Quantcast

for my friends N8 and Burley Shirley

Feb 13, 2006
299
0
February 27, 2006
From Superpower to Tinhorn Dictatorship?
Twilight of the Hegemony

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS


America is headed for a soft dictatorship by the end of Bush's second term. Whether any American has civil rights will be decided by the discretionary power of federal officials. The public in general will tolerate the soft dictatorship as its discretionary powers will mainly be felt by those few who challenge it.

The congressional elections this coming November is the last chance for for Americans to reaffirm the separation of powers that is the basis of their civil liberties. Unless the voters correct their mistake of putting both the executive and legislative branches in the hands of the same party and deliver the House or the Senate to the Democrats, there is nothing on the domestic scene to stand in the way of more power, and less accountability, being accumulated in the executive.

The Democrats have been a totally ineffective opposition and might not inspire any voter response other than apathy. Rather than vote for a cowardly party that is afraid to defend the Constitution, voters might simply not vote at all.

In this unfortunate event, the only check on the Bush regime is its own hubris.

Bush's ill-fated invasion of Iraq has set in motion forces beyond his control. On February 23 the Asia Times reported that America's Pakistani puppet, Musharraf, is "losing his grip." Some Pakistani provinces are already beyond Musharraf's control, and the remainder are rioting against "Busharraf" as Musharraf is now known. The infantile American press misrepresents the riots as responses to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, but in fact the target of the riots is the American puppet.

By invading Afghanistan and Iraq and by threatening Syria and Iran, Bush has taught Muslims everywhere that they owe their humiliation to the Western controlled secular governments that suppress their aspirations. They are realizing that their power resides in Islam and that this power is suppressed by secular governments. Busharraf is probably dead meat, and when he goes so does the US military adventure in Afghanistan.

When Bush attacks Iran, the US army will be caught between the Iraqi Shia and the Iranian Shia and will be decimated in fourth generation conflict, so aptly described in CounterPunch a few days ago by William S. Lind. If a few thousand Sunni insurgents can tie down 10 US divisions, imagine the fate of US forces trapped in a Shia crescent.

The collapsing power of the US hegemon is everywhere evident. It is evident in the inability to successfully occupy Iraq or even Baghdad. It is evident in the growing military cooperation between North and South Korea, and it is evident it the revolt in the Indian government against Prime Minister Singh's nuclear agreement with the US. Indians say this agreement subjects India to US hegemony and represents America's attempt to block India's pioneering research on thorium as a nuclear fuel. Opposition parties have told Singh that if he signs the agreement, they will bring down his government.

The entire world now recognizes that America has lost its economic power and is dependent on the rest of the world to finance its budget and trade deficits. The US no longer holds the cards. American real incomes are falling, except for the rich. Jobs for university graduates are scarce, and advanced technology products must be imported from China. The US is a rapidly declining power and may soon end up as nothing but a tinhorn dictatorship.

Paul Craig Roberts has held a number of academic appointments and has contributed to numerous scholarly publications. He served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His graduate economics education was at the University of Virginia, the University of California at Berkeley, and Oxford University. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
 
Feb 13, 2006
299
0
and if that wasn't enough...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bush, Rats & a Sinking Ship

By Robert Parry

February 25, 2006

In just this past week, conservative legend William F. Buckley Jr. and neoconservative icon Francis Fukuyama have joined the swelling ranks of Americans judging George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq a disaster.

“One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed,” Buckley wrote at National Review Online on Feb. 24, adding that the challenge now facing Bush and his top advisers is how to cope with the reality of that failure.

“Within their own counsels, different plans have to be made,” Buckley wrote after a week of bloody sectarian violence in Iraq. “And the kernel here is the acknowledgement of defeat.”

Fukuyama, a leading neoconservative theorist, went further citing not just the disaster in Iraq but the catastrophe enveloping Bush’s broader strategy of preemptive military American interventions, waged unilaterally when necessary.

“The so-called Bush Doctrine that set the framework for the administration’s first term is now in shambles,” Fukuyama wrote Feb. 19 in The New York Times Magazine.

“Successful preemption depends on the ability to predict the future accurately and on good intelligence, which was not forthcoming, while America’s perceived unilateralism has isolated it as never before,” Fukuyama wrote.

While those Americans who always opposed the Iraq War may see this unseemly scramble of Bush’s former allies as a classic case of rats deserting a sinking ship, the loss of these two prominent thinkers of the Right mark a turning point in the political battle over the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

If Bush can’t hold William F. Buckley Jr. – and if even the ranks of the neocons are starting to crack – Bush may soon be confronted with a hard choice of either acknowledging his errors or tightening his authoritarian control of the United States.

Bush’s foundering Iraq policy also raises the stakes in the November elections. Prospects have brightened for those who want Bush held accountable for his reckless deeds and his violation of laws, both domestic and international.

Fortune Reversal

This reversal of fortune is stunning when compared to Bush’s seeming omnipotence in 2002, when he unveiled the Bush Doctrine, and even a year ago when leading U.S. pundits were hailing the President as a visionary leader.

Bush picked his belligerent course in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington. Though the world had rallied to America’s side – offering both sympathy and cooperation in fighting terrorism – Bush chose to issue ultimatums.

Bush famously told other nations that they were either “with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Vowing to “rid the world of evil,” he made clear he would brush aside any restrictions on his actions, including the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

Europeans were soon protesting Bush’s treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Muslims were voicing growing hatred for the United States. Though Bush's tough actions were popular with his base, they played poorly abroad.

“It annoys your allies in the war against terrorism, and it creates problems for our Muslim allies, too,” one West European ambassador said in 2002. “It puts at stake the moral credibility of the war against terrorism.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush’s Return to Unilateralism.”]

Bush spelled out his broader strategy in a speech at West Point on June 1, 2002. He asserted a unilateral U.S. right to overthrow any government in the world that is deemed a threat to American security, a position so sweeping it lacked historical precedent.

“If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long,” Bush said in describing what soon became known as the “Bush Doctrine.”

Shortly after Bush’s West Point speech, an article at Consortiumnews.com observed that “Bush’s grim vision is of a modern ‘crusade,’ as he once put it, with American military forces striking preemptively at ‘evil-doers’ wherever they live, while U.S. citizens live under a redefined Constitution with rights that can be suspended selectively by one man.

“Beyond the enormous sacrifices of blood, money and freedom that this plan entails, there is another problem: the strategy offers no guarantee of greater security for Americans and runs the risk of deepening the pool of hatred against the United States.

”With his cavalier tough talk, Bush continues to show no sign that he grasps how treacherous his course is, nor how much more difficult it will be if the U.S. alienates large segments of the world's population.” [See “Bush’s Grim Vision”]

Iraq War

On March 19, 2003, Bush took another fateful step, ordering the invasion of Iraq despite being denied authority from the U.N. Security Council.

After ousting Saddam Hussein’s regime three weeks later, Bush basked in popular acclaim from many Americans. He even donned a flight suit for a “Mission Accomplished” aircraft-carrier celebration on May 1, 2003.

During those heady days, Bush and his neoconservative advisers dreamed of remaking the entire Middle East with pro-U.S. leaders chosen through elections and Arab nations ending their hostility toward Israel.

But Bush’s wishful thinking began to run into trouble. A fierce resistance emerged in Iraq, claiming the lives of hundreds – and then thousands – of U.S. soldiers who couldn’t quell the violence. Instead of contributing to peace, the Iraqi elections deepened the country’s sectarian divisions – empowering the Shiite majority while alienating the Sunni minority.

Surging anti-Americanism caused other Middle East elections to have the opposite results from what Bush’s neoconservatives predicted. Instead of breeding moderation, elections in Pakistan, Egypt, Iran and the Palestinian Authority saw gains by Islamic extremists, including a surprise victory by the militant group Hamas in Palestine.

The United States also has seen its international reputation devastated by reports of abuse and torture in U.S.-run detention centers. Rather than the all-powerful nation that the neocons wanted to project, the United States revealed the limitations of its military might and the incompetence of its administrative follow-through.

This string of catastrophes has now led even prominent conservatives to conclude that Bush’s “stay the course” strategy must be rethought. They see Iraq spiraling toward a civil war with 138,000 U.S. troops caught in the middle

The latest defectors – Buckley and Fukuyama – threaten to pull away even members of Bush’s political base. Buckley is the godfather of conservative punditry, while Fukuyama has been a bright light among neocon theorists.

Now, Bush must decide what to do – admit mistakes and heed the advice of critics – or circle the wagons even tighter and lash out at the growing majority of Americans who think the war in Iraq was a deadly mistake.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
 
Feb 13, 2006
299
0
February 27, 2006
When Buckley and Bremer Abandon You, the End Must be Near
Bush's Bunker Days


By DAVE LINDORFF


Three articles this weekend suggest that President Bush and his aim-challenged vice president are being abandoned by key elements of their base, and are facing a growing threat of impeachment.

In the New York Times Sunday Book Review, Dexter Filkins, one of the best reporters covering the Iraq War, reviewing a new book by former U.S. occupation viceroy L. Paul Bremer, reports on how Bremer says he asked for 40,000 more troops, and got a sympathetic hearing from Gen. Sanchez, who made it clear that he couldn't get them. The reason: The Bush administration was politically committed to keeping troop levels at no more than 130,000, and reducing them if possible. The article makes it clear that Bremer saw the war and occupation as a failure.

In the current issue of National Review, William Buckley says Bush has to admit that his grand Iraq adventure has been a failure. While one can take issue with Buckley's conclusion--that the disaster in Iraq shouldn't mean that the U.S. can't continue to meddle in other countries around the world--his major point is that for Bush and the U.S. in Iraq, it's over. For Buckley only challenge remaining is for the president and his administration to admit defeat.

What this means is that Bush has lost both the corporate Republican backing for the war, as represented by Bremer, a fixture of the Wall Street establishment, and the mainstream Conservatives, as represented by Buckley.

Put that together with a third report--so far ignored by the major corporate media--that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has obtained some 250 "missing" emails concerning the outing of Valerie Plame, and we have a whole new ballgame regarding the Bush administration's remaining three years in office.

If Jason Leopold's special report is correct (and Leopold has been pretty dead-on with regard to developments in the Fitzgerald probe), these new emails would appear to tie Cheney directly to the outing, and would be powerful evidence that the vice president lied to investigators regarding his knowledge of and involvement in the attack on Plame and ambassador Joseph Wilson.

With his allies dwindling, and evidence of his administration's criminality edging closer and closer to the Oval Office, Bush appears to be developing more and more of a bunker mentality.

It's all very reminiscent of the latter years of the Nixon administration, and we know how that one ended ...

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His new book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff's new book, "The Case for Impeachment",
co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is due out May 1. He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com
 
Feb 13, 2006
299
0
that was brilliant.

in 5 years when you are forced to reckon with the truth, you'll know how silly and embarrassing your "commentary" is.
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
particle bored said:
that was brilliant.

in 5 years when you are forced to reckon with the truth, you'll know how silly and embarrassing your "commentary" is.

Am I the only one that recognizes this as the same sort of paranoid rhetoric we were bombarded with by the right, when Clinton was in office?
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Tenchiro said:
Am I the only one that recognizes this as the same sort of paranoid rhetoric we were bombarded with by the right, when Clinton was in office?
Yeah, but we were talking about a blowjob. Not spending a trillion dollars and a couple of thousand of our own lives (not to mention Iraqi lives...and I won't, because Americans generally couldn't give a ****) on an ill considered jaunt into Iraq.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Silver said:
Yeah, but we were talking about a blowjob. Not spending a trillion dollars and a couple of thousand of our own lives (not to mention Iraqi lives...and I won't, because Americans generally couldn't give a ****) on an ill considered jaunt into Iraq.

I blame Clinton for setting the stage for all this, then causing Algore to lose the election and allowing Bush the presidency.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Wow, I got to class for a few hours and this dude didnt slow down a bit.
Why is he so convinced I give a rats ass about president bush? Because I call him on his BS stupid theories?
A lawyer who has never heard of PCP and cant spell would probably assume as much, I guess.
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
Silver said:
Yeah, but we were talking about a blowjob. Not spending a trillion dollars and a couple of thousand of our own lives (not to mention Iraqi lives...and I won't, because Americans generally couldn't give a ****) on an ill considered jaunt into Iraq.
I'm not saying that isn't the case, but the editorials he posted came across more as paranoid rambling than political commentary.

Remember the pendulum swings both right and left, as soon as it goes to far in one direction it will correct itself.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Tenchiro said:
Remember the pendulum swings both right and left, as soon as it goes to far in one direction it will correct itself.
This is basically my view on the entirity of US politics. Thats why I dont worry.
 

Echo

crooked smile
Jul 10, 2002
11,819
15
Slacking at work
BurlyShirley said:
This is basically my view on the entirity of US politics. Thats why I dont worry.
Unfortunately this time when it swings back it's going to land squarely in all of our nutsacks, probably in the form of a nuclear attack or a REALLY bad terrorist attack. Provoked by our virtuous leader. Congrats Georgie, you ruined the world.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Echo said:
Unfortunately this time when it swings back it's going to land squarely in all of our nutsacks, probably in the form of a nuclear attack or a REALLY bad terrorist attack. Provoked by our virtuous leader. Congrats Georgie, you ruined the world.

How short sighted of you.. you need to go waaaay further back then that...
 

Echo

crooked smile
Jul 10, 2002
11,819
15
Slacking at work
N8 said:
How short sighted of you.. you need to go waaaay further back then that...
You are right. George took command of a sinking ship, no doubt. But instead of pumping out the flooded decks and patching the hull, he's just pointed the cannons straight down and fired away.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Echo said:
You are right. George took command of a sinking ship, no doubt. But instead of pumping out the flooded decks and patching the hull, he's just pointed the cannons straight down and fired away.

Actually we are at least somewhat prepared for such an event... unlike the years following the first bombing of the WWC. Our military is battle hardened and our gov takes national security seriously unlike before.
 
Feb 13, 2006
299
0
Tenchiro said:
Am I the only one that recognizes this as the same sort of paranoid rhetoric we were bombarded with by the right, when Clinton was in office?
how do you conclude that I'm "paranoid"?

define paranoia.

tell me how I fit the definition.

then, when you're finished, go back and read your post and laugh right along with me at your inanity.

PS: I'm not in "the left" nor do I worship Clinton, the DNC, the DLC or "liberalism". thanks for guessing wrong, though!
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
particle bored said:
how do you conclude that I'm "paranoid"?

define paranoia.

tell me how I fit the definition.

then, when you're finished, go back and read your post and laugh right along with me at your inanity.

PS: I'm not in "the left" nor do I worship Clinton, the DNC, the DLC or "liberalism". thanks for guessing wrong, though!
Not you, but the article authors.


Well maybe you are too, I have no idea.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
43,529
15,753
Portland, OR
N8 said:
Actually we are at least somewhat prepared for such an event... unlike the years following the first bombing of the WWC. Our military is battle hardened and our gov takes national security seriously unlike before.
If battle hardened to mean stretched beyond repair and in desperate need of a vacation, then I would agree. I won't go too far on the issue of national security, but if removing my shoes and trashing my Craftsman key chain at the airport has made us a safer nation, then I'm missing something.

I think we are in the worst position to defend against another attack. I thought the response to Katrina was a good example of that. And that was mother nature on radar weeks in advance.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
jimmydean said:
If battle hardened to mean stretched beyond repair and in desperate need of a vacation, then I would agree. I won't go too far on the issue of national security, but if removing my shoes and trashing my Craftsman key chain at the airport has made us a safer nation, then I'm missing something.

I think we are in the worst position to defend against another attack. I thought the response to Katrina was a good example of that. And that was mother nature on radar weeks in advance.

We're moving forward at the fastest speed a huge governemnt can.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
43,529
15,753
Portland, OR
N8 said:
We're moving forward at the fastest speed a huge governemnt can.
But it doesn't change the fact our military is overextended both budget wise and manpower wise.

Trying to support both ANA and Iraq, then using the National Guard as an offensive force has left us with our pants down.

If Iran, North Korea, or any number of other countries think about doing something, the best we can do is pop off a shot from a ship or sub somewhere. Because we are fresh out of ground forces. Hell, they just sent 950 guardsmen from Oregon to ANA.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,914
2,880
Pōneke
N8 said:
We're moving forward at the fastest speed a huge governemnt can.
And our survey said: NRRRRGGG!!!

Sorry, N8, we have 'Private interest groups and the military/industrial complex have been controlling America's foreign policy to the detriment of the general populus', you don't score on that round.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
BurlyShirley said:
Wow, I got to class for a few hours and this dude didnt slow down a bit.
Why is he so convinced I give a rats ass about president bush? Because I call him on his BS stupid theories?
A lawyer who has never heard of PCP and cant spell would probably assume as much, I guess.
Don't worry, he'll get you back by stealing power with a 3 phase power converter.

Or maybe he'll start a non-insurgency that's really an insurgency but makes sure he tells everyone it isn't.

That, or he'll just say we are all too naive to understand what he KNOWS to be the truth about the new world order. What with all the time hs spends under the desk in the Oval Office and all.
 
Feb 13, 2006
299
0
jimmydean said:
If battle hardened to mean stretched beyond repair and in desperate need of a vacation, then I would agree. I won't go too far on the issue of national security, but if removing my shoes and trashing my Craftsman key chain at the airport has made us a safer nation, then I'm missing something.

I think we are in the worst position to defend against another attack. I thought the response to Katrina was a good example of that. And that was mother nature on radar weeks in advance.
I think Katrina indicates a sad dismissal of those whom many Americans consider "lower class" or "working class" or "underclass"

do you recall what Dubya's Mommy said about the victims who survived the flooding only to be treated like war criminals housed in squalor?

as to "security" -- what exactly do we need to secure against? "terrorists"? hey, I have a better idea. let's fight "stupidity" and then we won't have to worry about negligible things like "terror".
 
Feb 13, 2006
299
0
Transcend said:
Don't worry, he'll get you back by stealing power with a 3 phase power converter.

Or maybe he'll start a non-insurgency that's really an insurgency but makes sure he tells everyone it isn't.

That, or he'll just say we are all too naive to understand what he KNOWS to be the truth about the new world order. What with all the time hs spends under the desk in the Oval Office and all.
it's really easy to "destroy" scarecrows isn't it?

move over Rush Limbaugh, you have a new pretender barking at your corpulent pig's feet. his name is Transcend. he is taking your scarecrow destroying tactics to new heights!

as to your lies,

1) again, the phase converter stuff I relayed from friends, and don't care if it was wrong. it wasn't my idea. but even if it was my idea, so what if I was wrong? what would that prove, other than that I don't know about electricity, which is a FACT that I already admitted!

2) "insurgency" -- again this was not the issue, nor was it ever connected to me. but you sure love making up lies about me, don't you?

3) you're sitting in the United Kingdom of Former Grandeur Now Sucking Hind Teat, and you intend to tell me about what goes on here? bueno, clairvoyant one! but anyway, you have nothing on me here, other than to mock me out of what? jealousy? spite? ignorance? intellectual inferiority?
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
particle bored said:
2) "insurgency" -- again this was not the issue, nor was it ever connected to me. but you sure love making up lies about me, don't you?
Wow you ARE mental. I posted this twice now.

Last time, as you are really ****ing slow. I bolded the most important parts, maybe your nursemaid can read it to you because apparently you are short bus material. 3 times I have had to post this now. Original time, + 2 more revisions. YOU POSTED IT.

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145643 Post #10, btw.

Originally Posted by particle bored
please explain how Iraqi nationals defending their homeland from US military goon squads is "insurgency"

thank you


In case you need a little reminder or some basic education:

in·sur·gen·cy P Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjn-s)
n. pl. in·sur·gen·cies
The quality or circumstance of being rebellious.
An instance of rebellion; an insurgence.

Main Entry: in·sur·gen·cy
Pronunciation: in-'s&r-j&n-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -cies
: the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a recognized government that does not reach the proportions of an organized revolutionary government and is not recognized as belligerency


They have a legitimate, elected government. They are rebelling.

This is an insurgency, please shut up unless you are actually capable of holding a proper discussion.
 
Feb 13, 2006
299
0
you posted a definition 3 times.

big phoquing deal.

it still carries no water, Gunga Din wannabe. go talk to your author Rudyard Kipling, see how it is you got so confused.