I think that anyone left who supports Bush-- and Rasmussen's poll claims that includes 40% of my fellow Americans--must do so now only out of (a) total embarrassment, (b) total separation from the reality-based universe, or (c) a traitorous intent to destroy the United States from within by continuing to enable a combination of ill-educated fuckwads, greedheads, and Christofascists to loot the treasury, convert democratic rule to autocratic theocracy, and descend into a Caligulopoly.
Caligulopoly, you ask? Well, "Caligula" originally meant "little soldier's boot," a nickname the original Caligula acquired as a boy and always hated, sort of like "Shrub" or "Nitwit Son." And while, perhaps, Chimpie's personal habits do not descend to the (actually unprovable) depradations of Caligula, his insistence on the right to torture, invade countries, detain without cause anyone he deems his enemy, and declarations like "I'm the Decider" coupled with the childish tantrums of late (he said he won't allow ANY interrogations of terror suspects if Congress won't give him his way on torture), have pushed him into at least the outer circle of Cal's camp in terms of leadership style and megalomania.
And I should apologize for using a word like "buffoon" for Bush. He's too malevolent to be a mere buffoon. What he is is a fucking disaster.
26 comments:
i am in no way saying that bush is or was a great president, and i would love to live in the black and white world you live in, but the way i see it is that the road to the left is even more scary. and with regards to "torture"...i'm sorry ANY fucking nutball that wants to kill as many innocent americans as he can in the name of "allah" immediately waives his "rights" and if blaring music and putting the bastard in a cold room gets us info to stop an attack, then we should do so...that is just plain common sense. i don't understand your thought process at all. understand thy enemy man!!! radical islamists do not give one shit about fair play.
'd suggest you first talk to some intelligence professionals about the use of torture. Next review what I was writing, which is that not only are we sanctioning torture against proven terrorists, but against anyone ACCUSED, and already we have examples of innocent people wrongly accussed, imprisoned, tortured, and finally released without even an apology. I don't know what country you're living in, but doubt it's the United States of America, since you obviously care nothing about due process, protection of the individual against the state, and cruel and unusual punishment, all clearly defined in the Constitution.
"Any fucking nutball" is a definition that seems highly subjective, and even if you had a provably "fucking nutball that wants to kill," what exactly do you think torture will gain you beyond other methods of interrogation? I refer you to General David R. Levine's article on the issue at http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives
/2005/11/why_torture_doe_1.html
This is sort of like the guy who told me one time that if I learn the rhythms of tradition on the djembe, I will lose my freedom. I asked this person if that other person had indeed learned those rhythms and had returned with true knowledge that his freedom was gone. "Well, no," he replied. "Then how would he know?" I said. Anonymous, I would urge you to back up your claim about the "left." What do you mean by "left?" In what way is it threatening? I personally am neither this nor that, left or right. Does America hold itself as a beacon of freedom and hope? Does America insist upon these things and upon human rights? How does the case of Maher Arar fit into this? If Olaf appears to have a rigid paradigm, is there some rationale behind this that transcends paradigm? Does the opinion of the world matter in terms of the American project? Who makes up America? Where from? Yes, it might not matter. But is there the possibility of sliding into a space that may only inflate an already precarious situation? Mr. McCain is standing up to the president on this one, to his potential political harm. He does so because he has been there. He knows the beat of the drum of torture. Should we simply say, in the name of our own fear, that what happened to Mr. Arar , is merely a casualty of a larger war? So be it. Of course I did not know the man, nor did you; I'm certain of that. But what did he go through? What are the statistics? The facts? How much information has actually been of use through torture? How many other Arars are out there? It is indeed possible there are many. And in the end, we just have to stop for a moment, back off from our gut reactions (although they have their place) and listen to what the wind is really saying. At what point does this cease? Does a new day dawn? All the wonderfully poetic cliches of our age ebb into a brief repast, a quiet nap on a bed of pine needles under a whispering wind in the mountians, a moment between passing carnivals? Does America matter? Is it done? Are we truly a vicious people? To hell with all the work and death tolls tallied up through the centuries of this aging republic? Indeed take stock of the left. Keep a close eye on them. Criticize those who keep that same close eye on the right. If you want to take their ideas on, then by all means do so, armed with true claims, and the means to back them up. But know that everyone is out there, right left, Muslim, Christian et. al.. And we've got only one itty-bitty planet whipping through an infinite universe to allow our tiny little lives to play out on. There is no response to tyranny of any kind. Terrorism can not be fought with terrorism. It is like trying to blow inside someone's ear to get rid of the trauma of a brain tumor. Other means, if we are creative enough and American enough to find need to be considered. What is happening now is not working. That's clear enough. Olaf roars and claws. That's in his nature. He also has one hell of a sense of humor. Yes, he delivers Ad Hominem galore, but not without consideration of his audience, and not without knowing he is doing it. If you look closely, his argument is backed up. A reactioanry for sure, but there is a method to the madness. Why does the "left" threaten you?
I'd also refer you to an earlier post of mine where I suggest that we use Rush Limbaugh as the yardstick for torture. Whatever BushCo says is acceptable for interrogation would first be performed on Mr. Limbaugh. "Hey Rush! Is THIS torture?"
I think I can predict his quick answer on waterboarding, standing naked for hours in a 50-degree room, or being chained standing for 40 straight hours, beshitting himself.
first of all, i live in the heartland of the great US of A, and i did not even vote for bush back in 04. i am neither republican nor democrat...i vote for the best person for the job, or in most cases the "lesser of two evils". what the proverbial "left" refuses to understand is that since 9/11 we are living in a different world. the enemy doesn't give a rats ass about us or our freedoms, in fact that is exactly what fuels them to hate us, and want to kill us "infedels". the United States Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever created, but we must realize that that document was created over 200 years ago, and like it or not, the world has changed. i am not suggesting that we abandon that document, but rather that we tweak it a bit for the times we live in. as i said, it must be grand to live in a black and white world, but like it or not there are several grey areas in the world today.
going back to the torture debate, ya know we have regular american people who are innocent in our jails too, this is unfortunate but a fact of life. mistakes will be made in any field. do you honestly think the government is just randomly picking people off the street and calling them terrorists?!?!? if so, then you are not nearly as bright as i have given you credit for. and as far as the article you linked, thanks, i read it, and have read several others that state just the opposite. since neither of us is an interrogator, i guess we will never really know. and as far as standing naked in a 50 degree room, and the rest....boo hoo....our military has this as part of their TRAINING!!! we know that our enemy does much worse things than that....ask berg or pearl!!
to scotchyogi,
i guess i should clarify, what i am talking about as a threat is the far left, the kind who constantly think of new ways to bash america and enable every bad guy in the world, to put them on the same moral plane. (the ACLU comes to mind for example) i understand your post and olaf's. i guess my point is that when we completely shut off our minds and blindly follow our "percieved" reality regardless of our intelligence, then we do a dis-service to ourselves and our world. yes, i say America is a beacon of freedom and hope, but we must make some difficult decisions to keep it that way. you mentioned coming up with new and creative ways....by all means please share!! i have done significant research on the enemy (radical islamists) and they do not negotiate. their interpretation of the koran is that americans/infedels have 3 options.....a) convert to islam b) become 2nd class citizens/slaves c) death i don't know about you, but that does not sit well with me. and it infuriates me that the far left put these "fucking nutballs" on the same moral ground as you and me. we are fighting an ideology that will not toloerate a free society, so why in God's name should we tolerate them?!?
I don't know how different the world is since Sept 11. I would venture to say that it is really only different from Americans' points of view. It seems to me that the biggest difference between now and then is that more Americans have woken up to face some difficult political realities. However, the majority of the rest of the world has always been aware of the things we have recently realized.
I read in the Chicago Sun Times an opinion suggesting that we are still living in a "post-cold war" era, which was not significantly altered by Sept 11.
In any case, I fear that all this anonymous talk of changing the constitution is ill-founded. The people who wrote the constitution lived through some scary-ass shit. They knew, for example, the danger of governing a society based on religious principles, which W doesn't seem to mind, and they were smart enough to realize that due process, warrants for search and seizure of private property, etc, were fundamental to a free society. The Constitution should never be ammended to LIMIT these freedoms, in my opinion.
I also take issue with the comment about the ACLU. The ACLU is the biggest civilian organization dedicated to preserving the constitution. What is so "leftist" or "dangerous" about that??????? Please enlighten me.
Perhaps the biggest danger that this country faces is the "perceived reality" of our president and many of our fellow citizens. It's very dangerous, for example, to assume that one's "perceived reality" is, in fact, the only viable reality.
to mb,
mb said.....I don't know how different the world is since Sept 11. I would venture to say that it is really only different from Americans' points of view. It seems to me that the biggest difference between now and then is that more Americans have woken up to face some difficult political realities.
LOL...so i guess the killing of 3000 innocent americans doesn't matter???? wtf? some just can't see the forest for the trees. but let me guess...it was america's fault that 9/11 happened...or better yet....it was an inside job?!?!
and i am not talking about re-drafting the greatest government document ever created, as i stated earlier. when it comes to foriegn threats, they should not be held to the same standards as U.S. citizens.
and MAYBE i got carried away with the ACLU comment, but they have time and time again defended the scourge of our society such as repeat offending pedophiles, terrorists, and the like. i would be happy to cite specific examples if you would actually like to look into their record.
and as i said before i am not defending W on anything. this is obviously a bush bashing site, so just because a i disagree with some of the author's comments does not make me a W supporter.
For those of us old enough to remember the Cold War in all its glory, when the Soviet Union was poised with the weapons, the will, the opportunity, and the means to wage a global thermonuclear conflict with the United States, this "war on terror" is a joke. We didn't amend the Constitution in the fight against the Soviets and we don't need to do it now. Compared to the threat the Soviets posed, Islamic terrorists are lice to be expunged by relatively simple means.
What you don't get is that the "War on Terror" is only a tool of the Bush administration for the consolidation of power in their own hands.
Go read some history about the era from 1947-1989 and what true dangers we faced (hundreds of millions killed in a nuclear exchange) and then tell me that Osama and company are truly a threat to the nation. They can do some bad shit, no question about it, but is will always be minor compared to what nation-states can do to one another. Terrorism is a tactic of those who have no other means of waging war. Terrorists can't destabilize the United States unless we are complicit by destabilizing ourselves by destroying the very foundation of our republic.
The Constitution works, and we don't need to repeal the Bill of Rights to beat the terrorists.
When you see a straw man, burn it to the ground. Not sure that MB suggested that the killing of innocent Americans does not matter, nor is there mention of it being an "inside job." As far as "radical Islamists," are radical Christians any better? A highly drastic measure, completely impossible to implement would be to take both groups and lock them in a landmass the size of, oh say Ohio, and let them fight it out till they're both gone. The danger lies in saying the radical is the representative of the group. There are far many more moderate people in religion than radical. The radical Christians are inflaming radical Muslims and creating more and more with each building destroyed, each child killed. The Islamists are radicalizing the Christians, and people of a patriotic bent into a frenzy. Round and round it goes. To put a stop to this there are no easy answers, but we've got to take care to understand that in everything there is a middle path, and in the melodrama and horror the media portrays, (a fine example of turning 9/11 into a TV show on CNN played out over and over again in order to "commemorate" the attacks...don't worry about those ads for Wal-Mart, Ford, IBM and the rest, just keep watching) is not the what the majority of the world wants, whether they be Muslim, Christian, Atheist, worshippers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever. No one really wants this stuff. If we are going to put "radical Islam" in the hot seat, then in all fairness, radical Christianity needs to be there as well. George Walker Bush is a radical Christian, openly admitting that he feels he has been placed in this position by God in order to bring democracy to the world. The pain and cutural frsutration of 9/11 creates a vaccuum for a Geroge Bush to rise up in. The result has been an agenda in part dictated by his own beliefs in what Olaf might call "invisible cloud people." That, in many ways, is not particularly fair or representative of the body politic as a whole. It certainly does not represent me, and I am neither radical, or irreligious. The whole thing starts with courageous, moderate voices who can control misrepresenting others ideas for their own ends. McPherson puts it well, "On a more personal level, a radically new type of human being is appearing--one who employs language only as a means to the negotiation of self-interested ends, with no regard for either truth or the consequences of his untruths because the language that is used is no longer grounded in a consistent sense of self. We say only what we have to say to get through each day." In other words, the language we speak has little to do with seeking truth, seeking the self, which ironically is the ultimate aim of all these faiths. What is all the fighting about anyway? When you get to the top of the mountain, by whatever path chosen, the view is the same.
olaf,
i really do respect your opinion, and i am 35 and grew up with the cold war. granted it was at the tail end of it, but i do know all too well about it. and while yes, i agree that the USSR posed more of a threat, i think they realized if they "pushed the button" their country too would have been turned to glass. no one could ever win a nuclear war. but the fact remains they never fired a shot on US soil...the terrorists have. this is an ever growing problem that will not be going away ANY time soon. i would like to know how the "lice to be expunged by relatively simple means" will be accomplished. if in fact the war on terror is some master plan of bush. please explain to me how we defeat an ideology. (and i am serious...no sarcasm) btw...what exactly does bush stand to gain by what you call the consolidation of power?....he's gone for good in 2 years.
and i have stated several times now...i am not talking about major changes to the bill of rights. i don't want to re-invent the wheel here. i am talking about the treatment of FORIEGN detainees. i guess we can agree to disagree on this point
and my name is chris...btw just been too lazy to get a blogger account...lol
scotchyogi said: As far as "radical Islamists," are radical Christians any better?
are you serious???? i don't see christians blowing themselves up trying to take out as many innocent people as possible in the name of God. Give me a freakin break. i really can't belive your are seriously comparing the two.
Christians are just as rigid and just as dangerous. Look at history. The crusdaes, the master race. I think Scotch raises some interesting points about radicalness, not about suicide bombers. suicide bombers is a scary technique. But so is waterboarding and all that stuff. I think Scotch is right about that stuff. Christians just have a different way of going about. Of course, I'm not sure what I want to say in this blog. It's a fun conversation to watch!
A quick tangent: In addition to historic wars in the name of "god" and W's radilcalism more recently, Radical Christians have blown up abortion clinics in the name of the "right to life." So, yes, they have killed in the name of their "god" and I certainly wouldn't put it past them to do it again.
Additionally, I would like to encourage one of the more reactionary anonymouses to please read each post carefully, and do please try not to insert ideas that you assume leftists might have, or that you assume other commenters mean based on your own biases. This tactic is neither logical nor productive.
I'm sure we're not going to come to any difinitive conclusions here on this blog, but I think it's important to recognize that accusing a person of terrorism, or of bank fraud, or of jaywalking, does not mean that person is guilty. Our judicial system operates on the notion that all are innocent until proven guilty by a jury, and if we remove due process for any person, especially in an Orwellian political climate such as this one, in which "terrorism" can mean whatever the decider wants it to mean, then we cannot claim to care about (let alone be fighting to defend) freedom.
mb lecturing on someone else's biases....classic!! how do you look yourself in the mirror? it's obvious your TOTALLY impartial....lmao
i guess in a nutshell what i am trying to say is that i expect the US govt to do whatever it takes to keep it's sovereignty and it's citizens safe from foriegn threats. if that includes waterboarding some bad guys....i sure will not lose any sleep over it.
mr b. - the crusades..ancient history...christians are not going around killing non-christians in the name of god today.
mb - i can count on my fingers the number of attacks by wackos on abortion clinics. how many 1000's have died at the hands of radical muslims in the past 5 years???? hell the past year???? virtually every conflict in the world today is centered around extreme islam...indonesia...darfur....lebanon...india....afganistan
anyway, i feel i have just wasted my breath here.
peace,
chris.
Anonymous 1: Is your name Rick? Ha ha! Of course I'm not impartial. I did not claim to be. However, you have accused me of holding many opinions I do not hold because of your personal bias concerning what "leftists" believe. My "lecture" was not about having biases, but about misrepresenting others' arguments based on your biases. Again, I would encourage you to read carefully.
Chris: I think we can agree that one thing your examples teach all of us is that allowing radical religious folks extreme power is dangerous. This is perhaps the best reason for not allowing W to erode the freedoms allowed us in the constitution.
so i have a question for the regular posters here....just curious who you would like to see in the white house in 08?
chris
The false representation of another's view in order to then shoot it down is known as a "strawman" and outside of ad hominem attacks is the most used in discussions like this. It's a tactic that redirects the conversation to points that distract from the original discussion.
Who should be in the White House in 2008? How about Noam Chomsky?
CHOM-SKY! CHOM-SKY!
OLAF ROTKHOHL FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
Seriously, Chris, haven't you ever heard of superstructure? I think MB's examples of abortion clinics are well-founded, but I think we also have to look closely at a great deal of the Christian ideology that informs this war. You jump onto Mr. B who brings up such "ancient" history as the crusades, but Bush has made references to the war in Iraq and his "mission" in the Middle East as a "crusade." http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html
And if I could just hop onto my soup box here...
I think we're dealing with countries who have an incredibly vivid sense of history, specifically imperial history which was very much couched in Christian rhetoric. Finally, I think whenever we enter into a full-blown war with a country whose culture we know so little about, it would serve us well to do a little self-reflection about our own home-grown fundamentalism!
CB
Ha, ha! I said SOUP box!!!!
I'm with CB. Olaf for President in 2008! Can I be your Sec of Education??
CB ~ i never said that mb's examples of abortion clinics were not well founded. I disputed the proportionality of the comparison, which is a valid argument. and as far as the crusades, do you honestly think bush is on a holy war?!?! if that was the case he would surely go to the darfur region to spread the "good" word, and not iraq. (there would have been much less resistance from world view) bush took us to iraq for economic reasons (oil), and i feel to finish what bush sr. started.
as far as your second paragraph, i absolutely agree with you in regards to iraq. i don't think we should be there, but i whole heartedly believe we should have been in afganistan.
peace,
chris
I think Bush believes he is waging holy war (or at the very least, a cultural war), and some of his soldiers seem to believe the same...
Whether that makes sense or not is a different matter entirely. I agree with Chris that the really real reasons (Cheney's reasons?) are more likely to be economic.
Well...yeah, it's always economic and about material conditions when you get right down to it. But what is that interpellation that happens that alienates us from those conditions?
CB
Post a Comment