Guest Post: Our Psychopathic President is a Narcissist Too

Editor's note By Brandon   The following post was written by our friend Left oCenter at THE BLUE REPUBLIC .  Initially we suggested that George W. Bush suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder, but as we read this we wondered quite seriously if he didn't suffer from aspects of two disorders--Antisocial Personality Disorder and Malignant Narcissism.  Both are pesonality disorrders with disturbing symptoms and characteristics and neither is easily cured (read cannot be cured).  But whether Bush is a sociopath or a maligant narcissist is less important than the fact that we have a highly aggressive president with a proclvity for violence and an inability to feel sympathy for anyone except himself.     And this man has just been given the right to torture and the right to limit habeas corpus without impunity.  With that in mind, please be so kind as to consider the following Guest Post       Malignant Narcissist Malignant Main Entry: ma·lig·nant Pronunciation: m&-'lig-n&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Late Latin malignant-, malignans, present participle of malignari 1 a obsolete : MALCONTENT, DISAFFECTED b : evil in nature, influence, or effect : INJURIOUS c : passionately and relentlessly malevolent : aggressively malicious 2 : tending to produce death or deterioration <malignant malaria>; especially : tending to infiltrate, metastasize, and terminate fatally <a malignant tumor> Narcissist nar‧cis‧sism  /ˈnɑrsəˌsɪzɛm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nahr-suh-siz-em] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity. 2. Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development. Some traits: (1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) (2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love (3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) (4) requires excessive admiration (5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations (6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends (7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others  (8)  Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her (9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes by Paul Levy http://www.awakeninthedream.com/bushnarc.html Psychologically speaking, Mr. George W. Bush is what is called a 'malignant narcissist.' A narcissist is someone who has become hypnotized and entranced by their own inflated self-image. They have become so self-absorbed that not only are they not in genuine relation with others, but they relate to others (including the environment) as objects to satisfy their own need for self-aggrandizement. A 'malignant' narcissist, however, is a narcissist who reacts sadistically to others who don't support and enable their narcissism. For example, instead of self-reflecting and taking in critical feedback, the Bush administration reacts with ruthless contempt for anyone who disagrees with them. Like a mean and cruel-spirited malignant narcissist, Bush and Co. deny the accusation and try to destroy the messenger. Ultimately, a malignant narcissist wants to annihilate anyone who in any way threatens their illusory self-image and self-serving agenda. Malignant narcissists can be very charismatic, and are very adept at charming and manipulating others. They are clever at camouflaging their malevolent agenda, even to themselves, and can appear to be very normal, regular, and seemingly loving people. To quote the great doctor of the soul, psychiatrist C. G. Jung "only a very small fraction of so-called psychopaths land in the asylum. The overwhelming majority of them constitute that part of the population which is alleged to be "normal."" And, I might add, that many of these so-called seemingly 'normal' psychopaths are drawn to positions of power. Malignant narcissists are very skilled at entrancing others, at putting other's under their spell. They are master hypnotists. They are like 'black magicians,' in that they are very talented at hooking others through their fear by using 'mind-control' techniques such as lying and propaganda to control them. The narcissism of a leader such as Bush resonates with the narcissism inherent in his supporters, who identify with Bush's seeming certainty and lack of doubt (it never occurs to them that, to quote John Kerry "You can be certain and wrong."). This creates a very dangerous and pathological situation called "group narcissism," in which a large group of people have dis-connected from their critical faculties and entrusted their power to their narcissistic leader. This is a perversely symbiotic, co-dependent relationship in which all members of the group are colluding with and enabling each other's narcissism. For example, George Bush, in his utter narcissism thinks that God speaks through him. Instead of being seen as deluded, his supporters reflect back to him that they, too, think that God speaks through him. This, of course, just reinforces Bush's narcissistic delusion. Seeing Bush as God's instrument concurrently fulfills in the Bush supporters their adolescent fantasy of having someone who is playing the role of the divine leader to protect them. This mutually interdependent and reciprocally reinforcing delusion is what is called a 'collective psychosis.' By playing with people's fear, Bush is hypnotizing people to give their power away to him. Unfortunately, by doing this he has hypnotized himself as well, which is to say he is deceiving himself in the process of his deceiving of others. Malignant narcissists are pathological liars. They are very adept at both lying and then believing their own lies. The conviction they carry in this act of self-deception can easily 'entrance' people. To quote Jung "Nothing has such a convincing effect as a lie one invents and believes oneself, or an evil deed or intention whose righteousness one regards as self-evident." A malignant narcissist plays with people's fears so as to gain their trust and control them, which is based on the abuse of power over others that is the signature of a true dictator. At their core, a malignant narcissist's desire is to dominate and have power over others. The perverse enjoyment of complete domination over another person(s), which involves transforming a person into an object (a 'thing'), in which their freedom is taken away, is the very essence of the sadistic drive. Their sadism is a way of transforming their feelings of powerlessness and impotence into an experience of omnipotence. A malignant narcissist is the incarnation of the separate, alienated self spinning out of control to a pathological degree. They are unconsciously identified with and will protect at any cost an imaginary 'separate self' that is alien from the rest of the universe. Paradoxically, at the same time that they experience themselves as separate from others, the malignant narcissist lives in a state of 'unconscious fusion' with others. To a malignant narcissist, other people don't truly exist as autonomous beings. Other people only exist as disposable pawns to feed and support their narcissistic, masturbatory fantasies. A malignant narcissist hasn't developed a sense of their own authentic self, which is why they are unable to be in genuine relationship with others. Psychologically, malignant narcissism is a very primitive and un-evolved state, one which is totally lacking in eros (relatedness). Because they don't relate to other people as independent and separate from their own inflated, narcissist self, the malignant narcissist doesn't respect other people's boundaries. Their self-serving, narcissistic illogic allows them to justify, even in the name of God, transgressing other's boundaries, be them an individual's civil liberties, or another nation's sovereignty. Interestingly enough, etymologically, the word "evil" is related to the word "transgress." Malignant narcissists are not conscious of the interconnectedness between themselves and others. They are unable to feel empathy for others and have an overwhelming lack of genuine compassion (so much for compassionate conservatism). Concerned about nothing other than themselves, malignant narcissists are indifferent to other people's suffering, all the while, though, professing their compassion. Malignant narcissists are unable to genuinely mourn, for they are ultimately only concerned with themselves. They will show grief, however, just like they will try and appear compassionate, if it is politically correct to do so and, hence, to their advantage, as they are master manipulators. They are a true 'wolf in sheep's clothing.' Malignant narcissists are unconsciously possessed by the power-drive of the archetypal shadow. Being possessed by an archetype means that the malignant narcissists have lost their freedom, as a more powerful transpersonal, archetypal force has so unconsciously taken them over that it compulsively acts itself out through them. They themselves are being used and manipulated like puppets on a string by the more powerful archetypal force. Becoming possessed by an archetype like this, to quote Jung, "turns a man into a flat collective figure, a mask behind which he can no longer develop as a human being, but becomes increasingly stunted." Jung continues "Since nobody is capable of recognizing just where and how much he himself is possessed and unconscious, he simply projects his own condition upon his neighbor, and thus it becomes a sacred duty to have the biggest guns and the most poisonous gas." Malignant narcissists can seem confident and self-assured, but are, in reality, covering deep insecurities and fears through an inflated self-image. Intense feelings of revenge, fury and rage verging on insanity manifests when their fear is exposed, and their narcissism threatened. At the core of their process is self-hatred, as malignant narcissists split-off and dissociate from a part of themselves. As Jung points out, "a habitual dissociation is one of the signs of a psychopathic disposition." Jung talks about this condition by saying it may even result in "a splitting of the personality, a condition in which quite literally one hand no longer knows what the other is doing…..Ignorance of one's other side creates great insecurity. One does not really know who one is; one feels inferior somewhere and yet does not wish to know where the inferiority lies, with the result that a new inferiority is added to the original one." A malignant narcissist falls into an infinite regression of being in denial about being in denial and hiding from their own lies. A malignant narcissist such as Bush is continually in a state of hiding from himself. Malignant narcissists have contempt for and flagrantly violate the rule of law, which, in their inflation, they believe themselves to be above. "International law?" Bush arrogantly smirked in December 2003, "I better call my lawyer." Malignant narcissists, like a true bully, abuse their power simply because they can. They can endlessly 'talk' about taking responsibility, but they never genuinely face up to and become accountable for their actions. Malignant narcissists are unwilling and unable to experience their sense of shame, guilt or sin, as their narcissism doesn't allow these feelings. This inability to consciously feel their 'negative' feelings is at the root of the dynamic in which they dissociate from their own darkness, blaming and 'projecting the shadow' out there onto some 'other.' This splitting-off and projecting out their own evil results in always having a potential enemy around every corner, which is why malignant narcissists tend towards paranoia. Malignant narcissists continually 'need' an enemy and will even create new ones to ensure that they don't have to look at the evil within their own hearts. They react with aversion to the reflection of their own evil, going so far as to want to exterminate evil from the world. Or as George Bush would say "to rid the world of evil-doers." Ridding the world of evil is an act that can never be attained, however, as by 'projecting the shadow,' malignant narcissists themselves become the very evil-doer that they see out there and are trying to destroy. George Bush has become possessed by the very thing he's fighting against. Caught in the vicious cycle of the repetition compulsion of the traumatized soul, malignant narcissists create more of the very evil that they are fighting against, as is evidenced by the way George Bush is fighting terrorism. He has become a terrorist in the way he has reacted to terrorism. In essence, Bush is at war with and trying to destroy his own shadow, which is not only a battle that can never be won, but is a form of insanity. And he's acting it out on the world stage. Thai intellectual and social critic Sulak Sivaraksa likens Bush to two other malignant narcissists, Hitler and Stalin, pointing out that Bush's "axis of Evil," Hitler's "Final Solution," and Stalin's "pogrom of peasants" were actually analogous attempts "to perfect the world by destroying the [projected] impurities." Interestingly enough, another modern day malignant narcissist is none other than Saddam Hussein. If left in power, malignant narcissists ultimately destroy themselves and everyone around them. Malignant narcissists are what are called 'necrophiles,' in that their impulses are perversely directed against life, the spontaneity of which they are afraid of, and towards death and destruction, which they are secretly attracted to. To quote the psychologist Eric Fromm, this "severe mental sickness….represents the quintessence of evil; it is as the same time the most severe pathology and the root of the most vicious destructiveness and inhumanity." The 'force' used by malignant narcissists to achieve their ends, to use Simone Weil's definition, has the capacity to turn a man into a corpse- literally. To quote Eric Fromm "Just as sexuality can create life, force can destroy it. All force is, in the last analysis, based on the power to kill. I may not kill a person but only deprive him of his freedom; I may want only to humiliate him…...behind all these actions stands my capacity to kill and my willingness to kill." Malignant narcissists have a sadistic 'willingness to kill' so as to protect their own self-serving delusions, which makes them particularly dangerous, as they will literally stop at nothing to hold onto the position of power they find themselves in. Malignant narcissists are murderers who are criminally insane. Malignant narcissism is a deadly illness that deserves our genuine compassion. However, it is an extremely dangerous situation if the malignant narcissist, like George Bush, is in a position of power where he can create endless, unnecessary suffering and destruction. If we fall under Bush's spell and elect him to be our leader for another four years, we would be in a situation similar to the Germans in WWII, who, to quote Jung "allowed themselves to be driven to the slaughterhouse by their leading psychopaths like hypnotized sheep." It is time to wake up from our spell. We need to do everything and anything in our power to remove George Bush from office, for God's sake, as well as our own. Paul Levy is a spiritually-informed political activist. He can be reached at paul@awakeninthedream.com. Please visit his website at www.awakeninthedream.com, where his article "The Madness of George Bush: A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis" is available. Please feel free to pass this article along to a friend if you feel so inspired.     I have posted this in part to punish you for posting such long pieces as to torture those of us with ADHD.

RANT OF THE WEEK: It is Official--We Are Now a Fascist State

Get a load of this.   Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez seriously believes that the president is Commander and Chief of the entire nation during a time of war.  

 

According to Gonzales, "Judges must resist the temptation to supplement these tools  based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review."    Gonzalez has also gone on the record as stating:  "When courts issue decisions that overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, the cannot--and should not--be shielded from criticism...a proper sense of judicial humility requires judges to keep in ind the institutional limitations of the judiciary and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches."

 

Having read this statement in the September 29 online edition of the LA Times I just have one question to ask?

 

Who in the hell does this moronic little man think he's kidding?   Never mind the fact that he has neither the intelligence nor the morality to qualify as a local dog catcher, the man is so in love with the twin ideas of power and sexual sadism that he allows his perverted nature to cloud virtually every judgement that he has ever and will ever make.  To date the Attorney General;'s only real qualifications are his hatred for democracy, his addiction to kinky interrogation techniques, and his ability to tolerate the flavor of the President's rectum. Beyond that I can't think of a single solitary trait that might qualify him as a fully evolved human being much less as the Attorney General of the United States..  When it comes to basic concept of simple human decency Gonzalez, like his Texan Fuhrer and so many in this administration, are so utterly lacking in morals, intelligence, and  a basic understanding of the Constitution, that it is difficult to believe that they could ever and would ever support any form of government except a unitary system in which the President reigns like a totalitarian dictator. 

 

The irony in the Attorney Generals remarks are that they reveal a capacity for self judgement that devolves into the irrational.   Gonzalez has the audacity to warn federal judges about overstepping the limits of power when he boot licks on a regular basis a president who is incapable of debate, cooperation, or discussion.   Bush has always been a bully.   He bullied his young siblings while he was growing up; he bullied Laura (indeed, he recently refereed to her as "a lump"), and he bullies the press.  The man is so afraid of being proven wrong or of having to defend his position that he automatically resorts to bullying tactics.   He creates insulting names for members of the press; he demonizes alternative points of view as "cutting and running."  He has temper tantrums when reporters asking him pressing questions.   The man is so afraid of discussion that he surrounds himself with people who as warped and as as depraved as himself.   And that includes the democracy-hating, torture-loving Gonzalez. 

 

This is a president that has all the emotional and intellectual maturity of a seven-year-old.   He truly believes that the ends justify the means.  And to paraphrase psychiatrist Justin Frank, the reason we raise and discipline our children is to correct them of the dangerous belief that the ends justify the means.   We raise children to believe that the ends do NOT justify the means; that there are qualities such as honesty, integrity, fair play, and honesty.   Indeed, we raise and discipline children so that they will NOT turn out like the sixty-year old boy who currently occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.   We raise our children so that will not turn out to be like George W. Bush--seven-year-old bullies in adult bodies. 

 

Again to paraphrase the ideas of psychiatrist Justin Frank, In Osama Bin Laden, George W. Bush seems to have found the definitive dance partner.   They both believe in Fundamentalism; they are both intolerant of any view of their own; they have no respect for anyone or anything except those who embrace their very narrow and very delusional world view, and they are both perfectly willing to kill without conscience to get their way. 

 

Granted, Attorney Paul Gonzalez may be a fart in the wind when compared to his rectal orifice of a master, but that could be said of ALL the Demander and Thief's lackeys.

 

Okay, so why are we so upset?   Well, it might have something to do with the fact that when George W. Bush signs the recently passed bill which permits torture, limits habeas corpus, and retroactively gives him and his band of drooling, right wing perverts a free pass on his acts of murder and sadism, we will have officially become a fascist state.

 

Congratulations Mister Bush.  Congratulations Misters Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, and pedants too numerous to mention.   You have achieved what the British could not accomplish in the late 18th Century.   You have accomplished what the Confederates could not accomplish in the 1860s.   You have accomplished what Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin never could accomplish.  

 

You and your sado-masochistic pack of bullies, thugs, and corporate criminals have destroyed American Democracy and turned us into a Reich wing dictatorship.

 

 

 

 

WAR ON TERROR GONE WRONG: PART 1 - DEFINITION OF TERROR

INTRODUCTION

Recently, there has been a lot of flak against the Bush Administration with regards to its handling of the rather shambolic "War On Terror". From retired generals to senior Republicans, everyone seems to have a say in this war, sending the beleaguered White House Bushies into a state of frenzy.

Of course, matters, are not helped when the President-in-charge is about as adept as a fumbling buffoon, when it comes to giving proper, articulate speeches.

Having said that, however, the reason why I post this article is not to criticize Bush nor his cronies on a personal basis; rather, I would like to describe, in great detail, why America has failed to arrest the spiralling situation in both its current theatres of war, Iraq and Afghanistan respectively, and why, in the strictest sense, the war on terror isn't really like any other conventional war in the history of America.

To begin with, I shall commence with Part I of my series with regards on this subject.

PART 1: THE DEFINITION OF TERROR

Prior to 911, the word "terrorist" was as synomynous to the word "obscure". Aside from the Oklahoma and Atlanta bombings, terrorism just didn't register in the minds of the average America.

911, however, changed the face of America, and redefined terror: For the first time, America was under seige by foreign terrorists, terrorists that, for the longest time, appeared only on BBC and CNN news. Scenes of mangled bodies, broken body parts and screaming, terrified crowds was suddenly brought close to home in the shape of two burning towers.

The events immediately after 911, however, did give the definition of terror a whole new dimension.

For example, a person who commits arson may or may not be classified as a terrorist, even if he or she is a serial arson. Blowing up a building may be an act of crime, but does it necessarily be an act of terror?

The definition of the word "terror", or that of the perpetrator of terror, i.e the terrorist, can be somewhat ambiguous, since the actions of a terrorist may sometimes cross-link with other types of criminals.

According to the Oxford's dictionary's definition:

terrorist

• noun a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

The Encyclopedia Britannica gives a slightly more precise definition:

the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.

Hence, what really separates the average criminal from a terrorist is perhaps the intent: A need to make a political statement, or to be heard, so to speak, via the use of violence to create a climate of fear.

POST- 911: THE REQUISITES OF BEING A TERRORIST

Having defined the roles of a terrorist, the next question would be: What are the requisites that a terrorist really needs to, erm, become a full fledged terrorist? How does one distinguish a terrorist from other criminals, such as mafia and triad gangs and petty, small time thieves and other unsavory street thrash?

Post 911 era has a whole new definition for the average terrorist, although some of which may actually deviate from the original version.

i. Join A Political/Religious Organization (The more violent, the better)

To become a successful terrorist, it is most likely that the terrorist in question be a member of a politically or religiously-motivated group.

It is imperative to note that while it is not impossible for a terrorist to work solo, it is quite plausible that the individual in question would have to be influenced by an external group's doctrines to be docile and crazy enough to create a scene of horror and destruction.

Having said that, terrorists who work together tend to achieve higher success and shock rates. Throw in a few potential, religiously-motivated crazies, and you get the epitome of terror, the likes of which we have witnessed on the fateful day of September 11, 2001.

2. ABILITY TO COMMIT OR PERPETRATE VIOLENCE

Now, one would ask, wouldn't mob gangs and mafia crooks be capable of commiting violence? Not to mention street gangs, petty thieves and all.

As the definition of terrorism goes, one cannot be a terrorist simply based on actions. The motives, for one, would eliminate street gangs and the likes as terrorists, although that doesn't mean they don't get a spot in FBI's top ten list.

As far as perpetrating violence goes, it is simply not enough to earn that terrorist tag.

3. Ability to Perpetrate Pyschological Impact And Fear

Now, this trait will kick-start the elimination process of separating the chimeras from the real players. Of course, we know that mafias and triads do thrive on impact and fear, but this will eliminate petty crime and small-time criminals from the big players, for it is the big players who perpetrate violence on a grandiose scale.

Terrorists and mafia gangs, however, have a knack of wrecking fear for two reasons: One, to drive the fear of terror into the hearts of ordinary folks. Two: To make their points heard.

4. Achieving a Political/Religious Goal/Statement

Perhaps the one trait that separates the terrorist from the last group of triad-related criminals. Criminals of the terrorist nature commit mass murders to make a statement, while mafia groups generally commit bloodshed for wholly financial or vendetta-related purposes.

5. Affiliation To Creeds

This one may sound really controversial here: The FBI and other law enforcement agencies, I suspect, do differentiate criminals of this nature along religious and racial lines.

Take, for example, Eric Rudolph: His crimes ought to classify him as a terrorist. The only reason why he was not thrown into Guantanama and humiliated is due to the fact that he was a Christian.

Of course, the fact that he acted alone may have denied him that uncoveted status, but if he were a Muslim, I doubt he would never have been tried under existing American law.

The Bush Administration's subsequent willingness to jail POWs, or should I say, muslims who are even remotely suspected to have links with the Al-Qaeda demonstrates this little-publicized fact: That the Americans are targetting middle-eastern and muslim men as prime suspects in the ongoing fight against terror. Only a muslim, or a Middle Eastern person, it seems, is capable of terrorism. Or so the Bush Administration seems to be thinking.

CONCLUSION

However one wishes to define the act of terror, it is clear that, at this point of time, we are merely looking at the definition of terror from the viewpoint of the Bush Administration.

In the next chapter, I would be discussing in detail, as to the strategy of the first first theatre of war in the "War on Terror": The Attack on Afghanistan, and the Failure to Catch a Bogeyman.

Stay tuned.

DUBYA DEMANDS TORTURE; EVEN REPUBLICANS AREN'T BUYING IT

Just as it seem Dubya's loose coalition couldn't have shrunk any further, Bush seems to face internal turmoil even amongst his Republican ranks.

Not surprising, since Bush's inept policies, once again, has once again be brought to the limelight, though this time round, it seems, dirty linen has been hung out to dry, in the shape of a Republican revolt led by Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine.

Excerpts from yahoo:


BUSH FIGHTS GOP REVOLT OVER TERROR VOTE

President Bush fought back Friday against a Republican revolt in the Senate over tough anti-terror legislation and rejected warnings that the United States had lost the high moral ground to adversaries. "It's flawed logic," he snapped.

Bush urged lawmakers to quickly approve legislation authorizing military tribunals and harsh interrogations of terror suspects in order to shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, which set international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.

Tough interrogations have been instrumental in preventing attacks against the United States, Bush said. "Time's running out" for the legislation, he warned, with Congress set to adjourn in a few weeks.

What Bush demands of the Senate is this:

1. Legal authority to torture prisoners, i.e Muslims from Afghanistan, Middle East, hell, as long as he or she is a Muslim, the poor sod will be tortured regardless of his race, but not the religion (After all, in Bush's eyes, terror is associated with Islam. Naw, there just ain't Christian terrorists around...........)

2. Legal protection against US military personnel responsible for torturing POWs, or, as mentioned above, anyone who is remotely Islamic.

The words "harsh interrogation of terrors suspects" are mild words, which simply amounts to torturing anyone at will.

So, that's it, folks. The Bush Administration wants to kiss the Geneva Conventions goodbye.

The article further enthuses:

To the administration's dismay, Colin Powell, Bush's former secretary of state, has joined with the lawmakers. Powell said Bush's plan to redefine the Geneva Conventions would cause the world "to doubt the moral basis" of the fight against terror and "put our own troops at risk."

Seven weeks before the November elections, the dispute left Republicans fighting among themselves — rather than with Democrats — about national security issues that have been a winning theme for the GOP in past elections.......

"When conservative military men like John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham and Colin Powell stand up to the president, it shows how wrong and isolated the White House is," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y. "These military men are telling the president that in the war on terror you need to be both strong and smart, and it is about time he heeded their admonitions."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., added, "Instead of picking fights with Colin Powell, John McCain and other military experts, President Bush should change course, do what the American people expect, and finally give them the real security they deserve."

Now, these men protesting against the inept Bush Administration are not just hansy-pansies, but men who have served with distinction with the US armed forces:

1. Warner, a former Navy secretary, is chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

2. McCain is a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years in enemy captivity during the Vietnam War.

3. Graham is a former Air Force Reserve judge.

4. Powell, a retired general, is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

When Republicans of such calibre protest against their own leadership, it speaks volumes of how Bush has screwed up America, both militarily and diplomatically.

The concerns raised by these Republicans are genuine: Any attempt to "re-interpret" the Geneva Convention, or circumvent it, would lead to the loss of moral high ground on the international arena, although Bush seems to disagree:

Bush took vehement exception when asked about Powell's assertion that the world might doubt the moral basis of the fight against terror if lawmakers went along with the administration's proposal to come up with a U.S. interpretation of the Geneva Convention's ban on "outrages upon personal dignity."

"If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic," Bush said. "It's just — I simply can't accept that."

Again, typical Bushism. What he is saying is (Correct me if I am wrong, I am not good with Dubya speak), no matter the laws passed by the Bush Administration to allow torture, or "harsh interrogation", they are still streets ahead compared to "extremists". And he thinks that, any comparison with terrorists is "unacceptable". Bush's insistence to cling on the moral high ground, while playing the devil's advocate, smells of hypocrisy.

He continues:

Growing animated, he said, "It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

Bush said the Geneva Convention's ban was "very vague" and required clarification. "What does that mean, 'outrages upon human dignity?' That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation."

He said that unless Congress acts, the CIA will end its program of tough interrogation methods that the administration says has prevented attacks.

"So Congress has got a decision to make," Bush said. "You want the program to go forward or not? I strongly recommend that this program go forward in order for us to be able to protect America."

The war-mongering president, it seems, is clamouring for more torture. As if torture tactics really works. So far, none of the so-called "terror suspects" have been indicted for acts of terrorism.

With regards to Osama, Bush once boasted: "We will get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive!".

Five years down the road, the trail of the bogeyman of terror has gone cold. So, what is Bush's excuse for his failures to live up to his Texas-accent-driven rhetoric?

On another anti-terror matter, with Osama bin Laden still at large five years after the 9/11 attacks, Bush said he could not send thousands of troops into Pakistan to search without an invitation from the government. "Pakistan's a sovereign nation," Bush said.

Since when has Bush been so respectful towards "sovereign nations"? When he attacked Iraq, did he ever consider the sovereignty of that nation? I think not.

The real truth: The Osama trail has bitten the dust. All the resources that could have been used to seek out the terror head have been squandered in Iraq, something which really should be unacceptable, considering that the main objective of America's military forays was to hit the nail into the terror's head.

If there is any consolation this time round, it is that even his fellow Republicans are getting sick and tired of his war mongering tactics. Lives are needless lost, resources are drained, simply to finance and maintain two separate occupations-cum-civil war.

It may not be prudent, but I will say this again: Short of the assassination of Bush, impeaching the inept, destructive white house chimp may be the next best way to get America out of this political and military quagmire. It has become almost painful to see this moron run the everyday affairs of America, which has become a freakshow for the rest of the world.

INVENTING A RELIGION: THE BEASTLY WAY

SHEEP FOR SLAUGHTER: SCENES SUCH AS THIS ARE POWERFUL REMINDERS THAT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ARE LUCRATIVE BUSINESSES

Karl Marx once remarked: "Religious is the opiate of the masses." Indeed, before the advent of the Industrial Revolution, much of what was deemed "truth" was actually a mish-mash of religious doctrines being spouted as absolute morals and truths by the major religions in Europe, Asia and the rest of the Old World.

Things are much different now, of course. We now know for sure the Earth isn't flat, and that the planets and the Sun don't exactly revolve around the Earth, thanks to the wealth of scientific knowledge that is available to us through education and mass media.

Alas, but old fairy tales simply refuse to die, much to the dismay of intellectuals and rationalists. Religious bigots of all shapes and sizes insist that schools teach Creationism, that God created Earth and its inhabitants in the space of six days, plus one rest day (Strange, indeed, that God needs a rest. Perhaps Man did create God in his own image, after all). Evolution is supposed to be a lie propagated by the Devil (note: Some Christians believe in Evolution), and that abortion is tantamount to murder.

The sheer numbers of common folks who cling to such age-old beliefs are astounding, really, which brings forth the question: Can a daring, desperate and charismatic person pull ofF another Jesus stunt, a-la Messiah style, charm thousands of people and resurrect a new religion?

The answer is a resounding "Yes". In recent times, the emergence of cults, from the suicidal Jim Jones cult (Whole bunch of crazies poisoned to be home with their lord), to the crazy ethnics of the Falungong, it is evident that creating your own religion is not an impossible task.

So just how does one exactly create and sustain a religion/cult? Well, here are some suggestions for all you Jim Jone wannabes, from yours truly, The Beast.

1. WRITE A HOLY BOOK

A TYPICAL HOLY BOOK (THE BIBLE). YOU WILL NEED ONE OF THIS, AND PERHAPS TOSS IN A RELIGIOUS SYMBOL OR TWO, TO ADD A TOUCH OF CLASS (OR CRASS).

The world's major religions need them. From the ancient Jewish torah to the Muslim Quran, the writing of holy books is of utmost importance to any religion. Failure to do so will result in a slow death of your newly-fledged religion.

A holy book will chart the destiny of your new cult. Your followers will refer to your holy book for their moments of inspiration, as well as their daily indoctrination.

When writing a holy book, here are some pointers you may want to take note of:

i. Write in a bizarre, obscure manner: When writing a holy book, you should write it in a ambiguous, vague manner. Now you may ask, why would anyone want to read something when they can't really comprehend it? Well, the same can be said of the Holy Bible.

By writing vaguely, you incite interest amongst your members, since they will spend precious hours of their time decoding your "pearls of wisdom". In the course of time, you will be able to release your interpretations at your own pace and time, all the while toying with the emotions of your followers.

The "you are taking the verses out of context" excuse can be also deployed when detractors question the holy book.

ii. Erect a God/ Gods: Now this is a rather knotty issue. While it is possible that you can bestow yourself the role of God (or God's son, or a demi-God), it would not be advisable, because when one claims Godhood, he or she must be capable of performing miracles to wow the followers. Of course, you can try learning magic tricks, but not everyone can make the Statue of Liberty disappear, eh? Not to mention the bad press you may receive (Not that you will care: After all, faith moves mountains. Tsk Tsk).

A easier and much more efficient option, though, will be for you to lay claim as a Prophet. That way, you can claim exclusive access to a imagined deity, without the hassle of performing street magic to the masses.

As for the God in question, you can name a few Gods, although monotheism does have a higher success rate. Besides, monotheism is easier on the human brain (The presence of too many Gods will befuddle your flock).

Or you may consider a few Godheads under one Godhood (E.g The Holy Trinity). Wild claims, such as those depicting of a Man-God borne to a virgin Mother, can be considered. Your Godhead can very well sacrifice his life for the Mankind, as many times as necessary (Remember, Gods don't really die in the strictest sense, they merely go through the mill, before returning home to Heaven). The more fanciful the story, all the more better. It will help to incite the congregation into a feverish fervour.

iii. Write and tabulate a set of rules/commandments:

When writing the holy book, ensure that you drop down a list of wrongdoings, or sins. Since this is a new religion, prohibitions against certain, otherwise crimeless habits (eg: eating pork, masturbating) can be deemed as grave abominations. These rules shall serve as the cornerstones for your fledging cult.

In addition to writing the holy book, you may want to scrible down a set of golden rules into a tablet, or anything that is hardy and cannot be simply bleached away in a washing machine. A good example of this would be the ten commandments, supposedly scribbled onto a stone tablet by God and passed down to Moses. That way, you can lay claim to your role as God's intermediary to the world, while adding a touch of class to your new cult. Kind of like killing two birds with one stone, really.

iv. Use of parables/ story-telling sessions: The use of parables, "actual stories" , and moral paraphases will further endear you to your followers. After all, a holy book cannot sustain a prolonged interest based on a set of moral conducts, with little or nothing else in between.

When writing parables, try to write them imbue sublimal messages into them, so as to brainwash them as completely as possible. This will help to reduce the number of backsliders who will eventually leave your little cult/religion.

When passing off your fairy tales as "actual, historical" facts, remember to use real-time locations, countries and influential people. That will make them look authentic to the followers, although atheists, freethinkers and intellectual scholars will not be so easily fooled (Damn the infidels! Crucify them!).

HEAVEN AND HELL: INSEPARABLE COMPONENTS TO YOUR FLEDGING FAITH

v. Hell/Heaven: Let's face it, every major religion must have a hell and a heaven. The "carrot and stick" theory is a time-proven method, used to refrain the faithful from ever leaving their flock. Not that it works everytime, but it does scare the wits out of the majority of your flock. After all, who wouldn't want to live in heaven, and avoid a human barbeque at the same time?


THE UGLY BEAST: A PUNCHING BAG FOR YOUR NEW RECRUITS. HE MAY BE UGLY, BUT NO LESS IMPORTANT TO YOUR QUEST TO BE THE ULTIMATE CULT LEADER/MAFIA BOSS

vi. Appoint a fictitious Devil: This one is self-explanatory. The Devil, being the evil guy, is a handy tool when it comes to explain inexplicable questions. E.g:"Prophet, Mr X has been praying constantly, why is it that he was killed by lightning?" "Oh, he had a evil thought at that point, as he couldn't resist the temptation of the Devil, and God had to punish him. "

The Devil is synomynous with hell. It adds credibility to the carrot-and-stick bull, and it is important for you to ensure that the Devil plays a equal and opposite role with your God.

viii. Inciting hatred: Ensure that you insert a few pet hatreds along the way. The essence of religion is the "We are right, you are wrong, and you are going to hell" mentality. Eligible groups of choice will be gays, atheists, infidels and pagans.

2. RECRUITING DISCIPLES

Upon completing your holy book, you will be well-placed to seek out your flock. It is unlikely that you will be able to build your church on your own. Choose a set of disciples amongst the friends you can trust as confidantes, and you will be on your own merry way.

These "disciples" are actually your partners-in-crime, so to speak, therefore you must treat them with utmost respect. Defections from your disciples will usually result in a early death of your cult. These are the guys who will offer second-hand testimony (You, the original founder, will have first-hand access to your imagined deity) to the rest of your flock, and will therefore have access to the inner workings of your budding cult. Besides, with their help, you will become more prominent, and hence more well placed to reach out to the "unsaved" masses.
Best of all, you can include the roles of your disciples to your holy book, just to add a touch of mystique to your cult.

Arm your disciples with your newly written bible (Make sure the holy books come in extravagant leatherback), and set them out for recruitment.

3. COLLECTING TITHES

CASH IS KING

When your religious leader told you that religion was a personal relationship with God, he or she was lying outright in your face. Let's face it; religion is a multi-billion dollar business. It is estimated that money generated by churches in the US of A is more than enough to feed the world's hungry people for months on end.

Depending on your motives and personal greed, the amount of tithe you would wish to exact from your flock will be directly proportional to their paychecks. While it is perfectly fine to demand a certain portion of their wages as a minimum tithe, aggressive demands may alienate certain sections of your flock and force them to leave. Leverage your stock, and you may well be on your way to a thriving cult.

4. A PLACE OF WORSHIP

A RELIGIOUS BUILDING IS THE SURE-FIRE WAY OF KEEPING YOUR CONGREGATION INTACT. THE GRANDER THE BETTER

You will require a place of worship for your flock. As your flock grows, you may actually have to rent a bigger place. At some point of time, when your cult has achieved true financial security (minimum a couple of millions to spare), you may actually have to buy landed property to house your congregation. This is where the tithes will come in handy. Never underestimate the power of Money.

5. SILENCING THE OPPOSITION

As your flock grows, it is inevitable that you will face opposition from infidels who cannot stand the sight of your Holiness. When you begin to face serious opposition, fret not, for this is good news indeed, for it is a sign that you have achieved so much prestige and success, that people are no longer laughing now. Initially, they may have passed you and your little band of followers as ignorant buffoons. But they are no longer laughing now. Praise the Lord.

At this point, it is time for you to stand up and be counted.

Your enemies will include:

i. Ex-members/followers of your congregation: Turncoats. Expect to see them sprouting hate against you, just as you have done so against all the other infidels.

The best way to deal with them is to take up the role of a abused housewife: A little sobbing at the press conference, and in front of TV, tell the whole world that despite their vile tongues, you are willing to forgive them.

Once you have the sympathy vote, you can be sure that membership in your flock will rise, and once their stock falls, lampoon them in front of the press. Exalt your God, then inform the press that the fates of your opponents have been preordained by God.

ii. Jealous members of the public: The success of your congregation will incite jealousy amongst members of the public. This will cause you to lose a few popularity votes along the way.

These members of the public may try to dissuade people from joining your congregation, and may from time to time, publish their ill feelings on newspapers.

The best way to deal with them is to sue one of these infidels for libel. That will shut the rest of them up. When suing, always choose the weakest prey. Better yet, force a infidel to publish an apology, or face a lawsuit. A out-of-court settlement will inflict a crushing blow to the morales of those damn infidels.

iii. Bad Press: Not much you can do about, really. You can't offend the press. Bribe them to your side, or at the very least do not offend them.

Rather than worry about the press reporters, you ought to harness the advertising power of papparazzis. Always remember the Golden Rule: Bad press is always better than no press.


CONCLUSION

Follow the steps as prescribed, and you are well on your way to yet another established faith. If your religion outlives you, you will leave behind a legacy for prosterity.

Take note, though, the likes of infidels and atheists will probably take pisspots at your holy book, or even your portrait, just for kicks.

As the saying goes, one good turn deserves another.

LAMENTS OF DARTH VADER

DARTH VADER, MASKED (TOP)
DARTH VADER, UNMASKED (EXTREME RIGHT)

Anyone who has kept abreast with news of the catholic church (as I would do, occasionally), will know that, from time to time, that the pope, being the "God-anointed leader of Christendom", would pass comments about the evils of the modern society.

Which really isn't bad, of course, provided it is relevant, and doesn't stray into the realms of religous bigotry, tyranny and other medieval nonsense.

While Pope John Paul II was alive, he made a hash out of making sainthoods out of ordinary folks (He beautified the most number of saints in Papal history), and on occasions declared and criticized about the "evils" of abortion (Same old story, blah blah blah) and contraception, his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI (The man who actually resembles Darth Vader, or should I say, puts the "Dark" into the Vader character), has taken religious bigotry into the Dark Ages.

In a particular trip to Germany, Mr Darth Vader's hometown, our dear pope has something to lambast about his countrymen's distinct lack of faith, which really is a phenomenon experienced by most European nations.

Excerpts, my friends, from Yahoo! (In Blue):

1. See No Evil, Speak No Evil

Pope warns of tuning out Christianity

MUNICH, Germany -


Pope Benedict XVI rebuked his fellow Germans and other Western societies Sunday, saying they often shut their ears to the Christian message and insisting that the modern world's science and technology alone cannot combat
AIDS and other social ills.
ADVERTISEMENT

Addressing 250,000 pilgrims at an open air Mass, Benedict said modern people suffer from "hardness of hearing" when it comes to God and complained that "mockery of the sacred" is viewed as an exercise in freedom.

It was the second day of a pilgrimage to his Bavarian homeland, a six-day trip filled with nostalgic meaning for Benedict as well as for his liberal flock in Germany.

He said faith must come first if social problems like the AIDS epidemic in Africa are to be solved.

"Hearts must be converted if progress is to be made on social issues and reconciliation is to begin, and if — for example, AIDS is to be combatted by realistically facing its deeper causes," Benedict said.

The message was consistent with church teaching that sexual abstinence and faithfulness to one's spouse — and not condoms — are the best way to fight the disease.

The pope, it seems, is referring to the Danish cartoons, which incited numerous protests from the Islamic community, due to its "blasphemous" attacks on Allah.

To him, sacred cows cannot be slaughtered for beef burgers, and people should be restrained from making mocking, or "blasphemous" inferences, whichever you wish to put it, upon religious issues or relics.

Pray, tell me, Mr Pope: Should the whole world close its eyes, shut its ears, and pretend nothing is happening, when your priests are molesting boys by the thousands, insinuating heinous messages about the purported "evils" of abortion and contraception, and continue to use charity funds to maintain your opulent buildings and chapels in your Vatican headquarters?

Should the world stop and watch, as women in the Islamic world are being constantly abused mentally, physically and pyschologically? Should the rest of the civilized world stand idly by, when some religious farts in some ultra-fundamentalist Muslim state issue some fatwa, or death edicts, on persons who have published books that are deemed "blasphemic" for their likings?

Should no one voice out their dissents against religous bigots, who, in the name of some foul-smelling deity, commit gross crimes and atrocities? Are thugs allowed to do as they pleased, free from accusations, simply because they act in the name of God?

I think not.

2. AIDS: A FAITH-BASED SOLUTION ON THE CARDS???

The pope further expounds on what he deems to be "the deeper cause of AIDs". Here, his views are naive to the point of stupidity: He talks about a "conversion of hearts", which I assume means converting to Christianity. He thinks that faith is a neccessity in the war against AIDs.

By championing the cause of "sexual abstainence and one sex partner" rules as the only means of AIDs prevention, not only is he showing ignorance about the disease, he has not exactly fathomed out the real underlying issues behind this global epidemic.

First of all, AIDs is not only transmitted solely through sexual intercourse (although it is the main cause", AIDs can infect people through needle sharing (Common practice by drug users), mother to child during pregnancy, and to a lesser extent, contact through open wounds.

Simply abstaining from sex and keeping to same sex partners will not prevent you from getting AIDs. If your sex partner has had unprotected sex with other persons, there is a chance that, you too, may get the disease from him or her.

Besides the above-mentioned loopholes, the fact is that abstainence is possibly the worst form of prevention, simply because the vast majority of the populace require some form of sexual release in their lives: Sexual need are just part and parcel of a healthy pychological mind. When one is hungry, one eats. When one is thirsty, one drinks. When one feels sleepy, one sleeps. When one feels horney, one......... you get the drift. After all, no one will tell you to stop eating, despite the whole plethora of germs and bacteria that may be present in your food.

Rather than promote abstainence, the scientific community has rightly promoted the use of contraceptives, such as condoms, as the best means of AIDs prevention. While condoms are not 100% full-proof, chances are, your chances of getting AIDs and other veneral diseases will drop by more than 90%.

But no, our dear Pope doesn't quite believe in modern science: He thinks science is an anomaly, a cancer of the human soul. He thinks that faith is the ultimate solution for the epidemic, but he cannot explain away the fact that abstainence programs have failed quite miserably in countries (such as Uganda, where prevalent high infection rates is the direct result of a hate campaign against condoms) which practice it.

3: POPE HUMOUR: ASIANS FEAR RATIONALITY; EUROPEANS NO LONGER "HEARING FROM GOD"

The pope further enthuses:

"Put simply, we are no longer able to hear God — there are too many different frequencies filling our ears," Benedict told the crowd, which stood quietly shoulder-to-shoulder on a field on the outskirts of Munich, where he served as archbishop from 1977 to 1982.

"What is said about God strikes us as pre-scientific, no longer suited to our age," he added. "People in Asia and Africa admire our scientific and technical progress, but at the same time they are frightened by a form of rationality which totally excludes God from man's vision, as if this were the highest form of reason."

Here, our dear Pope seems to harbour certain opinions about scientific and technical progress. He feels that a form of "rationality" has emerged in recent times, and since he is in Germany, I will assume that he is talking about this issue in a more European context.

The truth is, this form of rationality has been expounded for more than three centuries, in the form of the Renaissance, which really was a period of profound enlightenment in the fields of science and philosophy. Science thrives on rationality, which is the pursuit of cold, hard truth. And with the advent of Science began the heralding of the fall of faith.

The stark, naked truth is this: Not only is the Catholic Church irrelevant in today's context, it has been made redundant for centuries. What Science has achieved in three centuries, Christianity couldn't emulate with two millennia.

As an Asian myself, I doubt that many of my fellow Asians will be "frightened" by this form of rationality, which has brought us a considerable track record in terms of economic and technical growth.

4. POPE REBUKES GERMANS: STOP GIVING CASHOUTS TO CHARITY; PUT YOUR MONEY IN CATHOLIC COFFERS

In a parting shot against his German compatriots, the Pope has these final words, or should I say, final droplets of venom dripping from the sides of his mouth:

Benedict criticized the German church for putting social service projects and technical assistance to the poor ahead of spreading the Christian message. African bishops, he said, have told him that all doors are open to them in Germany when they want to talk about aid projects, but that they are greeted with reservations when it comes to evangelization. "Clearly, some people have the idea that social projects should be urgently undertaken, while anything dealing with God or even the Catholic faith is of limited and lesser importance," Benedict said.

CHURCHES: THE LAST BASTIONS OF STONE AGE THINKING, OPULENCE AND PAEDOPHILIAC PRIESTS?

What this means is, the Pope is lamenting on the charitability of his folks!

You see, money for charity, or aid projects, do not take precedence. Give your money to the Catholic Church, so that we can inject more opulence into our Churches, create more soap kitchens and bare hospitals as a front to fleece more money from rich converts, and enlarge our coffers!

Screw the aid organizations, they aren't going to bring your souls to heaven! What a brilliant ploy.

As if making a mockery out of science and rationality is hardly enough, this old, moronic fool has the temerity to insult the intelligence of his countrymen.

Fortunately, much of new Europe wants nothing to do with this tard from the Stone Age. It is a pity that Germany, as a leader of the world's best technological advancements, has to put up with this kind of hogwash from one of its denizens from hell.

HAVE A GOOD ONE!

A Very Happy Labor Day to all Our Readers!

 

Have a great weekend, as we'll see you in a few days. 

 

From the Cast and Crew at the COALITION FOR A REPUBLICAN-FREE AMERICA

This is NOT World War II and "W" is NOT Churchill or FDR

If you liked Hitler's Germany you're going to love W's America.   It's bad enough that we have to fight a war on terrorism against right wing, Islamic religious fanatics; now we have to fight a cultural war against the Latest incarnations of Hitler, Goering, and Goebbels in Bush, Rumsfeld and Rove. My God, when George W. Bush talks about religious fanatics trying to impose their values on others, he sounds as if he could be talking about the Radical Christian Reich which wants to impose its own peculiar brand of Christo-fascism (or, if you prefer, theo-sociopathy), on nearly 300 million Americans.   And, let's remember--this is the same administration which used the terrorist attacks of 911 as an excuse to spy on fellow Americans--in much the same way that Hitler used the Reichstadt Fire to trample on the Wiemar Constitution.

 

First let's get something straight.  When Bush and his fascist goons talk about appeasement during the 1930s, they are, in fact, talking about the America First movement, which, while widely popular at the time, was, for all intents and purposes, led by some of the most virulently anti-Semitic Republicans and right wing corporatists that the United States had ever known.   Can you say Henry Ford?  Do the initials IBM mean anything to you?  

 

Second, the military situation that we saw in the 1940s was nothing like what we see in the year 2006.  In the summer of 1942 Europe and Northern Africa were little more than Nazi playgrounds.   Hitler's evil empire extended from France to the Southern Volga; from Norway to Egypt.   German forces were threatening to overrun the Soviet Union.   German U Boats were sinking allied supplies at a phenomenal rate.  Imperial Japan had turnedthe Pacific Ocean into a Japanese lake.  Large chunks of Asia had come under the heal of Imperial Japanese tyranny.   Moreover, Japan had, only months earlier, bombed the United States Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, temporarily reducing the US to a nonentity in the Pacific Ocean.

 

That said, the Bush Administration, by invading and occupying a sovereign country (which according to W's recent outburst, had no link to 911) has revealed itself as a political bastard child of Hitler and Mussolini, Not Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt.

 

This may come as a shock and a revelation to the two or three people in this country who still support this half-baked clique of psychopaths, but Blaire and Bush are not Churchill and Roosevelt.   Churchill and Roosevelt actually had a grant strategy for victory; they were actually able to plan ahead and anticipate what the enemy would do.   Adolf Hitler, on the other hand, began to believe in his own greatness, and  eventually made the foolish mistake of dividing and over-extending his forces during the battle for Russia.   In a similar vein, George W. Bush, who thinks he has been chosen by God (read, who has come to believe in his own greatness) has over extended our troops by waging wars in both, Afghanistan and Iraq, creating a situation in which we are bogged down in the former and in which our real enemy, the dreaded Taliban, is returning in the latter.

 

 

Worse yet, we also see a demented rehash of Nazi racial theories in this administration was well.  Remember how the Reich Wing pundits on Am hate radio told us that Lebanese civilians were expendable>  Remember the drum beat from the Administration and the rubber stamp congress that drummed home the bigoted message that we "have to fight them over there so we won't have to fight them over there?"  Translated out of the GOP Orwellian into the every day vernacular, the genocidal Republicans in Washington really DO believe that White, Western, Christians are biologically superior to brown-skinned, Mid-Easterners.   Bush may not be building a modern day Auschwitz--at least not yet--but he and his warmongering supporters sure do seem to experience wargasms whenever they talk or think about the torture, suffering, and dying of non-Christians with brown skins.  And we won't even mention the way they reacted--or, rather, did NOT react--when a racially mixed American city was all but washed away by a Hurricane named Katrina. 

 

And now the kicker--their foolish obsession over people with brown skin ignores the fact that Islamic terrorists comes in all shades of color; they have completely forgotten the fact that Iraq is only one Islamic nation, remaining oblivious to the fact that terrorist cells may well be growing outside the Middles East.   Yup.   Real intelligence there.

 

All in all Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and their authoritarian, lemming-like followers are engaging in classic projection.   They know that they themselves are Christo-fascists, so they have to distract from this inconvenient fact by comparing their enemies to Hitler and themselves to Churchill and Roosevelt.