President George Bush is “the best recruiting sergeant ever for al Qaeda,” said Sir Ivor Roberts, the British ambassador to Italy, at a closed conference of British and Italian diplomats. According to the September 21 edition of the British-based Guardian, Roberts let the comment slip during a discussion on which candidate Europeans would back if they voted in U.S. elections.… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (38)Page 1 of 1 pagesIn my view, this was an excellent piece of journalism that unfortunately will not be seen in the corporate controlled media. The only way I can think of to get these ideas across to a wider audience is to e-mail this article to all of my friends, Hopefully they will all do likewise. There are alot of people out there that just don’t know that the wool is being pulled over their eyes, so I feel that it’s my job to reach as many people as I can. I just can’t sit back and watch while my country is being taken out from under me. Any other ideas coming from this forum are welcome. Let’s get some real input, and possibly some real solutions.
Posted by Dr.D on Oct 1, 2004 at 8:30 AM Interestingly, the world’s opinion of our current administration barely came up, and Bush’s disdain of world opinion is and has been obvious.
It has become common knoweldge that many of our alies are hoping for Kerry to win this and if I recall correctly something like 80% of those polled outside of this country want Kerry to win.
If the first debate is any indication of which of the two men is the more presidential and capable of dealing with the compexities of the world then the world community can be a little more optimistic that they as well as we will get a leader that will once again bring intellegent policies to the table.
Posted by BAM on Oct 1, 2004 at 11:17 AM The Debate:
Must admit that I did not watch the entire programme; however I did watch enough to convinced myself that Kerry is finally looking like Presidential material.
At some point during the night I had to get up with my dog. While was attending to her needs, I watched PBS and was amazed at comments regarding the debate. One would think that PBS would be non-partisan but this is not so. I suppose that it is understandable when we realise that the bulk of their money comes from Monsanto, ADM and a number of oil companies.
Mr. Kerry still has an uphill battle.twain
Posted by twain on Oct 1, 2004 at 5:48 PM I was fortunate to be awake through the entire debate and have a clear opinion of what I had witnessed without any post debate analysis influencing my thought.
Some of the commentary I’m reading and hearing is amazing and only proves that the human mind is a complex and bewildering organ, and we lay-people can’t possibly presume to understand the nerotransmitter activity that is within a pundits of a disinterested citizen’s brain.
The spinmiesters tell us what we just saw and attempt to actually affect our own powers of reasoning. And apparently they suceed to a large extent.
The last message indites PBS for reasons that I’m not intirely sure of and the writer admitted that they didn’t even pay attention to the debate and thought Kerry had an uphill battle. Well, yea, Kerry has an uphill battle to convince people that aren’t paying attention in the first place and second if the person doesn’t want to be informed you can’t inform them!
I’m suspicious however that the person tuned into PBS and thought that they were being biased. How was this supposed bias displayed? Perhaps they should have changed the channel to FOX or another station not owned by some Co. that he could have some complaint about. Is there any?
Posted by BAM on Oct 1, 2004 at 10:06 PM Bam:
Please forgive me; I was not trying to be obscure but I lack your power of articulation.
The PBS spokesman was approxiamately forty years old, thin faced and with hair which was swept from one side of his head to the other. The hair style seemed to be an attempt to cover baldness.
The largely one sided reporting by Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS is blatant. Public broadcasting should be non-partisan; unfortunately it must rely on corporate sponsors and there-in lies the rub.
twain
Posted by twain on Oct 2, 2004 at 6:25 AM Twain:
I agree that unfortunately all the networks including PBS are beholden to the corporations that
own them and it’s a very troubling fact of life. (recall the FCC ruling and subsequent overturn some months back on corporations control over media markets?)
Although I’m a primarily a PBS viewer when it come to the news because they are the more “fair and balanced” service individual guests, commentators/analysts that appear on there may be biased towards one side or the other.
I did not watch PBS during the debate but the man you describe sounds like Tom Oliphant whom I believe is probably much older than in his 40s, and is a columnist for the Boston Globe.
Posted by BAM on Oct 2, 2004 at 8:07 AM It was unlikely to be Tom Oliphant, most likely it was David Brooks who also writes a column in the NY Times. Most of what he says/writes is drivel. I cannot stand him, not because he is conservative, but he usually makes no sense at all.
Posted by wdh on Oct 3, 2004 at 7:06 PM My suggestion that one of the previous writers was describing possibly Tom Oliphant was based on the person he was describing was “thin”. Tom does appear from time to time to provide analysis or commentary.
The writer did not suggest the guest was either conservative or liberal although I’m aware that David Brooks is a regular analyst that appears to counter point Mark Sheilds’ more decidely liberal point of view.
I also don’t like David Brooks positions but appreciate his arguments and agree with “wdh” that it is probably Mr. Brooks the previous writer may have been talking about.
Posted by BAM on Oct 3, 2004 at 7:46 PM Folks, it ain’ a popularity contest; I could really give a fuck what the likes of the French think of us!
It all boils down to who knows when/when not to use force, and also comprehends that part of an overall strategy to defeat “terra” MUST include a complete overhaul of our traditionally hypocritical foreign “policy.”
I don’t feel either one of the two clowns we’re stuck with as candidates will make us safer from “terra.” Dubya and Kerry are simply two-heads of the same corporate-driven political coin. No thanks.
Posted by g-love on Oct 4, 2004 at 8:00 AM “Two clowns” maybe an acceptable and a visceral reaction of the writer’s appreciation of the two candidates but the writer revealed their position clearly enough. He or she doesn’t care what the world thinks and specifically the French and doesn’t take our overall predicament very seriously.
If the writer is claiming that we’re stuck with “clowns” it would be interesting to know what candidate he/she is voting for if any?
If the writer is wasting their vote on say Ralph Nader, who couldn’t be elected to dog catcher
they are being unrealistic but then again we don’t be seeming to live in the real world anymore
if we’re to accept that these candidates are clowns anyway.
I do wholeheartedly agree however that our foreign policy is considerably flawed and we need to be more realistic.
Clowns can’t possibly have any credibility whatsoever either here or abroad. If the foreign polling can be believed the world favors once candidate over the other and the writer can dismiss that if they chose but we do live in the world and we can have our differences but we can’t ignore their opinions.
Posted by BAM on Oct 4, 2004 at 8:44 AM As I stated, it ain’t no popularity contest. I don’t feel we need “permission” from anyone to defend our country. Certainly, I “care” what the world thinks but don’t fall into the trap of actually believing Kerry will get any more support from the rest of the world than Dubya has. Tell us again - what magic wand will he be waving?
While Afghanistan was absolutely the right thing to do, Iraq has been its mirror opposite: a seedy, tragic war of ideology only an accountant at the likes of Halliburton and the PNAC could understand.
As far as voting is concerned, I and my fellow Illinois voters are in a unique position. My state is not a “swing” or “battleground” state, and with a Daley in office no Republican will win here. Kerry will win Illinois regardless, and between the two is obviously the lesser of two evils.
Therefore, I’ll be voting for either Nader the Crackpot or the Libertarian candidate. My vote won’t necessarily be “for” the specific candidate, rather it will be “against” the horrid two-party system we’re stuck with.
Posted by g-love on Oct 4, 2004 at 9:07 AM G-love writes: “what magic wand will he be waving?”
Well, according to the polling data outside of this coutry the one of a more intelligent and credible leader of American interests.
The world (and many American’s) doesn’t agree with many of the positions of our current official “clown.”
The two party system is indeed faulty but it’s the one we have and if one wishes to change that system as Ralph Nader would like to do he could have approached it from within and perhaps have had more influence in shaping the platform policies.
I have respected Nader for most of my adult life and agree with the majority of his positions, and I even like Peter Camejo but I would not vote for him.
I would suggest that Ralph has a decent opportunity to become a member of a Kerry administration and I would hope that he is.
Posted by BAM on Oct 4, 2004 at 10:14 AM I have friends that will vote for Ralph, I have a relative that will vote Libertarian and I know people that don’t vote at all.
The people that don’t vote at all are the most worrisome but like you in Illinios the Nader vote here won’t change the state of California going into Kerry’s column.
Posted by BAM on Oct 4, 2004 at 12:25 PM democracynow.org just posted a streamed video interview with Amy Goodman asking the questions and Ralph Nader answering them. This is a must see for anyone interested in what’s going on in politics these days. Whether you like him or not, if you watch this interview, you,ll at least agree that my man Ralph knows how to get to the heart of the matter.
Posted by Dr.D on Oct 4, 2004 at 3:16 PM SO, SO, SO,
Bush for 4 more yeers?? Tis is very good very good - I cannot wait to get more Haliburton contrqactors to rape/kill, more young scard us marines to torture, more young arabs to my cause - Vote George Bush - Pleasse....
Posted by Khaliib B.. on Oct 5, 2004 at 5:26 AM How can we believe anything at all that the media - print and broadcast tells us?
Now, I watched the debate made my own assessment as to which man was more credible, but the trickling of information following the debate painted a completely different result and those amazing polls are all over the map.
Bush has an abysmal record and isn’t running on it but away from it except for his efforts on the war on terrorism which remarkably the majority of those polled give him very high marks for his wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, using wrong intelligence and telling us the wrong story.
Although many believe that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, the administration continues to argue that regardless of the absence of WMD and any proof of ties to al Qaeda - as one analyst said: “Iraq is the beachhead” in the war on terrorism. Hell, they could have invaded Cuba and claimed that too.
The administration is still trying to suggest that dissent over the war is giving aid and encouragement to our enemies and apparently is coordinating their assertions with those “swift boat veterans for truth” who have a new ad out with two wives of former POW claiming that Kerry’s protesting against the war was treasonous and his opposition to this war is also anti-American.
It’s totally disgusting and a shameful distortion of Kerry position but money can do what it wants to and if money wants to define the sky as being red, the time can be bought to convince enough people that it is indeed red!
How can we have any reasonable hope of Bush being revealed for what he and his administration is all about if when he is actually side by side with his opponent and made to look ridiculous on the same TV’s that we see the disastrous footage and information coming out of Iraq he’s still rated as being credible! It just flies in the face of reason! I can not, no matter how hard I attempt to reason what is really going on based on this polling data.
Recalling what Joe Klien stated in the recent Time magazine article that many respondents in the polls refuse to even answer questions but that doesn’t give me that much comfort either.
Posted by BAM on Oct 5, 2004 at 9:13 AM On the one hand, you have Dubya the Puppet, whose strings are pulled by corporate neo-con pigs whose motives are pure greed and imperialism. 9/11 was the best thing that could’ve happened for them, for two main reasons:
1) It gave them a pretext to invade Iraq, which would’ve happened regardless, and
2) It continues to provide them with an easy campaign tactic: FEAR
In the meantime, the Dems serve up some soft, quasi-"liberal" in Kerry. Whom - when the mood would strike him - would actually show up to vote once in a while in the Senate. The record he leaves is dismal at best, and let’s all not forget that he did in fact authorize Dubya to go at it alone. No sugar-coating THAT one, friends.
As I stated earlier, I am disgusted with BOTH of these clowns. Yes, that’s right: CLOWNS.
Posted by g-love on Oct 5, 2004 at 11:42 AM All clowning aside...Bush is a complete failure, not just regarding Iraq, but the economy, the enviorment and a whole host of valuable issues relevant to how I vote. I’m afraid your analysis of Kerry however is false but I understand your attraction to Ralph and your voting for him is alright by me.
As I said earlier I’m a fan of Ralphs and Camejo but I’m realistic and afraid they would be more percieved as “clowns” to the majority of the electorate than the two you apparently disdain.
For the record I’m a Vitnam veteran and appreciate what Kerry stood up for against that war and I do appreciate his position in regard to the current one.
Posted by BAM on Oct 5, 2004 at 12:46 PM BAM, please explain how my analysis of Kerry is false. Good luck with that.
As for his Vietnam “service,” there are the three Purple Hearts - yes - but also a LOT of questions. Like, he had FOUR deferrments before he finally enlisted. And, since he was in there for only four months, most of which were on a boat, I’d love to know just how he knew what was going on elsewhere in the war, at least from a first-hand basis.
As for Nader, eh - it’s a push. I’ll actually probably pull the Libertarian vote, but really, for me it isn’t about a specific candidate at this point, more that I’m sick and tired of the lame so-called “two-party” system.
Posted by g-love on Oct 5, 2004 at 2:26 PM I’m not going to attempt to convince you of any incorrect perceptions you may entertain regarding Kerry. If you have been persuaded to dispise him through what information you have ingested then there is nothing I could say to steer you off your path.
It’s my goal to be as well informed as possible and based on what information I’ve read and heard over the many years that I have been voting and paying attention that the two party system although having flaws [as you suggest] is the one we have and I can live with that.
You seem to be pretty set on voting as you will. I would however, think that the Libertarian philosophy to be closer to the Republican mind set.
Your political bias is better suited to discuss these issues with my Libertarian brother.
All the best…
Posted by BAM on Oct 5, 2004 at 2:45 PM A vote for nader is a vote for Bush. Why? Because Naders’ main contributors are Republicans (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3). They want to get Nader JUST POPULAR ENOUGH to take away JUST ENOUGH votes from Kerry to put Bush in the White House. This is one of the many ways Republicans are trying to fix the election.
But you have to think about this. While elections ARE about voicing your opinion, and while you should always choose who YOU best feels represents your views, the Bush administration has hurt the US so bad, that I think this election needs to be thought about differently.
Voting for Bush is a HUGE step in the wrong direction, as you may understand. Voting for Kerry, is a small step FORWARD. Small because, while he may not represent you as much as you’d like, he’s that much better than Bush.
Nader seems to pop his head into the election only when the race really heats up. Where was he November 3rd 2000, after THAT election? He needs to be out there at the begining, rallying people together, and he just has not done that.
I like Nader for a few reasons. Because he popped into the elections in 2000, he let the world know we have other choices beside Republicans and Democrats. And that’s great! But you can’t expect the US to change over the course of one election cycle. Just look at how many people in the US still think BUSH is the way to go! Parts of America still need a LOT of convincing before making such a big change.
What I don’t like about Nader, is that he says how bad Bush is. On Real Time With Bill Maher on HBO he admitted Kerry was better than Bush (even though he dislikes both). But yet, even with EVERY SINGLE POLL showing that Nader has no chance of winning, and on top of that, is TAKING AWAY votes from Kerry, Nader is still running!
I mean, this is why some people think Nader is working for Bush. I’m glad he’s made his party known, but he won’t win this election, so he needs to drop out, and let those votes go to Kerry. He needs to let us take one small step forward by voting for Kerry. Not screwing things up and having us take a huge step back by letting Bush win.Nader fans may argue that because the powers the Democrats and Republicans hold are so great, someone like Nader has to run continuously every election, to keep getting his name out there, to keep letting people know there are other choices. Well if this is there reasoning, why is he not out there gathering support durring the four years between each election? If he’s not organized enough to do that, I don’t really see him organized enough to run as President.
And do you beleive Ralph Nader has the experience, and whatever it takes to govern and to work with all the other world leaders now? I’m not sure he does.
So, in conclusion, I ask you, while I do respect your choice to vote for who you think best represents you, you take THIS election, because of his great importance, to take that small step forward, and vote for Kerry.
Then, we will be that much closer to a real change of getting someone like Ralph Nader elected.
Posted by Daniel on Oct 5, 2004 at 4:05 PM Daniel, Daniel, Daniel… re-read my post. If I lived in Ohio, Iowa, or Pennsylvania I would certainly vote for Kerry, and feel sick about it.
But I don’t, I live in Illinois, a veritable Democratic fortress. That’s why I have the “luxury” of not having to vote for the lesser of two horrid evils.
And BAM, while you’re looking up info on the ‘net, check out Kerry’s voting record. This is about the only thing I agree with the Dubya camp on - it’s awful. He’s voted to raise taxes on something like 90 votes (the relative few he and Edwards actually showed up for), has been terribly inconsistent on not only the war in Iraq but defense in general, and along with Edwards has missed key votes on things like health care, Medicaid, etc.
Yes, Dubya - and especially his handlers - represent an enormous, imperialist evil. But that doesn’t make the Kerry/Edwards ticket virtuous by default!
Posted by g-love on Oct 6, 2004 at 7:56 AM g-love:
I have no problem with Kerry’s voting record regarding taxes and don’t see that in itself as a reason to disparage the man as you enjoy doing.
If our society were more altruistic rather than based on capitalistic greed, taxes would not be such a large issue and probably less of a burden on those that complain about it.
You as a Libertarian perhaps [of course you do] don’t believe in quality roads, bridges, water treatment plants, an adequate police force [not a police state] and all the rest taxes help to pay for.
If many [not all] corporations were more interested in the well being of the country and it’s American workers and communities rather than their own profits and tax loopholes, individual tax issues would not be so contentious.
The present administration is not seeking fairness in the tax codes. They’re seeking to help the greedy and not interested in fairness really.
I agree with you on voting your conscience and have no argument with you on your reasoning being in Illinois…
All the best
Posted by BAM on Oct 6, 2004 at 9:01 AM g-love
Also, I would suggest that being absent for “key-votes” is not that alarming and probably more indicative that their vote was not required to pass of defeat a particular bill.
Don’t take all information on face value. A case in point - the WMD assertion made by this administration which have been consistently dismissed even as recently as today.
We choose to believe a variety of things based on our own educations, upbringing, biases etc. Sometimes, we’re wrong about our assumptions but hey, Ok, lets move on, and continue to learn as much as we can to make informed judgements about what is happening out there.
I don’t blame you at all for your skepticism, it’s a healthy thing...we needed more of that before going into Iraq.
Posted by BAM on Oct 6, 2004 at 9:28 AM Actually, I don’t consider myself a hard-core Libertarian; aspects of their ideology appeal to me, but not all.
As for taxes, you outlined something I’ve said to people many times: everyone wants/likes roads, decent infrastructure, so how else besides taxes do you make this happen? I’m not necessarily against taxes, but view Kerry’s record as somewhat suspect in this area.
Their attendance? Sorry, gotta disagree with you on this one, you’re paid to be there, get your ass there and fucking VOTE!! Landslide or not. Besides, I can accept that there are other priorities, but it’s not like they missed a vote here or there, it seemed to be a chronic issue.
Finally, speaking of Iraq, again let’s all remember Kerry VOTED for authorizing Dubya & Co. to go in there in the first place! That is the single thing that pisses me off about Kerry and Edwards. They are in no position to challenge Dubya, Cheney-burton, etc on Iraq, not when they voted for it.
Because no matter how hard they try to argue otherwise, they’re on the downward slope of a losing battle in terms of credibility. First, they were all for it, now they’re not. Cheney-burton is correct when he asks, “which is it?”
Yet another example of how desperate we are for a candidate with even a tiny shred of substance. You know what a guy like Kucinich would’ve done to Dubya/Cheney-burton? Fucked them up bad! He has a proven track record of reform, voted AGAINST the war in the first place, and could go toe-to-toe with these bozos on the issues without having to defend his own record over and over and over again.
Not saying Kucinich isn’t without his flaws, but that’s the type of person I would’ve preferred running for office…
Posted by g-love on Oct 6, 2004 at 12:11 PM Well, I knew we were going to be in agreement on something.
Kucinich unfortunately was to liberal and didn’t project the necessary image to be electable regardless of how much you or I and many others liked him. He of course endorses Kerry now.
Ronald Reagan for instance [a great facade] was as close as we could get to having John Wayne as president. If Kucinich looked and sounded like John Wayne he would have had a much better chance.
All the facade stuff aside.
I believe that being for the “president’s authority” to consider war as an option if all else failed was the position most of the senators took and not that they were for Bush thumbing his nose at our allies and doing it like he did.
For the few that opposed it, that wasn’t so remarkable. There are always members for whatever reasons oppose going to war.
I’m on the side of not going to war and have voiced my opposition from day one but I’m just a citizen with relatively limited information compared to what the congress had.
We can’t debate the Kerry/ Edwards voting/attendance records but it serves no purpose at this point. I believe their positions are clearer than the presidents and they would and have articulated a different course of action than the one Bush took.
We’re unfortunately in Iraq now and it’s in our best interest and the Iraqis best interest to have it succeed. I doubt that all the optimistic scenarios painted by this administration nor frankly the Kerry/Edwards proposals will change the situation substantially however.
You seem to be persuaded by the first they were for it then against it mantra the Bush campaign has been putting out for months.
I pay little attention to ads on either side as they are of course self serving and often blatant distortions.
Although I don’t like comparing Vietnam with Iraq, there are of course many similarities and many - as those swift boat Veterans for truth are an example - that don’t like protesting and expect we all fall in line and support the war effort right or wrong. I repeat, I was in Vietnam and was fortunate to come home in one piece and I disagree with these so-called Veteran’s for “truth” because they have distorted the testimony of Kerry before congress to suit a political goal and It’s my contention that they resent having “lost” that war and all those that forced us to pull out before “winning” it.
Today Vietnam is a united country and a vacation site for many Americans.
We lost 50-57 thousand of our troops for nothing!!! We’re losing troops in Iraq now and the Iraqis are losing innocent civilians not just from the isurgent attacks but ours as well! Last report of civilans killed was over 20 thousand. This is all unacceptable.
One last point regarding Kerry’s position on Vietnam, if you read the actuall transcripts from his appearance before congress he never said that all our troops were responsibe for atrocities
as the most recent ad suggests.
The resentment against Kerry was then andis still now because he was heroic in going up against Nixon and the entire military establishment that were attempting to destroy him and Vietnam.
The Republican attack machine depends on people to be uninformed [if not totally stupid] and accept whatever they claim as truth…
Posted by BAM on Oct 6, 2004 at 1:05 PM BAM wrote true wisdom:
“The Republican attack machine depends on people to be uninformed [if not totally stupid] and accept whatever they claim as truth…”
Unfortunately, the average American is too stupid and/or lazy to take the time to actually search out the truth. In some ways, I suppose we deserve what we get.
Posted by g-love on Oct 8, 2004 at 8:51 AM Writing as an ex-pat here. The fact that the Bush “War on Terror” is actually feeding terrorism is a bare fact. In general, however, I would like to point out that this is hardly an error on the part of the Bush camp, since it keeps the fear levels high in the USA. For most of us who think and observe and read a wide range of media, it has become obvious that the GOP’s lunatic fringe, which first got the taste of power under Ronald Reagan, actually intends to turn the USA into a kind of banana republic, with fraudulent elections, an overblown and overexpensive military, a “small” government run by oligarchies (Halliburton is but one of the powers that be behind the Bush regime) and a huge working-poor class without proper social security that no longer has the stamina nor the time to go out and get involved in political frays. This is the GOP version of family values. The idea is to turn the clock way back to the pre-Roosevelt days… And it seems to be working, though thanks to the Internet and shortwave radio, I think it may run into some trouble. Remember that Ronald Reagan—and his sidekick Maggie Thatcher—praised Chile as a developing nation that had adopted the free-market bilge of the IMF.... only to overturn it in 1983 because it simply didn’t work. The man they praised was a criminal, Augusto Pinochet, who will probably stand trial for murdering thousands. Ronald Regan equally supported numerous other murdering dictators in Latin America and elsewhere. These are the GOP role models… What do you think is in store for the USA? Well, vote Bush and find out. Living in Europe, I have many friends of all political color, but here even the more conservative ones join me in saying: Bush must go, he is a dangerous loose cannon with an agenda that is threatening world stability. He is also a repulsive person, all chewing-gum and grape soda on the ouside, otherwise sarcastic, ill-tempered, narrow-minded and rude on the inside. He is also a piece of painted cardboard, but unfortunately, an electorate to used to Disney and those Barbie doll variations from sitcoms to see the truth behind him. Sad end to a great experiment, the American Republic. We have become buffooons, without common sense, without genuine feelings, without intelligence and because we elect them, can’t even blame it on some vicious nutcase like Saddam Hussein. We have the choice. And that is the difficult aspect of democracy, it requires using your head and seeing through the garbage, the PR, the soundbytes, the quick-fixes, the plain lies. If we, as a collective, would be using our heads, we wouldn’t have such a poor choice of candidates. But even here, there is no choice. Bush is way out on the lunatic fringe. Kerry is nearer the center.
Posted by Marton on Oct 9, 2004 at 2:47 AM Good point of view Marton, but of course Mr. Carl and others [see the religion and politics article with following posts] ain’t buying anything unless packaged in a plain brown wrapper and produced by the RNC.
Nice to hear from someone with experience in how Americans feel abroad.
Good luck in your absentee vote being counted in time!
Posted by BAM on Oct 9, 2004 at 9:30 AM I post here because the link to the second page of the Iran article is busted. I have not read a single post on this thread. A faux-pas, I know, sorry.
On that thread, a couple of Buchanites have posted anti-Semitic messages, thus causing embarassment to the liberal cause of this publication. There is a difference between opposing a war because you’re too cheap and you’re prone to believing Judeophobic conspiracy theories and opposing it because you believe that it will only help your enemy in the end.
Nevertheless, after doing some reading, I feel that the Left can do better in differentiating itself from such degenerates. I post the following article as an example of intelligent, critical journalism that deals with the topic:
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20041008&fname=uri&sid=1
Further, as a response to the Buchananites, the following 3 articles:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031222-120239-5311r.htm (67% support for the war in the general US population)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtWar.jhtml?itemNo=281261&contrassID=3 33&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=4 (56% support among the Jewish population)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0923-21.htm (Ouch)
Read it and weep, fellas!
Posted by LaoK on Oct 10, 2004 at 5:33 PM God love all y’all, the tension between idealism and realism lives on. G-love, mi compan~ero, if you can afford to vote Libertarian go for it, although to make them a real force will require more support at the precinct level. If you must vote Nader… <sigh> there’s where idealism might be an expensive indulgence, although if the electoral profile of Illinois can truly sustain it, you would know better than me. The guy’s great as a consumer advocate, but I think he’d be less-than-zero as President. As a Cali voter, I have no such latitude, and although it will be a somewhat disgusting chore akin to cleaning dog crap off my boot, I’ll be throwing my vote to Kerry.
As for the rest of you characters, don’t forget that ideals are lovely and help us be our best selves, but when the rubber hits the political road, the magnum priority is to fire Bush and (even more importantly) get his crew out of the executive branch! All I have to do is say the word “Ashcroft” and I know where my vote has to go. I have very little enthusiasm for Mr. Kerry, less because of the Iraq War vote (which was bad enough) but more because of his vote in favor of that modern horror-show known as the USA Patriot Act. What the hell was that? And don’t even get me started on the marriage rights tip, I just get too pissed! Still, the guy in the Oval Office is a known quantity, which is reason enough to bounce his ass outta there.
If Kerry does win, however, no matter what offenses he’s sure to commit, I do hope he’ll devote energy and forethought to emasculating al-Qaeda and the jihad movement, not just with bullets but actually with those too if it can’t be done otherwise. Those guys are f’n spooky, a direct threat to the ideals that most of us posters on this site believe in. The stronger and more popular they get, the worse for the human species at large. Too bad our tax dollars helped arm them.
Posted by Kuya on Oct 12, 2004 at 3:36 AM Thanks BAM. Creatures like Carl belong to every diverse society. Germany has to deal with them too at this point, but admittedly they are generally identifiable to the naked eye because they look like chamber pots in battle fatigues. True, too, a certain political atmosphere brings them out of the woodwork. And W provides that atmosphere, because he is a spineless, power-hungry tenth-rater with the endless hate in his soul for the fact that there are better people thsan himself around. It’s as old as envy. Here’s a nice post to look at in that context.
http://www.rense.com/general37/THROUGH.HTMOf course, I like my entertainment where I can get it, and such off-the-wallers who still foam at the mouth and sputter “socialism” when they hardly have any idea what it means (probably benefitting from many a social measure themselves) are indeed fun to watch, even interesting in a certain anthropological way. “The lunatic fringe wags the underdog,” said H. L. Mencken… Unfortunately, in the USA today, these wackos are becoming the norm rather than the amusing exception. That is disquieting, because who will free us from them???
The Middle Mind rules (I refer to Curtis White here… required reading!!!)Personally, I would take Carl’s suggestion. Artists opposing Bush, scientists, pop stars, intelligentsia, politicians.... all should leave the USA… Should have left long ago, the USA wouldn’t have an atom bomb to play with… A very good idea. I have left and I live well as a freelancer, I have excellent health benefits for myself and my family, a low but secure pension, pay lots of taxes but for that I live in beautiful countryside, where you can drink the water in lakes, breathe fresh air… Towns are in excellent shape, top-notch public transportation, crime is very low, I don’t have to fear that my neighbor is suddenly going to shoot up the neighborhood with a Kalashnikov because his mother didn’t give him a lollipop, when I need a craftsman I get someone who has studied 7 years plus done an apprenticeship to do his job properly, there are strict and considerate laws, no capital punishment, even the religions here, barring a few bornagainers who are still trying to convert others to their monochrome view of spirituality, exude a comfortable calm. The European car I drive is extremely safe, fast and does 60 miles to the gallon. I live ten minutes from some of the world’s finest museums. And people like to discuss things; even the average tobacconist knows more about what is going on in the world than Donald Rumsfeld.
Old Europe? Nonsense… The USA has an Old Democracy that no one understands anymore. It has an old approach: “You don’t like us? BAM!” Prehensile is about the best I can say for Bush’s foreign policy. As for his economic policies, as I mentioned earlier: Welcome to the Banana Republic. I prefer an honest to goodness man in power who succumbs to a blow job, than this parochial mama’s boy who can’
t admit he’s wrong, wrong-headed and has no idea what he is doing. He has no idea that politics means consensus building. And his greatest fury is rooted in the fact that he had to cheat to win the election. And wasn’t evven elected by popular vote, but rather because of that archaic electoral college system.One last thing: Georghe Bush was born in New Haven, CT with a silver spoon in his mouth. His drawling along is fake, but it certainly catches the rubes. And his talk about Kerry being weak here and there.. Well, Mr. Kerry, though not my favorite, was instrumental in hindering a lot of the drug cartel’s smooth business through the Kerry Agreements (with foreign credit institutions) while Mr. Bush was actually financing them with his habit. Kerry has a much subtler and far more effective idea in combating terrorism. Bush has only increased terrorism. And anyone believing they are safer from terrorism today also will also believe that the stork brings babies.
Regards from save havens.
Posted by Marton Radkai on Oct 12, 2004 at 3:57 AM Nothing short of a dramatic and sweeping reform of what has passed for foreign “policy” in this country will make any kind of a dent in the war on “terra.” Yes, scum like bin Laden need to be hunted down and erradicated, but you’re treating the symptom, not the source.
From what I’ve seen so far, Dubya and Kerry have been arguing semantics of what to do with Iraq, which is irrelevant to me at this point.
Posted by g-love on Oct 12, 2004 at 8:34 AM Let’s not forget there’s a lot of history between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens. Why were flights containing saudis the only ones allowed imediately after sept 11? I’m sure everyone’s familiar with that...Forget terrorists, the main problem is the indescriminate use of deadly force/depleted uranium against civilians, carried out by the US, Israel, UK, and a few others. It doesn’t help when the US(and the rest) contravene international laws regarding torture, weapons used, pre-emptive war, and unlawful imprisonment. If we were the victims of these attrocities how wouild we feel? ‘We don’t need permission to defend our country’ what shit!
How about an invasion of the US to rid an evil dictator of his weapons of mass destruction?
Posted by Alec on Oct 18, 2004 at 7:44 AM Marton, this is on a different topic, but if you go to http://groups.msn.com/lachatfriends/ you can contact quite a few of us from the La Chat days. I’ll look out for your application to join. Hope you do.
Posted by Anna on Nov 16, 2004 at 8:56 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Posted by northern hemisphere on Oct 8, 2004 at 12:04 PM 
Also by Salim Muwakkil
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
