Archives for the month of: November, 2006

My Republican friend (I do have one) told me that I’m “against all Republicans, which is irrational.”

I said, “Well, the word ‘against’ is not quite right but I will respond to the charge all the same.

“An attitude of respectful dialog, across the aisle so to speak, might have been possible two decades ago. But since Reagan and Gingrich, and especially since Bush II, Republicanism has becom synonymous — largely by its own admission! — with corruption, repression, deception, and violence. No self-respecting individual can align themselves with this organization any longer. At this point anyone self-identifying as a Republican should be rethinking their position. They have always been free to change their affiliation. They should already have done so — certainly since George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq. Any Republican could have reacted to that inexcusable crime by declaring, ‘This is beyond the pale. I do not accept this war, or the man who initiated it; starting today I will fight against them both.’

“Who among the Republicans did this? Not one. Instead they cleaved to their President as if he were the savior of us all. They slavishly supported his every move, and lashed out viciously against anyone who declined to genuflect alongside them. Their beef is not with Democrats but with democracy itself.

“Maybe it was not always so, but the business of the Republican party has become literally to steal money from the rich and give it to the poor; literally to disenfranchise those unlikely to vote for your friends; literally to imprison those objecting to the current adminstration; literally to destroy a whole country — Afghanistan, Iraq, even the United States — if it suits your purposes.

“Far, far from the Enlightenment tradition of peace and justice for all, a Republican seeks peace and justice only for himself (they are all, of course, men) and for his closest and richest friends. Again, this might once have been hyperbole but today it is a plain fact, clearly articulated in hundreds of position statements from dozens of Republicans.

“It might once have been possible but in 2006 you cannot call yourself a Republican and still be trusted. You are now complicit in countless crimes, including the President’s traitorous crimes against his own country. You are going to have to stand up and abjure your connection with Bush’s program for me to take seriously anything you say ever again. Because as you know, Bush’s entire methodology depends on a continuous stream of lies. To support Bush, you too have to utterly disdain the truth. There is no other way.

“At this point we are perfectly justified in saying to every Republican, ‘Until you change your thinking (after which you will presumably change your party affiliation), we citizens will assume that, like the President, you are a chronic liar, morally bankrupt, and a menace to society. Change your ways! — or we will have to remove you from public office and keep you out for the rest of your life.’”

benedictsays2.jpg

benedictsays.jpg

When you accept Christ as the savior,

bush1

it changes your heart.

bush2

It changes your life.

Imagine there’s a drug that makes you say you love taking it. Imagine that it has no other effect.

Now if you take this stuff, then by definition you will tell all your friends that you enjoy it. And chances are, they will believe you. And they will want to try it themselves.

Meanwhile, you yourself will probably come to believe that this is an experience you greatly enjoy. After all, you keep saying so!

And now, can you think of any reason that the use of this drug would not rapidly spread across the entire world?

HBO: Real Time with Bill Maher – New Rules

So, we can say Iraq was a noble experiment, if that helps you. Our intention was good: to penetrate Iraq and bring it to a glorious, euphoric climax. But it’s clear now that’s just not going to happen. And yet we’re still pounding away. Causing the whole area to become painfully inflamed. And in that situation, the kindest thing you can do is… just pull out.

Stan Goff: Open Letter to Robert Gates

Donald Rumsfeld didn’t lose the war. It was never winnable. Not only that, the United States never had any legal or moral right to impose an armed occupation in Iraq. And the fundamental fact that the vast majority of Iraqis do not accept the occupation, and are willing to fight to resist it, cannot be changed by better management.

Here is what we might petition you to do, sir. Take this portfolio as Minister of War and publicly offer to resign it if the order is not given immediately to end the war… begin the prompt and unilateral repatriation of US troops back to the United States.

Rep. Kucinich: America Needs Iraq War Hearings

Rumsfeld may no longer be secretary of defense, but he made decisions based on lies that took people to their deaths. He has to be held accountable—secretary or not. And the rest of the people who were involved with the decision-making process have to be held accountable.

What is the rationale behind this “phased withdrawal” idea? For what reasons should we get out of Iraq over the course of a few months? Now. Do it now. Today. This minute. Do, it, now.

The Economist says:

Of course some may simply relish seeing George Bush’s Republicans suffer at the polls. In France there is little public interest in America’s election, but there is wide dislike of Mr Bush’s foreign policy, especially over Iraq. A 2006 transatlantic survey by the German Marshall Fund showed only 12% of the French approved of his handling of international affairs, while 85% disapproved. President Jacques Chirac opposed the invasion of Iraq. He, and voters at large, would be happy to see Mr Bush’s party punished now.

Punishment is not the point. It is an insult to tell those of us who want the Republicans removed from power that we are trying to punish them. That’s how conservatives think, not liberals. (The Economist, by the way, is profoundly conservative. In 2000 they endorsed Bush; and in their 2004 tapping of Kerry they explicitly held their collective nose against the odor of his liberality.)

I did not go to my polling place to punish this country’s war criminals. I just want to get them out of office. I want to take away their power to kill. That’s why we voted some of them out this week, and why we’ll vote the rest of the despicable rotten lot of them out in 2008. Don’t twist our motives around. We are not voting for our special Democratic Party secular humanist liberal violence. There is no such thing. We are against violence. All of it. We would not “be happy to see Mr. Bush’s party punished”. That conservatives would falsely project this attitude on us illustrates their instinct for using violence as the default solution to almost any trouble. They created the nightmare in Iraq, and either they should help us find ways to start fixing it or they should get the hell out of the way. And this applies to their friends at the Economist too.