President.

    Posted by LRJONES4 08/13/2006 @ 03:39am

    Thanks so much jonesie. I can rest easy now knowing we are begrudingly respectd by the likes of you.

    P.s. Please send 250 million U.S. dollars daily ( not Australian ). As an admirer of W's audacity the least you can do is help us fund the Iraq debacle and pay for all this new found respect. I'd ask you to send an additional billion dollars a day to help pay the interest on the national debt occasioned by Ws enlightened economic policies but that's a domestic matter and doesn't really concern you.

    I remain your obedient servant

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/13/2006 @ 12:06pm

  51. What operational purpose is served by confiscating benign items from people who obviously pose no threat?

    Let's say that the screeners don't want to be accused of "profiling" so they treat everyone equally. Does this make sense? A young mother had a tube of Ambisol that she was using for her teething child confiscated. This tube can't contain more than one ounce of anything, and the woman doesn't fit any profile. So what was the purpose of this action?

    In addition, if this plot was known for almost a year, why were no new airline restrictions put in place before now? Or, if they didn't want to alert the plotters, why didn't they at least have plans ready for implemenation? Why ground flights is a fit of panic?

    So didn't the police alert the airline security departments that such a plot was being contemplated?

    The only thing that fits all the actions is fearmongering. The actions are ineffective, affect everyone (thus spreading panic), and make the threat look more imminent that it appears to have been.

    I think fear and smear is a pretty good description of what is happening.

    Posted by rdf at 08/13/2006 @ 12:09pm

  52. In both cases rogue governments were removed from office by the very effective use of US military power. Whether one agrees with the use of that power or not, that is unadulterated history.

    Insurgencies don't last forever and the ME region is heading for a far better long term future because of Iraq and all that accrues from Afghanistan. (In Iraq that may mean some sort of federalism).

    Posted by LRJONES4 08/13/2006 @ 12:00am

    It is big of you to give our government so much credit; really, we are blushing. But if you think that our boys gots the slightest clue about how to eliminate an insurgency, then I suggest you get off your knees and open your eyes. A paper written a couple years ago about the results of relatively recent insurgencies lays out a good strategy for dealing with them. In particular it mentioned the Brits' efforts to deal with the NRA:

    British counterinsurgency operations has five important elements: the identification of the enemy and its reasons for existence; the coordination of all government resources to eliminate the insurgency; the containment and the tactical attrition of the enemy; the political and military isolation and frustration of the insurgents; and the enemy's total destruction.

    http://www.army.mil.ph/OG5_articles/Insegencies.htm

    Do you see this happening today in Iraq? Do you believe that anyone pulling strings has been able to brush aside the political mumbo-jumbo and identify the enemy and its reasons for existing? All we hear is that "they" are soon to be cast into history's dustbin by the concerted effort of our army, but we hear little about who "they" are beyond the fact that they hate us, they hate Iraqis who are working with us, and they do not operate according to the same ethics that we do. This knuckledragging approach toward defeating this insurgency might smell sweet to you, but...we on this side of the globe aren't able to get our noses that close to our arses.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/13/2006 @ 12:23pm

  53. I've not read all the comments but this excreable piece is precisely what is wrong with the Democratic Party in particular and liberalism in general today. Whenever I read articles from "The Nation" I don't find policy alternatives but instead simple anti-Bush screeds. In order to be taken seriously you are going to have to come up with an actual policy that is something other than "I hate Bush." Hating the president does not make you virtuous, if it did I would have been especially virtuous during the Clinton years. You have to give up the fantasies and advance real ideas. Cheney and Haliburton don't rule the world, the U.S. government is not an Israeli puppet, Bush is not Hitler. Harry Reid is a jackass and Nancy Pelosi clueless. Say it, you'll fell better.

    Posted by Tom Sawyer at 08/13/2006 @ 12:23pm

  54. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/13/2006 @ 12:14am

    Post it again. It reads so much better after the fourth reading.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/13/2006 @ 12:27pm

  55. "The Right, because it suits its own purpose, will be working to establish a nexus between the two."

    Red good to see that you are not a conspiracy nutter and your political naivety is charming.

    Every single government and opposition plays on all sorts of fears in the electorate, whether it is economic, security or social issues. In Australia the federal government has got re-elected three times on one issue alone. Playing on the fears of the electorate that interest rates (home mortgages) would rise under a Labor (Left) government. When it was in office decades ago interest rates hit 18% so every election time out come the adds showing 18% interest rates if Labor is elected. The thing is it works. Playing on security fears obviously worked for Bush in 2004. Bush and the GOP know the US electorate holds fears about the Dems security record and that the US electorate rates Bush better at security. If Bush and his political advisers did not play up that nexus they would be political fools.

    Grieder is either a "babe in the woods" or he is having a lend of his readers.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/13/2006 @ 12:28pm

  56. Harry Reid is a jackass and Nancy Pelosi clueless. Say it, you'll fell better.

    Posted by TOM SAWYER 08/13/2006 @ 12:23am

    You obviously don't read as much of the posts on this blog as you believe.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/13/2006 @ 12:29pm

  57. i am registered as "unaffiliated".....not even independent...

    not a fan of political parties. fan of nader, though....

    Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2006 @ 12:41pm

  58. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/13/2006 @ 12:36am

    Mehlman has improved one thing from a year ago: he smiles. What a pretty smile. I feel better seeing him smile. Everything's good, see? He's smiling. Go on The Daily Show and listen to Stewart's negative comments or questions--just smile and laugh. That Jon, he's funny and everything's fine so Ken can smile.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/13/2006 @ 12:45pm

  59. Posted by LRJONES4 08/13/2006 @ 03:39am They are telling us now that Iraq is a sectarian battleground between indigenous Iraqis. Whatever happened to Al Qaeda and its Bush provided Iraq recruiting facility?)

    There is no contradiction, so its an empty rhetorical trick to pretend there is one. Obviously both are true. Most of the terror bombing taking place inside Iraq is part of the brewing civil war. It is not in Iraq that Iraq is being used most effectively as a recruiting tool by al-Qaeda -- terror inside Iraq has been mostly taken over by the civil war. And of course that has widened the number of people willing to engage in terror attacks both in Iraq and elsewhere.

    So much for the foolish concept of breeding terrorists in the Middle East in order to avoid having terrorists elsewhere.

    This Message Brought To You By the Letter F, for False Dichotomy, and Fallacious Argument.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/13/2006 @ 12:47pm

  60. Posted by LRJONES4 08/13/2006 @ 12:00am Insurgencies don't last forever and the ME region is heading for a far better long term future because of Iraq and all that accrues from Afghanistan. (In Iraq that may mean some sort of federalism).

    The US may not have the heart for longer term involvement but the process begun as a result of Bush's initiatives is irreversible and the continuing democratisation and liberalisation of the Arab ME will occur more quickly than if there had been no American intervention. The rate at which it proceeds will depend on the restraints placed on the medievalists.

    "The process begun as a result of Bush's initiatives is irreversible." This is what people mean by a faith-based foreign policy.

    Pay no attention to evidence to the contrary, pay no attention to the lessons of history, while democratic government has proved to be something that is hard to put in place and easily disrupted until it is firmly established for a generation - in Weimar Germany, in Southeast Asia, in post-independence Africa - there is political advantage in pretending that its an automatic runaway process when you get it going, because then the Bush regime is not answerable for its gross incompetence between the end of the Iraq war and the present.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/13/2006 @ 12:53pm

  61. The point is not that this Administration plays on fear. The point is that it has nothing else to play on. As to my political naivete I'll take that as a compliment. With this Administration the distinction between politics and policy has been lost. Until recently Karl Rove was Bush's principle "policy advisor". The last I heard the master spinner ( spinnstress ? )Karen Hughes was in a supposed policy position working hard to snow our allies in the arab world.

    We need more political naivete or at least more political honesty which I suppose some would consider the same thing. Any move away from the "Mayberry Machiavelians" can only be a step in the right direction.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/13/2006 @ 12:55pm

  62. Posted by TOM SAWYER 08/13/2006 @ 12:23am I've not read all the comments but this excreable piece is precisely what is wrong with the Democratic Party in particular and liberalism in general today. Whenever I read articles from "The Nation" I don't find policy alternatives but instead simple anti-Bush screeds.

    Yet someone else who has a mid-term election confused with a Presidential election.

    This is a talking point spread by the Bush regime and their supporters in the blogosphere in order to avoid defending the indefensible. We wish to skip the part where we run on our record, we would rather you put together an alternate program that we can run against. We are, after all, in very bad shape if we have to run on our record.

    But its a midterm election. Bush will be president for two more years. The issue at hand is whether people across the country are happy to let him continue to run amok without any effective check or balance.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/13/2006 @ 12:57pm

  63. republicans are using, and have used since 2001, the threat of terror to maintain control of power.

    here's some talking points we can use against them. let's start playing their game until we win back congress and the presidency:

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/233749/736

    Posted by darladoon at 08/13/2006 @ 12:57pm

  64. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/13/2006 @ 12:02am

    TJ,

    I have been harbouring the suspicion that many of you "Lefties" are not really respectable lefties at all so I thought I would take what comes across as the leftie position and sneer at some of your institutions as this paper regularly does. I am gratified to find that the "Lefties" became insulted and began to get very defensive about their country. If I wasn't a Bush fan some may even have sung his praises. I think I have almost got "Left and Right" to join together against a common enemy. That is a good sign (how patronising of me).

    I was going to mention how the Brits handled the Communist insurgency in Malaya. I don't think you are very good at this stuff yet but you are obviously learning in Iraq.

    Most Australian's and I am one of them, think the American alliance is vitally important for a little British ex-colony in the Asian region. Red was looking for "war" donations but we know when we are on a good thing and they are not likely to be forthcoming.

    I note what you say about our ignorance of many aspects of Iraqi culture but apart from the religious extremists they share most of the aspirations and dreams that we Westerners have. One thing Saddam got right was to provide good educational opportunities for his people. Because of that there is a highly educated elite, many of whom have once again been forced into exile by the nutters, whose agenda is threatened by their presence in Iraqi life. In my work I have contact with quite a few Iraqis who have post-grad degrees. I respect them and find an immediate rapport with all of them. You no doubt had similar experiences in your uni days. These expats and those still remaining in Iraq and the younger generation are the hope of a more liberal future for Iraq in whatever form the "new" nation takes shape.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/13/2006 @ 1:49pm

  65. Posted by BRUCEMCF 08/13/2006 @ 12:53am

    Bruce,

    What will bring liberalism to Iraq and to the rest of the ME is not a Bush faith based agenda (whatever that is) but the liberalising influences from many sources as well as the US. We are not dealing with camels and people who live in tents back in the early 20th century. We do live in a world of instant global communications. Iraq is into all the modern means of communication we are familiar with. Opening up, the less educated members of a culture, to those influences is an important way to effect change. It is what effected cultural change more recently in the US and other Western countries and it will produce similar outcomes in other cultures as well.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/13/2006 @ 2:16pm

  66. Orwell, when it comes to LR being the Black Knight, think Monty Pyton and the Holy Grail.

    The other day, he made the mistake of engaing STWRILEY who proceeded to dismember his every utterance as thoroughly and completely as I've seen in quite some time. When LR took to saying things like 'is that all you've got?' it was obvious he was channeling the Black Knight in that scene in the Holy Grail where he encounters King Arthur. You know the one...at the end, the Black Knight is reduced to just a bleeding torso and chatters "All right then, we'll call it a draw" as King Arthur strolls past him shaking his head.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/13/2006 @ 2:21pm

  67. Posted by LRJONES4 08/13/2006 @ 03:39am

    Missed this one Bruce. That was not an argument just noting a shift in emphasis in the rhetoric. I suggest there are two other groupings in the insurgency as well Viz. non-religious nationalists, mostly old Baathists and organised gangs of non-ideological criminals.

    My argument for the success of the Bush venture wrt Al Qaeda would be to look at the degrading of the organization and its capabilities. Incidently Hezbollah is probably a lot more attractive an option for less radical Muslims, which may on examination indicate that Al Qaeda is no longer the first option for aspiring jihadists.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/13/2006 @ 2:51pm

  68. Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/13/2006 @ 12:06am

    Red,

    Thank you also for buying all that cheap Chinese shit. The Chinese are using that hard earned buying up our lovely minerals and hydrocarbons in large quantities and in the process making us wealthy. (At least those of us who have traded the mineral stocks). Thank you again for your generosity.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/13/2006 @ 3:29pm

  69. Thank you O but I was looking for a smile from the fair maiden who so named me. I think she has bolted, perhaps with ST, for whom she was riding shot gun or its Athurian equivalent, last time we met.

    Posted by LRJONES4 08/13/2006 @ 12:31am | ignore this person

    "Riding shotgun"? I know you may be unfamiliar with this relatively American term, but unless you really meant 'amused observer', you got it wrong.

    Oh, and by the way, if you were really "looking for a smile from the fair maiden who so named me", you kinda missed the mark with your "So stiff shit young Lillian..." comment.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/13/2006 @ 4:21pm

  70. Whether you think Bush is an idiot or a genius, I wish he'd do something about all those wide-open-back-doors at airline terminals. You know, the ones used by plane cleaners, caterers, baggage slingers, jitney drivers, all those people who have unfettered access to what we like to fly around in. (At least someone should do back-ground checks on them) And then there was an incident 10 weeks ago when a bunch of (planted) agents boarded planes carrying stuff much more dangerous than box-cutters in their backpacks - yes, they went through check-in. If you care about us, Mr. Bush, would you please show it.

    Posted by felicity at 08/13/2006 @ 4:39pm

  71. Hello little nation friends. I just couldn't help but come back to see all of my fans responding to my post. For those of you who say that I can't provide any evidence of the Nation censoring things, let me copy and paste the section under the post comment or reply button.Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks. "Your comment may be edited or removed at the discretion of Nation staff. Our goal is not to stifle debate but to keep it relevant." If that isn't evidence of censorship, then what is? As for things a monkey could see, how about the big hole that was the World Trade Center, a bunch of nutjobs all over the middle east killing people for God knows what, a president in the White House that is far from perfect, but if he handed some of you a bar of gold, you would whine that it isn't big enough. I'm sorry to say that yes, there is a terroist threat, despite what extreme liberals have to say. I was in London last summer, and I left 2 days before they bombed the subways. There is actually a picture of me in a phone booth there, right above the subway that was bombed. I consider the person that wants to blow me up my enemy. We know that Bush used 9/11 to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Well, Roosevelt used Pearl Harbor to invade Japan and Germany. We are dealing with fascists in the middle east, just like we were during the 30s and 40s. Just like back then, are is a group of extreme radicals that want peace at any cost. Back then, they didn't want to fight Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, today they don't want to fight Hezbollah, Al Qaida, and Hamas. Israel has had enough of their homeland being bombed and their soldiers killed, so they defended themselves. Heaven forbid.

    Posted by Cruisin at 08/13/2006 @ 4:49pm

  72. If that isn't evidence of censorship, then what is?

    Posted by CRUISIN 08/13/2006 @ 4:49pm | ignore this person

    Uh, actual evidence of censorship.

    You see Cruisin, 'resreving the right to delete objectionable comments' is different from "evidence of censorship" no matter how hard you try to spin it.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/13/2006 @ 5:33pm

  73. As to the rest of your post Cruisin, yes, we too have noticed the hole in Manhatten, we all know about the nutjobs in the ME (as well as thge ones here), we agree whole-heartedly that the current occupant of the WH isn't prefect, we know there is a threat from terrorists, we now know that you went to London (but aren't really impressed), we get that you are scared, we know all about WWII, and have kept up with the Isreal/Hezbollah conflict.

    However, apparently your knee jerked so high in your defense of all things 'Bush', that you failed to notice that you forgot to include some actual 'point'in that jumble of...junk.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/13/2006 @ 5:44pm

  74. Posted by CRUISIN 08/13/2006 @ 4:49pm

    Thanks for providing much needed depth to the conversation. Generally we steer clear of taking the outside world seriously. Your insight is obviously crucial to correcting this error in judgment. Tell us, is the Thatcher government still running smoothly?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/13/2006 @ 5:51pm

  75. Posted by CRUISIN 08/13/2006 @ 4:49pm: Hello little nation friends. I just couldn't help but come back to see all of my fans responding to my post.

    Gee, Crusin. You said you weren't coming back. What is this strange attraction you whackjobs have with lying?

    As for things a monkey could see,

    Thanks for the money viewpoint.

    a bunch of nutjobs all over the middle east killing people for God knows what

    How dare you malign our brave soldiers? Why do you hate America, Cruisin?

    a president in the White House that is far from perfect,

    Now there's something humans and monkeys can agree on.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/13/2006 @ 6:03pm

  76. Posted by LRJONES4 08/13/2006 @ 2:51pm: My argument for the success of the Bush venture wrt Al Qaeda would be to look at the degrading of the organization and its capabilities.

    OK, Black Knight, could you provide some evidence for your contention that Al Qaeda's organization and capabilities have been degraded?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/13/2006 @ 6:08pm

  77. I've not read all the comments but this excreable piece is precisely what is wrong with the Democratic Party in particular and liberalism in general today. Whenever I read articles from "The Nation" I don't find policy alternatives but instead simple anti-Bush screeds. In order to be taken seriously you are going to have to come up with an actual policy that is something other than "I hate Bush." Hating the president does not make you virtuous, if it did I would have been especially virtuous during the Clinton years. You have to give up the fantasies and advance real ideas. Cheney and Haliburton don't rule the world, the U.S. government is not an Israeli puppet, Bush is not Hitler. Harry Reid is a jackass and Nancy Pelosi clueless. Say it, you'll fell better.

    Posted by TOM SAWYER 08/13/2006 @ 12:23am

    You got your screen name backward, stupid. Dimwits like you pay the Bush cabal a nickel for the privilege of painting their fence. Good background experience for dispensing political advice, isn't it? But keep giving the advice- it'll keep you distracted from the fact that you're inexorably becoming a member of a small, despised religious cult.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/13/2006 @ 6:46pm

  78. For those of you who say that I can't provide any evidence of the Nation censoring things, let me copy and paste the section under the post comment or reply button.Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks. "Your comment may be edited or removed at the discretion of Nation staff.

    Posted by CRUISIN 08/13/2006 @ 4:49pm

    Republicans. Proof that someone can have the IQ of a petunia and still type.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/13/2006 @ 6:59pm

  79. Posted by CRUISIN 08/13/2006 @ 4:49pm

    Look up the word "fascism" in a dictionary sometime. When you bandy about insults you should at least have some inkling of what they mean otherwise you come across like your "less than perfect" leader with his imbecillic reference to Islamo-fascists. Not only has this ethnic slur insulted the Muslim comunity but it has once more shown the profound ignorance of the man who apparently has no more idea of what fascism means than you do.

    By the way genius, do you ever wonder why anti-Semitic remarks are frowned upon but anti-Islamic slurs are okay ? When you figure it out I hope you'll let us all know.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/13/2006 @ 7:14pm

  80. Insurgencies don't last forever and the ME region is heading for a far better long term future because of Iraq and all that accrues from Afghanistan. (In Iraq that may mean some sort of federalism).

    The US may not have the heart for longer term involvement but the process begun as a result of Bush's initiatives is irreversible and the continuing democratisation and liberalisation of the Arab ME will occur more quickly than if there had been no American intervention. The rate at which it proceeds will depend on the restraints placed on the medievalists.

    First, what is going on in Iraq isn't liberalization. It's civil war with more and more power going to religious militants (with the exception of Kurdistan where Kirkuk is shaping up to be another Sarajevo--but that is ethnic, not religious).

    Posted by brunowe at 08/13/2006 @ 7:20pm

  81. Republicans again, for the Nth time, forego anti-terrorist professionalism for partisan politics.

    Lamonts win had nothing to do with it. Bush's Republican Party wanted arrests to coincide with the israeli invasion of Lebanon.

    NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

    A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

    In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

    At the White House, a top aide to President Bush denied the account.

    Another U.S. official, however, acknowledges there was disagreement over timing.

    The British official said the Americans also argued over the timing of the arrest of suspected ringleader Rashid Rauf in Pakistan, warning that if he was not taken into custody immediately, the U.S. would "render" him or pressure the Pakistani government to arrest him.

    British security was concerned that Rauf be taken into custody "in circumstances where there was due process," according to the official, so that he could be tried in British courts. Ultimately, this official says, Rauf was arrested over the objections of the British.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/13/2006 @ 7:21pm

  82. Posted by LRJONES4 08/13/2006 @ 2:16pm What will bring liberalism to Iraq and to the rest of the ME is not a Bush faith based agenda (whatever that is) but the liberalising influences from many sources as well as the US. We are not dealing with camels and people who live in tents back in the early 20th century. We do live in a world of instant global communications. Iraq is into all the modern means of communication we are familiar with. Opening up, the less educated members of a culture, to those influences is an important way to effect change. It is what effected cultural change more recently in the US and other Western countries and it will produce similar outcomes in other cultures as well.

    So Weimar Germany was a backward society, was it? The ten year civil war in the DRC took place because they were locked out of global communication networks?

    Perhaps it is the naivete to believe that democracy follows automatically from exposure to global communication systems that allows the radical reactionary wing of the Republican party to be cavalier in hacking away at our hard won liberties.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/13/2006 @ 7:35pm

  83. Here's the facts;

    Congrats to the Brits who uncovered this latest plot..Wish we all could say the same for our own government who had all the clues leading up to 9/11, but failed to follow up on any of it..Who was in control then ?..This is your government....Our government who failed the American people..Look at Katrina..Look at Iraq...This administration is nothing but a failure..What part do you conservatives don't understand or don't want to and bury your heads in a hole. What a disgrace to this country and "we the people" are fed up plain and simple with this lack of leadership...

    Posted by djmarch at 08/13/2006 @ 8:51pm

  84. Did every one send money to Guliani for his tasteful and timely fundraising letter? More proof that Repubes would never use terrorism for political gain.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/13/2006 @ 9:56pm

  85. "Where is the famous American skepticism?", you ask. Well where is your own skepticism? You seem to take for granted that the "bad guys" even exist. I see no evidence that al CIAda is anything more than a troupe of trained patsies working for British and US intelligence agencies.

    The evidence being uncovered by the 911Truth movement indicates that the 9/11 plot was planned and carried out by elements within our own government. See for yourself. [9eleven.info]

    Posted by mattnet at 08/13/2006 @ 10:07pm

  86. see no evidence that al CIAda is anything more than a troupe of trained patsies working for British and US intelligence agencies.

    Well then, you clearly haven't read anything by Peter Bergen, Jason Burke or Rohan Gunarupta on the organization. They decidedly exist.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/13/2006 @ 10:21pm

  87. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/13/2006 @ 10:21pm: They decidedly exist.

    True. But they do not pose an existential threat to the United States. Nor have they ever.

    Nor will they ever.

    But, our current solution to the threat is certainly an existential threat to the United States in terms of the relationship between the government and its citizens.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/13/2006 @ 10:29pm

  88. If that isn't evidence of censorship, then what is?

    Posted by CRUISIN 08/13/2006 @ 4:49pm | ignore this person

    Uh, actual evidence of censorship.

    You see Cruisin, 'resreving the right to delete objectionable comments' is different from "evidence of censorship" no matter how hard you try to spin it.

    Precisely. Debating Skills 101 states that if you make a controversial statement, you better be able to back it up with proof. The Nation writers say that they "reserve the right to delete objectionable comments." Well, show me the instance where they have actually done so. After all, I have seen mindless profanity-ridden rants from right wingers (as an example people like FukLibs, Libzsuk, etc.) on this site. And let's not forget the mini-novels posted by plunger, rese and company.

    My guess is that the Nation defines as objectionable comments like "let's kill all the rag heads" and "Arabs are the scum of the earth." Clearly, comments like that are offensive and serve no purpose in engaging in debate. It is like saying that a Jewish publication would be engaging in "censorship" if they refuse to print tracts written by neo-nazis. Or blacks are somehow engaging in "censorship" if they do not print responses from the KKK.

    However Cru implies that the Nation somehow "censors" comments made by Bush supporters and other right-wingers, which is total nonsense to anyone who has been on site for awhile.

    If Cru really wants to know whether the Nation engages in "censorship", he should come to this site more often and see if his claim is true. Until he shows an example of "censorship" by the Nation, his comments have no credibility, and his arguments can be dismissed. So, as I said last time: put up or shut up.

    Posted by blue photon at 08/14/2006 @ 02:43am

  89. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.

    Which disproves the idea of Islamism being fascist. The most ambitious of these movements aspire to a transnational Islamic community, the umma. The rest look to transform their particular states into an Islamist polity, again, however, there is no exaltation of the national as such.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 05:52am

  90. "Which disproves the idea of Islamism being fascist."

    Perhaps B, but it depends how one defines Islamism. You may have been on safer ground by substituting Islam for Islamism.

    The Saddam regime was without doubt a fascist one but it was not Islamo-fascist.

    The Egyptian Qubt and the Moslem Brotherhood of which he was a co-founder did have links with the German National Socialists as the following article shows:

    http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27b/082.html

    The Moslem Brotherhood is the Islamic sect out of which bin Laden and the Al Qaeda movement was born. Maybe the term Islamo-fascist is best reserved for the ideology of that grouping in its various manifestations. A thorough reading of that politico/theology is probably worthwhile for it is something much more radical and potentially dangerous that mere "Muslim fascism", for want of a better expression. It is essentially a theocratic system of government, which is the only valid government for all persons and nations. All other political systems fall short of it because the rule of God is absolute in the predestined life of every individual and hence it is the only system for the ordering and rule of human society.

    That system of rule by God is to be mediated through the Leader of the Ummah. (the faithful). When that philosophy is shot through with Islamic triumphalism it is a heady brew for the faithful and a frightening prospect for those, outside the faithful, who are also seen as necessary subjects of that divine but mediated rule:

    ISLAMISM FASCISM AND TERRORISM

    Mark Erikson

    5th Dec 2002

    An early convert to Sayyid Qutb's new-fangled fascist Islamism which condones, indeed commands, terrorism and murder was the alleged number two man of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri. [see part 2]. Having joined the Muslim Brotherhood at age 15, he was caught in the Nasser dragnet after the 1965 assassination attempt on the Egyptian leader and--young age and elite family background notwithstanding--was thrown in jail. An April 1968 amnesty freed most of the brethren, and Ayman, in that regard following in his father's footsteps, went on to Cairo University to become a physician. He obtained his degree in 1974 and practiced medicine for several years.

    His profession, however, was not his calling. By the late 1970s, he was back full-time in the Islamist revolution business agitating against the Egypt-Israel peace treaty (concluded in 1979). In 1980, on the introduction by military intelligence officer Abbud al-Zumar, he became a leading member of the Jama'at al-Jihad of Muhammad Abd-al-Salam Faraj which on October 6, 1981, assassinated President Anwar El Sadat while he was reviewing a military parade.

    Faraj, like al-Zawahiri, had been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but became disenchanted with its passivity. In 1979, he penned a short pamphlet titled The Neglected Obligation (al-Farida al-Gha'ibah), which relied heavily on the ideas of Sayyid Qutb. It became the founding document of al-Jihad, arguing along the familiar lines that acceptance of a government was only possible and legitimate when that government fully implemented Sharia, or Islamic law. Contemporary Egypt had not done so, and was thus suffering from jahiliyya. Jihad to rectify this, wrote Faraj, was not only the neglected obligation of Muslims, but in fact their most important duty.

    Following the Sadat assassination, al-Zawahiri was arrested on a minor weapons possession charge and spent three years in jail. In 1985 he left Egypt for Saudi Arabia and later Peshawar, Pakistan, where he was joined by Muhammad al-Islambuli, the brother of one of Sadat's five assassins, 24-year-old artillery lieutenant Khalid Ahmed Shawki al-Islambuli. There, connections were made with the groups of Palestinian Islamist Abdullah Azzam and the latter's one-time student Osama bin Laden, by then fully engaged (with well-known CIA support) in assisting the mujahideen struggle against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

    Al-Zawahiri's al-Jihad was in many respects better organized and better trained than other groups in the Afghanistan theater. Prior to the murder of Sadat, it had succeeded in recruiting members of the presidential guard, military intelligence and the civil bureaucracy. Most importantly, it was in possession of a cogent and comprehensive ideology pointing beyond the Afghan struggle against the Soviet occupiers. Afghanistan should be a platform for the liberation of the entire Muslim world, was the distinguishing creed of al-Jihad.

    Al-Zawahiri wrote several books on Islamic movements, the best known of which is The Bitter Harvest (1991/92), a critical assessment of the failings of the Muslim Brotherhood. In it, he draws not only on the writings of Sayyid Qutb to justify murder and terrorism, but prominently references Pakistani Jamaat-i-Islami founder and ideologue Mawdudi on the global mission of Islamic jihad.

    Mawdudi had written, Islam wants the whole earth and does not content itself with only a part thereof. It wants and requires the entire inhabited world. It does not want this in order that one nation dominates the earth and monopolizes its sources of wealth, after having taken them away from one or more other nations. No, Islam wants and requires the earth in order that the human race altogether can enjoy the concept and practical program of human happiness, by means of which God has honored Islam and put it above the other religions and laws. In order to realize this lofty desire, Islam wants to employ all forces and means that can be employed for bringing about a universal all-embracing revolution. It will spare no effort for the achievement of this supreme objective. This far-reaching struggle that continuously exhausts all forces and this employment of all possible means are called jihad.

    And further, Islam is a revolutionary doctrine and system that overturns governments. It seeks to overturn the whole universal social order ... and establish its structure anew ... Islam seeks the world. It is not satisfied by a piece of land but demands the whole universe ... Islamic jihad is at the same time offensive and defensive ... The Islamic party does not hesitate to utilize the means of war to implement its goal.

    Not just or even principally the expulsion of the Soviets from Afghanistan or the removal of any one godless Muslim regime, but global jihad as Mawdudi had prescribed, became al-Zawahiri's obsession. And he acted as he had read and written. After several years in Afghanistan and Pakistan, constructing there the platform from which to launch broader pursuits, Zawahiri traveled extensively on Swiss, French and Dutch passports in Western Europe and even the United States on fund-raising, recruiting and reconnaissance missions. Then came initial implementation of the offensive.

    It is not known whether he had a hand in the 1993 bombing of the New York World Trade Center. But he had close connections to Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the spiritual leader of the group that carried out the attack. Then, in 1995, he was behind the truck bomb attack on the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan; in November 1997, he led the Vanguards of Conquest group responsible for the Luxor (Egypt) massacre in which 60 foreign tourists were systematically murdered and mutilated; in August 1998, he organized the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; and probably, in 2000, the speed-boat bomb attack on the USS Cole in Aden. Israeli intelligence considers him the operational brains behind September 11; the fact, in any case, is that the Egyptian Mohammed Atta, principal of the Hamburg, Germany, al-Qaeda cell that was instrumental to the World Trade Center destruction, was a member of Zawahiri's al-Jihad.

    Osama bin Laden, as we wrote earlier, had the money, some of the connections, and perhaps the charisma to function as the leader of the al-Qaeda global jihad. But it was not until Zawahiri's al-Jihad in February 1998 formally joined forces with bin Laden that the present global Islamist terrorist threat truly emerged. With his long experience in the Muslim Brotherhood, his critical assessment of its failures, his cunning--albeit highly eclectic--fashioning of a fascist ideology drawing on Islamic religious elements, and his organizational and operational skills, al-Zawahiri is the key personality of global jihad. The key point to understand is that Zawahiri fascist Islamism has seized the ideological initiative in the Muslim world against which traditional Islam has so far proved an impotent, indeed often unwilling, opponent. Young Muslims everywhere are captivated by Zawahiri Islamism and jihad to which they attribute selfless idealism and in which they admire ruthless determination. It will be a long war.

    And make no mistake: In this war against a new, ideologically vigorous fascism, collateral assets of the Islamists, the neo-Nazis of the Ahmed Huber variety which we described in part 1 of this series, or--for that matter--Saudi financiers wittingly pushing narrow sectarian Wahhabism upon youths in madrassas worldwide, are key forces in the enemy camp. Islamism as we have portrayed it in its historical and present dimension is a form of fascist madness--the same type of madness which one of Hitler's closest confidants, convicted war criminal Albert Speer, saw during the Fuehrer's final days. In his Spandau prison diary entry for November 18, 1947, Speer recollects:

    I recall how [Hitler] would have films shown in the Reich Chancellory about London burning, about the sea of fire over Warsaw, about exploding convoys, and the kind of ravenous joy that would then seize him every time. But I never saw him so beside himself as when, in a delirium, he pictured New York going down in flames. He described how the skyscrapers would be transformed into gigantic burning torches, how they would collapse in confusion, how the bursting city's reflection would stand against the dark sky.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/14/2006 @ 07:28am

  91. Why all this hand-wringing about Republicans' racist fear-mongering? Why not use it against them?

    Show a file film of Saudis, in their flowing robes, being greeted at the White House by Bush, followed by a film of Osama in his robes. Show images of gas pumps in the U.S. with $3+ prices, followed by oil wells in the desert; file films of the terrorist training camps, followed by the planes crashing into the WTC; then show more images of Bush making nice with Saudis.

    In the voice-over, describe how high-ranking Saudis, including members of the royal family, contributed millions of petrodollars to al Qaida and the Taliban via Saudi 'Islamic charities'; then describe how the Republicans covered up for the Saudi sponsors of 9/11 by shutting down the FBI investigation into Saudi 'Islamic charities', stonewalling the 9/11 commission, censoring the 28 pages of the 9/11 intelligence report, prohibiting the families of the 9/11 victims from bringing the truth to light in U.S. courts, and preventing the Gitmo detainees from telling what they know in a public trial.

    In other words, every time the Republicans bring up terrorism and accuse us of denying that there's a threat, instead of saying "Yes, but . . .", say "You guys are traitors; stop covering up for the real enemy".

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/14/2006 @ 07:47am

  92. Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/14/2006 @ 07:47am

    Like Prince Bandar "Bush" visiting Crawford? Or admitting on TV that "Of course we are corrupt"? Or giving chimpy a million dollar painting? Or when candidate chimpy declared that he would just phone em up and demand they open the pumps (like when he declared he would bring adults back into the admin)?

    Do any of you have connections to the Saudis going back 3 generations. Not the average Saudis, the ruling elite, that never get elected, or let the women vote or go out unescorted? Do you think chimpy brings this stuff up when he parties with Bandar? Why start with Iraq, the Quagmire of all Quagmires, why did he not start with the "Good guys" of the middle east? He could have said, "Hey guys, I have this vision of a free middle east, could you start by having some elections and freeing non-violent dissidents?" Nope, can't get the bases knickers all wound up like that, or enrich your friends. gotta have a war for that. Then you can paint all criticism as traitorous.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2006 @ 08:17am

  93. "I don't know where (bin Laden) is. Nor - you know, I just don't spend that much time on him, really, to be honest with you ... I truly am not that concerned about him." - Was this :

    A: Ned Lamont

    B: President Bush

    C: Howard Dean

    D: Pat Buchanon

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2006 @ 08:32am

  94. Crabwalk,

    Is it fair to remind us of silly things that President Botch has said? We're at "war" you know and during "war" the very future of the nation is in peril so we are duty bound to rally around the President (whoever he or she may be) and forgive silly statements like the above and forgive Constitutional abuses.

    We should also forget what Botch said in Buffalo, NY about unwarranted wire tapping being an illegal activity. It was just him being silly!

    We should definitely forget about the 750 signing statements he's put on bills. He was just being silly!

    We're at war dammit! We will be indefinitely since the parameters of what constitute victory will never be defined. Therefore, President Botch can do or say anything he wants indefinitely and we shouldn't criticize or mock because we're at "war" and I'm VERY VERY afraid for the future of the nation.

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/14/2006 @ 09:13am

  95. Dear Rio Bravo,

    You wrote: It must be the pure genius of staging the hamstringing of the Islamic terrorists plot AFTER Joe Lieberman, a "War on Terror" supporter, was defeated by the leftwing "cut and runner" Lamont that swung the deal!

    I don't know of a single, credible terrorist expert or even pundit who has ventured to say that capturing a handful of U.K.-citizen terrorists has at all hamstrung Al Qaida or any other terrorist organization, in fact the longer we and Israel stay as occupiers of traditionally Muslim lands will only continue to swell the ranks of the terrorists.

    They have had these guys in custody for a month - don't you think that if they could make any real connection to Al Qaida that they would have been trumpeting that info long ago?

    Nope - instead they use this event as the latest in a long string of distractions away from our massives failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, energy independence and many other real issues.

    We can't continue to live in this state of constant fear and knee-jerk reactions forever or I fear our basic freedoms and even the nation as we know it will dissipate before our eyes.

    Terrorism, while certainly real, is just one danger to us among a plethora: people get killed on a regular basis crossing the street or driving a car or getting a bad doctor or just by being in a badly-maintained/designed building when it decides to collapse. This all-encompassing fear of any sort of terrorist attack is killing us and our society softly and slowly and more completely than if more actual strikes occurred. There needs to be a balance here - protect us as much as can reasonably be expected (we will NEVER be able to stop all attacks and maintain a free society) and then work on the important things in this country that need to be fixed like health coverage for all and reducing the fuel for most problems, poverty.

    Posted by danahlongley at 08/14/2006 @ 09:56am

  96. Are Republicans preparing the next big step in their march to fascism?

    Consider their efforts to change existing laws to retroactively immunize themselves from prosecution for war crimes.

    Consider also their plan to give Bush absolute control of the National Guard.

    "Governors Oppose Federal Control of Guard" The nation's governors, protesting what they call an unprecedented shift in authority from the states to the federal government, will urge Congress today to block legislation that would allow the president to take control of National Guard forces in the event of a natural disaster or a threat to homeland security.

    In a sharply worded letter that will be transmitted to Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress this morning, the governors ask that a House-Senate conference committee remove a provision included in the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act giving the president such authority without consultation or input from governors and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors as commanders and chief of the Guard to the federal government," the governors state in the letter.

    As of yesterday, 51 governors, including some from U.S. territories, had signed the letter, a sign of broad bipartisan support that underscores the depth of opposition among state executives to encroachments by Washington on their powers.

    The governors discovered the provision two weeks ago, and the effort to have it removed from the defense bill began at last week's National Governors Association summer meeting in Charleston, S.C.

    At the meeting, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), the outgoing NGA chairman, described the provision as one that "violates 200 years of American history." Governors see it as part of a broader effort by the federal government to diminish the sovereignty of the states.

    Bush already controls all of our armed forces except the National Guard, why are Republicans trying to remove the last check against presidential power? Are they planning to make Bush dictator?

    Posted by rabblerowzer at 08/14/2006 @ 10:39am

  97. LR

    An interesting piece, but the article itself admits that "In later years, the Brotherhood had serious fallings-out with Nasser, whom it attempted to assassinate on several different occasions, and with Sadat, whom it did assassinate in 1981. But up until at least the time of Nasser's 1952 coup d'etat, all was sweetness and light between Hassan al-Banna's brethren and Nasser's free officers."

    In short, the Brotherhood had broken with the fascist-like organization in Egypt long before Zawahiri came on the scene and around the time that Sayyid Qutb was important. That means that the Islamic militancy began as an opposition to the secularism of the Nasser regime. Not the strongest argument for imputing fascist ideology to it. Further, the article also points out that a big influence on Qutb was the Pakistani Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi, the founder of Jamaat-i-Islam. Nothing in the article regarding any fascist links from Mawdudi.

    The key to the article is mentioned in Part I, where Erikson writes " Qutb, a one-time literary critic, was not a religious fundamentalist, but a Goebbels-style propagandist for a new totalitarianism to stand side-by-side with fascism and communism. ". That this is an error, and a fatal one for the argument, is shown by Qutb's puritanical reaction to what he perceived as Western sexual looseness was a religious impulse.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 10:45am

  98. "Why all this hand-wringing about Republicans' racist fear-mongering? Why not use it against them?"

    Sam not sure if you were referring to the article I posted for Brunowe's edification but if you were, it is rather important to note that that article is about four years old. It was really to support a point made in a discussion about semantics.

    My view is that Al Qaeda has had the guts knocked out of it by Bush's mini wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and are very unlikely to end up with a grand anything, let alone a Caliphate that they theorised would rule the world. So I wouldn't be losing too much sleep over it. GW if he doesn't look after you all personally has got plenty of buddies overseas (eg in London, Bonn (what was that lady's name he tapped on the butt?) Paris and Karachi amongst others ) who will fill in for him while he's on hols down at the ranch.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/14/2006 @ 10:54am

  99. Posted by LRJONES4 08/14/2006 @ 10:54am: My view is that Al Qaeda has had the guts knocked out of it by Bush's mini wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

    So, Black Knight, do you have any evidence for your view?

    Or do you simply use your magical powers to see things that mere mortals can not?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/14/2006 @ 11:15am

  100. Seized by the spirit of classical liberalism, LRJONES4 writes (08/13/2006 @ 2:16pm),

    What will bring liberalism to Iraq and to the rest of the ME is not a Bush faith based agenda (whatever that is) but the liberalising influences from many sources as well as the US. We are not dealing with camels and people who live in tents back in the early 20th century. We do live in a world of instant global communications. Iraq is into all the modern means of communication we are familiar with. Opening up, the less educated members of a culture, to those influences is an important way to effect change.

    These soaring rhetorical moves make one's spirit ascend.

    However, I recently finished reading Marr & Wilkinson's book, DARK VICTORY, on the 2001 election in Australia. I am wondering what you have to say about John Howard's government gaoding the defense forces into aggressively turning refugees away from its shores in the run-up to his 2001 re-election campaign --- including refugees from Iraq who were seeking the Torch of Liberalism that you aggrandize and that was denied them in their Ba'athist state under Saddam Hitler.

    And yet Howard was one of the first heads of government to vigorously rim Bush in support of invading Iraq ... because of its sordid human rights record ... after having turned refugees from the same country, in contravention of international law if in there was reason to believe that they would be persecuted in their home country.

    Yup, Howard's Lib Party turned them back to their tortrue cells to pander electorally to the xenophobe right down under --- and then invades with the self-aggrandizing and specious cover story of a lofty human rights campaign.

    Aaaaa, feel the relativism ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/14/2006 @ 11:18am

  101. Posted by LRJONES4 08/14/2006 @ 10:54am: GW if he doesn't look after you all personally

    You think GW looks after some of us personally? Is that how it works in the Knighthood?

    C'mon, admit it. You are in competition with Rio to see who can make the stupidest statements. Rio is the US champ. And you are representing Australia.

    Now, let the games begin.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/14/2006 @ 11:18am

  102. My view is that Al Qaeda has had the guts knocked out of it by Bush's mini wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and are very unlikely to end up with a grand anything, let alone a Caliphate that they theorised would rule the world. So I wouldn't be losing too much sleep over it. GW if he doesn't look after you all personally has got plenty of buddies overseas

    Posted by LRJONES4 08/14/2006 @ 10:54am | ignore this person

    That has to be a joke right?

    I don't think that even Bush would contend (at this point) that the Iraq occupation has had any adverse effects on AQ. AQ wasn't in Iraq before we got there and has only engaged us while we hang out there because it suits them. It suits them in learning US military tactics, learning illegal weapon procurement channels, recruiting and so forth. AQ cares less about Iraq than we do......they probably have an exit strategy......do we?

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/14/2006 @ 11:18am

  103. here's some talking points we can use against them. let's start playing their game until we win back congress and the presidency:

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/233749/736

    Posted by DARLADOON

    The left has been using scare tactics for the past 30 years. Every time someone wants to improve social security, education, medicare, medicaid etc... The so-called "progressives" block the changes by scaring people into believing that seniors won't get their social security or that the evil pharmaceutical companies are charging to much for their medications and thus medicare won't be able to pay for them... blah blah blah.

    That said, I am also sick of the right using terror threats as publicity tools.

    Posted by John B at 08/14/2006 @ 11:19am

  104. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/14/2006 @ 11:15am: Bonn (what was that lady's name he tapped on the butt?)

    It was the shoulders, not the butt. And she was Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany.

    True patriots can keep straight Dear Leader's escapades in groping. You sir, are a fraud.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/14/2006 @ 11:20am

  105. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/14/2006 @ 10:45am

    It is an interesting argument but one that may be settled on one's preference of terminology. Maybe your definition of fascism is too narrow? The writer of that article attributes a fascism drawn from some elements of Islam to Zawahiri as follows:

    (It was when) "Zawahiri's al-Jihad in February 1998 formally joined forces with bin Laden that the present global Islamist terrorist threat truly emerged. With his long experience in the Muslim Brotherhood, his critical assessment of its failures, his cunning--albeit highly eclectic--fashioning of a fascist ideology drawing on Islamic religious elements..." or this: "And make no mistake: In this war against a new, ideologically vigorous fascism, collateral assets of the Islamists, the neo-Nazis of..."

    It does not follow that "because they had broken with Nasser" that they had also abandoned fascism and the writer in the quotes above is quite happy to call the new organisation (ideologically) fascist.

    I would have thought that fascism had no trouble accommodating religion (and religion it) eg "The German Church" and The Vatican's accommodation with the fascists in Italy or even Franco in Spain.

    Infact the neo-fascist organisations in the US are overtly "Christian". Religion and fascism it seems to me have always made pretty good bedfellows.

    I just wonder if you are not merely being politically correct?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/14/2006 @ 11:30am

  106. Don't believe the terrorist attack story. Just another ploy to draw the attention away from the real problems, health care, the Iraq War failure and the bankruptcy of our country by George Bush and his cabinet.

    Posted by Pats at 08/14/2006 @ 11:38am

  107. Several other posters have already spanked CRUISIN for his shamless stupidity and idiotic caricature that corresponds to the bankrupt discourses of the floozy Coulter and not to reality; but I would like to add a couple of salient points.

    If CRU will exit the phone booth that he so bravely entered, he can be introduiced to John Tulloch. A university professor, Tulloch's life was saved on 7/7 only because he did not got up from his seat on the tube promptly for the next stop and his laptop partly shielded his legs from being blown off. He lived, albeit with lacerations, hearing loss and trauma what will affect him for the rest of his living days. He was not in a phone booth, CRU, two days beforehand.

    He was there. He lived it.

    Tulloch has since written a book about what it means to be a victim of terror as well as at least one public letter to denounce would-be mass murderers with the strength of a survivor. What he has not done has supported Tony Blair's subordinating the UK's foriegn policy to the US. Tulloch has in fact stridently criticized Blairism. Part of the reason he did so was because one of the UK tabloids pictured him on the front page, bloodied and bandaged in the immediate aftermath of the carnage, with a pro-Blair caption. Tulloch was pissed to have had his --- and about 800 other murdered and maimed -- people's tragedy hijacked by the right-wing press with words stuck in his mouth as if he was Terri Schivao.

    So, CRU, do tell: Does a person like John Tulloch, an unabashed liberal, need a dipshit like you with zero depth of experience to explain how the world works to him? Does a brave survivor like Tulloch need the likes of you to bursh off the vomit stains on his "State-U" sweatshirt as prelude to pontifications about the mortal dangers of terror that came within a mote of taking his life? Does he need a highly indoctrinated nobody like you to ape what he has had drilled into him within the echo chamber of rightwing media about how to answer the hideous human rights abuses implicated in terrorism?

    Just asking ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/14/2006 @ 11:38am

  108. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/14/2006 @ 11:20am

    Thank you O it is probably middle aged ladies that confuse this connoisseur. I have no trouble with the anatomy of fair maidens. I'm sure George would understand. Bill certainly would. By the way are you a sheila or a bloke? Knights need to know. We treat em different.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/14/2006 @ 11:43am

  109. Infact the neo-fascist organisations in the US are overtly "Christian". Religion and fascism it seems to me have always made pretty good bedfellows.

    Posted by LRJONES4 08/14/2006 @ 11:30am

    Careful LR. Comments like that, albeit factual, could get you labeled Anti-Christian.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/14/2006 @ 11:58am

  110. LRJ

    Shouldn't it be "are you a shiela or a bruce? Not "a bloke".

    Perhaps you are not only an imposter President Botch fornicator, but also an imposter Australian.

    Yikes, do you even have an OBE (a Knighthood)?

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/14/2006 @ 11:59am

  111. LR, thanks for posting the 'Islamism Fascism and Terrorism' piece. I was not in fact responding to your post but to the topic, namely William Greider's thesis that Republicans are pandering to racism against Arabs and religious bigotry against Muslims by disingenuously lumping together all jihadis of whatever sect, nationality, or grievance.

    My point has to do with the great error committed by educated liberals in attempting to schoolmarm voters on facts like Saddam and Osama are actually two different dudes, to take the most glaring example. Racists by their nature are not at all curious about the fine distinctions among their 'enemies.' That is why using racially-charged images of Saudis in their traditional robes is an effective method of illustrating the truth, namely that Bush and the Republicans are using the broad brush of the 'War on Terror' to whitewash the real culprits, the Saudis.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/14/2006 @ 12:02pm

  112. Posted by LRJONES4 08/14/2006 @ 07:28am

    Jonesie:

    I took the time to read your novella on Islamic-Fascism. The arguments I got out of your rationale for being able to join these two disparate concepts with a hyphen are as follows:

    There were early ties with the German National Socialists: How about the historical ties to Communism ? Doesn't that makes them Communists ?

    The concept of "global jihad". "Islam seeks the world. It is not satisfied by a piece of land but demands the whole universe ... " This is no more a characteristic of fascism than it is of Communism, Capitalism or for that matter Christianity.

    Militarism: "The Islamic party does not hesitate to utilize the means of war to implement its goal". Substitute the American Republican party for Islamic party and it reads just as well i.e. militarism is certainly not unique to fascism.

    "Saudi financiers wittingly pushing narrow sectarian Wahhabism upon youths in madrassas worldwide." This is the closest thing I see to a parallel between Islam and Fascism. Even here, however, political indoctrination of youth is not unique to Fascism. All societies do it particularly authoritarian societies e.g. China, North Korea etc.

    The only other argument I got out of your cut and paste post is the excerpt from the Speer diary. If I understand this argument it is that Hitler fantasized about seeing the skyscrapers of N.Y. transformed into gigantic burning torches. Hitler was a fascist. Bin Laden set fire to the skyscrapers of N.Y.. Ergo B.L. is a fascist.

    These are pretty poor arguments coming from a Tory. It seems to me Tories should be uniquely qualified to speak on Fascism. I expected better coming from you.

    Let me help you. Let's start with the dictionary definition of what constitutes Fascism:

    "A system of government characterized by a rigid one party dictatorship, forcible suppresion of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism."

    I would simply add to that a belief in the iron fist of the "strong man" over the rule of law and a fanatical adherence to unifying national myths and symbols.

    Other than militarism there is absolutely nothing in any of that which describes what is bandied about now under the name of "Islamo-Fascism" which was the whole point of BRUNOWE's 08/14/2006 @ 05:52am post and to which your post added nothing.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/14/2006 @ 12:05pm

  113. Posted by LRJONES4 08/14/2006 @ 11:43am: I have no trouble with the anatomy of fair maidens.

    And I am sure that the fair maidens find your double rolls of bellyfat and man breasts equally attractive. As The Black Knight, you are undoubtedly inundated with solicitations from fair maidens.

    Are they disappointed when you inform them that you can not differentiate their rear ends from their necks?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/14/2006 @ 12:10pm

  114. So LR, you have repeatedly asserted your view that AQ is on the wane, due to the Brave and Glorious policies of Dear Leader and the Mini-Wars. I have asked you, several times, for some sort of evidence that AQ is on the wane, but you have ignored the request. Shall I take your lack of response to mean that you do not have any evidence for your contention?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/14/2006 @ 12:12pm

  115. SAM,

    Here's to you, recovered Republican. I have my own secret, namely that I supported Reagan in '80 (while ignoring the fact that, even then, I found his running mate viscerally nauseating) in the misguided belief that Reaganism was anti-statist.

    I think you are on target in suggesting that the RepubliClowns owe a large measure of their post-1964 electoral success to dog-whistling racism. Between 1932 and 1964, during 9 federal election cycles, the Dems prevailed 7 times with 4 different winners (FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ) and only Ike breaking the Dem-dominated patern. After the Voting Rights Act kicked in, the electoral map shifted and so did the outcomes. Dems lost four of the next five (and 1976 is kind of a special case after disgruntled GOP types Woodward and Felt helped jettison Nixon) and a Northern Dem has not won since Kennedy!

    Terrorism and security are clearly on the "A" list of important concerns for the nation --- along with other matters of long term stability like global poverty eradication, health, education and science, climate change (as DoD has reported, it is likely a far more dangerous phenomonan than terror although the hideous consequences of both demand to be addressed). But I think part of the attraction to playing the terror card for the RepubliClowns is that they can dog-whistle in some xenophobia and racism that can make a difference ---particularly in an era of very close elections. Any post by Barry-IQ-.25 amply, if grotesquely, demonstrates that the dogwhistle can be heard if you descend low enough on the evolutionary scale.

    However, as you point out, RepubliClowns also have a quasi-secret pact with those against whom they are inciting backlash out the other side of their asses. This is indeed far more explosive than Strom Thurmond's sex romps around the house with the African-American servents (fathering at least one love child) all the while Thurmond was rallying resentful white southerners in public life (Question: How do the Thurmonds, the Bob Barrs, the Henry Hydes, the Bill Benetts, et cetera, function when their words and deeds are from entirely distinct moral universes?) It is explosive not because the Dems should attempt the low road of a xenophobia derby; it is because the RepubliClowns should be maneuvered into the position of trying to simultaneously avow and deny what they are really about --- electoral appeals to prejudice, selling out US interests internationally with the unrehabilitated petro dependence and shoring up the hothouse of fundementalist violence.

    Even some near-completely brainwashed RepubliClown zombies (not all) can reach a crisis point where relativism does not wash and it all does not add up, even if that only means staying at home rather than actively voting against their own interests ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/14/2006 @ 12:34pm

  116. "The jihadists need George W. Bush to sustain their cause. His bloody crusade in the Middle East bolsters their accusation that America is out to destroy Islam. The president has unwittingly made himself the lead recruiter of willing young martyrs."

    Where was Bush in 1979 when the hostage were taken, what was the excuse then?

    in 83? Where was Bush (W)? What was their excuse then?

    in 93? WTC? Where was Bush ? What was their excuse then?

    in 94? Somalia? What was their excuse then?

    in 96?

    in 98?

    Are you sure MR. Grieder that they NEED W.? or do they NEED, those who will look the other way?

    Posted by CPT at 08/14/2006 @ 12:45pm

  117. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/14/2006 @ 11:18am

    FP,

    It's the context your mob fails to appreciate. Here's this happy little band of "holy Warriors" planning to take over the world, safely hidden out of harm's way in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was regaling them with tales of how the Yanks ran from the hw's with their tails between their legs. What do you think lads? Let's slip over to the ole USA and show them what we can do. Al Qaeda must have been over the moon after 9/11.

    Look what we did to the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Americans wont do a thing. Naah! We'd finish them off like we did the Soviets if they tried. We are invincible. God is on our side..

    Well the rest is history the Yanks weren't quite the pushover bin Laden and his holy warriors imagined.

    The Afghanistan war lost them their safe training ground and a sympathetic government who shared some of their Islamic goals.

    The absolute routing of the "mighty" Arab forces in Iraq in three short weeks was another massive blow to its already shattered dreams of the beginning without end of the grand Caliphate. And the end of the sustaining belief that the Yanks were a morally decadent cream puff army.

    What was the outcome? No longer able to flaunt it over the US but back to being nothing more than a thorn in the side of the nation whose military prowess they had despised. You blokes might think the holy warriors would think it great fun being on the run in Iraq blowing up a few Yank soldiers here and there and many of the holy warriors getting dispatched to the big Caliphate in the sky. Oh yeah! You've have got a strange idea of holy warrior fun My money would be on their preference to be back in the lap of luxury in Afghanistan blowing up more targets in the US and elsewhere and extending the borders of God's Kingdom on Earth.

    Yep GW certainly knocked the guts out of them with an unexpected double whammy.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/14/2006 @ 12:46pm

  118. Following JONESY's phrasing as he reams the vapid JONESY, ORWELL writes,

    and the Mini-Wars

    Why not try "drive thru wars"? That would connote the sheer reckless incapacity and necessary attention span to function competently that characterizes the Maximum Leader and The Foriegn Policy "Adults" --- along with fingering them as the most heinous products of consumerist mentality that is wholly unaquainted with anything outside their tightly restricted bubble.

    "Vanity War" is perhaps better still and more accurate. It refers to the Full Dinner Jacket set who never shot a gun in their lives while pushing soldiers and civilians into the meat-grinder in suport of their hideous delusions and grisly, large scale social experiments enacted on the little people down below.

    Whether it is "Drive Thru" or "Vanity War", it is obvious that JONESY is too gawdamn lazy to so much as read a newspaper and see renewed offensives in Afghanistan by the allies, more UK soldiers on the ground, what'shisname the "president"'s complete lack of authority outside a couple blocks of Kabul. In other wordss, the stuff that makes JONESY kick his stumpy legs out in a "Mission Accomplished" cheer ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/14/2006 @ 12:49pm

  119. RED NECKERSON

    Let me help you. Let's start with the dictionary definition of what constitutes Fascism:

    "A system of government characterized by a rigid one party dictatorship, forcible suppresion of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism."

    Allow me to introduce you to the Taliban, let me help you in seeing why the term Islamo-facists is APPROPIATE.

    The Taliban embodied almost every word of YOUR defeinition.

    Those who are part of islamo -terror organization have this in mind. ISLAMO FACISTS is a good term.

    Posted by CPT at 08/14/2006 @ 12:51pm

  120. LR

    I would have thought that fascism had no trouble accommodating religion (and religion it) eg "The German Church" and The Vatican's accommodation with the fascists in Italy or even Franco in Spain.

    Infact the neo-fascist organisations in the US are overtly "Christian". Religion and fascism it seems to me have always made pretty good bedfellows.

    Totally different pathologies. The Christian Identity Movement in the United States had its origins in a unique combination of racism and Biblical Fundamentalism (so-called "Aryans" being the chosen people). Nazism doesn't rely on a religious expalantion for its racism, having its origins in the writings of Arthur de Gobineau and a twisted misinterpretation of Indo-European history. The fact that the Catholic Church may have made a devil's bargain with Hitler doesn't change that. Qutb's brand of fundamentalism has no racial component as such (although Islamic fundamentalists do support the elimination of Israel and many are, no doubt, anti-Semitic). What your doing is comparing apples, oranges and plums and saying they are the same because they are all fruit.

    The writer of that article attributes a fascism drawn from some elements of Islam to Zawahiri as follows:

    (It was when) "Zawahiri's al-Jihad in February 1998 formally joined forces with bin Laden that the present global Islamist terrorist threat truly emerged. With his long experience in the Muslim Brotherhood, his critical assessment of its failures, his cunning--albeit highly eclectic--fashioning of a fascist ideology drawing on Islamic religious elements..." or this: "And make no mistake: In this war against a new, ideologically vigorous fascism, collateral assets of the Islamists, the neo-Nazis of..."

    The writer's statements are conclusory. My point regarding the break with Nasser was that it showed that the alliance was one of convenience and common opposition to Britain and the monarchy, not one of ideological affinity.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 12:55pm

  121. CPT

    Where, exactly, was the racism in the Taliban regime? And where was the belligerent nationalism?

    Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 12:57pm

  122. Posted by LRJONES4 08/14/2006 @ 12:46am

    Just as the left is accused of failing to take the long view in Iraq, the same can be said of your view in Afghanistan. It appears as if your view of Afghanistan has not advanced since 2002, when news of freedom and the flourishing of liberalism put smiles on the faces of even the hardest of lefties. Yet there were some, like me, who never supported the invasion of Afghanistan, not because it did not need a good house cleaning nor because it held within its borders Enemy Number One, but because our president had not yet demonstrated that he was capable of balancing discretion in military action with the proper dedication to completing a formidable task.

    And such has been the case. You are convinced that al Qaeda has been disrupted thanks to our military and diplomatic activities. But what is your proof other than your gut? Are terrorist activities on the decline...anywhere? Is Afghanistan, four and a half years after we invaded, approaching stability or in decline? Have we disrupted the heroin trade that is crucial to funding the lawlessness that permeates the country? Do you have confidence that the Afghani government has the domestic, military, and international support it needs to govern?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/14/2006 @ 1:01pm

  123. The absolute routing of the "mighty" Arab forces in Iraq in three short weeks was another massive blow to its already shattered dreams of the beginning without end of the grand Caliphate. And the end of the sustaining belief that the Yanks were a morally decadent cream puff army.

    First, the blow against Iraq gave an opening to al-Qaida and its ideological brothers. Zawahiri was able to spend the rest of his unlamented life engaging in exactly the type of actions that bin-Laden wanted Islamist partisans to do. Second, the replacement of a secular regime with sectarian conflict gives his ideology yet another front by creating a religious war where none existed before.

    No longer able to flaunt it over the US but back to being nothing more than a thorn in the side of the nation whose military prowess they had despised.

    They were never more than a thorn in the side. Even a crime on the scale of 9-11 didn't make them an existential threat. Further, the hamhanded US policy in Iraq has certainly served to radicalize Muslims who might not have been so otherwise.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 1:01pm

  124. "Shouldn't it be "are you a shiela or a bruce? Not "a bloke"

    bloke = adult male (Brit or Aussie usage).

    sheila = Woman (pure Aussie)

    You guys do live sheltered lives.

    Australia is in Southern Europe if you want to check it out.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/14/2006 @ 1:04pm

  125. TJ

    I did support the invasion of Afghanistan. I think that al-Qaida did suffer some disruption in the loss of its infrastructure of training facilties and a secure base and in the loss of some of its key personnel. I do agree that the Afghan situation has deterioritated over the last couple of years because of the undercommittment of resources by the US occasioned by the strategic dead-end in Iraq.

    The imporant thing to note is that the disruption of al-Qaida as an organization hasn't been accompanied the its diminution as an idea that motiviates home-grown radicals in other countries (hence, the UK, Spain, Morocco). It may also be capable of giving some limited technical and financial assistance, if the both the accusations of both the UK airlines plot and the Pakistani connection bear out.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 1:05pm

  126. And can I mention that the whole argument about the term "fascism" is adorable. I am certain that a brainstorming session will resolve the issue and then, having properly identified those on the other side, we can move forward in the certainty that our plan is correct.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/14/2006 @ 1:07pm

  127. CPT, "the soaring eagle" (yup, his words), writes,

    Where was Bush in 1979 when the hostage were taken, what was the excuse then? ... Posted by CPT 08/14/2006 @ 12:45am

    Literally, where was he?

    Cannot answer for him for sure, CPT, but there is a good chance on that fateful day in November 1979, GWB had his ass clapped against a bar stool. Perhaps he was regaling the rivetted bartender with "war stories" about his experiences with the National Guard in slurred speech ("Iwuz en .. da .. nash-nashonal ... ggg ... arrrrrddd ... bang bang").

    That having been said, you are playing stupid on this one which is a poor way of trying to make your point. It is as obvious as hell that taking the enbassy was an egregious crime agianst the citizens inside, an affront to their rights and to their lives, to the concepts of international order. Thankfully, they all survived. It's also obvious that what was up the Iranians' ass was US sponsorship for the very Hussein-like (secular, modernizing, iron-fisted, human-rights supressing) Shah; does not excuse the crimes against the embassy staff but it takes no imagination to see what the motive was, while damning the action as wrong.

    Also notice that people acting in Reagan's name where very happy to go all relativist and (literally) deal (arms!) to Iran in the subsequent decade (outside the law, that is, and when not supporting Baghdad). Theodore Draper's uber-history of the Iran-contra affairs, VERY THIN LINE, deals with this in head-spinning detail.

    But let's get the bigger point and brush aside the details. Greider did not arrive at his judgement by consulting the Delphic Oracle or by performing intense rituals in the woods to comune with the spirits (or, worse, by consulting the likes of con-man Ahmad Chalabi or the drunken "Curveball", like some people we know). His judgement is confirmed by a whole range of people with expertise, including the US and UK military and intelligence communities and some concerned insider/citizens like Richard Clarke and Micheal Schuer. These judgements by well-meaning, stout-hearted, intelligent, dedicated and deeply patriotic people are out there. Don't pretend they don't exist.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/14/2006 @ 1:13pm

  128. Well Bush does need the terrorists and he did need WWIII to start in Lebanon. But it doesn't look like the neo-cons are getting very far there. Despite all their best efforts. And now it does look like the peace will hold. More bad news for Cheney.

    Posted by Parisib at 08/14/2006 @ 1:17pm

  129. osted by BRUNOWE 08/14/2006 @ 1:01pm

    Come off it B, that is nothing more than a rationalisation of your position. The madrasas in Pakistan have been radicalising Muslims for decades before Iraq or Afghanistan. That was the training environment for the Taliban. That's where the London Bombers and some of this last bunch had been.

    Jemiah Islamia killed 200 including almost 90 Aussies in Bali well before Iraq and the same for the WTC. You know little about Iraq pre-Saddam. The Shia were brutally repressed and thousands were slaughtered in the south in a civil rebellion against Saddam which was cruelly encouraged by Bush's father. Cruel because he made no attempt to help them. There was plenty of sectarian skirmishes and uprisings pre the Iaq war but the aces were with the Baathists. Yours is a little game of semantics, omissions and selectivity. That game will enable you to mantain your anti-war position but it is a flimsy edifice.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/14/2006 @ 1:45pm

  130. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/14/2006 @ 1:01pm

    TJ,

    You're about the only bloke here who would make an Aussie. You've got the style. But I must be rude to you. Do a bit more reading of the present situation in Afghanistan, by reading newspapers from that region (English is available) and you may find you get a somewhat different appreciation of what is happening. Not a thriving nation but still chugging along I get the feeling most of you read the same sources of information, which of course are biased commentary, so be bold and get more broadly informed by reading the news without commentary.

    Its late or should I say early here and my fair Lady is ordering me to bed.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/14/2006 @ 2:04pm

  131. Show a file film of Saudis, in their flowing robes, being greeted at the White House by Bush, followed by a film of Osama in his robes.

    . . . high-ranking Saudis, including members of the royal family, contributed millions of petrodollars to al Qaida and the Taliban via Saudi 'Islamic charities . . .

    Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/14/2006 @ 07:47am

    This would be a poor piece of rank propaganda. The Saudi government was engaged in extensive efforts to apprehend Bin Laden (probably at the behest of the Clinton administration). The fact that some members of the royal family contributed to al Qaeda is irrelevant. There are, I think, about four thousand of members of the royal family.

    Also, contributing money to charities feeding children in Afghanistan would not automatically make someone a terrorist except to someone in the Bush regime. Dozens of just such foreign charity workers have been imprisoned without trial in the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp so the Bush administration could pretend they are "fighting terrorism".

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/14/2006 @ 2:14pm

  132. And can I mention, TJBehrens, that our Decider's new pet term, Islamo-fascists directed at anybody who disagrees with him could come back to bite him in the ass should someone point out to him that those infamous fascists, the Nazis, were afforded trials whereas Bush's Islamo-fascist terrorists sitting in prisons all over the world are being denied trials at his behest? Obviously Bush is a Nazi sympathizer, right? Why else would he deny his bad guys the same treatment as the Nazis got? Could he, should it be pointed out to him, argue that his prisoners are far worse guys than the Nazis were? Only if he's a Nazi sympathizer.

    Posted by felicity at 08/14/2006 @ 2:36pm

  133. 'Bush desperately needs the terrorists' because they are one in the same!

    Click on the link below to see the evidence:

    OSAMA bin BUSH- The Monstrous Morph Brothers [osamabinbush.cf.huffingtonpost.com]

    Blog On

    PLANET REVOLUTION Blog [planetwares.blogspot.com]

    Posted by tfnewkirk at 08/14/2006 @ 2:45pm

  134. As mush as I hate to emulate LoatheLiberty, Rese, and Plunger, and cut-and-paste an article in its entirety, this was a fun read (even though I don't necessarily agree with every word of it - you got problems wth the article, take it up with the author):

    WHO'S AFRAID OF OSAMA WOLF? by Greg Palast Monday, August 14, 2006

    So, Osama walks into this bar, see? and Bush the bartender says, "Whad'l'ya have, pardner?" and Osama says…

    But wait a minute. I'd better shut my mouth. The sign here in the airport says, "Security is no joking matter." But if security's no joking matter, why does this guy dressed in a high-school marching band outfit tell me to dump my Frappaccino and take off my shoes? All I can say is, Thank the Lord the "shoe bomber" didn't carry Semtex in his underpants.

    Today's a RED ALERT day. How odd. They just caught the British guys with the chemistry sets. But when these guys were planning to blow up airliners, the USA was on ORANGE alert. That's a "low threat" notice.

    According to the press release from the Department of Homeland Security, low-threat Orange means that there were no special inspections of passengers or cargo. Isn't it nice of Mr. Bush to alert Osama when half our security forces are given the day off? Hmm. I asked an Israeli security expert why his nation doesn't use these pretty color codes.

    He asked me if, when I woke up, I checked the day's terror color.

    "I can't say I ever have. I mean, who would?"

    He smiled. "The terrorists."

    America is the only nation on the planet that kindly informs bombers, hijackers and berserkers the days on which they won't be monitored. You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to get a jump on George Bush's team.

    There are three possible explanations for the Administration's publishing a good-day-for-bombing color guidebook.

    1. God is on Osama's side.

    2. George is on Osama's side.

    3. Fear sells better than sex.

    A gold star if you picked #3.

    The Fear Factory

    I'm going to tell you something which is straight-up heresy: America is not under attack by terrorists. There is no WAR on terror because, except for one day five years ago, al Qaeda has pretty much left us alone.

    That's because Osama got what he wanted. There's no mystery about what Al Qaeda was after. Like everyone from the Girl Scouts to Bono, Osama put his wish on his web site. He had a single demand: "Crusaders out of the land of the two Holy Places." To translate: get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.

    And George Bush gave it to him. On April 29th, two days before landing on the aircraft carrier Lincoln, our self-described "War President" quietly put out a notice that he was withdrawing our troops from Saudi soil. In other words, our cowering cowboy gave in whimpering to Osama's demand.

    The press took no note. They were all wiggie over Bush's waddling around the carrier deck in a disco-aged jump suit announcing, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." But it wasn't America's mission that was accomplished, it was Osama's.

    Am I saying there's no danger, no threat? Sure there is: 46 million Americans don't have health insurance. IBM is legally stealing from its employees' pension plan and United Airlines has dumped its pensions altogether. Four-million three-hundred thousand Americans were injured, made sick or killed by their jobs last year. TXU Corporation is right now building four monster-sized power plants in Texas that will burn skuzzy gunk called "lignite." The filth it will pour into the sky will snuff a heck of a lot more Americans than some goofy group of fanatics with bottles of hydrogen peroxide.

    But Americans don't ask for real protection from what's killing us. The War on Terror is the Weapon of Mass Distraction. Instead of demanding health insurance, we have 59 million of our fellow citizens pooping in their pants with fear of Al Qaeda, waddling to the polls, crying, "Georgie save us!"

    And what does he give us? In my own small town, the federal government has paid for loading an SUV with .50 caliber machine guns to watch for an Al Qaeda attack at the dock of the ferry that takes tourists to the Indian casino in Connecticut. The casino dock is my town's officially designated "Critical Asset and Vulnerability Infrastructure Point (CAVIP)." (To find the most vulnerable points to attack in the USA, Al Qaeda can download a list from the Department of Homeland Security -- no kidding.)

    But that's not all. Bush is protecting us from English hijackers with exploding coffee cups with a fearsome anti-terrorist tool: the Virginia-class submarine. The V-boat was originally meant to hunt Soviet subs. But there are no more Soviet subs. So, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin have "refitted" these Cold War dinosaurs with new torpedoes redesigned to carry counter-terror commandoes. That's right: when we found Osama's beach house, we can shoot our boys right up under his picnic table and take him out. These Marines-in-a-tube injector boats cost $2.5 billion each -- and our President's ordered half a dozen new ones.

    Lynn Cheney, the Veep's wife, still takes in compensation from Lockheed as a former board member. I'm sure that has nothing to do with this multi-billion dollar "anti-terror" contract.

    Fear sells better than sex. Fear is the sales pitch for many lucrative products: from billion-dollar sailor injectors to one very lucrative war in Mesopotamia (a third of a trillion dollars doled out, no audits, no questions asked).

    Better than toothpaste that makes our teeth whiter than white, this stuff will make us safer than safe. It's political junk food, the cheap filling in the flashy tube. What we don't get is safety from the real dangers: a life-threatening health-care system, lung-murdering pollution production and a trade deficit with China that's reducing mid-America to coolie status. These would take a slice of the profits of the owning classes like the Lockheeds and the Exxons.

    War on Terror is class war by other means -- to keep you from asking for real protection from true threats, the landlords of our nation give you fake protection from manufactured dangers. And they remind you to be afraid every time to fly to see Aunt Millie and have to give up your hemorrhoid ointment to the underpaid guy in the bell-hop suit with a security badge.

    Oh, hey, you never got the punch line.

    So, Osama Walks into This Bar, See? and Bush says, "Whad'l'ya have, pardner?" and Osama says, "Well, George, what are you serving today?" and Bush says, "Fear," and Osama shouts, "Fear for everybody!" and George pours it on for the crowd. Then the presidential bartender says, "Hey, who's buying?" and Osama point a thumb at the crowd sucking down their brew.

    "They are," he says.

    And the two of them share a quiet laugh.

    *****

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/14/2006 @ 3:09pm

  135. Come off it B, that is nothing more than a rationalisation of your position. The madrasas in Pakistan have been radicalising Muslims for decades before Iraq or Afghanistan. That was the training environment for the Taliban. That's where the London Bombers and some of this last bunch had been.

    Jemiah Islamia killed 200 including almost 90 Aussies in Bali well before Iraq and the same for the WTC. You know little about Iraq pre-Saddam. The Shia were brutally repressed and thousands were slaughtered in the south in a civil rebellion against Saddam which was cruelly encouraged by Bush's father. Cruel because he made no attempt to help them. There was plenty of sectarian skirmishes and uprisings pre the Iaq war but the aces were with the Baathists. Yours is a little game of semantics, omissions and selectivity. That game will enable you to mantain your anti-war position but it is a flimsy edifice.

    First, that's the fallacy of the excluded middle, LR. I never said that there were no Islamist radicals prior to Iraq, I said that it, rather than being a blow to al-Qaida, has probably been a recruitment incentive towards al-Qaida like groups.

    Second, Hussein killed people, Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd, because of his murderous approach to anything remotely resembling an opposition, not for sectarian reasons per se. This is someone who inaugurated his ascension to power by a wholesale purge of the Revolutionary Command Council (so much for my not knowing anything about pre-Hussein Iraq). Although some of the ingredients for a sectarian war pre-date the 2003 invasions (again, Hussein's evil eye was on the Shi'ites almost from the get-go, as his ascension to power coincided with the Islamic Revolution in Iran), you never had what you have now, wholesale killings of Sunnis and Shi'ite because they are Sunnis and Shi'ites. Baghdad had not been fragmented into Sunni and Shi'ite neighborhoods the way it is today. I don't say that having Husssein in charge was better, I do say that one must be honest about what the Bush policy has substituted for it.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 3:37pm

  136. I think it's obvious how cunning the timing of the Heathrow "bust" (yep, it's a bust, watch how-few convictions come from it) was--Lieberman loses in the primary in Connecticut, Lebanon is exploding, and the body-count in Iraq reaches another zenith of 2,600 dead American soldiers. Also, the press is finally reporting the depleted-uranium (DU) story, and how it is literally destroying the bodies of Iraqis and American servicemen and women. Imagine hemmoraging all-the-time, no-energy, constant pain and confusion. This is real, people, it is a war-crime, and it is also genocidal to use this on human-beings of either-side. It has to stop, and now. If the elections are goofy again, we had better hit the streets to end this shit. http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/

    Posted by Dr. Mabuse at 08/14/2006 @ 3:51pm

  137. RIO BRAVO wrote:

    NO, the American people are not stupid enough to fall for your analysis Mr. Greider!

    Just as you weren't stupid enough to fall for Bush & Co.'s Iraq-WMD claims, huh?

    must be the pure genius of staging the hamstringing of the Islamic terrorists plot AFTER Joe Lieberman, a "War on Terror" supporter

    And an unflinching supporter of Bush's illegal, unnecessary war in Iraq who's failed to criticize the administration's pathetic post-war planning.

    defeated by the leftwing "cut and runner" Lamont that swung the deal!

    I ask people like you who support needlessly staying in Iraq in the middle of a civil war, doesn't that make you and your sort chickenhawk, armchair warmongers who love war just as long as you don't have to fight in it?

    But, don't worry you have already fooled the most gullible and illogical readers!

    This is coming from someone who no doubt makes up that 50% of gullible, criminally-uninformed "Americans" that still believe Iraq had WMD when this econd war broke out. Pathetic.

    Posted by TexasDemocrat at 08/14/2006 @ 3:54pm

  138. Texas,

    Are you crazy? You need to cower more!

    Can't pull out of Iraq.....it might give comfort to the terrorists!

    Can't stop wire tapping without warrants.....terrorists might strike.

    Can't sign a bill without slapping a signing statement on it, because the terrorists might get big nasty teeth.

    Can't stop deficit spending at record levels because the terrorists will something (I'm not sure right now how deficit spending beats the terrorists but I'll think of somthing eventually).

    Anyway, it's definitely time to put your hands in the air, run around in cirles and scream the word "PANIC" repeatedly.

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/14/2006 @ 4:02pm

  139. CPT

    Where, exactly, was the racism in the Taliban regime? And where was the belligerent nationalism?

    Posted by BRUNOWE 08/14/2006 @ 12:57am | ignore this person

    Ask the Tajiks and Uzbeks on the racism question, but i guess that wasnt mere racism, since there are really only, scientifically speaking 3 races, Caucasians, Negros, and Orientals. Racism taken at its root definition is narrow in its scope. But if your take to mean practicing discrimination against one group or another, then i would think it applies, Christians were not tolerated very well by the Taliban.

    Belligerent Nationalism, again it is what your definition of this is, but the Taliban were very repressive about its human rights abuses and were very apathetic towards any international pressure to lighten up.

    Islamo-facists as is defined today is appropiate. I would rather not give them another chance to utterly ruin another country like they did to Afghan and in the process allowed to breed an ugly form of hate.

    Posted by CPT at 08/14/2006 @ 4:03pm

  140. This is coming from someone who no doubt makes up that 50% of gullible, criminally-uninformed "Americans" that still believe Iraq had WMD when this econd war broke out. Pathetic.

    Posted by TEXASDEMOCRAT 08/14/2006 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person

    33% of Americans believe that 911 was an inside job.....now that is pathetic.

    Removing a SADDAM, and UDAY and QUSAY is never pathetic.

    Posted by CPT at 08/14/2006 @ 4:05pm

  141. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/14/2006 @ 1:07pm

    Not so fast, TJ. Once we have identified the proper term for our enemy, we must still resolve the sticky issue of which world war we are in. Some have said WW III. Others have said WW IV. And Hannity has show creative thinking by calling it WW V.

    Once we are secure in both our semantics and our numerology, we can finally move forward in the certainty that our plan is correct.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/14/2006 @ 4:11pm

  142. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/14/2006 @ 2:11pm:

    Look, it's the scared little boy.

    Hi, scared little boy.

    Rather than wasting your time finding alternative ways of saying the same thing, why not just write "But I'm still scared" each time you get the urge to post something?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/14/2006 @ 4:15pm

  143. But if your take to mean practicing discrimination against one group or another, then i would think it applies, Christians were not tolerated very well by the Taliban.

    Belligerent Nationalism, again it is what your definition of this is, but the Taliban were very repressive about its human rights abuses and were very apathetic towards any international pressure to lighten up.

    Islamo-facists as is defined today is appropiate. I would rather not give them another chance to utterly ruin another country like they did to Afghan and in the process allowed to breed an ugly form of hate.

    Relgious persecution was a problem under the Taliban (especially for the Shi'ite Hazara), but fascism isn't based on religious intolerance (although fascist practice can certainly involve persecution of religious minorities). For instance, Nazi persecution of the Jews was based on secular racial theories (as was their persecution of the Romany) and not on a theological one. Likewise, the Nazi disapproval of the Catholic Church had much to do with its transnational character.

    Likewise, belligerent nationalism isn't just a disregard for international opinion. The closest you would get to that is if a Pashtun leadership had evoked the historical dominance of the Pashtuns in Afghanistan, argued a resotration of that as the rationale and goal of their policy and then started to suppress non-Pashtun minorities on that basis as well as to seek the annexation of Pashtun areas of Pakistan. That would be belligerent nationalism in the fascist style.

    I would rather not give them another chance to utterly ruin another country like they did to Afghan and in the process allowed to breed an ugly form of hate.

    Well, Bush's ham-handed reconstruction of Iraq pretty much left the door open for that in Iraq.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 4:17pm

  144. Posted by CPT 08/14/2006 @ 4:05pm: Removing a SADDAM, and UDAY and QUSAY is never pathetic.

    Really, CPT? The benefit of removing a SADDAM, UDAY, and QUSAY is always worth the cost. What if their removal cost the lives of 1,000,000 innocents? Would it still be worth the cost?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/14/2006 @ 4:23pm

  145. Am I to understand that Greider believes the news coming out of England the past week regarding the plot is all a conspiracy? This kind of paranoia on his part defies all logic and demonstrates an absurd disregard for reality, & brings into question his ability to write competently for ANY paper or magazine, let alone this one.

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/14/2006 @ 4:27pm

  146. Really, CPT? The benefit of removing a SADDAM, UDAY, and QUSAY is always worth the cost. What if their removal cost the lives of 1,000,000 innocents? Would it still be worth the cost?

    Posted by ORWELL2005 08/14/2006 @ 4:23pm | ignore this person

    What if we had not? and a million or more lives would have been lost 5, 10, 15 years down the road? Would it have been worth it to you?

    Posted by CPT at 08/14/2006 @ 4:40pm

  147. CPT -

    Are "Orientals" as a race the same as "Mongoloids"?

    Just curious....

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/14/2006 @ 4:40pm

  148. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/14/2006 @ 4:17pm | ignore this person

    You are limiting yourself in your strident interpertations on the meaning of words. They leave you no room for acting, except in only the most extreme of circumstances.

    Perhaps this is the great divide between us and Islamo-facists, they dont allow words to get in the way of their actions.

    Posted by CPT at 08/14/2006 @ 4:45pm

  149. The fear factor is problematic with this one. It sure looks like a trumped up threat. It is the dangers they aren't talking about that are probably the ones really worth worrying about.

    Why is the US reaction so Ho-hum? I think its because the "home-cooked" explosives angle is pretty moldy in America. After all, the Anarchist's Cookbook is over 30 year's old and we went through all the heavy pondering of ready explosive availability with the Minuteman and militia scare in the 1990's after the OKC bombing.

    And the threat of on-board home mixed explosives obviously didn't spark much popular interest at the time of the 1994 Pacific plot.

    Despite the supposed "ready availability" of home-cooked munitions, the fact remains that "hobby" explosives are demonstrably unreliable and unstable. More of a danger to those transporting them than to intended victims.

    How bad can the threat really be when they (TSA) start backing off the on-board list of restrictions so fast? The biggest threat to Americans right now is the unravelling of any conceivable plan in Iraq and our current administration's propensity to begin fear biting when the going gets tough.

    Posted by legaldriver at 08/14/2006 @ 4:46pm

  150. NEW DAWN

    Not sure, i think they are, strictly using the scientific way in which race is defined. There are only those three races. All the rest are ethinic groups.

    Posted by CPT at 08/14/2006 @ 4:49pm

  151. our current administration's propensity to begin fear biting when the going gets tough.

    Posted by LEGALDRIVER 08/14/2006 @ 4:46pm | ignore this person

    Isnt that primarily the terrorists who are doing that, i dont think the adminsitration is hoping for them to attack us.

    Posted by CPT at 08/14/2006 @ 4:52pm

  152. "our current administration's propensity to begin fear biting when the going gets tough"

    which is pretty much Dick Cheney's whole reason for living, lately exhibited by his comments in reaction to the Lieberman meltdown

    Posted by legaldriver at 08/14/2006 @ 4:55pm

  153. Posted by CPT 08/14/2006 @ 4:52pm

    No, an actual attack would be the worst thing in the world for this adminstration, but seem to have manipulated the timing of the bust.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 4:56pm

  154. ... but "it seems" to have manipulated the timing of the bust.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 4:57pm

  155. CPT

    You are limiting yourself in your strident interpertations on the meaning of words. They leave you no room for acting, except in only the most extreme of circumstances.

    No, I'm simply stating that you are not Humpty-Dumpty and can't say "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." Nationalism and racism are not the same as religious fanaticism.

    Further, the semantic problem lies with the Orwellian use of the word "fascism" by the neo-cons. Fascism has the connotations is does because of the specifics of the ideology, the specifics of its application and the war that broke out because of it. What you want to do is unilaterallly redefine the term to mean something else while keeping the emotional connotations that are based on the original meaning, and the events that created it, and not your made-up one. This, I believe, was called doublespeak.

    Further, in the correct definition of fascism precluded acting in Afghanistan--and the opposition to neo-con policy in Iraq is based on that policy's lack of merit, as show by the semantic gamesmanship your side resorts to with misnomers like Islamo-facism.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 5:13pm

  156. Posted by CPT 08/14/2006 @ 4:40pm

    Ah, CPT. You are dodging the question. You claimed that removing a SADDAM, UDAY, and QUSAY is never pathetic. So I ask you again, would it be worth the cost of 1,000,000 civilians?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/14/2006 @ 5:14pm

  157. CPT

    In all fairness, I should add that progressives quite often abuse the term "fascist" and its derivatives.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 5:18pm

  158. CORRECTION

    Should've written "Further, the correct definition of fascism did not preclude acting in Afghanistan"

    Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 5:19pm

  159. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/14/2006 @ 03:12am Homeland Security is a Demoncrat party bureacratic boondoggle that got shoved through at the OBJECTION of the President. It is a colossal blundering failure consisting primarily of wasted and unused taxpayer dollars!

    Wouldn't it be mathematically impossible for the minority party in both the House and the Senate to "shove through" something over the objection of the President? Even if they have somehow suborned the vote of a few Republicans (who knows how, but with the level of corruption of the Republican delegation it is a least plausible), if the President did not like it, he could veto it.

    This is the most insane post I can recall from the Macho Grande ... but I'll have to confess that I cannot promise to have read each and every one of his missives.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/14/2006 @ 5:28pm

  160. Bruce - haven't you gotten the memo from the Hannity/Coulter contigent? Even though Republicans have controlled all three branches of government since 2000, anything that goes wrong is the fault of the minority Democratic Party.

    According to folks like Rio, this must be the most influential minority party in our nation's history.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/14/2006 @ 5:40pm

  161. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/14/2006 @ 11:59am LRJ

    Shouldn't it be "are you a shiela or a bruce? Not "a bloke".

    No, of course not ... you are getting your Strine from Monty Python, which is a pommie comedy troupe, not an Ozzie one.

    And the the honours in the Order of Australia are not OBE. They are Medal in the Order of Australia (OAM, no quota), Member in the Order of Australia (AM, at most 225 per year), Officer in the Order of Australia (AO, at most 100 per year), Companion in the Order of Australia (AC, at most 25 per year), and Knights and Dames, which are no longer handed out (they were not there when the order was created under Goughie, Fraser added them, and they were removed again on the advise of Hawke).

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/14/2006 @ 5:42pm

  162. Posted by CPT 08/14/2006 @ 4:03pm ... since there are really only, scientifically speaking 3 races, Caucasians, Negros, and Orientals.

    Ah, the 70's, thing's were so much simpler back then. "girls were girls and men were men" ...

    What about native Australians? They were in Australia before the "caucasians" could have existed ... heading out on the coastal route on coastlines that are now underwater, and so the movement was obscured until advances in genetic markers ...

    Or maybe not ... "Of course, not everyone agrees with him."

    Funny thing about science as opposed to faith. New advances in technology lead to new arguments and controversies on what you thought were settled bits of conventional wisdom.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com /news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/14/2006 @ 5:58pm

  163. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/14/2006 @ 5:18pm In all fairness, I should add that progressives quite often abuse the term "fascist" and its derivatives.

    Quite so ... while it refers to a particular form of corporatist authoritarian ideology, there is a tendency in certain lefty circles to label any right wing corporatist ideology as fascist.

    For example, while it accomodated right wing aristocrats in Spain, Italy and Germany, it was not intrinsically aristocratic. After all, it is one thing to rabble rouse by telling the crowd that they are the genuine representatives of the pure race of the nation, it would be far harder to rabble rouse based on "power to the aristocracy!"

    ... but its the same dynamic ... during the Greatest Generation, the Fascists were the epitome of all things evil ... so if you think something is evil, call it Fascist.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/14/2006 @ 6:08pm

  164. Emotional Politics

    Most of us believe voting decisions are based on rational thought and deliberation. Our colleges and universities across the country have departments of "political science". The assumption is there is a "science" of politics. We have opinion polls, focus groups, statistical and real time analysis. All of these techniques are designed to influence and measure public opinion. They run the gamut from "soft" to "persuasive" and finally "push" methods of "manipulation".

    However, what seems to be the case is the part of the brain most associated with reasoning does not respond to rational political stimulation. Research conducted at Emory University using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) suggests political decisions are driven by the unconscious and emotions.

    According to Drew Western, who led the study, commented "…partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it with the elimination of negative states and activation of positive ones.

    Therefore, part of our emotional and unconscious reaction to stressful stimuli is our "fight or flight" response.

    These reactions infuse what Carl Jung identified as a nation's "collective unconscious". Since 9/11, the threat of weapons of mass destruction, whether fictitious or not, as well as other terrorist assaults abroad, have ignited our defense or stress mechanism –"fight or flight" response.

    Examined in this way, Lamont's victory was a win for those who favor flight-- isolationism; they want our troops home from Iraq and the clock turned back prior to 911.

    There are the fighters that want to stay in Iraq and bomb the ME into the Stone Age, as long as Israel survives unscathed. Fight is man's most common response mechanism. This mechanism, today, is sublimated by violent movies, video games, and in its extreme violent criminal behavior, as for example it use in politics--the infamous Willie Horton ad.

    The flight response desire for unsatisfied safety is indicative of psychological dysfunction: anxiety, depression, sexual impotence, suicide and psychosis.

    There is the likelihood a society where the collective unconscious is dominated by the flight response is vulnerable to dominion by a fight response directed society. For example, the flight response evidenced by Great Britain and its Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain resulted in the deaths of more than 50 million before Britain and the United States engaged Nazi Germany.

    These are the emotional and unconscious buttons that can be pushed by either side in this election, one side may attempt to use both.

    Our choices are pushing the flight button of anti-war isolationism, or the fight button of establishing, if you will, an American "beachhead" in the Middle East . It is possible Iraq may have to be divided along ethnic lines, nonetheless, even if this occurs, we will have our ME proxy and base of operations to wage war against terrorism outside the United States . This rationale may be the confirmatory information needed to satisfy the fight response, while it will remain non-confirmatory to those that are flight response directed.

    However, the solace of knowing it will happen "over there" may dissipate the flight response. Consequently, this election, as the '04 vote, could become a choice either of fight or flight and possibly and mixture of both.

    The Democrats have put forth its "6 in ‘06" agenda which, true to form, appeals to the rational, except for its call for withdrawal from Iraq .

    The Republican message is quite simple. Terrorism is an imminent threat. We all witnessed it on 911. We foiled attacks in August. There have been other attacks since 911. We know from the President of Iran that 52,000 suicide bombers are ready to attack. Do we fight, or to we do what the Democratic Party suggest--succumb to our flight response and runaway. We have a place outside of the United States where we are fighting terrorists. It is Iraq .

    The Democratic agenda does contain emotional attributes--elimination of poverty, universal health care, environmentalism. However, in our current climate these issues are meaningless in a world which is in chaos, our personal safety jeopardized, and our fight or flight response is running riot.

    For recent commentary on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html

    For more information on the Emory University study: Scientific American.com and

    Huffing ton Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/biology-of-rhetorical-fai_b_249 40.html

    http://garart.squarespace.com

    Posted by joegarcia at 08/14/2006 @ 6:08pm

  165. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/14/2006 @ 4:11pm

    I stand corrected. Thanks much for catching one of the many errors that riddle most every post I make. And I count this as V for absolutely no other reason than I think it looks cool after the words World and War.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/14/2006 @ 6:12pm

  166. Posted by HMAN23 08/14/2006 @ 5:40pm Bruce - haven't you gotten the memo from the Hannity/Coulter contigent? Even though Republicans have controlled all three branches of government since 2000, anything that goes wrong is the fault of the minority Democratic Party.

    According to folks like Rio, this must be the most influential minority party in our nation's history.

    This is a parrot line that I hope they use as widely as possible. Its a cakewalk to run against, since it requires admitting a failure of the Republicans in Congress in order to try to blame the Democrats ... and that is just too complex to sink in without large numbers receiving the message, "failure of Congress".

    And with the heroic efforts of gerrymandering of the past decade, there are a lot more Republican districts in reach of a strong protest vote than Democratic districts ... since after all, the whole point of gerrymandering is to spread your own vote around and concentrate the vote of the other side.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/14/2006 @ 6:12pm

  167. But can anything be more truly fascist than the promotion of "Islamo-facism"? How do we deal with people who are fighting anyone who does not bear a strong resemblance to an Islamic person, at least above the neck? Note to self: in this brave new war, it has become time to insert brown contacts.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/14/2006 @ 6:20pm

  168. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/14/2006 @ 6:12pm: And I count this as V for absolutely no other reason than I think it looks cool after the words World and War.

    That might have been Hannity's reason as well.

    But, I suspect, he simply lost count.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/14/2006 @ 6:25pm

  169. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/14/2006 @ 6:20pm But can anything be more truly fascist than the promotion of "Islamo-facism"? How do we deal with people who are fighting anyone who does not bear a strong resemblance to an Islamic person, at least above the neck? Note to self: in this brave new war, it has become time to insert brown contacts.

    I don't get it ... you are calling Bush a Fascist? He and the regime are the ones promoting the idea that there is an islamic fascism.

    As far as intolerant islamic fundamentalism, its like intolerant christian fundamentalism ... there are blonde, blue eyed muslims, there are asian muslims, there are african muslism, and of course we all know there are a fair few semitic muslims ... I don't know that eye color is going to do much good when a building explodes in an effort to persuade the government of that country to remove infidel troops for the "holy lands".

    The "muslims" that are willing to do that are as far removed from their faith as the "christians" that were blowing up stores in London a while back.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/14/2006 @ 6:27pm

  170. GAZA (Reuters) - Palestinian gunmen kidnapped two foreign journalists working for the Fox News television channel in Gaza on Monday, a witness said.

    The witness, a Palestinian who worked with the two journalists, said one of them, a producer, was an American, and the other, whose nationality he did not know, was a cameraman.

    http://tinyurl.com/p6ept

    This would be a timely moment for the Fox Neo-News-Fascists to reiterate their attitude toward torture as an investigative technique.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/14/2006 @ 6:30pm

  171. The world see the dominance of the imperator "Bush Alexandre" for Asia. Afhganistan, Iraq, in future Irã. The conquestor of the Asia need causes or motives for more country under dominance US.

    Posted by brazilian44 at 08/14/2006 @ 6:34pm

  172. But can anything be more truly fascist than the promotion of "Islamo-facism"? How do we deal with people who are fighting anyone who does not bear a strong resemblance to an Islamic person, at least above the neck? Note to self: in this brave new war, it has become time to insert brown contacts.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/14/2006 @ 6:20pm

    I didn't notice anyone in the Republican Potty or news media expounding on the threat from Christo-fascism after the OK City bombing, or over Eric Rudolph's Atlanta Olympics bombing. Neither did I notice them referring to Judeo-fascism over the Jewish terrorist murder of Palestinian Alex Odeh (probably a US citizen) inside US borders nor over the attempted bombing of a Muslim mosque and other Arab gathering places in Southern California by Jewish terrorists.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/14/2006 @ 6:38pm

  173. Note: I was making light of CPT's truly awful spelling and/or typing. Again and again, I urge him to try remedial grammar, spelling and reading lessons, but he returns with his keyboard yammering out his brand of third-grader gibberish.

    Specifically,

    he wrote "Islamo-facism" several times, omitting the first s in fascism. Merely wondered how awful an Islamo-facist might be if taken as a correctly spelled supporter of those who bear the visage of a Muslim.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/14/2006 @ 6:45pm

  174. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/14/2006 @ 6:38pm I didn't notice anyone in the Republican Potty or news media expounding on the threat from Christo-fascism after the OK City bombing, or over Eric Rudolph's Atlanta Olympics bombing. Neither did I notice them referring to Judeo-fascism over the Jewish terrorist murder of Palestinian Alex Odeh (probably a US citizen) inside US borders nor over the attempted bombing of a Muslim mosque and other Arab gathering places in Southern California by Jewish terrorists.

    No, no, no, no, words means what the Bush regime say they mean and in the contexts in which they have those meanings. The application of the term "Fascism" to acts by extremist who claim to be Christians is simple ... it does not apply. Its normal to be a Christian, so of course crazy people claim Christian justification for crazy acts. The term for right wing extremism in that context is "crazy person". For the right wing Israeli, the term is "fighting terrorism". And for religious fundamentalism for a religion with few enough adherents in the US to make a tempting scapegoat, the term is "islamo-fascist".

    The actual meaning of the word does not matter. All that matters is what action is being justified, and what use of language tests well in focus groups.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/14/2006 @ 6:47pm

  175. In this way, I am smearing what is my greatest fear: the future of America lying in the hands and "minds" of people who are unable to communicate in basic English, much less attempt to understand any portion of a second culture beyond a Taco Bell menu or information on the Chinese calendar printed on paper menus.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/14/2006 @ 6:48pm

  176. Posted by BRAZILIAN44 08/14/2006 @ 6:34pm The world see the dominance of the imperator "Bush Alexandre" for Asia. Afhganistan, Iraq, in future Iran. The conquestor of the Asia need causes or motives for more country under dominance US.

    Bad analogy. Its more like ancient Rome, which went from a tiny city state to an Empire dominating the Mediterrenean World without ever once fighting an aggressive war ... every single way they fought that was not a retaliation for an attack was a preemptive strike to take out a threat to Roman territory.

    | ignore this person

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/14/2006 @ 6:51pm

  177. Oops, typo:

    Posted by BRAZILIAN44 08/14/2006 @ 6:34pm The world see the dominance of the imperator "Bush Alexandre" for Asia. Afhganistan, Iraq, in future Iran. The conquestor of the Asia need causes or motives for more country under dominance US.

    Bad analogy. Its more like ancient Rome, which went from a tiny city state to an Empire dominating the Mediterrenean World without ever once fighting an aggressive war ... every single war they fought that was not a retaliation for an attack was a preemptive strike to take out a threat to Roman territory.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/14/2006 @ 6:52pm

  178. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/14/2006 @ 12:55am

    B, you need to read and understand what you write. It was you who gave the impression that Qubt could not possibly be a fascist because he was a puritanical religionist (which incidentally was his reaction to the "moral depravity" he observed whilst studying in the US). I merely introduced the historically observable reality that religion and fascism get along quite well together and by extension secularism was not a prerequisite for a fully fledged fascism.

    If you and Red had thought about that for a moment you too may have realised that your contention was disproved by European history. I grant that you have a far better understanding of the matter than Red who seems to be trying to come to grips with some definitions. I think he has a problem in identifying fascism until its (theoretical?) exponent is in a governing role. Is he saying fascists are fascists only when they exercise power? Who knows and who cares? Others don't have that problem.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/14/2006 @ 6:58pm

  179. Bush's 911 speech was all about "Protracted War and Sacrifice". The only way to protract war is "fight to lose". The last loser to fight this way was Hitler and Grandaddy Bush and his business partner Herbert Walker supported that too. "The Iraq invasion was an unecessary preventable war of choice that has ROBBED RESOURCES and attention from the more critical mission against al-Qaeda in a hopeless quest for ABSOLUTE SECURITY"...U.S.Army Report on Iraq 2004. If al-Qaeda is the foreign threat, then the GWGOP is the domestic threat.

    Posted by worldpatriot at 08/14/2006 @ 7:01pm

  180. LRJONES,

    Not to but into your personal life, but it appears you got less than 5 hours of sleep. I hope your coffee is strong.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/14/2006 @ 7:33pm

  181. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/14/2006 @ 3:37pm

    B,

    Would it be inconsiderate of me to suggest that you were ignoring the reality of a bubbling undercurrent of sectarian antagonism (Should have been pre-invasion not pre-Saddam (my mistake)) in that pre-war period had I not mentioned it.

    It is that sort of "black and white" approach to pre and post invasion Iraq that can only be intended to overstate your case and in part what I was underscoring in your "Justification" for your anti-war stance. If there is a missing middle it is you was hiding it or more generously had misplaced it.

    You make what I would suggest is an artificial distinction between a non-sectarian suppression (Saddam) and the present religiously inspired (in your estimation) violence. If the sectarian drivers were not a major factor in the Saddam years ie. no powerful uderlying sectarian tendencies, then why on earth should that factor be in play now? Or is it possible that the present strife, head to head, is primarily a non-sectarian payback regime in play?

    I think you could google up as easily as I can some strong indicators that Saddam used sectarianism as well as ethnicity to achieve his ends.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/14/2006 @ 8:31pm

  182. Note: I was making light of CPT's truly awful spelling and/or typing. Again and again, I urge him to try remedial grammar, spelling and reading lessons, but he returns with his keyboard yammering out his brand of third-grader gibberish.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/14/2006 @ 6:45pm

    That's his only enduring virtue for those of us who have our own deficiencies in that area- he makes us look better in comparison.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/14/2006 @ 8:34pm

  183. . . . my greatest fear: the future of America lying in the hands and "minds" of people who are unable to communicate in basic English, much less attempt to understand any portion of a second culture beyond a Taco Bell menu or information on the Chinese calendar printed on paper menus.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/14/2006 @ 6:48pm

    This would be funny if it wasn't entirely accurate.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/14/2006 @ 8:35pm

  184. "Not to but into your personal life, but it appears you got less than 5 hours of sleep. I hope your coffee is strong."

    Hmm. Quite impressed. Not only a literary man but you can also add up.

    Promised myself I would keep away from the "nut house" last night to finish some calcs for a process plant.

    Having a bit of a bludge at work now and getting the slaves to check my sums.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/14/2006 @ 8:44pm

  185. Translated from the Italian: Islamic Fascists by Sergio Romano (Corriere della Sera, 12 August 2006)

    "But it would be very difficult for me to identify fascism in religiously inspired movements from the Muslim Brotherhood to those that following the Iranian Revolution, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the First Gulf War in 1991. Between the Ba'ath and religious fanaticism, even against a common enemy, there is an unfathomable divide. Standing apart from his predecessors, George Bush seems to have forgotten that the greatest enemy of Khomeini's Iran was Saddam Hussein and during the long war between the two countries, from 1980 to 1988, the United States supported the fascists against the Islamists."

    Nur al-Cubicle [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/14/2006 @ 8:47pm

  186. . . . the RepubliClowns owe a large measure of their post-1964 electoral success to dog-whistling racism.

    Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/14/2006 @ 12:34am

    "S.R. Sidarth, a senior at the University of Virginia, had been trailing Allen with a video camera to document his travels and speeches for the Webb campaign. During a campaign speech Friday in Breaks, Virginia, near the Kentucky border, Allen singled out Sidarth and called him a word that sounded like "Macaca."

    "This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great. We're going to places all over Virginia, and he's having it on film and its great to have you here and you show it to your opponent because he's never been there and probably will never come."

    After telling the crowd that Webb was raising money in California with a "bunch of Hollywood movie moguls," Allen again referenced Sidarth, who was born and raised in Fairfax County.

    "Lets give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia," said Allen, who then began talking about the "war on terror."

    In an interview, Sidarth said he suspects Allen singled him out because he was the only non-white face in the audience, which he estimated included about 100 Republican supporters."

    http://tinyurl.com/pczft

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/14/2006 @ 8:55pm

  187. Posted by CPT 08/14/2006 @ 4:05pm: Removing a SADDAM, and UDAY and QUSAY is never pathetic.

    Really, CPT? The benefit of removing a SADDAM, UDAY, and QUSAY is always worth the cost. What if their removal cost the lives of 1,000,000 innocents? Would it still be worth the cost?

    Posted by ORWELL2005 08/14/2006 @ 4:23pm

    The only innocents in CPT's mind are himself and Dear Leader. If it cost their life then, and only then, it would not be worth it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/14/2006 @ 9:06pm

  188. Having a bit of a bludge at work now and getting the slaves to check my sums.

    Posted by LRJONES4 08/14/2006 @ 8:44pm

    Please tell us you wear an outback-kinda hat, folded sharply upward on one side and are viewed by your bevy of aboriginal slaves as a gentle and fair master. We on the American Left do not get along well at all with unfair slaveholders. However, if you were to be a talented wordsmith, have a fondness for one of your slaves to the point that you had a long and "productive" relationship, and have a knack for invention, you might find a huge sculpted rendering of your head in a godforsaken portion of your geography.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/14/2006 @ 9:12pm

  189. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/14/2006 @ 8:55pm

    Yikes! Allen is a remarkable lightweight, which of course puts him at the top of the GOP heap. You should have pasted their attempts to explain away his stunning behavior. Lots of muck in VA and Allen has no shovel.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/14/2006 @ 9:15pm

  190. Posted by BRUNOWE 08/14/2006 @ 5:18pm In all fairness, I should add that progressives quite often abuse the term "fascist" and its derivatives.

    Quite so ... while it refers to a particular form of corporatist authoritarian ideology, there is a tendency in certain lefty circles to label any right wing corporatist ideology as fascist.

    ... so if you think something is evil, call it Fascist.

    Posted by BRUCEMCF 08/14/2006 @ 6:08pm

    You don't think the virulent Bush supporters here are evidencing fascist attitudes? You don't think they're expressing the attitudes of some of the core constituents of the Republican Party? Explain why not.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/14/2006 @ 9:16pm

  191. Posted by CPT 08/14/2006 @ 4:03pm

    "...since there are really only, scientifically speaking 3 races, Caucasians, Negros, and Orientals."

    Interesting theory, you've pulled out of your ass. (I know, that's where you get all your information, but still...)

    Think, (if you are capable). Regardless of whether you believe we evolved from common ancestry, or you think we're the incestuous offspring of mud-man and rib-girl, we all come from one place. Ergo, race has been "created" on exterior observations and the "exact number" of "races" would be entirely dependant on the time in history, that you choose to do your counting.

    Hardly an "exact" "science". Besides, since when did you give any credence to science or rational thought?

    "I would rather not give them another chance to utterly ruin another country like they did to Afghan and in the process allowed to breed an ugly form of hate."

    You mean, like we did to Iraq?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/14/2006 @ 9:36pm

  192. An AP reporter apparently sees no ironies in this article he filed:

    While Israel claimed to have flooded south Lebanon with 30,000 soldiers in its final offensive, an AP reporter who drove Monday from Tyre to the Israeli border and through several destroyed villages along the frontier saw only one Israeli tank.

    The only one left?

    Israeli Prime Ehud Olmert also claimed success, saying the offensive eliminated the "state within a state" run by Hezbollah group and restored Lebanon's sovereignty in the south.

    The mayor of the largely Christian town of Marjayoun said Israeli forces pulled out Monday after blowing up part of the Lebanese army barracks in the city. Israel occupied the town Thursday.

    That should help.

    Israel urged Lebanese to stay out of the conflict zone in south Lebanon, saying it was still dangerous because Israeli and Hezbollah fighters were in the area. "Of course, the army would not open fire on civilians in the area," said Capt. Jacob Dallal, an army spokesman.

    Everyone knows that.

    Whole towns and villages in the south were largely flattened, especially along the border with Israel and a broad swath of the Hezbollah dominated suburbs in south Beirut. Bridges and roads throughout the country were destroyed and the Beirut airport remained closed. Israel said it would continue its blockade of Lebanese ports but was no longer threatening to shoot any car that moved on the roads south of the Litani.

    http://tinyurl.com/f969s

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/14/2006 @ 9:49pm

  193. B, you need to read and understand what you write. It was you who gave the impression that Qubt could not possibly be a fascist because he was a puritanical religionist (which incidentally was his reaction to the "moral depravity" he observed whilst studying in the US). I merely introduced the historically observable reality that religion and fascism get along quite well together and by extension secularism was not a prerequisite for a fully fledged fascism.

    Permit me to clarify, I don't say that relgious belief and fascism are per se incompatible, I do say that Qutb's motivation was religious and not fascistic and that, unlike the Christian Identity movement, religious militancy and fascism did prove incompatible in the Islamic world (think of the death struggle between Assad and the Brotherhood in Syria in the 80s). The difference is that the pan-Arab nationalism represented by Nasserim and the Ba'ath is secular in origin while the right-wing offshoots of the Christian Identity movement are religious in origin. Thus, the Islamist militancy in the Middle East is incompatible with fascist-type organizations like the Ba'ath.

    Would it be inconsiderate of me to suggest that you were ignoring the reality of a bubbling undercurrent of sectarian antagonism (Should have been pre-invasion not pre-Saddam (my mistake)) in that pre-war period had I not mentioned it.

    It wouldn't be inconsiderate at all. However, I did say that "...some of the ingredients for a sectarian war pre-date the 2003 invasion..." in my 08/14/2006 @ 3:37pm post. Perhaps I understated it, but I didn't ignore it. However, I still maintain that the overthrow of Hussein and the nature of the occupation created the circumstances and opening for a full-fledge sectarian conflict. I refer you to an International Crisis Group report [crisisgroup.org] that makes this observation in its Executive Summary:

    "If Iraq falls apart, historians may seek to identify years from now what was the decisive moment. The ratification of the constitution in October 2005, a sectarian document that both marginalised and alienated the Sunni Arab community? The flawed January 2005 elections that handed victory to a Shiite-Kurdish alliance, which drafted the constitution and established a government that countered outrages against Shiites with indiscriminate attacks against Sunnis? Establishment of the Interim Governing Council in July 2003, a body that in its composition prized communal identities over national-political platforms? Or, even earlier, in the nature of the ousted regime and its consistent and brutal suppression of political stirrings in the Shiite and Kurdish communities that it saw as threatening its survival? Most likely it is a combination of all four, as this report argues."

    As the summary states, the nature of the ousted regime suppression of the Shi'ites helped create a Shi'ite political consciousness that was a pre-2003 ingredient for sectarian strife, but the nature of the reconstruction did all the rest.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/14/2006 @ 10:06pm

  194. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/14/2006 @ 9:16pm You don't think the virulent Bush supporters here are evidencing fascist attitudes? You don't think they're expressing the attitudes of some of the core constituents of the Republican Party? Explain why not.

    Oh, FRB, suppose I wanted to sort out fascists from a variety of other (racial or ethnic or nationalistic) chauvinists from religious fundamentalist intolerance from libertarian rationalizing yellow bellied surplus sucking as "keeping what I earned". Then I would have to take notes, work out who said what in what context ... blech. It would be too much like work.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/14/2006 @ 11:06pm

  195. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/14/2006 @ 9:12pm ...Please tell us you wear an outback-kinda hat, folded sharply upward on one side and are viewed by your bevy of aboriginal slaves as a gentle and fair master. ...

    A little confusion there about geography, history, and quite an underdeveloped sense of irony there ... but an underdeveloped sense of irony is a common problem among yanks.

    I'm only guessing, but I reckon the slaves in question are wage slaves, and anyone from Australia reckons that your a bit of a goose ... but OTOH, well worked Thomas Jefferson reference in there.

    At least, I'm assuming its a Thomas Jefferson reference and not a reference to something about Crazy Horse that I missed out on.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/14/2006 @ 11:11pm

  196. I'm only guessing, but I reckon the slaves in question are wage slaves, and anyone from Australia reckons that your a bit of a goose ... but OTOH, well worked Thomas Jefferson reference in there.

    Posted by BRUCEMCF 08/14/2006 @ 11:11pm

    You've correctly observed my sensory deprivation. And it rears its ugly head at the oddest, most inappropriate moments. All of which is to say...

    ...watch your back, Bruce. I've got shrimp, I've got a barby, and I'm not afraid to use them.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/14/2006 @ 11:44pm

  197. The American people, indeed have been duped, but that is changing. The mainstream news media is not to be believed and are controlled by Bush and his counterparts. Thank God for the internet. 2006 elections will be interesting, they can't fix them all. Let's hope some of the corrupt politicians will be purged and new blood will help reveal the truth.

    Posted by Pats at 08/15/2006 @ 07:52am

  198. U.S., Iraq now agree: Deadly weekend blasts caused by insurgents BAGHDAD (CNN) -- After a public disagreement with the Iraqi government over what caused a deadly weekend blast in Baghdad that killed 63 Iraqis and wounded 140 others, the U.S. military Tuesday said a series of insurgent attacks caused the explosions.

    Initially the U.S. military said the blasts were the result of a gas explosion, despite the Iraqi government's insistence that car bombs and rockets were to blame.

    Above is a prime example of how the administration has tried to spin the events.

    Posted by djmarch at 08/15/2006 @ 10:12am

  199. Tuesday's statement said two car bombs touched off the gas explosion in Baghdad's Zafraniya neighborhood, leveling a residential building.

    The blasts were part of a coordinated attack involving four car bombs that detonated in a 30-minute timespan, destroying four buildings within a one-mile radius.

    It is the second time in two days that the U.S. military and the Iraqi government had publicly disagreed over the events surrounding suspected insurgent activity. (Posted 8:20 a.m.)

    Posted by djmarch at 08/15/2006 @ 10:14am

  200. The American people, indeed have been duped, but that is changing. The mainstream news media is not to be believed and are controlled by Bush and his counterparts. Thank God for the internet. 2006 elections will be interesting, they can't fix them all. Let's hope some of the corrupt politicians will be purged and new blood will help reveal the truth.

    Posted by PATS 08/15/2006 @ 07:52am

    The American people are catching on how this administration has "cried wolf" on terror too many times....But I guess with the predicument its'in, what else would one expect ???

    Posted by djmarch at 08/15/2006 @ 10:17am

  201. Posted by CPT 08/14/2006 @ 4:03pm ... since there are really only, scientifically speaking 3 races, Caucasians, Negros, and Orientals.

    CPT -

    Are "Orientals" as a race the same as "Mongoloids"?

    Just curious....

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/14/2006 @ 4:40pm

    NEW DAWN

    Not sure, i think they are, strictly using the scientific way in which race is defined. There are only those three races. All the rest are ethinic groups.

    Posted by CPT 08/14/2006 @ 4:49pm

    Subtlety is completely lost on some folks... ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 11:13am

  202. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/14/2006 @ 8:55p

    Macaca? Hmm, new one on me, but one must keep the language moving to keep ones racism covert. This is just disgusting and typical behavior. "Welcome to America." What an ass!

    Promote fear, win the election.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2006 @ 12:15pm

  203. NEW DAWN

    Subtlety is completely lost on some folks... ;)

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/15/2006 @ 11:13am | ignore this person

    Well said.....You have no idea do you?

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 12:17pm

  204. Note: I was making light of CPT's truly awful spelling and/or typing. Again and again, I urge him to try remedial grammar, spelling and reading lessons, but he returns with his keyboard yammering out his brand of third-grader gibberish.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/14/2006 @ 6:45pm

    It is only gibberish when it does not agree with your viewpoint.

    The wonderful mind of the enlightened class, so arrogantly self-assured of their own superiority.

    Reality-check hero, its a blog.

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 12:23pm

  205. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/14/2006 @ 9:06pm | ignore this person

    You are woefully unqualified to speak about the nature and costs of sacrifice.

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 12:26pm

  206. Posted by MALCONTENT 08/14/2006 @ 9:36pm | ignore this person

    It is how race is categorized TODAY, not eons ago, dipshitted mallethead.

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 12:32pm

  207. NEW DAWN

    Subtlety is completely lost on some folks... ;)

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/15/2006 @ 11:13am | ignore this person

    Well said.....You have no idea do you?

    Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 12:17am

    No idea about what, CPT? That you said that there are only three races: Caucasoid, Negroid, and "Orientals"?

    Nope, I'm pretty clear on that. Thanks, though.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 12:55pm

  208. Watching CPT degenerate over his last few posts all the ay to "dipshitted mallethead" was delightful - thanks to all of you who twisted his panties...

    Poor fella - it must be tough to try and act like such a tough old soldier boy when he actually has tissue-thin skin.

    (What the hell is a "mallethead"? Is that anything like a "mullethead"?)

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 1:01pm

  209. The wonderful mind of the enlightened class, so arrogantly self-assured of their own superiority.

    Reality-check hero, its a blog.

    Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 12:23am

    It's you who call us "enlightened"; we, therefore, bask not in a self-promoted sense of superiority but in that promoted by you. We thank you for your continued support. As for being a hero, well, aw shucks, we're just trying to do our little part for the cause. We don't pay no heroism no never mind no how. That's for you boys who sit stateside in camo.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/15/2006 @ 1:03pm

  210. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/14/2006 @ 8:55p

    Macaca? Hmm, new one on me, but one must keep the language moving to keep ones racism covert. This is just disgusting and typical behavior. "Welcome to America." What an ass!

    Promote fear, win the election.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/15/2006 @ 12:15am

    I'm guessing that it's Allen's version of an American Indian name although the person it was directed against has a name that suggests he may be of "East" Indian origin . . probably all the same to Allen. Someone mentioned that the Allen campaign's explanations were funny. I'll have to do a news search on that and see if anyone asked him to explain the nickname.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/15/2006 @ 1:06pm

  211. NEW DAWN

    Well i dont know what you are talking about...but i guess it makes you feel better.

    To think that anything said on a blog like this could TRULY upset anyone is laughable.

    Dipshitted mallethead is a common term on old 1SG would use.

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 1:08pm

  212. Oh, Bird, it's waaaaay worse than just his version of an Indian name:

    George Allen's America Whom it includes, and whom it doesn't Tuesday, August 15, 2006; Page A12

    "MY FRIENDS, we're going to run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas," Sen. George F. Allen told a rally of Republican supporters in Southwest Virginia last week. "And it's important that we motivate and inspire people for something." Whereupon Mr. Allen turned his attention to a young campaign aide working for his Democratic opponent -- a University of Virginia student from Fairfax County who was apparently the only person of color present -- and proceeded to ridicule him.

    Let's consider which positive, constructive or inspirational ideas Mr. Allen had in mind when he chose to mock S.R. Sidarth of Dunn Loring, who was recording the event with a video camera on behalf of James Webb, the Democratic nominee for the Senate seat Mr. Allen holds. The idea that holding up minorities to public scorn in front of an all-white crowd will elicit chortles and guffaws? (It did.) The idea that a candidate for public office can say "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia!" to an American of Indian descent and really mean nothing offensive by it? (So insisted Mr. Allen's aides.) Or perhaps the idea that bullying your opponents and calling them strange names -- Mr. Allen twice referred to Mr. Sidarth as "Macaca" -- is within the bounds of decency on the campaign trail?

    Who's Blogging? Read what bloggers are saying about this article. Southwest Virginia Blogs Blinq newsrack blog

    Full List of Blogs (17 links) »

    Most Blogged About Articles On washingtonpost.com | On the web

    Save & Share Tag This Article

    Saving options 1. Save to description: Headline (required) Subheadline

    2. Save to notes (255 character max): Subheadline Blurb None 3. Tag This Article

    We have no inkling as to what Mr. Allen meant by "Macaca," though we rather doubt his campaign's imaginative explanation that it was somehow an allusion to Mr. Sidarth's hairstyle, a mullet. Mr. Allen said last night that no slur was intended, though he failed to explain what, exactly, he did have in mind. Macaca is the genus for macaques, a type of monkey found mainly in Asia. Mr. Allen, who as a young man had a fondness for Confederate flags and later staunchly opposed a state holiday in honor of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., has surely learned too much about racial sensitivities in public life to misspeak so offensively.

    Mr. Sidarth, who is 20, is a senior at U-Va.; he graduated from Thomas Jefferson High School in Fairfax after compiling an excellent academic record. He is thinking of applying to law school. He may be forgiven if his week-long foray on the campaign trail with Mr. Allen has left him with a bitter taste. "I think he was doing it because he could, and I was the person of color there and it was useful for him in inciting his audience," Mr. Sidarth told us. "I'm disgusted he would use my race in a political context."

    We don't blame him for feeling that way. But really, by mocking Mr. Sidarth, Sen. George F. Allen demeaned only himself.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 1:09pm

  213. We don't pay no heroism no never mind no how.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/15/2006 @ 1:03pm | ignore this person

    Knew that already, its an ancient concept to your types, and reserved for those who "expose" US national security secrets.

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 1:11pm

  214. To think that anything said on a blog like this could TRULY upset anyone is laughable.

    Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 1:08pm

    Oh, please. We've all seen you practically melt down on more than one occasion. And to be fair - I have almost lost my lid here more than once, too.

    Don't do that, CPT - stick with the courage of your convictions and stand strong and be passionate and incensed - nothing wrong with that, no matter how much I may bust your balls over it.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 1:12pm

  215. We don't pay no heroism no never mind no how.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/15/2006 @ 1:03pm | ignore this person

    Knew that already, its an ancient concept to your types, and reserved for those who "expose" US national security secrets.

    Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 1:11pm

    Horseshit. Blanket statement with no foundation.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 1:12pm

  216. The wonderful mind of the enlightened class, so arrogantly self-assured of their own superiority.

    Reality-check hero, its a blog.

    Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 12:23am

    You're doing a great job as a military recruiter, CPT. First you get them over there with a phony WMD threat and then you send inadequates and criminals to back them up on their fraudulently-enabled, murderous adventure while you watch on Fox News.

    Aug 14, 2006 -- WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Allegations of wrongdoing by U.S. military recruiters jumped by 50 percent from 2004 to 2005,

    and criminal violations such as sexual harassment and falsifying documents more than doubled, a congressional agency said on Monday.

    The Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative agency, said the full extent of violations by military recruiters is unknown because

    the Defense Department does not have an oversight system.

    While the GAO said available information likely underestimated the problem, it showed that allegations of recruiter wrongdoing increased to

    6,600 cases in fiscal year 2005 from 4,400 a year earlier.

    Substantiated cases rose to almost 630 cases from 400, and criminal violations jumped to 70 from about 30, it said.

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2311909

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/15/2006 @ 1:12pm

  217. NEW DAWN

    Well i must disagree over the meltdown comment, but fine, I did say TRULY upset.

    I bet all over us, once we walk away from this website, scarcely think about all the insulting things we say to each other.

    So in that sense, i doubt anyone is TRULY upset, though we do argu our points strongly.

    AND

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/15/2006 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person

    I was just busting TJBs balls with that statement

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 1:17pm

  218. Macaca is the genus for macaques, a type of monkey found mainly in Asia. Mr. Allen, who as a young man had a fondness for Confederate flags and later staunchly opposed a state holiday in honor of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., . . .

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/15/2006 @ 1:09pm

    "Macaque" sounds like a good description of Republicans if the similarity is judged on the basis of their behavior.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/15/2006 @ 1:18pm

  219. Thought this was interesting at the end of FRB's pasted article:

    It also said the Army, Navy and Air Force measure recruiter performance primarily by the number of recruits who enlist and report to basic training, rather than the number who complete basic training.

    The Marine Corps uses basic training attrition rates to evaluate recruiters, which the GAO said may deter its recruiters from committing violations.

    And 20,000 recruiters? On the one hand that seems like an extraordinary amount, 1 for every 6 or 7 people in Iraq. On the other hand, that's one violation for every 3 recruiters.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/15/2006 @ 1:21pm

  220. And 20,000 recruiters? On the one hand that seems like an extraordinary amount, 1 for every 6 or 7 people in Iraq. On the other hand, that's one violation for every 3 recruiters.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/15/2006 @ 1:21pm

    CPT needs to let us know which direction he's influencing the data. The average data could be a lot better or worse depending on what he's doing. He always seems to project the impression that he's a Dudley Doright type.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/15/2006 @ 1:32pm

  221. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/15/2006 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person

    I recieved the UN-edited version of the story this morning, you DEFINTELY round up to make your point.

    But since last night was our "mission day" hence it was a late night i will engage you on this.

    of the number you quoted

    630 cases of SUBSTANTIATED recrutier impropieties, of which 68 were criminal.

    There are over 12,000 US Army RECRUITERS in the USA.....let THAT number filter into your head.

    So how many SUBSTANTIATED violations is that? 630 and what kind of impropieties are they? forgetting to date a source document is a considered an impropiety.

    And how many of those warranted criminal violations? 68.

    Your accusation is a bit weak if you are trying to point out a pattern of systematic corruption.

    The myth of only low caliber people join the military.....that myth is blown out of the water by the enourmous success of the volunteer military.

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 1:32pm

  222. Posted by CPT 08/14/2006 @ 4:03pm ... since there are really only, scientifically speaking 3 races, Caucasians, Negros, and Orientals.

    CPT -

    Are "Orientals" as a race the same as "Mongoloids"?

    Just curious....

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/14/2006 @ 4:40pm

    NEW DAWN

    Not sure, i think they are, strictly using the scientific way in which race is defined. There are only those three races. All the rest are ethinic groups.

    Posted by CPT 08/14/2006 @ 4:49pm

    Subtlety is completely lost on some folks... ;)

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/15/2006 @ 11:13am | ignore this person

    CPT, here is a link to the definition of Mongoloid...

    http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mongoloids

    New Dawn was having a little fun, based on your complete ignorance of the subject of race. Dr. John Langdon Down originally applied the term Mongoloid to those with Downs syndrome based on their appearance (Asian characteristics), his belief that Downs sydrome was a genetic 'degeneration' of 'European genes', and his assumption that this genetic degeneration of superior 'European genes' turned them into the lower 'Asian genes'.

    In terms of 'race', there is only one CPT...the human race. YOu may wish to spend some time at the site below, educating yourself on the concept.

    http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/

    Of course, if you don't mind the "enlightened class" having a little fun at your expense, by all means ignore that site and continue in ignorance. I understand many consider it 'bliss'.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/15/2006 @ 1:34pm

  223. These are the essential aspects of the issue that you're carefully avoiding:

    Allegations of wrongdoing by U.S. military recruiters jumped by 50 percent from 2004 to 2005, and criminal violations such as sexual harassment and falsifying documents more than doubled, a congressional agency said on Monday.

    The Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative agency, said the full extent of violations by military recruiters is unknown because the Defense Department does not have an oversight system.

    See no evil, hear no evil?

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/15/2006 @ 1:41pm

  224. LILLIAN

    How is race counted by the census dept? and how is counted by US govt agencies.? it is classified in THOSE three categories

    How is that you guys are completely ignorant of that?

    i am not arguing that it is correct, merely stating that it is a FACT that those are the categories.

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 1:42pm

  225. LILLIAN

    How is race counted by the census dept? and how is counted by US govt agencies.? it is classified in THOSE three categories

    How is that you guys are completely ignorant of that?

    i am not arguing that it is correct, merely stating that it is a FACT that those are the categories.

    Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 1:42pm

    How are Jews and Arabs classified? What races are they in the system you refer to?

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/15/2006 @ 1:45pm

  226. Lillian -

    I just adore you. :)

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 1:47pm

  227. Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 1:32pm

    Follow your logic through in the example you cited to the "terrorist" detainees in Guantanamo and elsewhere, CPT -

    Of the hundreds detained, I believe only ten have been charged with a crime.

    To use your words, "So how many SUBSTANTIATED violations is that?"

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 1:49pm

  228. Bingo.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/15/2006 @ 1:50pm

  229. If the Bush administration really thought that putting Americans through the total Hell of long lines at the airport would bolster their position, they really are dumber than we thought.

    People are asking, "We've had six years of this, and you're telling me the only further along we are is we now have to keep liquids out of our hands when we board planes?? Ludicrous."

    Posted by barnesgene at 08/15/2006 @ 1:52pm

  230. FRB

    the GAO is wrong.....there is oversight....they are up becasue of the constantly changing rules that govern the process, they change constantly....the majority of impropieties are a result of those minor infractions and honest mistakes.

    I foresee ANOTHER layer of bureauacry due to this report and things getting slower..even longer hours....great just what is needed....more govt looking at you with a magnifying glass, "hey you didnt use the most updated form from the mudville police dept when you did that police check, RED FLAG: recruiter impropiety"(police checks are requested from individual police stations where an applicant lived longer than 10 days).

    Hooah for big government, i am still trying to commit to memory the LAST phone book of rule changes that came out this year.

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 1:54pm

  231. Barnes -

    What's killing me is that I hear they had a mole in this group since 2005, but only now (when it's suddenly politically expedient to distract from all the talk of the recent defeat of the GOP's favorite Democrat) is the Bush misadministration talking about scrutinizing liquids on planes - my understanding is that they've known this was a possible issue for some time...

    I feel so much safer with Bush and his cabal looking out for us.

    Don't you?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 1:55pm

  232. Posted by NEW DAWN 08/15/2006 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person

    Sorry but lets save the GITMO argument for another day

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 1:56pm

  233. NEW DAWN

    It may suprise you, but i agree with you on the race issue.

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 1:57pm

  234. (rolling my eyes so hard I look like Linda Blair in the Exorcist...)

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 1:58pm

  235. If the Bush administration really thought that putting Americans through the total Hell of long lines at the airport would bolster their position, they really are dumber than we thought.

    People are asking, "We've had six years of this, and you're telling me the only further along we are is we now have to keep liquids out of our hands when we board planes?? Ludicrous."

    Posted by BARNESGENE 08/15/2006 @ 1:52pm

    It has been known since the beginning of the Bush administration that liquid explosives were a serious threat yet they have done absolutely nothing to protect against it in all these years while pouring billions upon billions down the hole of subjugating Iraq.

    Is that a conspiracy? If it walks like a duck . . .

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/15/2006 @ 2:00pm

  236. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/14/2006 @ 11:24pm "Democrats are unwavering in our commitment to keep our nation safe. That's why we led the fight to create the Department of Homeland Security and continue to fight to ensure that our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive facilities are secured against attack."

    Where in there would anyone but an utter drongo find a claim that the DHS passed based on Democratic support and Republican opposition, against the wishes of the Republican President? That is your claim. You've got to back up the unbackable, not shift the ground as soon as you are called on it.

    What a boofhead.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/15/2006 @ 2:02pm

  237. CPT -

    I've tried to give you respect for your service and the benefit of the doubt for your passions many times - it may surprise you to know what surprises me about you.

    I think you're passionate and sometimes insightful, but more often, misguided in your passions, which is unfortunate. You could do a lot by being a force for good. What surprises me most about you is your support of the bungled and terrible machinations of this administration over the last five years that have needlessly killed so many of your brothers and sisters in arms.

    And if you'd get over believing that everyone left just hates the military (with zero reason, in every instance), you might find more common ground with folks.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 2:02pm

  238. Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 1:54pm I foresee ANOTHER layer of bureauacry due to this report and things getting slower..even longer hours....great just what is needed....more govt looking at you with a magnifying glass, "hey you didnt use the most updated form from the mudville police dept when you did that police check, RED FLAG: recruiter impropiety"(police checks are requested from individual police stations where an applicant lived longer than 10 days).

    Yeah, with the Republicans in charge and no political incentive to actually get ahead of the game, that's exactly what I expect as well.

    Hooah for big government, i am still trying to commit to memory the LAST phone book of rule changes that came out this year.

    | ignore this person

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/15/2006 @ 2:04pm

  239. The eye-rolling was about the dodge about how your logic relates to Gitmo, CPT, not about the race issue.

    Aren't you the one who accused me of supporting moral relativism the other day?

    Pot or kettle?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 2:04pm

  240. FRB

    the GAO is wrong.....there is oversight..

    Thanks for clearing that up for us. It's great to be able to get it right from the horses mouth.

    ..they are up becasue of the constantly changing rules that govern the process, they change constantly....the majority of impropieties are a result of those minor infractions and honest mistakes.

    I foresee ANOTHER layer of bureauacry due to this report and things getting slower..even longer hours..

    I hope it doesn't affect your ability to keep us informed.

    Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 1:54pm

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/15/2006 @ 2:04pm

  241. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/14/2006 @ 11:44pm ..watch your back, Bruce. I've got shrimp, I've got a barby, and I'm not afraid to use them.

    They're called prawns.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/15/2006 @ 2:07pm

  242. Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 12:32am: It is how race is categorized TODAY, not eons ago, dipshitted mallethead.

    Well, not exactly, CPT. Most scientists today do NOT believe in genetic concepts of race. They did eons ago. But not today.

    So, Malcontent enlightens you on the current scientific views of race, of which you are woefully ill-informed. And you call him a dipshitted mallethead.

    And then you complain about other people disparaging your delusions.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/15/2006 @ 2:19pm

  243. Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 1:32pm: The myth of only low caliber people join the military.....that myth is blown out of the water by the enourmous success of the volunteer military.

    Yes, but then you throw the myth right back into the water whenever you post, CPT.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/15/2006 @ 2:23pm

  244. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/15/2006 @ 2:19pm | ignore this person

    Look, i was merely saying that that is how race is classified in US govt agencies, from the Census Bureau and DoD and others, based on probably out-dated concepts, no arugment from me on this issue.

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 2:30pm

  245. no arugment from me on this issue.

    Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 2:30pm

    Just calling people "dipshitted malletheads". I imagine, CPT, that if you just tell Malcontent "I apologize", then everyone will leave you alone about this one.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 2:35pm

  246. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/15/2006 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person

    The oversight is in the form of the several systems...the military processing station, called the MEPS, is a SEPARATE agency that does not fall under the Army, Navy, Marine, or Air Force recruiting commands. They are the first line that checks and double checks all paperwork to include police checks and gives separate medical physicals to all applicants, if they say that this I is not dotted or this T is not crossed...that will generate an RI(recruiter impropiety) investigation.

    The MEPS agency is NOT beholdened to us for anything, they act without regrad to overall numbers and they disqualify many an applicant, 95% for medical reasons. Last night a kid could not stand up from a squated position (duck walk) and he was disqualified.

    The other layer of checks and balances if you will, is the initial entry training posts...if an applicant fails or otherwise faulters, depending upon what the exact failure is, that will genereate an RI.

    So, in my opinion there is oversight, oh and the obivous check is when an applicant says him/herself that he/she told recruiter man about this or that problem and recruiter man ignores them....that will generate an RI.

    So i hope, that is a better explanation.

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 2:42pm

  247. NEW DAWN

    You might be right.

    Goodness, cant take yes for answer

    ALL

    I apologize for my off the cuff remark about MALCONTENT being a dipshitted mallethead.

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 2:45pm

  248. Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 2:42pm

    Very enlightening.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/15/2006 @ 2:47pm

  249. I hope it doesn't affect your ability to keep us informed.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/15/2006 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person

    Its all about time management, more art than science.

    Posted by CPT at 08/15/2006 @ 2:48pm

  250. Look, i was merely saying that that is how race is classified in US govt agencies, from the Census Bureau and DoD and others, based on probably out-dated concepts, no arugment from me on this issue.

    Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 2:30pm | ignore this person

    From the US government Census Bureau website...

    http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/files/MRSF-01-US1.html#pro

    DEFINITIONS

    A. A specified race response is a response of one or more of the five Office of Management and Budget (OMB) race categories: White; Black or African American; American Indian and Alaska Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.

    B. A non-specified race response is a response of "Some other race."

    Posted by Lillian at 08/15/2006 @ 3:18pm

  251. LILLIAN

    How is race counted by the census dept? and how is counted by US govt agencies.? it is classified in THOSE three categories

    How is that you guys are completely ignorant of that?

    i am not arguing that it is correct, merely stating that it is a FACT that those are the categories.

    Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person

    Aren't "facts" funny things...they aren't open to interpretation!

    Posted by Lillian at 08/15/2006 @ 3:22pm

  252. As to the recent story regarding military recruitment improprities, I was REALLY struck by this number...

    Over $1.5 Billion (that's billion...with a B) spent by the military this year on recruitment!

    Am I the only one who thinks that seems REALLY high?

    Posted by Lillian at 08/15/2006 @ 3:25pm

  253. military recruitment improprieties...

    Posted by Lillian at 08/15/2006 @ 3:27pm

  254. I missed most of the story on NPR about the recruitment issues. But I caught the tail end. CPT, what is a "moral waiver", I think it was called. I think I heard this type of waiver was up significantly. This is a waiver that allows a person not normally recruited into the military, right? What would one get such a waiver for?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2006 @ 5:11pm

  255. Sgt. Joseph Darby is a REAL HERO. Instead of having his life threatened by fellow soldiers, he should get a parade. Rummy should do a week in irons for exposing his name to the public after Sgt Darby received assurances that only those that had a "need to know" would find out his name. Supporting the troops, my sphincter.

    The world will probably never see the worst of the Abu Graib photos, too damaging to "national security", or as it is commonly known, republican candidates running for office.

    "I'll say this, too: The abuse started earlier than anybody realizes. Nobody has ever said that publicly, but there were things going on before our unit even got there. The day we arrived, back in October of 2003, we were getting a tour of the compound and we saw like fifteen prisoners sitting in their cells in women's underwear. This was day one; nobody from our unit had ever set foot in the prison. We asked the MPs in charge -- the Seventy-second, out of Las Vegas -- why the prisoners were wearing panties. They told us that it was a corrective action, that these guys had been mortaring the compound. So probably the MPs decided to mess with these guys. This stuff was going on before we arrived. After we took over, it basically just escalated." excerpted from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5651609

    What kind of sicko puts womens underwear on someone to punish them? What kind of nut puts an American uniform on such a sicko?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2006 @ 5:25pm

  256. Not that wearing a thong is abusive, per se, but what the F? What kind of mind comes up with that?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2006 @ 5:27pm

  257. Posted by BRUCEMCF 08/15/2006 @ 2:07pm

    If you're going to play, you're going to have to reach a little deeper into your sense of humor.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/15/2006 @ 6:13pm

  258. These posts are the same arguments of Global National Socialism v Fascism, until we PROMOTE true U.S. Constitutional Merits, we will lose EVERY war and continue to participate in EVERY war ..."...to cleanse the great society from the evils of liberalism and terrorism"...Nazi propaganda 1943...

    Posted by worldpatriot at 08/15/2006 @ 7:53pm

  259. The "moral waiver" is to permit the over 6 million in American prisons (Gang College) to be sent to war.

    Posted by worldpatriot at 08/15/2006 @ 8:04pm

  260. It is how race is categorized TODAY, not eons ago, dipshitted mallethead.

    Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 12:32am

    Dipshitted mallethead?? Does one get such a name, by hammering turds like you?

    Perhaps you should pick a topic with clear cut facts, before professing to be an expert. Maybe you could define race, in a way that everyone could agree on....or, perhaps you cannot, because racial divisions are arbitrary and defined by the agenda of their creator.

    But, in the end, if you wish to spout nonsense and claim to be an expert at nonsense, then who am I to argue.

    Better to just go SPLAT!!!...and squash another peabrained turd.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/15/2006 @ 8:28pm

  261. What kind of sicko puts womens underwear on someone to punish them?

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/15/2006 @ 5:25pm

    Think Deliverance.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/15/2006 @ 10:01pm

  262. "The Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative agency, said the full extent of violations by military recruiters is unknown because the Defense Department does not have an oversight system."

    CPT: the GAO is wrong.....there is oversight..

    Thanks for clearing that up for us. It's great to be able to get it right from the horses mouth.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/15/2006 @ 2:04pm

    So i hope, that is a better explanation.

    Posted by CPT 08/15/2006 @ 2:42pm

    Sorry, but I think the GAO is very professional and unpoliticized.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/15/2006 @ 10:09pm

  263. The GAO cannot be trusted by the Right. They have found Bush broke the law by

    1: illegally paying a columnist to promote the education plan

    2: producing and distributing illegal propaganda about the medicare plan

    3: violated procurement law when it issued various task orders under existing contracts when dealing with halliburtons no bid contracts.

    They also found that the whole "w"'s missing from computers after Billy left office was a lie.

    Clearly, on the lefts team, not an advocate for the people. Also remember Bush renamed it The General Accounting Office the Government Accountability Office, one of his richer ironies.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/15/2006 @ 11:03pm

  264. Posted by MALCONTENT 08/15/2006 @ 8:28pm | ignore this person

    Yeayh, yeah, your legend in your own mind

    Posted by CPT at 08/16/2006 @ 05:59am

  265. Posted by CRABWALK 08/15/2006 @ 5:11pm | ignore this person

    NO ONE convicted of a felony is eligibile for the military. Those charged, with a felony whose charges were later dropped are rarely allowed to process.

    A wavier is necessary for any number of lesser misdemeanor offenses.

    The circumstances are looked at and the police check and court records are reviewed and the ultimate disposition.

    common "moral" waviers are done for underage drinking. A young man or woman who was ticketed for this would require a "moral" wavier.

    Anyone who requires a waiver, must have police checks done for EVERY place that person lived.

    Moral waviers are also done for having too many speeding tickets; ALL moral waivers FOCUS on the circumstances of each case, example "carnal knowledge of a minor" 99% of these are 18 yr old senior guy was dated 16 yr old sopohmore girl and the parents of the girl got mad and reported him to police. In that circumstance and depending on the ultimate disposition of the case, meaning the charges were dropped or dismissed by the judge, he will be allowed in.

    And Abu Graib, look guy, there are 1.2 million men and woman in uniform, less than 1/2 of 1 percent commit crimes like this....it is not a systemic problem of allowing low claiber people in.

    Posted by CPT at 08/16/2006 @ 06:19am

  266. Posted by CRABWALK 08/15/2006 @ 5:25pm | ignore this person

    SFC PAUL SMITH is a REAL HERO, MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT. IRAQ.

    Even fewer know his name, he doesnt even merit consideration for one of those Kennedy Center Honors for courage, only guys like SGT Darby get those accolades.

    sick world huh

    Posted by CPT at 08/16/2006 @ 06:21am

  267. But does Sgt Smith have to leave his hometown because his life was threatened? is that supporting the troops?

    Thanks for the response on the morallity issue. ahh, to be 18 again, chasing young skirt, and able to get away with it. Miss those days.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/16/2006 @ 08:32am

  268. breal Let us hope people start waking up. The Bush Admin. has done a very good job of scaring the American people. I get angry at the Bush Admin. a lot, but things won't change until we, the American people, start thinking for ourselves. That is why Bush gets away with so much. Until people start waking up, it is a waste of time getting angry.

    Posted by breal at 08/16/2006 @ 10:23am

  269. Fear is the greatest motivator. Even greater than greed. One need only remember the fear-mongering and scapegoating spued by Bush et al to goad the post-9/11 traumatized American public and a diffident Congress into war against Afganistan and Iraq, neither of which have confirmed the original claims nor resulted in real freedom and democracy for those nations. Quite the contrary, it has led to massive destruction and misery for those people. The singular point to keep in mind is that if the Republicans lose control of Congress, let alone the Presidency, this administration and their supporters will be subject to (I hope)an honest, objective, but unrelenting scrutiny concerning the abuse of power, the savaging of the Constitution and the criminal violation of both domestic and international law. As for the "alleged" terrorist plot ploys, one need only consider the timing, effect, and, most poigniantly, the subsequent prosecution of the patsies and dupes in Toronto, Forest Gate, Miami, Chicago, and the Holland Tunnel. Are we being prepared for another "hit," one that the self-aggrandizing and duplicitous Giuliani has all but guaranteed? When will it take place? Whenever the "shadow government" feels that its control over the people is slipping or that (at last) the people are waking up. That would be close to election time. And if the will of the people is to reject the use of unaccountable, hackable touch-screen voting machines in favor of ones that produce a verifiable paper trail, then the radical Republican agenda, control of Congress, and, in 2008, the Presidency itself, is at risk. What do you think these officials, their co-conspirators and lackeys, who stand to lose all in an honest investigation, will do?

    Posted by gweick at 08/16/2006 @ 10:29am

  270. It is obvious to me that the "terror plot" is a hoax designed to reignite the 9/11 fear factor. The US and UK Intelligence services let alone the Pakistani are unable to detect or stem these acts because they rely on informants and moles who hold grudges and electronic surveillance meant to target sophistaicated enemies. The same motivation applies to the launching of Israelis into Lebanon on the pretense that they were in "imminent" danger. The seizure of Israeli hostages occurred on Lebanese soil and was not of a magnitude to warrant full scale bombing and invasion. It backfired and so will the sensationalist tale of planned liquid explosives and consumer device triggering mechanism after the 28 day detention period that the Brits use has expired unless they conceive of some way to extend the time as the US has done with the Guantanamo detainees.

    Posted by bill goldman at 08/16/2006 @ 4:37pm

  271. If Fear is being instilled in the population, why should we be afraid, if the GOP is so "strong on terror"? And the victims of the US agression do not need Lamont's election to encourage them to defend their country. What would we do, in their shoes?

    Posted by bonnaire at 08/18/2006 @ 02:37am

About the Authors

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Bill Moyers Tells a Tale of Two Quagmires: Vietnam & Afghanistan | "Once again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it..."
John Nichols
65 Comments

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
118 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
76 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
204 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
62 Comments