New Rantings From The Raving Fascist

Bush's speech today speech had the same long-winded, crusader rhetoric that dictators use in their paternal rants they force their subjects to endure. It sounded almost like Iran's new president with all of the moralism and ideological ranting couched in jingoistic nationalism.

Is America ready for this type of crusade against Bush's ideological enemies?


here's one excerpt from the speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060831-1.html

"The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation -- the right of all people to speak, and worship, and live in liberty. And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism -- the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest. As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before. They're successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists, and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be: This war will be difficult; this war will be long; and this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists and totalitarians, and a victory for the cause of freedom and liberty."


The speech seemed designed to take the caricature of Bush's own presidency and cast these faceless "enemies' as more pernicious reflections of his own regime's instincts toward fascism, extremism, and totalitarianism. But, as Eleanor Roosevelt was quoted as saying, " We need not fear any isms if our democracy is achieving the ends for which it was established."

This speech is an amazing attempt to recast the past struggles against nations and dictatorial regimes who were bent on our destruction as they trampled on their neighbors and our allies, as akin to the threats we face from these individual acts of violence which are often expressions of nationalism, or in defense of basic rights to liberty and self-determination in the face of the Bush regime's own attempts to usurp and consolidate power. Yet, is the Bush regime which threatens to impose their ideology on those hapless nations and residents who happen to be in the way of Bush's drive for U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and beyond; in the way of his 'freedom agenda.'


again, from the speech:

"The freedom agenda is based upon our deepest ideals and our vital interests. Americans believe that every person, of every religion, on every continent, has the right to determine his or her own destiny. We believe that freedom is a gift from an almighty God, beyond any power on Earth to take away. And we also know, by history and by logic, that promoting democracy is the surest way to build security. Democracies don't attack each other or threaten the peace. Governments accountable to the voters focus on building roads and schools -- not weapons of mass destruction. Young people who have a say in their future are less likely to search for meaning in extremism. Citizens who can join a peaceful political party are less likely to join a terrorist organization. Dissidents with the freedom to protest around the clock are less likely to blow themselves up during rush hour. And nations that commit to freedom for their people will not support terrorists -- they will join us in defeating them."


So, how is Bush 'promoting democracy?' Just what are the rudiments of this American tyrant's reign? The lessons that other countries have learned from Bush's opportunistic invasion and occupation of Iraq is nothing more than the old dictum of divide and conquer, might makes right. What is to be gleaned from the 'shock and awe' Bush employed against the Iraqis as he used the awesome force of our nation's military to push into Baghdad and occupy the sovereign nation, overthrowing the government without the full consent or consensus of the international community. Just yesterday, Israel justified their own bloody slaughter of Lebanese innocents by citing Bush's invasion and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has used the same rhetoric that Bush is using against perceived "enemies" who he complains are determined to stop his crusading.

What is the difference between Hitler imposing his philosophy of fascism on Europe through military intimidation and repression, and Bush's self-appointed mission from "almighty God" to recklessly employ military force across sovereign borders to "advance" his own definition of freedom?

Bush quoted Thomas Jefferson's admonition to Lafayette that, "We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed."

But there's another quote from Jefferson that Bush has overlooked in his zeal to wrap himself in the glory of our founding father's courage and vision. "Of liberty," Jefferson wrote, "I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Bush satisfies himself that his actions are inviolable and within some nebulous notion of legality and constitutional privilege. But, little consideration is given to the rights and privileges of those who find themselves in the way of his ideological assaults. It is his 'tyrant's will' which compels Bush to prosecute his ideological defenses, wherever and whenever he deems appropriate. He aches to make his jingoistic crusade the nation's own, but, we are a nation of ideals, not ideology. Our actions are dictated by laws which our nation's system of checks and balances strives to manage for the benefit of all Americans; not just a select, determined few who would hijack our resources and sacrifice our citizens on an altar of one man's obsession to dominate all lessors who are unable to rally forces to resist his imperious expansionism.

In Jefferson's last recorded letter, written for July 4 in 1826, he reflected on our country's independence and against the type of monarchical arrogance Bush displayed in his speech:

"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man." he wrote. "The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."

It is my fervent hope that, in 'recollection' of these rights, and devotion to them, voters refresh our government in November and begin to remove this reckless cowboy's saddle from the back of our nation's democracy.

is the subject of your post. After all, coulda been Rummy ... coulda been Dick ... but NO, it's Mr. Plastic Ponderosa himself!!!

"The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation -- the right of all people to speak, and worship, and live in liberty. And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism -- the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest."

shut the fugg up. On second thoughts, let him talk. It will only help the Dems in 68 days.

I'm ready for a crusade against Bush's ideology.

to blame.

our 'enemies' don't even have a state - they have willpower, ingenuity, and money that ultimately comes from our paychecks. but all told, al queda is, what, 1000 strong?

they attack us to make us feel their pain, we attack them because we are ignorant of their opinion that we hurt them.

i fervently believe that this is a fight about WHO controls ''history'' -- who gets to write about and legitimize the last few years.

unfortunately -- this is a poor standard to rally troops.

thank you for your well thought out disection of bush.

the increased focus and interest in what these clowns are actually saying is encouraging.

Herman Wouk wrote, in 'The Winds of War', 1971:

"Peace, if it ever exists, will not be based on the fear of war, but on the love of peace. It will not be the abstaining from an act, but the coming of a state of mind. In this sense the most insignifigant writer can serve peace, where the most powerful tribunals can do nothing."

It was the same pap, but I guess it had something to do with the delivery.

:+"You Mr. Bush are no Ronald Reagan. So stop saying those things already." :+

Bush has independent individuals and groups with uncertain intentions. That hasn't stopped him from trying to put it over on us though. Understandable when you consider how much the public has tolerated in the name of protection, in the face of virtually none.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz........

I'm glad I'm not watching the brain-damaged buffoon. He makes my skin crawl.

he's better read:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060831-1.html

Now, more than ever, we need to use their own blather against them.

"And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism -- the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest". :eyes: Gee, the "self-appointed few" (the Supreme Court appointed few?), "to impose their fanatical views on all the rest" (do you mean YOU imposing YOUR fanatical views on the majority of people in this country that DON"T support your policies?)

:wtf:

He might read the things he says off the tele-prompters, but he certainly doesn't understand ONE STINKING WORD OF IT! :grr: What a fucking moron. When was the last time this idiot was in touch with reality? I'm guessing it was AT LEAST 2 decades ago, probably more. :grr:

is like the guy that farts and starts pointing fingers to escape blame.

Does anyone in the American Legion audience notice the hypocrisy of "the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest"?

"Governments accountable to the voters focus on building roads and schools -- " do the legionaires think "Katrina?"

"Young people who have a say in their future ..." do they think "Education? Jobs?"

"Citizens who can join a peaceful political party ..." do they think "Neo-conservatives WANTED the Invasion of Iraq."

How aware are people?

the sad truth is that all of the nonsense in the speech can be found in the volumes of right-wing drivel that's plastered all over the media.

They're counting on folks either being as ignorant as they think they are, or too spooked by their terror campaign to chuck their protection racket.

In Speech, Bush Warns of Risks in Quitting Iraq

By ANNE E. KORNBLUT and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: September 1, 2006

{snip}

With Congressional Republicans, fighting to hold on to their majorities in the House and Senate, the speech came at a delicate time. Many view the war as a political liability and have spent the past month at home getting an earful from voters.

“Members of Congress are going to be returning next week and they will be quite anxious, because they will have been briefed by their pollsters, have spent the last three weeks with their constituents and most of them will be worried,’’ said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist. “So the administration is trying to set the terms of the debate to really make this a clear choice between moving forward and the cut-and-run-crowd.’’

Indeed, Mr. Bush’s speech made clear that he would make the issue central to his campaign on his fellow Republicans’ behalf. It reflected a belief at the White House that there is no option for the administration but to convince the nation that the struggle in Iraq is necessary and worth the cost in the service of a broader goal: eradicating the threat from Islamic extremists by bringing democracy to the Middle East.

article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/washington/01bush.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&pagewanted=print

we were fighting fascism.... right?

not individual nuts with a grudge.

Where is bin-Laden's nation? What nation's government has he overthrown and occupied?

Hard to get all worked up about whatever autocratic control bin-Laden might have over his own organization.