15 January 2009
Good riddance to the last war criminal: Dubya Bush
As the clock counts down to the final exit of Dubya Bush, only the most deaf, dumb, blind and intellectually/morally challenged people will miss the worst US president in history. But even amongst those Americans glad to see the backside of that cowboy, some were Dubya supporters until things turned to crap - to use a diplomatic turn of phrase.
It was only when "victory" in Iraq wasn't happening, and most recently, the economy was going down the crap tube, that it began to dawn upon them, maybe just maybe Bush was and is a Loser. And maybe, just maybe, it was legitimate to question his policies and actions.
But it wasn't lost on many people around the world, these late converts weren't driven by moral principle to repudiate the Loser. They began to repudiate the Loser only when an Iraqi victory was slipping away and when they became victims of the still deepening, and soon to be depression.
At no time, did the immorality of an illegal war nor the terrible pre and post-invasion Iraqi civilian casualties cause these late converts to question the crimes being committed in their name. And now, having peddled the neo-con brand of freedom and democracy abroad in the form of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Prison, kidnappings, torture etc and given the one-fingered salute to the rest of the world, what a surprise America's reputation and standing slid down the crap tube into the moral cess pool.
You know the old saying...one deserves the politicians one elects!
So it was a delightful surprise to see Dubya immortalised in the dying days of his presidency by dodging shoes!
It was only when "victory" in Iraq wasn't happening, and most recently, the economy was going down the crap tube, that it began to dawn upon them, maybe just maybe Bush was and is a Loser. And maybe, just maybe, it was legitimate to question his policies and actions.
But it wasn't lost on many people around the world, these late converts weren't driven by moral principle to repudiate the Loser. They began to repudiate the Loser only when an Iraqi victory was slipping away and when they became victims of the still deepening, and soon to be depression.
At no time, did the immorality of an illegal war nor the terrible pre and post-invasion Iraqi civilian casualties cause these late converts to question the crimes being committed in their name. And now, having peddled the neo-con brand of freedom and democracy abroad in the form of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Prison, kidnappings, torture etc and given the one-fingered salute to the rest of the world, what a surprise America's reputation and standing slid down the crap tube into the moral cess pool.
You know the old saying...one deserves the politicians one elects!
So it was a delightful surprise to see Dubya immortalised in the dying days of his presidency by dodging shoes!
Finally, in a few days, the last of the troika of war criminals also known as the three stooges, Bush, Blair and Howard, will ride off into the dustbin of history. He hands over a country sliding further into a likely depression, saddled with a likely US$2 trillion deficit, a national reputation in tatters...what more can a country ask for?
Mission Accomplished!
Mission Accomplished!
Labels: abu ghraib, blair, bush, deficit, depression, howard, recession, war crimes
14 September 2008
Sarah Palin is Dick Cheney in drag
Like many people, I thought Sarah Palin's emergence as fascinating and game changing for Senator John McSame. Choosing her as his running mate, has given the wily Senator a good chance of winning now.
Palin will cement the votes of people who are never going to go for an African-American president, and win over Republicans fed up of Bush and suspicious of McSame. She is also going to cement the votes of Clinton supporters angry that Hillary wasn't anointed as the Democratic presidential nominee.
As an aside, these Clinton supporters are both racist and feminazis in outlook by refusing to transfer their votes to Obama. But of course, they would deny being racist. So a simple test would be to ask if they would have voted for Barack if he had twice Hillary's experience? I think the answer would still be no.
Now this isn't to say Obama is a great candidate either. You may recall that in an earlier post, I said that if he was unable to explain convincingly, what he intended to change, how he would do and pay for it, then voters were entitled to conclude Obama was full of hot air.
As I watched his acceptance speech, I was and still am unconvinced he really can turn the country around. Obama made lots of laudable spending promises but offered insufficient offsetting spending cuts and tax increases to pay for it all.
Tax increases he mentioned absolutely cannot pay for the existing budget deficit let alone the new spending he's promised. The arithmetic is simple. For 2008, spending will exceed income by $410b and for 2009, it will be $407b.
In other words, ignoring new promised spending, Obama must find $407b extra in taxes, or in spending cuts, or a combination of both - just for 2009. With an economy going down the crap tube, increasing corporate and high income personal taxes can't close this gap.
Slashing the bloated defence budget in half will help a lot. But this would be political suicide for him. And, might I add, it will never happen because a militaristic society (which is what America is) will never accept this. As an aside, why do I regard America as a militaristic society?
If you look at the US from a foreigner's perspective, the frequent small town military parades, gun culture, ostentatiously patriotic flag waving, a military budget equalling that of the rest of the world combined, pre-occupation with a candidate's service record (or lack thereof), incessant references to the "commander-in-chief", bellicose threats against countries who refuse to be vassal states etc...all these smack of a militaristic society believing that power comes from the barrel of a gun.
And that's what the Bush regime practised for the last eight years.
Patrick Buchanan, himself an arch conservative (and White House communications director in the Reagan administration), observed recently,
"Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them."
But I digress.
Whether McSame or Obama ends up in the White House, the legacy problems left by Bush are so enormous and deep-seated that real solutions will require more than two terms and an emphatic victory to deliver.
And if McSame and Palin win, real solutions are very likely to recede into oblivion; to be replaced by more neo-con Voodoo economics - you know, the type practised by the Bush regime.
Palin will cement the votes of people who are never going to go for an African-American president, and win over Republicans fed up of Bush and suspicious of McSame. She is also going to cement the votes of Clinton supporters angry that Hillary wasn't anointed as the Democratic presidential nominee.
As an aside, these Clinton supporters are both racist and feminazis in outlook by refusing to transfer their votes to Obama. But of course, they would deny being racist. So a simple test would be to ask if they would have voted for Barack if he had twice Hillary's experience? I think the answer would still be no.
Now this isn't to say Obama is a great candidate either. You may recall that in an earlier post, I said that if he was unable to explain convincingly, what he intended to change, how he would do and pay for it, then voters were entitled to conclude Obama was full of hot air.
As I watched his acceptance speech, I was and still am unconvinced he really can turn the country around. Obama made lots of laudable spending promises but offered insufficient offsetting spending cuts and tax increases to pay for it all.
Tax increases he mentioned absolutely cannot pay for the existing budget deficit let alone the new spending he's promised. The arithmetic is simple. For 2008, spending will exceed income by $410b and for 2009, it will be $407b.
In other words, ignoring new promised spending, Obama must find $407b extra in taxes, or in spending cuts, or a combination of both - just for 2009. With an economy going down the crap tube, increasing corporate and high income personal taxes can't close this gap.
Slashing the bloated defence budget in half will help a lot. But this would be political suicide for him. And, might I add, it will never happen because a militaristic society (which is what America is) will never accept this. As an aside, why do I regard America as a militaristic society?
If you look at the US from a foreigner's perspective, the frequent small town military parades, gun culture, ostentatiously patriotic flag waving, a military budget equalling that of the rest of the world combined, pre-occupation with a candidate's service record (or lack thereof), incessant references to the "commander-in-chief", bellicose threats against countries who refuse to be vassal states etc...all these smack of a militaristic society believing that power comes from the barrel of a gun.
And that's what the Bush regime practised for the last eight years.
Patrick Buchanan, himself an arch conservative (and White House communications director in the Reagan administration), observed recently,
"Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them."
But I digress.
Whether McSame or Obama ends up in the White House, the legacy problems left by Bush are so enormous and deep-seated that real solutions will require more than two terms and an emphatic victory to deliver.
And if McSame and Palin win, real solutions are very likely to recede into oblivion; to be replaced by more neo-con Voodoo economics - you know, the type practised by the Bush regime.
Labels: barack, buchanan, cheney, clinton, democratic party, hillary, mccain, obama, palin, patrick, reagan, republican party, sarah
22 August 2008
Smelly hypocrisy over Georgia
When Germany and France jointly argued against Georgia's early entry into NATO, they must have had some inkling what sort of man President Mikhail Saakashvili really was. Recent events in South Ossetia have proven how right the Germans and French were. Had Georgia joined NATO, Western Europe would have been obliged to engage Russia militarily.
Saakashvili has acted exactly like a spoilt little Junior at a zoo with long suffering parents. Provocatively poking a large Russian Bear, Junior gets a mauling in return for his efforts. He then turns around and whines for his parents to punish the Bear for daring to maul him! If I were the parents, I'd hurl the little thug over the fence as a tasty snack for the Bear.
But wait, the boorish and presumptious American relatives side with the little darling because he was schooled in the good old USA, and impressed them with his early talent for boorish and presumptious behaviour. Seeking to curry favour and emulate the American relatives, the French parent convinces himself that Junior indeed was innocent and scolds the Bear. The German parent reluctantly falls in with her French partner. But her half-hearted scolding of the Bear betrays her real views.
Understandably, the Bear is peeved at being treated so unfairly. Why, it remembers a time not too long ago when the American relatives came to the zoo and trashed the Iraqi Skunk's enclosure into rubble. What grand reason did they offer for their dastardly deed? The American relatives didn't like the smell coming from the Skunk's enclosure.
Never mind that they fed the Skunk for years while it was in a ding dong fight with the Persian Cat. Never mind that despite exuding unbearable (pardon the pun) body odours themselves, the American relatives had the cheek to complain about the Skunk's smell. In fact, to its delicate nose, the American relatives smelt far worse than the Skunk, sniffed the Bear.
At least the Skunk had an excuse for smelling bad, the Bear thought. After all, the good lord saw fit to create the Skunk's bad smell as a self-defence mechanism. But in the case of the American relatives, despite having lots of other people's money, they didn't believe in showers, soap and deodorant!
What is a Bear to do?
Saakashvili has acted exactly like a spoilt little Junior at a zoo with long suffering parents. Provocatively poking a large Russian Bear, Junior gets a mauling in return for his efforts. He then turns around and whines for his parents to punish the Bear for daring to maul him! If I were the parents, I'd hurl the little thug over the fence as a tasty snack for the Bear.
But wait, the boorish and presumptious American relatives side with the little darling because he was schooled in the good old USA, and impressed them with his early talent for boorish and presumptious behaviour. Seeking to curry favour and emulate the American relatives, the French parent convinces himself that Junior indeed was innocent and scolds the Bear. The German parent reluctantly falls in with her French partner. But her half-hearted scolding of the Bear betrays her real views.
Understandably, the Bear is peeved at being treated so unfairly. Why, it remembers a time not too long ago when the American relatives came to the zoo and trashed the Iraqi Skunk's enclosure into rubble. What grand reason did they offer for their dastardly deed? The American relatives didn't like the smell coming from the Skunk's enclosure.
Never mind that they fed the Skunk for years while it was in a ding dong fight with the Persian Cat. Never mind that despite exuding unbearable (pardon the pun) body odours themselves, the American relatives had the cheek to complain about the Skunk's smell. In fact, to its delicate nose, the American relatives smelt far worse than the Skunk, sniffed the Bear.
At least the Skunk had an excuse for smelling bad, the Bear thought. After all, the good lord saw fit to create the Skunk's bad smell as a self-defence mechanism. But in the case of the American relatives, despite having lots of other people's money, they didn't believe in showers, soap and deodorant!
What is a Bear to do?
22 June 2008
Echoes of evil in the US military
I missed a significant but notorious 40th anniversary of the My Lai massacre on 15 March 2008.
As official US government and military propaganda then claimed, the massacre was an isolated spontaneous act of mass murder executed by an infantry company, instigated by a Lt William Calley. But as a recent BBC documentary reported, after an exhaustive search of US National Archive records, the truth was quite the opposite.
The relevant records were hidden and uncatalogued (administrative equivalent of burying secrets) in a small portion of an enormous collection of records chronicling US Army operations in Vietnam. Doubtless, the Pentagon hoped that nobody would find the damning reports of Lt General William Peers' inquiry into the massacre. It was for good reason the Pentagon wished to bury the bodies.
My Lai was only one of three hamlets identified for complete destruction by Col Oran Henderson, a brigade commander of the 23rd US Infantry Division (aka Americal Division). As Lt Gen Peers found, Task Force Barker was ordered to "kill everything," raze crops and dwellings, without exception. More than one company, Charlie, was involved in the terrible massacre. Peers found that Bravo company was also involved.
The general recorded some 400 hours of testimony by personnel of all ranks which were also released to the BBC. The accounts claimed mass rapes of women and girls as young as 12; followed by their executions to eliminate witnesses. Hurling terrified civilians into ditches and machine gunning them, SS Stormtrooper style, was recorded in chilling verbal testimonies. This was "winning the hearts and minds" of the local population. It was about keeping Vietnam free and democratic.
Fortunately, a few people survived by feigning death. Lt Gen Peers travelled to interview the survivors in 1970, and found their testimony corroborated the accounts of mass rapes and murders.
"The first shot hit a baby in the head and I turned around and (was) sick" - one soldier. Another: "Most people in our company didn't consider the Vietnamese human…..A guy would just grab one of the girls there and ….they shot the girls when they got done."
"...when they got done..." refers to raping the girls.
A monstrous cover-up was subsequently orchestrated by the division commander, Maj Gen Sam Koster; one which was eventually blown apart by Lt Gen Peers' investigation. However, the findings of Peers' inquiry were so shocking that the Pentagon suppressed the full truth, and instead, claimed the massacre was an isolated incident.
It was instructive then, as now in the context of Abu Ghraib, Haditha and Mahmudiyah, that of 14 officers charged, only the most junior, Calley, was court-martialled and found guilty. Brigade commander, Col Henderson, was acquitted. Yet, as the archived records and report showed, the atrocity was ordered by the highest levels of the divisional chain of command.
The BBC documentary is both fascinating and yet revealing, in that when Abu Ghraib, Haditha and Mahmudiyah are framed in the context of the My Lai massacre, it really seems little has changed in 40 years. No superior values of democracy and freedom are evident, no humanity is shown to innocent civilians, no honour, integrity and accountability are demonstrated by the top brass, and no exemplary leadership worth emulating is to be found in the White House.
Instead evil, identical to that which escaped in My Lai, seems to be evident in Iraq; apparent to all who aren't wilfully blind, deaf and dumb. This evil is an echo of what others were accused of perpetrating in WW2. It only goes to show that nobody has a monopoly on virtue and morality. And those who claim to be the beacons of "democracy and freedom" bring exactly the opposite to those unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end.
Soon, the world will be rid of the nastiest and blackest of the three stooges, Bush, Blair and Howard, who brought unprovoked death and destruction to Iraq. But sadly, there will be no war crimes trials for these criminals. The only thing that will happen to Bush, Blair and Howard is that they will be consigned to the garbage can of history. Truly, a poor punishment for their war crimes.
Therein lies the fundamental and glaring flaw of our so-called "democracies." Who wants to emulate a hypocritical system that fails to hold accountable those who kill in our name, and with our tacit assent?
As official US government and military propaganda then claimed, the massacre was an isolated spontaneous act of mass murder executed by an infantry company, instigated by a Lt William Calley. But as a recent BBC documentary reported, after an exhaustive search of US National Archive records, the truth was quite the opposite.
The relevant records were hidden and uncatalogued (administrative equivalent of burying secrets) in a small portion of an enormous collection of records chronicling US Army operations in Vietnam. Doubtless, the Pentagon hoped that nobody would find the damning reports of Lt General William Peers' inquiry into the massacre. It was for good reason the Pentagon wished to bury the bodies.
My Lai was only one of three hamlets identified for complete destruction by Col Oran Henderson, a brigade commander of the 23rd US Infantry Division (aka Americal Division). As Lt Gen Peers found, Task Force Barker was ordered to "kill everything," raze crops and dwellings, without exception. More than one company, Charlie, was involved in the terrible massacre. Peers found that Bravo company was also involved.
The general recorded some 400 hours of testimony by personnel of all ranks which were also released to the BBC. The accounts claimed mass rapes of women and girls as young as 12; followed by their executions to eliminate witnesses. Hurling terrified civilians into ditches and machine gunning them, SS Stormtrooper style, was recorded in chilling verbal testimonies. This was "winning the hearts and minds" of the local population. It was about keeping Vietnam free and democratic.
Fortunately, a few people survived by feigning death. Lt Gen Peers travelled to interview the survivors in 1970, and found their testimony corroborated the accounts of mass rapes and murders.
"The first shot hit a baby in the head and I turned around and (was) sick" - one soldier. Another: "Most people in our company didn't consider the Vietnamese human…..A guy would just grab one of the girls there and ….they shot the girls when they got done."
"...when they got done..." refers to raping the girls.
A monstrous cover-up was subsequently orchestrated by the division commander, Maj Gen Sam Koster; one which was eventually blown apart by Lt Gen Peers' investigation. However, the findings of Peers' inquiry were so shocking that the Pentagon suppressed the full truth, and instead, claimed the massacre was an isolated incident.
It was instructive then, as now in the context of Abu Ghraib, Haditha and Mahmudiyah, that of 14 officers charged, only the most junior, Calley, was court-martialled and found guilty. Brigade commander, Col Henderson, was acquitted. Yet, as the archived records and report showed, the atrocity was ordered by the highest levels of the divisional chain of command.
The BBC documentary is both fascinating and yet revealing, in that when Abu Ghraib, Haditha and Mahmudiyah are framed in the context of the My Lai massacre, it really seems little has changed in 40 years. No superior values of democracy and freedom are evident, no humanity is shown to innocent civilians, no honour, integrity and accountability are demonstrated by the top brass, and no exemplary leadership worth emulating is to be found in the White House.
Instead evil, identical to that which escaped in My Lai, seems to be evident in Iraq; apparent to all who aren't wilfully blind, deaf and dumb. This evil is an echo of what others were accused of perpetrating in WW2. It only goes to show that nobody has a monopoly on virtue and morality. And those who claim to be the beacons of "democracy and freedom" bring exactly the opposite to those unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end.
Soon, the world will be rid of the nastiest and blackest of the three stooges, Bush, Blair and Howard, who brought unprovoked death and destruction to Iraq. But sadly, there will be no war crimes trials for these criminals. The only thing that will happen to Bush, Blair and Howard is that they will be consigned to the garbage can of history. Truly, a poor punishment for their war crimes.
Therein lies the fundamental and glaring flaw of our so-called "democracies." Who wants to emulate a hypocritical system that fails to hold accountable those who kill in our name, and with our tacit assent?
Labels: abu ghraib, blair, bush, haditha, howard, mahmudiyah, my lai massacre
05 June 2008
Dream ticket to a nightmare presidency
If ever anyone doubted the unique ability of Hillary Clinton and her die-hard supporters to seek having everything every which way to suit themselves, then doubt no more. Despite Obama winning the required number of delegates to secure nomination, Clinton refused to concede defeat. Instead, she cynically withheld her concession to extract an invitation to run as Obama's vice-president.
After months of hammering Obama's inexperience and therefore lack of fitness to be president, Clinton now turns around and is seemingly prepared to serve under him?! She publicly calls Obama her "friend" after attacking him personally and playing the race card to boot. Who is Hillary trying to fool? What's wrong with this picture - apart from her monumental hypocrisy?
Does the impression of her being "desperately hungry for power" come to mind when Clinton's latest antics are viewed through the prism of her own words? When husband Bill was president, Hillary certainly felt free to be an ex-officio member of his cabinet. Never mind the small irrelevant detail of her not having received the people's mandate to be anything other than the FLOTUS (First Lady Of The United States).
If Obama makes the grave error of taking Clinton on as vice-president, she will absolutely not be content to be a figurehead office holder. Hillary will demand an active vice-presidency and will probably run her own agenda; to the detriment of an Obama administration.
With Clinton only a heartbeat away from the presidency and if I were Obama, I'd be tripling my Secret Service inner perimeter, deploying a Navy SEAL team middle perimeter and capping things off with a Delta Force outer perimeter. Desperate people hungry for power are likely to say and do anything to get what they covet.
After months of hammering Obama's inexperience and therefore lack of fitness to be president, Clinton now turns around and is seemingly prepared to serve under him?! She publicly calls Obama her "friend" after attacking him personally and playing the race card to boot. Who is Hillary trying to fool? What's wrong with this picture - apart from her monumental hypocrisy?
Does the impression of her being "desperately hungry for power" come to mind when Clinton's latest antics are viewed through the prism of her own words? When husband Bill was president, Hillary certainly felt free to be an ex-officio member of his cabinet. Never mind the small irrelevant detail of her not having received the people's mandate to be anything other than the FLOTUS (First Lady Of The United States).
If Obama makes the grave error of taking Clinton on as vice-president, she will absolutely not be content to be a figurehead office holder. Hillary will demand an active vice-presidency and will probably run her own agenda; to the detriment of an Obama administration.
With Clinton only a heartbeat away from the presidency and if I were Obama, I'd be tripling my Secret Service inner perimeter, deploying a Navy SEAL team middle perimeter and capping things off with a Delta Force outer perimeter. Desperate people hungry for power are likely to say and do anything to get what they covet.
Labels: bill, clinton, hillary, mccain, obama
01 June 2008
Clinton unfit for high office
I was partially surprised to hear about the decision to restore half of the Florida and Michigan delegates to each Clinton and Obama. The committee making this decision is misguided. They allowed the entire party and its rules to be subverted by a vocal and partisan group of people no different to the despised neo-cons.
Both states were long before, warned about the consequences of not toeing the party line but chose to defy the warning anyway. What is the point of having rules if they can be bent to suit a single candidate; particularly one who had herself endorsed the rules?
How is it fair to other candidates who actually obeyed the rules? Why are Florida and Michigan voters sufficiently exceptional that the rules others obeyed, don't apply to them? What message does this send to the broader community? Is the message "if you don't like the way the game is going, change the rules mid-game" a good one to send all over America?
After watching Clinton's antics over the last few months, I've come to the conclusion that she definitely would not make a good leader nor president. She has displayed some disturbing traits:
But all in all, the picture that has emerged of Clinton is of a person who will say and do anything to win office. She wants to have everything every which way to suit her and her alone. She then has the audacity to claim that her self-serving agenda is really selfless sacrifice for the greater good of all!
Let me be clear that I think Obama has much to do to prove he is in fact worthy of being president. It's all very well to talk about the need for change, to restore America's global standing (assuming that's remotely possible), to bring back values-centered government etc.
Duh, you don't need to be Homer Simpson or a nominee for presidential candidate to figure out these things. I mean half the world outside America has been saying this since Herr Bush stole the presidency from Al Gore. What we're all still waiting for with bated breath, is what exactly Obama is going to do to change things and how is he going to do it?
And as for McCain, well his vision for America is 100 years in Iraq (if necessary). I can see that if he's elected, then Paul Kennedy's (in his book, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) unanswered question of whether the US will decline gracefully or disgracefully will be surely answered as the latter.
After all, not even the US can continue spending enormous treasure without imploding its own economy one day. That day will only hasten faster if McCain is president. By the way, where I live, McCain is a brand of frozen vegetables.
Oh what a wonderful choice of pretenders to the throne this coming presidential election brings. Not America's best, surely?
Both states were long before, warned about the consequences of not toeing the party line but chose to defy the warning anyway. What is the point of having rules if they can be bent to suit a single candidate; particularly one who had herself endorsed the rules?
How is it fair to other candidates who actually obeyed the rules? Why are Florida and Michigan voters sufficiently exceptional that the rules others obeyed, don't apply to them? What message does this send to the broader community? Is the message "if you don't like the way the game is going, change the rules mid-game" a good one to send all over America?
After watching Clinton's antics over the last few months, I've come to the conclusion that she definitely would not make a good leader nor president. She has displayed some disturbing traits:
- Repeatedly lied through her teeth about her being "under fire" in Bosnia. And when confronted with evidence of her lies, claims that she "mis-spoke." So are we to take everything she says as mis-speaking of mis-truths?
- Gets other people to play the racial card and then hints the same when it suits her; while denying the same when people get the hint and criticise her for it. The imagery her behaviour invokes is that of a snake or eel slipping through your fingers.
- When people criticise her for playing the racial card, she turns around and complains that she's picked upon because she's a woman. She didn't allege Obama was criticised for his friendship with the firebrand pastor because he is black! Memo to Hillary: It isn't about gender or race, it's about character.
- Clinton endorsed the rules resulting in Florida and Michigan being excluded but now wants them included because it helps her. If the shoe was on the other foot, would she have agreed to Obama doing the same? Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot so counting them would clearly disadvantage him.
But all in all, the picture that has emerged of Clinton is of a person who will say and do anything to win office. She wants to have everything every which way to suit her and her alone. She then has the audacity to claim that her self-serving agenda is really selfless sacrifice for the greater good of all!
Let me be clear that I think Obama has much to do to prove he is in fact worthy of being president. It's all very well to talk about the need for change, to restore America's global standing (assuming that's remotely possible), to bring back values-centered government etc.
Duh, you don't need to be Homer Simpson or a nominee for presidential candidate to figure out these things. I mean half the world outside America has been saying this since Herr Bush stole the presidency from Al Gore. What we're all still waiting for with bated breath, is what exactly Obama is going to do to change things and how is he going to do it?
And as for McCain, well his vision for America is 100 years in Iraq (if necessary). I can see that if he's elected, then Paul Kennedy's (in his book, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers) unanswered question of whether the US will decline gracefully or disgracefully will be surely answered as the latter.
After all, not even the US can continue spending enormous treasure without imploding its own economy one day. That day will only hasten faster if McCain is president. By the way, where I live, McCain is a brand of frozen vegetables.
Oh what a wonderful choice of pretenders to the throne this coming presidential election brings. Not America's best, surely?
Labels: al, barack, chalmers johnson, clinton, democrats, gore, hillary, mccain, obama, republicans
24 November 2007
Armageddon for John Howard
What a fitting end to the political career of John Howard today has been!
Not only did Chi Hua-Hua John lose the mandate for government following today's general election, he is likely to lose his seat as well. Losing his seat would make Howard only the second sitting PM in Australia's history to suffer such a great humiliation. The first was Stanley Bruce way back in 1929!
Listening to the nonsensical gushing blather from his now feather duster minister, Joe Hockey, about Chi Hua-Hua's "honesty" and "wonderful" leadership, made me puke. I'm not sure many of the Iraqi invasion's hapless civilian casualties would agree - that is if you could resurrect them from the dead to run a poll with them.
For a man given to lying, equivocating, dissembling, dividing and using racial politics to get into and stay in power, it's difficult to regard Howard's leadership as anything other than unprincipled and amoral. Many words have been written and spoken about the reasons for his ascent and now downfall at the hands of voters.
But we do know one thing for sure. The great bulk of voters booted Howard out for economic reasons rather than reasons of principle like involving the country in an illegal war of aggression.
Howard lost the election by losing many seats in marginal electorates in NSW and Queensland. Voters in these seats have lost or are in danger of their homes because of the many interest rate increases during Howard's reign. And as mentioned in an earlier post (John Howard's hubris), adverse personal economic outcomes are what motivated these voters to drive a stake through Howard's black heart.
Does it matter what the fundamental reasons are for Howard's demise? The answer in the short term is no. With the erstwhile governor of the 51st state of the USA deposed, at least Australia will return to being a bit more of a sovereign nation in its own right.
However, if Australia is to avoid engaging in illegal wars and unprincipled acts by its government in future, the incoming PM, Kevin Rudd, must lead the national political, moral and social discourse towards a principled and enlightened place in the sun.
Two war criminals, Blair and now Howard, have been euthanased. Only the biggest and blackest one remains; clinging on for his nasty little life in the White House. Your day for consignment to the garbage can of history is not for long now, Dubya...
Not only did Chi Hua-Hua John lose the mandate for government following today's general election, he is likely to lose his seat as well. Losing his seat would make Howard only the second sitting PM in Australia's history to suffer such a great humiliation. The first was Stanley Bruce way back in 1929!
Listening to the nonsensical gushing blather from his now feather duster minister, Joe Hockey, about Chi Hua-Hua's "honesty" and "wonderful" leadership, made me puke. I'm not sure many of the Iraqi invasion's hapless civilian casualties would agree - that is if you could resurrect them from the dead to run a poll with them.
For a man given to lying, equivocating, dissembling, dividing and using racial politics to get into and stay in power, it's difficult to regard Howard's leadership as anything other than unprincipled and amoral. Many words have been written and spoken about the reasons for his ascent and now downfall at the hands of voters.
But we do know one thing for sure. The great bulk of voters booted Howard out for economic reasons rather than reasons of principle like involving the country in an illegal war of aggression.
Howard lost the election by losing many seats in marginal electorates in NSW and Queensland. Voters in these seats have lost or are in danger of their homes because of the many interest rate increases during Howard's reign. And as mentioned in an earlier post (John Howard's hubris), adverse personal economic outcomes are what motivated these voters to drive a stake through Howard's black heart.
Does it matter what the fundamental reasons are for Howard's demise? The answer in the short term is no. With the erstwhile governor of the 51st state of the USA deposed, at least Australia will return to being a bit more of a sovereign nation in its own right.
However, if Australia is to avoid engaging in illegal wars and unprincipled acts by its government in future, the incoming PM, Kevin Rudd, must lead the national political, moral and social discourse towards a principled and enlightened place in the sun.
Two war criminals, Blair and now Howard, have been euthanased. Only the biggest and blackest one remains; clinging on for his nasty little life in the White House. Your day for consignment to the garbage can of history is not for long now, Dubya...
Labels: australian election, john howard, kevin rudd, tony blair
24 June 2007
Apocalypto for the Neo-Cons
With the Senate and House back under Democratic Party control, the much-touted troop surge turning in a casualty surge, Rummie consigned to the dustbin of history, Wolfie fired from his cushy World Bank job, Libby transformed from a Cheney rooster into a feather duster, Poodle Tony [Blair] politically euthanased by his party and just maybe Chi Hua-Hua John [Howard] to be booted in his backside by voters, things are going really well for Dubya and his neo-con partners-in-war-crimes.
Even as the great neo-con dream slowly morphs into the putrid nightmare that it really is, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of the monstrous crimes committed under the guise of "democracy and freedom." A most disturbing and morally repugnant revelation to surface recently is Seymour Hersh's article about a patriotic and honourable US general who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal. Hersh's article must be read to understand some of the terribly malignant transformations wrought by the neo-cons.
General Taguba's treatment by factions in a Pentagon politicised by the neo-cons was in a word, disgraceful. Former Chief of Army, General Eric Shinseki, suffered similar treatment following his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on the eve of the Iraq invasion. So it is clear that like the broader American society under neo-con "leadership," hallmark values of a democracy such as honour, integrity, compassion, fairness etc have been twisted into Orwellian caricatures of the exact opposite in the uniformed services.
Taguba says it best in Hersh's article:
"There was no doubt in my mind that this stuff—the explicit images—was gravitating upward. It was standard operating procedure to assume that this had to go higher. The President had to be aware of this."
He said that Rumsfeld, his senior aides, and the high-ranking generals and admirals who stood with him as he misrepresented what he knew about Abu Ghraib had failed the nation.
"From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service,” Taguba said. “And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable."
What was done in the name of "democracy and freedom" has been no different to what Stalin and Hitler did.
For those who deny the moral equivalence (because America is always morally right, of course), I say put yourselves to the test by using the same Nuremburg war crimes trial standards the US and its allies used to judge the Nazis. Go on, be all that you claim to be by proving what's good for the goose is equally good for the gander.
To quote Will Durant,
"A great civilisation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
Even as the great neo-con dream slowly morphs into the putrid nightmare that it really is, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of the monstrous crimes committed under the guise of "democracy and freedom." A most disturbing and morally repugnant revelation to surface recently is Seymour Hersh's article about a patriotic and honourable US general who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal. Hersh's article must be read to understand some of the terribly malignant transformations wrought by the neo-cons.
General Taguba's treatment by factions in a Pentagon politicised by the neo-cons was in a word, disgraceful. Former Chief of Army, General Eric Shinseki, suffered similar treatment following his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on the eve of the Iraq invasion. So it is clear that like the broader American society under neo-con "leadership," hallmark values of a democracy such as honour, integrity, compassion, fairness etc have been twisted into Orwellian caricatures of the exact opposite in the uniformed services.
Taguba says it best in Hersh's article:
"There was no doubt in my mind that this stuff—the explicit images—was gravitating upward. It was standard operating procedure to assume that this had to go higher. The President had to be aware of this."
He said that Rumsfeld, his senior aides, and the high-ranking generals and admirals who stood with him as he misrepresented what he knew about Abu Ghraib had failed the nation.
"From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service,” Taguba said. “And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable."
What was done in the name of "democracy and freedom" has been no different to what Stalin and Hitler did.
For those who deny the moral equivalence (because America is always morally right, of course), I say put yourselves to the test by using the same Nuremburg war crimes trial standards the US and its allies used to judge the Nazis. Go on, be all that you claim to be by proving what's good for the goose is equally good for the gander.
To quote Will Durant,
"A great civilisation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
Labels: blair, bush, cheney, hitler, howard, iraq, libby, neo-conservatives, rumsfeld, stalin, surge, taguba, wolfowitz
12 February 2007
John Howard's hubris
Australian PM John Howard stunned many people on both sides of the Pacific with his ferocious attack on US Democratic presidential nomination hopeful, Barack Obama. In one fell swoop, Howard has probably helped to harden US and possibly Australian public opinion against Bush's Iraqi disaster rather than help his beseiged master in the White House.
Not only that, imagine the knives that would be out for Howard were he to win re-election in Australia while a Democratic Party ruled both the Congress and White House! Chi Hua-Hua John will surely get booted up his rear end by the rightly outraged Democrats.
In a reverse incident some years back, many Australians were angered when a Bush crony, the then US ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer, saw fit to tell Australians that voting for the then Labor Party opposition leader, Mark Latham, would be a disaster for the country. Australians on both sides of politics regarded Schieffer's intervention as arrogant interference in Australia's domestic politics.
Howard's bemusing outburst against Obama is fascinating for its possible motives. Let's be clear, Obama is just one of the majority of US voters, presidential hopefuls, senators and congressmen who oppose America's continuing involvement in Iraq. For example, even Republican senator John Warner (one time secretary for the navy) is opposed to the troop escalation and questions continuing involvement in Iraq.
So what on earth prompted Howard to single out Obama and not for example, Hillary Clinton - who has also pledged to bring US troops home? I think the answer lies in Obama's broad-based bipartisan appeal to US voters. His charisma and perceived sincerity project much greater gravitas and credibility than his brief government experience would suggest.
Howard quite rightly perceived that Obama's views would play very well to a nation cynical about long-time politicians, and therefore have great capacity to shift public opinion even more resolutely against Bush and his policies. Were this to happen, then anyone strongly associated with the war-criminal would also be similarly discredited in the eyes of their own voters.
Let's deconstruct Howard into the hypocrite that he is, shall we? As the BBC reported,
"Mr Howard said any withdrawal of US troops by March 2008 - the date Mr Obama believes should be set - would mean defeat for Washington.
And of course last but not least, if Iraq is so vital to Australia's national security, then Howard should have far more than the paltry 1400 Australian troops in Iraq, and they should be in the Baghdad frontline instead of the safe southern province. Better still, Howard should demonstrate the courage of his apparent convictions by getting his sons into the army (instead of one working for the US Republican Party), and ensuring they serve in Baghdad. It's all about leadership by example, Chi Hua-Hua John.
Instead, what do we see? Bush's little lap dog yaps from the sidelines, committing very little to his bullshit. What a strange and twisted set of moral values Chi Hua-Hua John possesses.
So how are Australian voters likely to react to Howard's hypocritical dummy spit?
What about the Howard regime's economic management credentials? In the important swing states of Victoria and New South Wales, mortgage defaults are sky-rocketing due to recent interest rate increases. Mortgagee-in-possession sales have strongly affected the swing voters who gave Howard his last election victory.
And now that these voters have lost their homes, they are certainly feeling less wealthy than before. If my observations of these voters are correct (again see False dawn or a real sea change?), then Howard's economic management credentials have a stake through the heart as far as these voters are concerned. So if Obama rings true with US voters on Iraq and it flows through to Australian voters, then Howard's two advantages over his Labor rival Kevin Rudd, would be neutralised.
A final possible motive for Howard's attack on Obama, is that he fears a parallel appeal with Australian voters in the Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd. Since Rudd's ascension as leader of the opposition, Howard has been focussing on the former's lack of government experience. Indeed, if Howard can successfully play up voter fears about Rudd's inexperience, then voters are likely to re-elect the devil they know rather than the acolyte they don't know.
On the other hand, if voters see Rudd's inexperience in the same positive light as Obama's - ie the cleanskin untarnished by cynical power broker plays in dim backrooms, then Howard would represent all that is bad about the old ways.
The coming federal election will be a genuine "at-a-crossroad" experience for the country. While there's much to dislike about Rudd, there's even more to dislike about Howard.
Not only that, imagine the knives that would be out for Howard were he to win re-election in Australia while a Democratic Party ruled both the Congress and White House! Chi Hua-Hua John will surely get booted up his rear end by the rightly outraged Democrats.
In a reverse incident some years back, many Australians were angered when a Bush crony, the then US ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer, saw fit to tell Australians that voting for the then Labor Party opposition leader, Mark Latham, would be a disaster for the country. Australians on both sides of politics regarded Schieffer's intervention as arrogant interference in Australia's domestic politics.
Howard's bemusing outburst against Obama is fascinating for its possible motives. Let's be clear, Obama is just one of the majority of US voters, presidential hopefuls, senators and congressmen who oppose America's continuing involvement in Iraq. For example, even Republican senator John Warner (one time secretary for the navy) is opposed to the troop escalation and questions continuing involvement in Iraq.
So what on earth prompted Howard to single out Obama and not for example, Hillary Clinton - who has also pledged to bring US troops home? I think the answer lies in Obama's broad-based bipartisan appeal to US voters. His charisma and perceived sincerity project much greater gravitas and credibility than his brief government experience would suggest.
Howard quite rightly perceived that Obama's views would play very well to a nation cynical about long-time politicians, and therefore have great capacity to shift public opinion even more resolutely against Bush and his policies. Were this to happen, then anyone strongly associated with the war-criminal would also be similarly discredited in the eyes of their own voters.
Let's deconstruct Howard into the hypocrite that he is, shall we? As the BBC reported,
"Mr Howard said any withdrawal of US troops by March 2008 - the date Mr Obama believes should be set - would mean defeat for Washington.
He said that defeat for the US would end hopes for peace in the Palestinian Territories and cause widespread destabilisation in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan."
Well, let's see now. If Chi Hua-Hua Howard was really so concerned about stability in the Middle East, then he would have urged his partner in war crimes not to invade Iraq under the bullshit cover of non-existent NBC weapons. Saudi Arabia and Jordan were a whole lot less jittery when Saddam Hussein was in power - counter-balancing Iran. But after turning Iraq into rubble, Team Neo-Con opened the door for Iran to fill the vacuum.
And of course last but not least, if Iraq is so vital to Australia's national security, then Howard should have far more than the paltry 1400 Australian troops in Iraq, and they should be in the Baghdad frontline instead of the safe southern province. Better still, Howard should demonstrate the courage of his apparent convictions by getting his sons into the army (instead of one working for the US Republican Party), and ensuring they serve in Baghdad. It's all about leadership by example, Chi Hua-Hua John.
Instead, what do we see? Bush's little lap dog yaps from the sidelines, committing very little to his bullshit. What a strange and twisted set of moral values Chi Hua-Hua John possesses.
So how are Australian voters likely to react to Howard's hypocritical dummy spit?
In an earlier post, I observed (False dawn or real sea change?) that Australian and US voters are more similar to each other in their behaviour, compared to their British counterparts. And although Australian voters have proven they won't vote a prime minister out of office on the grounds of moral turpitude, a strengthening of voter perceptions that the Iraqi war is immoral undermines Howard's self-proclaimed national security credentials.
As Howard himself recently claimed, the Coalition government is more trusted than the Labor opposition on economic management and national security. But if Obama hardens US voter sentiment against Bush's policies, Australian voters could similarly react by increasing their distrust of Howard on national security issues.What about the Howard regime's economic management credentials? In the important swing states of Victoria and New South Wales, mortgage defaults are sky-rocketing due to recent interest rate increases. Mortgagee-in-possession sales have strongly affected the swing voters who gave Howard his last election victory.
And now that these voters have lost their homes, they are certainly feeling less wealthy than before. If my observations of these voters are correct (again see False dawn or a real sea change?), then Howard's economic management credentials have a stake through the heart as far as these voters are concerned. So if Obama rings true with US voters on Iraq and it flows through to Australian voters, then Howard's two advantages over his Labor rival Kevin Rudd, would be neutralised.
A final possible motive for Howard's attack on Obama, is that he fears a parallel appeal with Australian voters in the Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd. Since Rudd's ascension as leader of the opposition, Howard has been focussing on the former's lack of government experience. Indeed, if Howard can successfully play up voter fears about Rudd's inexperience, then voters are likely to re-elect the devil they know rather than the acolyte they don't know.
On the other hand, if voters see Rudd's inexperience in the same positive light as Obama's - ie the cleanskin untarnished by cynical power broker plays in dim backrooms, then Howard would represent all that is bad about the old ways.
The coming federal election will be a genuine "at-a-crossroad" experience for the country. While there's much to dislike about Rudd, there's even more to dislike about Howard.
Labels: bush, chi hua-hua, clinton, crony, democratic party, destabilisation, howard, iraq, lap dog, obama, republican, schieffer
08 January 2007
Are the Neo-Cons dead yet?
Will the return of a Democrat controlled congress in last November's congressional elections herald the death of the Neo-Cons and their reign of unfettered freedom to cause murder and mayhem abroad? Or has Team Neo-Con just taken a few rounds to the head; only to rise like Lazarus (or more correctly, Dracula) to cause further mayhem later?
To answer this question, I think we will need to set milestones by which we can measure the real death of Team Neo-Con rather than just non-fatal injury. Critical short term milestones would be:
1. Congress investigates the who, how and why involving the fabrication of false evidence justifying the illegal invasion of Iraq.
2. Following the investigation, Congress indicts people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams, John Ashcroft, Gen Geoffrey Miller (set up Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons), Richard Perle and last but not least, Dubya the Decider (of criminal acts).
3. Congress acknowledges the number of Iraqi civilian casualties inflicted during the March 2003 invasion.
4. Congress forces the closure of Abu Ghraib and Bagram Airport prisons and indicts senior military and CIA officers for unlawful assault and murder of detainees.
5. Congress demands the prosecution of US military personnel responsible for the murder of an Al Jazeera journalist during the invasion.
Collectively, these would be tangible evidence of repudiating the unlawful actions of Team Neo-Con, and a genuine move towards restoring the badly sullied reputation of the US both at home and abroad. Although the reign of the Neo-Con regime will be judged as one of America's darkest times; doing the above will also prove the regime to be a transient aberration rather than the norm.
We should be greatly encouraged that Congress has already commenced step 1. We can only hope that the momentum will be sustained for the remaining steps.
To answer this question, I think we will need to set milestones by which we can measure the real death of Team Neo-Con rather than just non-fatal injury. Critical short term milestones would be:
1. Congress investigates the who, how and why involving the fabrication of false evidence justifying the illegal invasion of Iraq.
2. Following the investigation, Congress indicts people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams, John Ashcroft, Gen Geoffrey Miller (set up Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons), Richard Perle and last but not least, Dubya the Decider (of criminal acts).
3. Congress acknowledges the number of Iraqi civilian casualties inflicted during the March 2003 invasion.
4. Congress forces the closure of Abu Ghraib and Bagram Airport prisons and indicts senior military and CIA officers for unlawful assault and murder of detainees.
5. Congress demands the prosecution of US military personnel responsible for the murder of an Al Jazeera journalist during the invasion.
Collectively, these would be tangible evidence of repudiating the unlawful actions of Team Neo-Con, and a genuine move towards restoring the badly sullied reputation of the US both at home and abroad. Although the reign of the Neo-Con regime will be judged as one of America's darkest times; doing the above will also prove the regime to be a transient aberration rather than the norm.
We should be greatly encouraged that Congress has already commenced step 1. We can only hope that the momentum will be sustained for the remaining steps.
Labels: abu ghraib, bush, cheney, condi rice, feith, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, rumsfeld, wolfowitz
18 November 2006
Message received but not understood
Following middle America's repudiation of six years of madness under Team Neo-Con; expressed during the recent congressional elections, I looked for signs of mea culpa breaking out in Neo-Con land. So far, I'm sorry to say their intellectual honesty about lessons learned from the electoral loss is at the same level as their trousers around their ankles.
An article by Charles Krauthammer published in the Washington Post is an excellent case in point. Krauthammer (a deliciously ironic surname) is one of the key Neo-Con "intellectuals" who cheered the illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iraq. In his article, he says,
"Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: Depose Saddam Hussein and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government."
Hold on a minute!
Before the invasion in March 2003, Big Dubya, Poodle Tony and Chi Hua-Hua John thumped their chests and told the world Saddam had NBC weapons which posed a clear and present danger to civilisation as we knew it then. In fact, Big Dubya and his then National Security Adviser, Condi Fried Rice, emphatically denied "regime change" was the agenda.
It was only when the sham claims of NBC weapons were comprehensively exposed as a pack of lies, that "regime change" suddenly became the retrospective casus belli. Imagine Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo employing this sort of retrospective justification for war back in the 1940s. Oh, I forgot, they were on the wrong side - that is, the unrighteous and unholy side - how silly of me!
So now, Team Neo-Con and its "intellectuals" hope that by repeating this sort of reverse deductive reasoning as often as they change their underpants, the public will forget the pack of lies peddled to justify prosecution of an illegal war. You know, back in the days of Nazi Germany, Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, is reputed to have said that if one repeats a lie often enough, people will eventually come to accept it as the truth!
Krauthammer also says in his article,
"Americans flatter themselves that they are the root of all planetary evil."
Aside from insulting many decent fellow Americans who opposed the war from the start, Krauthammer has simply got it wrong.
It is the Neo-Cons who flattered themselves by thinking they could impose their brand of "Freedom and Democracy" (you know, the type that brought the world Abu Ghraib, the rape and murder of a teenage girl in Mahmudiya, the murder of a grandfather in Haditha) upon a culture founded on completely different traditions and values.
If it took America 230 years to evolve its brand of democracy, why would it take any less time for an apparently backward country rent by religious and tribal differences? How could people like William Kristol, Francis Fukuyama and Krauthammer, regarded as intellectual giants by that curious mutant branch of Republicanism called Neo-Conservatism, not understand something as obvious as this?
You see, the problem with these guys is very simple. They never have to put their necks where their mouths are, when they call for war to be waged across the globe. You can be sure that if these armchair warriors had to front up on the battlefield, they'd suddenly lose their neo-con courage. There's nothing like confronting the reality of being ventilated with bullets and shrapnel to cause armchair warriors to morph into instant pacifists!
Recalcitrant and unrepentant Neo-Cons should prove their brand of "patriotism," courage and unswerving faith in the moral correctness of their beliefs by volunteering to serve at the frontline in Iraq. Anything less must surely invoke derisive dismissal; aside from the fact that they are simply adding more methane to the Earth's long suffering atmosphere.
An article by Charles Krauthammer published in the Washington Post is an excellent case in point. Krauthammer (a deliciously ironic surname) is one of the key Neo-Con "intellectuals" who cheered the illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iraq. In his article, he says,
"Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: Depose Saddam Hussein and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government."
Hold on a minute!
Before the invasion in March 2003, Big Dubya, Poodle Tony and Chi Hua-Hua John thumped their chests and told the world Saddam had NBC weapons which posed a clear and present danger to civilisation as we knew it then. In fact, Big Dubya and his then National Security Adviser, Condi Fried Rice, emphatically denied "regime change" was the agenda.
It was only when the sham claims of NBC weapons were comprehensively exposed as a pack of lies, that "regime change" suddenly became the retrospective casus belli. Imagine Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo employing this sort of retrospective justification for war back in the 1940s. Oh, I forgot, they were on the wrong side - that is, the unrighteous and unholy side - how silly of me!
So now, Team Neo-Con and its "intellectuals" hope that by repeating this sort of reverse deductive reasoning as often as they change their underpants, the public will forget the pack of lies peddled to justify prosecution of an illegal war. You know, back in the days of Nazi Germany, Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, is reputed to have said that if one repeats a lie often enough, people will eventually come to accept it as the truth!
Krauthammer also says in his article,
"Americans flatter themselves that they are the root of all planetary evil."
Aside from insulting many decent fellow Americans who opposed the war from the start, Krauthammer has simply got it wrong.
It is the Neo-Cons who flattered themselves by thinking they could impose their brand of "Freedom and Democracy" (you know, the type that brought the world Abu Ghraib, the rape and murder of a teenage girl in Mahmudiya, the murder of a grandfather in Haditha) upon a culture founded on completely different traditions and values.
If it took America 230 years to evolve its brand of democracy, why would it take any less time for an apparently backward country rent by religious and tribal differences? How could people like William Kristol, Francis Fukuyama and Krauthammer, regarded as intellectual giants by that curious mutant branch of Republicanism called Neo-Conservatism, not understand something as obvious as this?
You see, the problem with these guys is very simple. They never have to put their necks where their mouths are, when they call for war to be waged across the globe. You can be sure that if these armchair warriors had to front up on the battlefield, they'd suddenly lose their neo-con courage. There's nothing like confronting the reality of being ventilated with bullets and shrapnel to cause armchair warriors to morph into instant pacifists!
Recalcitrant and unrepentant Neo-Cons should prove their brand of "patriotism," courage and unswerving faith in the moral correctness of their beliefs by volunteering to serve at the frontline in Iraq. Anything less must surely invoke derisive dismissal; aside from the fact that they are simply adding more methane to the Earth's long suffering atmosphere.
Labels: abu ghraib, condi rice, democracy, freedom, fukuyama, george bush, goebbels, hitler, john howard, krauthammer, kristol, nazi germany, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, saddam hussien, tony blair
09 November 2006
False dawn or real sea change?
By now, it seems clear that the US Democrat party has reclaimed control of the House of Representatives and provisional control of the Senate; after 12 long years of Republican domination. While on the surface much has been made of the Iraq disaster being the principle reason for the Republicans being booted out, a BBC report suggests domestic issues were strong reasons in many states.
Traditional Republican heartland voters seem to have cast their ballots with eyes on the economy and the sex and corruption scandals afflicting mostly Republican congressional representatives in both houses. In the case of the latter, the moral hypocrisy obviously reached intolerable levels for many diehard Republicans. In the case of the former, the heartland voters' sense of standing still economically despite the ruling elite becoming even more insanely wealthy, had finally broken through into their consciousness.
But an important point to note is that for many heartland voters, Iraq was less of an issue than good old personal economic interest. Nothing wrong with that. Except when your country is involved in an illegal war of aggression, THAT should be a real moral issue taking highest priority.
And in other cases where Iraq was the issue, most of the voters' concerns revolved around the war being unwinnable, mismanaged or costing too many US casualties. You seldom hear concerns about the original immorality and illegality of the war. Yet it is these issues that are the underlying drivers of global opposition to US policies.
As an aside, remember how Team Neo-Con and its supporters love to label war critics as un-American if they were US citizens, and anti-American if they were foreigners? Well now that the majority of US citizens have rejected Bush and the neo-con cabal, is this majority now un-American too? Or are the neo-cons the real un-American traitors guilty of subverting the constitutional foundations of their country?
Will the return of the Democrats warrant a change in negative world sentiment against the US? I think the answer depends not only on whether a military withdrawal from Iraq occurs but also if America's claim to being a real democracy plays out in holding Team Neo-Con accountable for its moral and war crimes.
If the new US Congress has the moral fibre to investigate and prosecute the likes of Big Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and General Geoffrey Miller (the culprit directly responsible for Abu Ghraib) for their crimes, then you don't have to be a Neo-Con Einstein to realise the world will get the message that true accountability exists in an American democracy.
This of course, begs the question for what crimes should the Neo-Con cabal be charged? Well, the last time I checked, it is still a war crime to prosecute unprovoked wars of aggression unsanctioned by the UN Security Council. And to test what's good for the goose is good for the gander, the same criteria used by the victorious Allies (of whom the US was one) at the Nuremburg Trials should be applied.
Remember that Hitler and his henchmen committed one of many war crimes when they fabricated an excuse (code named Operation Himmler) to invade Poland in September 1939. There is no difference between what the Nazis did then and what Team Neo-Con did in March 2003. So if ever the new US Congress wanted to prove that their notion of democracy is more than myth and much methane, then they should start cleaning house in earnest. That would silence critics and doubters immediately.
What are the implications for Poodle Tony?
Let's remember that the more highly principled British voters were the first to register their disgust with Blair involving them in an illegal war. They did so even after their American and Australian counterparts actually rewarded their respective leaders for involving them in the same illegal war (see "Blair bleeds a little more").
British voters disciplined Blair by cutting his parliamentary majority from 167 to 66 seats in May 2005. And the poodle has little choice but to relinquish office to Gordon Brown next year, after much pressure from his party colleagues to get out.
In contrast, US voters not only re-elected Big Dubya, they also increased his share of the vote. Likewise in Australia, voters not only returned Chi Hua-hua John to office, they also gave him control of the upper and lower houses of parliament. In short, Australian and American voters appear to be more similar than British voters.
This now brings me to Chi Hua-hua John.
Despite recent polls now showing that a majority of voters think he's a liar, he still enjoys a relatively high rating as preferred leader over the astoundingly unimpressive Opposition leader, Kim Beazley. While this is more a reflection on Beazley than on Howard, it also says a lot about the heartland voter in Australia.
Iraq is simply not a vote losing issue in Australia because the country hasn't suffered any direct casualties in battle. Were Australian soldiers to return home in body bags, then like their US cousins, heartland voters would become concerned over military casualties BUT not over Iraqi casualties. They've had plenty of opportunities to express concern over Iraqi civilian casualties from March 2003 but they weren't deterred from re-electing Chi Hua-hua John in a landslide.
What are we to make of this? The answer lies in understanding how Chi Hua-hua John won the election in November 2004. This self-proclaimed statesman cynically played racial and religious cards to exploit latent racism and xenophobia unhappily rife in many heartland voters.
On the eve of the election, Howard falsely claimed that a boatload of Middle-Eastern asylum seekers (ironically Iraqis fleeing the war in Iraq!) were throwing their children overboard in a vain attempt to stop a Navy ship from towing them out to international waters. He infamously said that these weren't the sort of people fit to enter Australia and that he wouldn't be surprised if some were terrorists.
Note that when Howard made these claims, he had already been informed by the then acting Chief of Defence Forces, Air Marshal Angus Houston, that the claims of children being thrown overboard were simply untrue. But of course, this didn't stop the self-proclaimed US deputy sheriff from smearing and demonising a boatload of people fleeing from a war he helped to start.
Uttering these disgraceful lies boosted his security and "tough on terrorists" image. This played very well to a heartland rife with resurgent racism and xenophobia, and so these voters went on to deliver a landslide victory to this odious character. How's that for a stunning demonstration of the "fair go" cultural value Chi Hua-hua John now demands newcomers adopt if they wish to become citizens and permanent residents?
So without Australian military casualties, what will unseat Chi Hua-hua John? I'm sorry to say that it'll be crass personal economic interest on the part of the voter. In the absence of a moral imperative driving voting decisions, it is most often the economic imperative that will dominate. In such situations, only when people lose jobs in a recession or lose homes when interest rates are too high, do governments lose office.
If inflation continues unabated and the Reserve Bank of Australia is forced to increase interest rates a few more times closer to the next election around November 2007, there will be a good chance Australian voters will punish Howard. Whether they do so sufficiently for him to lose office remains to be seen.
But they have clearly demonstrated that illegal wars and immoral leaders take a back seat to good old personal economic interest.
Traditional Republican heartland voters seem to have cast their ballots with eyes on the economy and the sex and corruption scandals afflicting mostly Republican congressional representatives in both houses. In the case of the latter, the moral hypocrisy obviously reached intolerable levels for many diehard Republicans. In the case of the former, the heartland voters' sense of standing still economically despite the ruling elite becoming even more insanely wealthy, had finally broken through into their consciousness.
But an important point to note is that for many heartland voters, Iraq was less of an issue than good old personal economic interest. Nothing wrong with that. Except when your country is involved in an illegal war of aggression, THAT should be a real moral issue taking highest priority.
And in other cases where Iraq was the issue, most of the voters' concerns revolved around the war being unwinnable, mismanaged or costing too many US casualties. You seldom hear concerns about the original immorality and illegality of the war. Yet it is these issues that are the underlying drivers of global opposition to US policies.
As an aside, remember how Team Neo-Con and its supporters love to label war critics as un-American if they were US citizens, and anti-American if they were foreigners? Well now that the majority of US citizens have rejected Bush and the neo-con cabal, is this majority now un-American too? Or are the neo-cons the real un-American traitors guilty of subverting the constitutional foundations of their country?
Will the return of the Democrats warrant a change in negative world sentiment against the US? I think the answer depends not only on whether a military withdrawal from Iraq occurs but also if America's claim to being a real democracy plays out in holding Team Neo-Con accountable for its moral and war crimes.
If the new US Congress has the moral fibre to investigate and prosecute the likes of Big Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and General Geoffrey Miller (the culprit directly responsible for Abu Ghraib) for their crimes, then you don't have to be a Neo-Con Einstein to realise the world will get the message that true accountability exists in an American democracy.
This of course, begs the question for what crimes should the Neo-Con cabal be charged? Well, the last time I checked, it is still a war crime to prosecute unprovoked wars of aggression unsanctioned by the UN Security Council. And to test what's good for the goose is good for the gander, the same criteria used by the victorious Allies (of whom the US was one) at the Nuremburg Trials should be applied.
Remember that Hitler and his henchmen committed one of many war crimes when they fabricated an excuse (code named Operation Himmler) to invade Poland in September 1939. There is no difference between what the Nazis did then and what Team Neo-Con did in March 2003. So if ever the new US Congress wanted to prove that their notion of democracy is more than myth and much methane, then they should start cleaning house in earnest. That would silence critics and doubters immediately.
What are the implications for Poodle Tony?
Let's remember that the more highly principled British voters were the first to register their disgust with Blair involving them in an illegal war. They did so even after their American and Australian counterparts actually rewarded their respective leaders for involving them in the same illegal war (see "Blair bleeds a little more").
British voters disciplined Blair by cutting his parliamentary majority from 167 to 66 seats in May 2005. And the poodle has little choice but to relinquish office to Gordon Brown next year, after much pressure from his party colleagues to get out.
In contrast, US voters not only re-elected Big Dubya, they also increased his share of the vote. Likewise in Australia, voters not only returned Chi Hua-hua John to office, they also gave him control of the upper and lower houses of parliament. In short, Australian and American voters appear to be more similar than British voters.
This now brings me to Chi Hua-hua John.
Despite recent polls now showing that a majority of voters think he's a liar, he still enjoys a relatively high rating as preferred leader over the astoundingly unimpressive Opposition leader, Kim Beazley. While this is more a reflection on Beazley than on Howard, it also says a lot about the heartland voter in Australia.
Iraq is simply not a vote losing issue in Australia because the country hasn't suffered any direct casualties in battle. Were Australian soldiers to return home in body bags, then like their US cousins, heartland voters would become concerned over military casualties BUT not over Iraqi casualties. They've had plenty of opportunities to express concern over Iraqi civilian casualties from March 2003 but they weren't deterred from re-electing Chi Hua-hua John in a landslide.
What are we to make of this? The answer lies in understanding how Chi Hua-hua John won the election in November 2004. This self-proclaimed statesman cynically played racial and religious cards to exploit latent racism and xenophobia unhappily rife in many heartland voters.
On the eve of the election, Howard falsely claimed that a boatload of Middle-Eastern asylum seekers (ironically Iraqis fleeing the war in Iraq!) were throwing their children overboard in a vain attempt to stop a Navy ship from towing them out to international waters. He infamously said that these weren't the sort of people fit to enter Australia and that he wouldn't be surprised if some were terrorists.
Note that when Howard made these claims, he had already been informed by the then acting Chief of Defence Forces, Air Marshal Angus Houston, that the claims of children being thrown overboard were simply untrue. But of course, this didn't stop the self-proclaimed US deputy sheriff from smearing and demonising a boatload of people fleeing from a war he helped to start.
Uttering these disgraceful lies boosted his security and "tough on terrorists" image. This played very well to a heartland rife with resurgent racism and xenophobia, and so these voters went on to deliver a landslide victory to this odious character. How's that for a stunning demonstration of the "fair go" cultural value Chi Hua-hua John now demands newcomers adopt if they wish to become citizens and permanent residents?
So without Australian military casualties, what will unseat Chi Hua-hua John? I'm sorry to say that it'll be crass personal economic interest on the part of the voter. In the absence of a moral imperative driving voting decisions, it is most often the economic imperative that will dominate. In such situations, only when people lose jobs in a recession or lose homes when interest rates are too high, do governments lose office.
If inflation continues unabated and the Reserve Bank of Australia is forced to increase interest rates a few more times closer to the next election around November 2007, there will be a good chance Australian voters will punish Howard. Whether they do so sufficiently for him to lose office remains to be seen.
But they have clearly demonstrated that illegal wars and immoral leaders take a back seat to good old personal economic interest.
Labels: anti-american, cabal, cheney, condi rice, corruption, feith, geoffrey miller, iraq, john howard, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, perle, rumsfeld, tony blair, un-american, war crime, wolfowitz
11 September 2006
The day the whole world changed...for Iraqis
As the fifth anniversary of the WTC attack rolls around; accompanied by the usual narcissistic commemorations in the US; spare a thought for weak, or humble or innocent Iraqis who were crushed underfoot by a rampaging cabal of war criminals with so much blood on their hands.
Remember Team Neo-Con invaded Iraq in 2003 claiming that the country possessed NBC (Nuclear, Biological & Chemical) weapons and intended to use them against America. But US weapons inspector, David Kay, appointed by Bush himself, found no evidence they existed as claimed. Then Bush claimed the invasion was sparked by Iraq's involvement in the WTC attack. But again, a US Senate investigation found this to be false. Then Bush repudiated an earlier declaration that the war wasn't about regime change; and said it was to liberate Iraqis from their tyrant.
So despite Team Neo-Con changing their reasons for an illegal war as often as they changed their underpants, surely, these child casualties understood America only wanted the best for them rather than their country's oil...
Photo: BBC/AP
And for recalcitrant and sceptical Iraqis, a little remedial instruction was all that was required. First, they were given time out to reconsider their politically incorrect views...
Photo: The New Yorker/AP
Then after time out to reconsider their politically incorrect views, cuddly puppies happily assisted these slow learners to mend their ways...
Photo: The New Yorker/AP
But of course, particularly naughty and extra slow learners needed firmer instruction. After all, as the good lord said, "Spare the rod and spoil the child..."
Photo: The Washington Post/AP
However, despite the best efforts of America's finest, some were truly incorrigible. Never mind, they were just despatched to the nearest cemetery with America's best "Have a nice day" hometown send off...
Photo: ABC/AP
Bringing democracy and freedom to darkened cities like Fallujah was also part of the good lord's work. So winning hearts and minds was ever so much more important than preserving material things like homes and businesses...
Photo: www.globalpolicy.org
Every so often, a little collateral damage occurred. And that was too bad. But it was a small price to pay because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the blood of the innocent and defenceless...
Photo: www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com
Today, many who still support Bush delude themselves into believing that people hate them for their stand on "democracy and freedom."
The reality is that people don't give a rat's brass razoo what Team Neo-Con does inside America. But when Bush's style of "democracy and freedom" is imposed upon non-Americans - whether they want it or not - why is it a surprise that some refuse to fall on bended knee in gratitude?
Rest in peace, victims of George W Bush and Team Neo-Con. You are remembered even though the world's beacon of Truth, Justice and the Neo-Con way cares not to do so.
Remember Team Neo-Con invaded Iraq in 2003 claiming that the country possessed NBC (Nuclear, Biological & Chemical) weapons and intended to use them against America. But US weapons inspector, David Kay, appointed by Bush himself, found no evidence they existed as claimed. Then Bush claimed the invasion was sparked by Iraq's involvement in the WTC attack. But again, a US Senate investigation found this to be false. Then Bush repudiated an earlier declaration that the war wasn't about regime change; and said it was to liberate Iraqis from their tyrant.
So despite Team Neo-Con changing their reasons for an illegal war as often as they changed their underpants, surely, these child casualties understood America only wanted the best for them rather than their country's oil...
Photo: BBC/AP
And for recalcitrant and sceptical Iraqis, a little remedial instruction was all that was required. First, they were given time out to reconsider their politically incorrect views...
Photo: The New Yorker/AP
Then after time out to reconsider their politically incorrect views, cuddly puppies happily assisted these slow learners to mend their ways...
Photo: The New Yorker/AP
But of course, particularly naughty and extra slow learners needed firmer instruction. After all, as the good lord said, "Spare the rod and spoil the child..."
Photo: The Washington Post/AP
However, despite the best efforts of America's finest, some were truly incorrigible. Never mind, they were just despatched to the nearest cemetery with America's best "Have a nice day" hometown send off...
Photo: ABC/AP
Bringing democracy and freedom to darkened cities like Fallujah was also part of the good lord's work. So winning hearts and minds was ever so much more important than preserving material things like homes and businesses...
Photo: www.globalpolicy.org
Every so often, a little collateral damage occurred. And that was too bad. But it was a small price to pay because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the blood of the innocent and defenceless...
Photo: www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com
Today, many who still support Bush delude themselves into believing that people hate them for their stand on "democracy and freedom."
The reality is that people don't give a rat's brass razoo what Team Neo-Con does inside America. But when Bush's style of "democracy and freedom" is imposed upon non-Americans - whether they want it or not - why is it a surprise that some refuse to fall on bended knee in gratitude?
Rest in peace, victims of George W Bush and Team Neo-Con. You are remembered even though the world's beacon of Truth, Justice and the Neo-Con way cares not to do so.
Labels: bush, democracy, freedom, iraq, nbc weapons, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, wmd, wtc attack
19 August 2006
Chinese ambassador tells US to "Shut Up!"
When I first heard a BBC radio broadcast in which China's ambassador to the UN in Geneva said:
"It's better for the US to shut up," he said. "Keep quiet. It's much, much better."
I was both surprised and delighted that someone had finally responded to the Bush regime's hypocrisy in language that Team Neo-Con may better understand. What provoked the ambassador, Mr Sha Zu Kang, to respond in such refreshingly practical language?
Repeated whinings by US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, that China was consistently under-reporting its defence spending, and that such large expenditures posed a threat to global stability! Can you beat the sheer audacity and hypocrisy of this man? Coming from the world's chief destabiliser bar none, it's a source of much bemusement, to say the least.
For more detailed background on this issue, please refer to earlier posts on this blog, "The old whiff of rank hypocrisy" and "Who is the real threat today?" At the heart of Rummie's complaints, is the need to justify America's continued gargantuan defence spending to voters.
Make no mistake, Team Neo-Con doesn't give a rat's brass razoo what the rest of the world thinks. After all, if that wasn't the case, Iraq wouldn't be the rubble strewn and wretched wasteland it is today.
One of the things driving Rumsfeld is something called mid-term congressional elections looming in November this year. Amid rising voter disgust over the Republican Party corruption scandals, and the ongoing disaster of Iraq, Team Neo-Con is practising the political scoundrel's time honoured tactic of pointing to some external threat to divert attention away from internal scandals.
The short term political agenda of Team Neo-Con also dovetails with the ruling civilian and military establishment's long term agenda of sustaining gargantuan defence budgets. There's nothing like creating a state of fear in a country's citizens to receive a blank cheque to spend big on defence while eliminating real democracy and freedom to scrutinise the integrity and morality of those who presume to lead.
But hey, don't take my word on it. Read Prof Chalmers Johnson's book "The Sorrows of Empire" to learn how many decent Americans have been hoodwinked into allowing their beloved country to be transformed into an Imperial Empire, so despised by those on the receiving end of its behaviour.
Perhaps they may understand that non-Americans actually don't dislike the US because, as Bush claims, "we [Americans] stand for freedom and democracy." I mean, some poor working stiff scratching out a living in some place outside America doesn't have the time nor interest to give a rat's brass razoo what happens in America. After all, how would Bush being the US president affect them if all he did was rampage around in the US?
Really, it's only when Bush and his henchmen and henchwomen inflict themselves upon other countries, that non-Americans hate what is being done to them by the US government. This is why it is a treat when people like Ambassador Sha bluntly put Team Neo-Con back into its box.
Just as Team Neo-Con doesn't take lectures from anyone else, China (whether you support them or not) doesn't need lectures from a very sooty black pot!
"It's better for the US to shut up," he said. "Keep quiet. It's much, much better."
I was both surprised and delighted that someone had finally responded to the Bush regime's hypocrisy in language that Team Neo-Con may better understand. What provoked the ambassador, Mr Sha Zu Kang, to respond in such refreshingly practical language?
Repeated whinings by US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, that China was consistently under-reporting its defence spending, and that such large expenditures posed a threat to global stability! Can you beat the sheer audacity and hypocrisy of this man? Coming from the world's chief destabiliser bar none, it's a source of much bemusement, to say the least.
For more detailed background on this issue, please refer to earlier posts on this blog, "The old whiff of rank hypocrisy" and "Who is the real threat today?" At the heart of Rummie's complaints, is the need to justify America's continued gargantuan defence spending to voters.
Make no mistake, Team Neo-Con doesn't give a rat's brass razoo what the rest of the world thinks. After all, if that wasn't the case, Iraq wouldn't be the rubble strewn and wretched wasteland it is today.
One of the things driving Rumsfeld is something called mid-term congressional elections looming in November this year. Amid rising voter disgust over the Republican Party corruption scandals, and the ongoing disaster of Iraq, Team Neo-Con is practising the political scoundrel's time honoured tactic of pointing to some external threat to divert attention away from internal scandals.
The short term political agenda of Team Neo-Con also dovetails with the ruling civilian and military establishment's long term agenda of sustaining gargantuan defence budgets. There's nothing like creating a state of fear in a country's citizens to receive a blank cheque to spend big on defence while eliminating real democracy and freedom to scrutinise the integrity and morality of those who presume to lead.
But hey, don't take my word on it. Read Prof Chalmers Johnson's book "The Sorrows of Empire" to learn how many decent Americans have been hoodwinked into allowing their beloved country to be transformed into an Imperial Empire, so despised by those on the receiving end of its behaviour.
Perhaps they may understand that non-Americans actually don't dislike the US because, as Bush claims, "we [Americans] stand for freedom and democracy." I mean, some poor working stiff scratching out a living in some place outside America doesn't have the time nor interest to give a rat's brass razoo what happens in America. After all, how would Bush being the US president affect them if all he did was rampage around in the US?
Really, it's only when Bush and his henchmen and henchwomen inflict themselves upon other countries, that non-Americans hate what is being done to them by the US government. This is why it is a treat when people like Ambassador Sha bluntly put Team Neo-Con back into its box.
Just as Team Neo-Con doesn't take lectures from anyone else, China (whether you support them or not) doesn't need lectures from a very sooty black pot!
Labels: budget, bush, chalmers johnson, china, defence, defense, destabiliser, destabilizer, imperial, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, rumsfeld, sorrows of empire
17 August 2006
Case for a multi-polar world
An oft-heard whine we hear from Team Neo-Con and its supporters is that the rest of the world refuses to fall on bended knee in obsequious gratitude for deliverance from the bad guys of the world. Team Neo-Con is right about the rest of the world having an aversion to genuflecting. But they are dead wrong about the reasons.
To understand the reasons, we need to go back to Team Neo-Con's holy day. 11th September 2001, is often quoted by many as "The Day the Whole World Changed." For the Bush regime, it gave them the opportunity to launch a crusade to smite those who were not with them in their holy mission to deliver us from the bad guys of the world. Of course, the irony of Team Neo-Con sounding an awful lot like the Islamic Fascists they wish to kill, is lost on these morons.
As an aside, the narcissistic pomposity of "The Day the Whole World Changed" grates on many as well. Anyway, let's try a little perspective calibration on this holy day of justification for Team Neo-Con...
1st September 1939
Germany invades Poland, thereby sparking WW2; in which about 56 million people died (vs 2,752 deaths in the WTC attack). Now that's what most people would regard as a world changing day.
20th March 2003
America invades Iraq in a pre-emptive strike to destroy non-existent NBC weapons. British medical journal The Lancet estimates about 100,000 civilian deaths. I'd say the whole world changed for these casualties and their families.
With just two simple examples, I wonder how far off the zero reading would the WTC attack register on the scale of calamitous events in world history?
In reality, the WTC attack simply provided justification for Team Neo-Con to accelerate transformation of the US from an admired nation to that of a rabid mongrel biting anyone not subscribing to Pax Americana's imperial agenda. If anything, I'd suggest a minor world changing day occurred not on 11th September 2001 but on 9th December 2000. That was when a Republican-dominated US Supreme Court stopped a statewide ballot recount in Florida; thereby giving the presidency and a free reign to terrorise, to Bush.
But I digress.
Bush supporters often love to ask if Bush critics prefer a world dominated by China. My answer to them is that they're asking the wrong question. The real question is whether we prefer a uni-polar or a multi-polar world?
You see, we have been proven wrong in assuming that a uni-polar world would be relatively peaceful, led by a benevolent hyper-power, the US. Under US "leadership," the invasion of Iraq scandalised and radicalised a good number of moderate Muslims sufficiently to move Islamic militants into the mainstream.
As the US government's own CIA has admitted many times, Iraq was not a centre of terrorism pre-invasion. But now it is. Iraq has also sparked off home-grown terrorism elsewhere in the world, despite the self-serving declarations to the contrary by Team Neo-Con's pet poodle Tony Blair. Excellent own goals, Einsteins!
So in the absence of a wise and benevolent hyper-power leading a uni-polar world, an infinitely better alternative is a multi-polar world. Greater independent assertiveness on the part of the EU, Russia, China and India will all help in ring fencing a rabid Team Neo-Con. And while these states cannot match the military might of Team Neo-Con, they do possess a reasonable degree of economic and financial leverage over the US.
Provided they are prepared to threaten economic mutually assured destruction, it's possible that the rabid mongrel may pause from biting everyone for a while. This is a lesser evil than the status quo.
To understand the reasons, we need to go back to Team Neo-Con's holy day. 11th September 2001, is often quoted by many as "The Day the Whole World Changed." For the Bush regime, it gave them the opportunity to launch a crusade to smite those who were not with them in their holy mission to deliver us from the bad guys of the world. Of course, the irony of Team Neo-Con sounding an awful lot like the Islamic Fascists they wish to kill, is lost on these morons.
As an aside, the narcissistic pomposity of "The Day the Whole World Changed" grates on many as well. Anyway, let's try a little perspective calibration on this holy day of justification for Team Neo-Con...
1st September 1939
Germany invades Poland, thereby sparking WW2; in which about 56 million people died (vs 2,752 deaths in the WTC attack). Now that's what most people would regard as a world changing day.
20th March 2003
America invades Iraq in a pre-emptive strike to destroy non-existent NBC weapons. British medical journal The Lancet estimates about 100,000 civilian deaths. I'd say the whole world changed for these casualties and their families.
With just two simple examples, I wonder how far off the zero reading would the WTC attack register on the scale of calamitous events in world history?
In reality, the WTC attack simply provided justification for Team Neo-Con to accelerate transformation of the US from an admired nation to that of a rabid mongrel biting anyone not subscribing to Pax Americana's imperial agenda. If anything, I'd suggest a minor world changing day occurred not on 11th September 2001 but on 9th December 2000. That was when a Republican-dominated US Supreme Court stopped a statewide ballot recount in Florida; thereby giving the presidency and a free reign to terrorise, to Bush.
But I digress.
Bush supporters often love to ask if Bush critics prefer a world dominated by China. My answer to them is that they're asking the wrong question. The real question is whether we prefer a uni-polar or a multi-polar world?
You see, we have been proven wrong in assuming that a uni-polar world would be relatively peaceful, led by a benevolent hyper-power, the US. Under US "leadership," the invasion of Iraq scandalised and radicalised a good number of moderate Muslims sufficiently to move Islamic militants into the mainstream.
As the US government's own CIA has admitted many times, Iraq was not a centre of terrorism pre-invasion. But now it is. Iraq has also sparked off home-grown terrorism elsewhere in the world, despite the self-serving declarations to the contrary by Team Neo-Con's pet poodle Tony Blair. Excellent own goals, Einsteins!
So in the absence of a wise and benevolent hyper-power leading a uni-polar world, an infinitely better alternative is a multi-polar world. Greater independent assertiveness on the part of the EU, Russia, China and India will all help in ring fencing a rabid Team Neo-Con. And while these states cannot match the military might of Team Neo-Con, they do possess a reasonable degree of economic and financial leverage over the US.
Provided they are prepared to threaten economic mutually assured destruction, it's possible that the rabid mongrel may pause from biting everyone for a while. This is a lesser evil than the status quo.
Labels: bush, china, iraq, islamic fascists, multi-polar, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, pax americana, uni-polar, wtc attack
16 August 2006
Neo-con freedom and democracy for Lebanon
As a BBC article tells us, Big Dick Cheney was the god-father from whom Israel sought approval to launch its operations in Lebanon. Once Big Dick gave his blessing, "Bush was never a problem," the article quotes a source as saying. That accords with long-held perceptions by many that the real president is Big Dick Cheney and his puppet is Big Dubya.
Imagine this comic nightmare scenario. The world suffers for eight years under Big Dick Cheney ruling by proxy through Big Dubya. Then Big Dick runs for president and wins two terms in his own right thereafter. Wow, the world gets 16 years of Big Dick! Someone please pass me a Tylenol...I just had a frisson of terror...
Black humour aside, now that there's a ceasefire in Lebanon, let's check out some of the results of the "birth pangs" of neo-con "freedom and democracy in Lebanon" (as Condi Fried Rice so eloquently put it), shall we?
In order to build a new, free and democratic Lebanon, Team Neo-Con says it's vital to thoroughly demolish the old one first...
Credit: BBC
Part of the democratic cleansing process demands all forms of terrorists (NB not neo-con approved freedom fighters) be rendered dead, as was convincingly demonstrated in Qana, Lebanon...
Credit: AP/Nasser Nasser
And in the "War on Terror," it's absolutely critical to ensure Islamic Fascists are rendered dead with extreme prejudice using precision guided weapons supplied by the good guys, the Neo-Con Christian Fascists holding court in the White House and Downing Street...
Credit: Jeroen Kramer
You see, Team Neo-Con believes that if you don't get them when they're young, they'll grow up into American-hating Islamic Fascists; bent on returning the favour to the greatest messianic empire on Earth!
Imagine this comic nightmare scenario. The world suffers for eight years under Big Dick Cheney ruling by proxy through Big Dubya. Then Big Dick runs for president and wins two terms in his own right thereafter. Wow, the world gets 16 years of Big Dick! Someone please pass me a Tylenol...I just had a frisson of terror...
Black humour aside, now that there's a ceasefire in Lebanon, let's check out some of the results of the "birth pangs" of neo-con "freedom and democracy in Lebanon" (as Condi Fried Rice so eloquently put it), shall we?
In order to build a new, free and democratic Lebanon, Team Neo-Con says it's vital to thoroughly demolish the old one first...
Credit: BBC
Part of the democratic cleansing process demands all forms of terrorists (NB not neo-con approved freedom fighters) be rendered dead, as was convincingly demonstrated in Qana, Lebanon...
Credit: AP/Nasser Nasser
And in the "War on Terror," it's absolutely critical to ensure Islamic Fascists are rendered dead with extreme prejudice using precision guided weapons supplied by the good guys, the Neo-Con Christian Fascists holding court in the White House and Downing Street...
Credit: Jeroen Kramer
You see, Team Neo-Con believes that if you don't get them when they're young, they'll grow up into American-hating Islamic Fascists; bent on returning the favour to the greatest messianic empire on Earth!
Labels: bush, cheney, christian fascists, condi rice, democracy, freedom, islamic fascists, lebanon, messianic empire, neo-cons, neo-conservatives, neocons, qana, war on terror
03 August 2006
Terrorists and Freedom Fighters
Consider the following actions of a political organisation:
1. Attacking British military and police personnel
2. Bombing a hotel and killing 91; mostly civilians
3. Assassinating a British politican and peer
4. Murdering 99 civilians over a sample 4 month period
Would the George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard regimes waste any time in designating it a terrorist organisation worthy of a free holiday in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib prisons? Would such a bunch of murderers earn Dubya's epithet as Islamic Fascists? You bet.
Would these terrorists deserve to be hunted down all over the world and when caught, brought before Dubya's military tribunals to be found guilty and executed? You bet - especially if you're a pure as the driven snow Neo-Con Christian Fascist!
Now, here's a little more detail behind each of the terrorist actions listed above.
1. A Jewish terrorist organisation called Irgun, killed numerous British military and police personnel from 1944 through 1948.
2. Irgun claimed responsibility for bombing the King David Hotel; causing the 91 deaths.
3. In 1944, Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by Irgun's sister organisation, Lehi.
4. From April 1939 to July 1939, 99 civilians were shot dead or blown to bits by Irgun.
Yet today, when Hezbollah and Hamas are doing no more than emulating Irgun's business model, they stand condemned as terrorists and "unlawful" combatants by the US, UK and Israel. While Hezbollah's and Hamas' terrorist actions cannot be excused nor condoned, sadly, the hypocritical amnesia of the US, UK and Israel furnishes convenient cover to reduce Lebanon into rubble.
Now, if Winston Churchill (who was a friend of Lord Moyne) had remained in power after WW2, and had reduced Jewish held towns and villages in Palestine to rubble - in an effort to kill off Irgun (just as Israel justifies its actions in Lebanon now), would Condi Fried Rice have regarded this as no more than "birth pangs" of a new Israel? Hmm, somehow I think not!
Let's talk a bit more about Irgun. When it was most active against the British, Irgun was led by none other than Menachem Begin. It was Begin who ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel. Considering that such an act today would surely have earned him odium to perhaps the same level as that reserved for Osama bin Laden, Begin instead became the sixth Prime Minister of Israel while leader of the right wing Likud Party.
Under his watch, Begin charged Ariel Sharon with the task of greatly expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied terrorities - the cause of much enmity between Israelis and Palestinians for such a long time. Then in 1982, with Begin still as PM and Sharon as Defence minister, Israel embarked on the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Lebanon. It was during this invasion, that large numbers of Palestinian refugees were massacred in the Sabra and Shatila camps by Lebanese Christian militias allied with Israel.
So things aren't really as objective and balanced as the US, UK and Israel would have the world believe. In their fantasies, the "good guys" have a higher moral standing than the "bad guys". The high moral standing of the good guys allows them to commit war crimes directly or through proxies like Israel, against unarmed civilians; while dismissing the deaths as "birth pangs" of a new Lebanon. Yeah right. Some birth that's going to be in the rubble strewn country!
Yet the reality is that we in the west, not only failed to capture, try and execute an unlawful combatant and terrorist called Menachem Begin, we recognised him as the lawful prime minister of Israel. We compound our hypocrisy by green lighting the systematic destruction of a friendly and democratic Lebanon, all in the name of destroying Hezbollah; an organisation formed to protect Lebanese Shia Muslims during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
The US, UK and Australia among others, lauded Menachem Begin as a Freedom Fighter but regard Sheik Hassan Nasrallah (present leader of Hezbollah) as a terrorist. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Moral hypocrisy founded on expedient values has no bounds in the White House, Downing Street and Kirribilli House, don't you think?
1. Attacking British military and police personnel
2. Bombing a hotel and killing 91; mostly civilians
3. Assassinating a British politican and peer
4. Murdering 99 civilians over a sample 4 month period
Would the George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard regimes waste any time in designating it a terrorist organisation worthy of a free holiday in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib prisons? Would such a bunch of murderers earn Dubya's epithet as Islamic Fascists? You bet.
Would these terrorists deserve to be hunted down all over the world and when caught, brought before Dubya's military tribunals to be found guilty and executed? You bet - especially if you're a pure as the driven snow Neo-Con Christian Fascist!
Now, here's a little more detail behind each of the terrorist actions listed above.
1. A Jewish terrorist organisation called Irgun, killed numerous British military and police personnel from 1944 through 1948.
2. Irgun claimed responsibility for bombing the King David Hotel; causing the 91 deaths.
3. In 1944, Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by Irgun's sister organisation, Lehi.
4. From April 1939 to July 1939, 99 civilians were shot dead or blown to bits by Irgun.
Yet today, when Hezbollah and Hamas are doing no more than emulating Irgun's business model, they stand condemned as terrorists and "unlawful" combatants by the US, UK and Israel. While Hezbollah's and Hamas' terrorist actions cannot be excused nor condoned, sadly, the hypocritical amnesia of the US, UK and Israel furnishes convenient cover to reduce Lebanon into rubble.
Now, if Winston Churchill (who was a friend of Lord Moyne) had remained in power after WW2, and had reduced Jewish held towns and villages in Palestine to rubble - in an effort to kill off Irgun (just as Israel justifies its actions in Lebanon now), would Condi Fried Rice have regarded this as no more than "birth pangs" of a new Israel? Hmm, somehow I think not!
Let's talk a bit more about Irgun. When it was most active against the British, Irgun was led by none other than Menachem Begin. It was Begin who ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel. Considering that such an act today would surely have earned him odium to perhaps the same level as that reserved for Osama bin Laden, Begin instead became the sixth Prime Minister of Israel while leader of the right wing Likud Party.
Under his watch, Begin charged Ariel Sharon with the task of greatly expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied terrorities - the cause of much enmity between Israelis and Palestinians for such a long time. Then in 1982, with Begin still as PM and Sharon as Defence minister, Israel embarked on the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Lebanon. It was during this invasion, that large numbers of Palestinian refugees were massacred in the Sabra and Shatila camps by Lebanese Christian militias allied with Israel.
So things aren't really as objective and balanced as the US, UK and Israel would have the world believe. In their fantasies, the "good guys" have a higher moral standing than the "bad guys". The high moral standing of the good guys allows them to commit war crimes directly or through proxies like Israel, against unarmed civilians; while dismissing the deaths as "birth pangs" of a new Lebanon. Yeah right. Some birth that's going to be in the rubble strewn country!
Yet the reality is that we in the west, not only failed to capture, try and execute an unlawful combatant and terrorist called Menachem Begin, we recognised him as the lawful prime minister of Israel. We compound our hypocrisy by green lighting the systematic destruction of a friendly and democratic Lebanon, all in the name of destroying Hezbollah; an organisation formed to protect Lebanese Shia Muslims during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
The US, UK and Australia among others, lauded Menachem Begin as a Freedom Fighter but regard Sheik Hassan Nasrallah (present leader of Hezbollah) as a terrorist. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Moral hypocrisy founded on expedient values has no bounds in the White House, Downing Street and Kirribilli House, don't you think?
Labels: abu ghraib, ariel sharon, blair, bush, guantanamo, hamas, hezbollah, howard, irgun, islamic fascist, israel, king david hotel, lebanon, lehi, likud, menachem begin, osama bin laden, terrorist
18 May 2006
Republicans battered
A recent article in the Washington Post reports that US public confidence in the Republican Party has crashed to similar levels of their Dear Leader, Dubya the Deceiver - sorry, the Decider.
Many Republicans will say that it's all because of the Iraqi disaster. That may be one strong reason. But of course, the same people won't admit to fervidly baying for the invasion in the first place. Their collective amnesia also prevents them from recalling that most ridiculous of intellectual and moral cop outs - "support the president no matter what, in time of war." This stupid blind loyalty also affected many Democrats.
To those who questioned the veracity of the casus belli fabricated by Bush et al, protested against the blatant illegality of the invasion, the Bushie Brown Shirts called them un-American traitors (if they were Americans) or anti-American enemies of the greatest messianic empire on earth.
What is a democracy if its citizens cannot demand honest answers to questions of great import? Surely a decision to invade another country and visiting death and destruction upon its inhabitants must be scrutinised for clarity of focus and integrity of purpose. That such attempts to discern whether the president is behaving with integrity were derided, and worse, characterised as traitorous or anti-American, should have rung alarm bells in the minds of the dullest supporters of Bush.
This brings me back to the notion of blind loyalty. Contrary to popular belief, Adolf Hitler actually won power through the ballot box. He was voted into office, and once there, proceeded to change the nature of pre-war Germany's constitutional processes to eventually gain and maintain dictatorial powers. Does this sound familiar to what we have seen Bush do since gaining office?
Does anyone seriously believe that in pre-war Germany, the majority of the population were opposed to Hitler? Even during the early years of WW2, Hitler enjoyed great popular support - while the going was good with the Northern and Western European conquests. Great evil was done in their name, and the German people were complicit by giving their blind loyalty to Hitler. It isn't difficult to imagine them exhorting doubters to "support the Fuhrer no matter what, in time of war," is it?
Since it has long been made abundantly clear that the Iraq invasion was based on deliberately fabricated "evidence," Bush supporters need to look in the mirror and honestly ask if they still believe in leaving their moral and intellectual compasses at the White House hat room when a war criminal for a president wants to invade another country.
I should remind them that at the Nuremberg trials, Germany's invasion of Poland was judged by the Allies (including the US, of course) to be a war crime. One of the reasons was Hitler fabricated an excuse to invade Poland; thereby sparking WW2.
In 2003, Bush emulated Hitler and fabricated an excuse to invade Iraq. While erstwhile Bush supporters contemplate their own complicity through blind loyalty, the world still waits for the 21st century's Nuremberg trials.
Many Republicans will say that it's all because of the Iraqi disaster. That may be one strong reason. But of course, the same people won't admit to fervidly baying for the invasion in the first place. Their collective amnesia also prevents them from recalling that most ridiculous of intellectual and moral cop outs - "support the president no matter what, in time of war." This stupid blind loyalty also affected many Democrats.
To those who questioned the veracity of the casus belli fabricated by Bush et al, protested against the blatant illegality of the invasion, the Bushie Brown Shirts called them un-American traitors (if they were Americans) or anti-American enemies of the greatest messianic empire on earth.
What is a democracy if its citizens cannot demand honest answers to questions of great import? Surely a decision to invade another country and visiting death and destruction upon its inhabitants must be scrutinised for clarity of focus and integrity of purpose. That such attempts to discern whether the president is behaving with integrity were derided, and worse, characterised as traitorous or anti-American, should have rung alarm bells in the minds of the dullest supporters of Bush.
This brings me back to the notion of blind loyalty. Contrary to popular belief, Adolf Hitler actually won power through the ballot box. He was voted into office, and once there, proceeded to change the nature of pre-war Germany's constitutional processes to eventually gain and maintain dictatorial powers. Does this sound familiar to what we have seen Bush do since gaining office?
Does anyone seriously believe that in pre-war Germany, the majority of the population were opposed to Hitler? Even during the early years of WW2, Hitler enjoyed great popular support - while the going was good with the Northern and Western European conquests. Great evil was done in their name, and the German people were complicit by giving their blind loyalty to Hitler. It isn't difficult to imagine them exhorting doubters to "support the Fuhrer no matter what, in time of war," is it?
Since it has long been made abundantly clear that the Iraq invasion was based on deliberately fabricated "evidence," Bush supporters need to look in the mirror and honestly ask if they still believe in leaving their moral and intellectual compasses at the White House hat room when a war criminal for a president wants to invade another country.
I should remind them that at the Nuremberg trials, Germany's invasion of Poland was judged by the Allies (including the US, of course) to be a war crime. One of the reasons was Hitler fabricated an excuse to invade Poland; thereby sparking WW2.
In 2003, Bush emulated Hitler and fabricated an excuse to invade Iraq. While erstwhile Bush supporters contemplate their own complicity through blind loyalty, the world still waits for the 21st century's Nuremberg trials.
20 March 2006
The Real Nazi speaks
Donald Rumsfeld, otherwise known as the US Secretary of Defence, declared recently that the US pulling out of Iraq would be tantamount to handing back a postwar Germany to the Nazis. Coming from the man who together with Big Dick, helped prosecute the illegal invasion of Iraq, it's a bit rich.
In truth, I don't see how a departure could be equated to handing back a postwar Germany to the Nazis. After all, if Team Neo-Con adopted the Nazi tactic of fabricating a pretext for invading another country, Poland, that would equate them to Nazis, wouldn't it? And so really, a US pullout is equal to the Nazis leaving Poland.
Notwithstanding the terrible rubble strewn and chaotic wasteland into which the new Neo-Con Nazis have turned Iraq.
In truth, I don't see how a departure could be equated to handing back a postwar Germany to the Nazis. After all, if Team Neo-Con adopted the Nazi tactic of fabricating a pretext for invading another country, Poland, that would equate them to Nazis, wouldn't it? And so really, a US pullout is equal to the Nazis leaving Poland.
Notwithstanding the terrible rubble strewn and chaotic wasteland into which the new Neo-Con Nazis have turned Iraq.
13 March 2006
That old whiff of rank hypocrisy
In recent remarks, Condi Rice warned that the US and its regional allies (read as principally Australia and Japan),
"have a joint responsibility and obligation to produce conditions in which the rise of China will be a positive force in international politics, not a negative force."
Let's understand what she really means by saying this.
The US leadership is alarmed at the rapid growth of China's economic and political influence in East Asia, concomitant with its own rapid decline in political and economic clout in the region. Understanding all too clearly from lessons learned during its own rise, the US fears China will follow in its footsteps of building a gargantuan military machine on the back of its economic wealth.
For if China were to really follow the US model of using the military as the spear carrying arm of corporate America, Team Neo-Con fears the US cannot retain its dominance of the global economy. And with its loss of economic dominance, decline of military power would eventually follow. After all, a US$491.5b military budget for 2006 has to be funded somehow. More about this later.
The "conditions" to which Rice refers, is diplomatic speak for that quaint American politico-military concept of "containment" of enemies. During the Cold War, Washington sought to build ring fences of allied countries around America's strategic competitors (to use a more modern day term for enemies). It was believed that with a ring fence around its enemies, the USSR and China, these threats to truth, justice and the American way would be "contained." Let's digress a little to understand the context of how the ring fence for China is being constructed.
Today, despite India not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), the Bush regime agreed to provide nuclear technology to the Indians anyway. Some 40% of India's nuclear facilities (which are obviously dedicated to military activities) won't be subject to any inspections or external review despite the US providing the promised technology. Hardly a positive step for preventing nuclear weapons proliferation, is it?
Yet if it's verboten for Iran to even think of building nuclear weapons, why is it acceptable to transfer nuclear technology to an India already possessing nuclear weapons? Likewise kid gloves treatment has also been extended to Pakistan despite this country peddling nuclear weapons technology around the world. What's driving Team Neo-Con's agenda?
For India and Pakistan, they form the south-western portions of the ring fence around China (click on map below for a larger image). So despite having broken the same rules Dubya wishes to enforce upon Iran and North Korea, they are feted rather than having a finger and stick wagged at them. Hmm, do you detect a whiff of rank hypocrisy here?
Team Neo-Con tells us that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. Iran has indeed been providing weapons and training to Iraqi resistance forces. Bad boys. But you know, Iran is only practising what the US had done in South America, Laos and Afghanistan. Indeed, in the case of Afghanistan, the USSR invaded a sovereign country, and ended up having to fight resistance forces armed and trained by the US.
By the way, that is how Public Enemy Number One, Osama bin Laden, was created. He is a creature of the US government, raised originally to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Likewise, Public Enemy Number Two, Saddam Hussein was nurtured to keep the pesky Iranians at bay! Funny about that whiff of rank hypocrisy. It seems to follow some people all over the world, doesn't it?
Let's briefly return to the topic of military budgets. In a recent news report, China announced that its 2006 military budget would rise by 14.7% to US$35b. While the country justifies its military expenditure as remaining similar to historical percentages of GDP, there is little doubt that the true budget is higher.
And of course, that old speaker of nothing but truth and wisdom, Donald Rumsfeld, was reported telling a security conference in 2005,
"China appears to be expanding its missile forces, allowing them to reach targets in many areas of the world, not just the Pacific region, while also expanding its missile capabilities here in the region. Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment?"
Using the Pentagon's own self-serving estimate of China's true spending to be two to three times the declared budget, the true Chinese military budget could be between US$70b to US$105b. Big and worrisome, huh? Compared to the US$491.5b 2006 defence budget for the US, I think the neo-cons should take a Tylenol and lie down.
Interestingly, a Jane's Defence Weekly article tells us that the US defence budget is very close to being equal to the combined defence budgets for the Rest of the World! If this fact alone isn't sufficient to silence critics of Chinese defence spending, then it exposes them for what they really are - people with self-serving agendas.
By the way, I should point out that if China had the same per capita expenditure on defence as the US, the 2006 Chinese defence budget would be US$2,181b rather than the highest Pentagon estimate of $105b. So should we really be worried that a nation of 1.308 billion people has a defence budget just 21% that of a country of 295 million people?
Do we remember when China last deployed its aircraft carrier battle groups to launch air strikes in support of the invasion of Iraq? Answer: Never, since they have no carriers.
How many troops did that war mongering nation, China, send into battle to smash Iraq into the rubble strewn wasteland that it is today? Answer: None, since they didn't buy the lies peddled by Bush et al.
Exactly how many NBC weapons did Bush's own appointed weapons inspector find in that wretched wasteland? Answer: Exactly zero, since there were none, as David Kay, himself concluded.
Given that the US has a record bar none, for engaging in direct and proxy wars around the world, has recently again declared China to be a strategic competitor, and has been encircling them, I'd say that the Chinese had better wake up to the threat of 10,600 nuclear warheads, 12 carrier battle groups etc ringing them. Because the global top dog doesn't look like it will give up its status without a fight.
After all, there are 491.5 billion reasons and over 100,00 dead Iraqi civilians to support this point of view.
"have a joint responsibility and obligation to produce conditions in which the rise of China will be a positive force in international politics, not a negative force."
Let's understand what she really means by saying this.
The US leadership is alarmed at the rapid growth of China's economic and political influence in East Asia, concomitant with its own rapid decline in political and economic clout in the region. Understanding all too clearly from lessons learned during its own rise, the US fears China will follow in its footsteps of building a gargantuan military machine on the back of its economic wealth.
For if China were to really follow the US model of using the military as the spear carrying arm of corporate America, Team Neo-Con fears the US cannot retain its dominance of the global economy. And with its loss of economic dominance, decline of military power would eventually follow. After all, a US$491.5b military budget for 2006 has to be funded somehow. More about this later.
The "conditions" to which Rice refers, is diplomatic speak for that quaint American politico-military concept of "containment" of enemies. During the Cold War, Washington sought to build ring fences of allied countries around America's strategic competitors (to use a more modern day term for enemies). It was believed that with a ring fence around its enemies, the USSR and China, these threats to truth, justice and the American way would be "contained." Let's digress a little to understand the context of how the ring fence for China is being constructed.
Today, despite India not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), the Bush regime agreed to provide nuclear technology to the Indians anyway. Some 40% of India's nuclear facilities (which are obviously dedicated to military activities) won't be subject to any inspections or external review despite the US providing the promised technology. Hardly a positive step for preventing nuclear weapons proliferation, is it?
Yet if it's verboten for Iran to even think of building nuclear weapons, why is it acceptable to transfer nuclear technology to an India already possessing nuclear weapons? Likewise kid gloves treatment has also been extended to Pakistan despite this country peddling nuclear weapons technology around the world. What's driving Team Neo-Con's agenda?
For India and Pakistan, they form the south-western portions of the ring fence around China (click on map below for a larger image). So despite having broken the same rules Dubya wishes to enforce upon Iran and North Korea, they are feted rather than having a finger and stick wagged at them. Hmm, do you detect a whiff of rank hypocrisy here?
Team Neo-Con tells us that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. Iran has indeed been providing weapons and training to Iraqi resistance forces. Bad boys. But you know, Iran is only practising what the US had done in South America, Laos and Afghanistan. Indeed, in the case of Afghanistan, the USSR invaded a sovereign country, and ended up having to fight resistance forces armed and trained by the US.
By the way, that is how Public Enemy Number One, Osama bin Laden, was created. He is a creature of the US government, raised originally to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Likewise, Public Enemy Number Two, Saddam Hussein was nurtured to keep the pesky Iranians at bay! Funny about that whiff of rank hypocrisy. It seems to follow some people all over the world, doesn't it?
Let's briefly return to the topic of military budgets. In a recent news report, China announced that its 2006 military budget would rise by 14.7% to US$35b. While the country justifies its military expenditure as remaining similar to historical percentages of GDP, there is little doubt that the true budget is higher.
And of course, that old speaker of nothing but truth and wisdom, Donald Rumsfeld, was reported telling a security conference in 2005,
"China appears to be expanding its missile forces, allowing them to reach targets in many areas of the world, not just the Pacific region, while also expanding its missile capabilities here in the region. Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment?"
Using the Pentagon's own self-serving estimate of China's true spending to be two to three times the declared budget, the true Chinese military budget could be between US$70b to US$105b. Big and worrisome, huh? Compared to the US$491.5b 2006 defence budget for the US, I think the neo-cons should take a Tylenol and lie down.
Interestingly, a Jane's Defence Weekly article tells us that the US defence budget is very close to being equal to the combined defence budgets for the Rest of the World! If this fact alone isn't sufficient to silence critics of Chinese defence spending, then it exposes them for what they really are - people with self-serving agendas.
By the way, I should point out that if China had the same per capita expenditure on defence as the US, the 2006 Chinese defence budget would be US$2,181b rather than the highest Pentagon estimate of $105b. So should we really be worried that a nation of 1.308 billion people has a defence budget just 21% that of a country of 295 million people?
Do we remember when China last deployed its aircraft carrier battle groups to launch air strikes in support of the invasion of Iraq? Answer: Never, since they have no carriers.
How many troops did that war mongering nation, China, send into battle to smash Iraq into the rubble strewn wasteland that it is today? Answer: None, since they didn't buy the lies peddled by Bush et al.
Exactly how many NBC weapons did Bush's own appointed weapons inspector find in that wretched wasteland? Answer: Exactly zero, since there were none, as David Kay, himself concluded.
Given that the US has a record bar none, for engaging in direct and proxy wars around the world, has recently again declared China to be a strategic competitor, and has been encircling them, I'd say that the Chinese had better wake up to the threat of 10,600 nuclear warheads, 12 carrier battle groups etc ringing them. Because the global top dog doesn't look like it will give up its status without a fight.
After all, there are 491.5 billion reasons and over 100,00 dead Iraqi civilians to support this point of view.
12 February 2006
Two sides of the same bad penny
In an article about the US House of Representatives' forthcoming report into the Katrina disaster, the Washington Post tells us that the Select Committee
"...lays primary fault with the passive reaction and misjudgments of top Bush aides, singling out Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Operations Center and the White House Homeland Security Council..."
The Committee itself was comprised only of Republicans (the Democrats refused to participate claiming the investigation would be a partisan whitewash), who still saw fit to judge the Bush regime's response as a total failure of leadership. However, it seems the Committee failed to compel the White House to hand over documents and also won't hold any White House official accountable. What a surprise this will be, if it turns out to be correct.
Of Bush, the report said that
"...'earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response' because he alone could have cut through all bureaucratic resistance."
Makes you sort of wonder about this Emperor, doesn't it? After all, he was able to invade a country halfway around the world and smash it into rubble, in an attempt to root out mythical NBC weapons but back at El Rancho Busho, he couldn't seem to bring himself to evacuate helpless US citizens despite ample warning (as noted by the report) of impending disaster.
It seems like two sides of the same bad penny, doesn't it?
I wonder if history will remember him kindly?
"...lays primary fault with the passive reaction and misjudgments of top Bush aides, singling out Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Operations Center and the White House Homeland Security Council..."
The Committee itself was comprised only of Republicans (the Democrats refused to participate claiming the investigation would be a partisan whitewash), who still saw fit to judge the Bush regime's response as a total failure of leadership. However, it seems the Committee failed to compel the White House to hand over documents and also won't hold any White House official accountable. What a surprise this will be, if it turns out to be correct.
Of Bush, the report said that
"...'earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response' because he alone could have cut through all bureaucratic resistance."
Makes you sort of wonder about this Emperor, doesn't it? After all, he was able to invade a country halfway around the world and smash it into rubble, in an attempt to root out mythical NBC weapons but back at El Rancho Busho, he couldn't seem to bring himself to evacuate helpless US citizens despite ample warning (as noted by the report) of impending disaster.
It seems like two sides of the same bad penny, doesn't it?
I wonder if history will remember him kindly?
11 November 2005
Pakistan's complaints of double standards
I choked over my curry when Pakistani president Musharraf complained recently that the world showed double standards by not donating as much towards the Kashmir earthquake relief, as in the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. His claims that the Kashmir earthquake was much worse than the Asian tsunami, left me quite confused.
By his own estimates, some 70,000 to 80,000 Kashmiris are estimated to have died. As at 31 January 2005, the tsunami death toll estimates were reported to be 233,000 (Indonesia), 31,000 (Sri Lanka), 16,400 (India), 5,400 (Thailand) and 520 (Others) for a total of 286,200. So either my arithmetic is wrong about 286,200 being greater than 70,000 to 80,000, or Musharraf's arithmetic applies a significant non-Pakistani discount to the Asian tsunami death toll!
Nonetheless, Musharraf may well be right that donations aren't as forthcoming as for other disasters. But he should ask why this may be the case. I think the reasons for less than generous donations may be due to what we know about Pakistan.
For example, the much hated Taleban were strongly supported by Pakistan's secret intelligence service, the ISI, for many years. Not doing things by half, the ISI also provides funding, training and weapons to militant Muslim terrorists in Kashmir. These are the same terrorists who conduct bombing campaigns in Indian controlled Kashmir and elsewhere in India, including the Indian parliament.
Pakistani religious schools called madrassas, are home to extremist Islamic imams preaching violent Jihad against non-believers. Indeed, most if not all of the London suicide bombers spent time in these schools. It seems Musharraf believes one can be half-pregnant when it comes to dealing with terrorists.
Then there are the hundreds of millions of dollars Pakistan lavishes on its nuclear weapons program. Would his country be short of cash for earthquake relief today, if not for the money spent on building nuclear weapons?
While it may well be understandable for Pakistan to feel the need to field such weapons due to India's similar arsenal, it's a bit rich to then turn around and accuse the rest of the world of being reluctant to cover shortfalls caused by such weapons expenditure!
By his own estimates, some 70,000 to 80,000 Kashmiris are estimated to have died. As at 31 January 2005, the tsunami death toll estimates were reported to be 233,000 (Indonesia), 31,000 (Sri Lanka), 16,400 (India), 5,400 (Thailand) and 520 (Others) for a total of 286,200. So either my arithmetic is wrong about 286,200 being greater than 70,000 to 80,000, or Musharraf's arithmetic applies a significant non-Pakistani discount to the Asian tsunami death toll!
Nonetheless, Musharraf may well be right that donations aren't as forthcoming as for other disasters. But he should ask why this may be the case. I think the reasons for less than generous donations may be due to what we know about Pakistan.
For example, the much hated Taleban were strongly supported by Pakistan's secret intelligence service, the ISI, for many years. Not doing things by half, the ISI also provides funding, training and weapons to militant Muslim terrorists in Kashmir. These are the same terrorists who conduct bombing campaigns in Indian controlled Kashmir and elsewhere in India, including the Indian parliament.
Pakistani religious schools called madrassas, are home to extremist Islamic imams preaching violent Jihad against non-believers. Indeed, most if not all of the London suicide bombers spent time in these schools. It seems Musharraf believes one can be half-pregnant when it comes to dealing with terrorists.
Then there are the hundreds of millions of dollars Pakistan lavishes on its nuclear weapons program. Would his country be short of cash for earthquake relief today, if not for the money spent on building nuclear weapons?
While it may well be understandable for Pakistan to feel the need to field such weapons due to India's similar arsenal, it's a bit rich to then turn around and accuse the rest of the world of being reluctant to cover shortfalls caused by such weapons expenditure!
10 November 2005
Peru sticks it to Japan
It was fascinating to learn about Peru standing up to plain old Japanese imperialism over fugitive ex-president Alberto Fujimori's pending extradition back to Peru. As the BBC reports, Peru will downgrade its diplomatic ties with Japan by withdrawing its ambassador indefinitely.
Wanted on charges of corruption and human rights abuses, Fujimori fled to Japan in 2000 and was promptly granted citizenship by the Koizumi regime. This obviously allowed Fujimori to escape being held accountable for his alleged crimes.
While it may be understandable for some countries to refuse extradition in cases where capital punishment could result, it appears that this isn't the case for Fujimori. Instead, the Koizumi regime is simply applying a "citizen of Rome" privilege. ie a Japanese citizen is above the law of another country even if that citizen commits a crime in that country.
Not only did the Japanese regime provide cover for Fujimori, it now seeks to pressure Chile into refusing Peru's extradition request! No wonder the Peruvian government is mad as hell with Japan.
This sort of parochial attitude on the part of Japan also underlies its continuing friction with Asian countries over the lack of an official governmental apology for Japanese war crimes. Like Team Neo-Con in the US, the Koizumi regime's arrogance will eventually return to bite them on their collective behind.
Wanted on charges of corruption and human rights abuses, Fujimori fled to Japan in 2000 and was promptly granted citizenship by the Koizumi regime. This obviously allowed Fujimori to escape being held accountable for his alleged crimes.
While it may be understandable for some countries to refuse extradition in cases where capital punishment could result, it appears that this isn't the case for Fujimori. Instead, the Koizumi regime is simply applying a "citizen of Rome" privilege. ie a Japanese citizen is above the law of another country even if that citizen commits a crime in that country.
Not only did the Japanese regime provide cover for Fujimori, it now seeks to pressure Chile into refusing Peru's extradition request! No wonder the Peruvian government is mad as hell with Japan.
This sort of parochial attitude on the part of Japan also underlies its continuing friction with Asian countries over the lack of an official governmental apology for Japanese war crimes. Like Team Neo-Con in the US, the Koizumi regime's arrogance will eventually return to bite them on their collective behind.
02 November 2005
Shining example of Neo-Con democracy
It was fascinating to read about how since the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Republican dominated US Senate (and House of Representatives for that matter) has failed in its role to provide the necessary check and balance to a rogue Bush administration.
Led by a Republican Senator Pat Roberts, the Senate Intelligence Committee has so far failed to conduct an important second phase investigation into how the Bush administration used (misused) intelligence to prosecute the illegal invasion. Yet when the Democrat's Senate leader, Senator Harry Reid tried to force Roberts to do his job, the Senate majority leader, Republican Senator Bill Frist's response was a shining example of democracy at work - neo-con style. As a Washington Post article reported,
Frist angrily denounced the move, charging that "the United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership." He told reporters that he has never as majority leader "been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution."
Frist called the closed session "a pure stunt" by Reid, Durbin and the Democratic leadership.
"This is an affront to me personally," he said. "It's an affront to our leadership. It's an affront to the United States of America. And it is wrong."
Frist sharply criticized Reid personally, saying he could never trust the Democratic leader again.
If dear old Bill Frist doesn't want to be "affronted" in such a way, then all he needs to do is do his job by holding the Bush regime accountable in the way the Constitution intended the Senate to function. Otherwise the real affront caused to the American people is that a cabal in the White House took their country to war on a pack of lies. And it's getting away with that war crime, and torture, and unlawful extra-judicial murder of detainees, and "collateral damage" such as 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties, and sending troops to die for lies, and...the list goes on.
And oh by the way, Bill Frist would know all about trust wouldn't he? After all, he's currently under investigation by the US Securities Exchange Commission and the Justice Department for possible violations of insider trading law!
I take it this isn't the type of democracy Big Dubya wants the rest of the darkened world to adopt...
Led by a Republican Senator Pat Roberts, the Senate Intelligence Committee has so far failed to conduct an important second phase investigation into how the Bush administration used (misused) intelligence to prosecute the illegal invasion. Yet when the Democrat's Senate leader, Senator Harry Reid tried to force Roberts to do his job, the Senate majority leader, Republican Senator Bill Frist's response was a shining example of democracy at work - neo-con style. As a Washington Post article reported,
Frist angrily denounced the move, charging that "the United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership." He told reporters that he has never as majority leader "been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution."
Frist called the closed session "a pure stunt" by Reid, Durbin and the Democratic leadership.
"This is an affront to me personally," he said. "It's an affront to our leadership. It's an affront to the United States of America. And it is wrong."
Frist sharply criticized Reid personally, saying he could never trust the Democratic leader again.
If dear old Bill Frist doesn't want to be "affronted" in such a way, then all he needs to do is do his job by holding the Bush regime accountable in the way the Constitution intended the Senate to function. Otherwise the real affront caused to the American people is that a cabal in the White House took their country to war on a pack of lies. And it's getting away with that war crime, and torture, and unlawful extra-judicial murder of detainees, and "collateral damage" such as 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties, and sending troops to die for lies, and...the list goes on.
And oh by the way, Bill Frist would know all about trust wouldn't he? After all, he's currently under investigation by the US Securities Exchange Commission and the Justice Department for possible violations of insider trading law!
I take it this isn't the type of democracy Big Dubya wants the rest of the darkened world to adopt...
31 October 2005
Traitors and patriots in Big Dubya's world
After reading the Washington Post's account of how and why a CIA agent's name was leaked to the press by the Bush administration, one can't help but conclude George Orwell's Big Brother is the role model for the Bush administration.
In Orwell's book, 1984, Big Brother is a government that reverses notions of good and bad, right and wrong, honourable and dishonourable, and most fundamentally, truth and lie. In order to maintain continuing subservience of a wretched populace, Big Brother manufactures wars, real and imagined, to evoke a sense of perpetual siege. Citizens daring to question Big Brother are declared traitors, tried and executed.
In 2005, we learn that two citizens in Dubya's world, dared to live up to their oaths to serve the nation and its Constitution. Joseph Wilson served his country as both an ambassador and on the National Security Council of the Clinton administration. His wife, Valerie Plame, was the CIA agent unmasked in a fit of spiteful neo-con pique by Big Dick Cheney's minion, the ridiculously named "Scooter" Libby.
Wilson's crime was to refute as false, Big Dubya's claims that Iraq obtained uranium ore from Niger. He did so after an investigative trip on behalf of the CIA. In retaliation, Big Dubya and his puppeteer, Big Dick, allowed or even worse, possibly directed Libby to tell some journalists that Wilson had been on a boondoggle jaunt to Niger instigated by his wife, and unmask Plame as a CIA agent. Big Dubya's and Big Dick's intent was to discredit Wilson and his claims by calling into question the circumstances and legitimacy of his jaunt to Niger.
Now I don't know about you, but I think the allegations of a boondoggle trip to Niger would have struck anyone with any idea of the world outside the US, as downright ridiculous and laughable. For goodness sake, Niger is a land-locked country in West Africa's Sahara region. It has lots of sand but certainly no surf! To put it politely, it's a crap hole for a vacation.
That people took Big Dubya's and Big Dick's smear seriously shows how geographically illiterate and travel challenged they are. In Orwellian speak, double plus ungood.
Instead, people should have asked what is the nature of true patriotism?
Is it to order men and women on an illegal and immoral invasion of another country based on a pack of lies? Is it to prosecute a war in which over 100,000 Iraqi civilians become casualties? Is it to visit desolation upon some country whose leader you dislike?
Or is it to seek and tell the truth, and to call to account those who would trash the fundamental principles upon which their nation was founded? Is it to consider war as the last resort in solving problems rather than the first?
Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame were two genuine patriots seeking to serve their nation and Constitution in spite of a corrupt and treasonous leadership. They understood that their ultimate allegiance is to the country and its Constitution rather than the president of the day engaged in illegal conduct.
But for their patriotism, they were punished by an Orwellian regime bent on prosecuting an illegal war, subverting the Constitution, lying to the nation, endangering a covert agent, and believing itself answerable to nobody.
That is truly treason.
In Orwell's book, 1984, Big Brother is a government that reverses notions of good and bad, right and wrong, honourable and dishonourable, and most fundamentally, truth and lie. In order to maintain continuing subservience of a wretched populace, Big Brother manufactures wars, real and imagined, to evoke a sense of perpetual siege. Citizens daring to question Big Brother are declared traitors, tried and executed.
In 2005, we learn that two citizens in Dubya's world, dared to live up to their oaths to serve the nation and its Constitution. Joseph Wilson served his country as both an ambassador and on the National Security Council of the Clinton administration. His wife, Valerie Plame, was the CIA agent unmasked in a fit of spiteful neo-con pique by Big Dick Cheney's minion, the ridiculously named "Scooter" Libby.
Wilson's crime was to refute as false, Big Dubya's claims that Iraq obtained uranium ore from Niger. He did so after an investigative trip on behalf of the CIA. In retaliation, Big Dubya and his puppeteer, Big Dick, allowed or even worse, possibly directed Libby to tell some journalists that Wilson had been on a boondoggle jaunt to Niger instigated by his wife, and unmask Plame as a CIA agent. Big Dubya's and Big Dick's intent was to discredit Wilson and his claims by calling into question the circumstances and legitimacy of his jaunt to Niger.
Now I don't know about you, but I think the allegations of a boondoggle trip to Niger would have struck anyone with any idea of the world outside the US, as downright ridiculous and laughable. For goodness sake, Niger is a land-locked country in West Africa's Sahara region. It has lots of sand but certainly no surf! To put it politely, it's a crap hole for a vacation.
That people took Big Dubya's and Big Dick's smear seriously shows how geographically illiterate and travel challenged they are. In Orwellian speak, double plus ungood.
Instead, people should have asked what is the nature of true patriotism?
Is it to order men and women on an illegal and immoral invasion of another country based on a pack of lies? Is it to prosecute a war in which over 100,000 Iraqi civilians become casualties? Is it to visit desolation upon some country whose leader you dislike?
Or is it to seek and tell the truth, and to call to account those who would trash the fundamental principles upon which their nation was founded? Is it to consider war as the last resort in solving problems rather than the first?
Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame were two genuine patriots seeking to serve their nation and Constitution in spite of a corrupt and treasonous leadership. They understood that their ultimate allegiance is to the country and its Constitution rather than the president of the day engaged in illegal conduct.
But for their patriotism, they were punished by an Orwellian regime bent on prosecuting an illegal war, subverting the Constitution, lying to the nation, endangering a covert agent, and believing itself answerable to nobody.
That is truly treason.
