Us presidential election 2004

[Warin 0]

But Michael Moore isn't a Republican or Democratic politician that's tossed out a one liner fib on some 30 second news spot.

Versus the appologists who take all of the lies and half truths that flow from the White House and the Bushites and eat it up with a spoon?

So if Bush lies and those lies form the basis of an illegal invasion that kills thousands of people, it's ok... But if Michael Moore engages in a similiar distortion of the truth to get people to open their eyes a little and look at the bull they have been fed, he's somehow morally reprehensible?

There are a lot more lies from the Bushites than a mere one liner fib on a 30 second news spot. And more evil and knowing lies than anything Moore could concoct. And that's ok with you, Avon? I am not being sarcastic...I really want to know...

[theavonlady 2]

There are a lot more lies from the Bushites than a mere one liner fib on a 30 second news spot.  And more evil and knowing lies than anything Moore could concoct.  And that's ok with you, Avon?  I am not being sarcastic...I really want to know...

No. There are lies. There are also blunders - big ones by this administration but continued ones by past administrations as well. There are also excuses given by this administration that don't pass inspection by anyone reading into them for more than 2 minutes.

The press does an excellent job of revealing such things but sometimes goes way overboard in their agendas and slants(right/left/top/bottom/center).

I don't believe that the US went into Iraq to siphon off the oil.

I do believe that the Bush administration really though that Iraq was a serious potential threat, just as the Clinton administration before them thought the same.

I don't believe 95% of the conspiracies that are concocted on strings of unrelated facts that are patched together and sold as truth. The article BillyBob pointed out shows mnay examples why?

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

And it`s because this dodgy statements 47% of Americans full hearthedly belived Saddam took part in the orchestrating of the 9/11 attacks.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]And it`s because this dodgy statements 47% of Americans full hearthedly belived Saddam took part in the orchestrating of the 9/11 attacks.

Dodgy?

Quote[/b] ]

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

I'm now confused....

jeez 4:19AM...

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Dodgy?

Yeah because on such an important issue instead of making a firm truthful statement dissmising Saddam`s connection with 9/11,Rice indirectly is blaming his regime idelogy for leading the people to drive airplanes in WTC and that coupled with constant Bush`s rants implying long established ties with Al-Queda is what led to such a misinformated population.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

And it`s because this dodgy statements 47% of Americans full hearthedly belived Saddam took part in the orchestrating of the 9/11 attacks.

I do not see how the particular statement is dodgy. And you English is excellent enough to be able to see that clearly ;)

But I do think it's time we look at the polls again and see exactly what they say and not what they've warped into over the last 2 years.

I hope everyone agrees that Harris Polls are a relatively reliable source, as much as polls are reliable. Note the dates:

Quote[/b] ]

THE HARRIS POLL® #46 September 19, 2001

Who and What is to Blame

The administration tells us that they believe that Osama bin Laden is behind the attacks and most people believe he was. No poll has shown large numbers believing, as yet, that any specific countries or governments supported or helped plan the attacks. However, that could change overnight if such charges are made.

One poll, (The Los Angeles Times) reports a plurality believing that the attack was "a direct result of U.S. policy of intervention around the world" and a majority believing the attack "was a direct result of U.S. policy in the Middle East."

Half the public blames poor airport security "a great deal," far more than blame the FBI, the CIA or the federal government.

Quote[/b] ]The Harris Poll® #6, January 31, 2003

"Do you think there is a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda?"

Base: All adults

Total  %

There is a close link 29

There is some link 49

There is no link 6

Don’t know 16

"Which one of these aims, if any, do you personally think would best justify military action against Iraq?"

Total  %

To eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction 22

To overthrow Saddam Hussein 21

To uphold international law and the authority of the United Nations 18

To bring freedom and democracy to Iraq 10

There are no valid reasons for military action 8

To defeat the Al Qaeda terrorist group 7

To secure and control oil supplies from the Middle East 3

None of these 5

Don’t know 6

49% said there is some link. Some? That's a big 4 letter word. I agree there is "some" link. Recent 9/11 Commission investigations also concur there is some link.

But indeed, 29%, slightly less than one out of 3 respondents, said there was a strong link. But what was this based on? Government issued statements? Ambiguities? Yes but not in the Rice statement. Here's how all the confusion likely unfolded:

Bush Contradicted On Iraq & al Qaeda? Or not?.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]To uphold international law and the authority of the United Nations 10%

Quote[/b] ]I do not see how the particular statement is dodgy. And you English is excellent enough to be able to see that clearly ;

It claims a tie that is as solid as 9/11 connection with North Korea.

Now why is that when the American population were desperatly in need of a firm truthful statement to dismiss the unprooven connection.

Quote[/b] ]Bush Contradicted On Iraq & al Qaeda? Or not?.

Quote[/b] ]"Saddam Hussein AIDS and PROTECTS terrorists, INCLUDING members of al Qaeda." Vice President Cheney said " ...struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . . "

With this in my mind I was laughing my way trough the entire article until I`ve read this at the bottom:

Quote[/b] ]...documents indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaeda.

Only..

<a href="http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1968794" target="_blank">CIA casts doubt on Iraqi militia tie with Al

Qaeda</a>

Quote[/b] ][John Lehman, a Republican member of the Sept. 11 commission, says new intelligence and captured documents suggest an officer in Saddam Hussein's militia was present at an al Qaeda summit in 2000 that was also attended by two of the Sept. 11 hijackers. CIA officials say they examined the evidence long ago and concluded the documents do not refer to the same man. Hear NPR's Mary Louise Kelly.

See how every single rope they try to hang on are breakig loose one by one?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Hope I am not anoying Ms Avon now cause she always responds so humorously to my confused messages..

anyhow.

If you want to make a semi realistic comparison (comparison does not mean setting equal, it means contrasting, nothing else)

try the former german law for the "Schutz von Volk und Staat" and compare it with the patriot act. You would drop your pants right now in astonishment if you would see the similarities.

Okay someone could argue that a tighter control LOGICALLY implies a certain restriction of personal rights and liberties.

Both laws were implemented to oppose terorists. In the case of the US those terorists are brutal murderes and in case of Nazi germany those people were everyday communstic politicians who fought their battle only with words.

One law was issued to monopolise power and surpress counterforces, the other was made to ensure a better home-security.

BUT, the risks remain the same from one law to the other:

"Abuse of power". Not every employee involved in national protection might be a person who thinks and judges objectively. Maybe one or the other chief at the airport might have lost relatives on 911 and I doubt he is emotionally capable to surpress anger and grief. But the airport is not the only field of action.

We all know of the incidencts when business travellers or students with arabic (or not) were kept in custody for WEEKS. Others ended up in Guantanamo (if they had strong islamic involvements).

The new laws leave it up to the staff to judge what are wise and unwise actions. Abuse is the logical consequence.

And lets admit it openly, we all somehow would be afraid to have to go through a US passport control, not because of strict guards but because of fear to be pulled aside and then it is up to their mercy what happens to us.

[theavonlady 2]

try the former german law for the "Schutz von Volk und Staat" and compare it with the patriot act. You would drop your pants right now in astonishment if you would see the similarities.

This is where you and I differ.

I'm wearing a skirt.

Other than that, though, of course there are concerns about the Patriot Act and potentials for abuse of power.

Even though the threats are now much more complex, do you have a comparison of the Patriot Act versus US WWII wartime laws and acts that were then implemented?

[denoir 0]

Worship of the state:

I do not know any fellow American's that "worship" the state.

Quote[/b] ]Indoctrination of children:

I do not know any fellow American's who have "indoctrinated" their children or whose children have been "indoctrinated".

Quote[/b] ]Worship of the founders:

I do not know any Americans who "worship" the founding fathers.

Quote[/b] ]Worship of the leaders:

I do not know any Americans who "worship" its leaders.

Quote[/b] ]Blatant nationalism:

I have seen Americans who are "very" nationalistic and there are those that are "blatantly" nationalistic.

Quote[/b] ]Militarism:

In times of war and crisis, I see nothing wrong with supporting our troops, which you oddly define as "militarism". Expressing gratitude is an elementary human trait of kindness and decency, maybe lacking in people like you. And in case you don't know it, the vast majority of Americans are beaching and picknicking on Memorial Day. The holdiay's purpose and meaning is mostly lost, thought it has regained some of that in the last few years because of the current conflicts.

Quote[/b] ]Validation by absolutes:

God will be an absolute to anyone who is a believer, whether in America, Sweden or North Korea. You're an absolute secularist, comrade. Much closer to the Soviets, IMO.

Quote[/b] ]Intolerance to any criticism of the things listed above:

Any critcism? Silly. BTW, you are anti-American or do you forbid me from saying that.

Thank you Avon This is exactly what I expected as a response - a flat out denial and conveniently skipping the actual examples. It serves very well to validate my point of blind following.

I'll post my original post here for comparison of what was written and what you picked out to flatly deny:

I'm talking about style and form. America's style today is the equivalent of Europe's in the 1930's, specifically of authoritarian regimes such as the Soviet Stalinism and Nazism.

I'm not saying that America is an authoritarian regime, but I say that it has clear similarities in style and form. And it's across the political spectrum. I'll give you a few examples:

Worship of the state:

America: the constitution, the republic

Soviet: the socialist republic

Nazi-Germany: ein volk, ein land...

Indoctrination of children:

America: Pledge of allegiance

Soviet: Pledge of allegiance (unlike America, it was voluntary for the "pioneers")

Nazi-Germany:  Pledge of allegiance (unlike America, it was voluntary for the "Hitler Jugend")

Worship of the founders:

America: founding fathers

Soviet: Lenin & the Bolsheviks

Nazi-Germany: Hitler

Worship of the leaders:

America: President - (hail to the chief, air force one, "the prez" etc - related to the office rather than the person

Soviet: Stalin and Lenin, but afterwards not really

Nazi-Germany: Der Führer

Blatant nationalism:

America: excessive flag waving, singing the anthem at just about any event etc

Soviet: same as above

Nazi-Germany: Same as above

Militarism:

America: Everything from the unison "we support our troops" to the various holidays devoted to expressing "gratitude" to veterans of past wars to the integration of the defence industry into almost every part of the industrial core of the country. Plus air shows, movies etc etc etc

Soviet: Military parades, military integrated into the industrial core of the country

Nazi-Germany: all of the above

Validation by absolutes:

America: God

Soviet: The proletariat/the workers

Nazi-Germany: the arian race

Intolerance to any criticism of the things listed above:

America: Accusing people, both domestic and foreign of being "anti-American" or "un-American"

Soviet: anti-Soviet or "against the People of the Soviet Union"

Germany: "undeutsch"

===========================================

Do you understand now what I'm talking about? I'm not saying that USA is about to open Gulags and concentration camps. What I'm saying is that America is drawing its rethorics, style and form from the principles of the "strong nation state" model as was popular starting in the 19th century until the end of WW2. It caused a shitload of trouble in Europe and as a consequence the world.

Two world wars were started because of that kind of shit. In the two wars Europe saw the apocalyptic consequences of having that kind of states; America did not. A second turning point was IMO in the late 60's, early 70's with the big social revolutions around the world. The "hippies" never won anywhere really, but in Europe they made an impact, while in America the conservative forces prevailed.

Perhaps with Bush, Americans will come  to see things differently. He is a perfect example of a nationalistic facade without any substance. His popularity comes not from what he achieves, but in how much he waves a flag and tells how great America is. And through the nationalism, facilitated by an external attacks, he slices away the constitutional rights that your people claim to hold so dear (Gitmo, Patriot Act etc), without anybody really objecting.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Do you understand now what I'm talking about?

Yes. Like a ridiculous piece of Soviet era anti-American propaganda piece to the masses, you use exagerations and vitriol to fabricate a portrait of the US that paints an absurdly false picture, equating it to no less than Nazi Germany.

Ah, yes, typical Soviet era propaganda where I compare America to the Soviet Union. That's exactly what Stalin used to do.

Quote[/b] ]

You sound more the indoctrinated brainwashed drone out of a relic communist country than I could imagine would exist in a "free" and "open-minded" Europe.

Another beautiful piece that validates my "Intolerance" point. Very intereresting from a psychological point of view. I mean, I've debated with you enough to know that you are not stupid - you are capable of thinking rationally. Yet here something is short-circuted and you run full speed into a wall. The text quoted above has basically nothing to do with my statement - it's just a bunch of insults thrown together without any logic or reason. And you provide an elegant direct proof of what I said.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe bad European habits die hard:

"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things." - Adolph Hitler

That's just it. America has taken over Europe's old bad habits. The "crudest and most stupid things" is flag waving, nationalism etc

Again, thanks for helping me illustrate my point

[walker 0]

Hi all

The NeoConMen's attempt to use the church rosters as an adjunct for the Bush/Cheney election campaign has backfired badly with their actions alienating many in the The Southern Baptist Convention, a conservative denomination.

Quote[/b] ]Baptists angry at Bush campaign tactics

NASHVILLE (AP) — The Southern Baptist Convention, a conservative denomination closely aligned with President Bush, said it was offended by the Bush-Cheney campaign's effort to use church rosters for campaign purposes.

"I'm appalled that the Bush-Cheney campaign would intrude on a local congregation in this way," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

"The bottom line is, when a church does it, it's nonpartisan and appropriate. When a campaign does it, it's partisan and inappropriate," he said. "I suspect that this will rub a lot of pastors' fur the wrong way."

The Bush campaign defended a memo in which it sought to mobilize church members by providing church directories to the campaign, arranging for pastors to hold voter-registration drives, and talking to various religious groups about the campaign.

Other religious organizations also criticized the document as inappropriate, suggesting that it could jeopardize churches' tax-exempt status by involving them in partisan politics.

http://www.usatoday.com/news....t_x.htm

Yet another case of the NeoConMen not so much shooting them selves in the foot as hacking their foot off with several blows of blunt axe.

The ineptitude and lack of solid moral fibre of the NeoConMen's politics has plagued the Bush/Cheney un-Presidency right from the begining; from the fixed elections, through economic disaster of the debt ridden budgets and record unemployment to the failure on watch with 9/11 sitting there unable to function reading about goats and the fantasy enemies attacked, while the real ones walk free all in all the Bush/Cheney un-Presidency has been an unmitigated disaster.

The US needs a real leader like J. F. Kerry.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

Remember it is important to vote in this election it is the only chance you have in the US to effect the politics for the next four years.

Quote[/b] ]Millennial teens show interest in voting

VERONA, Wis. (AP) — They've gotten pregnant less often than teens of recent decades, are less likely to smoke or do illegal drugs, and have an interest in volunteering and public service. Now signs are cropping up that the nation's youngest young adults are bucking another trend: They're taking an interest in voting.

"It's important to us. What happens in this election is going to affect our generation," says 18-year-old Katie Brew, who filled out a registration form shortly before graduating from Verona High School, just outside Madison.

About to head to the University of Nebraska for her freshman year, Brew is most worried about the potential for a draft. Others say the threat of terrorism and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have motivated them to get involved.

"We've been through things like 9-11 and the war on Iraq — all that junk. So we want to have a say," says 18-year-old Mia Georgeson, another newly registered voter from Verona High who's about to join the National Guard Army band as a percussionist.

Recent surveys of youth — most often college students — have provided conflicting data about the level of interest in the upcoming presidential election.

http://www.usatoday.com/news....e_x.htm

Here is the important stuff these are the things you need to know so you can help decide who will run the USA.

Quote[/b] ]Register to Vote!

Remember you can only effect the US leaders by Registering to Vote.

Get your official national Voter registration forms from this link here:

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/vr.htm

That is the form that allows you to decide who will be the next president and vice president of the USA. In a democracy it is your only real power. Use it.

Please Note the Following Exceptions:

* New Hampshire town and city clerks will accept this application only as a request for their own mail-in absentee voter registration form.

* North Dakota does not have voter registration.

* Wyoming cannot accept this form under State law.

Here is where you can rgister to vote

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/where_can_i_register_to_vote02.htm

Quote[/b] ]Registration applications may be obtained from either the local election official in your county or city, or through registration outreach programs sponsored by such groups as the League of Women Voters.  In addition, you can also register to vote when applying for a driver’s license or identity card at State DMV or driver's licensing offices, State offices providing public assistance, State offices providing State-funded programs for the disabled, and at armed forces recruitment offices.

Many States also offer registration opportunities at public libraries, post offices, unemployment offices, and at public high schools and universities. Colleges, universities, and trade schools participating in federal student loan programs also offer voter registration applications to enrolled students prior to general elections.

FAQs about using the National Voter Registration form

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/faqs_about_national_mail_form02.htm

Time is getting short.

The deadlines for registration in some states are fast aproaching Register to Vote now

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/state_voter_reg_deadlines02.htm

Kind Regards Walker

[mr_rOk 0]

Does anyone has an approximate figure how much "the war on terror" costs these days? In the crusade times whole kingdom would have to pay special tax!

And about the 9/11 mentality.

How many times did the US veto anything that wasn't up Israel's alley!

I'm not taking sides here, don't get me wrong, but that has to leave a mark on the normal arab who reads in his daily newspaper "US puts a veto on a Palestinian attempt to condemn the wall...again!" etc

No wonder so many decide to blow themselves up for the "greater good of islam"=>however perverted idea of islam they might have.

But for the record, if I would be in Ariel Sharon's place the Palestinians would be transported in ox-wagons out of Israel!!! I would give them no land, land for which Israelis have fought at least twice.

Of course this is not the solution 'cos there will always be this arab mentality that the Westerners and the Jews want to prevale.

Which probably isn't far off the truth...

But on a side note, there should be no room on this planet for people who abduct and decapitate other people. I wish i was Paul Bremmer=>there would be order or there would be death!!!

@ denoir:

I too couldn't help noticing the excessive patriotism that is being displayed over the the past few years.

American people are slowly being brainwashed by the administration, the acceptance of the patriot act is a fine example=>in my country the government would probably fall if something like this happened, not in an election; the opposition would simply muster up enough votes for a referendum on accepting/refusal of the law, if the opposition would win a no trust vote would be passed through and suddenly people would be shifting sides trying to get to the best position before all the seats were taken.

I remember reading an interview with an american journalist who said that this administration has kept them in the dark about almost everything, that they operate completely untransparently (Halliburton for example, how come a company which is owned by a democrat didn't get the deal)

That's really not the point, the point is I was dreaming about Miami when I would be rusty and old, and as long as you have that moron in office Miami is off the list.

I feel sorry for you Americans if you reelect GWB. All of you doubters should see the Michael Moore movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" or read the book by Craig Unger "Bushes court, Saud's court".

The book especially is an eye opener!

[denoir 0]

Here's an interesting critique of Fahrenheit 911 - attacked from the left:

Quote[/b] ]

Stupid White Movie

What Michael Moore Misses About the Empire [CounterPunch]

By ROBERT JENSEN

I have been defending Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" from the criticism in mainstream and conservative circles that the film is leftist propaganda. Nothing could be further from the truth; there is very little left critique in the movie. In fact, it's hard to find any coherent critique in the movie at all.

The sad truth is that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a bad movie, but not for the reasons it is being attacked in the dominant culture. It's at times a racist movie. And the analysis that underlies the film's main political points is either dangerously incomplete or virtually incoherent.

But, most important, it's a conservative movie that ends with an endorsement of one of the central lies of the United States, which should warm the hearts of the right-wingers who condemn Moore. And the real problem is that many left/liberal/progressive people are singing the film's praises, which should tell us something about the impoverished nature of the left in this country.

I say all this not to pick at small points or harp on minor flaws. These aren't minor points of disagreement but fundamental questions of analysis and integrity. But before elaborating on that, I want to talk about what the film does well.

The good stuff

First, Moore highlights the disenfranchisement of primarily black voters in Florida in the 2000 election, a political scandal that the mainstream commercial news media in the United States has largely ignored. The footage of a joint session of Congress in which Congressional Black Caucus members can't get a senator to sign their letter to allow floor debate about the issue (a procedural requirement) is a powerful indictment not only of the Republicans who perpetrated the fraud but the Democratic leadership that refused to challenge it.

Moore also provides a sharp critique of U.S. military recruiting practices, with some amazing footage of recruiters cynically at work scouring low-income areas for targets, whom are disproportionately non-white. The film also effectively takes apart the Bush administration's use of fear tactics after 9/11 to drive the public to accept its war policies.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" also does a good job of showing war's effects on U.S. soldiers; we see soldiers dead and maimed, and we see how contemporary warfare deforms many of them psychologically as well. And the film pays attention to the victims of U.S. wars, showing Iraqis both before the U.S. invasion and after in a way that humanizes them rather than uses them as props.

The problem is that these positive elements don't add up to a good film. It's a shame that Moore's talent and flair for the dramatic aren't put in the service of a principled, clear analysis that could potentially be effective at something beyond defeating George W. Bush in 2004.

Subtle racism

How dare I describe as racist a movie that highlights the disenfranchisement of black voters and goes after the way in which military recruiters chase low-income minority youth? My claim is not that Moore is an overt racist, but that the movie unconsciously replicates a more subtle racism, one that we all have to struggle to resist.

First, there is one segment that invokes the worst kind of ugly-American nativism, in which Moore mocks the Bush administration's "coalition of the willing," the nations it lined up to support the invasion of Iraq. Aside from Great Britain there was no significant military support from other nations and no real coalition, which Moore is right to point out. But when he lists the countries in the so-called coalition, he uses images that have racist undertones. To depict the Republic of Palau (a small Pacific island nation), Moore chooses an image of stereotypical "native" dancers, while a man riding on an animal-drawn cart represents Costa Rica. Pictures of monkeys running are on the screen during a discussion of Morocco's apparent offer to send monkeys to clear landmines. To ridicule the Bush propaganda on this issue, Moore uses these images and an exaggerated voice-over in a fashion that says, in essence, "What kind of coalition is it that has these backward countries?" Moore might argue that is not his intention, but intention is not the only question; we all are responsible for how we tap into these kinds of stereotypes.

More subtle and important is Moore's invocation of a racism in which solidarity between dominant whites and non-white groups domestically can be forged by demonizing the foreign "enemy," which these days has an Arab and South Asian face. For example, in the segment about law-enforcement infiltration of peace groups, the camera pans the almost exclusively white faces (I noticed one Asian man in the scene) in the group Peace Fresno and asks how anyone could imagine these folks could be terrorists. There is no consideration of the fact that Arab and Muslim groups that are equally dedicated to peace have to endure routine harassment and constantly prove that they weren't terrorists, precisely because they weren't white.

The other example of political repression that "Fahrenheit 9/11" offers is the story of Barry Reingold, who was visited by FBI agents after making critical remarks about Bush and the war while working out at a gym in Oakland. Reingold, a white retired phone worker, was not detained or charged with a crime; the agents questioned him and left. This is the poster child for repression? In a country where hundreds of Arab, South Asian and Muslim men were thrown into secret detention after 9/11, this is the case Moore chooses to highlight? The only reference in the film to those detentions post-9/11 is in an interview with a former FBI agent about Saudis who were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11, in which it appears that Moore mentions those detentions only to contrast the kid-gloves treatment that privileged Saudi nationals allegedly received.

When I made this point to a friend, he defended Moore by saying the filmmaker was trying to reach a wide audience that likely is mostly white and probably wanted to use examples that those people could connect with. So, it's acceptable to pander to the white audience members and over-dramatize their limited risks while ignoring the actual serious harm done to non-white people? Could not a skilled filmmaker tell the story of the people being seriously persecuted in a way that non-Arab, non-South Asian, non-Muslims could empathize with?

Bad analysis

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is strong on tapping into emotions and raising questions about why the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, but it is extremely weak on answering those questions in even marginally coherent fashion. To the degree the film has a thesis, it appears to be that the wars were a product of the personal politics of a corrupt Bush dynasty. I agree the Bush dynasty is corrupt, but the analysis the film offers is both internally inconsistent, extremely limited in historical understanding and, hence, misguided.

Is the administration of George W. Bush full of ideological fanatics? Yes. Have its actions since 9/11 been reckless and put the world at risk? Yes. In the course of pursuing those policies, has it enriched fat-cat friends? Yes.

But it is a serious mistake to believe that these wars can be explained by focusing so exclusively on the Bush administration and ignoring clear trends in U.S. foreign and military policy. In short, these wars are not a sharp departure from the past but instead should be seen as an intensification of longstanding policies, affected by the confluence of this particular administration's ideology and the opportunities created by the events of 9/11.

Look first at Moore's treatment of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. He uses a clip of former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke complaining that the Bush administration's response to 9/11 in Afghanistan was "slow and small," implying that we should have attacked faster and bigger. The film does nothing to question that assessment, leaving viewers to assume that Moore agrees. Does he think that a bombing campaign that killed at least as many innocent Afghans as Americans who died on 9/11 was justified? Does he think that a military response was appropriate, and simply should have been more intense, which would have guaranteed even more civilian casualties? Does he think that a military strategy, which many experts believe made it difficult to pursue more routine and productive counterterrorism law-enforcement methods, was a smart move?

Moore also suggests that the real motivation of the Bush administration in attacking Afghanistan was to secure a gas pipeline route from the Caspian Basin to the sea. It's true that Unocal had sought such a pipeline, and at one point Taliban officials were courted by the United States when it looked as if they could make such a deal happen. Moore points out that Taliban officials traveled to Texas in 1997 when Bush was governor. He fails to point out that all this happened with the Clinton administration at the negotiating table. It is highly unlikely that policymakers would go to war for a single pipeline, but even if that were plausible it is clear that both Democrats and Republicans alike have been mixed up in that particular scheme.

The centerpiece of Moore's analysis of U.S. policy in the Middle East is the relationship of the Bush family to the Saudis and the bin Laden family. The film appears to argue that those business interests, primarily through the Carlyle Group, led the administration to favor the Saudis to the point of ignoring potential Saudi complicity in the attacks of 9/11. After laying out the nature of those business dealings, Moore implies that the Bushes are literally on the take.

It is certainly true that the Bush family and its cronies have a relationship with Saudi Arabia that has led officials to overlook Saudi human-rights abuses and the support that many Saudis give to movements such as al Qaeda. That is true of the Bushes, just as it was of the Clinton administration and, in fact, every post-World War II president. Ever since FDR cut a deal with the House of Saud giving U.S. support in exchange for cooperation on the flow of oil and oil profits, U.S. administrations have been playing ball with the Saudis. The relationship is sometimes tense but has continued through ups and downs, with both sides getting at least part of what they need from the other. Concentrating on Bush family business connections ignores that history and encourages viewers to see the problem as specific to Bush. Would a Gore administration have treated the Saudis differently after 9/11? There's no reason to think so, and Moore offers no evidence or argument why it would have.

But that's only part of the story of U.S. policy in the Middle East, in which the Saudis play a role but are not the only players. The United States cuts deals with other governments in the region that are willing to support the U.S. aim of control over those energy resources. The Saudis are crucial in that system, but not alone. Egypt, Jordan and the other Gulf emirates have played a role, as did Iran under the Shah. As does, crucially, Israel. But there is no mention of Israel in the film. To raise questions about U.S. policy in the Middle East without addressing the role of Israel as a U.S. proxy is, to say the least, a significant omission. It's unclear whether Moore actually backs Israeli crimes and U.S. support for them, or simply doesn't understand the issue.

And what of the analysis of Iraq? Moore is correct in pointing out that U.S. support for Iraq during the 1980s, when Saddam Hussein's war on Iran was looked upon favorably by U.S. policymakers, was a central part of Reagan and Bush I policy up to the Gulf War. And he's correct in pointing out that Bush II's invasion and occupation have caused great suffering in Iraq. What is missing is the intervening eight years in which the Clinton administration used the harshest economic embargo in modern history and regular bombing to further devastate an already devastated country. He fails to point out that Clinton killed more Iraqis through that policy than either of the Bush presidents. He fails to mention the 1998 Clinton cruise missile attack on Iraq, which was every bit as illegal as the 2003 invasion.

It's not difficult to articulate what much of the rest of the world understands about U.S. policy in Iraq and the Middle East: Since the end of WWII, the United States has been the dominant power in the Middle East, constructing a system that tries to keep the Arab states weak and controllable (and, as a result, undemocratic) and undermine any pan-Arab nationalism, and uses allies as platforms and surrogates for U.S. power (such as Israel and Iran under the Shah). The goal is control over (not ownership of, but control over) the strategically crucial energy resources of the region and the profits that flow from them, which in an industrial world that runs on oil is a source of incredible leverage over competitors such as the European Union, Japan and China.

The Iraq invasion, however incompetently planned and executed by the Bush administration, is consistent with that policy. That's the most plausible explanation for the war (by this time, we need no longer bother with the long-ago forgotten rationalizations of weapons of mass destruction and the alleged threat Iraq posed to the United States). The war was a gamble on the part of the Bush gang. Many in the foreign-policy establishment, including Bush I stalwarts such as Brent Scowcroft, spoke out publicly against war plans they thought were reckless. Whether Bush's gamble, in pure power terms, will pay off or not is yet to be determined.

When the film addresses this question directly, what analysis does Moore offer of the reasons for the Iraq war? A family member of a soldier who died asks, "for what?" and Moore cuts to the subject of war profiteering. That segment appropriately highlights the vulture-like nature of businesses that benefit from war. But does Moore really want us to believe that a major war was launched so that Halliburton and other companies could increase its profits for a few years? Yes, war profiteering happens, but it is not the reason nations go to war. This kind of distorted analysis helps keep viewers' attention focused on the Bush administration, by noting the close ties between Bush officials and these companies, not the routine way in which corporate America makes money off the misnamed Department of Defense, no matter who is in the White House.

All this is summed up when Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a son killed in the war, visits the White House in a final, emotional scene and says that she now has somewhere to put all her pain and anger. This is the message of the film: It's all about the Bush administration. If that's the case, the obvious conclusion is to get Bush out of the White House so that things can get back to to what? I'll return to questions of political strategy at the end, but for now it's important to realize how this attempt to construct Bush as pursuing some radically different policy is bad analysis and leads to a misunderstanding of the threat the United States poses to the world. Yes, Moore throws in a couple of jabs at the Democrats in Congress for not stopping the mad rush to war in Iraq, but the focus is always on the singular crimes of George W. Bush and his gang.

A conservative movie

The claim that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a conservative movie may strike some as ludicrous. But the film endorses one of the central lies that Americans tell themselves, that the U.S. military fights for our freedom. This construction of the military as a defensive force obscures the harsh reality that the military is used to project U.S. power around the world to ensure dominance, not to defend anyone's freedom, at home or abroad.

Instead of confronting this mythology, Moore ends the film with it. He points out, accurately, the irony that those who benefit the least from the U.S. system -- the chronically poor and members of minority groups -- are the very people who sign up for the military. "They offer to give up their lives so we can be free," Moore says, and all they ask in return is that we not send them in harm's way unless it's necessary. After the Iraq War, he wonders, "Will they ever trust us again?"

It is no doubt true that many who join the military believe they will be fighting for freedom. But we must distinguish between the mythology that many internalize and may truly believe, from the reality of the role of the U.S. military. The film includes some comments by soldiers questioning that very claim, but Moore's narration implies that somehow a glorious tradition of U.S. military endeavors to protect freedom has now been sullied by the Iraq War.

The problem is not just that the Iraq War was fundamentally illegal and immoral. The whole rotten project of empire building has been illegal and immoral -- and every bit as much a Democratic as a Republican project. The millions of dead around the world -- in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia -- as a result of U.S. military actions and proxy wars don't care which U.S. party was pulling the strings and pulling the trigger when they were killed. It's true that much of the world hates Bush. It's also true that much of the world has hated every post-WWII U.S. president. And for good reasons.

It is one thing to express solidarity for people forced into the military by economic conditions. It is quite another to pander to the lies this country tells itself about the military. It is not disrespectful to those who join up to tell the truth. It is our obligation to try to prevent future wars in which people are sent to die not for freedom but for power and profit. It's hard to understand how we can do that by repeating the lies of the people who plan, and benefit from, those wars.

Political strategy

The most common defense I have heard from liberals and progressives to these criticisms of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that, whatever its flaws, the movie sparks people to political action. One response is obvious: There is no reason a film can't spark people to political action with intelligent and defensible analysis, and without subtle racism.

But beyond that, it's not entirely clear the political action that this film will spark goes much beyond voting against Bush. The "what can I do now?" link on Moore's website suggests four actions, all of which are about turning out the vote. These resources about voting are well organized and helpful. But there are no links to grassroots groups organizing against not only the Bush regime but the American empire more generally.

I agree that Bush should be kicked out of the White House, and if I lived in a swing state I would consider voting Democratic. But I don't believe that will be meaningful unless there emerges in the United States a significant anti-empire movement. In other words, if we beat Bush and go back to "normal," we're all in trouble. Normal is empire building. Normal is U.S. domination, economic and military, and the suffering that vulnerable people around the world experience as a result. This doesn't mean voters can't judge one particular empire-building politician more dangerous than another. It doesn't mean we shouldn't sometimes make strategic choices to vote for one over the other. It simply means we should make such choices with eyes open and no illusions. This seems particularly important when the likely Democratic presidential candidate tries to out-hawk Bush on support for Israel, pledges to continue the occupation of Iraq, and says nothing about reversing the basic trends in foreign policy.

In this sentiment, I am not alone. Ironically, Barry Reingold -- the Oakland man who was visited by the FBI -- is critical of what he sees as the main message of the film. He was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle saying: "I think Michael Moore's agenda is to get Bush out, but I think it (should be) about more than Bush. I think it's about the capitalist system, which is inequitable." He went on to critique Bush and Kerry: "I think both of them are bad. I think Kerry is actually worse because he gives the illusion that he's going to do a lot more. Bush has never given that illusion. People know that he's a friend of big business."

Nothing I have said here is an argument against reaching out to a wider audience and trying to politicize more people. That's what I try to do in my own writing and local organizing work, as do countless other activists. The question isn't whether to reach out, but with what kind of analysis and arguments. Emotional appeals and humor have their place; the activists I work with use them. The question is, where do such appeals lead people?

It is obvious that "Fahrenheit 9/11" taps into many Americans' fear and/or hatred of Bush and his gang of thugs. Such feelings are understandable, and I share them. But feelings are not analysis, and the film's analysis, unfortunately, doesn't go much beyond the feeling: It's all Bush's fault. That may be appealing to people, but it's wrong. And it is hard to imagine how a successful anti-empire movement can be built on this film's analysis unless it is challenged. Hence, the reason for this essay.

The potential value of Moore's film will be realized only if it is discussed and critiqued, honestly. Yes, the film is under attack from the right, for very different reasons than I have raised. But those attacks shouldn't stop those who consider themselves left, progressive, liberal, anti-war, anti-empire or just plain pissed-off from criticizing the film's flaws and limitations. I think my critique of the film is accurate and relevant. Others may disagree. The focus of debate should be on the issues raised, with an eye toward the question of how to build an anti-empire movement. Rallying around the film can too easily lead to rallying around bad analysis. Let's instead rally around the struggle for a better world, the struggle to dismantle the American empire.

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of "Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity" from City Lights Books. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.

I think there is one highly relevant point there and that's asking the question: So what happens if Bush gets kicked out? Will anything change?

Domestically in the US it probably will, but as far as the world goes, it's questionable. Kerry has yet to present a coherent plan for Iraq or the "war on terror". He has been babbling about "the international community stepping in and taking part of the responsibility". And that should be fairly plain to anybody that it's delusional.

With Bush, you know what you get, so perhaps it's better with the devil you know than with the devil you don't.

(From a US domestic point of view I am of the opinion that any democrat president is always better than a republican one, but that's my political orientation)

[Akira 0]

If I can find it, I'll post the Daily Show link where it shows Cheney clearly lieing about the 911-Iraq connection.

"Iraq and Al-Queda are working together"

"No we never said they did."

Pretty hilarious too...

Daily Show

[denoir 0]

Ninpo Ikkan Denoir  

Shikin haramitsu daikomyo  

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I think there is one highly relevant point there and that's asking the question: So what happens if Bush gets kicked out? Will anything change?

Domestically in the US it probably will, but as far as the world goes, it's questionable. Kerry has yet to present a coherent plan for Iraq or the "war on terror". He has been babbling about "the international community stepping in and taking part of the responsibility". And that should be fairly plain to anybody that it's delusional.

With Bush, you know what you get, so perhaps it's better with the devil you know than with the devil you don't.

(From a US domestic point of view I am of the opinion that any democrat president is always better than a republican one, but that's my political orientation)

This is a fairly good stump speech version of his plan

Quote[/b] ]Like most Americans, I want to believe that this past week's events -- the transfer of sovereignty and the appearance of Saddam Hussein before an Iraqi court -- will place us on the road to success. But there is still no sign of a strategy that will get us there. We have transferred sovereignty, but Iraq still lacks the capacity to provide security and essential services. To give democracy, pluralism and regional peace a chance, we need a policy that is effective -- a policy that finally includes a heavy dose of realism.

Our foreign policy has achieved greatness only when it has combined realism and idealism, our sense of practicality and our deep commitment to values such as freedom and democracy. Look back at NATO and the Marshall Plan, the enduring creations of the Truman administration.

Our military performed brilliantly in the war's first mission: ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. And all Americans share President Bush's desire for Iraqis to live with the blessings of democracy and security. But we are a practical people, and we know that all the rhetoric we've heard hasn't been accompanied by a realistic plan to win the peace and bring our troops home. We know that a chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Eric Shinseki, was right when he argued that more troops would be needed to establish security and win the peace in the weeks and months after Saddam Hussein's fall. And we know, especially, that we should have brought more friends and allies to the cause.

The point here is not to revisit history but to forge a new policy based on what we know and on what will be most effective. We still have an opportunity to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state and a haven for global terrorists and Islamic extremists. We can still succeed in promoting stability, democracy, protection of minority and women's rights, and peace in the region, even at this late hour, if we construct and follow a realistic path. But if we are to reduce the overwhelming military and financial burden America is bearing and maximize the chances of success, we will need help from others. Getting that help will require not only convincing our friends and allies that we share an interest in preventing failure but also giving them a meaningful voice and role in Iraqi affairs. That is the only way to forge real cooperation, and it is long past time for this to be done.

In recent months the Bush administration has taken some of the needed steps. It has worked through the United Nations to legitimize the transition to an interim Iraqi government and to call for troop contributions and financial assistance. But we need a more far-reaching plan if we are to win the substantial help that is required. We have to move our allies beyond the resentment they feel about the Bush administration's failed diplomacy so they can focus on their interest in fighting terrorism and promoting peace. The best way to do that is to vest friends and allies in Iraq's future.

On the economic front, that means giving them fair access to the multibillion-dollar reconstruction contracts. It also means letting them be a part of putting Iraq's profitable oil industry back together. In return, they must forgive Hussein's multibillion-dollar debts to their countries and pay their fair share of the reconstruction bill.

We should also give them a leadership role in pursuing our wider strategic goals in the region. As partners, we should convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors. Such a conference would have two goals. First, it should secure a pledge from Iraq's neighbors to respect Iraq's borders and not to interfere in its internal affairs. And second, it should commit Iraq's leaders to provide clear protection for minorities, thus removing a major justification for possible outside intervention. Together, we should jump-start large-scale involvement with an international high commissioner to coordinate economic assistance and organize and implement these diplomatic initiatives.

Then, having taken these dramatic steps, we could realistically call on NATO to step up to its responsibilities. Our goal should be an alliance commitment to deploy a major portion of the peacekeeping force that will be needed in Iraq for a long time to come. Just as NATO came together to contain the Soviet Union and bring peace to Bosnia and Kosovo, with the right kind of leadership from us NATO can be mobilized to help stabilize Iraq and the region. And if NATO comes, others will too.

Inside Iraq, the overriding need is for security, and the essential participants are the Iraqis themselves. The missing ingredient in this quest so far is a political accommodation among Iraqis. Each Iraqi group -- the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis -- has to feel it will have safety and a fair share in Iraq's future. Yes, let the Iraqis move forward with their schedule for elections and the writing of a constitution, but all must realize that the results of these elections and the constitution will hold only if the parties know they can protect their basic interests. Helping Iraq come together this way, by peaceful negotiations and not by civil warfare, is the realistic way to secure the loyalty of Iraqis to their new state, and the best way to give them a future to defend. And it will strengthen our efforts, and those of others in the international community, to overhaul the program to train and build Iraqi security forces that have the will and the capacity to fight against the insurgents and terrorists. In this context too, Iraqi reconstruction of Iraq with international assistance will have a chance.

Success in Iraq must be separated from our politics. It is too important to our troops who are serving there and to the security of our nation. I hope President Bush will fashion policies that will succeed. But today we are not pursuing the most effective path. It is only by pursuing a realistic path to democracy in Iraq that we can connect our ideals with American common sense. Only then can we heal the wounds between our allies and ourselves and only then can we muster the might of our alliances to isolate our enemies and win the war on terrorism around the world.

Letting other countries in on the reconstruction pie may provide the carrot needed to bring the international community back in. Also note the foresight involved in anticipating problems cropping up in Iraq's future. You're not going to get that from Bush. And the tone, man, the tone. There isn't much 'smoke 'em out' and 'evildoer' type jingoism here.

edit: I gave it a 'B' on another forum.

[denoir 0]

@ July 05 2004,19:37)]And the tone, man, the tone. There isn't much 'smoke 'em out' and 'evildoer' type jingoism here.

Sure, that's an improvement. In my days though we had more demands on politicians than that they arn't illiterate hillbillies. I suppose Bush has lowered the bar. My point is that just because the man (unlike Bush) can put together a few coherent sentences doesn't mean he's a great leader.

As for the rest:

Quote[/b] ]

Like most Americans, I want to believe that this past week's events -- the transfer of sovereignty and the appearance of Saddam Hussein before an Iraqi court -- will place us on the road to success. But there is still no sign of a strategy that will get us there. We have transferred sovereignty, but Iraq still lacks the capacity to provide security and essential services. To give democracy, pluralism and regional peace a chance, we need a policy that is effective -- a policy that finally includes a heavy dose of realism.

Our foreign policy has achieved greatness only when it has combined realism and idealism, our sense of practicality and our deep commitment to values such as freedom and democracy. Look back at NATO and the Marshall Plan, the enduring creations of the Truman administration.

Our military performed brilliantly in the war's first mission: ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. And all Americans share President Bush's desire for Iraqis to live with the blessings of democracy and security. But we are a practical people, and we know that all the rhetoric we've heard hasn't been accompanied by a realistic plan to win the peace and bring our troops home. We know that a chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Eric Shinseki, was right when he argued that more troops would be needed to establish security and win the peace in the weeks and months after Saddam Hussein's fall. And we know, especially, that we should have brought more friends and allies to the cause.

The point here is not to revisit history but to forge a new policy based on what we know and on what will be most effective. We still have an opportunity to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state and a haven for global terrorists and Islamic extremists. We can still succeed in promoting stability, democracy, protection of minority and women's rights, and peace in the region, even at this late hour, if we construct and follow a realistic path.

But if we are to reduce the overwhelming military and financial burden America is bearing and maximize the chances of success, we will need help from others. Getting that help will require not only convincing our friends and allies that we share an interest in preventing failure but also giving them a meaningful voice and role in Iraqi affairs. That is the only way to forge real cooperation, and it is long past time for this to be done.

Stating the obvious.

Quote[/b] ]In recent months the Bush administration has taken some of the needed steps. It has worked through the United Nations to legitimize the transition to an interim Iraqi government and to call for troop contributions and financial assistance.

In the words of the UN special envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN has a symbolic role and the new government of Iraq is not legitimate until elections are held.

Quote[/b] ]We have to move our allies beyond the resentment they feel about the Bush administration's failed diplomacy so they can focus on their interest in fighting terrorism and promoting peace. The best way to do that is to vest friends and allies in Iraq's future.

Why should we put our soldiers in harm's way for a cause we never supported? It is the general feeling that it's a US mess that the US will have to deal with. While there of course is a common interest of stopping Iraq from becoming a terrorist haven, it is much more an American interest. So with or without international support, America will have to deal with it.

Quote[/b] ]On the economic front, that means giving them fair access to the multibillion-dollar reconstruction contracts. It also means letting them be a part of putting Iraq's profitable oil industry back together. In return, they must forgive Hussein's multibillion-dollar debts to their countries and pay their fair share of the reconstruction bill.

Here he shows that he is out of touch with reality. The reconstruction is standing still. Out of 2,400 designated projects work has begun on only 140. Contractors are fleeing the country because of the security situation.

And there's a nice little Catch-22: As long as the security situation is a problem, no serious reconstruction can be done. As long as no serious reconstruction is done, more Iraqis will be pissed off and the security situation will continue to be a problem.

And actually contracts aren't too much of a problem. The Bush administration is more screwing US companies in favour of Haliburton et al than they are European companies. For the oil business, several French and German companies have been subcontracted - simply because they were the only ones capable (due to their experience with such projects in the mid-east).

And most important is the public resentment of the Iraq war in Europe. And as in any democracy, it would be political suicide to go against that current.

Quote[/b] ]We should also give them a leadership role in pursuing our wider strategic goals in the region. As partners, we should convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors. Such a conference would have two goals. First, it should secure a pledge from Iraq's neighbors to respect Iraq's borders and not to interfere in its internal affairs. And second, it should commit Iraq's leaders to provide clear protection for minorities, thus removing a major justification for possible outside intervention. Together, we should jump-start large-scale involvement with an international high commissioner to coordinate economic assistance and organize and implement these diplomatic initiatives.

Sure, in theory. In practice it turns out that Iraq doesn't trust its neighbours very much. Several countries offered peace-keepers, but as it looks now, that offer will be rejected.

Quote[/b] ]Then, having taken these dramatic steps, we could realistically call on NATO to step up to its responsibilities. Our goal should be an alliance commitment to deploy a major portion of the peacekeeping force that will be needed in Iraq for a long time to come. Just as NATO came together to contain the Soviet Union and bring peace to Bosnia and Kosovo, with the right kind of leadership from us NATO can be mobilized to help stabilize Iraq and the region. And if NATO comes, others will too.

Its responsibilities?   That's plain idiotic and insulting. Why the hell should countries that over and over again warned you against invading Iraq have any responsibilities for the mess created? NATO - LOL. They would not even agree to help train the Iraqi police in Iraq. This is the real world and the real situation. NATO did not even want to send a few security consultants to the country. They only agreed to provide some symbolic help if it was done outside of Iraq.

This is what I'm talking about when I'm saying that Kerry is out of touch with reality. The countries whose help you need barely want to be in the same room as you; much less risk their soldiers in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Inside Iraq, the overriding need is for security, and the essential participants are the Iraqis themselves. The missing ingredient in this quest so far is a political accommodation among Iraqis. Each Iraqi group -- the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis -- has to feel it will have safety and a fair share in Iraq's future. Yes, let the Iraqis move forward with their schedule for elections and the writing of a constitution, but all must realize that the results of these elections and the constitution will hold only if the parties know they can protect their basic interests. Helping Iraq come together this way, by peaceful negotiations and not by civil warfare, is the realistic way to secure the loyalty of Iraqis to their new state, and the best way to give them a future to defend. And it will strengthen our efforts, and those of others in the international community, to overhaul the program to train and build Iraqi security forces that have the will and the capacity to fight against the insurgents and terrorists. In this context too, Iraqi reconstruction of Iraq with international assistance will have a chance.

Stating the obvious again. Without giving any idea of how this should be done.

Quote[/b] ]

Success in Iraq must be separated from our politics. It is too important to our troops who are serving there and to the security of our nation. I hope President Bush will fashion policies that will succeed. But today we are not pursuing the most effective path. It is only by pursuing a realistic path to democracy in Iraq that we can connect our ideals with American common sense.

Bunch of horse-shit. War is politics. It's an active enforcement of foreign policy.

Quote[/b] ]

Only then can we heal the wounds between our allies and ourselves and only then can we muster the might of our alliances to isolate our enemies and win the war on terrorism around the world.

Yeah. It's going to take a bit more than just empty calls for a coalition. We heard that before, from Bush. I'm sure that at one point or another, America will be welcomed back into the international community, but we're far from there now. Tips for sucking up: ICC, Kyoto

Overall, I pretty much would say what I've been saying: Kerry has not provided any idea of how the situation in Iraq should be solved. He has given us an idea of a fantasy scenario of how thing will progress if the right thing is done.

[walker 0]

Hi all

FAHRENHEIT 9/11 Continues from strength to strength. It is well on the way to topping the magical $100,000,000 mark and being the worlds first ever blockbuster documentry with ticket sales of $60,091,000 in its first week.

And this week Michale Moore made the cover of Time magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040712/story.html

Perhaps the most important thing the film is doing is emergising voters with voter registrations going up as a result and a $5 million increase in donations to the J. F. Kerry campaign fund over the weekend it was first shown is being directly atributed to the film going on release on those two days. J. F. Kerry fundraisers are waiting to see the figures for this week where films viewers has increased almost threefold.

If you feel enthused to vote here is the important stuff

Quote[/b] ]Register to Vote!

Remember you can only effect the US leaders by Registering to Vote.

Get your official national Voter registration forms from this link here:

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/vr.htm

That is the form that allows you to decide who will be the next president and vice president of the USA. In a democracy it is your only real power. Use it.

Please Note the Following Exceptions:

* New Hampshire town and city clerks will accept this application only as a request for their own mail-in absentee voter registration form.

* North Dakota does not have voter registration.

* Wyoming cannot accept this form under State law.

Here is where you can rgister to vote

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/where_can_i_register_to_vote02.htm

Quote[/b] ]Registration applications may be obtained from either the local election official in your county or city, or through registration outreach programs sponsored by such groups as the League of Women Voters. In addition, you can also register to vote when applying for a driver’s license or identity card at State DMV or driver's licensing offices, State offices providing public assistance, State offices providing State-funded programs for the disabled, and at armed forces recruitment offices.

Many States also offer registration opportunities at public libraries, post offices, unemployment offices, and at public high schools and universities. Colleges, universities, and trade schools participating in federal student loan programs also offer voter registration applications to enrolled students prior to general elections.

FAQs about using the National Voter Registration form

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/faqs_about_national_mail_form02.htm

Time is getting short.

The deadlines for registration in some states are fast aproaching Register to Vote now

http://www.fec.gov/votregis/state_voter_reg_deadlines02.htm

Kind Reards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hi all

FAHRENHEIT 9/11 Continues from strength to strength. It is well on the way to topping the magical $100,000,000 mark and being the worlds first ever blockbuster documentry with ticket sales of $60,091,000 in its first week.

And this week Michale Moore made the cover of Time magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040712/story.html

Perhaps the most important thing the film is doing is emergising voters with voter registrations going up as a result and a $5 million increase in donations to the J. F. Kerry campaign fund over the weekend it was first shown is being directly atributed to the film going on release on those two days. J. F. Kerry fundraisers are waiting to see the figures for this week where films viewers has increased almost threefold.

If you feel enthused to vote here is the important stuff

A practical anarchist telling americans to vote......

[mr_rOk 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is what I'm talking about when I'm saying that Kerry is out of touch with reality. The countries whose help you need barely want to be in the same room as you; much less risk their soldiers in Iraq.

To do GWB's crusade?

[walker 0]

A practical anarchist telling americans to vote......

Hi billybob2002

George Bush Jnr. and the NeoConMen are a dangerous bunch, they are incapable of organizing the Defense of the nation which is the key ally of the country I live in.

When his nation was attacked did he call a cabinet meeting or command his nations armed forces to its defense? No; he sat there like a rabbit in the head lights with a frozen look of terror on his face reading a book about goats that was upside down for the next 20 minutes.

When he has the information about who did it and why; does he set in motion the means to beat them? No; like some kid who can not be bothered to sit and learn in class he gets "Sick of swatting flies." and makes up some fantasy enemies so he can play at being the big man. He then either lies to us all or is criminally incompetent enough in his assessment  of false intelligence to lead us into that war that ends up increasing the amount of terror attacks 6 fold to now at least one a month from one every six months. He so enrages Arab and Muslim opinion that many young men and women who would have lead normal quiet lives are so outraged they join Al Qaida and its franchise in droves. I have left a lot out we all know the village idiot's failings they have been constant factor of his inept un-Presidency. The fact he has surrounded himself with a pack of: lying, unethical, immoral, NeoConMen is only to be expected.

Such a man in power is dangerous, give him the trigger to the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world and you are asking for trouble.

Hence I consider the man and the philosophy he follows to be a personal threat.

The only advantage democracy has over communism or despotism or dictatorships is that people can vote out the idiot once every so often.

Of course it has no such advantage over anarchy since presidents and such don't exist under anarchy.

That said I am a practical anarchist which means I know lots of people cant cope with the responsibility of organizing their own lives and have to elect someone to do this for them. By abdicating the responsibility for running their own lives they imbue someone with their power. Such individuals who take on that power can in certain circumstances become dangerous and so must be dealt with and inevitably the power corrupts; hence the rules to limit the number of terms you may spend in office.

The easiest and safest method of removing George Bush Jnr. and his NeoConMen is to use the voting system it is what is there for.

Kind Regards Walker

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Denoir, you have to frame the rhetoric within the political realities of the US. We're a country where a large minority (near-majority) think that Iraq was in on 9/11. We're a country who's still convinced that everyone in the Western world is our buddy despite what our president calls "some differences over policy". And, we're a country that's being subjected to a political campaign by an incumbent that in no small part is based on Bush being 'optimistic' and Kerry being 'pessimistic'. And do you think that maybe Kerry could reap an international windfall by pulling an executive mea culpa and bringing trans-Atlantic dialogue back to a more civil status-quo? It seems to me that a large portion of the current hostility towards our presence in Iraq stems solely from this administration and its follies; a new president singing a different tune would be a much more sympathetic figure towards garnering more international support.

[denoir 0]

@ July 06 2004,00:09)]It seems to me that a large portion of the current hostility towards our presence in Iraq stems solely from this administration and its follies; a new president singing a different tune would be a much more sympathetic figure towards garnering more international support.

Oh, we would be a lot more friendly. We just wouldn't send any troops. Do you really think that we would suddenly want to risk our troops for a cause that we were against just because you got a nicer president?

This is a far bigger issue than that personal dislike for the man currently in office.

Replacing Bush will put you back on the Christmas card list, but it will harldy get you any military resources.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ July 06 2004,00:09)]It seems to me that a large portion of the current hostility towards our presence in Iraq stems solely from this administration and its follies; a new president singing a different tune would be a much more sympathetic figure towards garnering more international support.

Oh, we would be a lot more friendly. We just wouldn't send any troops. Do you really think that we would suddenly want to risk our troops for a cause that we were against just because you got a nicer president?

This is a far bigger issue than that personal dislike for the man currently in office.

Replacing Bush will put you back on the Christmas card list, but it will harldy get you any military resources.

But if the case can be made that Europe has a stake in a stable Iraq, and the pot is sweetened through reconstruction contracts and a stake in future oil revenues, would we perchance get a festive fruitcake to go along with said Christmas card?