| 2006-11-26 18:49:08 |
Zionism: Pitting the West Against Islam |
Thank You! |
This is a very brave article; thank you for sharing with us.
"... what you saw here is a very perfect example ..."
how true!
|
| 2006-11-28 07:11:16 |
"Our War Against Canada": Alex Cox and the Long March of American Militarism |
as mentioned above |
[url http://www.counterpunch.org/rudmin02172006.html]Plan Crimson: War on Canada | Secret War Plans and the Malady of American Militarism By FLOYD RUDMIN via Counterpunch[/url] |
| 2006-11-28 07:12:42 |
"Our War Against Canada": Alex Cox and the Long March of American Militarism |
|
I typed it good but the software read it bad... that ugly-looking link above actually works! Good article, too!
Thanks, Chris. |
| 2006-11-28 20:50:52 |
"Our War Against Canada": Alex Cox and the Long March of American Militarism |
|
spelling mistake in comment #4 |
| 2006-11-30 16:39:01 |
Vietnam, Iraq, and the M Word |
Yeah, yeah, yeah! |
100% bang-on. Great stuff, Mickey! |
| 2006-12-02 00:09:59 |
As America Slept |
|
thank you, Mr. Hussain ... some are still sleeping very soundly but more are waking up all the time, I think |
| 2006-12-02 18:45:04 |
Fighting the Iraq War...at Home |
yep |
Good piece, David. Thank you. |
| 2006-12-07 02:25:05 |
Don't expect U.S. to create democracy in Iraq (lessons from Greece) |
Education for the Illiterate? |
Education for the illiterate? What were they thinking? That may be the most dangerous idea of all.
It was also one of the big reasons why the very popular and very progressive Guatemalan regime was toppled in the 1950s, although your excellent piece of two days ago left out this juicy detail.
In Guatemala (prior to the coup) there was a double-edged literacy law. It said that anyone who could not read was obliged to learn to do so. And the government sent reading teachers to the poor villages to help them learn.
The same law also said that anyone who could read was obliged to vote.
Can you imagine?
Thanks again, Mickey. You Rock! |
| 2006-12-08 21:48:48 |
A Congress of Whores and Pipsqueaks |
Good article! |
Thanks, Dave. |
| 2006-12-09 22:31:54 |
The U.S. government hates democracy (lessons from Italy) |
Gladio Hit Them Later, Though! |
Thanks again for another good article, Mickey.
If all Americans could see how much their government has been interested in undermining democracy everywhere, for the last 50 years or even longer, they might be a bit dubious of all the BS we're hearing about Iraq.
|
| 2006-12-13 17:33:14 |
Presidential Tyranny Untamed by Election Defeat |
Wow! |
This is a great, great column, Chris -- one of the best pieces you have written in a long, long time, IMHO.
I wish every American could read it.
Even more, I wish every American had enough inner strength to face the truth you tell so eloquently.
It looks to me as if we need to impeach not only the elephants, but the donkeys as well.
How's that for an idea whose time has not yet come? |
| 2006-12-15 04:20:46 |
Let Things Ripen Some on Impeachment: Patience Will Be Rewarded |
This is not an orchard! |
Andrew, I respect your opinion and your right to express it, but I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.
This is not an orchard. Nothing here is gonna ripen all by itself. In my opinion we will never achieve anything of value unless we keep pushing -- as hard as we can, wherever and whenever we can.
We are working against an enormous, vicious, and extremely well-funded propaganda machine, and all the progress we have made so far has been due to pushing against it -- as hard as possible, wherever and whenever possible.
I applauded Congresswoman McKinney for introducing articles of impeachment and -- even after reading your piece twice -- I still think that was the right thing to do.
I wish we had more like her. |
| 2006-12-15 10:01:17 |
Let Things Ripen Some on Impeachment: Patience Will Be Rewarded |
Andrew, you ask a lot of questions! ;-) but so do I ... |
Hi again, Andrew,
Here are my answers to your questions:[quote]Do you agree that with the American public in general [Congresswoman McKinney] is regarded in a negative light?[/quote]She is certainly [i]portrayed[/i] in the mass media in a negative light. But does the American public in general [i]regard[/i] her that way?
I don't believe the American public in general has [i]any idea[/i] who she is. Certainly most of the people I [i]know[/i] (as opposed to the people with whom I hang online) have never heard of her.
This does not surprise me, by the way. Most of the people I know have never heard of Sibel Edmonds either. Nor have they heard of Jim Fetzer, nor Chris Floyd, nor indeed are they able to name [i]anyone[/i] who has made a habit of speaking out against the president and/or questioning the official story of 9/11. They have never heard the terms "false flag terror", or "unitary executive", or "Military Commisions Act", for that matter.
Is their ignorance a good reason for any critics of the administration to remain silent? I would say "NO". In my opinion, their ignorance is a good reason for [i]all[/i] critics of the administration to redouble their efforts.[quote]Would it surprise you if, of those who know enough about her to have an opinion, more than 75% have a negative opinion?[/quote]Yes, it would -- if by your use of the word [i]know[/i] you mean [i]actual knowledge[/i] of [i]actual facts[/i]. The few people I know who actually know anything about her love her to pieces.
Congresswoman McKinney has been lied about so often and so viciously in the national media, and especially in the Atlanta-area media, that I wouldn't be surprised if 75% of the people who [i]think[/i] they know enough about her to have an opinion, actually [i]know[/i] less than zero. In other words, they have more dis-information about her than actual information.
(Incidentally, I question your use of the phrase "know enough ... to have an opinion". As I read the situation, virtually everybody has an opinion about virtually everything, regardless of whether or not they have any actual knowledge about it.)[quote]Do you agree that if someone that people dislike espouses Idea A, the standing of idea A with those people will probably be diminished?[/quote]I haven't the foggiest notion. I would like to think that the majority of Americans are bright enough, and/or well-enough educated, to evaulate an idea based on its merits rather than on the public image of anyone who espouses it. But sadly I do not see much evidence to support my sentiment on this point.
I do see people attempting to discredit those of us who still want straight answers about 9/11, for instance, by repeatedly yelling "Jim Fetzer is an asshole!" (Personally I have no insignt into his personality, but I do know that it's irrelevant -- it's entirely possible for assholes to speak the truth and for nice guys to be clueless.) But whether such tactics, which seem transparently obvious to me, actually work with the majority of Americans, I really have no idea.
But I would ask you: Are you implying that anyone who has been smeared for his/her opposition to the president, and whose popularity with the American people is therefore low, should simply sit down and shut up?
In other words, should Congresswoman McKinney have said to herself: "The media have lied about me, and I am not very popular with the sheeple, therefore I would be doing the anti-Bush cause a disservice by speaking out about things I believe to be important."??
If you believe this, and if you are right about this, then there is no point in anyone opposing anything, because (given the current media climate) no popular figure who opposes this administration is going to remain popular for very long. And if unpopular critics are doing their cause a disservice by remaining critics, then we might as well just dig our own graves and jump in.[quote]And if you agree also with that point: do you agree that if we want this president to be impeached, it is important for the idea of impeachment to gain widespread support among the American public generally?[/quote]As you can see, I don't agree with that point, nor with the argument you are making in general, but I will answer this one anyway: Impeachment [i]already has widespread support[/i] among the American public generally.
Do you read David Swanson? He's had some good columns here recently. In one of them he quotes a survey showing that 51% of Americans support impeachment. Roughly 30% support the president. How much more of a numerical advantage do pro-impeachment people have to have before they start speaking freely and openly about it?[quote]If you agree with all three of those propositions, then I would think that you'd agree that for Congresswoman McKinney to trumpet the need for impeachment does not help the cause.[/quote]As you can see, I do not agree with your propositions, and even more importantly, I do not agree with the way you have strung them together. I simply do not see your argument as having much logical validity.
Sixty percent of the voters in the district that elected Nancy Pelosi voted in favor of impeachment, yet she says it's "off the table". Does [i]that[/i] help the cause?
John Conyers, who for the past two years has been the strongest voice in Congress in favor of electoral integrity and impeachment, has effectively betrayed his supporters by saying impeachment is "off the table". Does [i]that[/i] help the cause?
With all possible respect, Andrew, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. |
| 2006-12-15 11:02:05 |
U.S. Troops Raid Hospital Again |
Thank you!! |
Hi, Dahr.
It's great to see you here.
Please keep telling us these horrible truths ... and we'll keep trying to spread them as far and wide as possible.
|
| 2006-12-15 11:34:01 |
Bush’s Mad-dash to History’s Dustbin |
Mike, I usually agree with you, but ... |
... I'm not so sure about what you've written here, as typified by this passage:
[i]Baker and Co. have played a big part in carefully assembling the requisite cogs and gears that make [the Middle East] a smooth-running imperial machine. They have no intention of standing by while Genralissimo Bush pours gas over the whole region and sets it on fire.
They can’t let that happen and they won’t let that happen.[/i]
They're too late. It has already happened! |
| 2006-12-15 11:37:29 |
Death to Infidels via Video Game |
Have We Finally Hit Bottom? |
... and if not, how much lower can we sink?
On second thought, maybe it's best if you don't answer that.
I don't want to know ... yet. We'll all find out soon enough anyway. |
| 2006-12-15 12:05:44 |
Let Things Ripen Some on Impeachment: Patience Will Be Rewarded |
This one's for Jimmy |
Hey, Jimmy:
I disagree with you (and agree with Andrew) about what happened in the Nixon situation. Nixon resigned and was granted an all-inclusive pardon and therefore could not be tried. (I would have liked to see Gerald Ford impeached for pardoning him, and hanged for his role as FBI mole in the Warren Commission "investigation", but that's another story entirely.)
The big mistake made by "the government", as I read it, was Clinton's failure to go after the criminals who operated with impunity in the GHWB administration, and in the two RWR/GHWB administrations before that. GHWB, Cheney, Dumsfeld, Poindexter and many others should have been hanged a long time ago -- but Clinton wanted to make nicey-nice ... and now these same criminals are in charge. And the national nightmare continues.
Under GHWB they were called "the crazies in the basement". Under GWB they've had corner offices upstairs. If the Clinton administration had prosecuted them for their crimes, things might have been very different.
And that's putting it mildly. You might want to visit consortiumnews.com and read Robert Parry's take on all this. He says it a lot better than I ever could.
And BTW I like you a lot better when you're attacking Andrew's arguments than when you're attacking him personally. |
| 2006-12-15 17:57:46 |
No Mr. Buckley, No |
It's a great piece, but ... |
Telling William Buckley not to muddy the water is like telling a fish not to swim.
He can't stop it. It's the only thing he knows how to do. |
| 2006-12-15 20:12:45 |
It’s Not Just Bush: We’re Accountable Too |
More Action Ideas |
In my view, we must move beyond the transparently false rhetoric which is foisted on us by politicians of both parties and all our major media. In particular, I believe, we must:
-- Recognize that [url=http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html]Osama bin Laden is dead[/url] and resolve to challenge anyone who says we should devote any efforts or resources to finding or destroying him.
-- Understand that [url=http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2006/12/false-flags-and-low-intensity.html]al-Q'aeda is an instrument of western intelligence agencies[/url], which is used for covert operations.
-- Realize that [url=http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006]our electoral system is broken[/url] -- and that therefore politicians of both parties have been severed from the usual mode of accountability.
-- Come to terms with the fact that the illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjustified wars our country has been waging against Afghanistan and Iraq were not "mistakes", but [url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm]premeditated acts of betrayal[/url] -- and demand that all who brought us these tragedies be not only impeached but hanged for treason.
-- [url=http://psstpsstpsst.blogspot.com]Share these little bits of hidden information[/url] with your friends and your family and your neighbors and your co-workers. Our society cannot begin to function properly if all the important knowledge is in the hands of a relatively few people.
That's for starters. |
| 2006-12-16 08:07:01 |
Let Things Ripen Some on Impeachment: Patience Will Be Rewarded |
Has he run away? |
I was hopin' our friend Andrew would stop by for a bit of a visit...
What happened, Jimmy? Did we scare him away?
BTW you were right on about the Clinton pardons ;-) |
| 2006-12-16 19:15:54 |
Let Things Ripen Some on Impeachment: Patience Will Be Rewarded |
If he comes back and I don't notice... |
Thanks, Jimmy. It's an honor to inhabit the lunatic fringe with you.
As for schnookums, I just met the guy, I know nut-tink about him. So I'll trust your judgement and keep an eye open for him around here. But ... if he comes back and I don't notice... send me an email, will ya?
[url=mailto:wp112263@hotmail.com]wp112263 at hotmail dot com[/url] or click the "email me" link on the sidebar at [url=http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com]please don't read my blog[/url].
Thanks again and best wishes.
WP
|
| 2006-12-17 12:25:51 |
Let Things Ripen Some on Impeachment: Patience Will Be Rewarded |
"I'm Looking Through You" |
Dear Andrew:
In a debate, if we ask our opponent a series of questions and he answers us and asks some questions of his own... and if we then carry on as if he hadn't spoken at all, fail to acknowledge his answers, fail to address any of his questions... the judges notice, and they're not impressed. It shows them we're either unprepared or we lack logical support on our side of the question, or we're otherwise reluctant to engage our opponents on issues [i]we[/i] introduced into the discussion ourselves.
If instead we indulge in ad-hominem attacks against unnamed others, for instance implying that our opponent's arguments are emotional whereas ours are logical, shifting the field rather than dealing with our opponent, judges notice that too. They call that approach "slippery".
What's the difference between real-time debating and online discussion? If we do something slippery in real-time, only the people who are present at the time, and paying close attention, are going to notice. If we do something slippery online, the evidence is there for all to see whenever they come along, and it sits there for quite a while.
Just a word to the wise, eh what?
~~~
I am not angry. Do I seem angry? Au contraire, mon ami. I am too cold to be angry. I am not young and foolish nor am I blind to the difference between tactics and strategy on the one hand and emotional outbursts on the other. I'm a chess player; I'm thinking as many moves ahead as I can. This is not revenge for me. This is about using the constitutionally prescribed remedy at a time when it is badly needed.
The way to get the public behind impeachment is to start doing it. That -- and nothing else -- will force the complicit corporate media to cover it. They wouldn't dare [i]not[/i] cover it, would they? Maybe. But in any case, the procedure that will work, the procedure that has worked, the procedure that makes the most sense -- tactically, historically -- is to start holding their feet to the fire in that big round building in Washington, and gradually eventually the sheeple will come around to some approximation of the truth about the evil lawless criminal administration and its evil lawless criminal ways and they will put pressure on their so-called elected representatives who will all of a sudden realize that voting for the president could cost them their jobs, and then all sorts of favorable dynamics swing into action.
It always works this way: the American public was nowhere near this upset at RMN when impeachment proceedings were begun against him, but nobody said "let's wait until the people are behind us". That's why they called them "leaders".
Dean says the votes are not there. Perhaps he fails to remember that the votes were not there against RMN either, but after his criminal conduct was made THE ISSUE and American citizens learned more and more about it the votes began to materialize. By which I mean, die-hard elephants were sending word to the oval office telling the neurotic little man, "I can't vote for you." Elephant leaders from both houses went to see RMN and told him "your support is vanishing".
And that's why he resigned. And that's how it was done. And that's how it's always done. That's why they did it that way then. And that's why it makes sense to do it now --jor as soon as possible.
Or in your words, we can use impeachment proceedings themselves as a means to ensure that [quote]the public gets sufficiently aroused against the Bushite crimes and lies to make it seem politically too costly to defend Bush.[/quote]So why wait? IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!! |
| 2006-12-18 05:28:59 |
Let Things Ripen Some on Impeachment: Patience Will Be Rewarded |
By their fruits shall ye know them. |
Good point, Andrew; and thanks for saying so. Your silence in my direction is the sort of fruit from which valuable knowledge can be derived. So thanks for that, as well. |
| 2006-12-18 21:04:51 |
Rockford Breathes a Sigh of Relief, Safe from the Menace of Derrick Shareef |
|
[quote] We'll find out Shareef was retarded, or bipolar gone off his meds or some such.[/quote]you could be right ... I'll be watching![quote]The FBI found the guy in a prison drub rehab program and set him up to take this dive. [/quote]There is some evidence in the affidavit to suggest this may be what happened. Not enough to substantiate it but Shareef talks about going to the courthouse every month. Why does he have to do that? Hmmmm.[quote]I firmly believe that the so-called War on Terror is actually just a bigger better version of the War on Drugs.[/quote]ka-CHING![quote]The difference is that in the War on Drugs, only the rights of drug users and blacks and chicanos were trampled. Now the cops are going after everyone else.[/quote]There are other differences of course but you are definitely onto something, Jimmy.
Connect the following dots: Afghanistan, Turkey, heroin, millions, Dennis Hastert, Sibel Edmonds.
[url=http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/12/sibel-edmonds-americas-watergate.html]Here's a hint.[/url]
I'll be back. |
| 2006-12-20 16:30:35 |
Reason and Emotion in the Anti-Bushite Movement, Or, Hey Democrat-hating Lefties, Get Real |
Don't Piss Me Off |
What a piece of trash! Straw men everywhere, ad-hominems against unidentified "others" all over the place. All kinds of unsubstantiated wishes disguised as knowledge. Such a waste of bandwidth. Such a waste of pixels!
Here's a power-shift strategy for you, Schnookums: Why don't you just pick up your straw men and your "Sit Down And Shut Up" banners, and go calm down some of the radical yeast-worshippers at Ladies Home Journal? |
| 2006-12-21 07:04:50 |
Reason and Emotion in the Anti-Bushite Movement, Or, Hey Democrat-hating Lefties, Get Real |
|
I wonder what it is that leads to your speaking in this way different way to me here, in this forum.
Here's the nutshell, Andrew. We have only had contact on [url=http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/439/81/]one other thread[/url]. There you asked me some questions. I answered them and asked some of my own, which you ignored.
I made a few other comments on that thread, asking questions that you could have answered had you wished, or otherwise trying to prod you for an answer to the questions I had posed, but instead of acknowledging them, you acted as if my posts were invisible.
When I ask my kids to do something and they ignore me I usually ask them again. If they continue to ignore me I will raise my voice or get in their face or do whatever else it takes to get their attention. That's what happened here.
Now that I have your attention I will happily dispense with the childishness and the name-calling and so on, and if you want to talk about what you have written, I am game for a discussion.
But if it turns into another session of "You're Not There; I Don't See You" then I might be tempted to mangle your name or make a snide comment about something you consider irrelevant. Oh well. At least I didn't pinch your earlobe. That's what I do when I run out of patience with my kids.
And BTW this is not about "ego" and I do not "respond poorly to being neglected" or anything of that sort. This is about trying to establish a set of ground rules.
In other words, how are discussions to be conducted here?
I like 'em civil, so if you're into that we're making progress already. And I like 'em balanced too. In other words, if you ask me a question, I will answer it to the best of my ability. But in return I expect that if I ask you a question, you will at least make an effort to respond. And if you're into that too then we're really cookin'.
But otherwise not. |
| 2006-12-24 03:51:16 |
RAPID RESPONSE MEDIA ALERT: THE LIBERATED AND THE DEAD |
Here's hoping you're right, Andrew |
[quote]when the people fully realise how cruelly they were deceived and the crimes committed in their collective name, they will be too ashamed to be American[/quote]And Can It Please Happen SOON??? |
