Monday, October 25, 2004

Hey, guess what? The Bush administration has been hiding some rather significant information from you, hoping you wouldn't find out until after the election. Unfortunately for them, it just came out. Read.

Monday, October 18, 2004

If you missed Jon Stewart's recent taboo-smashing appearance on Crossfire, watch it here.

So, what was that, anyway? Is he smart? Is he boring? Is he hypocritical? Is he full of himself? Is he the only honest man East of the Pecos? Weigh in with your thoughts here.

Friday, October 15, 2004

Coincidence Theorist's guide to 9/11 (warning: may cause flare-ups of denial, resulting in rage or irrational pro-Bush sentiment; may also cause loss of illusions)
If you saw some duplicate posts dated 10/4, I'm sorry. That happened as a result of a glitch as I was trying to post an entry. I didn't realize until just now that any of them, much less a whole bunch of them, had gone through. The duplicates have been removed.
The War Bin Laden Wanted

How the U.S. played into the terrorist’s plan

By Paul W. Schroeder

George W. Bush’s re-election campaign rests on three claims, distinct but always run together: that the United States is at war against terror, that it is winning the war, and that it can ultimately achieve victory but only under his leadership.

The second and third propositions are hotly debated. Critics of Bush contend that the U.S. is losing the struggle against terror on the most important fronts and that only new leadership can bring victory, but except for a few radicals, no one denies that the struggle against international terrorism in general and groups like al-Qaeda in particular constitutes a real war. The question comes up in the campaign only when Republicans such as Vice President Cheney charge that Democrats view terrorists as mere criminals and do not recognize that the country is at war. The charge, though false—no Democratic leader would commit political suicide by even hinting this—is effective politically.

Some experts on international law and foreign policy object to calling the struggle against terrorism a war, pointing for example to the legal problem of whether under international law a state can declare war on a non-state movement and claim the rights of war, or arguing that terrorism constitutes a tactic and that no one declares war against a tactic. Both arguments indicate the sloppy thinking that pervades the rhetoric of the War on Terror. The first point, moreover, has important practical consequences for such questions as the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere, and for our relations with allies, other states, and the UN. Yet these kinds of arguments seem too academic to matter. The general public can hardly understand them, much less let them influence their votes.

Other reasons, however—different, more powerful, highly practical, and astonishingly overlooked—argue against conceiving of the struggle as a war and, more important still, waging it as such. The reasons and the logic behind them are somewhat complicated, but the overall conclusion is simple: by conceiving of the struggle against international terrorism as a war, loudly proclaiming it as such, and waging it as one, we have given our enemies the war they wanted and aimed to provoke but could not get unless the United States gave it to them.

This conclusion is not about semantics or language but has enormous implications. It points to fundamentally faulty thinking as one of the central reasons that America is currently losing the struggle, and it means that a change in leadership in Washington, though essential, will not by itself turn the course of events. What is required is a new, different way of thinking about the struggle against terrorism and from that a different way of waging it.

(Read the rest at the link. Long, but exceptionally good. AmConMag is impressing me.)

Monday, October 04, 2004

If you want to understand the thinking of the neocons (and why good people oppose them), you should read this brief article.