We've heard a lot about how "everything changed" on September 11, 2001, and that we now face a "new reality." In the upcoming election we are presented with two radically different approaches to that new reality: one approaches the new reality by force denying it and insisting that it be shaped to our wishes, the other would adapt to the new reality and grow through it.
George W. Bush's approach to the new reality was to declare his "War on Terror" and vow to fight on until one day, when each and every terrorist is either dead or in jail and unable to commit further acts of terror, victory will be declared. It is becoming clear that such a day, should it every come, is a very long time in future.
John Kerry, on the other hand, believes that we must acknowledge that we are living in a new reality and adapt to it, recognizing that there is no realistic hope of nailing every last terrorist and that at some point the war on terror must cease to be "the focus of our lives".
The Bush campaign, of course, immediately seized upon Kerry's comment as evidence of his willingness to be soft on terrorists. In fact, to continue to deny the new reality in the face of all evidence borders on delusion.
Charles Darwin explained that while change can help prolong survival, it is adaptation that results in progress. George Bush's orientation is one of survival, John Kerry would adapt to the new reality and grow as a result. Bush's approach counts on brute force, Kerry's requires real courage.
ITV (Ireland) - Bush and Kerry trade blows over New Mexico
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The "new reality" -- Will we grow, or merely sruvive? It's a choice you will have to make.
We've heard a lot about how "everything changed" on September 11, 2001, and that we now face a "new reality." In the upcoming election we are presented with two radically different approaches to that new reality: one approaches the new reality by force denying it and insisting that it be shaped to our wishes, the other would adapt to the new reality and grow through it.
George W. Bush's approach to the new reality was to declare his "War on Terror" and vow to fight on until one day, when each and every terrorist is either dead or in jail and unable to commit further acts of terror, victory will be declared. It is becoming clear that such a day, should it every come, is a very long time in future.
John Kerry, on the other hand, believes that we must acknowledge that we are living in a new reality and adapt to it, recognizing that there is no realistic hope of nailing every last terrorist and that at some point the war on terror must cease to be "the focus of our lives".
The Bush campaign, of course, immediately seized upon Kerry's comment as evidence of his willingness to be soft on terrorists. In fact, to continue to deny the new reality in the face of all evidence borders on delusion.
Charles Darwin explained that while change can help prolong survival, it is adaptation that results in progress. George Bush's orientation is one of survival, John Kerry would adapt to the new reality and grow as a result. Bush's approach counts on brute force, Kerry's requires real courage.
ITV (Ireland) - Bush and Kerry trade blows over New Mexico
George W. Bush's approach to the new reality was to declare his "War on Terror" and vow to fight on until one day, when each and every terrorist is either dead or in jail and unable to commit further acts of terror, victory will be declared. It is becoming clear that such a day, should it every come, is a very long time in future.
John Kerry, on the other hand, believes that we must acknowledge that we are living in a new reality and adapt to it, recognizing that there is no realistic hope of nailing every last terrorist and that at some point the war on terror must cease to be "the focus of our lives".
The Bush campaign, of course, immediately seized upon Kerry's comment as evidence of his willingness to be soft on terrorists. In fact, to continue to deny the new reality in the face of all evidence borders on delusion.
Charles Darwin explained that while change can help prolong survival, it is adaptation that results in progress. George Bush's orientation is one of survival, John Kerry would adapt to the new reality and grow as a result. Bush's approach counts on brute force, Kerry's requires real courage.
ITV (Ireland) - Bush and Kerry trade blows over New Mexico
Monday, October 11, 2004
Bush cynically puts his war on terror on the back burner until after the election
All right, that does it! Why exactly would any veteran or anyone on active duty even think of voting for George W. Bush?
The Bush administration now admits that it will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after the U.S. elections because they are concerned that large-scale military offensives might affect the presidential race. Pentagon officials confirm that they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi, where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. casualties would be the highest, until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.
"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said a Bush administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications. We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."
We aren't likely to hear any complaints from Iyad Allawi, the U.S. appointed Interim Iraqi Prime Minister, who believes that he would face an uncertain future under a president Kerry and has a vested interest in seeing Bush re-elected. He is acutely aware of how bloody the next steps in the Iraq war will be and he knows the negative impact that an American body count would have on the election. "A lot of his political future depends on our election," said the senior administration official.
But worst of all, the 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq who are trying to break the will of a deadly insurgency, will be expected to understand and accommodate the needs of U.S. politics and the demands of their Iraqi hosts.
Los Angeles Times - Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote
The Bush administration now admits that it will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after the U.S. elections because they are concerned that large-scale military offensives might affect the presidential race. Pentagon officials confirm that they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi, where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. casualties would be the highest, until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.
"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said a Bush administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications. We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."
We aren't likely to hear any complaints from Iyad Allawi, the U.S. appointed Interim Iraqi Prime Minister, who believes that he would face an uncertain future under a president Kerry and has a vested interest in seeing Bush re-elected. He is acutely aware of how bloody the next steps in the Iraq war will be and he knows the negative impact that an American body count would have on the election. "A lot of his political future depends on our election," said the senior administration official.
But worst of all, the 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq who are trying to break the will of a deadly insurgency, will be expected to understand and accommodate the needs of U.S. politics and the demands of their Iraqi hosts.
Los Angeles Times - Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote
Bush cynically puts his war on terror on the back burner until after the election
All right, that does it! Why exactly would any veteran or anyone on active duty even think of voting for George W. Bush?
The Bush administration now admits that it will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after the U.S. elections because they are concerned that large-scale military offensives might affect the presidential race. Pentagon officials confirm that they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi, where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. casualties would be the highest, until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.
"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said a Bush administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications. We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."
We aren't likely to hear any complaints from Iyad Allawi, the U.S. appointed Interim Iraqi Prime Minister, who believes that he would face an uncertain future under a president Kerry and has a vested interest in seeing Bush re-elected. He is acutely aware of how bloody the next steps in the Iraq war will be and he knows the negative impact that an American body count would have on the election. "A lot of his political future depends on our election," said the senior administration official.
But worst of all, the 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq who are trying to break the will of a deadly insurgency, will be expected to understand and accommodate the needs of U.S. politics and the demands of their Iraqi hosts.
Los Angeles Times - Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote
The Bush administration now admits that it will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after the U.S. elections because they are concerned that large-scale military offensives might affect the presidential race. Pentagon officials confirm that they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi, where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. casualties would be the highest, until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.
"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said a Bush administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications. We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."
We aren't likely to hear any complaints from Iyad Allawi, the U.S. appointed Interim Iraqi Prime Minister, who believes that he would face an uncertain future under a president Kerry and has a vested interest in seeing Bush re-elected. He is acutely aware of how bloody the next steps in the Iraq war will be and he knows the negative impact that an American body count would have on the election. "A lot of his political future depends on our election," said the senior administration official.
But worst of all, the 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq who are trying to break the will of a deadly insurgency, will be expected to understand and accommodate the needs of U.S. politics and the demands of their Iraqi hosts.
Los Angeles Times - Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote
Sunday, October 10, 2004
U.S. Announces permanent occupation of Afghanistan, pipeline construction begins
"This was an extraordinary day for the Afghan people, and this election is going to be judged legitimate. I'm just certain of it," thus speaking on behalf of George W. Bush, Condie Rice kicked off the administration's spin campaign to make us all believe that, after centuries of some of the fiercest tribal warfare on the planet, Afghanistan has now embraced the almighty's gift of freedom.
Hamid Karzai, the U.S.'s hand picked Prime Minister, received a majority of the votes in Afghanistan's novel election. However, as is so often the case with the Bush administration, reality is somewhat at odds with the official proclamation:
Nevertheless, after having spent more than $200 million on the Afghani election, George W. Bush can now claim "mission accomplished" in the first front in his war on terror, and the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan can become permanent thus clearing the way for the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline.
The Age (Australia) - Fraud claims fuel election doubts
BBC (UK) - Central Asia pipeline deal signed
Hamid Karzai, the U.S.'s hand picked Prime Minister, received a majority of the votes in Afghanistan's novel election. However, as is so often the case with the Bush administration, reality is somewhat at odds with the official proclamation:
Karzai was the only one of the 16 candidates remaining on the ballot by the end of the election as all of his challengers withdrew when their calls for a postponement were rejected after massive ballot fraud became apparent during the day.
A "fool-proof" plan to prevent fraud involving the use of indelible ink marks on voters' thumbs fell apart when a number of provinces were provided with washable ink instead. (The inking procedure itself was a stop-gap measure after it became apparent that many Afghanis were registering more than once and that Karzai had ordered more than three times as many ballots printed as there were eligible voters.)
Karzai was the only candidate who was flown around the country from one campaign stop to another in a U.S. helicopters with security provided by the U.S. military.
Nevertheless, after having spent more than $200 million on the Afghani election, George W. Bush can now claim "mission accomplished" in the first front in his war on terror, and the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan can become permanent thus clearing the way for the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline.
The Age (Australia) - Fraud claims fuel election doubts
BBC (UK) - Central Asia pipeline deal signed
U.S. Announces permanent occupation of Afghanistan, pipeline construction begins
"This was an extraordinary day for the Afghan people, and this election is going to be judged legitimate. I'm just certain of it," thus speaking on behalf of George W. Bush, Condie Rice kicked off the administration's spin campaign to make us all believe that, after centuries of some of the fiercest tribal warfare on the planet, Afghanistan has now embraced the almighty's gift of freedom.
Hamid Karzai, the U.S.'s hand picked Prime Minister, received a majority of the votes in Afghanistan's novel election. However, as is so often the case with the Bush administration, reality is somewhat at odds with the official proclamation:
Nevertheless, after having spent more than $200 million on the Afghani election, George W. Bush can now claim "mission accomplished" in the first front in his war on terror, and the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan can become permanent thus clearing the way for the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline.
The Age (Australia) - Fraud claims fuel election doubts
BBC (UK) - Central Asia pipeline deal signed
Hamid Karzai, the U.S.'s hand picked Prime Minister, received a majority of the votes in Afghanistan's novel election. However, as is so often the case with the Bush administration, reality is somewhat at odds with the official proclamation:
Karzai was the only one of the 16 candidates remaining on the ballot by the end of the election as all of his challengers withdrew when their calls for a postponement were rejected after massive ballot fraud became apparent during the day.
A "fool-proof" plan to prevent fraud involving the use of indelible ink marks on voters' thumbs fell apart when a number of provinces were provided with washable ink instead. (The inking procedure itself was a stop-gap measure after it became apparent that many Afghanis were registering more than once and that Karzai had ordered more than three times as many ballots printed as there were eligible voters.)
Karzai was the only candidate who was flown around the country from one campaign stop to another in a U.S. helicopters with security provided by the U.S. military.
Nevertheless, after having spent more than $200 million on the Afghani election, George W. Bush can now claim "mission accomplished" in the first front in his war on terror, and the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan can become permanent thus clearing the way for the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline.
The Age (Australia) - Fraud claims fuel election doubts
BBC (UK) - Central Asia pipeline deal signed
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Lumber Baron Bush
He was in his prime, pandering to the anti-intellectual wing of his constituency with his smug snickering, "Yuh mean ah own a timer cumpny? ...snick-snick ...News tuh me. ...Enybudy wanna buy sum wood? ...heh-heh."
John Kerry had just driven home his point that there are too many loopholes in tax law, pointing out that both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney qualify as "small businesses" under the Republican definition. "President Bush owns a timber business, made $84," Kerry said. And then Bush blew it. "I own a timber business? You want some wood, Charlie?" he clucked.
Actually, he does own part of a timber company, and on his 2001 taxes he did report $84 from it.
And, according to the tortured math used by the Republicans, that makes him one of the much vaunted "small business owners" who are going to fire the economic recovery if only we can get the "gummint off their backs."
According to the web site factcheck.org (which Cheney himself cited as a resource in his own debate), "President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)"*
And, according to the same source, "Vice President Cheney and his wife Lynne qualify as "small business owners" for 2003 because 3.5% of the total income reported on their tax returns was business income from Mrs. Cheney's consulting business. She reported $44,580 in business income on Schedule C, nearly all of it from fees paid to her as a director of the Reader's Digest . But giving the Cheneys a tax cut didn't stimulate any hiring; she reported zero employees."
Come to think of it, according to the republican definition even my wife, who works as an "independent contractor" (in a position that used to be filled by a salaried employee with full medical insurance) qualifies as a "small business owner" because she files a Schedule C.
Rediff (India) - Kerry looks good in second debate too
factcheck.org - A Bush-Cheney ad says Kerry would raise taxes for 900,000 "small businesses" and "hurt jobs." It's a big exaggeration.
* Confirming the lengths to which Bush and his cronies are willing to go in order to disguise their activities, factcheck.org issued this clarification: "What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust. We were confused because The Lone Star Trust currently owns 50% of another company, "LSTF, LLC", described on Bush’s 2003 financial disclosure forms as a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." So, Bush does own part interest in a tree-growing company, but the $84 came from an oil and gas company and we should have reported it as such."
John Kerry had just driven home his point that there are too many loopholes in tax law, pointing out that both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney qualify as "small businesses" under the Republican definition. "President Bush owns a timber business, made $84," Kerry said. And then Bush blew it. "I own a timber business? You want some wood, Charlie?" he clucked.
Actually, he does own part of a timber company, and on his 2001 taxes he did report $84 from it.
And, according to the tortured math used by the Republicans, that makes him one of the much vaunted "small business owners" who are going to fire the economic recovery if only we can get the "gummint off their backs."
According to the web site factcheck.org (which Cheney himself cited as a resource in his own debate), "President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)"*
And, according to the same source, "Vice President Cheney and his wife Lynne qualify as "small business owners" for 2003 because 3.5% of the total income reported on their tax returns was business income from Mrs. Cheney's consulting business. She reported $44,580 in business income on Schedule C, nearly all of it from fees paid to her as a director of the Reader's Digest . But giving the Cheneys a tax cut didn't stimulate any hiring; she reported zero employees."
Come to think of it, according to the republican definition even my wife, who works as an "independent contractor" (in a position that used to be filled by a salaried employee with full medical insurance) qualifies as a "small business owner" because she files a Schedule C.
Rediff (India) - Kerry looks good in second debate too
factcheck.org - A Bush-Cheney ad says Kerry would raise taxes for 900,000 "small businesses" and "hurt jobs." It's a big exaggeration.
* Confirming the lengths to which Bush and his cronies are willing to go in order to disguise their activities, factcheck.org issued this clarification: "What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust. We were confused because The Lone Star Trust currently owns 50% of another company, "LSTF, LLC", described on Bush’s 2003 financial disclosure forms as a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." So, Bush does own part interest in a tree-growing company, but the $84 came from an oil and gas company and we should have reported it as such."
Lumber Baron Bush
He was in his prime, pandering to the anti-intellectual wing of his constituency with his smug snickering, "Yuh mean ah own a timer cumpny? ...snick-snick ...News tuh me. ...Enybudy wanna buy sum wood? ...heh-heh."
John Kerry had just driven home his point that there are too many loopholes in tax law, pointing out that both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney qualify as "small businesses" under the Republican definition. "President Bush owns a timber business, made $84," Kerry said. And then Bush blew it. "I own a timber business? You want some wood, Charlie?" he clucked.
Actually, he does own part of a timber company, and on his 2001 taxes he did report $84 from it.
And, according to the tortured math used by the Republicans, that makes him one of the much vaunted "small business owners" who are going to fire the economic recovery if only we can get the "gummint off their backs."
According to the web site factcheck.org (which Cheney himself cited as a resource in his own debate), "President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)"*
And, according to the same source, "Vice President Cheney and his wife Lynne qualify as "small business owners" for 2003 because 3.5% of the total income reported on their tax returns was business income from Mrs. Cheney's consulting business. She reported $44,580 in business income on Schedule C, nearly all of it from fees paid to her as a director of the Reader's Digest . But giving the Cheneys a tax cut didn't stimulate any hiring; she reported zero employees."
Come to think of it, according to the republican definition even my wife, who works as an "independent contractor" (in a position that used to be filled by a salaried employee with full medical insurance) qualifies as a "small business owner" because she files a Schedule C.
Rediff (India) - Kerry looks good in second debate too
factcheck.org - A Bush-Cheney ad says Kerry would raise taxes for 900,000 "small businesses" and "hurt jobs." It's a big exaggeration.
* Confirming the lengths to which Bush and his cronies are willing to go in order to disguise their activities, factcheck.org issued this clarification: "What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust. We were confused because The Lone Star Trust currently owns 50% of another company, "LSTF, LLC", described on Bush’s 2003 financial disclosure forms as a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." So, Bush does own part interest in a tree-growing company, but the $84 came from an oil and gas company and we should have reported it as such."
John Kerry had just driven home his point that there are too many loopholes in tax law, pointing out that both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney qualify as "small businesses" under the Republican definition. "President Bush owns a timber business, made $84," Kerry said. And then Bush blew it. "I own a timber business? You want some wood, Charlie?" he clucked.
Actually, he does own part of a timber company, and on his 2001 taxes he did report $84 from it.
And, according to the tortured math used by the Republicans, that makes him one of the much vaunted "small business owners" who are going to fire the economic recovery if only we can get the "gummint off their backs."
According to the web site factcheck.org (which Cheney himself cited as a resource in his own debate), "President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)"*
And, according to the same source, "Vice President Cheney and his wife Lynne qualify as "small business owners" for 2003 because 3.5% of the total income reported on their tax returns was business income from Mrs. Cheney's consulting business. She reported $44,580 in business income on Schedule C, nearly all of it from fees paid to her as a director of the Reader's Digest . But giving the Cheneys a tax cut didn't stimulate any hiring; she reported zero employees."
Come to think of it, according to the republican definition even my wife, who works as an "independent contractor" (in a position that used to be filled by a salaried employee with full medical insurance) qualifies as a "small business owner" because she files a Schedule C.
Rediff (India) - Kerry looks good in second debate too
factcheck.org - A Bush-Cheney ad says Kerry would raise taxes for 900,000 "small businesses" and "hurt jobs." It's a big exaggeration.
* Confirming the lengths to which Bush and his cronies are willing to go in order to disguise their activities, factcheck.org issued this clarification: "What we originally reported as a "timber-growing" enterprise is actually described on Bush's tax return as an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust. We were confused because The Lone Star Trust currently owns 50% of another company, "LSTF, LLC", described on Bush’s 2003 financial disclosure forms as a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." So, Bush does own part interest in a tree-growing company, but the $84 came from an oil and gas company and we should have reported it as such."
Friday, October 08, 2004
war is peace
Somewhere over at the Ministry of Truth you can bet that Winston Smith is putting in some late hours this week.
We now learn that George W. Bush invaded Iraq knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons; no biological weapons; and no nuclear weapons. In fact, that he had no banned weapons at all, not even "weapons related program activities."
That is the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group, which was created by George Bush with the specific assignment of proving his case for removing Hussein. But Bush's own hand-picked group of investigators has found the facts to be precisely the opposite of what Bush and his band of thugs has been telling the American people: the much-maligned international regime of sanctions and weapons containment was working exactly as it was supposed to. Following the war over Kuwait Saddam Hussein was progressively disarmed and he never re-started the banned offensive programs.
The plan fact is this: the world was successfully dealing with Saddam Hussein without any need for an American invasion. In other words, this was a totally optional war. The invasion of Iraq was a choice made by Bush who then lied to America and the world to convince us otherwise.
So how do George Bush and his cronies react?
As Americans now the only sensible course of action is for us to vote for change. If we as the American people fail to take responsibility for this the world will hold us accountable, and there's no amount of spin or positioning that will save our sorry souls.
Independent (UK) - The final judgment
We now learn that George W. Bush invaded Iraq knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons; no biological weapons; and no nuclear weapons. In fact, that he had no banned weapons at all, not even "weapons related program activities."
That is the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group, which was created by George Bush with the specific assignment of proving his case for removing Hussein. But Bush's own hand-picked group of investigators has found the facts to be precisely the opposite of what Bush and his band of thugs has been telling the American people: the much-maligned international regime of sanctions and weapons containment was working exactly as it was supposed to. Following the war over Kuwait Saddam Hussein was progressively disarmed and he never re-started the banned offensive programs.
The plan fact is this: the world was successfully dealing with Saddam Hussein without any need for an American invasion. In other words, this was a totally optional war. The invasion of Iraq was a choice made by Bush who then lied to America and the world to convince us otherwise.
So how do George Bush and his cronies react?
First, deny reality: "As soon as the sanctions were lifted, he had every intention of going back," asserted Dick Cheney, "delay, defer, wait, wasn't an option." In Cheney's world merely having the desire to commit a crime is enough to get your country invaded and occupied and land you in the slammer without a trial.
Then, change the subject: "Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies," added George Bush. So forget about all that stuff about WMD, ties to al Qaeda, state sponsor of terror and so on, Hussein was a shake-down artist and that's plenty of reason to invade a country, kill and maim thousands of Americans soldiers and tens of thousands of the local residents.
As Americans now the only sensible course of action is for us to vote for change. If we as the American people fail to take responsibility for this the world will hold us accountable, and there's no amount of spin or positioning that will save our sorry souls.
Independent (UK) - The final judgment
war is peace
Somewhere over at the Ministry of Truth you can bet that Winston Smith is putting in some late hours this week.
We now learn that George W. Bush invaded Iraq knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons; no biological weapons; and no nuclear weapons. In fact, that he had no banned weapons at all, not even "weapons related program activities."
That is the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group, which was created by George Bush with the specific assignment of proving his case for removing Hussein. But Bush's own hand-picked group of investigators has found the facts to be precisely the opposite of what Bush and his band of thugs has been telling the American people: the much-maligned international regime of sanctions and weapons containment was working exactly as it was supposed to. Following the war over Kuwait Saddam Hussein was progressively disarmed and he never re-started the banned offensive programs.
The plan fact is this: the world was successfully dealing with Saddam Hussein without any need for an American invasion. In other words, this was a totally optional war. The invasion of Iraq was a choice made by Bush who then lied to America and the world to convince us otherwise.
So how do George Bush and his cronies react?
As Americans now the only sensible course of action is for us to vote for change. If we as the American people fail to take responsibility for this the world will hold us accountable, and there's no amount of spin or positioning that will save our sorry souls.
Independent (UK) - The final judgment
We now learn that George W. Bush invaded Iraq knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons; no biological weapons; and no nuclear weapons. In fact, that he had no banned weapons at all, not even "weapons related program activities."
That is the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group, which was created by George Bush with the specific assignment of proving his case for removing Hussein. But Bush's own hand-picked group of investigators has found the facts to be precisely the opposite of what Bush and his band of thugs has been telling the American people: the much-maligned international regime of sanctions and weapons containment was working exactly as it was supposed to. Following the war over Kuwait Saddam Hussein was progressively disarmed and he never re-started the banned offensive programs.
The plan fact is this: the world was successfully dealing with Saddam Hussein without any need for an American invasion. In other words, this was a totally optional war. The invasion of Iraq was a choice made by Bush who then lied to America and the world to convince us otherwise.
So how do George Bush and his cronies react?
First, deny reality: "As soon as the sanctions were lifted, he had every intention of going back," asserted Dick Cheney, "delay, defer, wait, wasn't an option." In Cheney's world merely having the desire to commit a crime is enough to get your country invaded and occupied and land you in the slammer without a trial.
Then, change the subject: "Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies," added George Bush. So forget about all that stuff about WMD, ties to al Qaeda, state sponsor of terror and so on, Hussein was a shake-down artist and that's plenty of reason to invade a country, kill and maim thousands of Americans soldiers and tens of thousands of the local residents.
As Americans now the only sensible course of action is for us to vote for change. If we as the American people fail to take responsibility for this the world will hold us accountable, and there's no amount of spin or positioning that will save our sorry souls.
Independent (UK) - The final judgment
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
The scandal Bush does not want to talk about
It's old news ... but the only reason it's old is that George W. Bush rushed to release the figures a month earlier than usual, hoping that you would forget by about this time. They thought that you'd be dazzled by the elections in Afghanistan and completely forget about what is happening right here in America.
The number of Americans living in poverty and without health insurance rose for the third straight year in 2003. That would be: each and every year that Bush has been in office. That's two full years after the official end of the recession. And yet even now Bush insists that, "the economy is strong and growing stronger," and that Americans are finding jobs, cleverly neglecting to mention that many of those who do get jobs are faced with lower wages, scaled-back benefits and few or no pension plans.
But it gets worse: one out of eight Americans is living in poverty. That's 35.8 million Americans, or an additional 1.3 million more Americans who slipped into the clutches of poverty during the most recent year of Bush's reign.
But the figure which ought to cause all of us to hide in shame is this: one out of every six American children is now living in poverty.
Come to thing of it, maybe there's a different reason why they'd rather talk about Afghanistan and Iraq: if you'd like an idea of what life in America will look like after a second term of George W. Bush, look at Baghdad.
Guardian (UK) - Ranks of Poor, Uninsured Rose in 2003
The number of Americans living in poverty and without health insurance rose for the third straight year in 2003. That would be: each and every year that Bush has been in office. That's two full years after the official end of the recession. And yet even now Bush insists that, "the economy is strong and growing stronger," and that Americans are finding jobs, cleverly neglecting to mention that many of those who do get jobs are faced with lower wages, scaled-back benefits and few or no pension plans.
But it gets worse: one out of eight Americans is living in poverty. That's 35.8 million Americans, or an additional 1.3 million more Americans who slipped into the clutches of poverty during the most recent year of Bush's reign.
But the figure which ought to cause all of us to hide in shame is this: one out of every six American children is now living in poverty.
Come to thing of it, maybe there's a different reason why they'd rather talk about Afghanistan and Iraq: if you'd like an idea of what life in America will look like after a second term of George W. Bush, look at Baghdad.
Guardian (UK) - Ranks of Poor, Uninsured Rose in 2003
The scandal Bush does not want to talk about
It's old news ... but the only reason it's old is that George W. Bush rushed to release the figures a month earlier than usual, hoping that you would forget by about this time. They thought that you'd be dazzled by the elections in Afghanistan and completely forget about what is happening right here in America.
The number of Americans living in poverty and without health insurance rose for the third straight year in 2003. That would be: each and every year that Bush has been in office. That's two full years after the official end of the recession. And yet even now Bush insists that, "the economy is strong and growing stronger," and that Americans are finding jobs, cleverly neglecting to mention that many of those who do get jobs are faced with lower wages, scaled-back benefits and few or no pension plans.
But it gets worse: one out of eight Americans is living in poverty. That's 35.8 million Americans, or an additional 1.3 million more Americans who slipped into the clutches of poverty during the most recent year of Bush's reign.
But the figure which ought to cause all of us to hide in shame is this: one out of every six American children is now living in poverty.
Come to thing of it, maybe there's a different reason why they'd rather talk about Afghanistan and Iraq: if you'd like an idea of what life in America will look like after a second term of George W. Bush, look at Baghdad.
Guardian (UK) - Ranks of Poor, Uninsured Rose in 2003
The number of Americans living in poverty and without health insurance rose for the third straight year in 2003. That would be: each and every year that Bush has been in office. That's two full years after the official end of the recession. And yet even now Bush insists that, "the economy is strong and growing stronger," and that Americans are finding jobs, cleverly neglecting to mention that many of those who do get jobs are faced with lower wages, scaled-back benefits and few or no pension plans.
But it gets worse: one out of eight Americans is living in poverty. That's 35.8 million Americans, or an additional 1.3 million more Americans who slipped into the clutches of poverty during the most recent year of Bush's reign.
But the figure which ought to cause all of us to hide in shame is this: one out of every six American children is now living in poverty.
Come to thing of it, maybe there's a different reason why they'd rather talk about Afghanistan and Iraq: if you'd like an idea of what life in America will look like after a second term of George W. Bush, look at Baghdad.
Guardian (UK) - Ranks of Poor, Uninsured Rose in 2003
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
U.S. Soldiers Charged With Murder
Four U.S. soldiers are being tried for murdering an Iraqi general during an interrogation last fall. "I don't know of any other case where a major general died of asphyxiation during interrogation. I doubt that this has happened in the past 50 years,'' said an Army lawyer.
But, uhh ... err ... you see, none of the soldiers has been jailed ... and, well, their ages and hometowns have not been released. Oh and yes, these soldiers bring the total number of U.S. troops charged with murder in Iraq to at least 10. But don't worry, they could get life in prison without parole if convicted.
Guardian (UK) Four U.S. Soldiers Charged With Murder
But, uhh ... err ... you see, none of the soldiers has been jailed ... and, well, their ages and hometowns have not been released. Oh and yes, these soldiers bring the total number of U.S. troops charged with murder in Iraq to at least 10. But don't worry, they could get life in prison without parole if convicted.
Guardian (UK) Four U.S. Soldiers Charged With Murder
U.S. Soldiers Charged With Murder
Four U.S. soldiers are being tried for murdering an Iraqi general during an interrogation last fall. "I don't know of any other case where a major general died of asphyxiation during interrogation. I doubt that this has happened in the past 50 years,'' said an Army lawyer.
But, uhh ... err ... you see, none of the soldiers has been jailed ... and, well, their ages and hometowns have not been released. Oh and yes, these soldiers bring the total number of U.S. troops charged with murder in Iraq to at least 10. But don't worry, they could get life in prison without parole if convicted.
Guardian (UK) Four U.S. Soldiers Charged With Murder
But, uhh ... err ... you see, none of the soldiers has been jailed ... and, well, their ages and hometowns have not been released. Oh and yes, these soldiers bring the total number of U.S. troops charged with murder in Iraq to at least 10. But don't worry, they could get life in prison without parole if convicted.
Guardian (UK) Four U.S. Soldiers Charged With Murder
Rumsfeld & Bremer expected to endorse John Kerry
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking of the Bush administration's continuing insistence that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda worked together, said, ''To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.'' (Later he said he was misunderstood when he said that he knew of no clear link between the al Qaeda terror network and Saddam Hussein.)
Meanwhile, former Iraqi Proconsul Paul Bremer said that "We never had enough troops on the ground," and that "There was planning, but planning for a situation that didn't arise" (which, I suppose, is about as useful as no planning).
Since these positions are contrary to the positions still taken by George W. Bush and are in keeping with John Kerry's long held positions, we should expect endorsements from Rumsfeld and Bremer before the weekend. Neither Rumsfeld nor Bremer denied that they would announce their support of John Kerry.
Boston Globe - Donald Rumsfeld says no hard evidence links Saddam to al-Qaida, then
International Herald Tribune (Paris) - Bremer cites Iraq errors
Meanwhile, former Iraqi Proconsul Paul Bremer said that "We never had enough troops on the ground," and that "There was planning, but planning for a situation that didn't arise" (which, I suppose, is about as useful as no planning).
Since these positions are contrary to the positions still taken by George W. Bush and are in keeping with John Kerry's long held positions, we should expect endorsements from Rumsfeld and Bremer before the weekend. Neither Rumsfeld nor Bremer denied that they would announce their support of John Kerry.
Boston Globe - Donald Rumsfeld says no hard evidence links Saddam to al-Qaida, then
International Herald Tribune (Paris) - Bremer cites Iraq errors
Rumsfeld & Bremer expected to endorse John Kerry
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking of the Bush administration's continuing insistence that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda worked together, said, ''To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.'' (Later he said he was misunderstood when he said that he knew of no clear link between the al Qaeda terror network and Saddam Hussein.)
Meanwhile, former Iraqi Proconsul Paul Bremer said that "We never had enough troops on the ground," and that "There was planning, but planning for a situation that didn't arise" (which, I suppose, is about as useful as no planning).
Since these positions are contrary to the positions still taken by George W. Bush and are in keeping with John Kerry's long held positions, we should expect endorsements from Rumsfeld and Bremer before the weekend. Neither Rumsfeld nor Bremer denied that they would announce their support of John Kerry.
Boston Globe - Donald Rumsfeld says no hard evidence links Saddam to al-Qaida, then
International Herald Tribune (Paris) - Bremer cites Iraq errors
Meanwhile, former Iraqi Proconsul Paul Bremer said that "We never had enough troops on the ground," and that "There was planning, but planning for a situation that didn't arise" (which, I suppose, is about as useful as no planning).
Since these positions are contrary to the positions still taken by George W. Bush and are in keeping with John Kerry's long held positions, we should expect endorsements from Rumsfeld and Bremer before the weekend. Neither Rumsfeld nor Bremer denied that they would announce their support of John Kerry.
Boston Globe - Donald Rumsfeld says no hard evidence links Saddam to al-Qaida, then
International Herald Tribune (Paris) - Bremer cites Iraq errors
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Rumsfeld approves new U.S. strategy: murder of women and children
This is one of those where you really need to read both stories.
According to the Independent, almost all of those killed by U.S. forces were women and children. What is worse, locals maintain that the 1,000 or so insurgents in Samarra left town a couple of days before the U.S. arrived.
"What has to be done in that country is what basically was done in Samarra over the last 48 hours," Donald Rumsfeld told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
So there you have it: first allow the bad guys to escape, then massacre a bunch of civilians, wait a week or so, and then wonder why there are even more bad guys than before.
Independent (UK) - Civilians bear brunt as Samarra 'pacified'
Washington Post - Rumsfeld Sees of Re-taking Samarra as Model
According to the Independent, almost all of those killed by U.S. forces were women and children. What is worse, locals maintain that the 1,000 or so insurgents in Samarra left town a couple of days before the U.S. arrived.
"What has to be done in that country is what basically was done in Samarra over the last 48 hours," Donald Rumsfeld told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
So there you have it: first allow the bad guys to escape, then massacre a bunch of civilians, wait a week or so, and then wonder why there are even more bad guys than before.
Independent (UK) - Civilians bear brunt as Samarra 'pacified'
Washington Post - Rumsfeld Sees of Re-taking Samarra as Model
Rumsfeld approves new U.S. strategy: murder of women and children
This is one of those where you really need to read both stories.
According to the Independent, almost all of those killed by U.S. forces were women and children. What is worse, locals maintain that the 1,000 or so insurgents in Samarra left town a couple of days before the U.S. arrived.
"What has to be done in that country is what basically was done in Samarra over the last 48 hours," Donald Rumsfeld told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
So there you have it: first allow the bad guys to escape, then massacre a bunch of civilians, wait a week or so, and then wonder why there are even more bad guys than before.
Independent (UK) - Civilians bear brunt as Samarra 'pacified'
Washington Post - Rumsfeld Sees of Re-taking Samarra as Model
According to the Independent, almost all of those killed by U.S. forces were women and children. What is worse, locals maintain that the 1,000 or so insurgents in Samarra left town a couple of days before the U.S. arrived.
"What has to be done in that country is what basically was done in Samarra over the last 48 hours," Donald Rumsfeld told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
So there you have it: first allow the bad guys to escape, then massacre a bunch of civilians, wait a week or so, and then wonder why there are even more bad guys than before.
Independent (UK) - Civilians bear brunt as Samarra 'pacified'
Washington Post - Rumsfeld Sees of Re-taking Samarra as Model
Saturday, October 02, 2004
"And don't forget Poland!"
Oops! There goes another "ally" in the war on terror!
Remember in the debate when George W. Bush scolded John Kerry, "And don't forget Poland!" Well it turns out the Poles are about to forget about Iraq. They'll pull out their 2,400 troops next year saying they've been there long enough. Let's see, that will leave ... well ... all of the American troops in place.
Boston Globe - Polish defense minister says country's troops should leave Iraq at end of 2005
Remember in the debate when George W. Bush scolded John Kerry, "And don't forget Poland!" Well it turns out the Poles are about to forget about Iraq. They'll pull out their 2,400 troops next year saying they've been there long enough. Let's see, that will leave ... well ... all of the American troops in place.
Boston Globe - Polish defense minister says country's troops should leave Iraq at end of 2005
"And don't forget Poland!"
Oops! There goes another "ally" in the war on terror!
Remember in the debate when George W. Bush scolded John Kerry, "And don't forget Poland!" Well it turns out the Poles are about to forget about Iraq. They'll pull out their 2,400 troops next year saying they've been there long enough. Let's see, that will leave ... well ... all of the American troops in place.
Boston Globe - Polish defense minister says country's troops should leave Iraq at end of 2005
Remember in the debate when George W. Bush scolded John Kerry, "And don't forget Poland!" Well it turns out the Poles are about to forget about Iraq. They'll pull out their 2,400 troops next year saying they've been there long enough. Let's see, that will leave ... well ... all of the American troops in place.
Boston Globe - Polish defense minister says country's troops should leave Iraq at end of 2005
Out-sourcing prisoner abuse
No more worries about Abu Gharib or Guantanamo if George W. Bush has his way. The torture of U.S. prisoners would be out-sourced under an administration backed proposal making it legal for U.S. intelligence officials to deport individuals to countries known to use torture to extract information. The "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" would make formal a policy used by the Bush administration known as "extraordinary rendition," whereby American authorities circumvent restraints on interrogations by sending suspects to countries known to employ torture.
Not a bad idea? Think of the implications. For example in the story linked below Canada says they'd have to think twice about sharing intelligence with the U.S. if our official policy is to transfer prisoner to known torturers. And then there's the practical implication: since one of the aims of George W. Bush's War on Terror is to eradicate regimes like that of Saddam Hussein precisely because they practice torture, then there ought to be an ever smaller list of countries willing to ... well you get the idea. I guess it's like he said on TV the other night, "This is hard work. I realize this is hard work."
The Star (Toronto) - White House backs torture-abroad law
Not a bad idea? Think of the implications. For example in the story linked below Canada says they'd have to think twice about sharing intelligence with the U.S. if our official policy is to transfer prisoner to known torturers. And then there's the practical implication: since one of the aims of George W. Bush's War on Terror is to eradicate regimes like that of Saddam Hussein precisely because they practice torture, then there ought to be an ever smaller list of countries willing to ... well you get the idea. I guess it's like he said on TV the other night, "This is hard work. I realize this is hard work."
The Star (Toronto) - White House backs torture-abroad law
Out-sourcing prisoner abuse
No more worries about Abu Gharib or Guantanamo if George W. Bush has his way. The torture of U.S. prisoners would be out-sourced under an administration backed proposal making it legal for U.S. intelligence officials to deport individuals to countries known to use torture to extract information. The "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" would make formal a policy used by the Bush administration known as "extraordinary rendition," whereby American authorities circumvent restraints on interrogations by sending suspects to countries known to employ torture.
Not a bad idea? Think of the implications. For example in the story linked below Canada says they'd have to think twice about sharing intelligence with the U.S. if our official policy is to transfer prisoner to known torturers. And then there's the practical implication: since one of the aims of George W. Bush's War on Terror is to eradicate regimes like that of Saddam Hussein precisely because they practice torture, then there ought to be an ever smaller list of countries willing to ... well you get the idea. I guess it's like he said on TV the other night, "This is hard work. I realize this is hard work."
The Star (Toronto) - White House backs torture-abroad law
Not a bad idea? Think of the implications. For example in the story linked below Canada says they'd have to think twice about sharing intelligence with the U.S. if our official policy is to transfer prisoner to known torturers. And then there's the practical implication: since one of the aims of George W. Bush's War on Terror is to eradicate regimes like that of Saddam Hussein precisely because they practice torture, then there ought to be an ever smaller list of countries willing to ... well you get the idea. I guess it's like he said on TV the other night, "This is hard work. I realize this is hard work."
The Star (Toronto) - White House backs torture-abroad law
Friday, October 01, 2004
FLASH: Bush condones leashing prisoners and children, Kerry says it's wrong
It was a very unusual admission from a man whose administration has been involved in prisoner abuse scandals from Abu Gharib to Guantanamo Bay and it probably should have been headline news.
In just one of the many weird exchanges in first Presidential "debate," the ever-witty George Bush, wearing his "everyman" mask, told an aw-shucks story about the travails of raising two high spirited daughters, "I'm trying to put a leash on them," admitted George W. Bush, "I've learned not to do that, Mr President," answered John F. Kerry.
Despite the efforts of the Bush campaign to dilute, the debate turned out to be the best campaign drama thus far. After months of carefully orchestrated campaign appearances before hand selected adoring crowds, Bush turns out to be unable to explain his reasoning for any of his policies, or think on his feet. Instead he insisted that, "I just know how this world works ... there must be certainty from the US president."
So there you have it. If you're satisfied with the way things are, if you really think that the world is a safer more secure place, if you truly believe, as he does, that George W. Bush has made no mistakes, then your choice is clear. As John Kerry said, the Bush policy can be summed up in four words, "more of the same."
Guardian (London) - Retreat into a substitute reality
In just one of the many weird exchanges in first Presidential "debate," the ever-witty George Bush, wearing his "everyman" mask, told an aw-shucks story about the travails of raising two high spirited daughters, "I'm trying to put a leash on them," admitted George W. Bush, "I've learned not to do that, Mr President," answered John F. Kerry.
Despite the efforts of the Bush campaign to dilute, the debate turned out to be the best campaign drama thus far. After months of carefully orchestrated campaign appearances before hand selected adoring crowds, Bush turns out to be unable to explain his reasoning for any of his policies, or think on his feet. Instead he insisted that, "I just know how this world works ... there must be certainty from the US president."
So there you have it. If you're satisfied with the way things are, if you really think that the world is a safer more secure place, if you truly believe, as he does, that George W. Bush has made no mistakes, then your choice is clear. As John Kerry said, the Bush policy can be summed up in four words, "more of the same."
Guardian (London) - Retreat into a substitute reality
FLASH: Bush condones leashing prisoners and children, Kerry says it's wrong
It was a very unusual admission from a man whose administration has been involved in prisoner abuse scandals from Abu Gharib to Guantanamo Bay and it probably should have been headline news.
In just one of the many weird exchanges in first Presidential "debate," the ever-witty George Bush, wearing his "everyman" mask, told an aw-shucks story about the travails of raising two high spirited daughters, "I'm trying to put a leash on them," admitted George W. Bush, "I've learned not to do that, Mr President," answered John F. Kerry.
Despite the efforts of the Bush campaign to dilute, the debate turned out to be the best campaign drama thus far. After months of carefully orchestrated campaign appearances before hand selected adoring crowds, Bush turns out to be unable to explain his reasoning for any of his policies, or think on his feet. Instead he insisted that, "I just know how this world works ... there must be certainty from the US president."
So there you have it. If you're satisfied with the way things are, if you really think that the world is a safer more secure place, if you truly believe, as he does, that George W. Bush has made no mistakes, then your choice is clear. As John Kerry said, the Bush policy can be summed up in four words, "more of the same."
Guardian (London) - Retreat into a substitute reality
In just one of the many weird exchanges in first Presidential "debate," the ever-witty George Bush, wearing his "everyman" mask, told an aw-shucks story about the travails of raising two high spirited daughters, "I'm trying to put a leash on them," admitted George W. Bush, "I've learned not to do that, Mr President," answered John F. Kerry.
Despite the efforts of the Bush campaign to dilute, the debate turned out to be the best campaign drama thus far. After months of carefully orchestrated campaign appearances before hand selected adoring crowds, Bush turns out to be unable to explain his reasoning for any of his policies, or think on his feet. Instead he insisted that, "I just know how this world works ... there must be certainty from the US president."
So there you have it. If you're satisfied with the way things are, if you really think that the world is a safer more secure place, if you truly believe, as he does, that George W. Bush has made no mistakes, then your choice is clear. As John Kerry said, the Bush policy can be summed up in four words, "more of the same."
Guardian (London) - Retreat into a substitute reality
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Another election fiasco brought to you by the Republicans ... this one in Afghanistan
In the first Presidential debate George W. Bush boasted that, "more than 10 million people are registered to vote in Afghanistan," to explain away another dismal outpost of his war on terror. Of course, it's not exactly true. Although there have been 10 million voter registrations in Afghanistan, apparently a great many people have registered two, three, or more times! No one really knows how many voters are registered. And, what is worse, the number of ballots distributed for the October 9th election greatly exceeds the number of eligible voters raising concerns that the ballot box stuffing has already begun.
Then there are the election campaigns themselves. Hamid Karzai, the U.S. appointed dictator ... uh, make that "Interim President" ... of Afghanistan who is running for election uses U.S. helicopters to fly from stop to stop on his campaign surrounded by U.S. forces as body guards while other candidates have to dash around in borrowed cars and trucks while dodging bullets.
Meanwhile the rural provinces are beginning to look something like Florida 2000. Elders of the Tarik tribe have ruled that any man who does not vote for U.S. appointed Interim President Karzai will not be buried by his family and can forget about marrying off his female relatives, too. In a southeastern province residents were given an equally stark warning this week in preparation for the elections: Vote for Hamid Karzai or get your house burnt down.
And to think, the U.S. has spent some $200 million preparing Afghanistan for this election.
A Kabul resident probably summed it up best, "There is no difference between the forces of the Taliban and the Mujahidin and all the others who carry guns. Only the faces and the clothes have changed."
PakTribune (Pakistan) - Afghan election set to be fiasco
Then there are the election campaigns themselves. Hamid Karzai, the U.S. appointed dictator ... uh, make that "Interim President" ... of Afghanistan who is running for election uses U.S. helicopters to fly from stop to stop on his campaign surrounded by U.S. forces as body guards while other candidates have to dash around in borrowed cars and trucks while dodging bullets.
Meanwhile the rural provinces are beginning to look something like Florida 2000. Elders of the Tarik tribe have ruled that any man who does not vote for U.S. appointed Interim President Karzai will not be buried by his family and can forget about marrying off his female relatives, too. In a southeastern province residents were given an equally stark warning this week in preparation for the elections: Vote for Hamid Karzai or get your house burnt down.
And to think, the U.S. has spent some $200 million preparing Afghanistan for this election.
A Kabul resident probably summed it up best, "There is no difference between the forces of the Taliban and the Mujahidin and all the others who carry guns. Only the faces and the clothes have changed."
PakTribune (Pakistan) - Afghan election set to be fiasco
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)