Archive for January, 2008

There is a great entry about the subject in Yumi Kikuchi’s blog. You can watch the clips of the whole thing on his blog or in one package here.

Read Full Post »


I think we need to make it very clear, not just to the Iranians, but to anybody, that if you think you’re going to engage the United States Military, be prepared not simply to have a battle. Be prepared, first, to put your sights on the American vessel. And then be prepared that the next things you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that.

– Mike Huckabee, 12th Jan 2008

Read Full Post »

nuclear bomb

A good friend of mine gave me a link to this today:

Wire Services – US President George W. Bush promised Israel’s opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu that the United States will join the Jewish state in a nuclear strike against Iran, Israel Radio reported today.Former Prime Minister Netanyahu, opposition Likud party’s hardline chairman who opposes the US-backed Annapolis peace process, reiterated to President Bush his stance, that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran’s nuclear installations was the only way to stop the Islamic nation’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

“I told him my position and Bush agreed,” Netanyahu told Israel Radio.

There is no direct quote to this but it would not surprise me if this is all true. Bush has used heavy rhetoric against Iran lately, again, sounding much like he did before the U.S. attacked Iraq. Is Iran a threat to world peace under known circumstances? This is arrogant and outrageous beyond words. While I certainly don’t think very positively about Iran, I think that the United States and Israel are much more a threat to the world peace nowadays. Who knows, maybe Bush and his administration can arrange one more “pre-emptive war” before the next U.S. presidential elections. Maybe Bush will have a chance to use a “nukyalar” weapon himself – for peace, of course.

It is a high time to impeach the most dangerous international terrorist and his vice president.

Read Full Post »

According to The Right Brothers, Bush was (and probably still is) right. I think you must agree with them if you think that also Hitler was right. What historians say? Some quotes from Historians vs. George W. Bush by Robert S. McElvaine:

I think the presidency of George W. Bush has been generally a failure and I consider his presidency so far to have been the most disastrous since that of Ronald Reagan–because of the unconscionable military aggression and spending (especially the Iraq War), the damage done to the welfare of the poor while the corporate rich get richer, and the backwards religious fundamentalism permeating this administration. I strongly disliked and distrusted Reagan and think that George W. is even worse.

[…] Actually, I think [Bush’s] presidency may exceed the disaster that was Nixon. He has systematically lied to the American public about almost every policy that his administration promotes.” Bush uses “doublespeak” to “dress up policies that condone or aid attacks by polluters and exploiters of the environment . . . with names like the ‘Forest Restoration Act’ (which encourages the cutting down of forests).

[…] I would say GW is our worst president since Herbert Hoover. He is moving to bankrupt the federal government on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation, and he has brought America’s reputation in the world to its lowest point in the entire history of the United States.

[…] I think his presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for the environment, for international relations, for health care, and for working Americans. He’s on a par with Coolidge!

[…] Oil, money and politics again combine in ways not flattering to the integrity of the office. Both men also have a tendency to mangle the English language yet get their points across to ordinary Americans. [Yet] the comparison does Harding something of a disservice

[…] Bush is perhaps the first president [since McKinley] to be entirely in the ‘hip pocket’ of big business, engage in major external conquest for reasons other than national security, AND be the puppet of his political handler. McKinley had Mark Hanna; Bush has Karl Rove. No wonder McKinley is Rove’s favorite historical president (precedent?).

[…] He ranks with U.S. Grant as the worst. His oil interests and Cheney’s corporate Haliburton contracts smack of the same corruption found under Grant.

[…] While Grant did serve in the army (more than once), Bush went AWOL from the National Guard. That means that Grant is automatically more honest than Bush, since Grant did not send people into places that he himself consciously avoided. . . . Grant did not attempt to invade another country without a declaration of war; Bush thinks that his powers in this respect are unlimited.

[…] I consider his presidency so far to have been the most disastrous since that of Andrew Johnson. It has been a sellout of fundamental democratic (and Republican) principles. There are many examples, but the most recent would be his successful efforts to insert provisions in spending bills which directly controvert measures voted down by both houses of Congress.

[…] Buchanan can be said to have made the Civil War inevitable or to have made the war last longer by his pusillanimity or, possibly, treason.” “Buchanan allowed a war to evolve, but that war addressed a real set of national issues. Mr. Bush started a war . . . for what reason?

[…] The second most common response from historians, trailing only Nixon, was that the current presidency is the worst in American history. A few examples will serve to provide the flavor of such condemnations. Although previous presidents have led the nation into ill-advised wars, no predecessor managed to turn America into an unprovoked aggressor. No predecessor so thoroughly managed to confirm the impressions of those who already hated America. No predecessor so effectively convinced such a wide range of world opinion that America is an imperialist threat to world peace. I don ‘t think that you can do much worse than that.

[…] Bush is horrendous; there is no comparison with previous presidents, most of whom have been bad.

[…] He is blatantly a puppet for corporate interests, who care only about their own greed and have no sense of civic responsibility or community service. He lies, constantly and often, seemingly without control, and he lied about his invasion into a sovereign country, again for corporate interests; many people have died and been maimed, and that has been lied about too. He grandstands and mugs in a shameful manner, befitting a snake oil salesman, not a statesman. He does not think, process, or speak well, and is emotionally immature due to, among other things, his lack of recovery from substance abuse. The term is “dry drunk”. He is an abject embarrassment/pariah overseas; the rest of the world hates him . . . . . He is, by far, the most irresponsible, unethical, inexcusable occupant of our formerly highest office in the land that there has ever been.

[…] George W. Bush’s presidency is the pernicious enemy of American freedom, compassion, and community; of world peace; and of life itself as it has evolved for millennia on large sections of the planet. The worst president ever? Let history judge him.

[…] This president is unique in his failures.

And then there was this split ballot, comparing the George W. Bush presidencies failures in distinct areas. The George W. Bush presidency is the worst since:

In terms of economic damage, Reagan.

In terms of imperialism, T Roosevelt.

In terms of dishonesty in government, Nixon.

In terms of affable incompetence, Harding.

In terms of corruption, Grant.

In terms of general lassitude and cluelessness, Coolidge.

In terms of personal dishonesty, Clinton.

In terms of religious arrogance, Wilson.

Bush was right? No way.

Read Full Post »

James Kirchick wrote in The New Republic some amazing bullshit about Dr. Ron Paul recently. I am not getting into details of that bullshit in this blog entry because those details can be found from elsewhere already, for example, here. Below is a little note I sent as a comment to the article.

Greetings from Europe.

I am amazed that I can still be amazed about how low the media can go in the States today.

This article was an interesting piece of propaganda, that indeed succeeded to amaze me. I consider it a social suicide from anyone to write this kind of unproven heavy nonsense. Don’t you know that the whole world is looking at you and seeing through this joke? Man, I am glad I am not in your shoes.

If there is any truth in this article that truth is that neo cons and their supporters are REALLY SCARED about the revolution that Ron Paul and his supporters represent. The article itself did not contain a truthful view of Ron Paul. The article was a package of lies, to state the obvious.

Well, I would be alarmed if Ron Paul and his supporters would not cause scared neo cons and their supporters to write stuff like this. It would mean that Ron and his supporters would really pose no threat to the establishment. Article like this is indeed a great sign that there is REAL CHANGE working in the States… not some small talk “change” that so many candidates talk, but a REAL CHANGE.

Ron Paul is a hope for America, indeed. It makes me and tons of others around the world happy that there is a man like him running for the president. And if you don’t believe that, go and see who the world would elect.

Read Full Post »


lihat puntarissa

Read Full Post »