Well, guys, I know we all represent very view imaginable, but I still chose to stand be the president elect, especially in a time of such misfortune, a great personal friend of mine is teaching in China right now, and her views are often 180 from mine, but we both love people and deal differently with our problems. I wish I had all day to pic this apart, but I don't right now. I think this email is just riddled with embarrassing statements, and I have no problem saying so, so If you have any input, I could put together a significant response, and at least generate some understanding. People jump on the bandwagon with blinders and it's too bad for all of us. I would never say Bush is the best president we've ever had, but he has the interest of the American citizen firmly in his grasp, and that's very important to me.
What would John kerry do if he were in his position?
The entire correspondence is riddle with embarrassing statements, and if she would like to keep her blinders on, that she can stay in China... Can you imagine!?
Thanks guys... ALL comments appreciated.
__________________________________
A friend sent me this editorial on the upcoming presidential election from
an American journalist. I'm sure you all agree with it. I wonder who are
the people who will vote for Bush, becuase I never meet them. Do you? It
will be strange to be outside of the media hype leading up to November
elections. I can't imagine watching on the news from here that Bush wins
another four years. Does it really seem a likely possibility from your
perspective? I don't think I would want to go home to America if that
happened. I'd just stay in China, learn Chinese, help the Chinese invade
the states and liberate you all from Fox news.
I don't know if I'll be able to vote here. A few of the teachers are
talking about going to the embassy to register. It'll be interesting to
find out what state our votes count towards. Some of the teachers have been
outside of the states for more than ten years and lived in different places
when they were there. Can they choose to register in Florida? We're
interested, but unfortunately lazy so everyone is hoping someone else goes
first and reports what happens. Maybe it's too late to register already.
I just saw "Farenheit 9/11" on DVD here. I paid a dollar for a pirated copy
of what was clearly something filmed with a video recorder from the back of
a theatre. There are many things wrong with America but at least a film so
critical of the government can be made and viewed there. Watching it with
a Chinese friend, I realized America isn't so bad. The corruption in the
government here is just as bad only it doesn't cause public outrage, it
isn't news, and there aren't documentaries about it.
Love to all.
> With Trembling Fingers
>
> Hal Crowther is a former writer for Time and
> >Newsweek, the Buffalo News and the North Carolina Spectator before
> parking his column at the weekly Independent in Durham, N.C., and The
> Progressive Populist, among others. He won the H.L. Mencken Award for
> column writing in 1992. By Hal Crowther
> >
> >I used to take a drink on occasion with a network newsman famed for his
> impenetrable calm -- his apparent pulse rate that of a large mammal in
> deep hibernation -- and in an avuncular moment he advised me that I'd do
> all right, in the long run, if I could only avoid the kind of journalism
> committed to the keyboard "with trembling fingers." I recognized the
> wisdom of this advice and endeavored over the years to write as little
> as possible when my blood pressure was soaring and my face was streaked
> with tears. The lava flows of indignation ebb predictably with age and
> hardening arteries, and nearing three-score I thought I'd never have to
> take another tranquilizer -- or a double bourbon -- to keep my fingers
> steady on the keys.
> >
> >I never imagined 2004. It would be sophomoric to say that there was
> never a worse year to be an American. My own memory preserves the dread
> summer of 1968. My parents suffered the consequences of 1941 and 1929,
> and my grandfather Jack Allen, who lived through all those dark years,
> might have added 1918, with the flu epidemic and the Great War in France
> that each failed, very narrowly, to kill him. Drop back another
> generation or two and we encounter 1861.
> >
> >But if this is not the worst year yet to be an American, it's the worst
> year by far to be one of those hag-ridden wretches who comment on the
> American scene. The columnist who trades in snide one-liners flounders
> like a stupid comic with a tired audience; TV comedians and talk-show
> hosts who try to treat 2004 like any zany election year have become
> grotesque, almost loathsome. Our most serious, responsible newspaper
> columnists are so stunned by the disaster in Iraq that they've begun to
> quote poetry by Rupert Brooke and Wilfred Owen. They lower their voices;
> they sound like Army chaplains delivering eulogies over ranks of
> flag-draped coffins, under a hard rain from an iron sky.
> >
> >Yeats' "blood-dimmed tide is loosed." The war news has already
> deteriorated from bad to tragic to pre-apocalyptic, which leaves no
> suitable category for these excruciating reports on the sexual torture
> of Iraqi prisoners. Fingers, be still. In less than a year, the morale
> of the occupying forces has sunk so low that murder, suicide, rape and
> sexual harassment have become alarming statistics, and now the warriors
> of democracy -- the emissaries of civilization -- stand accused of every
> crime this side of cannibalism. Osama bin Laden has always anathematized
> America's culture, as well as its geopolitical influence. To him these
> atrocities are a sign of Allah's certain favor, a great moral victory, a
> vindication of his deepest anger and darkest crimes.
> >
> >Where does it go from here? The nightmare misadventure in Iraq is over,
> beyond the reach of any reasonable argument, though many more body bags
> will be filled. In Washington, chicken hawks will still be squawking
> about "digging in" and winning, but Vietnam proved conclusively that no
> modern war of occupation will ever be won. (Vietnam clip) Every
> occupation is doomed. The only way you "win" a war of occupation is the
> old-fashioned way, the way Rome finally defeated the Carthaginians: kill
> all the fighters, enslave everyone else, raze the cities and sow the
> fields with salt.
> >
> >Otherwise the occupied people will fight you to the last peasant, and
> why shouldn't they? If our presidential election fails to dislodge the
> crazy bastards who annexed Baghdad, many of us in this country would
> welcome regime change by any intervention, human or divine. But if, say,
> the Chinese came in to rescue us -- Operation American Freedom -- how
> long would any of us, left-wing or right, put up with an occupying army
> teaching us Chinese-style democracy? A guerrilla who opposes an invading
> army on his own soil is not a terrorist, he's a resistance fighter. In
> Iraq we're not fighting enemies but making enemies. As Richard Clarke
> and others have observed, every dollar, bullet and American life that we
> spend in Iraq is one that's not being spent in the war on terrorism.
> Every Iraqi, every Muslim we kill or torture or humiliate is a precious
> shot of adrenaline for Osama and al Qaeda.
> >
> >The irreducible truth is that the invasion of Iraq was the worst
> blunder, the most staggering miscarriage of judgment, the most fateful,
> egregious, deceitful abuse of power in the history of American foreign
> policy. If you don't believe it yet, just keep watching. Apologists
> strain to dismiss parallels with Vietnam, but the similarities are
> stunning. In every action our soldiers kill innocent civilians, and in
> every other action apparent innocents kill our soldiers -- and there's
> never any way to sort them out. And now these acts of subhuman sadism,
> these little My Lais.
> >
> > Since the defining moment of the Bush presidency, the preposterous
> >flight-suit, Fox News-produced photo-op on the USS Abraham Lincoln in
> front of the banner that read "Mission Accomplished," the shaming truth
> is that everything has gone wrong. Just as it was bound to go wrong, as
> many of us predicted it would go wrong -- if anything, more hopelessly
> wrong than any of us would have dared to prophesy. Iraq is an epic
> trainwreck, and there's not a single American citizen who's going to
> walk away unscathed.
> >
> >The shame of this truth, of such a failure and so much deceit exposed,
> would have brought on mass resignations or votes of no confidence in any
> free country in the world. In Japan not long ago, there would have been
> ritual suicides, shamed officials disemboweling themselves with samurai
> swords. Yet up to this point -- at least to the point where we see
> grinning soldiers taking pictures of each other over piles of naked
> Iraqis -- neither the president, the vice president nor any of the
> individuals who urged and designed this debacle have resigned or been
> terminated -- or even apologized. They have betrayed no familiarity with
> the concept of shame.
> >
> >Thousands of young Americans are dead, maimed or mutilated, XXX billions
> of dollars have been wasted and all we've gained is a billion new
> enemies and a mouthful of dust -- of sand. Chaos reigns, but in the
> midst of it we have this presidential election. George Bush has defined
> himself as a war president, and it's fitting that the war should be his
> undoing. But even now the damned polls don't guarantee, or even
> indicate, his demise.
> >
> >Conventional wisdom says that an incumbent president with a $200 million
> war chest cannot be defeated, and that one who commands a live,
> bleeding, suffering army in the field is doubly invincible. By this
> logic, the most destructively incompetent president since Andrew Johnson
> will be rewarded with a second term. That would probably mean a military
> draft and more wars in the oil countries, and, under visionaries like
> Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, a chance for the USA to emulate
> 19th-century Paraguay, which simultaneously declared war on Brazil,
> Argentina and Uruguay and fought ferociously until 90% of the male
> population was dead.
> >
> >What hope then? Impeachment is impossible when the president's party
> controls both houses of Congress, though Watergate conspirator John
> Dean, who ought to know, claims in his new book that there are
> compelling legal arguments for a half dozen bills of impeachment against
> George W. Bush. Peer pressure? At the White House, world opinion gets no
> more respect than FBI memos or uncomfortable facts. Many Americans seem
> unaware that scarcely anyone on the planet Earth supported the Iraq
> adventure, no one anywhere except the 40-50 million Republican loyalists
> who voted for George Bush in 2000.
> >
> >Among significant world leaders he recruited only Great Britain's Tony
> Blair -- whose career may be ruined because most Britons disagree with
> him -- and the abominable Ariel Sharon, that vile tub of blood and
> corruption who recently used air-to-ground missiles to assassinate a
> paraplegic in a wheelchair at the door of his mosque. (Palestinians
> quickly squandered any sympathy or moral advantage they gained from this
> atrocity by strapping a retarded 16-year-old into a suicide bomber's
> kit. Such is the condition of the human race in the Middle East,
> variously known as the Holy Land or the Cradle of Civilization.) Says
> Sharon, oleaginously, of Bush: "Something in his soul committed him to
> act with great courage against world terror."
> >
> >The rest of the known world, along with the United Nations, has been
> dead set against us from the start. But they carry no weight. Thanks to
> our tax dollars and the well-fed, strong but not bulletproof bodies of
> our children -- though mostly children from lower-income families --
> George Bush and his lethal team of oil pirates, Cold Warriors and
> Likudists commands the most formidable military machine on earth. No
> nation, with the possible exception of China, would ever dare to oppose
> them directly.
> >
> >But the Chinese aren't coming to save us. Nothing and no one can stop
> these people except you and me, and the other 100 million or so American
> citizens who may vote in the November election. This isn't your
> conventional election, the usual dim-witted, media-managed Mister
> America contest where candidates vie for charm and style points and hire
> image coaches to help them act more confident and presidential. This is
> a referendum on what is arguably the most dismal performance by any
> incumbent president -- and inarguably the biggest mistake. This is a
> referendum on George W. Bush, arguably the worst thing that has happened
> to the United States of America since the invention of the cathode ray
> tube.
> >
> >One problem with this referendum is that the case against George Bush is
> much too strong. Just to spell it out is to sound like a bitter
> partisan. I sit here on the 67th birthday of Saddam Hussein facing a
> haystack of incriminating evidence that comes almost to my armpit. What
> matters most, what signifies? Journalists used to look for the smoking
> gun, but this time we have the cannons of Waterloo, we have Gettysburg
> and Sevastopol, we have enough gunsmoke to cause asthma in heaven. I'm
> overwhelmed. Maybe I should light a match to this mountain of paper and
> immolate myself. On the near side of my haystack, among hundreds of
> quotes circled and statistics underlined, just one thing leaped out at
> me. A quote I had underlined was from the testimony of Hermann Goering
> at the Nuremberg trials, not long before Hitler's vice-fuhrer poisoned
> himself in his jail cell:
> >
> >"... It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a
> democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
> dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
> bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them
> they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
> patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
> every country."
> >
> >Goering's dark wisdom gained weight when a friend called me and reported
> that Vice President Cheney was so violently partisan in his commencement
> speech at Westminster College in Missouri -- so rabid in his attacks on
> John Kerry as a anti-American peace-marching crypto-communist -- that
> the college president felt obliged to send the student body an email
> apologizing for Cheney's coarseness.
> >
> >If you think it's exceptionally shameless for a man who dodged Vietnam
> to play the patriot card against a decorated veteran, remember that
> Georgia Republicans played the same card, successfully, against Sen. Max
> Cleland, who suffered multiple amputations in Vietnam. In 2001 and 2002,
> George Bush and his Machiavelli, Karl Rove, approved political attack
> ads that showed the faces of Tom Daschle and other Democratic senators
> alongside the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. And somewhere
> in hell, Goering and Goebbels toasted each other with a schnapps.
> >
> >Am I polarized? I've never been a registered Democrat, I'm sick of this
> two-party straitacket, I wish to God it didn't take Yale and a major
> American fortune to create a presidential candidate. The only current
> Democratic leaders who show me any courage are Nancy Pelosi and old Bob
> Byrd -- Hillary Clinton has been especially cagy and gutless on this war
> -- and John Kerry himself may leave a lot to be desired. He deserves
> your vote not because of anything he ever did or promises to do, but
> simply because he did not make this sick mess in Iraq and owes no
> allegiance to the sinister characters who designed it. And because his
> own "place in history," so important to the kind of men who run for
> president, would now rest entirely on his success in getting us out of
> it.
> >
> >Kerry made a courageous choice at least once in his life, when he came
> home with his ribbons and demonstrated against the war in Vietnam. But
> Sen. Kerry could turn out to be a stiff, a punk, an alcoholic, and he'd
> still be a colossal improvement over the man who turned Paul Wolfowitz
> loose in the Middle East. The myth that there was no real difference
> between Democrats and Republicans, which I once considered seriously and
> which Ralph Nader rode to national disaster four years ago, was
> shattered forever the day George Bush announced his cabinet and his
> appointments for the Department of Defense.
> >
> > I'm aware that there are voters -- 40 million? -- who don't see it this
> >way. I come from a family of veterans and commissioned officers; I
> understand patriots in wartime. If a spotted hyena stepped out of Air
> Force One wearing a baby-blue necktie, most Americans would salute and
> sing "Hail to the Chief." President Bush cultivated his patriots by
> spending $46 million on media in the month of March alone. Somehow I'm
> on his mailing list. (Is that because my late father, with the same
> name, was a registered Republican, or can Bush afford to mail his
> picture to every American with an established address?) Twice a week I
> open an appeal for cash to crush John Kerry and the quisling liberal
> conspiracy, and now I own six gorgeous color photographs of the
> president and his wife. I'm sure some of my neighbors frame the
> president's color photographs and fill those little blue envelopes he
> sends us with their hard-earned dollars.
> >
> >I struggle against the suspicion that so many of my fellow Americans are
> conceptually challenged. I want to reason with my neighbors; I want to
> engage these lost Americans. What makes you angry, neighbor? What
> arouses your suspicions? Does it bother you that this administration
> made terrorism a low priority, dismissed key intelligence that might
> have prevented the 9/11 catastrophe, then exploited it to justify the
> pre-planned destruction of Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with al
> Qaeda? All this is no longer conjecture, but direct reportage from
> cabinet-level meetings by the turncoat insiders Richard Clarke and Paul
> O'Neill.
> >
> >If the Pentagon ever thought Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction,"
> it was only because the Pentagon gave them to him. As Kevin Phillips
> recounts in American Dynasty, officials of the Reagan and first Bush
> administrations eagerly supplied Saddam with arms while he was using
> chemical weapons on the Kurds. They twice sent Donald Rumsfeld to court
> Saddam, in 1983 and 1984, when the dictator was in the glorious prime of
> his monsterhood.
> >
> >This scandal, concurrent with Iran-Contra, was briefly called
> "Iraqgate," and, yes, among the names of those officials implicated
> you'll find most of the engineers of our current foreign policy. (They
> also signaled their fractious client, Saddam, that it might be all right
> to overrun part of Kuwait; you remember what happened when he tried to
> swallow it all.) Does any of this trouble you? Does it worry you that
> Dick Cheney, as president of the nefarious Halliburton Corporation, sold
> Iraq $73 million in oilfield services between 1997 and 2000, even as he
> plotted with the Wolfowitz faction to whack Saddam? Or that Halliburton,
> with its CEO's seat still warm from Cheney's butt, was awarded unbid
> contracts worth up to $15 billion for the Iraq invasion, and currently
> earns a billion dollars a month from this bloody disaster? Not to
> mention its $27.4 million overcharge for our soldiers' food.
> >
> >These are facts, not partisan rhetoric. Do any of them even make you
> restless? The cynical game these shape-shifters have been playing in the
> Middle East is too Byzantine to unravel in 1,000 pages of text. But the
> hypocrisy of the White House is palpable, and beggars belief. If there's
> one American who actually believes that Operation Iraqi Freedom was
> about democracy for the poor Iraqis, then you, my friend, are too
> dangerously stupid to be allowed near a voting booth.
> >
> >Does it bother you even a little that the personal fortunes of all four
> Bush brothers, including the president and the governor, were acquired
> about a half step ahead of the district attorney, and that the royal
> family of Saudi Arabia invested $1.476 billion in those and other Bush
> family enterprises? Or, as Paul Krugman points out, that it's much
> easier to establish links between the Bush and bin Laden families than
> any between the bin Ladens and Saddam Hussein. Do you know about Ahmad
> Chalabi, the administration's favorite Iraqi and current agent in
> Baghdad, whose personal fortune was established when he embezzled
> several hundred million from his own bank in Jordan and fled to London
> to avoid 22 years at hard labor?
> >
> >That's just a sampling from my haystack. Maybe I can reach you as an
> environmentalist, one who resents the gutting of key provisions in the
> Clean Air Act? My own Orange County, N.C., chiefly a rural area, was
> recently added to a national register of counties with dangerously
> polluted air. You say you vote for the president because you're a
> conservative. Are you sure? I thought conservatives believed in civil
> liberties, a weak federal executive, an inviolable Constitution, a
> balanced budget and an isolationist foreign policy. George Bush has an
> attorney general who drives the ACLU apoplectic and a vice president who
> demands more executive privilege (for his energy seances) than any
> elected official has ever received. The president wants a Constitutional
> amendment to protect marriage from homosexuals, of all things. Between
> tax cuts for his high-end supporters and three years playing God and
> Caesar in the Middle East, George Bush has simply emptied America's
> wallet with a $480 billion federal deficit projected for 2004 and the
> tab on Iraq well over $100 billion and running.
> >
> >"A lot of so-called conservatives today don't know what the word means,"
> Barry Goldwater said in 1994, when the current cult of right-wing
> radicals and "neocons" had begun to define and assert themselves.
> Goldwater was my first political hero, before I was old enough to read
> his flaws. But his was the conservatism of the wolf -- the lone wolf --
> and this is the conservatism of sheep.
> >
> >All it takes to make a Bush conservative is a few slogans from talk
> radio and pickup truck bumpers, a sneer at "liberals" and maybe a
> name-dropping nod to Edmund Burke or John Locke, whom most of them have
> never read. Sheep and sheep only could be herded by a ludicrous but not
> harmless cretin like Rush Limbaugh, who has just compared the sexual
> abuse of Iraqi prisoners to "a college fraternity prank" (and who once
> called Chelsea Clinton "the family dog" -- you don't have to worry about
> shame when you have no brain).
> >
> >I don't think it's accurate to describe America as polarized between
> Democrats and Republicans, or between liberals and conservatives. It's
> polarized between the people who believe George Bush and the people who
> do not. Thanks to some contested ballots in a state governed by the
> president's brother, a once-proud country has been delivered into the
> hands of liars, thugs, bullies, fanatics and thieves. The world pities
> or despises us, even as it fears us. What this election will test is the
> power of money and media to fool us, to obscure the truth and alter the
> obvious, to hide a great crime against the public trust under a
> blood-soaked flag. The most lavishly funded, most cynical, most
> sophisticated political campaign in human history will be out trolling
> for fools. I pray to God it doesn't catch you.
> >
> >* * * * *
> >
> >
> > > Hal Crowther is a former writer for Time and Newsweek, the Buffalo
> News and the North Carolina Spectator before parking his column at the
> weekly Independent in Durham, N.C., and The Progressive Populist,
> among others. He won the H.L. Mencken Award for column writing in
> 1992. Write him at 219 N. Churton St., Hillsborough, NC 27278.
|
