Gay bashing in disguise? Wayne Madsen today reports on a list of contributions to Republican campaigns:
October 11, 2006 -- Yesterday, WMR reported on the contributions from Dennis Hastert's political action committee -- KOMPAC -- [which paid Hastert's Chief of Staff Scott Palmer for services] -- to several GOP House members and candidates' campaign coffers. FEC records also show that another closeted gay GOP Representative's PAC made contributions to many of the same Republican candidates who received support from KOMPAC. Apparently, the GOP's "Velvet Mafia" has done a very good job of spreading around its "hush money" to GOP House members and candidates . . .I've mentioned this before - I see an awful lot of its own hypocrisy (not to mention some slick inuendo) in this kind of article. The most egregious in this one is that "another closeted gay GOP representative" implies that Hastert is a closeted gay rep. I think Madsen is on the edge with that. Madsen's not the only one these days. "Pagegate" looks like it's going to pull a lot of people into the swamp, and when/if it does, everyone's going to get dirty (or pulled under the quicksand).
A couple of principles that I strongly recommend . . . first, let's forget the sexual orientation games here. They benefit nobody. If someone's closeted, let him/her be. To use the outing threat as a weapon is no less than Rovian, and needs to be abandoned. There is, I think, a cautionary tale embedded in "Preying On Our Fears" at AWOT.
Second, we should stick to just the coverup. There's plenty of evidence of chicanery without being snide. I say again: we can't advocate gay rights and bash gays at the same time. A bit of self-discipline (never the Left's strong suit) would go a long way.
The game is on, but I ain't playing. I've noticed that even some Hard Lefties have been sucked into the present Season of Foolishness. How can we throw all those stones at the system for a couple of years, then participate in the moon-howling about whether the Democrats will regain power now and in '08? Power is power. Change is something else altogether. Are we concentrating on the policies and principles held by opposition candidates or just playing an "anybody but the Republican incumbent" game?
Sanctions, Schmanctions. This, of course is another of a long line of "if it weren't so scarey, it'd be a riot" scenarious of the crafty Doubleduh-Cheney Gang's "foreign policy"
Sanctions really "worked" with Iraq, right? Well, in some ways they did, since they seem to have trashed any real hope of Hussein developing WMD's. Sanctions also killed a few hundred thousand kids by starving them to death, while solidifying popular loyalty to the regime and lining the oil-soaked pockets of folks like Chalabi.
So. Condi keeps saying we're not going to attack:
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the United States would not attack North Korea.And Doubleduh says . . .
According to Rice, US President Bush has told the North Koreans that "there is no intention to invade or attack them. So they have that guarantee. ... I don't know what more they want."
"Is the United States, somehow, in a provocative way, trying to invade North Korea? It's just not the case," Condoleeza Rice told CNN yesterday.
In the interview, Rice has confirmed that if North Korea doesn't abandon its nuclear program, it will face "international condemnation and international sanctions unlike anything that they have faced before." . . .
US President George Bush today called for stiff sanctions on North Korea for its reported nuclear test and asserted that the US has “no intentions of attacking” the reclusive regime.Hmmmmm. What about this?:
In a Rose Garden news conference, Bush said the United States remains committed to diplomacy, but also “reserves all options to defend our friends in the region".
He also vowed increased military cooperation with allies, including bolstering ballistic missile defences in the region and increased efforts to prevent Pyongyang from importing missile and nuclear technology.
As Bush spoke, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the US to hold one-on-one talks with North Korea, something the US has refused to do.
Bush rejected criticism from Democrats that his administration had not paid enough attention to the brewing North Korean nuclear crisis, saying that the North Korean government had turned its back on a 1994 deal negotiated by the Clinton administration.
“It is the intransigence of the North Korean leader, Kim Jung Il, that led to the current situation", he said . . .
The Bush administration rejected anew Tuesday direct talks with North Korea and said it would not be intimidated by a reported threat from Pyongyang that it could also test-fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S. acts to resolve the standoff.Oh, OK, John. I, uh, feel so much better. Except, well, er, uh, this:
"This is the way North Korea typically negotiates by threat and intimidation," said U.S. Ambassador John Bolton. "It's worked for them before. It won't work for them now." . . .
10/11/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- The Bush administration has repeatedly rejected North Korea’s appeals for a “non-aggression” pact. Bush believes that he has the inherent right to attack whomever he chooses if it is in the national interest, which is to say, if it furthers his ambitions for global domination.It is indeed restraint. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether this constitutes restraint:
Bush has openly supported “regime change” in North Korea and placed the country on his axis of evil list. On a personal level, Bush stated that he “loathes” Kim Jung-il and has referred to him as “a pygmy”.
These provocations have been duly noted in North Korea. Kim knows that he’s a top candidate for a preemptive attack unless he develops a credible deterrent. Any sane person would draw the same conclusion even if they hadn’t been humiliated in public as “evil”.
That’s why Kim has anticipated the worst and made plans to defend himself; that’s the basic message behind Sunday’s nuclear blast. Kim’s weapons program is the logical upshot of Bush’s belligerence. If there was no threat, there would have been no explosion.
No one wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons. But, then, no one wants the United States to develop a new regime of “tactical” low-yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons. We need to examine the intention behind the development of these weapons if we really want to know which is the greater risk. In North Korea’s case, the building of a nuclear bomb is clearly intended to deter the US from an unprovoked attack. In Bush’s case, the plan is to develop bunker-busting nukes that will actually be used in first-strike attacks on heavily-fortified underground sites. There’s a big difference between offensive and defensive nukes and, clearly, Bush is the much greater threat.
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has surrounded himself with “like-minded” men who believe strongly in using nukes depending on battlefield conditions. This has led to speculation that Bush will use these weapons in a future attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is frightening to think that Bush would be willing to break a 60 year-old taboo on the mere suspicion that Iran may have a secret nuclear weapons program.
Kim Jung-il poses no such threat. We can be reasonably certain that he will not use his nukes in a first-strike initiative. In fact, for the last 6 years he has endured the most withering abuse and humiliation and never responded violently.
That’s restraint . . .
"U.S. Softens Proposal on North Korea" by JOHN O’NEIL and CHOE SANG-HUNSo you figure it out.
Published: October 12, 2006
The United Nations Security Council today took up a softened American proposal for sanctions over North Korea’s reported nuclear test, but its prospects were clouded when China appeared to pull back from its earlier support for tough measures.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, met with a senior Chinese diplomat, Tang Jiaxuan, to discuss North Korea, Reuters reported. A spokesman for the National Security Council, Frederick Jones, said the group talked about “the way forward in dealing with North Korea.”
The new American resolution, to be formally introduced this morning, would declare North Korea’s actions to be a threat to international peace and stability and would require countries to freeze assets related to Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs and ban the sale or transfer of materials that could be used in them. It would also ban travel by people involved in the programs and bar the sale of the luxury goods used to reward the regime’s elite, diplomats said late Wednesday.
But unlike an earlier version, it would allow but not require inspections of all cargo going into or out of North Korea, or the freezing of assets related to counterfeiting or narcotics, which American officials say are crucial sources of the hard currency needed to fund the weapons programs. Japanese demands for a ban on allowing North Korean ships or planes to enter other countries were also dropped . . .
The Devil in the Details. Andrew Schmookler of SEE NO EVIL writes an outstanding analysis of a "Confirmation of the Peripheral Role of the Theocratic Element in this Bushite Regime" at OpEd News today. A clip:
To many commentators, the greatest danger that the Bushites pose to America is that they will create a theocracy. (Kevin Phillips' book, AMERICAN THEOCRACY, is one of the major statements that comes to mind.)My eyes are tired. Gotta go. Oh, yeah, almost forgot. Happy 514th Anniversary of the Beginning of the European Invasion and Genocide of Turtle Island. How are you gonna celebrate??
In my analysis of the nature of the forces that have coalesced into the creation of this regime, there are three major components: an insatiable and unscrupulous element of American capitalism (see "The Predator State," posted earlier this week); a power-lusting imperialist clique oriented toward imposing their domination on the planet; and a particular strain of narrow-minded, conflict-oriented Christianity.
And as I've written here on several occasions, I regarded the last of those three to be peripheral to the true guiding spirit of our ruling group. These Bushites are about power and dominance first, about greed second, and the religious aspect seemed to me largely phony and manipulative.
The manipulativeness consists --first of all-- of selling the people of the Christian right on the leaders' false image of righteousness. That's the central purpose of the con.
The second strategy of the con brings in another element: distorting morality in a manner long practiced by evil rulers, and in particular well ingrained in the cultural patterns of the Jim Crow South, to provide cover for the ruler's true, evil way. The Bushites use (somewhat phony) hot-button "moral" issues to distract the attention of people who care about morality to areas peripheral to the ruler's genuine concerns. This allows the real work of evil to be carried out in the open, but invisible to the conned, who have been manipulated into looking elsewhere for the signs of "the Good"-- areas like gay marriage and Terry Shiavo. (I describe this distortion of morality in the piece "How Ruling Powers Distort Morality So that it Does Not Restrain Them," which can be found at www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=31.)
The importance, for the Bushite's political strategy, of fooling the religious right is a clue to the reason this group is in this triumverate of evil forces in the first place: of the several components of the coalition of dark forces brought together to create this regime, it is only the religious right --and, spreading out from there, the traditionalists generally-- that can deliver a substantial number of votes . . .
Categories: Foley, Hastert, gay+bashing, North+Korea, foreign+policy, elections
Before you leave, please visit the P! Amazon Store and vote in the lastest P!oll