Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (34918)	6/29/2005 10:40:46 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it." -Joseph Goebbels ______________________________________________________ Who's Spreading What? Bush's Big Democratic Hoax in Iraq By ROGER BURBACH and PAUL CANTOR June 29, 2005 counterpunch.org President George Bush told the nation on Tuesday night that we are in Iraq to fight terrorism and spread democracy. Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitler's minister of propaganda said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it." Goebbels had it right. Bush didn't invade Iraq to fight terrorism and promote democracy. He invaded Iraq to establish a military stronghold in the oil rich Middle East. But he has repeated that lie often enough that more and more people have come to accept it as the truth. Recently, for example, Michael Ignatieff, the President of Harvard University's Carr Center of Human Rights bought what has become the Bush administration's latest line on why we are in Iraq hook, line and sinker. In a convoluted article that appeared in the New York Times Magazine on June 26, Ignatieff makes the argument that Bush is the first President to link fighting terrorism to promoting democracy in the rest of the world and suggests that liberals and others on the left should be applauding him for it. After all, says Ignatieff, if Bush succeeds he "will be remembered as a plain-speaking visionary." Nonsense. The rhetorical title of Ignatieff's article is: "Who are Americans to Think that Freedom is Theirs to Spread?" Well Thomas Jefferson was one, suggests Ignatieff, and Bush is simply picking up the Jeffersonian mantle. That is why he went to Iraq: To promote the exercise of reason, the rule of law, human rights and democracy. More nonsense. Well, some might say, even if that wasn't the original intention if that is the likely outcome what's the difference? The answer is that it is not the likely outcome. We already know the outcome: a hundred thousand Iraqis killed, a country split into warring factions, and a rising tide of hatred for our occupying army. Still we shouldn't be surprised that Bush continues to lie about our mission in Iraq. In order to inspire soldiers to fight you must convince them that they are fighting for a cause they believe in. Bush often sounded like a military recruiter on Tuesday night, hoping to overcome the dramatic decline in enlistees for the army. It is not easy to get soldiers to put their lives on the line for the Halliburton corporation. So you tell them that they are fighting to spread freedom to the citizens of Iraq and convince them that when they win the battle they can visit the Empire State building because no Iraqis will be piloting planes into skyscrapers in the United States. Then perhaps they can be sent back to the Gulf to fight against the democratically elected government of Iran. . Ignatieff, to give him credit, does point out in his article that President Bush heads an administration that has demonstrated "the least care for consistency between what it says and does of any administration in modern times." But then he makes no effort to explore why that is true. Had he done so he might have come to understand that the Bush administration represents the interests of wealthy plutocrats, reactionary fundamentalists, and corporate executives. In attempting to further those interests democracy and the rule of law are violated left and right. The examples are by now legion: The invasion of Iraq despite United Nations' opposition; the torture of prisoners in Iraq, Guantanamo, and Afghanistan; the promotion of key officials connected with torture; the use of doctors to assist in that torture; the holding of prisoners indefinitely without charges; the rendition program that whisks alleged terrorists off the streets in countries like Italy to sends them to Egypt to be tortured; the refusal to recognize the International Criminal Court; the attempt to justify violating the Geneva accords; and the promotion at home of legislation such as the Patriot Act that undermines the Bill of Rights and helps stifle dissent. All this is done in the name of fighting terrorism and promoting democracy. But as the June 25th edition of the conservative weekly The Economist points out, "it cannot help the war on terror that so many people regard America as an unprincipled bully." And as many others have pointed out, what the Bush administration is seeking in Iraq is not a democratic regime but a regime that will do its bidding. Nevertheless, Ignatieff maintains that by not supporting the Bush administration's nearly unilateral occupation of Iraq, his critics have abandoned the Jeffersonian ideal of promoting democracy and the rule of law around the world. Hence after reading his article one is left to wonder whether the author himself hasn't lost something as highly prized as democracy by Jefferson and other Enlightenment thinkers-i.e. the capacity to reason. Goebbels must be smiling. __________________________________________ Paul Cantor is a professor of economics at Norwalk Community College in Connecticut and a human rights activist. Roger Burbach is director of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA) and a Visiting Scholar at the Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley. He is co- author with Jim Tarbell of "Imperial Overstretch: George W. Bush and the Hubris of Empire," He released late last year "The Pinochet Affair: State Terrorism and Global Justice."

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (34918)	6/29/2005 7:38:29 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 93284

Is Karl Rove, George Bush’s Mama Rose? huffingtonpost.com Mama Rose was the monster of a stage mother to the stripper Gypsy Rose Lee so brilliantly captured in the musical “Gypsy.” A recent Vanity Fair article profiling Rove mentions the suicide of his mother. Mama Rose was also abandoned by her mother. She attempted to fill that terrible void by taking the career of her untalented daughter and forcing her to succeed through any means possible. When Rove met George W. Bush he was floundering – a lost son of a U.S. President in search of some meaning in his life. What better way for Rove to fulfill his own ambitions by channeling them through someone more handsome, more connected and oh, so pliable. A determined survivor with a drive fueled by pain meets his fate. Without Mama Rose’s ambition and drive there would be no Gypsy Rose Lee. The less talented of two sisters Louise (the future Gypsy) is thrown into the spotlight by her mother to do a strip. And in that spotlight Louise finds a power she never knew -- shedding her skin as the underachieving sister. By taking off her clothes in a room full of men Louise is instantly taken seriously. Mama Rose shows a total lack of morality in allowing Louise to strip as she knows that the men in the audience will enjoy her daughter because she is practically a child. However, her belief is that she is not sacrificing her daughter completely because Louise is not really going to take off all her clothes. It’s all an illusion. Could Karl Rove be trying to complete himself by becoming the mother he always wanted? And could George Bush be the child that Karl Rove always dreamed of being but never got to be because he was forced to deal with such an overwhelming loss? Or could Rove have found the ideal surrogate to fulfill his own ambition? Some people are born under a lucky star and their lives are tragedy-free. But Karl Rove is not one of them. And to be in that rare position of global power and not examine your own life and how it connects to the choices you make is very dangerous to the rest of the world. Not to mention selfish and narcissistic. Just like Mama Rose.