George Bush's Acid Reign: Pernicious Nation-Building Creates a Failed State

Birth of a Nation?- The bombed-0ut Mt. Lebanon Hotel, Baghdad

A West Bank suicide blast; could be Fatah, or Hamas
Why such tactics? They ask. One need but look to the past
As Western boots remain, encamped in places like Bahrain
it breeds seeds of these misdeeds from future Saddam Hussein's

by Anthony Barnes

Although May 1st made it four long years since George W. Bush's hideously ill-timed “mission accomplished” speech, it remains difficult to lose sight of the fact that were it not for the stealthy underlying goal of Iraqi nation-building as raison d'etre for Operation Iraqi Freedom, the precise moment at which Iraq's WMD threat was determined illusory – viewed here as the point at which Baghdad fell without coalition forces having faced a single biological or chemical attack -- would have also been the moment at which the planning for withdrawal would have begun.

Simply put, Bush could have said: "My bad," then prudently cut the Iraqis a check for the damages thus saving his nation's blood and treasure for times when a legitimate security threat loomed.

More

Everybody Loves Rudy! But to Some, the Question is Why?

After 911, many people became absorbed with the notion that America was indeed fortunate George W. Bush was selected president instead of wonkish, popular vote winner Al Gore.

The surrealistic horror of the attacks helped make it easy to overlook Bush's underlying constellation of deep personal flaws, to ignore the increasingly evident mendacity and discount his unabashedly cavalier attitude about all things intellectual.

In the aftermath of the attacks, Bush's non-cognitive, hyper-macho, pseudo-cowboy persona seemed in precise alignment with the inherent twin yearnings for naked retribution and military vindication --- emotion-fed desires that clouded the nation's collective judgment.

Nearly six years later, look where that has gotten America.

More

MOUTH ON LOCKDOWN

Right off the bat, let me say that I like Don Imus.

It's Bernard McGuirk, a closeted skinhead signed by Imus to do "nigger jokes" who pisses me off.

Having said that, I don't want to divert from the issue at hand - Imus' "nappy-headed hoes" sobriquet.

____________________________

"I'm-an-ass-in-the-morning!" - End of the trail for Don Imus

_______________________

Anybody who has watched or heard Imus In The Morning knows that the shock-jock is a bit of an equal opportunity slinger of insults.

That's not the issue here as far as I am concerned. Slinging insults is like throwing dice, at some point you're gonna come up snake-eyes and when you do --- POOF! --- everything you've worked for is gone in a puff of smoke.

With regard to this latest episode of racial "humor," it's probably just a bit of poetic justice for all the "cleaning lady," "National Geographic," "New York Knicks are chest-thumping pimps; the New York Crips" remarks that proceeded it that Imus has finally been put out to pasture.

Overall, I guess, I have no problem with that if it will truly spark the tidy dialogue on acceptable discourse that a bunch of people have been predicting.

What I do have a problem with, however, is the burgeoning movement amongst many to make Imus' remarks a gateway to a parallel examination of rap lyrics.

It's not to say that such an examination isn't needed. I'm saying we need to slow down for a moment. We ain't finished with Talk Radio yet.

Let's not be so quick to leap from the realm of the hate speech expressed over Talk Radio's airwaves from the likes of Sean Hannity (audience, 12.5 million), Neil Boortz (audience 3.8 million), Michael Savage (audience, 8.3 million), on whose website can be found a "rap" entitled: "If She's Got Ten Toes, She's A Hoe;" or Glenn Beck (audience 3.8 million), who called Katrina victims "scum," or Rush Limbaugh (audience, 13.5 million), who, of all people asks: "Why should Sharpton and Jackson, these two race hustlers, be the final arbiters deciding who can say what?"

Say what, Rush?

I've always had the least of respect for those who simply talk a good talk without providing any active follow-up on all the good things they say. In that regard, I always think highly of those who express their philosophical support for programs that aid sick children or wounded soldiers, or for efforts to improve the environment -- right up until the time that I realize they are all talk and no action.

Yep, I recognize that Imus sure did fuck up when he uttered such a reprehensible slur to such unworthy characters, but I also recognize that Imus' benevolence in matters that are materially tangible; which can be held and felt, have been held and felt by many, many of us with nappy hair.

So with someone like Imus, who does, in fact support those causes both financially and in a hands-on manner, I'm a bit more inclined to overlook to some degree the ignorant, race-baiting humor than I am the Savages, et al., who speak of mean-spiritedness on a daily basis and work to enact it as well.

As for linking the Imus contretemps to misogynistic rap lyrics? That's an argument I'm all for having as long as it is taken into consideration that the same market forces that forced Imus into unemployment also fuels the incentive for rap artists to produce such lyrical content.

It's widely known that many record companies are loath to offer contracts to rap artists who avoid the "gangsta" persona. Example. Other than Kirk Franklin, how many so-called "Christian" rappers are you familiar with?

Beyond that, the idea of making a connection between Imus' hate speech with that of lyrics expressed by rappers as an avenue for exoneration of Imus' behavior is ludicrous on at least two levels.

First, it raises the preposterous assumption that individuals like Imus, a cowboy-hat-and-boots-wearing, country and western music-loving, white senior citizen, turns to rappers for guidance regarding what kind of speech is appropriate for him to use.

Just as outlandish is the presumption that Imus' use of hate speech, rationalized by the fact that rappers do the same, somehow de-legitimizes the outrage expressed by the Rutgers team and those who love and support them.

In other words, “you nappy-headed hoes couldn't possibly be offended by me calling you a nappy-headed hoe because rappers call all you nappy-headed hoes, 'nappy-headed hoes'.”

Fairly ridiculous, I'm sure you'll agree.

Nevertheless already there are clear indications that the direction of this resurgence in outrage over hate speech has shifted away from hate speech's “big-leagues” -- political talk radio to those who are often its targets. Rush, Savage, Beck, Sean Hannity and others continue to prattle on with their rhetorical sewage even as MSNBC reported on Monday, that an African-American firefighter in Philadelphia who moonlights as a rap artist may be fired over lyrics written years ago that include killing police officers.

Both the societal and media selling point on the Imus affair, of course, is that a sponsor pull-out by morally-offended advertisers sparked the surge of corporate sentiment at MSNBC and CBS against limiting Imus to their previously-imposed two-week suspension. Sure the sentiments of those company's African-American employees were part of the mix, but one would be foolish to think that it was their views that tipped the scale.

I'd be among those who'd experience not an iota of shock were it revealed that some of the companies that withdrew their sponsorship of Imus' show out of shock advertise in magazines and elsewhere that promote the kind of rap lyrics that the spotlight has been cleverly directed toward.

If that is indeed the case, then all the sanctimonious "holla-back" from the corporate world against Imus' hate speech is just another example of all talk, no action.

Anthony Barnes

Neo-Consequences: It's "Game Over" for the PNAC/Bush Doctrine

.

By Anthony Barnes

.

Let others hail the rising sun: I bow to that whose course is run – David Garrick (1717-79)

It's Over.

In its present incarnation, neo-conservatism is – to borrow Vice President Cheney’s phrase -- “in its last throes.” Despite the still-developing legacy of the neo-con-plagued administration of George W. Bush, Jr., it’s quite obvious that no longer can contemporary neo-conservatism be viewed as a viable philosophical commodity.

The Grin and the Chagrined:
PNAC Chairman Bill Kristol (above) insists that neo-conservatism remains relevant in spite of Bush's method of carrying out the philosophy's agenda at home and abroad.


To it’s liberal critics in general and perhaps Bush in particular, the manner in which neo-conservatism has become little more that an evanescent philosophy may be the stuff of schadenfreude. But a bit of malicious joy would be apropos in that George W. Bush is to red meat neo-conservatism, what Jimmy Carter was to insouciant liberalism. Virtually single-handedly, he discredited it.

More