July 30, 2003
Shut Up, Little Man
"We will act, whenever it is necessary, to protect the lives and the liberty of the American people," promised The Superbrain during his Independence Day sermon. It's a lie as big as the hole in his arse. But it's one that is accepted as Divine Writ.
"National Security", the pundits claim (and the Democrats faithfully ditto) is Bush's ought-four ace-in-the-hole. The question begging is whether his towering "National Security" gravitas will be undone by his Voodoo Economics achilles heel. Here's one of what must be five million examples by now, from Sandeep Kaushik in the July 31 edition of The Stranger (referring to the Democrats' strength with Washington state voters): "President Bush's popularity, and the post-9/11 emphasis on national security (which heavily favors Republicans), could change that."
Even setting aside (for now) the national insecurity inherent in a polity beset with never-ending increases in those unemployed and/or incarcerated, never-ending cut-backs in -- and privatisations of -- essential services, a pyschotic fundamentalist berserker in charge of the "justice" system, a virtually non-existent health-care system, the ever-increasing frankensteinisation of our food supplies, impending ecological catastrophe, and the revival of a nuclear weapons production programme; to focus only Bush's skillz in protecting Americans (or at least those not already locked-up or deported) from being annihilated by terrorists, one can't but wonder: what in the holy fucking hell are the talking heads thinking?
Are they living in a parallel universe where September 11th didn't happen? Do they not realise that September 11th occurred during George W. Bush's presidency? Is it not self-evident that the Bush Administration -- through almost incomprehensible levels of either hubris, neglect, incompetence, or complicity -- bears a major burden of responsibility for having allowed it to happen? Could they not conclude; when the Administration immediately enacted an executive ordering to keep all Presidential records sealed for "perpetuity", did everything it could to stall and obstruct an investigation, and finally redacted dozens of pages of the official report on the tragedy; that it had something to hide? Did they not raise an eyebrow when the Administration named Henry Kissinger -- Henry fucking Kissinger -- to head up the investigation into the tragic day's events?
Yes, it would've been preferable for the highjackers' plans not to have been put into action in the first place. (Better still had Bush, upon inauguration, immediately renounced this nation's shameful history of bombing Third World countries early and often, and offered up reparations to all victims, past and present, of said policies.) Surely, surely, the perpetrators of such deeds were and are some sick fucking wankers, who ought to be apprehended and made to stand trial. (We may, if we're permitted to recall events that took place more that ten months ago, here note that the Taliban offered on more than one occasion to extradite bin Laden should the United States offer up some evidence of his complicity.) But having said all that, how in the fuck can the man whose administration allowed the events to happen be straight-facedly campaigning as a guarantor of "National Security"? And how in the fuck can such assurances be received straight-facedly?
Moreover, what the fuck does the administration expect us to make of its repeated warnings that another attack is "inevitable"? Unless it's supposed to be some sort of bizarre reverse-pyschology ruse to dupe would-be terrorists into not planning and implementing future attacks, the Administration is openly acknowledging that it is patently incapable of "protecting the lives and the liberty of the American people". Sure, let's repeat that sentence: the Administration is openly acknowledging that it is patently incapable of "protecting the lives and the liberty of the American people". So why, whenever George W. opens up his fucking hole of a mouth, doesn't some, any, member of the press corps thrust a juicy hard-boiled egg inside?
Ashcroft unwittingly laid the cards on the table in early August, warning that, "They want to strike us whenever and wherever they can," and averring that bin Laden's latest threat "signals to us that the war is still under way, that al-Qaeda still has the same intentions toward the United States that it did when it unleashed its savage attack." September 11th should have demonstrated beyond any doubt that the greatest military force in the history of the world, the most massive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, lasers and satellites patrolling the heavens, cracking down upon immigration, & cetera; will not make the country safe from future attacks. (Our Dubya could simply have asked the Israelis.)
If we want to decrease the probability of future attacks, we need to take measures to assure that those who currently want to "strike us whenever and wherever they can", in future don't want to do so. The answer is the same now as it's been since the dawn of humanity: do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.
Cease engaging in terrorist activities, cease befriending and arming brutallly repressive dictators, cease bombing Third World countries into oblivion, cease meddling in others' affairs, cease stealing others' resources, cease imposing devastating austerity programmes; and these injustices will cease "blowing back" and biting us in the ass. It's really not terribly complicated. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has taken precisely the opposite course.
Alas, nobody seems to have noticed that the Administration's reaction to its own monumental failure to prevent the September 11th attacks -- the declaration of a military crusade against all niggers everywhere (including here at home), approximately zero per cent of whom have anything to do with endangering the lives and the liberty of Americans -- greatly exaggerated the likelihood of another attack against the lives and the liberty of Americans. Do intellectuals not read their own fucking newspaper headlines? To wit: "U.S. Warns Of New Global Terror Threats Due To Iraq Occupation", "Iraqis Warn U.S. Killings Will Breed Terror Recruits", "Afghanistan: Launchpad For Terror", "Taleban Leader Warns Of Jihad", "Al Qaeda May Be Rebuilding", "Al-Qa'ida Has Moved Its Base To Asia, G-8 Leaders Say, "Al-Qaeda Preparing New Attack In U.S.", "Report: New Threat From Al-Qaeda", "Al Qaeda May Be Back, And Stronger", "Terror Crackdown Has Not Reduced Al-Qaida Threat, Warns Think Tank", "U.S. Warns Of New Terrorist Onslaught", "U.S. Fears Network Has Regrouped, Fanned Out", "Attacks Show Al-Qaeda Is Back", "Iraq War Helped Boost Al Qaeda", "Britain: Al-Qaeda Capable Of Unconventional Attack", "Videocassette Warns Of More Terror", "Al Qaeda Mutating Like A Virus", "Did War Compromise Al-Qaida Hunt?", "Report: Iraq War May Have Helped Al-Qaida".
On top of that, while the Bush Administration has been busy dicking off on its military adventures and rising military spending to dizzying heights, the Department of "Homeland" Security is "understaffed, unorganized and weak-willed"; "Huge gaps remain in the defense of the American 'homeland' against terrorism"; "The Department of 'Homeland' Security's color-coded terror warning system has become ineffective because it serves only to alarm the public with information too vague to be of much good"; "The federal government faces numerous difficulties in preparing itself to handle the threat of a biological attack"; "Only 10 percent of the nation's fire departments could respond adequately to a building collapse"; "Measures taken by the U.S. administration against Arab and Muslim immigrants after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon have not only failed to protect U.S. security, but may have made it more vulnerable"; "The Los Alamos National Laboratory has lost track of a small quantity of plutonium"; funding for needed security measures have not been forthcoming; and a former insider insists that, "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure."
Feeling safer yet? Feeling as though your life and liberty are being protected? Feeling confident that George W. is going to zoom down and "get" those baddies before they get you? Feeling like he'll be able to do so even while re-colonising the entire "dark-skinned" world -- thus allowing us to have our cake and it eat, too? Feeling...ah, hell, maybe this blogger is the one living in a parallel universe. It would explain a lot.
What You Can Do: The next time some Republicans bleat that Bush's "National Security" cred is untouchable, tell them to fuck right off. The next time some Democrats repeat the same, tell the to fuck off twice.
Posted by Eddie Tews at July 30, 2003 07:23 PM
Comments
"Shut up, little man." Eddie, you would do well to heed your own advice. by the by, what's up with your conflicted slang that makes you sound as though you're confused as to which side of the Atlantic you're from? calling people wankers and spelling "privatisations" with an "s" instead of a "z". is that an attempt to sound sophisticated...or what? care to comment?
anyway: "What You Can Do: The next time some Republicans bleat that Bush's "National Security" cred is untouchable, tell them to fuck right off. The next time some Democrats repeat the same, tell the to fuck off twice."
now THERE is some GREAT fucking advice! thanks so much, shit for brains! remind me to give you a call the next time I need to split some atoms. I think you have just shown yourself to be someone whose sole purpose in life is complaining, one of those stereotypical fools for whom nothing is ever good enough. let me give you some advice: if you want to complain as you've been doing, offer up some real alternatives. It's very easy to sit around and point fingers and complain about everything, but why should anyone listen to you if you don't have the answers yourself? the world today is a complicated place to live in, to say the least. this is not news to any of us. how are you helping, Eddie? by offering us advice to tell politicians to fuck off? is that supposed to be some new, novel, idea? we all know that US foreign policy is not perfect and don't need your verbose, long-winded complaints that accomplish nothing to remind us. I do think, however, that you need some reminding that the rest of the world isn't perfect either. if you're so fucking perfect, why don't you run for office? sounds like you've got all the answers. I mean, you criticize the Bush administration every step of the way; I even went back and looked at some of your articles from Slick Willy's days in the white house, and you were critical there as well. so, implicity, what you MUST be saying is that this country would be a much better, safer place in which to live if YOU called the shots. I mean, if it's so clear to you that our past and current leaders are fucked up, that must mean that you know of better measures to take. so, instead of hiding behind your keyboard (and the relative anonymity it offers) like the gigantic nerd I'm sure you are, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and run for an office? instead of offering us such profound "advice" about "what we can do" (tell them to fuck off), why don't you take actions for us? clearly, we're too stupid to know what to do, which is the implicit statement behind even offering such a condescending footer to your essay. if that's the case, save us from ourselves and our evil government, Eddie!
don't even retort by saying you're too busy with some career to be able to run for an office. anyone with the free time with which you appear to be endowed (as evidenced by this website) should have more than enough time to plan a campaign and get himself in office.
although, I guess anyone with a statement as completely stupid as "capitalism fuck off now" would have a hard time being taken seriously by anyone. rightfully so.
"Shut up, little man." Please do follow your own advice.
Greg Taylor
-- Posted by: Greg Taylor on August 3, 2003 05:43 PM
" let me give you some advice: if you want to complain as you've been doing, offer up some real alternatives. It's very easy to sit around and point fingers and complain about everything, but why should anyone listen to you if you don't have the answers yourself? the world today is a complicated place to live in, to say the least. this is not news to any of us. how are you helping, Eddie?"
~Greg Taylor your a dumbfuck. Eddie is helping by pointing out a problem. There are two phases, identify a problem, and then solve it. One does not have to have an answer in order to criticize, to do so would be censorship, which is exactly what you are arguing for Greg Taylor. You are telling Eddie to shut up because he does not have an alternative, and you are trying to tell him to shut up when he see's a problem that needs to be fixed. Greg "Censorship" Taylor, you are the true dumbfuck. -- Posted by: Robert Hardy on August 17, 2003 03:38 PM
The following revealing item on Henry Kissinger is extracted from an article from the 'New World Order Intelligence Update' [http://www.nwointelligence.com/NEWWORLD.HTM]:
'And, fellow-Canadians, as a faint echo of the freedoms we have now lost in this once great Dominion, here's a robust exercise of free speech, fresh from the Mother Country, which is now impossible to imagine in modern Canada!
[Henry Kissinger walks out on Paxman radio program in the U.K. after being asked, among other things, if he felt "like a fraud." Exchange below, as reported by THE GUARDIAN, 29th June, 1999]
Jeremy Paxman: "It's been 17 years since the last volume of your memoirs. You said you wanted to let the dust settle but [didn't you] need the distance in order to rewrite history?"
Dr Kissinger: "No I based these memoirs on documents which were as valid then as they are now."
Paxman: [describes Kissinger's claim that he ended the cold war as "farfetched"] "What bothers a lot of people is you seem to ignore the human rights of people within regimes with which you're trying to establish a balance of power."
Kissinger: "That's not correct either."
Paxman: question about supporting General Pinochet and undermining President Allende in Chile.
Kissinger: "We did not support Pinochet. In what way did we support Pinochet?"
Paxman: "You supported the military regime."
Kissinger: "After the coup we preferred Pinochet to Allende."
Paxman: "It doesn't stop there... You're on record justifying the [behaviour of the] Chinese government in Tiananmen Square."
Kissinger:... "I have never supported what the Chinese did in Tiananmen Square."
Paxman: "Did you feel a fraud for accepting the Nobel Prize [for the Indo-China agreement]?"
Kissinger: "I wonder what you do when you do a hostile interview?"
Paxman: [accuses Kissinger of a "wilful misreading of history"]
Kissinger: "It may be a misreading but it wasn't wilful."
Paxman: question about the "hundreds of thousands of people killed in the bombing of Cambodia".
Kissinger: "That's absolutely untrue. We have no evidence that hundreds of thousands of people were killed... I think this is an absolute outrage, it's nonsense."
Paxman: "You don't deny [the bombing of Cambodia] was secret though?... This was a secret operation against a neutral country..."
Kissinger: "Come on now, Mr Paxman, this was 15 years ago, and you at least have the ability to educate yourself about a lie on your own programme... "
Paxman: "What's factually inaccurate?"
Kissinger: "... That's outrageous... " [Kissinger abruptly leaves: Paxman calls out, "'Bye, Dr. Kissinger"!]'
If you're interested in the ramifications of the coming 'New World Order', see the excellent NWO site at http://www.nwointelligence.com.
You'll also find a superb archive of articles on the New World Order [which is impacting and changing us all increasingly] from the 'New World Order Intelligence Update', at http://www.rarehistorybooks.com/NWOCONSP.HTM. They are also mirrored at http://www.survivalistskills.com/NWODICT.HTM and at http://www.torontochristianbooks.com/NWOGOV.HTM. Well worth reading!
-- Posted by: John Whitley on September 1, 2003 08:30 PM
You're all a bunch of liberal faggots. What's with that gay "nigger" title anyway. What ever happened to the good old days where people owned slaves. My great-great-grandfather should get reperations because he lost some major profits from that stupid abolishing slavery bullshit. I am also sick of all the pussy-ass white politicians who are scared and ashamed to be white. The second they hear anyone mention racist, they shit their pants. What the fuck is wrong with being white. The white man is being fucked over left and right "nowadays". There should be more politicians with some radical or even different platforms so people have something to choose from. -- Posted by: Johnny Rebel on December 8, 2003 10:56 PM
OMG, how DUMB is this Bob Hardy character willing to make himself look? I tell Eddie to put up or shut up and THAT is somehow construed as censorship? LOL! WHAT!?!? Your statement was so fucking idiotic I don't even know how to respond to it. I am in NO WAY censoring Eddie. If I WERE I would say to Eddie, "Don't you dare speak out against our government IN ANY WAY." Clearly, that is not what I am saying. I'm simply saying instead of whining and complaining all the time, offer some solutions. It's REALLY easy to sit back on one's fat ass and complain about everything when one doesn't have the responsibility of coming up with any solutions. This is the very niche Eddie has found for himself, and it is the very basis of his existence. But any stupid asshole can sit back and opine about just about anything. It takes no talent, no intelligence. If Eddie somehow knows all of our government's attempted solutions are wrong, he must, by definition, know what the right ones are. I mean, how can you know something of this sort is wrong without having some clue as to what is right? But you never hear solutions from Eddie, just complaints. Or if he ever does offer up a solution, it's some incredibly infantile shit such as "let the Iraqi people disarm Saddam." Fucking brilliant.
Bob Hardy, you are swimming in the same shallow end of the brain pool as Eddie. If you're not careful, you're going to drown with him. -- Posted by: Greg Taylor on April 4, 2005 10:52 PM