Article: The GOP is trying their ages old ploy of terrifying the US.

The article "Terrorism thrives in lawless areas" at
click here
states --This is really an important day in marking a real line between John
McCain's policies and Barack Obama's," said Kerry. "The McCain campaign has defined a road to defeat and, frankly, to more disastrous policies that haven't worked...
[McCain] has fully embraced, willfully and openly, the failed policy of the Bush
administration of the past seven years. He is really defending a policy that is
indefensible."...
But Clarke said that Al-Qaeda had not attacked on American soil since Sept. 11
because it had instead decided that it was easier to attack America in Iraq:
"They've killed 4,000 and wounded 25,000," he said, contradicting the Democratic
case that many if not most casualties have been inflicted by non-Al-Qaeda
Iraqis.
But Clarke was fully on message with his charge that McCain's attack today was a
"Karl Rove strategy" and "straight out of the Republican playbook."
"I'm frankly a little disgusted by some of the attacks of some of my friends on
the McCain campaign to use the same old tired tactics of the past several
campaigns, trying to paint one party as weak on terrorism and completely
distorting the record of one party, to drive a wedge for partisan advantage and
to frighten Americans."

The GOP has failed since 9/11 in big bro 43's "everlasting war against terrorism. You'd think that they would be embarrassed by this instead of trying to persuade red staters that only they can be trusted to defend us against the undefined "those who are against us". How can you win a struggle if you don't even know who you're fighting?

41 had Lee Atwater lie about Willie Horton to terrify red staters into thinking Michael Dukakis supported armed robbery and rape. Rove attempted to convince red staters that a decorated war hero, John Kerry, was a pre-9/11 thinker.
The article "Charlie Black and the 'Terror' Card" at
click here
shows how mini-me McCain's chief political advisor is attempting the same propaganda scam currently. Obama, or even better his surrogates-in this case a member of the 9/11 Commission, is going to answers these smears immediately. It states "Proving that they believe they can fight and beat Republicans on the issue of terrorism, Barack Obama's campaign held a conference call this morning featuring Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 Commission. On the call, Ben-Veniste insisted that the "invasion of Iraq has become the biggest recruiting poster for terrorists around the world." He added that what appealed to him about Obama as a candidate is the "concept of restoring America's place in the world" and said that the way to win the war on terror is through a combination of "muscle and diplomacy."

This can't be backed away from because it is in the print media.

The article continues "In an interview with Fortune magazine, Black called the Bhutto assassination an "unfortunate event" before adding: "But [McCain's] knowledge and ability to talk about it re-emphasized that this is the guy who is ready to Commander-in-Chief.
And it helped us."
As for the political implications of a future attack in America? "Certainly it
would be a big advantage to [McCain]," said Black in a statement described by
Fortune editor-at- large David Whitford as a moment of "startling candor."

McCain hemmed and hawed about Black, but his words are out there also now as
the article continues with his equivocation "I cannot imagine why he would say it," McCain said. "It's not true."

Big bro 43 said anybody involved with leaking Valerie Plame's identity would be fired. He didn't fire Rove. McCain didn't offer any accountability for his staff's actions, which proves he has learned from GOP masters to answer questions with misstatements.

Directly after 9/11 the GOP tied every piece of legislation, even an education bill to terrorism. Mini-me is emulating that strategy as the article continues "The flap over national security and terrorism marks the second time in as many weeks we find ourselves debating the role that these issues will have in the November election....
A few paragraphs before Black's comments in the Fortune story, McCain is asked
to name the most pressing economic threat to the country's well-being.
"Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're
in against radical Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our
very existence," McCain said. "Another successful attack on the United States of
America could have devastating consequences."

How dumb is the US populace? Not as dumb as the GOP thinks as the article continues "There is also data in the Gallup survey, however, that suggests national
security and terrorism are not the silver bullet that they were for Republicans
in 2002 and, to a somewhat lesser extent, 2004.
The Gallup/USA Today sample group was asked whether they would be more likely to vote for "a candidate whose greatest strength is fixing the economy" or "a
candidate whose greatest strength is protecting the country from terrorism."
Fifty-six percent of respondents chose a candidate who could heal the economy,
while 39 percent opted for the candidate better able to keep them safe from
terrorism."

What don't we want to do? Richard Ben-Veniste's statement said Iraq was a recruiting bonanza for al-queda and its affiliates. The article "Bush is trying to impose a classic colonial status on Iraq" at
click here

emphasizes how big bro 43 doesn't realize that the US shouldn't appear to be occupying Iraq for its oil.

The article states "US efforts to force Iraqis to swallow permanent vassal status and give up control of their oil echoes British imperial history. Whatever
the Iraq war was about, we were assured, it definitely wasn't about oil. Tony Blair
called the idea a "conspiracy theory". It was about democracy and dictatorship,
weapons of mass destruction and human rights, anything but oil. Donald Rumsfeld,
then US defence secretary, insisted the conflict had "literally nothing to do
with oil"....
That argument is going to be a good deal harder to make from next week, when
four of the western world's largest oil corporations are due to sign contracts
for the renewed exploitation of Iraq's vast reserves. Initially, these are to be
two-year deals to boost production in Iraq's largest oilfields. But not only did
the four energy giants - BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Total - write their own
contracts with the Iraqi government, an unheard-of practice: they have also
reportedly secured rights of first refusal on the far more lucrative 30-year
production contracts expected once a new US-sponsored oil law is passed,
allowing a wholesale western takeover. Big Oil is back with a vengeance."

Bob Dole said the 1991 Iraq oil was about oil until 41 quieted him.

The article continues "It's a similar story when it comes to the future of the US occupation itself. The last thing on anyone's mind, we were told when the tanks rolled in, was permanent US control, let alone the recolonisation of Iraq. This was about the Iraqis finally getting a chance to run their own affairs in freedom. But five
years on, George Bush and Dick Cheney are putting the screws on their Green Zone
government to sign a secret deal for indefinite military occupation, which would
effectively reduce Iraq to a long-term vassal state."

Iraqis, and their fellow Muslims don't want westerners exploiting them? Who would?

The article, regarding the US usurpation of Iraqi sovereignty continues "This goes far beyond other such agreements the US has around the world and would shackle Iraq with a permanent puppet status. Not surprisingly, it has led to
uproar in the country and opposition in the US, where congress will be denied a
vote on the arrangement because the administration has chosen not to call it a
treaty."

Big bro 43's "intellectual incurious" nature can't explain how this stinks in its similarity to Britian's attempt. The article continues "But it also evokes powerful memories in Iraq, which has been down this road before. After Britain invaded and occupied Iraq during the first world war, it imposed a strikingly similar treaty on its puppet government in 1930 in preparation for the country's nominal independence. Just as in George Bush's version, Britain awarded itself military bases, the right to conduct military operations, and legal immunity for its forces - though the proposed new US powers and restrictions on Iraqi sovereignty go even further than in the pre-war colonial treaty.
To add to this sense of imperial revival, the four oil companies now preparing
to return in triumph to Iraq were the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum
Company, which Britain gave a free hand in the 1920s to dine off Iraq's wealth
in a famously exploitative deal. The Anglo-Iraqi treaty and those bitterly
unjust oil concessions dominated Iraqi politics for decades, feeding riots,
uprisings and coups until the monarchy was overthrown, the tables turned on the
oil companies and the British were finally sent packing by the radical
nationalist General Qasim in 1958."

The article concludes "What is certain is that, if Bush's blueprint for indefinite foreign rule in Iraq and the takeover of its oil is forced down the throats of the Iraqi people, resistance and bloodshed will increase. Of course, it's true that the US and
Britain didn't invade Iraq only for its oil. It was a projection of American
power in the world's most strategically sensitive region, with oil at its heart,
which has brought catastrophe to Iraq and great danger to the Middle East and
the wider world. That's why the struggle to restore Iraq's independence matters
far beyond its borders - it is a global necessity."

Ben-Veniste's comments aren't those of a political empty-suit such as W. Anyone knows that the US is bound to fail in attempt to rape Iraq under the guise of providing it with a democracy-which seems to be the final phony reason for our involvement there. What do Iraqis want with that? It is a government that is foreign to their culture.

What is foreign to our culture is the sheer criminality of W's regime. We don't know what to expect next from them and it drives us crazy. Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, introduced the concept of anomie-- a condition of deregulation that was occurring in society. This meant that rules on how people ought to behave with each other were breaking down and thus people did not know what to expect from one another. Anomie, simply defined, is a state where norms (expectations on behaviours) are confused, unclear or not present. It is normlessness, Durkheim felt, that led to deviant behaviour.

Chris Dodd's rage against big bro 43 exemplifies this.

The article "One Senator Says 'Enough'" at
click here
states "A senior Democratic statesman took to the Senate floor yesterday and delivered a jeremiad against President Bush and his lawlessness the likes of which I'm not sure we've ever heard there before.
What set off Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) was the warrantless surveillance bill
sent over from the House this week and seemingly assured of passage in the
Senate. The bill significantly broadens Bush's spying powers and essentially
guarantees civil-lawsuit immunity for the telecommunications companies that
cooperated in earlier surveillance efforts.
But to Dodd, it's just the latest indignity from a president who has come to
expect a corrupted political system to jettison the rule of law on his say-so.
"Retroactive immunity is on the table today; but also at issue is the entire
ideology that justifies it, the same ideology that defends torture and executive
lawlessness," Dodd said....
"[B]y short-circuiting the judicial process we are sending a dangerous signal to
future generations. They see us establishing a precedent that Congress can --
and will -- provide immunity to potential law breakers, if they are 'important'
enough. . . .
"I am here today because with offense after another after another, I believe it
is long past time to say: 'enough.'
"I am here today because of a pattern -- a pattern of abuse against civil
liberties and the rule of law. Against the Constitution -- of which we are
custodians, temporary though that status may be. . . .
"I am here today because warrantless wiretapping is merely the latest link in a
long chain of abuses. . . .
"What is at stake is nothing less than equal justice -- justice that makes no
exceptions. What is at stake is an open debate on security and liberty. . . .
"This bill does not say, 'Trust the American people; Trust the courts and judges
and juries to come to just decisions.' Retroactive immunity sends a message that
is crystal clear. . . .
"And that message comes straight from the mouth of this President. 'Trust me.' .
. .
"What is the basis for that trust?"

So, we have a normless society. People will say that Dodd exploding like that is an example of deviant behavior that Durkheim described. Our soldiers in Iraq are committing suicide at a record high, another deviant behavior that Durkheim's anomie predicts, and still W gets people to volunteer to go off Iraq. Why? Because this isn't the Us of A. This isn't the land of the free and home of the brave. This is a country whose citizens are being terrified by an incompetent president who regularly takes our civil rights away.