No Draft If Bush Reelected Say Officials
Seeking to assuage fears amongst young Islamic extremists, top Al Qaeda officials vowed that the draft will not be reinstated if George W. Bush remains president of the United States. "We don't see the need, frankly, given the debacle in Iraq, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and the rising tide of anti-Americanism around the globe," said Al Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Khayr at a press conference today. "A second Bush term should ensure ample recruits for our cause, and allow us to continue to fighting the War For Terror using an all-volunteer jihad." Khayr also cited the wide variety of terrorist organizations that have now joined forces in opposition to US policies, and expressed confidence that, if given four more years, Bush would continue to serve as a uniter, not a divider.
Posted on October 29, 2004 to News
Very interesting and it is almost certainly true. I have noticed an incredible surge of anti-Americanism here in Canada and that is not even close to where the real damage is happening. I mean, there was that whole cow debacle a while back, I guess people are still bitter about that sice it turned out to be the fault of the Americans... Anyways, I and everyone I know hates Bush and I even know some who refuse to go to the States for any reason now since America has become a world tyrant (yes that is how we see it).
Very clever. I also like the Yeti picture. Looks like my in-laws.
I agree with Sam. Al Queda as an "all volunteer force" is probably having to turn fresh young extremists away. I wish I could say that our overall "war against terror" had the wisdom to keep moslem moderates, moderate.. while keeping extremists from blowing up (literally) at us left, right and center. Unfortunately, our combat troops are trained to...well engage in combat.. and do not make good social workers or humanitarians... AND they are led so poorly at the political level that the unfolding disaster before is sadly, no surprise. More of Calamity George's "success" is certainly on tap for us. Ah well....free the yeti!
Well at least Bush isn't supplying them with guns and training. Ya gotta look at the silver lining here.
Indeed. If Bush *were* supplying my in-laws with guns and training, well, it'd be pretty scary!
But...I think Bush IS supplying my in-laws with guns and training! I mean, Who ELSE is gonna fall his 1 horse town act but a crew of uwashed yetis?
Ah, but Bush Senior has already provided guns and training, so they probably don't need the help right now. And then there are those tons of high explosives that got misplaced. I'll go check my garage to see if I can find them. Later.
Old man, long memory
Al Qaeda has an official SPOKESMAN?
Yeah baby... it was just GREAT when we had a president who ignored terrorism and boinked interns all day!
John Kerry: a perfect candidate for those who wish to do nothing, and feel self-righteous about it.
But while that president was boinking interns, we had the best economy that we've had in ages. Compare that to Shrub, who single-handedly took us from the best economy in years to the worst in years in less than one term.
Maybe W. should start boinking a few interns himself. What's Monica doing these days?
I doubt Clinton was boinking interns ALL DAY. After all, that was way back before Viagra.
And what do you have against boinking, anyway? Personally, I think the world needs now is boinking, and more boinking...
Thank God Al Gore invented the Internet! Otherwise the economy under Clinton would have been crap. But then Bush "single handedly" destroyed the economy. The dotcom crash and 9/11 had nothing to do with it after all.
Actually anyone who knows anything about the economy knows it's in about the best shape it's been in decades. Unemployment is near an all-time low and productivity is near an all-time high.
Bet you don't hear that at your local hippie protest.
BTW, 10 out of 10 terrorists agree: ANYONE BUT BUSH!!
>Thank God Al Gore invented the Internet!
Well, maybe one of the internets.
I much prefer presidents who screw interns over presidents who screw *us*.
Hmm. Matthew Baldwin in Seattle. Is that the same Matthew Baldwin that worked at a certain Internet retailer that starts with "Amazon" and ends with ".com?"
Even if you're just his doppleganger, your site cracks me up and you've received props in my blog.
That is awesome. I LOVE your blog.
"Actually anyone who knows anything about the economy knows it's in about the best shape it's been in decades. Unemployment is near an all-time low and productivity is near an all-time high."
Well, Mr. Economy, too bad you don't know statistics--quite a good match for the study of economics. Bush has been wrangling stats left and right.
Let's see. Unemployment lower than the average of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. GDP growing at record paces. What more do you want?
Dick and Bush. Everyone is getting screwed again...
"jobless recovery" my assests. And my college fund. And my health care premiums. And my best friend who is stuck in the Big Dirt right now so 'We' Americans can pre-empt some catastrophe based on false premonitions....ooops I mean 'intelligence'
Lowest unemployment? Yeah, as long as you dont count the discouraged workers (gave up looking) and the under-employed. counting them, it is actually around 8-10 percent. And the lowest figures come from the same guys who want to count working at burger joints as manufacturing jobs because as you know, they are building burgers.
>anyone who knows anything about the economy >knows it's in about the best shape it's been in >decades
Oooh, wait a minute while I collect myself. Man, that was funnier than cat blogging.
But, seriously, guy: What state do YOU live in? Because in my state, the economy sucks. No, make that "SUCKS!"
Yeah, Clinton really fucked everyone over. I mean, look at all the rolling back of the environmental laws, not declaring any new protected wilderness, slashing VA benefits and military pay, giving huge tax breaks to the richest 3% and leaving people who need it most in the cold, using the Constituation (or trying to) to appease a freak zealotous groups of religious fanatics and discriminating a section of the very much tax-paying, voting population; eroded civil liberties by pushing through the two Patriot Acts, appointed an Attorney General who holds beliefs that women should pray to relieve "female problems" and think calico cats are of the devil, erased vital health information from government-run websites and attempted to replace it with pure bullshit, and sent thousands to die in an unjust, unfounded war.
Yeah. Clinton sure screwed everyone when he had his dick sucked by an intern.
Calico cats are of the devil??
The degree to which people take the internets seriously is funny some times. Can't you tell this is mostly a comedy blog? Props on the post, hilarious. Bush, on the other hand will tell us right up until it won't affect how people will vote that he'd never do that, and then do it anyway once hes in because you can't be impeached for lying in your campaign.
Eh, nevermind the cats/devil thing. It was supposedly reported by Ashcrofts aids that he feared them. I just double checked it and Snopes ahs debunked that. Ashcroft is freaky enough without that though. :-)
Can't we all just agree that both of these candidates make everyone in the middle want to vomit?
>BTW, 10 out of 10 terrorists agree: ANYONE BUT BUSH!!
A bit late to this particular party, but consider this:
Pretty much EVERYTHING the Bush administration has said about ANTHING, has turned out to be a lie.
The neo-cons are playing Americans for dupes and suckers...
I'll never understand people blaming the president for their lack of success. It's kinda like someone who beats their wife because his baseball team loses. We all know he'd be kickin' her ass anyways.
I think 95% of the unemployed are unemployable.
You can talk about "the economy" if it makes you feel better about being -ahem- a loser, but it doesn't change reality.
Did you really even SAY that G-troll-string? Do you realize the administration is using bogus unemployment number because once you run out of benefits you're no longer considered unemployed?
Do you know that the average time to find a new job in the US has gone from 6 to 18 months?
I don't blame Bush for the economy. I blame Bush and the Republican weasels in the Congress. Having one party completely in control- no matter which party it is- is bad news for the country. There's no more give and take. Just take and take.
The founding fahers would be deeply ashamed of the current state of the USA. They would tell us that the lives lost to terrorist attacks are all the more reason to keep al of our civil liberties in tact. Those people died because those same liberties were attack by madmen. To voluntarily curtail those liberties is to hand the madmen a victory.
Yes, have security. Especially in vulnerable areas, but do not impinge upon the rights of citizens. True freedom involves risk. True freedom costs blood. True freedom never shrinks from truth.
The black and white of the political 'discourse' in this country is disgusting. All things political are grey. Congress passes laws by making compromises among the diverse interests of all the people of our country. Per haps a Democrat votes for a Republican bill, knowing that his vote will be remembered and his bill may pass. And vice versa. Riders are attached to bills. Some so heiness that even a worthy bill must be killed to keep the riders from being passed. None of these things can be reflected in a voting record, for either side. But this never comes up in elections.
God I'm tired of 'have you stopped beating your wife' questions. Bah!
It does not really matter whether Bush or Kerry get elected. What matters is that since 1950 American Republic is over, and it has changed by an expansionist American Empire with the main doctrine of "preventive strike".
Empires do not last very long.
Alexander Fraser Tyler, in Cycle of Democracy said:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.
When Clinton liked nobody died.
"When Clinton liked nobody died."
And that makes it all the better.....
"From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."
Is that really true? -damn...
Wasn't it Cliton who let Osama Bin Laden go? The after effects are much more important that the actual event. Much like defeating Saddam Hussein.
It's such a cliche for people to threaten to leave the country if a particular politician wins an election. However, nobody ever seems to actually do it.
I'll be glad when people stop making such idle threats.
Also, I wish we had some election reform that would allow people to make more choices -- reform that would allow for more ideas than those put forth by the two major parties to get some traction in the US.
There are all sorts of possible election/representative systems that would make things better. However, you never hear anybody suggesting any such changes. And, until you do, politics in America will continue to be a stupid two ring circus with no good options for intelligent voters.
(posted here because there are no comments associated with the yeti leaving for Canada image)
It is very hard to emigrate from the United States. I am taking a job teaching English in Japan to escape. If I'm lucky I will be able to stay once my contract is over. Don't say that nobody actually ever leaves, because we do.
As Keith pointed out, it is not that easy to emmigrate from the US. We have decided to expatriate and are looking into our options. Many countries are strict on their immigration policies--work visas aren't even that easy to come by.
Canada is sure to be flooded with applicants.
We would welcome the Yeti with open arms up here, along with anyone who appreciates this blog. And anyone who didn't vote for Bushy for that matter.
It looks like a lot of you are looking into it already.
I would point out that leaving the country doesn't help with the problem. It's just running from it.
In two years we get another shot at taking back a majority in one house, and seats in the other House rotate, too.
It's time to start getting candidates lined up to take shots at each and every office held by a Republican.
And I'm not saying just Democrats. Come out of the woodwork all you independants! Come Green, come Libertarian, come any and all!
Come out the good people of America! Elect locally those who can make change so they can gain the experience necessary to move up into more important positions.
BTW: Clinton is the wrong candidate for the Democrats to push forward. Someone like Russ Feingold would be much better. He's opposed to the President, but he's clean cut, appealing, non-strident and reasonable without being wooden.
There are others, too. Let's bring McCain out of the Republican Party- he could win, too.
Who ever strives to become president in 2008 must be strongly opposed to the status quo in the Oval Office, but not alienating. Have a stance that can draw a strong center, even if some are put off by that. Don't appeal to the opposition's core followers, that makes you look weak and transparent. Make a stand on solid issues, a stand that does not waiver. That candidate's campaign must focus on defining them, rather than tearing down their opponent. Negativety tries to reduce the opponent's votes, rather than increase your own.
I wish that I thought Cedric the Black was right, but I don't think so. The large number of voters who defined "value" issues as their central concern shows that a large component of Republican success is fundamentalist religion. You will never appeal to the American heartland unless you portray your party as the party for fundamentalists. But, this necessitates giving up on several issues that progressives should NEVER give up on, i.e. rights for homosexuals, rights for women, seperation of church and state, etc. I am affraid that, due to the unfair advantage which the electoral college system gives to rural voters, if you American progressives ever want to have a progressive leader you have three options:
a) Ensure that the electoral college is scrapped.
b) Split the union and seperate from your extremely religious peers in the midwest and south.
c) Move to a different country.
Maybe I'm a cynic, but I think that c) is clearly the most realistic option. So, on that note, PLEASE MOVE TO CANADA! We'd love to have you and your progressive votes here and we promise to shower you with excellent bud and beer.
"I would point out that leaving the country doesn't help with the problem. It's just running from it."
And it makes the runners look petulant and ridiculous. It's not like Republicans made such statements in the aftermath of Clinton's second victory, on the contrary, they built up and finally succeeded in winning the election twice in a row.
In the words of Michael Moore:
"Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican presidents we've ever had."
The reason Republicans didn't have to high tail it was because Bill Clinton is no leftist, he's merely a moderate conservative. In every other post-industrial country in the world he's right of centre. You better believe Republicans would high tail it (or start a war) if, say, Ralph Nader were elected.
It is not "petulant and ridiculous" to decide that moving is the best option for one's own family.
I remove myself and my children from situations that I see no benefit from, be it school districts or around ignorant people (for example). This is no different.
Excusing the fact that I wouldn't trust Michael Moore if he said the ocean was wet, I still don't agree with your statement. I'll grant that Clinton may have been a moderate, but he was a moderate liberal, not a moderate conservative. It doesn't matter how he stacks up to politicians in other countries, in the US he's left of centre. As for Republicans fleeing the country... None of the Republicans that I know would flee if their canidate lost the presidential election. They wouldn't be happy about it, naturally, but they wouldn't flee or start a war.
"It is not "petulant and ridiculous" to decide that moving is the best option for one's own family."
Leaving the country solely because your chosen canidate lost by a reasonably small number of votes (what was it 3%? 51/49?) sure does make you _look_ petulant and ridiculous. You may have perfectly valid reasons for going, but most of the people I've heard talking that way have been, well, whiny at best.
"I remove myself and my children from situations that I see no benefit from, be it school districts or around ignorant people (for example). This is no different."
I see it differently. To abandon one's home and exile oneself to a foreign land is a huge step, it can not be compared to moving three streets over to change school districts. C'mon, even moving out of state is a trying experience.
Also, I think everyone is focusing too much on 'red states vs. blue states', try to keep in mind that the actual population was fairly evenly split. Losing an election is not the end of the world. There will be another election.
Also, when Clinton was reelected he didn't have a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Frankly it's Congress that runs this nation, the president just nidges it along and hopes it goes the right way.
Work to disrupt the Republican majority in Congress. They've held it for too long.
If you really do leave, then they win. Face it, life won't change that much in Bush's 2nd term. He'll have to address internal issues and try to get out of Iraq. each paaing month will be hell for his administration.
You won't see South American style death squads in the streets, or re-education camps.
Even with new justices on the bench many of the Republican's latest laws are blatantly unconstitutional and will fall when they are finally challenged.
Frankly, Bush's winning will make him a scape goat for what's to come. The cows are coming home, and he's going to have to account for them.
I suppose you're right that Clinton was hampered by the make-up of congress, and you're also probably right that you won't see death squads. But, I think that both you and Dr. Apocalypse underestimate the reaction Republicans would have to a real leftist government. When a moderate like Clinton was in the White House they were willing to impeach the guy for lying about getting a blow job. Imagine how impossible they would make it for a truly leftist government to actually implement any program of reform. I think they would completely refuse to co-operate with the government, and probably even attempt a recall.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that America is very different from other countries with a strong cabal of right-wing extremists. History has shown us time and time again how far people will go, even in democratic countries.
Which is also why it is important (this is directed at Dr. Apocalypse) to recognize the reality of the American political spectrum. It DOES matter that Clinton is to the right of centre internationally, because this illustrates just how far to the right America is, and that is very relevant to predicting the evolution of the American political landscape.
If you lived in a bad neighborhood and felt like you and your family were in danger you would move to another neighborhood. If you lived in a bad city and felt like you and your family were in danger you would move to a new city. If you lived in a bad country and felt like you and your family were in danger wouldn't it make sense to move to a new country where you feel safe? It makes sense to me.
"Leaving the country solely because your chosen canidate lost by a reasonably small number of votes (what was it 3%? 51/49?) sure does make you _look_ petulant and ridiculous. You may have perfectly valid reasons for going, but most of the people I've heard talking that way have been, well, whiny at best."
If it were as simple as our candidate losing, then it would be petulant. However, this election was much more than Bush vs. Kerry... this was the fundamentalists and religious right vs. those who believe freedom is precious and morality can't be legislated. (And don't even get me started on the rich getting richer, the war that shouldn't be, the danger to the environment posed by the current administration, and the lack of foreign diplomacy skills needed for someone who's put in charge of running the Presidency.)
And yes, it was realitstically a close election (even though the right seems to want to play it up as a sweeping victory) in the Presidential race, the House/Senate races and the 11 amendments that passed overwhelmingly in each of those 11 states made clear the fact that the majority of the country wants the government to control their lives and keep tabs on their morality. Those of us who prefer to live in a free society - warts and all - don't feel like we belong anymore.
I will say to anyone thinking about moving, please don't. We need you now more than ever. With a little education (doesn't anyone else notice that the blue states have higher concentrations of educated folks?) we could still manage to get some ideas through... stay and fight. If all the freethinkers leave, we will definitely be the minority.
And for the record, the Alexander Fraser Tyler quote is most likely bogus. It was widely circulated in 2000 but was attributed to a slightly different piece of writing. Snopes could, of course, have it wrong, but here you go anyway: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp
Kevin, if you were talking about Rwanda or the Sudan, or any other country with genocide or death squads, yes you should flee. You're not talking about those types of countries. The USA is in no way a "bad country".
Mr. Richards, last time I checked, a "truly leftist government" would be completely socialist. I think it's a good thing that there would be a faction who would legally obstruct what such a government would want to push down people's throats.
"Which is also why it is important (this is directed at Dr. Apocalypse) to recognize the reality of the American political spectrum. It DOES matter that Clinton is to the right of centre internationally, because this illustrates just how far to the right America is, and that is very relevant to predicting the evolution of the American political landscape."
My apologies, but I fail to see why this is important. I feel it's unfortunate that many other countries have saddled themselves with extreme leftist governments, but that is (at least for some of them) their choice.
If you wish to continue this, please e-mail me.
In reality, neither a far left or far right Government is good for our country or our liberties.
The cornerstone of US government is checks and balances. With both houses and the presidency controlled by a party working in lock-step on an agenda, those checks and balances fade.
We are best served by one house controlled by one party, the other by another and the presidency shifting every 4 years. This becomes even more healthy if a large dose of independants are introduced into both houses.
The staggered power is important as it forces compromise, compromise opens dialog and dialog creates cooperation between members of the opposing parties.
Bills take longer to pass, but are generally far more moderate and usually reflect the will of the people rather than special interests.
The time is now to begin campaigning for seats in both houses to restore balance. Now the US is like a bi-polar off their medicine, swinging into a wildly manic state.