Yes, this is a harbinger of things to come, but only if we redouble our efforts to bring transformation about, because America is the heartland of this emotional plague that grips the planet. It will not be easy to uproot.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 8:14:24 AM

  (0+)

From today's Los Angeles Daily News:

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_7543537

Rumsfeld Immune In Torture Case -- AP story

by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 8:30:10 AM

  (0+)

A fitting end to another member of the pack of jeckals.

 Hopefully, the results will be as great come November 2008

Drop kick the republicans into the atlantic, in mass. 

by kanawah (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 8:57:29 AM

  (0+)

I find the article interesting in that it ties politics together world wide.

It looks to me like the whole planet is under the thumb of the same behind the scene manipulators.

It think that it is going to take the middle class of the world banding together, in principle, to restore law and order to their once great nations.

by Carson Dugal (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 20 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 10:15:01 AM

  (0+)

that Brett P. and Andris are clinking pints over this one?

I hope so! 

Cheers,

Bid

by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 11:53:38 AM

  (0+)

I'm not really much of an alcohol drinker but I did imbibe a little last night and along with many other Australians was certainly happy with the outcome.

The defeat of the Howard government was widely predicted but in recent elections Howard (a very clever politician and political hardballer) has had a frustrating knack for winning/"buying" the votes where it actually mattered in the marginal seats.

I was disappointed with my countrymen and women last election when they returned the Howard government post the Iraq invasion and no WMDs. I suspected that then most Australians were voting for their own selfish (and short term) financial best interests and so for effectively letting the rest of the world go hang.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 5:36:42 PM

  (0+)

Tragically I'm old enough to know better  but young enough to do it again and again. Well I don't brew my own for it to sit there. That's my story and I'm sticking to it Hic

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 3:58:27 AM

  (0+)

As you know since the sixties with forced integration and busing, there has been a reactive conservative resurgence here in the US. With the fall of the Iron Curtain and the rise of militant Islam, the CR (conservative resurgence) has gone world wide from Japan to Australia, from Israel to England, from Germany to France. It appears that not only has Howard been dumped, but Blair, too with some others on the way out.

I did not think any one could have stopped the runaway CR train, but GWB has stopped it dead in their tracks. I laugh at the puppeteers. It is exactly what they deserve when they put such an empty head into such a great position of power who is just too full of himself. They should have learned that in 1932 Germany. An empty headed fool called Hitler (not his real name) was made the puppet of the corporate financial giants. Hitler, too, was too full of himself and almost destroyed the world.  The Weimar Republic was an infant democracy, ours is not.

I think this same thing is going to happen in Israel and the Islamic countries as the people of every nation and religion finds that the only sanity to these nightmares of mass murders is talking and compromise.

Phil

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:05:45 PM

  (0+)

I believe that the following is the only way to peace.

March 12, 2007

To: all the Citizens of the World

cc: all the Legislatures of the Various States of America
cc: all the Governors of the Various States of America
cc: all the Congresspersons of the United States of America
cc: the President of the United States of America
cc: Others

Dear Fellow World Citizen:

“I will tell you. There is one country we haven’t referred to at all during this conversation, which is Israel. And I think we -- the Americans, and as far as that goes, the British -- have supported a regime in Israel which becomes more and more authoritarian every day, which has treated the Palestinians in the most deplorable way. Which will do anything ... And I think while we have this relationship with Israel, while we support -- I’m speaking as a Jew, by the way -- and I deplore what Israel is doing.”
[I deplore the occupation of the West Bank] “And also that continual harassment of the Palestinians. The humiliation that they bring to their lives. The actual hours and hours that people have spent trying to get to a hospital, trying to get to a school and so on, but are stopped by Israeli soldiers who are actually simply thugs. Now, while we support this regime and don’t do anything to correct it, then we’re bound to come against a tremendous antagonism throughout the Middle East. Because that is the central issue of the Middle East when it comes down to it.” Harold Pinter on the Charlie Rose Show March 1, 2007.

Will the Congressional, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the United States Government ever have the wisdom of Harold?

Do other peoples of the world, who do not have our First Amendment Protections, not speak up for fear of being put in prison?
_______________
“I’m so proud. My five children. And because in the Jewish tradition, the lineage is with the mother, not the father, my five children are eligible for Israeli citizenship today, any time they want to go there. And they all know that and they’re proud of that fact, Charlie.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Charlie Rose Show March 5, 2007.

Why would anyone be proud to become a citizen of a state founded by terrorists and controlled by terrorists who violate International Law, United Nations Resolutions, and treat other people inhumanly? Would they like to be the ones dropping United States provided cluster bombs on women and children? Would they like to be the ones to launch United States provided missiles with nuclear warheads? Would they like to be the ones mistreating the Palestine people and not allowing them to return to their Land, their Homes, and their Livelihood? Would they like to be the ones withholding funds and demanding economic sanctions against the Palestine people for wanting their Land, their Homes, and their Livelihood back that was taken from them by terrorists shortly after World War II?
_______________
“We all want to stop terrorists, we all want to stop criminals, but the FBI works for us the American people, not the other way around and you cannot have a set of rules which says they can be outside the rules, everybody else has to be within them. The laws are there for everybody. They have not been followed here. I believe neither the sprit of the law nor the letter of the law.” Senator Patrick Leahy on the News Hour Friday, March 9, 2007.

If Congress wants to stop terrorists, its members must recall that they also work for us the American people and you cannot have a set of International rules which says that one Nation can be outside the rules, and all other Nations have to be within them. International laws are there for everybody. Why does the United States provide Armament and financial aid to ONE country in the Middle East that has been in violation of International Law, United Nations Resolutions, and has treated other people inhumanely almost ever since it was created, but invades and threatens to invade other Nations in the Middle East with lesser violations?

When the Nazis Terrorists continued to violate International Law after Land was taken from Czechoslovakia and given to them, they were forced to accept unconditional surrender. Nothing less must be accepted from Israel.
_______________
It is time for the United States and all other Nations to enforce International Law, United Nations Resolutions, and crimes against Humanity the same on all the people of the World.

Will the Nations Standup
before the People Standup?
_______________
Please distribute to as many Citizens of the World as you can. Thank You.

Have a good day

Tony

100% Citizen of the United States of America

Anton J. Grambihler
2008 Davison Ave.
Richland WA 99354-2015

www.CitizenAmendments.org

by Anton Grambihler (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 314 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:56:55 PM

  (0+)

to God's, Allah's Buddah's, etc. ear.

These people are a plague upon humanity and the planet.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 7:40:22 AM

  (0+)

Interesting. When Clintons ran things, FOB meant Friends of Bill.   Now it means Friends of Bush.  FOBs still ended up losing, or dying, one way or another. What a price to pay just to be on a team of sociopaths.  The Australians woke up, perhaps Americans will, too.  It's only in their self-interest to do so.

by Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 232 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:54:14 PM

  (0+)

It is sad that we in the United States, where our executive branch is the seat of global odium, will be unable to repudiate George Bush as so many others around the world have been able to do. This being due to the term limits that forbid the traitor from standing for election once again. I am still quite certain that we tried to repudiate him and very likely did, but were thwarted in our earnest efforts by the election thieves, Carl Rove, et al.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 1:32:16 PM

  (0+)

Now when will America get a clue and oust these vile neocons and globalists?

by Ed Encho (12 articles, 20 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 438 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 1:59:20 PM

  (0+)

That's what we need...someone from an indusgtrialized nation willling to LEAD! We don't have a one right now, not one.

Good for Rudd. Maybe the flock of "know nothings" leading the pack in both parties could take lessons...it's spealled L E A D !!!

by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 3:00:14 PM

  (0+)

Great News. I heard even the Kangaroo's are jumping for joy, and Koala Bears are celebrating.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 5:56:40 PM

  (0+)

The Kangaroos would jump but we ate them all

and the koalas were road kill, dog victims and eventually died out no appropriate tree. Along with betongs, bilbys, emus. The only one left are drop bears and blue ringed possums and they are nasty little buggers

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 5:23:04 AM

  (0+)

the US midterm elections -- there will be a short-lived euphoria, followed by the unpleasant realization that nothing has really changed. All that happened is they booted out one bum, and replaced him with another who's not fundamentally any different. All of the big western "democracies" have this same problem.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 6:51:13 PM

  (0+)

The Howard government gave the Bush administration political support in its policies of invading Iraq (even without UN approval) and not signing the Kyoto agreement.  I am not a member of the Australian Labor Party.  I do know that the Australian Labor Party has never supported those positions.     

If Australia signs Kyoto it will leave the US standing alone amidst first world economies as not having signed it.

Re Iraq. I know the Australian Labor Party was against the invasion. Prior to the invasion I sent emails to Simon Crean then Opposition leader as well as the shaddow attorney general and shaddow defence minister urging that Howard be challenged to put his legal advice re the invasion of iraq on the record. 

Simon Cream was giving a press conference reporting that that independent advice had deemed the invasion would be illegal when the conference was interrupted with the news that shock and awe had begun.  I sought copies of the legal advice from the authors and still have them. I also sought (and obtained from the Tables Office of the Australian Parliament) copies of the documents John Howard tabled when he was arguing that the invasion of Iraq was legal.  It was scary how skimpy the documented case was. Howard basicly relied on an A4 sheet of paper prepared for the Blair Government by the Attorney General of the UK.

     Australia is a small player compared to the United States. We don't have the power to impeach a Prime Minister but Prime Ministers are not above the law and there are no statutes of limitations on war crimes. Until the conversations between Howard and Bush regarding the invasion of Iraq become known it will not be possible to tell to what extent Howard shares moral and legally culpability for the illegal invasion of Iraq.  If I recall correctly the Australian special forces were actually in Iraq to provent the destruction of oil wells slightly prior to the invasion of 20 March 2003. 

Bush is still Howard's cover. But Howard will never again be providing any political cover for Bush. Howard will not be handing out Prime Ministers prizes for this or that. And the media will not be quoting him just because he is the Prime Minister. 

This is at least slight progress.

But the United States is far more important in the world than Australia.  Nothing matters more for the rule of law globally than impeachment and without impeachment a global arms race is inevitable. 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 8:33:09 PM

  (0+)

be "different" from the Howard govt. As you well know, Americans make arguments every day (just look at OpEdNews!) that the Democrats are "different" from the Republicans. And on the surface, in 2003, one might have argued that France & Germany "opposed" the invasion of Iraq, & thus were really different.

In all such cases, however, after the passage of time, it's clear that the opposition was more apparent than real; & that changes in govt will not bring real change in direction. For instance, in the UK, the Brown govt will function just as the Blair govt did. Both France & Germany wound up cooperating with the US despite the surface dissension in 2003 (& since then, both countries elected leaders even more closely aligned with the US, than the 2003 leaders).

In Australia, it will be the same. Rudd is plenty pro-business & pro-"free market", & has been spoken of favorably by the Murdoch press. I understand that he has assured the US of his cooperation in Afghanistan. The announced intent to withdraw 500 Aussie troops from Iraq (while leaving some troops to assist with "security") is just a token bit of posturing, like the US Democrats' fussing around noisily with "time tables" for withdrawal -- to give the impression of "opposition" to current policy, without really opposing it.

That's all I'm saying. Rob's article includes the sentence "He (Rudd) also promised to become more independent of the US on Foreign Policy." Well, sure. Gordon Brown said that in the UK, too; and there were similar noises in France & Germany. You more or less have to say that, to win elections outside the US, just as Democrats here have to pretend to "oppose Bush". But these protestations are very feeble, & mean practically nothing. Economically, Australia is bound too tightly to the US to really have a free hand in foreign policy. It needs US backing in its own striving for greater regional influence in Timor, the Solomons, & other small Pacific states. It can't afford to really stick its thumb in Bush's eye, just to please the Australian population.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 11:29:41 AM

  (0+)

This year,  the best thing to be Thankful for is OpEdNews.   Even though OEN didn't have the clout to make it in the SWC powerpoint presentation of Jane Harmon's target blacklist of  Home Grown Terrorists, AKA H 1955, like Richard Gage/AIA  did. (sarcasm)

To be able to read the hearts and minds of all the contributors this years has been truly comforting in allowing us to know that we are not  alone.  

Thank you all and especially Rob Kall.

by Joann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 8:09:02 PM

  (0+)

Rob,

 I will accept almost any criticism of John Winston Howard's policies even his arrogance but to call him a fascist is both over the top hyperbole and inaccurate. He was simply a devious conservative ideologue. I find it difficult to cope with this site’s hyperbole and propensity to abuse and make utterly unsubstantiable claims attacking politicians personallyall of which is so unnecessary. On closer analysis the hapless target has done no more than not done something the way or in the timing the author wants.  That type of purple prose is a matter of lack of self discipline and habit.

What brought Howard down was a combination of arrogance and a policy he called 'work choices'

Background  For the last 30 years we have had the balance of power in the Senate by a third party called the Australian Democrats they had their own polices but holding the balance of power they held down the mid term horrors, Policies that the public didn't vote for. Anyway after 2 senior rogue Dems tried to be major players the party being small self destructed.

Last election Howard had the control of the Senate so mid term he unleashed his 'work choices' which legalized by bypassing the unions and allowed employers to trade off benefits holidays, overtime rates et al. Work contracts often enforced the ‘ industrial awards’ were being eroded. ‘Making the work force more flexible’ .

Meanwhile the resources boom here businesses were making obscene profits and thanks to the US the sub prime started to affect interest rates here more ‘battlers’ started to go under. His claim for as being the best economy manager started to fray.  Unfortunately Howard in his arrogance under estimated the Aussie culture, Kevin Rudd and his vulnerability. He survived for 11 years because of his guile and the lack of a competitive alternative.

Note worthy One Rudd ‘arrived’  and ‘Work Choices’ started affecting pay packets down wards people started to pay attention. His lack Global warming credentials (Kyoto) the rising interest rate a spate of soldiers being killed overseas. Some monumental blunders like AWB, Dr Harneef a terrorist case that imploded because of stupidity it should never been raised. The pacific solution for refugees, Children over board, taking over aboriginal settlements11 years of minor screw up started to add up. NB As much as Howard was of ordinary intelligence Kevin Rudd is smart, very smart. Time will tell if he can run the country. He is not a progressive, leftie he is clearly straddling the centre line. Which is what the two main presidential candidate are doing (Clinton and Obama for the Dems and Giuliani for the republicans). Rudd is facing a hostile senate one that is dominated by the now opposition so time will tell if they are going to be obstructionist about winding back some of Howard’s excesses like refusing to sign Kyoto or Work choices. In July 1st the new Senate sits and the balanceof power (mid (senate term change) changes to two independents who lean conservative again time will tell.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 5:13:55 AM

  (0+)

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism.

And here's an article that ties Fascism to Corporatism, which is the way I think of Fascism-- as the combining of the two, at the service of corporations.

And Howard sure seemed to fit well into that picture. He was a union busting Corporation serving leader with no great respect for democracy or freedom.

But, he did bow out when defeated, so insteaded of giving him an A+ as a fascist, give him a B minus.

 But then again, I'm not from down under and watched Howard from afar, possibly tarring him with Bush characteristics. Bush certainly is a fascist. If you disagree with me on that, we're speaking different languages.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 7:54:39 AM

  (0+)

Rob,

Thank you for responding. Okay I'll admit that our definitions differ. The definition in your wik... as per your response would cover every conservative in history including Maggie Thatcher, and or any 'dry' economist.  

Conservatism as I understand it came into being after once the population i.e.  The merchant class won the right to vote in the British Parliament. Its purpose was to maintain the existing power structures while appearing to give the people the illusion of franchise... hence there were rotten boroughs and other dubious tricks implemented. 

I tried to show in my piece that Howard was a out of date/touch Dry Conservative  who didn't try to subvert the system so much as manipulated it to his ideology (which he saw as best for the country). He was a federalist/royalist and wasn't so much interested in becoming a dictator as per Mussolini. He actively stopped us from becoming a republic; he also brought in our gun laws. I think you will agree that doesn't sound like a fascist. 

 His first concern was to maintain business interests because he argued that way we have full employment. Howard has never tried to assume the power to the executive as such he has tried to take over some Constitutional powers from the States for the Federal Government. An example of this is the running of the Murray/ Darling rivers basin which has been a festering sore between states for 70 years…. (Our constitution like yours needs upgrading to 21st Century) the issue wasn’t considers in 1901. Health has dual responsibility as does education. All three cases can be made on common sense grounds. His fascination with a ‘historical narrative and attitudes towards the aborigines and migrants bordered on ‘the White Australia policy’ of his youth betrays him as a product of his time circa 1950.  

Bush is an arch conservative too but what opens him up to the charge of fascism is his attempts to centralize the power away from the Congress. What bothers me is that this could also be an artifact of your system of government.  

To me he like GWB are proof why having intellectually ordinary leaders who make up the difference with regressive conservative ideologies are simply disasters looking for somewhere to happen. People tend to vote for those who they can identify with. Prior to Howard we had a Labour PM Paul Keating had a fierce intelligence but he liked antique clocks, Mahler and appeared arrogant (all non average traits) his competence level was several times that of Howard. But Howard appeared ordinary an average Bloke so they preferred him. Bush election was the same.  It is fact that nearly all Howard’s achievements were as result of Keating’s work and serendipity. Not as he claims skills on his part.

Gore would have been a better president but I suspect not nearly as good as opednews authors would have liked due to the constraints in the system. The same could be said for Kevin Rudd he is super Bright but will the system curtail him I suspect it will. 

Howard is clearly not a fascist but that doesn’t mean that I don’t detest 90% of what he did and that I’m not glad he’s gone. But the sobering thought is that despite the hype about Rudd’s win ie Newspaper Headlines ‘It’s a Ruddslide’ ‘Whitewash’ ‘Rudd has Drubbed Howard’ A dispassionate view of what has happened 5% of the population have changed their minds, voted in their interests.  That mean 45% of the population supported his policy are still there and may change their minds again. Liberalism as part of the culture has a long way to go. It’s not a stunning victory for Progressives etc. in perspective 1/7th percentage speaking the size of eligible voters who don’t in the US.

We have a culture of voting the US doesn’t.  Those that either deliberately or unintentionally screwed their vote (informal) was about 3%..Mandatory or not the figures says something powerful about the population engagement in the politics. And how narrow the gap is. 

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Sunday, Nov 25, 2007 at 6:27:36 PM

  (0+)

Howard has been behind in the polls for months, and they didn't change significantly.  The public was OK as long as only refugees, Iraqis, immigrants, people who might have once passed a terrorist on the street etc. were being victimised.   But then via "WorkChoices" a supposedly free market but in fact change to industrial relations that actually centralised power in Canberra, their ox was gored.  That was it.  Once people realised that it could happen to them suddenly they started caring that Howard had been a scumbag to everyone it was convenient to be a scumbag too. 

Not even sending the army to help abused aboriginal children (how?  hell I don't know and I suspect he doesn't either) helped.  This time there was no Tampa, no children overboard, no scare to save him.  I look forward to him formally losing his seat. 

by Michael Price (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Tuesday, Nov 27, 2007 at 3:23:15 AM

  (0+)

For the last few months shovelling buckets of money at the problem didn't seem to work for Howard.  Maybe people figured out that the Labour party would shovel the same money so what the hell?  Or maybe they figured out that the money was their own and would either come from their tax bills or their morgage payments.

by Michael Price (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Tuesday, Nov 27, 2007 at 3:25:58 AM

  (0+)

he can hardly be called "opposed to socialism".  He was just opposed to socialism that actually tried to help poor people in ways that didn't get him reelected.  His policies were superficially "free market" but really there was less progress towards such than under Hawke/Keating.  At the end he didn't really have a policy other than "buy and scare".   What was left however was consistent with National Socialist programs of bashing the unions while superficially helping the "big end of town".  Fascist is the closest thing to what he was. 

by Michael Price (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Tuesday, Nov 27, 2007 at 3:31:32 AM

  (0+)

"I tried to show in my piece that Howard was a out of date/touch Dry Conservative  who didn't try to subvert the system so much as manipulated it to his ideology (which he saw as best for the country). He was a federalist/royalist and wasn't so much interested in becoming a dictator as per Mussolini. He actively stopped us from becoming a republic; he also brought in our gun laws. I think you will agree that doesn't sound like a fascist. "

  There's nothing particularly unfascist about being a monarchist, providing the monarchy lets you act fascist (ours does).   Gun control is a fascist favourite from way back (it stops the left, jews, blacks, people who have a brain etc. shooting back).  

  As for the idea that he didn't try to subvert the system but manipulate it to his ideology I think that's rubbish.  He subvert the system to make us less free and him one of our longest serving prime ministers that's what his manipulation was.    

by Michael Price (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Tuesday, Nov 27, 2007 at 3:37:04 AM

  (0+)