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
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
