( from The Washington Post)
(Orwellian note from yours truly):
I note that the "insurgents" have become "rebels" now in official Pentagon language, at least those with whom we are now negotiating and offering amnesty. The official Pentagon policy is :"We never negotiate with terrorists", restated again and again by the Bush administration. Calling the very same individuals who have always been tarred with the term "insurgents" "rebels" now changes everything, evidently, in the Orwellian use of language by the Pentagon.
We can negotiate with "rebels", evidently.
--Z
washingtonpost.com
A Case for Progress Amid Some Omissions
By Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 29, 2005; A15
In his speech last night, President Bush ignored some uncomfortable facts about the U.S. enterprise in Iraq and overstated the extent of overseas support. But he correctly identified the gains made by the nascent Iraqi government in the past year in the face of a fierce insurgency.
The president portrayed the war in Iraq as a central front in the anti-terrorism effort, a sort of quarantine for terrorist groups that might otherwise attack the United States. But the original rationale for the invasion of Iraq was ignored last night: a conviction by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein's government possessed chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
In fact, the U.N. resolution that the Bush administration used as a rationale for the war dealt entirely with Iraq's failure to give up those weapons -- none of which were found after the war. Bush, announcing the invasion on March 19, 2003, said the military operations were "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."
Two and a half months later, when he declared that major combat operations were over, the president said it was a victory in the war against terrorism because Hussein was "a source of terrorism funding" (referring to Iraq's role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) and because "no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime."
Bush also described Hussein as "an ally of al Qaeda," a point he suggested again last night, but the Sept. 11 commission concluded there had been no collaboration between Hussein and the terrorist group headed by Osama bin Laden.
Now, many analysts inside and outside the government portray Iraq as a breeding ground for terrorist groups, in part because of mistakes made by the administration after it defeated Hussein and occupied Iraq. Bush emphasized the gains fighting terrorism, but the Pentagon commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, said this month that more foreign fighters are now moving into Iraq than were six months ago.
In other sections of his speech, the president strained to make the level of international support higher and broader than in reality. He said the "international community has stepped forward with vital assistance," with 30 nations providing troops in Iraq. He also said the insurgents have failed to "force a mass withdrawal by our allies."
But the U.S.-led coalition, which once included about three dozen nations, has become a political liability for several participating countries. In the past year, more than a dozen countries have withdrawn or have announced plans to leave.
Spain, one of the three original co-sponsors of the invasion, withdrew more than a year ago. Portugal, Norway, Hungary, the Philippines, New Zealand, Thailand, Honduras, the Dominican Republic and Tonga have also pulled out. Among three of the largest contributors, Ukraine and Poland have announced they will pull out by year's end, and Italy plans to begin reducing its presence this fall.
Bush also asserted that "some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about $34 billion in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction." But he did not say that $20 billion of that amount is from the United States, and much of it has been diverted to security or has not yet been delivered. Moreover, only about $2 billion of the remaining pledges -- made nearly two years ago -- has been delivered by the rest of the world.
Even if the full $34 billion is eventually delivered, it is well short of the $56 billion that the World Bank and the United Nations said in 2003 that Iraq would need over the next five years.
Yet, as Bush noted, the international community has become convinced that success in Iraq is important and that it is necessary to support, at least rhetorically, the transitional government.
Bush said Iraq's political transformation is sparking change across the Middle East. Yet Yasser Arafat's death was the turning point that brought new Palestinian leadership -- and new prospects for talks with Israel and U.S. intervention.
The suicide bombing that assassinated Lebanon's opposition leader provoked the "Cedar Revolution" and demands for Syria's withdrawal. And the process that led to Libya's surrender of its weapons of mass destruction was started before Bush came to office.
Indeed, because of bloodshed, rather than Iraq being viewed as a model, many in the region say they fear the kind of change that Iraq has experienced over the past two years.
On several points, Bush accurately portrayed the situation. Despite the slowness in forming Iraq's current government, the three-phase transition has met most of the deadlines. More than 60 percent of Iraqis defied the violence to vote in January's free elections.
Iraq has made significant gains in both the quantity and quality of its security forces over the past year, although together the 150,000-strong international coalition that ousted Hussein and the 160,000 Iraqi forces have not been able to handle the insurgency.
Indeed, as Bush said, Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters have so far failed to achieve their strategic goals -- and hundreds have been killed or captured. Their activities are still largely in three of Iraq's 18 provinces.
Bush also noted that the insurgents have "failed to incite an Iraqi civil war." That is correct, thus far, but senior Iraqi officials warn that intensifying sectarianism makes a civil war increasingly possible.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
BUSH SPEECH OMISSIONS
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
. . .AND . . .
Harold Meyerson of "The American Prospect" has published the clearest and most cogent analysis of the Bush Speech I have read, and the one closest to my own view . . .
(paste)
It’s About Osama
When in doubt, it’s always September 11.
By Harold Meyerson
Web Exclusive: 06.29.05
So let’s try to get this straight. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, except he didn’t, and because he was tied in to the attacks of September 11, except he wasn’t. We’re staying in Iraq, President Bush said Tuesday night, because terrorists with the same ideology as those behind 9-11 have congregated there since we arrived.
Iraq is now the “central front” in the war on terrorism, the president said. And just how did it become that? Whatever the ghastly defects of Hussein’s Iraq, it was not a playground for terrorists. There was no terror in the old Iraq but Hussein’s own, which was a nightmare for his own citizenry, but not a threat to ours. Now, Bush argued, Iraq is in danger of becoming something it never was -- the equivalent of Afghanistan under the Taliban. But it’s Bush’s war that transformed the country and created that threat, if we are to believe the president's own assessment of the danger that the Iraqi terrorists pose. And if we don’t take on the terrorists there, he said, we’ll have to take them on here.
But which ones? Surely not the bitter-enders from Hussein’s regime, or the Iraqi Sunni extremists; their fight is there. As to the Islamic militants who have arrived from other lands, they are a threat, but no more of one than the Islamic militants who are not in Iraq. Yet it is in Iraq where we have deployed the lion’s share of our forces, so much so that our ability to respond to the threat of a very different kind of terrorism -- from North Korea, say -- has clearly been diminished. Bush spoke as if we had the terrorists tied down in Iraq. One could plausibly argue that it’s the other way around.
On the other hand, one could also plausibly argue that we don’t have, and never have had, enough forces in Iraq to secure the country or ensure domestic tranquility. Bush noted that no ground commander had ever told him that we needed to send in more troops, and I don’t doubt that. Before the war even began, the one commander who did make that argument, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, drew the audible ire of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Shinseki did not have his term of duty renewed and was told to find employment in civilian life. A starker object lesson for ground commanders thinking about questioning the wisdom of Rumsfeld and the size of our force could scarcely be imagined.
And when will we go? In the latter years of the Vietnam War, the Nixon administration touted the "Vietnamization" solution: We were training the South Vietnamese army to do what our own troops had been doing; the South Vietnamese were always on the verge of being able to fight the war largely by themselves. In fact, they never got beyond the verge; in the climactic North Vietnamese attack, their army crumbled.
Now, Bush is talking "Iraqization" (which is no clunkier a neologism than Vietnamization once was). We should be wary of making too neat a parallel here. The new Iraqi government certainly has a greater claim on legitimacy and popular support than all those South Vietnamese governments ever did. But in much the manner of Richard Nixon, Bush has tied our departure to the readiness of the Iraqi soldiery. “As the Iraqis stand up,” he said, “we will stand down.”
But suppose the Iraqis don’t stand up, or only make it as far as a crouch. Right now, Bush said, there are 160,000 Iraqi forces in the process of being trained. According to Delaware’s Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the number of them in freestanding units able to carry the fight to the enemy right now, without U.S. tactical guidance, is 2,500. In short, the administration has subjected us to a two-front recruitment war: The number of Iraqis willing to become real soldiers in this war, like the number of Americans willing to become real soldiers in this war, is currently woefully inadequate. Administration strategy, apparently, is to hope that their number grows faster than our number declines.
On our long-term policy toward Iraq -- whether, for instance, we intend to keep permanent bases there -- Bush remained mute. But our justification has turned back to 9-11. Rather than go after Osama bin Laden directly, we decided to overthrow Hussein to enable bin Laden’s legions to relocate to Iraq and defeat them there. So much for straightforward strategy. This was cunning beyond belief -- indeed, beyond comprehension.
Harold Meyerson is the Prospect's editor-at-large.
Copyright © 2005 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation: Harold Meyerson, "It’s About Osama", The American Prospect Online, Jun 29, 2005. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.
Harold Meyerson of "The American Prospect" has published the clearest and most cogent analysis of the Bush Speech I have read, and the one closest to my own view . . .
(paste)
It’s About Osama
When in doubt, it’s always September 11.
By Harold Meyerson
Web Exclusive: 06.29.05
So let’s try to get this straight. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, except he didn’t, and because he was tied in to the attacks of September 11, except he wasn’t. We’re staying in Iraq, President Bush said Tuesday night, because terrorists with the same ideology as those behind 9-11 have congregated there since we arrived.
Iraq is now the “central front” in the war on terrorism, the president said. And just how did it become that? Whatever the ghastly defects of Hussein’s Iraq, it was not a playground for terrorists. There was no terror in the old Iraq but Hussein’s own, which was a nightmare for his own citizenry, but not a threat to ours. Now, Bush argued, Iraq is in danger of becoming something it never was -- the equivalent of Afghanistan under the Taliban. But it’s Bush’s war that transformed the country and created that threat, if we are to believe the president's own assessment of the danger that the Iraqi terrorists pose. And if we don’t take on the terrorists there, he said, we’ll have to take them on here.
But which ones? Surely not the bitter-enders from Hussein’s regime, or the Iraqi Sunni extremists; their fight is there. As to the Islamic militants who have arrived from other lands, they are a threat, but no more of one than the Islamic militants who are not in Iraq. Yet it is in Iraq where we have deployed the lion’s share of our forces, so much so that our ability to respond to the threat of a very different kind of terrorism -- from North Korea, say -- has clearly been diminished. Bush spoke as if we had the terrorists tied down in Iraq. One could plausibly argue that it’s the other way around.
On the other hand, one could also plausibly argue that we don’t have, and never have had, enough forces in Iraq to secure the country or ensure domestic tranquility. Bush noted that no ground commander had ever told him that we needed to send in more troops, and I don’t doubt that. Before the war even began, the one commander who did make that argument, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, drew the audible ire of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Shinseki did not have his term of duty renewed and was told to find employment in civilian life. A starker object lesson for ground commanders thinking about questioning the wisdom of Rumsfeld and the size of our force could scarcely be imagined.
And when will we go? In the latter years of the Vietnam War, the Nixon administration touted the "Vietnamization" solution: We were training the South Vietnamese army to do what our own troops had been doing; the South Vietnamese were always on the verge of being able to fight the war largely by themselves. In fact, they never got beyond the verge; in the climactic North Vietnamese attack, their army crumbled.
Now, Bush is talking "Iraqization" (which is no clunkier a neologism than Vietnamization once was). We should be wary of making too neat a parallel here. The new Iraqi government certainly has a greater claim on legitimacy and popular support than all those South Vietnamese governments ever did. But in much the manner of Richard Nixon, Bush has tied our departure to the readiness of the Iraqi soldiery. “As the Iraqis stand up,” he said, “we will stand down.”
But suppose the Iraqis don’t stand up, or only make it as far as a crouch. Right now, Bush said, there are 160,000 Iraqi forces in the process of being trained. According to Delaware’s Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the number of them in freestanding units able to carry the fight to the enemy right now, without U.S. tactical guidance, is 2,500. In short, the administration has subjected us to a two-front recruitment war: The number of Iraqis willing to become real soldiers in this war, like the number of Americans willing to become real soldiers in this war, is currently woefully inadequate. Administration strategy, apparently, is to hope that their number grows faster than our number declines.
On our long-term policy toward Iraq -- whether, for instance, we intend to keep permanent bases there -- Bush remained mute. But our justification has turned back to 9-11. Rather than go after Osama bin Laden directly, we decided to overthrow Hussein to enable bin Laden’s legions to relocate to Iraq and defeat them there. So much for straightforward strategy. This was cunning beyond belief -- indeed, beyond comprehension.
Harold Meyerson is the Prospect's editor-at-large.
Copyright © 2005 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation: Harold Meyerson, "It’s About Osama", The American Prospect Online, Jun 29, 2005. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
. . .FINALLY . . .
For anyone who is interested in a retrospective of Bush's other lies, the ones leading up to this latest speech, I recommend this website:
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
--Z
For anyone who is interested in a retrospective of Bush's other lies, the ones leading up to this latest speech, I recommend this website:
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
--Z
-
hester_prynne
Thank you for these links Zlatko, it's good to see that there are people towing the line despite the attempts of Bushco to smooth his manipulations and lies over in last night's speech.
I don't know what to think anymore. I dutifully watched his speech and again got an overwhelming sense of loathing, and outrage, especially at his lame references to 9/11. Fact is, I can't stand to even look at him on TV anymore, he grosses me out so much at this point. The lies, the lameness, all too visually evident.
What perplexes me the most is how easily led the majority of the Amercian people seem to be. Why does it seem that people want to believe his lies?
I also thought that his giving the speech at Fort Bragg was a cop out as well. Fraught with covert attempts to make us viewers feel guilty because we are not blindly supporting the troops, regardless of what they are being ordered to do.
It seems to be a trickle down trend occuring, bosses, community and city leaders all seem to think that it is the citizen's duty to support whatever they do locally too, regardless of how a majority feels about it. Sort of a "shut up and do as I say, and when I make mistakes be willing to be the scapegoat...it's your duty..."
kind of thing!
It's terrible!
And what about Congress and the Senate? Why the hell do they put up with this? Why are they looking the other way at the effect that this wasteful, unnecessary war has had on people here at home? Why is always about being polite? Have they become that numb to the stick's up their own asses? I think they all have too much power that they take for granted, via underestimating the general public. It was good to see John Kerry say the same thing.
Let's face it. That speech last night, was nothing more than a glorified recruitment effort! A blind man could see it! That's what it seemed like to me anyway. The audacity of that man, using a speech to tell people to join up! Using a speech to tell us, we need to reflect on our military this 4th of July...heh, as if we don't every year, with bomblike firecrackers banging and booming away in an annual idiotic reliving of the hell of war!
It was purely pathetic, gimmicky, and again had that tone of his that I hate so much, of talking down to us, instead of to us.
At any rate, I'm looking for a small motel that needs a little fixing up, in the rural Eastern Oregon area to buy and run. Seems like a perfect retirement for me, far far from this stark raving mad crowd.....where I can be doing the little things I love to do that make a moment, or a little while, meaningful for folks.
Peace,
and thanks again for all your links to reads that give me hope
Hes
I don't know what to think anymore. I dutifully watched his speech and again got an overwhelming sense of loathing, and outrage, especially at his lame references to 9/11. Fact is, I can't stand to even look at him on TV anymore, he grosses me out so much at this point. The lies, the lameness, all too visually evident.
What perplexes me the most is how easily led the majority of the Amercian people seem to be. Why does it seem that people want to believe his lies?
I also thought that his giving the speech at Fort Bragg was a cop out as well. Fraught with covert attempts to make us viewers feel guilty because we are not blindly supporting the troops, regardless of what they are being ordered to do.
It seems to be a trickle down trend occuring, bosses, community and city leaders all seem to think that it is the citizen's duty to support whatever they do locally too, regardless of how a majority feels about it. Sort of a "shut up and do as I say, and when I make mistakes be willing to be the scapegoat...it's your duty..."
kind of thing!
It's terrible!
And what about Congress and the Senate? Why the hell do they put up with this? Why are they looking the other way at the effect that this wasteful, unnecessary war has had on people here at home? Why is always about being polite? Have they become that numb to the stick's up their own asses? I think they all have too much power that they take for granted, via underestimating the general public. It was good to see John Kerry say the same thing.
Let's face it. That speech last night, was nothing more than a glorified recruitment effort! A blind man could see it! That's what it seemed like to me anyway. The audacity of that man, using a speech to tell people to join up! Using a speech to tell us, we need to reflect on our military this 4th of July...heh, as if we don't every year, with bomblike firecrackers banging and booming away in an annual idiotic reliving of the hell of war!
It was purely pathetic, gimmicky, and again had that tone of his that I hate so much, of talking down to us, instead of to us.
At any rate, I'm looking for a small motel that needs a little fixing up, in the rural Eastern Oregon area to buy and run. Seems like a perfect retirement for me, far far from this stark raving mad crowd.....where I can be doing the little things I love to do that make a moment, or a little while, meaningful for folks.
Peace,
and thanks again for all your links to reads that give me hope
Hes
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
An honest, strong and intelligent reply, Hester.
I haven't watched tv in over twenty years and what you have described is part of the reason.
The main reason is that I simply can't stand to be hammered on by advertising constantly. And everything on tv is advertising, including the "President's" speech.
By default I am a member of US consumer society, at least in name, and I do not avow poverty, nor abstinence from more things than I abstain from already.
I am not pure and do not claim to be.
But many intelligent people I know, including one of my physicians, to whom I am both a patient and a friend, weep at the news of the encoffined, naive US armed forces youngsters being returned to their parents, flags draped across their lifeless bodies.
Their sacrifice ( and all their parents') is being made for nothing-- for economic leverage and hegemony on the world markets-- for oil and other commodities.
And whenever the wealthy Rumsfelds of the world send out the dark-skinned warriors for "ideals" of liberty and democracy, one has to wonder.
How can a person of Rumsfeld's affluence ever appreciate the hopes, aspirations and self-delusion of the patriotic young men and women " . . .rushing to the roaring slaughter. . ." (e.e. cummings)
(paste):
"I wouldn't feel too bad for these guys. Secretary of State Colin Powell's portfolio is valued somewhere between $18 million and $65 million. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and OMB Director Mitchell Daniels Jr. are busy selling stock holdings that are in the five- and six-digit range.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's holdings are placed between $50 million and $210 million. Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill is actually in a good position - his holdings were entirely in Alcoa, where he was formerly CEO. His Alcoa stock has made $43 million more since election day. "
( from BUSH AT WAR)
--Z
I haven't watched tv in over twenty years and what you have described is part of the reason.
The main reason is that I simply can't stand to be hammered on by advertising constantly. And everything on tv is advertising, including the "President's" speech.
By default I am a member of US consumer society, at least in name, and I do not avow poverty, nor abstinence from more things than I abstain from already.
I am not pure and do not claim to be.
But many intelligent people I know, including one of my physicians, to whom I am both a patient and a friend, weep at the news of the encoffined, naive US armed forces youngsters being returned to their parents, flags draped across their lifeless bodies.
Their sacrifice ( and all their parents') is being made for nothing-- for economic leverage and hegemony on the world markets-- for oil and other commodities.
And whenever the wealthy Rumsfelds of the world send out the dark-skinned warriors for "ideals" of liberty and democracy, one has to wonder.
How can a person of Rumsfeld's affluence ever appreciate the hopes, aspirations and self-delusion of the patriotic young men and women " . . .rushing to the roaring slaughter. . ." (e.e. cummings)
(paste):
"I wouldn't feel too bad for these guys. Secretary of State Colin Powell's portfolio is valued somewhere between $18 million and $65 million. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and OMB Director Mitchell Daniels Jr. are busy selling stock holdings that are in the five- and six-digit range.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's holdings are placed between $50 million and $210 million. Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill is actually in a good position - his holdings were entirely in Alcoa, where he was formerly CEO. His Alcoa stock has made $43 million more since election day. "
( from BUSH AT WAR)
--Z
Last edited by Zlatko Waterman on June 30th, 2005, 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
politicians lie?
whodathunkit
j/k
not defending the guy, but insurgents have never been considered terrorists (unless engaging in terrorism...but be careful - the word terrorism is probably one of the most misused words in politics today...the definition gets fucked arounda lot with to suit the motives of whoever is using the word)...the move to the use of the word 'rebel' has less significance than the original decision to use the word 'insurgent', which carries with it some Laws of Armed Conflict implications
whodathunkit
j/k
not defending the guy, but insurgents have never been considered terrorists (unless engaging in terrorism...but be careful - the word terrorism is probably one of the most misused words in politics today...the definition gets fucked arounda lot with to suit the motives of whoever is using the word)...the move to the use of the word 'rebel' has less significance than the original decision to use the word 'insurgent', which carries with it some Laws of Armed Conflict implications
Eastern Oregon has a lot of open spaces. Hester, were you thinking about someplace along the eastern slopes of the Sierras? or the high desert, where it meets that range, or way east near Idaho where the rivers converge?
Knip, lets not debate minutae here. I mean, the usage of terms almost interchangeably, insurgents rebels, terrorists, eh?
But they're all still the "enemy" which is enough to persuade, convince, scare any good American. They use words for their agenda 's needs. Repitition is their key weapon.
The bell of mindfullness has rung for some of us. We learned from history and indeed predicted that this would prove to be not only a quagmire, but that it would be proved a false scenario. We knew this in advance.
IN Vietnam, I was there during the year that the Americans pulled back, ending my year by flying into deserted artillery bases, places I'd flown into numerous times before. The NLF occupied Loc Ninh in the spring of 1972, last time I was there was in August, 1971. There was no South Vietnamese resistance. The entire province became the provisional revolutionary government, but it was also a test case, letting the "enemy" know that they would have a green light whenever the situation became portentious for their final thrust, and it happened that way.
The Iraq army and police, now being organized under the Ammerican't occupation is a possibility, yes, but will not stand alone. We are building enormous bases inside Iraq and will be there for a long time. Who will come forward, not Sen. McCain ? How about Chuck Hagel, the Republican who only recently called Rumsfeld's bluster about the demise of the insurgency ridiculous.?
And where's Hillarious in all of this?
If there is a groundswell of political opposition, we will see some shifting of the tide, but I do not believe it will happen. The dominant culture is greedy, stubborn, unwilling to introspect.
It's why we have to preach to the choir, survival of a cultural opposition and survival of our sanity.
Yesterday Amy Goodnam had two women on her Democracy Now broadcast, which I watched on my puter, her guests were a Gold Star mom and also the LtCol lady who got booted out of the Pentagon.
Both said the same thing, we were led by lies and deceipt.
and it is still happening, there are plenty of fools to go around.
http://www.democracynow.org/streampage. ... 2005-06-29
A letter to the editor in the St Pete Times today asked where is Toto now that we need him to yank off the curtain surrounding the Great OZ and show him for the piteous little man that he is.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/30/Opini ... ack_.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/30/Opini ... _war.shtml
Knip, lets not debate minutae here. I mean, the usage of terms almost interchangeably, insurgents rebels, terrorists, eh?
But they're all still the "enemy" which is enough to persuade, convince, scare any good American. They use words for their agenda 's needs. Repitition is their key weapon.
The bell of mindfullness has rung for some of us. We learned from history and indeed predicted that this would prove to be not only a quagmire, but that it would be proved a false scenario. We knew this in advance.
IN Vietnam, I was there during the year that the Americans pulled back, ending my year by flying into deserted artillery bases, places I'd flown into numerous times before. The NLF occupied Loc Ninh in the spring of 1972, last time I was there was in August, 1971. There was no South Vietnamese resistance. The entire province became the provisional revolutionary government, but it was also a test case, letting the "enemy" know that they would have a green light whenever the situation became portentious for their final thrust, and it happened that way.
The Iraq army and police, now being organized under the Ammerican't occupation is a possibility, yes, but will not stand alone. We are building enormous bases inside Iraq and will be there for a long time. Who will come forward, not Sen. McCain ? How about Chuck Hagel, the Republican who only recently called Rumsfeld's bluster about the demise of the insurgency ridiculous.?
And where's Hillarious in all of this?
If there is a groundswell of political opposition, we will see some shifting of the tide, but I do not believe it will happen. The dominant culture is greedy, stubborn, unwilling to introspect.
It's why we have to preach to the choir, survival of a cultural opposition and survival of our sanity.
Yesterday Amy Goodnam had two women on her Democracy Now broadcast, which I watched on my puter, her guests were a Gold Star mom and also the LtCol lady who got booted out of the Pentagon.
Both said the same thing, we were led by lies and deceipt.
and it is still happening, there are plenty of fools to go around.
http://www.democracynow.org/streampage. ... 2005-06-29
A letter to the editor in the St Pete Times today asked where is Toto now that we need him to yank off the curtain surrounding the Great OZ and show him for the piteous little man that he is.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/30/Opini ... ack_.shtml
also a rather tepid editorialDraw aside the curtain
The president's performance at Fort Bragg stretches disbelief to another level.
Top secret documents authenticated by the British government show that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They reveal a president who knew that the intelligence was correct in that assessment, but who decided to go to war in Iraq anyway. And this is the same president who continues to evoke 9/11 to rally support for the war on Iraq?
I can't help but picture the Great and Powerful Oz who turned out to be an old coot behind a mask. Where's Toto when we need someone to pull the curtain?
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/30/Opini ... _war.shtml
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
The war machine is an operative arm of corporate business interests. The language mangled, exploded and re-defined by it is at the service of those corporate aims in the same fashion.
Jim, your Oz analogy is perfect.
Here is another term added to the mix,"sychophancy." Ray McGovern's use of this term to define the inner workings of the Bush administration and the intelligence community is accurate. As George Orwell said, those who would control the world must first control its language. The control of the attitudes of those in change, including the "sychophancy" that rules in the current US administration, will follow.
McGovern's article from AntiWar.Com, published today:
(paste)
Stay the Crooked Course
by Ray McGovern
The editors of the New York Times this morning feign shock that in his speech at Fort Bragg yesterday evening President George W. Bush would "raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks." Kudos for that insight! Better three years late than never, I suppose.
Forget the documentary evidence (the Downing Street minutes) that the war on Iraq was fraudulent from the outset. Forget that the U.S. and UK started pulverizing Iraq with stepped-up bombing months before president or prime minister breathed a word to Congress or Parliament. Forget that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his merry men – his co-opted, castrated military brass – have no clue regarding what U.S. forces are up against in Iraq. The president insists that we must stay the course.
As was the case in Vietnam, the Iraq war is being run by civilians innocent of military experience and disdainful of advice from the colonels and majors who know which end is up. Aping the president's practice of surrounding himself with sycophants, Rumsfeld has promoted a coterie of yes-men to top military ranks – men who "kiss up and kick down," in the words of former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford, describing UN-nominee John Bolton's modus operandi at the State Department. So when the president assures us, as he did yesterday, that he will be guided by the "sober judgment of our military leaders," he is referring to the castrati.
This is all lost on doting congresspeople like Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), who has been around long enough to know better than to recite oxymorons. Most striking last week was his quixotic appeal to the military's top brass to give a candid assessment of the situation.
Is there no top military official – active-duty or retired – around to tell it like it is? Active-duty? No. Retired? Sure there are. But the latter get little or no ink or airtime in our domesticated media. There are, for example, Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, or Gen. Brent Scowcroft (USAF), who was national security adviser to George H. W. Bush and, until this year, chair of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. If their remarks are reported at all, one must dig deep into the inside pages to find them.
A General With the Courage to Speak Truth
More outspoken still has been Lt. Gen. William Odom (U.S. Army, ret.), the most respected senior intelligence officer still willing to speak out on strategic and intelligence issues. Unfortunately, you would have to understand German to know what he thinks of "staying the course" in Iraq, because U.S. media are not going to run his remarks.
Here is my translation of what Gen. Odom said last September on German TV's Panorama program:
"When the president says he is staying the course, that makes me really afraid. For a leader has to know when to change course. Hitler did not change his course: rather he kept sending more and more troops to Stalingrad, and they suffered more and more casualties.
"When the president says he is staying the course, it reminds me of the man who has just jumped from the Empire State Building. Halfway down he says, 'I am still on course.' Well, I would not want to be on course with a man who will lie splattered in the street. I would like to be someone who could change the course….
"Our invasion of Iraq has made it a homeland for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Indeed, I believe that it was the very first time that many Iraqis became terrorists. Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism."
At Fort Bragg yesterday, the president spoke of the need to "prevent al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban: a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends." Too late, Mr. President; has no one told you that you've succeeded in accomplishing that yourself?
Gen. Odom, now professor at Yale and senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, does not confine his criticism to the president, Rumsfeld, and the malleable generals they have promoted. Odom has also been highly critical of leaders of the intelligence community, an area he knows intimately, having served as chief of Army Intelligence (1981-85) and Director of the National Security Agency (1985-88). Commenting on the farcical pre-election-campaign "intelligence reform" last summer, he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, observing:
"No organizational design will compensate for incompetent incumbents."
Odom is spot-on. In my 27 years of experience as an intelligence analyst, I learned the painful lesson that lack of professionalism is the inevitable handmaiden of sycophancy. Military and intelligence officers and diplomats who bubble to the top in this kind of environment do not tend to be the real professionals.
And who pays the price? The young men and women we send off to a misbegotten, unnecessary war.
When the president spoke last evening, Medal of Freedom winners former CIA director George Tenet, Gen. Tommy Franks, and Ambassador Paul Bremer no doubt were cheering him on from their armchairs. A most unsavory spectacle.
"If they question why we died,
Tell them because our fathers lied."
- Rudyard Kipling
Jim, your Oz analogy is perfect.
Here is another term added to the mix,"sychophancy." Ray McGovern's use of this term to define the inner workings of the Bush administration and the intelligence community is accurate. As George Orwell said, those who would control the world must first control its language. The control of the attitudes of those in change, including the "sychophancy" that rules in the current US administration, will follow.
McGovern's article from AntiWar.Com, published today:
(paste)
Stay the Crooked Course
by Ray McGovern
The editors of the New York Times this morning feign shock that in his speech at Fort Bragg yesterday evening President George W. Bush would "raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks." Kudos for that insight! Better three years late than never, I suppose.
Forget the documentary evidence (the Downing Street minutes) that the war on Iraq was fraudulent from the outset. Forget that the U.S. and UK started pulverizing Iraq with stepped-up bombing months before president or prime minister breathed a word to Congress or Parliament. Forget that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his merry men – his co-opted, castrated military brass – have no clue regarding what U.S. forces are up against in Iraq. The president insists that we must stay the course.
As was the case in Vietnam, the Iraq war is being run by civilians innocent of military experience and disdainful of advice from the colonels and majors who know which end is up. Aping the president's practice of surrounding himself with sycophants, Rumsfeld has promoted a coterie of yes-men to top military ranks – men who "kiss up and kick down," in the words of former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford, describing UN-nominee John Bolton's modus operandi at the State Department. So when the president assures us, as he did yesterday, that he will be guided by the "sober judgment of our military leaders," he is referring to the castrati.
This is all lost on doting congresspeople like Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), who has been around long enough to know better than to recite oxymorons. Most striking last week was his quixotic appeal to the military's top brass to give a candid assessment of the situation.
Is there no top military official – active-duty or retired – around to tell it like it is? Active-duty? No. Retired? Sure there are. But the latter get little or no ink or airtime in our domesticated media. There are, for example, Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, or Gen. Brent Scowcroft (USAF), who was national security adviser to George H. W. Bush and, until this year, chair of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. If their remarks are reported at all, one must dig deep into the inside pages to find them.
A General With the Courage to Speak Truth
More outspoken still has been Lt. Gen. William Odom (U.S. Army, ret.), the most respected senior intelligence officer still willing to speak out on strategic and intelligence issues. Unfortunately, you would have to understand German to know what he thinks of "staying the course" in Iraq, because U.S. media are not going to run his remarks.
Here is my translation of what Gen. Odom said last September on German TV's Panorama program:
"When the president says he is staying the course, that makes me really afraid. For a leader has to know when to change course. Hitler did not change his course: rather he kept sending more and more troops to Stalingrad, and they suffered more and more casualties.
"When the president says he is staying the course, it reminds me of the man who has just jumped from the Empire State Building. Halfway down he says, 'I am still on course.' Well, I would not want to be on course with a man who will lie splattered in the street. I would like to be someone who could change the course….
"Our invasion of Iraq has made it a homeland for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Indeed, I believe that it was the very first time that many Iraqis became terrorists. Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism."
At Fort Bragg yesterday, the president spoke of the need to "prevent al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban: a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends." Too late, Mr. President; has no one told you that you've succeeded in accomplishing that yourself?
Gen. Odom, now professor at Yale and senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, does not confine his criticism to the president, Rumsfeld, and the malleable generals they have promoted. Odom has also been highly critical of leaders of the intelligence community, an area he knows intimately, having served as chief of Army Intelligence (1981-85) and Director of the National Security Agency (1985-88). Commenting on the farcical pre-election-campaign "intelligence reform" last summer, he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, observing:
"No organizational design will compensate for incompetent incumbents."
Odom is spot-on. In my 27 years of experience as an intelligence analyst, I learned the painful lesson that lack of professionalism is the inevitable handmaiden of sycophancy. Military and intelligence officers and diplomats who bubble to the top in this kind of environment do not tend to be the real professionals.
And who pays the price? The young men and women we send off to a misbegotten, unnecessary war.
When the president spoke last evening, Medal of Freedom winners former CIA director George Tenet, Gen. Tommy Franks, and Ambassador Paul Bremer no doubt were cheering him on from their armchairs. A most unsavory spectacle.
"If they question why we died,
Tell them because our fathers lied."
- Rudyard Kipling
Some revealing links, Z. I was perfectly frustrated reading thru them. 
My current take on Bush and Co is really the force of Karl Rove... the man who has been behind Dubya for years. Thru that man's knowledge and observation of America, I feel Rove has 'brilliantly' (?) manipulated the evangelical, lower middle-class, hard-working, light-thinking white majority (who Nixon called the silent majority), a very strong base that hadn't been courted with an sincerity before Bush. Between Bush and Rove it is now quite obvious that having so courted and championed this group, that this same group of folks have in turn done the bidding for BushCo. Rove knew the latent power of this group... a group that places Jesus and America in the same pulpit, and anyone that differs with that is somehow anti-Christian at best and anti-God at worst.
It's a difficult thing to put into words without being politically incorrect, but this same vocal majority of evangelical, new-testament-thumping, short-sighted (but innocent) Christian base has little time or patience to question their President because it is George that has been ordained by God to lead 'their' country thru this time of Biblical darkness, precipated by the events of 9/11. This group fervently believes in this administration so religiously that they will never even peek at the other side of what is happening for fear of the wrath of god. It is their very fundamentalism that Rove knows and understands so well that he has made George (thru Dubya being a reborn Christian in the days of Texas) into this (anti-) Christ figure that nobody within that 'flock' will disagree with.
Add to that this sense of "you're with me or against me' mentality that the administration has embolded themselves with, and you have a House and Senate (voted in by the group I just spoke of) that fears their own political futures and even knowing the frightening facts of this adminsitration, bow before BushCo in subserviance.
It is no longer a secret of any sort how Bush & Co have manipulated the press, the House, Congress, their followers... but who among them are willing to support the evidence? Here we have a President that rallied the country behind him shortly after 9/11.. unified us and much of the world. How can 'we' condemn this man? How can we not believe and trust where he is leading us? And again, his evangelical base believes in him as they believe in Jesus... as a saviour of sorts for 'their' country.
This, I see, is the underlying thinking going on within the collective consciousness of this country... doubts and fears abound... who can we trust? who can we believe? what is the real truth behind all this? The American mind is perplexed and confused, and during states of confusion 'we' look up to those that lead us... regardless of what others may say about 'him', the President is the father figure of the Nation and like good 'children' we must honor and obey the "father"... it is a biblical command.
[enough]
My current take on Bush and Co is really the force of Karl Rove... the man who has been behind Dubya for years. Thru that man's knowledge and observation of America, I feel Rove has 'brilliantly' (?) manipulated the evangelical, lower middle-class, hard-working, light-thinking white majority (who Nixon called the silent majority), a very strong base that hadn't been courted with an sincerity before Bush. Between Bush and Rove it is now quite obvious that having so courted and championed this group, that this same group of folks have in turn done the bidding for BushCo. Rove knew the latent power of this group... a group that places Jesus and America in the same pulpit, and anyone that differs with that is somehow anti-Christian at best and anti-God at worst.
It's a difficult thing to put into words without being politically incorrect, but this same vocal majority of evangelical, new-testament-thumping, short-sighted (but innocent) Christian base has little time or patience to question their President because it is George that has been ordained by God to lead 'their' country thru this time of Biblical darkness, precipated by the events of 9/11. This group fervently believes in this administration so religiously that they will never even peek at the other side of what is happening for fear of the wrath of god. It is their very fundamentalism that Rove knows and understands so well that he has made George (thru Dubya being a reborn Christian in the days of Texas) into this (anti-) Christ figure that nobody within that 'flock' will disagree with.
Add to that this sense of "you're with me or against me' mentality that the administration has embolded themselves with, and you have a House and Senate (voted in by the group I just spoke of) that fears their own political futures and even knowing the frightening facts of this adminsitration, bow before BushCo in subserviance.
It is no longer a secret of any sort how Bush & Co have manipulated the press, the House, Congress, their followers... but who among them are willing to support the evidence? Here we have a President that rallied the country behind him shortly after 9/11.. unified us and much of the world. How can 'we' condemn this man? How can we not believe and trust where he is leading us? And again, his evangelical base believes in him as they believe in Jesus... as a saviour of sorts for 'their' country.
This, I see, is the underlying thinking going on within the collective consciousness of this country... doubts and fears abound... who can we trust? who can we believe? what is the real truth behind all this? The American mind is perplexed and confused, and during states of confusion 'we' look up to those that lead us... regardless of what others may say about 'him', the President is the father figure of the Nation and like good 'children' we must honor and obey the "father"... it is a biblical command.
[enough]
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
Dear mtmynd:
I think your thematic addition of the Christian evangelical, unquestioning, faith-based politics that have suffused the US is an important part of this discussion.
Speaking of Presidential Medals of Freedom, Nixon, and related themes, here's the kind of photo-op you don't see much of today:
( caption from "The New York Times"-- which would not fit on my scanner):
"Edward Kennedy ( "DUKE") Ellington, world-famous jazz musician and composer, kisses Presdent Richard M. Nixon four times, twice on each cheek, as Ellington receives the Presidentail Medal of Freedom, April 29, 1969."
( my comment)
Unfortunately, Nixon was forced to "Take the "A" Train" out of the White House just a few years later.
--Z
I think your thematic addition of the Christian evangelical, unquestioning, faith-based politics that have suffused the US is an important part of this discussion.
Speaking of Presidential Medals of Freedom, Nixon, and related themes, here's the kind of photo-op you don't see much of today:
( caption from "The New York Times"-- which would not fit on my scanner):
"Edward Kennedy ( "DUKE") Ellington, world-famous jazz musician and composer, kisses Presdent Richard M. Nixon four times, twice on each cheek, as Ellington receives the Presidentail Medal of Freedom, April 29, 1969."
( my comment)
Unfortunately, Nixon was forced to "Take the "A" Train" out of the White House just a few years later.
--Z
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
We interrupt this broadcast for a new Third Way perspective...
Here’s a third way we can collaborate: We can inspire each other to perpetrate healing mischief, friendly shocks, compassionate tricks, blasphemous reverence, holy pranks, and crazy wisdom . . . .
What? Huh? What do tricks and mischief and jokes have to do with our quest? Isn’t America in a permanent state of war? Isn’t it the most militarized empire in the history of the world? Hasn’t the government’s paranoia about terrorism decimated our civil liberties? Isn’t it our duty to grow more serious and weighty than ever before?
I say it’s the perfect moment to take everything less seriously and less personally and less literally.
Permanent war and the loss of civil liberties are immediate dangers. But there is an even bigger long-term threat to the fate of the earth, of which the others are but symptoms: the genocide of the imagination.
Earlier I cited pop nihilist storytellers as vanguard perpetrators of the genocide of the imagination. But there are other culprits as well: the fundamentalists. I’m not referring to just the usual suspects—the religious fanatics of Islam and Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism.
Scientists can be fundamentalists. So can liberals and capitalists, atheists and hedonists, patriots and anarchists, hippies and goths, you and me. Those who champion the ideology of materialism can be the most fanatical fundamentalists of all. And the journalists, filmmakers, novelists, critics, poets, and other artists who relentlessly generate rotten visions of the human condition are often pop nihilist fundamentalists.
Every fundamentalist divides the world into two camps, those who agree with him and like him and help him, and those who don’t. There is only one right way to interpret the world—according to the ideas the fundamentalist believes to be true—and a million wrong ways.
The fundamental attitude of all fundamentalists is to take everything way too seriously and way too personally and way too literally. The untrammeled imagination is taboo. Correct belief is the only virtue. Every fundamentalist is committed to waging war against the imagination unless the imagination is enslaved to his or her belief system.
And here’s the bad news: Like almost everyone in the world, each of us has our own share of the fundamentalist virus. It may not be as virulent and dangerous to the collective welfare as, say, the fundamentalism of Islamic terrorists or right-wing Christian politicians or CEOs who act as if making a financial profit is the supreme good or scientists who deny the existence of the large part of reality that’s imperceptible to the five senses.
But still: We are infected, you and I, with fundamentalism. What are we going to do about it?
I say we practice taking everything less seriously and less personally and less literally. I suggest we administer plentiful doses of healing mischief, friendly shocks, compassionate tricks, blasphemous reverence, holy pranks, and crazy wisdom.
Amen Brother!
This Third Way blessing has been excerpted from "Welcome Home" by Rob Brezsny: http://www.freewillastrology.com/beauty/
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program ...
Here’s a third way we can collaborate: We can inspire each other to perpetrate healing mischief, friendly shocks, compassionate tricks, blasphemous reverence, holy pranks, and crazy wisdom . . . .
What? Huh? What do tricks and mischief and jokes have to do with our quest? Isn’t America in a permanent state of war? Isn’t it the most militarized empire in the history of the world? Hasn’t the government’s paranoia about terrorism decimated our civil liberties? Isn’t it our duty to grow more serious and weighty than ever before?
I say it’s the perfect moment to take everything less seriously and less personally and less literally.
Permanent war and the loss of civil liberties are immediate dangers. But there is an even bigger long-term threat to the fate of the earth, of which the others are but symptoms: the genocide of the imagination.
Earlier I cited pop nihilist storytellers as vanguard perpetrators of the genocide of the imagination. But there are other culprits as well: the fundamentalists. I’m not referring to just the usual suspects—the religious fanatics of Islam and Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism.
Scientists can be fundamentalists. So can liberals and capitalists, atheists and hedonists, patriots and anarchists, hippies and goths, you and me. Those who champion the ideology of materialism can be the most fanatical fundamentalists of all. And the journalists, filmmakers, novelists, critics, poets, and other artists who relentlessly generate rotten visions of the human condition are often pop nihilist fundamentalists.
Every fundamentalist divides the world into two camps, those who agree with him and like him and help him, and those who don’t. There is only one right way to interpret the world—according to the ideas the fundamentalist believes to be true—and a million wrong ways.
The fundamental attitude of all fundamentalists is to take everything way too seriously and way too personally and way too literally. The untrammeled imagination is taboo. Correct belief is the only virtue. Every fundamentalist is committed to waging war against the imagination unless the imagination is enslaved to his or her belief system.
And here’s the bad news: Like almost everyone in the world, each of us has our own share of the fundamentalist virus. It may not be as virulent and dangerous to the collective welfare as, say, the fundamentalism of Islamic terrorists or right-wing Christian politicians or CEOs who act as if making a financial profit is the supreme good or scientists who deny the existence of the large part of reality that’s imperceptible to the five senses.
But still: We are infected, you and I, with fundamentalism. What are we going to do about it?
I say we practice taking everything less seriously and less personally and less literally. I suggest we administer plentiful doses of healing mischief, friendly shocks, compassionate tricks, blasphemous reverence, holy pranks, and crazy wisdom.
Amen Brother!
This Third Way blessing has been excerpted from "Welcome Home" by Rob Brezsny: http://www.freewillastrology.com/beauty/
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program ...
-
hester_prynne
Put the fun back in fundamentalism? That is, if you've allowed it to be taken it out.
The fundamentalist in me won't be diverted from this grave issue of being lied to by the very government that is supposed to serve me, and having to further sit in the shit it is continuously allowed to create, at my expense. The murders, the personal agendas, the disregard for humanity, the huge imbalance of justice in favor of greed.
Yes, I am, and will remain, fundamentally opposed to this kind of conduct.
My life is more authentic now than it ever was.
Sure, it's new, this poverty, this neediness, this constant worry about the rent, the food, my daughter's education and future, the plight of we human beings, taken hostage and being pillaged by my government in it's fundamental exclusion of love for power. I'm not taking it well. No.
It will grieve me always.
But life is more real now, and I know this deep down. I will be very happy about it in time too, when I figure out how to survive in this new, and I think wonderful, less-conditioned, less lied-to, less fundamentally influenced, less taken for granted place I've landed in. I'm lost now, but I will find a way. Just feeling this is progress for me.
What's not about me, is this war, this injustice. It's going on around me, in my name and there is nothing I can do to stop it. But I can learn from it, and try to live well within, yet outside it. And I will keep on speaking my mind in protest until this government is gone.
In fact, right now, right here, I hereby pledge my unallegiance back at BUSHCO. In their very faces, eye to eye. After all, they waffled first.
And that, is my fundamental truth,
albeit,
it's a truth percieved these days, as a prank or mischeviousness, as hysteria or dramatics, i.e. something not very fundamentalist at all.
"Love is all I want for mother nature and us.
The rest is just a big fat bummerly diversion", she said, fundamentalistically.
H
H
The fundamentalist in me won't be diverted from this grave issue of being lied to by the very government that is supposed to serve me, and having to further sit in the shit it is continuously allowed to create, at my expense. The murders, the personal agendas, the disregard for humanity, the huge imbalance of justice in favor of greed.
Yes, I am, and will remain, fundamentally opposed to this kind of conduct.
My life is more authentic now than it ever was.
Sure, it's new, this poverty, this neediness, this constant worry about the rent, the food, my daughter's education and future, the plight of we human beings, taken hostage and being pillaged by my government in it's fundamental exclusion of love for power. I'm not taking it well. No.
It will grieve me always.
But life is more real now, and I know this deep down. I will be very happy about it in time too, when I figure out how to survive in this new, and I think wonderful, less-conditioned, less lied-to, less fundamentally influenced, less taken for granted place I've landed in. I'm lost now, but I will find a way. Just feeling this is progress for me.
What's not about me, is this war, this injustice. It's going on around me, in my name and there is nothing I can do to stop it. But I can learn from it, and try to live well within, yet outside it. And I will keep on speaking my mind in protest until this government is gone.
In fact, right now, right here, I hereby pledge my unallegiance back at BUSHCO. In their very faces, eye to eye. After all, they waffled first.
And that, is my fundamental truth,
albeit,
it's a truth percieved these days, as a prank or mischeviousness, as hysteria or dramatics, i.e. something not very fundamentalist at all.
"Love is all I want for mother nature and us.
The rest is just a big fat bummerly diversion", she said, fundamentalistically.
H
H
-
Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
"Healing Mischief" is a great antidote to taking yourself too seriously, Deb, and that's what the Nixon/Ellington picture is about.
We also might try this fundamentalist:
http://www.subgenius.com/
Make sure to try some of "Bob's" links.
--Z
We also might try this fundamentalist:
http://www.subgenius.com/
Make sure to try some of "Bob's" links.
--Z
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests