SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Rock_nj who wrote (631385)9/23/2004 2:09:30 PM
From: PROLIFE  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Donkey Farm: a Democrat Story



By Jonathan M. Stein



While George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 is a treatise on how totalitarian regimes maintain control over the population, Animal Farm: a Fairy Story is essentially an essay on how totalitarian regimes acquire and ascend to power. The contention here isn’t necessarily that Democrats endeavor to establish a totalitarian regime in America; the contention is that the methods and tactics John Kerry and the Democrats are using in their quest to ascend to power are strikingly similar to those outlined by Orwell.



Animal Farm centers around a revolt on Manor Farm, set in England. Furious over the conditions on Manor Farm, and the way the human farmer, Mr. Jones, treated the animals, the animals staged a rebellion and ejected Jones and his men from the farm. The triumphant animals renamed Manor Farm “Animal Farm.” However, the more intelligent animals, the pigs, quickly discovered that they could use their superior intellect to manipulate and dominate the less-intelligent animals, who didn’t understand what was happening until it was too late. In the end, the pigs, lead by a pig named Napoleon, took control of the farm and established a regime far worse than that of Jones. In the end, fittingly, the pigs restored the farm’s original human name “Manor Farm.”



Directly after the initial rebellion, the animals established “Seven Commandments” for the animals to live by. The first two were 1) whatever goes upon two legs (i.e. man) is an enemy and 2) whatever goes upon four legs (i.e. animals) . . . is a friend. When the least intelligent of the animals, the sheep, had trouble grasping this concept, the pigs discovered that they could convey their propaganda more effectively by distilling the more complex concepts into oversimplified slogans. So Squealer, effectively the pigs’ minister of propaganda, taught the sheep a simple platitude: “four legs good, two legs bad.” The sheep ran around all day, bleating this slogan.



When I hear John Kerry say, in his stump speech, “W stands for wrong,” all I hear is “four legs good, two legs bad.” When I watched leftists running around New York during the convention with signs that said “Bush lied,” all I thought was “four legs good, two legs bad.” It seems the Democrats have found their flock of sheep.



One pig, Snowball, was expelled from the farm after a vociferous disagreement with Napoleon – Orwell’s allusion to Trotsky. Soon thereafter, the pigs would blame any disaster or mishap that occurred on Snowball, making him the ethereal scapegoat – an inscrutable, phantasmal mastermind. If the windmill was destroyed, it was Snowball’s fault; if eggs were stolen from the henhouse, it was Snowball’s fault; if there was any act of sabotage on the farm, it was Snowball’s fault, etc. If the Democrats are caught passing forged documents to CBS, it’s Karl Rove’s fault; If Vietnam Veterans oppose and expose John Kerry in a television ad, it’s Karl Rove’s fault; if the Democrats can’t get their message out. It’s Karl Rove’s fault. Karl Rove has effectively become Snowball.



Anytime Napoleon or the other pigs felt that the animals on the farm were starting to catch on and wise up to what was truly happening on the farm, the pigs would resort to their ace-in-the-hole: scare tactics. If the pigs’ dictates were not followed, warned Napoleon, farmer Jones would come back! As baseless as this threat was, it always successfully scared the other animals into compliance. They would do anything, so long as Jones would not return.



The Democrats have mastered this tactic: if you don’t vote for John Kerry, you won’t have health insurance; if you don’t vote for John Kerry, you won’t have social security; if you don’t vote for John Kerry, the draft will come back. If you don’t vote for John Kerry, Jones will come back!



As the pigs acquired more and more power, they took on more and more human characteristics, until they eventually were even walking on two legs. To get away with this, of course, they had to modify the original “Seven Commandments,” while convincing the other animals that the commandments had not, in fact, been modified at all. To help achieve this end, this deception, the pigs taught the goats a new slogan: “four legs good, two legs better!” In the end, the pigs had but one commandment: all Animals are equal, but some Animals are more equal than others. This, in a nutshell, seems to be the contemporary maxim of the Democrats.

LOL!!



To: Rock_nj who wrote (631385)9/23/2004 2:10:59 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 769670
 
Mr. Bush would have been impeached by now IF the Republican controlled CONgress had the balls to hold the President accountable for his actions...Look what Pulitzer Prize winner Carl Bernstein had to say earlier this year...

History lesson: GOP must stop Bush

By Carl Bernstein

Thirty years ago, a Republican president, facing impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, was forced to resign because of unprecedented crimes he and his aides committed against the Constitution and people of the United States. Ultimately, Richard Nixon left office voluntarily because courageous leaders of the Republican Party put principle above party and acted with heroism in defense of the Constitution and rule of law.

"What did the president know and when did he know it?" a Republican senator — Howard Baker of Tennessee — famously asked of Nixon 30 springtimes ago.

Today, confronted by the graphic horrors of Abu Ghraib prison, by ginned-up intelligence to justify war, by 652 American deaths since presidential operatives declared "Mission Accomplished," Republican leaders have yet to suggest that George W. Bush be held responsible for the disaster in Iraq and that perhaps he, not just Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is ill-suited for his job.

Having read the report of Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, I expect Baker's question will resound again in another congressional investigation. The equally relevant question is whether Republicans will, Pavlov-like, continue to defend their president with ideological and partisan reflex, or remember the example of principled predecessors who pursued truth at another dark moment.

Today, the issue may not be high crimes and misdemeanors, but rather Bush's failure, or inability, to lead competently and honestly.

"You are courageously leading our nation in the war against terror," Bush told Rumsfeld in a Wizard-of-Oz moment May 10, as Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and senior generals looked on. "You are a strong secretary of Defense, and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude." The scene recalled another Oz moment: Nixon praising his enablers, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, as "two of the finest public servants I've ever known."

Sidestepping the Constitution

Like Nixon, this president decided the Constitution could be bent on his watch. Terrorism justified it, and Rumsfeld's Pentagon promoted policies making inevitable what happened at Abu Ghraib — and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The legal justification for ignoring the Geneva Conventions regarding humane treatment of prisoners was enunciated in a memo to Bush, dated Jan. 25, 2002, from the White House counsel.

"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Alberto Gonzales wrote Bush. "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Quaint.

Since January, Bush and Rumsfeld have been aware of credible complaints of systematic torture. In March, Taguba's report reached Rumsfeld. Yet neither Bush nor his Defense secretary expressed concern publicly or leveled with Congress until photographic evidence of an American Gulag, possessed for months by the administration, was broadcast to the world.

Rumsfeld then explained, "You read it, as I say, it's one thing. You see these photographs and it's just unbelievable. ... It wasn't three-dimensional. It wasn't video. It wasn't color. It was quite a different thing." But the report also described atrocities never photographed or taped that were, often, even worse than the pictures — just as Nixon's actions were frequently far worse than his tapes recorded.

It was Barry Goldwater, the revered conservative, who convinced Nixon that he must resign or face certain conviction by the Senate — and perhaps jail. Goldwater delivered his message in person, at the White House, accompanied by Republican congressional leaders.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee likewise put principle above party to cast votes for articles of impeachment. On the eve of his mission, Goldwater told his wife that it might cost him his Senate seat on Election Day. Instead, the courage of Republicans willing to dissociate their party from Nixon helped Ronald Reagan win the presidency six years later, unencumbered by Watergate.

Another precedent is apt: In 1968, a few Democratic senators — J. William Fulbright, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern and Robert F. Kennedy — challenged their party's torpor and insisted that President Lyndon Johnson be held accountable for his disastrous and disingenuous conduct of the Vietnam War, adding weight to public pressure, which, eventually, forced Johnson not to seek re-election.

Today, the United States is confronted by another ill-considered war, conceived in ideological zeal and pursued with contempt for truth, disregard of history and an arrogant assertion of American power that has stunned and alienated much of the world, including traditional allies. At a juncture in history when the United States needed a president to intelligently and forcefully lead a real international campaign against terrorism and its causes, Bush decided instead to unilaterally declare war on a totalitarian state that never represented a terrorist threat; to claim exemption from international law regarding the treatment of prisoners; to suspend constitutional guarantees even to non-combatants at home and abroad; and to ignore sound military advice from the only member of his Cabinet — Powell — with the most requisite experience. Instead of using America's moral authority to lead a great global cause, Bush squandered it.

In Republican cloakrooms, as in the Oval Office, response to catastrophe these days is more concerned with politics and PR than principle. Said Tom DeLay, House majority leader: "A full-fledged congressional investigation — that's like saying we need an investigation every time there's police brutality on the street."

When politics topples principles

To curtail any hint of dissension in the ranks, Bush scheduled a "pep rally" with congressional Republicans — speaking 35 minutes, after which, characteristically, he took no questions and lawmakers dutifully circled the wagons.

What did George W. Bush know and when did he know it? Another wartime president, Harry Truman, observed that the buck stops at the president's desk, not the Pentagon.

But among Republicans today, there seems to be scant interest in asking tough questions — or honoring the example of courageous leaders of Congress who, not long ago, stepped forward, setting principle before party, to hold accountable presidents who put their country in peril.

Carl Bernstein's most recent book is a biography of John Paul II, His Holiness. He is co-author, with Bob Woodward, of All the President's Men and The Final Days.


Find this article at:
usatoday.com