America Deserves George Bush

That's right. America deserves George W. Bush the way people who jog through Central Park at two in the morning deserve to be mugged. You should know better, but you don't. Half of you plainly prefer George Bush to John Kerry. Not just prefer -- you actually like him. Even you disenfranchised, out-of-work, lower-middle class, blue-collar Joe Somebodys like George Bush because he's "tough on defense." He's convinced you that John Kerry wouldn't be able (or willing) to defend this country if it were attacked.

And there is the first lie and the biggest deception. Bush has successfully made Americans fear that we're constantly on the brink of being attacked. We're obsessed with it. Though we know that if it does happen, it will likely be the bombing of a train station or poisoning of a subway system, or something like that; it's not as though hoards of Arabs are going to be in Jersey or parachuting into Nebraska. What Americans forget is that this sort of thing happens almost every day in Israel. Not that it wouldn't be tragic. Hundreds of innocent people would likely be killed.

But if it did happen, what exactly would George Bush do about it that John Kerry wouldn't do? Invade another country? He might. Iran is ripe. And Bush is right about one thing: John Kerry would not start a war if there were a terrorist attack in this country. For one thing, Terrorism (yeah, with a capital T) has no country. Afghanistan didn't slam planes into the World Trade Towers on 9.11.2001. Osama bin-Laden did. The fact that he happened to be in Afghanistan -- and that the Taliban were bad people -- sort of justified the war there. I say "sort of." What I mean is that at least it was somewhat logical. But that's a whole other mess.

The point is, Bush has America believing that John Kerry would just stand idly by if we were attacked. But I ask again: if al-Qaeda slammed a Boeing 767 into the White House tomorrow, what exactly would we be able to do in response to that action? What country would Bush invade this time?

Bush makes a big deal of Kerry saying that Iraq is a diversion; that it has nothing to do with the war on Terror. And Bush says that it shows Kerry's misunderstanding of the challenge we're facing.

But Kerry has it exactly right. There were no Terrorists in Iraq until we invaded it. Oh, there were a few here and there. But Iraq was not the source of al-Qaeda or bin Laden. As awful as Saddam Hussein was, he was not a Terrorist. He ruled with terror, yes: but Iraq wasn't a Terrorist state -- it was a Stalinist state. And it was on the brink of self-destruction and -- we know now -- posed no threat to us whatsoever. But, Bush says, Saddam might have sold weapons to Terrorists. We still had to take him out. Well, so what? There are any number of countries not only selling weapons to Terrorists, but actively financing and sheltering them. Iraq just didn't happen to be one of those countries.

So yes: John Kerry would not rush to war if we were attacked. That's because there's no one to go to war with in the traditional sense. Kerry would do what Bush should be doing: concentrate on finding bin Laden and other Terrorist leaders. Kerry would concentrate on making our borders safer. He would improve our relations with other countries in the world whose help we need in hunting down what Terrorists we can find. Kerry would not send thousands of our young men and women to die and be maimed in a senseless war (which has also taken the lives of at least 20,000 other human beings who, being Iraqis, don't merit headline treatment).

The simple fact is that there really isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do to defend ourselves against a Terrorist attack. It's not like having missile-defense systems or Star Wars space defenses to keep us from being nuked. Terrorism works insidiously and randomly. It is practised by groups of individuals from myriad different countries. It flies no national flag and has no borders.

But you people don't stop to think about any of this. Half of you are caught up in a neo-nationalism that doesn't allow us to consider for a moment that our soldier's lives have been wasted. There has to be some high moral purpose. And so you kid yourselves into believing that George W. Bush's taking us into Iraq was the Right Thing. Even if Saddam wasn't responsible for 9.11, he was a Bad Man. Well, fine. Call it that. But it doesn't change the fact that this war was a mistake, that soldiers have died through-out the centuries for mistakes, and this isn't even the first mistake that our soldiers have had to die for. It doesn't lessen the honor of our soldier's deaths. Soldiers do what they do and they often die doing it. Mistake or no mistake, a soldier always dies with honor. But that doesn't mean that what he died for was the right thing or even worthwhile. It only means he did his duty and acted honorably. He did his job.

The other half of you are stupid. I don't mean stupid in a smart-ass, insulting sense. I mean sincerely that you are stupid people. And let me distinguish your stupidity from mere ignorance. Ignorant people lack knowledge through no fault of their own. They're simply not aware of certain bits of knowledge or were raised in a manner that precluded them from obtaining more information than they have. Ignorant people are willing to change their condition and better themselves. Stupid people choose to be stupid. They have no interest in knowing the facts. They tend to prefer to believe in certain false ideologies because it suits the way they and their family and their neighbors live. Stupid people have access to the proper facts, but refuse to even consider them. They choose to believe things based on what their parents, friends, and ministers tell them.

Stupid people make up about 35% of the American populace. You base your knowledge on what's popular or comfortable -- not on what's true. All the truth you need is in a little black book written 2000 years ago (even though most of you have never actually read it, and 11% of you can't read it). There is strength and comfort in numbers. You'll swallow any shit because, after all, a million flies can't be wrong. You're incapable of seeing through George W. Bush's lies because you lack not only the ability, but the ambition to reason. You're the heart of America's pioneer and puritan tradition, fly the flag, have yellow ribbons wrapped around your trees, NRA bumper-stickers on your pick-ups and minivans, and raise nice but dull kids who'll grow up to be even more stupid than you. In ancient Roman parliance, you are The Mob.

You're not worried about losing your civil liberties because you don't realize you have any.

So if George W. Bush gets re-elected President, then this country deserves whatever happens to it. Which will mostly be a reduction not only of jobs and personal freedom, but of our young people's lives as they go off to fight in support of our new Imperialist policies (that so far haven't made us the least bit safer from Terrorism).

FBI Intimidation Almost as Scary as Chris Matthews

The Justice Department has renewed its late-60s practice of sending the FBI out to visit our own citizens at their homes if they've ever participated in a political protest or march. Why? Adam Eidinger, a political activist, was on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews last night, and he had the naiveté to suggest that the FBI was doing this to intimidate people.

Chris Matthews asked why "hardened Lefties" should be afraid of the FBI.

Is he serious? Did I accidentally click over to the FOX channel? Ohmigod, noooooo!

In an age where our government can put you in jail for the flimsiest reason it cares to come up with, so long as the words "national security" are in there somewhere . . . where you may have no access to counsel and no reasonable guarantee that you'll see your friends or family again for months or years . . . and Matthews asks why someone should be afraid? How much more do we need to know about the United States' "detention" centers to not be at least somewhat concerned if the FBI were to show up on our doorsteps, even if we hadn't done anything wrong? You see, under the Patriot Act, you don't have to have done anything wrong. Most of these protesters are college students, kids just out of high school. They're not politically sophisticated nor "hardened Lefties." (At least, not yet.) Of course they'd be scared. And you better believe that John Ashcroft knows this.

Of course, the Justice Department says that the FBI is just doing its job, trying to protect American citizens from acts of terror and violence. But what kind of top-notch investigation is going on when four FBI agents plus two or three uniformed police officers walk right up to your door, knock, and then ask point blank, "Are you planning any acts of violence at the upcoming Republican convention in New York City?"

What's the person going to say? "Yes, I'll be bringing the plastic containers, and my girlfriend is bringing the fertilizer."

This tactic has no obvious value for gathering intelligence. It's an old trick, used for intimidation purposes only. Period.

But I guess I'm the naive one here. I honestly used to think that the Bush administration would content itself with using the Patriot Act to chase down terrorists. But when I heard that the FBI was visiting ordinary Americans just because they had participated in a protest or attended a rally, I was actually -- well, not surprised, but startled. Silly me.

I also thought that this was something that someone like Chris Matthews would find disturbing. But I was wrong about that, too.

Matthews used to be a fairly astute journalist, but now he's become a parody of himself -- only not as funny as when Saturday Night Live does him. His rapid-fire style of questioning used to be used to keep spin doctors off balance, but now he uses it indiscriminately on everyone. I wonder why he bothers when he doesn't seem to care about the answers he gets? The idea seems to be to ask as many questions as possible in the space of two or three minutes, because this makes it look as though you've got an aggressive interviewing style. I read through the Hardball transcripts for the show (Monday, August 16), but stopped counting after he'd interrupted Eidinger 33 times. And that was within the space of less than three minutes.

(Oh, and Mr Matthews, I don't care if you have "been doing this every night": the entire world did not think that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. You and your brood may have thought so, but only because you didn't have the cojones or the good common sense to question the Bush administration's "evidence" at the time. You just took his word for it. You could stand to cultivate a little more humility (if not responsibility). I remember the day you sat with your cronies discussing how terrific George Bush looked in his flight jacket after he'd landed on the deck of that aircraft carrier.)

The media can't be counted on anymore. At least not anyone on television. You can count the number of serious network/cable news journalists on one hand and still have enough fingers left to tie your shoes.

We need to wake up, folks.

Bush Administration Blows Cover of al Qaeda Operative

Ann Coulter is often fond of characterizing Liberals as traitors to their country -- simply because they're Democrats and not Republicans, I gather. I wonder how she feels about some of those inside the Bush administration who have committed actual acts of treason, such as leaking the names of under-cover CIA agents, thus seriously compromising not only their cover, but their lives -- and the most recent outrage: Bush administration officials gave reporters the name of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, al Qaeda's computer/Internet guru who was captured by the Pakistanis -- but who was actually a double-agent, still cooperating with Pakistani authorities as part of a sting operation against Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. Khan led authorities to a key al Qaeda figure and sent e-mails to terrorists so investigators could trace their locations, which resulted in the capture of 20 al Qaeda suspects and numerous raids in Great Britain.

But all of that was squandered by Bush officials in an effort to blow their own horn and to score political brownie points. The CIA has tried -- and failed -- for years to get an undercover operative inside al Qaeda -- but after we finally secure one, the Republicans blow it.

This is the administration that claims to be the best bet for combating terrorism and keeping American's safe. And yet they're quite willing to expose undercover agents simply to settle petty political scores, or to gain brownie points.

We can easily predict how Ms Coulter (who makes Twiggy look like Mama Cass) would view the exposure of Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, since it was another well-known Conservative, Robert Novak, who published her name in his syndicated column -- even after the CIA advised him not to do so. But if Ms Coulter finds herself at a loss for words to characterize the (at best) gross incompetence of the Bush administration for blowing the cover of a long-desired operative inside al Qaeda, let me suggest one for her: treason.

Thirteen O'clock in America, or IngCon Prolefeed Watch

It was a bright cold day in April and the clocks were striking thirteen.

George Orwell
1984.

An extremely disturbing trend of late (the past three years, that is) is the increased hostility toward and labeling of critics of the Bush administration -- or any of its policies -- as unpatriotic, leftist anarchists, and a characterization of the criticism as something akin to treason which somehow undermines the endeavors of our troops in Iraq. This is nothing new, of course, since the exact same thing happened in Bush 41's administration (where by a curious coincidence Donald Rumsfeld was a notable presence).

I won't argue the right of every American citizen to free speech, since this is supposed to be a well-established right (and not a privilege). But this subtle attempt to curb free speech is only part of a systematic effort to erode our civil liberties, with the ultimate threat being the so-called Patriot Act.

Notice how the Right cleverly employs its nomenclature -- the Patriot Act -- so that the very name carries with it the implication that anyone who would oppose its strictures must therefore be unpatriotic.

Watching all of the heavily armed soldiers running around the streets of New York, Boston, and Washington recently, I can't help but note that our open society no longer seems quite so open anymore. I understand the need for security, but the simple fact is that shutting down the country behind barbed wire is too eerily reminiscent of another society that we used to automatically associate with the same repressive displays of a conspicuous military presence.