Labels

alam (8) amal (101) anak (294) anak yatim (118) bilingual (22) bisnis dan pelayanan (6) budaya (7) dakwah (84) dhuafa (20) for fun (12) Gene (218) guru (57) hadiths (10) halal-haram (24) Hoax dan Rekayasa (34) hukum (68) hukum islam (53) indonesia (563) islam (544) jakarta (34) kekerasan terhadap anak (351) kesehatan (98) Kisah Dakwah (10) Kisah Sedekah (11) konsultasi (11) kontroversi (5) korupsi (27) KPK (16) Kristen (14) lingkungan (19) mohon bantuan (41) muallaf (48) my books (2) orang tua (6) palestina (34) pemerintah (136) Pemilu 2009 (63) pendidikan (497) pengumuman (27) perang (10) perbandingan agama (11) pernikahan (10) pesantren (32) politik (127) Politik Indonesia (53) Progam Sosial (61) puasa (38) renungan (170) Sejarah (5) sekolah (74) shalat (7) sosial (323) tanya-jawab (14) taubat (6) umum (13) Virus Corona (24)

13 October, 2006

George Bush's War of the Words

This is quite long, but I think it’s worth reading. Gene.

George Bush's War of the Words
By Tom Engelhardt
TomDispatch.com

Monday 09 October 2006

For Homer, those epithets attached to his heroes and gods were undoubtedly mnemonic devices - the fleet-footed Achilles, Poseidon, the Earth-shaker, the wily Odysseus, the ox-eyed Hera. But isn't it strange how many similar, if somewhat less heroic, catch words and phrases have adhered to key officials of the Bush administration these last years. Here's my own partial list:

President George ("Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job") Bush, Vice President Dick ("last throes") Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald ("stuff happens") Rumsfeld, then-National Security Advisor, now-Secretary of State Condoleezza ("mushroom cloud") Rice, CIA Director George ("slam dunk") Tenet, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul ("[Iraq] floats on a sea of oil") Wolfowitz, Centcom Commander Gen. Tommy ("We don't do body counts") Franks, then-White House Counsel, now-Attorney General Alberto ("quaint") Gonzales, withdrawn Supreme Court nominee and White House Counsel Harriet ("You are the best governor ever") Miers, and most recently Dennis ("The buck stops here") Hastert.

You know a person by the company he or she keeps - so the saying goes. You could also say that you know an administration by the linguistic company it keeps; and though George Bush is usually presented as an inarticulate stumbler of a speech and news-conference giver, it's nothing short of remarkable how many new words and phrases (or redefined old ones) this President and his administration have managed to lodge in our lives and our heads.

Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been not so much the planet's lone "hyperpower" as its gunslinger in that great Western ("dead or alive") tradition that George and Dick learned about in the movies of their childhood. But fast as they've reached for their guns (and may do so again in relation to Iran after the mid-term elections), over the last years they've reached for one thing faster: their dictionaries.

And of all the words that came to their minds post-9/11, the first and fastest was an old one - "war." Within hours of the 9/11 attacks, it was already on the scene and being redefined by administration officials and supporters. We would not, for instance, actually declare war. After all, who was war to be declared on? We were simply "at war" and that was that. Since then, according to George Bush and his associates, we have either been fighting "the Global War on Terror" (aka GWOT), "the long war," "the millennium war," "World War III," or "World War IV." We not only entered an immediate state of war, but one meant to last generations, and with it we got a commander-in-chief presidency secretly redefined in such a way as to place it outside any legal boundaries.

We were, then, at war. But the first war we were "at" was a war of the words and at its heart from the beginning was the status of the people we were capturing on or near various battlefields, or even kidnapping off the streets of European cities, and exactly what we could do to them. If John F. Kennedy is remembered for saying, "Ich bin ein Berliner," perhaps when history shrinks George W. Bush to a soundbite, it will be, "We abide by the law of the United States; we do not torture." To say those words - repeatedly - he has had to mount not a soapbox, nor even the TV or radio version of a bully pulpit, but a pile of torn, trampled dictionaries.

If you don't believe me, go back and read, for instance, the infamous "torture memo" of 2002 in which the top legal minds of the Justice Department and the White House Counsel's office labored over how to define "severe" and "pain" in such a way that almost no inflicted pain in a prisoner's interrogation would ever prove too "severe." Whole sections of that document sound like they were cobbled together by a learned panel for a new edition of some devil's dictionary. ("The word 'profound' has a number of meanings, all of which convey a significant depth. Webster's New International Dictionary 1977 [2nd ed. 1935] defines profound as...").

In the end, these experts defined "torture" to suit administration needs in the following pretzled fashion: "Must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." And though, under pressure, the "torture memo" was finally disavowed, the President has been able to claim that "we do not torture" only by adhering to its ludicrous definitions. (Even then, this administration's interrogators have tortured prisoners.) This was in fact a typical Bush era document of shame, symbolic of the bureaucratic lawlessness let loose at the heart of our government by officials intent on creating a pseudo-legal basis for replacing the rule of law with the rule of a Commander-in-Chief.

Never has an administration rolled up its sleeves and redefined our terms more systematically or unnervingly with less attention to reality.

When a dynasty fell in ancient China, it was believed that part of the explanation for its demise lay in the increasing gap between words and reality. The emperor of whatever new dynasty had taken power would then perform a ceremony called "the rectification of names" to bring language and what it was meant to describe back into sync. We Americans need to lose the emperor part of the equation, but adopt such a ceremony. Never have our realities and our words for them been quite so out of whack.

Between August 2005, when, armed with two cheap tape recorders and a scribbled list of questions, I first met historian and activist Howard Zinn in a coffee shop and last summer, I had a chance to hang out with eleven iconoclastic thinkers and activists, all of whom were concerned with how to describe the realities of our imperial world as well as with the fate of our country. Recently, these interviews were gathered into a book, Mission Unaccomplished, Tomdispatch Interviews with American Iconoclasts and Dissenters. What follows are apt quotes from each of the interviewees - and my own brief discussions of Bush-redefined words. Think of it as a kind of call-and-response essay as well as my own modest bow to eleven engaged souls whom I admire.

Howard Zinn: "I came to the conclusion that, given the technology of modern warfare, war is inevitably a war against children, against civilians. When you look at the ratio of civilian to military dead, it changes from 50-50 in World War II to 80-20 in Vietnam, maybe as high as 90-10 today… When you face that fact, war is now always a war against civilians, and so against children. No political goal can justify it, and so the great challenge before the human race in our time is to solve the problems of tyranny and aggression, and do it without war."

Collateral Damage: It's been all collateral damage all the time from official Pentagon lips since George W. Bush launched our Afghan war just weeks after September 11, 2001 and followed it quickly with an invasion of Iraq. Wedding parties wiped out; children killed by accident; civilians murdered at places like Haditha and Ishaqi; scores of Iraqi civilians dead in the first air strikes on Baghdad (and not a single Iraqi leader killed); thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians swept up in U.S. raids and tossed into Abu Ghraib prison for endless months without charges; "terrorist safe houses" hit from the air in crowded urban neighborhoods where nearby residents simply died.

Since March 2003, over 2,700 American soldiers, over 200 troops from allied forces, and several hundred private contractors or mercenaries have died in Iraq. (Another 340 Americans have died in Afghanistan.) We have no idea how many Iraqi soldiers, insurgents, and militia members have died in that same period along with many tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, all "collateral damage." But we do know one thing. In modern wars, especially those conducted in part from the air (as both the Iraq and Afghan ones have been), there's nothing "collateral" about civilian deaths. If anything, the "collateral deaths" are those of the combatants on any side. Civilian deaths are now the central fact, the very essence of modern imperial warfare. Not seeing that means not seeing war.

James Carroll: "The good things of the Roman Empire are what we remember about it - the roads, the language, the laws, the buildings, the classics… But we pay very little attention to what the Roman Empire was to the people at its bottom - the slaves who built those roads… the oppressed and occupied peoples who were brought into the empire if they submitted, but radically and completely smashed if they resisted at all… We Americans are full of our sense of ourselves as having benign imperial impulses. That's why the idea of the American Empire was celebrated as a benign phenomenon. We were going to bring order to the world. Well, yes… as long as you didn't resist us. And that's where we really have something terrible in common with the Roman Empire… We must reckon with imperial power as it is felt by people at the bottom. Rome's power. America's."

The New Rome: In neocon Washington, there was an early burst of pride in empire. The U.S. wasn't just, as in the 1990s, the planet's "global sheriff," it was now the mightiest power in history, an imperial goliath that put the old British Empire and possibly even the Roman one in the shade. Right-wing pundit Charles Krauthammer wrote in Time Magazine even before the attacks of 9/11: "America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome. Accordingly, America is in a position to reshape norms, alter expectations, and create new realities. How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will." Between the first of those "implacable demonstrations of will" in the fall of 2001 and Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment in May 2003, many other pundits weighed in, embracing the idea of empire in a way that had once been taboo in this country. Fareed Zacaria of Newsweek was typical in speaking of "'a comprehensive uni-polarity' that nobody has seen since Rome dominated the world." Max Boot in USA Today wrote a piece headlined, "American Imperialism? No Need to Run Away from Label." ("[O]n the whole, U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century.") For the liberal and squeamish, there was Michael Ignatieff in the New York Times Magazine urging us not to "embrace" imperialism, but merely to do our duty and pick up "the burden" of Empire Lite.

Five years later with the sack of Rome looking more applicable to our world than a Pax Romana, perhaps another old word should be making its reappearance: "Tyranny" ("A government in which a single ruler is invested with absolute power.") Outside the United States, the Bush administration has already set itself up as a tyranny with its private network of prisons, its secret airlines for kidnapping anyone it chooses, and its power to wage war on the say-so of no one but itself anywhere it cares to. Domestically, the picture is still mixed, but the danger signals are obvious.

Juan Cole: "[Iraq] is one of the great foreign policy debacles of American history. There's an enormous amount at stake in the oil Gulf and Bush is throwing grenades around in the cockpit of the world economy. So I think he has dug his own grave with regard to Iraq policy."

Regime Change, Shock and Awe, Decapitation, Cakewalk: Ah, Iraq. What a field of linguistic fantasy play for Bush administration officials. "Regime change" was the global order of the day, if that "axis of evil" (and perhaps 60 other nations rumored to harbor terrorists) didn't attend to us. "Shock and awe" was what we would bring to Iraq, thereby humbling the whole "axis of evil" in a single awesome rain of destruction from the skies. As the planet's most dazzling military power, we would then go on a "cakewalk" (a high-strutting dance) to Baghdad and beyond, reorganizing the whole Middle East to our taste. "Decapitation" would be what would happen to Saddam's regime.

Behind such words lay inside-the-Beltway dreams of absolute global domination, of imposing a planetary Pax Americana by force of arms. It was the sort of scheme that once would have been the property of some "evil empire" we stood against. Behind it all, for an administration deeply linked to the energy business, lay control over the oil heartlands of the planet, known to this administration as "the arc of instability." Oil, or what George Bush referred to before launching his invasion as "Iraq's patrimony," was of such interest that the only places our troops guarded in those first "post-war" days of looting were oil fields and the Oil Ministry building in Baghdad. Of course, what Bush and his friends succeeded in visiting on the region was ever-spreading chaos. Since 2001, in its own version of the rectification of names, the Bush administration has actually been creating a genuine "arc of instability" stretching from Central Asia to Lebanon. The grenades are indeed now in the cockpit.

Cindy Sheehan: "Katrina was a natural disaster that nobody could help, but the man-made disaster afterwards was just horrible. I mean, number one, all our resources are in Iraq. Number two, what little resources we did have were deployed far too late. George Bush was golfing and eating birthday cake with John McCain while people were hanging off their houses praying to be rescued. He's so disconnected from this country - and from reality. I heard a line yesterday that I thought was perfect. This man said he thinks Katrina will be Bush's Monica."

Homeland: It may be an ugly word, with overtones of Nazi Germany (and perhaps the World War II-era Soviet Union as well), but now it's ours, a truly un-American replacement for "nation" or "country." Like a number of Bush-era terms, it was lurking in the shadows before 9/11. Now, we have a homeland as well as "homeland security," and even a Department of Homeland Security, a giant and, as Katrina demonstrated, remarkably ineffective new bureaucracy. By its very name, the "Defense" Department should, of course, be our Department of Homeland Security. But its focus is now on dominating the rest of the planet (and space), so instead we have two Defense Departments, both quagmires of civilian bureaucratic ineptitude, both lucrative as anything, neither going anywhere soon. If this isn't an attempt not just to redefine American reality, but to bankrupt it, I can't imagine what is. George Bush has been our Katrina.

Chalmers Johnson: "Part of empire is the way it's penetrated our society, the way we've become dependent on it… The military budget is starting to bankrupt the country. It's got so much in it that's well beyond any rational military purpose. It equals just less than half of total global military spending. And yet here we are, stymied by two of the smallest, poorest countries on Earth. Iraq before we invaded had a GDP the size of the state of Louisiana, and Afghanistan was certainly one of the poorest places on the planet. And yet these two places have stopped us."

Footprint, Enduring Camp, Lily Pad: Call this a sampler of the euphemistic language that goes with garrisoning the planet. In the Bush years, the Pentagon has not only grown ever more gargantuan, but has come to occupy the heartlands of foreign (and increasingly domestic) policy. It has essentially displaced the State Department from diplomacy and is now in the process of displacing the CIA from covert intelligence operations. In these years, Pentagon strategists, discussing our 700+ military bases around the world, began speaking of our military "footprint" on the planet - in the singular. As an imperial colossus, it seems, only one military boot at a time could even fit on the planet.

By the time American troops entered Baghdad in April 2003, the Pentagon already had plans on the drawing boards for four massive permanent military bases in Iraq, but the phrase "permanent base" was not to be used. For a while, these were referred to, charmingly enough, as "enduring camps" (like so many summer establishments for children who had overstayed their leave). In the same way, the strategic-basing posture of this era, meant to bring deployable U.S. troops ever closer to locking down that "arc of instability," involved "lily pad" bases - the thought being that, if the occasion arose, American "frogs," armed to the teeth with prepositioned munitions, would be able to hop agilely from one prepositioned "pad" to another, knocking off the "flies" as they went. This is part of the strange, defanged language with which American leaders meant to create a Pax Americana planet.

Ann Wright: "Thirty-five years in the government between my military service and the State Department, under seven administrations. It was hard. I liked representing America. I kept hoping the administration would go back to the Security Council for its authorization to go to war… I was hoping against hope that our government would not go into what really is an illegal war of aggression that meets no criteria of international law. When it was finally evident we were going to do so, I said to myself: It ain't going to be on my watch."

Service: And what about missing words? "Service to country," such an honorable concept, was swept with "sacrifice" into Bush's dustbin of history. In response to 9/11, the President famously told Americans to sacrifice for his coming wars by leading normal lives, going shopping as usual, and visiting Disney World. The only ones capable of truly "serving" their country, as this President seems to see it, are CIA kidnappers, illegal eavesdroppers of the National Security Agency, and the interrogators who perform the tough acts of torture that have been redefined by administration lawyers as something else entirely. And yet, in these years, the ideal of service has not died. Retired colonel and State Department official Ann Wright - at present, an antiwar activist - was one of three diplomats who resigned to protest the onrushing invasion of Iraq in 2003. They have since been joined by a veritable fallen legion of government employees, who were honorable or steadfast enough in their duties or actually believed too fully in our Constitution, and so found themselves forced to resign in protest, quit, or simply be pushed off the cliff by cronies of this administration.

Someone needs to redefine the "checks and balances" of the American system. The only operative check-and-balance for most of the last five years has been one the Founding Fathers never dreamed of (because they couldn't imagine a government structure like ours) and that's been the angry, leaking, protesting members of the federal government, the intelligence community, the military, and the bureaucracy. (On the other side of that equation, no one has yet come fully to grips with, or reported decently on, the depth of the Bush purge of the government, the replacement of officials down to the lowest levels with administration pals, cronies, and ideologues.)

Mark Danner: "When you look at the record, the phrase I come back to, not only about interrogation but the many other steps that constitute the Bush state of exception, state of emergency, since 9/11 is 'take the gloves off.'"

Extraordinary Rendition, Secret Prisons, Torture: Donald Rumsfeld's "office" was calling for interrogators to take off those "gloves" in the case of the "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, soon after he was captured in late 2001. It became a commonplace phrase inside the government (and even among the military in Iraq). Given the image, you wonder what exactly was under those gloves. Off in Langley, Virginia, according to Ron Suskind in his new book, The One Percent Doctrine, CIA director George Tenet was using a far blunter image. He was talking about "taking off the shackles" (that supposedly had been put on the Agency in the Vietnam/Watergate era).

Rendition - as in "render unto Caesar" - gained that "extraordinary" quickly indeed as the CIA began kidnapping terror "suspects" around the world and no longer rendering them to the American court system (as in the Clinton years) but to various Third World allies willing to torture them or to American "secret prisons" - a phrase that, in the previous century, would have been reserved for the Gestapo or Stalin's NKVD.

In the meantime, administration lawyers began redefining "torture," a word not normally considered terribly difficult to grasp, more or less out of existence. By the time they were done, mock drownings, an interrogation "technique" called (as if it were surfing) "waterboarding," ceased for a while to be what even Medieval Europe knew it to be: "the water torture." In no other single area, did Bush administration officials (and their legal camp followers) reach more quickly for their dictionaries to pretzel and torture the language. This represented a very specific kind of reach for power. After all, if you could kidnap or capture a man anywhere on Earth, transport him to a secret prison (or at least, as with Guantanamo, one beyond the purview of any court), and then torture him, and if it could all be redefined as within the bounds of legality and propriety, then you had captured a previously unknown kind of power for the Presidency that was as un-American as the word "homeland." Think of it this way: Those who can torture openly, can do anything.

Mike Davis: "It's clear that the future of guerrilla warfare, insurrection against the world system, has moved into the city. Nobody has realized this with as much clarity as the Pentagon… Its strategists are way ahead of geopoliticians and traditional foreign-relations types in understanding the significance of a world of slums… There's really quite an extraordinary military literature trying to address what the Pentagon sees as the most novel terrain of this century, which it now models in the slums of Karachi, Port au Prince, and Baghdad."

Preventive War: From the militarized heavens to the slum cities of the Third World, the Pentagon is doing all the R&D. It already has its advanced weaponry for 2020, 2030, 2040 on the drawing boards. It's planning for and dreaming about the future in a way inconceivable for any other part of the government. It not only has a space command, but, for the first time, a separate command for our own continent (U.S. Northcom) that is preparing for future hurricanes, future pandemics, future domestic disasters of every sort, now that our civil government, growing ever larger, handles things ever less well.

The Bush administration has elevated not just the Pentagon, but the principle of, and a belief in the efficacy of, force to the level of an idol to be worshiped. In 2002, the President suggested a new term - preventive war - which was then embedded in the National Security Strategy of the United States, a key planning document. At the time, Condoleezza Rice put the thinking behind the term this way: "As a matter of common sense, the United States must be prepared to take action, when necessary, before threats have fully materialized." This was, in fact, a recipe for waging war any time an administration cared to. No longer would the United States wait until the eve of an attack to strike "preemptively." Now, if it even occured to the President or Vice President that there was a "one percent" chance some country might someday somehow endanger us, we were free to launch our forces; and "preventive" sounded so much better than the previous term, "war of aggression." For this administration, and so for Americans, a war of aggression had preemptively been moved into the same category with preventive medicine.

Katrina vanden Heuvel: "Sometimes, though, frustration lies in the feeling that you just can't convey the enormity of, say, the Bush administration's unitary executive theory. How do you convey that no previous administration I know of has so openly, so brazenly, on so many fronts tried to subvert the Constitution, that what we're living through is a crisis that may bode the death knell of our democracy. Why aren't people jumping up and down?"

Unitary Executive Theory: This isn't a theory, but a long-planned grab for tyrannical control under the President's "commander-in-chief" powers in a carefully redefined "wartime" situation that will not stop being so in our lifetimes. This "theory" was meant to give a gloss of Constitutional legality to any conceivable presidential act. What the "unitary" meant was "no room for you" when it came to Congress and the courts. The "executive" was, as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff Larry Wilkinson put it, rule by a "cabal," a cult of true believers inside the presidential bubble, impermeable to outside opinion or pressure. They were eager - when it came to torture, unlimited forms of surveillance, and the ability to define reality - to invest individuals secretly with something like the powers of gods.

Andrew Bacevich: "[W]e are in deep, deep trouble. An important manifestation of that trouble is this shortsighted infatuation with military power… There's such an unwillingness to confront the dilemmas we face as a people that I find deeply troubling. I know we're a democracy. We have elections. But it's become a procedural democracy. Our politics are not really meaningful. In a meaningful politics, you and I could argue about important differences, and out of that argument might come not resolution or reconciliation, but at least an awareness of the consequences of going your way as opposed to mine. We don't even have that argument. That's what's so dismaying."

Democracy: Since September 11, 2001, George W. Bush and his top officials have aggressively advanced into the world under the banner of spreading not stability, but democracy (at cruise-missile point). But they defined the freedom to vote (as the recent Palestinian elections showed) only as the freedom to vote as they wished the vote to go - and it generally didn't. Meanwhile, at home, the Republican Party was practicing an advanced form of gerrymandering, election financing, smear advertising, and voter-suppression tactics that made a mockery of the electoral process. Everyone was to vote gloriously, but matters were to be prepared - geographically, financially, and in terms of public opinion - so that the vote would be nothing but a confirmation of what already was. What, after all, do you call it when, in what is considered the most wide-open election for the House of Representatives in more than a decade, only perhaps 40-50 of 435 seats are actually competitive (and that's considered extraordinary). Since 1998, 98% of House incumbents have won reelection, while in the last "open" election in 1994, when a Republican "revolution" took the House in what the New York Times calls "a seismic realignment," 91% of incumbents were nonetheless reelected.

Barbara Ehrenreich: "Today, we have this even larger federal government, more and more of it being war-related, surveillance-related. I mean it's gone beyond our wildest Clinton administration dreams. I think progressives can't just be seen as pro-big-government when big government has gotten so nasty. Katrina's a perfect example of how militarized the government has gotten even when it's supposedly trying to help people. The initial response of the government was a military one. When they finally got people down there, it was armed guards to protect the fancy stores and keep people in that convention center - at gunpoint."

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!": And it has been a heck-of-a-job! In both the United States and Iraq, government has become ever less effective and meaningful; the plunderers have been let loose to "reconstruct" each country; the deepest fears have been released and deep divisions exacerbated.

We all know what a failed state is - one of those marginal lands where anarchy is the rule and government not the norm. To offer but two examples: Afghanistan is a failed state, a narco-warlord-insurrectionary land where the government barely controls the capital, Kabul; Iraq is now a failed state, a civil-war-torn, insurrectionary land where the government does not even control the capital, Baghdad. But here's a term that isn't in our language: "Failed empire." It might be worth using in any ceremonies meant to bring words and reality closer together.

--------

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and, most recently, the author of Mission Unaccomplished: Tomdispatch Interviews with American Iconoclasts and Dissenters (Nation Books), the first collection of Tomdispatch interviews.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101006O.shtml

31 August, 2006

Kebebasan Bicara di AS

Seorang insinyur keturunan Arab siap naik pesawat di AS. Para petugas keamanan datang kepadanya dan minta dia membuka kaosnya. Dia boleh naik pesawat tetapi tidak boleh memakai kaos tersebut.

Kenapa?

Karena di depan kaos itu ada tulisan bahasaArab (lengkap dengan terjemahan bahasa Inggris).

Satu kalimat saja. Satu kailmat yang singkat. Apa artinya?

“We will not be silent” (Kita tidak akan diam).

Kalimat ini menjadi slogan di Amerika bagi orang yang menentang perang AS terhadap Iraq, dan serangan-serangan yang lain di Timur Tengah. Ada kaos, stiker, dsb. yang dijual dengan slogan ini bagi orang yang mau berprotes terhadap perang.

Para penumpang melihat ada orang Arab mau naik pesawat dan ada tulisan di kaosnya dalam bahasa Arab. Mereka menjadi takut dan memanggil para petugas.

Si insinyur Arab itu berprotes dengan menyebutkan hak pribadinya untuk “bicara bebas”. Para petugas bersikeras bahwa dia tetap tidak boleh naik pesawat dengan memakai kaos tersebut.

Ternayta dia boleh bicara dengan bebas, seperti semua warga AS yang lain, hanya saja tidak boleh bicara bebas dalam BAHASA ARAB! Karena membuat orang lain ketakutan!!

Ini sungguh merupakan hasil dari “War on Terror”nya George Bush dan para pendukungnya (alias, para kroni) di media massa di AS. Setiap hari ada berita baru yang membuat warga ketakutan. Takut terhadap “terror”. Dan “terror” itu hanya datang dari orang berbangsa Arab yang menggunakan bahasa Arab.

Hasilnya, warga melihat orang Arab memakai koas dengan tulisan Arab, mereka mulai berfikir: “Apakah dia seorang teroris? Apakah dia mau ledakan bom di pesawat? Apa artinya tulisan itu? Mati semua orang AS, misalanya? [padahal juga ada terjemahan bahasa Inggris di kaos itu]. Wah, takut deh. Panggil petugas aja. Suruh mereka menangkap dia dulu dan mengirimkannya ke Guantanamo sebelum dia bisa membunuh kita!”

Selamat kepada George Bush! Sebagai pemimpin negara dia telah berhasil membuat rakyatnya ketakutan 24/7 (=24 jam sehari, 7 hari per minggu).

Sekarang hak “bicara bebas” di AS ada batasannya: boleh bicara bebas, asal tidak memakai BAHASA ARAB!!!

Arabic T-shirt sparks airport row

An architect of Iraqi descent has said he was forced to remove a T-shirt that bore the words "We will not be silent" before boarding a flight at New York.

Raed Jarrar said security officials warned him his clothing was offensive after he checked in for a JetBlue flight to California on 12 August.

Mr Jarrar said he was shocked such an action could be taken in the US.

US transport officials are conducting an inquiry after a complaint from the US Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Mr Jarrar's black cotton T-shirt bore the slogan in both Arabic and English.

He said he had cleared security at John F Kennedy airport for a flight back to his home in California when he was approached by two men who wanted to check his ID and boarding pass.

Mr Jarrar said he was told a number of passengers had complained about his T-shirt - apparently concerned at what the Arabic phrase meant - and asked him to remove it.

He refused, arguing that the slogan was not offensive and citing his constitutional rights to free expression.

"We Will Not Be Silent" is a slogan adopted by opponents of the war in Iraq and other conflicts in the Middle East.

It is said to derive from the White Rose dissident group which opposed Nazi rule in Germany.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/5297822.stm


Published: 2006/08/30 10:36:21 GMT

© BBC MMVI

29 July, 2006

WHO’S ON FIRST

Hi. Thought you might get a laugh out of this. If you have never heard it, I highly recommend the audio file (be patient while it downloads.) The first link seems to be the best, with Audio and transcript.
My students have always loved it. Hope you enjoy it. Please pass on to others.

Audio & Transcript

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/abbott&costellowhosonfirst.htm

http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhoOnFirst.html

Audio MP3 recordings:

http://www.abbottandcostello.net/

http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhosOnFirstAudio.mp3

WHO’S ON FIRST

(by Abbott and Costello)

The following text contains references to “baseball.”

Some baseball positions: first base/ second base/ third base/ in-field/ out-field/ center field.

Note: People’s names are in capital letters.

A: Well COSTELLO, I’m going to New York with you. You know BUCKY HARRIS, the Yank’s manager, gave me a job as coach for as long as you’re on the team.

C: Look, ABBOT, if you’re the coach, you must know all the players.

A: I certainly do.

C: Well, you know, I never met the guys so you’ll have to tell me their names and then I’ll know who’s playing on the team.

A: Oh, I’ll tell you their names. But you know strange as it may seem, they give these ball players nowadays very peculiar names.

C: You mean funny names?

A: Strange names, pet names, like DIZZY DEAN.

C: SMALL ADAFIUS.

A: DAFFY DEAN

C: I’ve got a French cousin.

A: French?

C: GOOFE?

A: GOOFE DEAN. Oh I see. Now let’s see, we have on the bags, we have WHO’s on first, WHAT’s on second, I-DON’T-KNOW is on third.

C: That’s what I want to find out.

A: I said, WHO’s on first WHAT’s on second, I-DON’T-KNOW’s on third.

C: Are you the manager?

A: Yes.

C: You gonna be the coach too?

A: Yes.

C: And you don’t know the fella’s names?

A: Well, I should.

C: Well then, who’s on first?

A: Yes

C: I mean the fella’s name.

A: WHO.

C: The guy on first.

A: WHO.

C: The first baseman

A: WHO!

C: The guy playing first.

A: WHO is on first!

C: I’m asking you who’s on first.

A: That’s the man’s name.

C: That’s whose name?

A: Yes.

C: Well go ahead and tell me.

A: That’s it.

C: That’s who?

A: Yes.

C: Have you got a first baseman?

A: Certainly.

C: Who’s playing first?

A: That’s right.

C: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?

A: Every dollar of it.

C: All I’m trying to find out is the fella’s name on first base.

A: WHO.

C: The guy that gets…

A: That’s it!

C: Who gets the money on…?

A: He does. Every dollar. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

C: Whose wife?

A: Yes. What’s wrong with that.

C: Look, all I wanna know is when you sign up the first baseman, how does he sign his name to the contract?

A: WHO.

C: The guy.

A: WHO.

C: How does he sign his name?

A: That’s how he signs it!

C: Who?

A: Yes.

C: All I’m trying to find out is what’s the guy’s name on first base!

A: No! WHAT is on second base.

C: I’m not asking you who’s on second.

A: WHO’s on first.

C: One base at a time!

A: Well don’t change the players.

C: I’m not changing nobody!

A: Take it easy buddy.

C: I’m only asking ya, who’s the guy on first base?

A: That’s right.

C: OK.

A: Alright.

C: What’s the guy’s name on first base?

A: No, WHAT is on second.

C: I’m not asking ya who’s on second.

A: WHO’s on first.

C: I dunno (=don’t know).

A: Oh, he’s on third. We’re not talking about him…

C: Now, how could I get on third base?

A: Why, you mentioned his name.

C: If I mentioned the third baseman’s name, who did I say is playing third?

A: No, WHO’s playing first.

C: What’s on first?

A: WHAT’s on second

C: I dunno.

A: He’s on third.

C: There I go, back on third again. Would you stay on third base and don’t go off it!

A: Alright. Now, what do you wanna know?

C: Now who’s playing third base?

A: Why do you insist on putting WHO on third base?

C: What am I putting on third?

A: No, WHAT is on second.

C: You don’t want who on second?

A: WHO is on first.

C: I don’t know.

C/A: Third base!

C: Look, you got a out-field?

A: Sure.

C: The left-fielder’s name?

A: WHY.

C: I just thought I’d ask you.

A: Well I just thought I’d tell you.

C: Then tell me who’s playing left-field.

A: WHO is playing first!

C: I’m not… stay out of the in-field! I wanna know what’s the guy’s name in left-field?

A: No, WHAT is on second.

C: I’m not asking you who’s on second.

A: WHO’s on first.

C: I dunno.

C/A: Third base!

C: And the left-fielder’s name?

A: WHY!

C: Because!

A: Oh, he’s center-field.

C: Look, look, look. You got a pitcher on the team?

A: Sure.

C: The pitcher’s name?

A: TOMORROW.

C: You don’t wanna tell me today?

A: I’m telling you man.

C: Well, go ahead.

A: TOMORROW.

C: What time?

A: What time what?

C: What time tomorrow you’re gonna tell me who’s pitching?

A: Now listen, WHO is not pitching!

C: I’ll break your arm you say who’s on first! I wanna know what’s the pitcher’s name?

A: WHAT’s on second.

C: I dunno.

C/A: Third base!

C: You got a catcher?

A: Certainly!

C: The catcher’s name?

A: TODAY.

C: Today? And tomorrow’s pitching?

A: Now you’ve got it!

C: All we’ve got is a couple of days of the week. You know I’m a catcher too.

A: So they tell me.

C: I get behind the players, do some fancy catching, tomorrow’s pitching on my team, and a heavy hitter gets up.

A: Yes.

C: Now the heavy hitter bunts the ball. When he bunts the ball, me being a good catcher, I’m gonna throw the guy out at first base, so I pick up the ball and throw it to who?

A: Now that’s the first thing you’ve said right!

C: I don’t even know what I’m talking about!

A: That’s all you have to do!

C: Is to throw the ball to first base?

A: Yes!

C: Now, who’s got it?

A: Naturally!

C: Look, if I throw the ball to first base, somebody’s gottta get it. Now, who has it?

A: Naturally.

C: Who?

A: Naturally.

C: Naturally?

A: Naturally.

C: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to naturally?

A: No you don’t. You throw the ball to WHO!

C: Naturally.

A: That’s it.

C: That’s what I said.

A: You’re not saying it right.

C: I throw the ball to naturally.

A: You throw it to WHO!

C: Naturally.

A: That’s it.

C: That’s what I said!

A: Listen, you asked me.

C: I throw the ball to who?

A: Naturally.

C: Now you ask me.

A: You throw the ball to WHO?

C: Naturally.

A: That’s it.

C: Same as you! Same as you! I throw the ball to who! Whoever it is drops the ball and the guy runs to second.

A: Yes.

C: Who picks up the ball and throws it to what. What throws it to I don’t’ know. I don’t know throws it back to tomorrow. Triple play.

A: Yes.

C: Another guy gets up and it’s a long fly ball to because. Why? I don’t know. He’s on third and I don’t give a darn.

A: Wha-what?

C: I said, I don’t give a darn!

A: Oh, that’s our short-stop.



01 July, 2006

Warren Buffett donates $37bn to charity


Mana orang Islam seperti ini?? Kenapa orang non-Muslim yang bisa sumbangkan begitu banyak uang? Bukannya banyak orang Islam yang kaya juga? $US 37 milyar untuk amal? Luar biasa. Sayangnya, orang Islam yang kaya lebih cenderung menyimpan hartanya supaya anaknya tambah kaya. Berapa banyak orang Saudi dsb. yang kaya raya yang tidak pernah befikir untuk menyumbangkan hartanya untuk kepentingan ummat? Sayang sekali.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett has said he was waiting for decades to make a huge charitable donation.

He said he was overjoyed as he spoke for the first time since revealing he would donate about $37bn (£20bn) to Bill Gates' charitable foundation.

The donation is thought to be the largest charitable gift ever in the US.

Mr Buffett will hand 10 million shares in his Berkshire Hathaway firm to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The man known as "the sage of Omaha" for his relentless success in investments said he always wanted to give the bulk of his fortune away. [dari dulu dia berencana untuk menyumbangkan sebagian besar dari hartanya – tidak ada rencana untuk menyimpannya]

"I am not an enthusiast of dynastic wealth, particularly when the alternative is six billion people having that much poorer hands in life than we have, having a chance to benefit from the money," he said.

"It is a big challenge to make sure this money gets used in the right way," he said of the donation.

The foundation aims to fight disease and promote education around the world, particularly in developing countries. [tujuannya: membasmi penyakit dan menyebarkan pendidikan di seluruh dunia.]

"There is no reason why we can't cure the top 20 diseases," Mr Gates - who will give up his day-to-day role at Microsoft in 2008 to concentrate on the foundation's work - said.

BBC business editor Robert Peston said the size of the foundation's cash pile dwarfed that of other organisations, and compared it with the $12bn annual budget of the United Nations.

As well as donating to the Gates foundation, he also pledged shares for his three children and a substantial gift for a foundation named for his late wife, Susan Thompson Buffett.

Despite his huge wealth, Mr Buffett has modest tastes, is called a "cola and hamburger kind of guy", plays the ukulele, and still lives in the same house he bought in his home town of Omaha, Nebraska, in 1957. [mana ada orang Islam yang akan tinggal di rumah yang sama kalau jadi kaya raya? Pasti beli rumah gede di pondok indah dsb.]

Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2006/06/26 22:54:26 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Fund of $29.1bn

$10.5bn in grants since 1994

Aims: reducing poverty and improving health and access to education

Largest grant: $1bn to the United Negro College Fund

70% of aid spent outside US



TOP FIVE BILLIONAIRES

Bill Gates (US, Microsoft) - $50bn

Warren Buffett (US, investor) - $42bn

Carlos Slim (Mexico, industrialist) - $30bn

Ingvar Kamprad (Sweden, Ikea) - $28bn

Lakshmi Mittal (UK, steel) $23.5bn

Hermann Goering and George Bush

Herman Goering was one of Adolf Hitlers generals. Here he explains that it is easy for leaders to make the people follow them - even in a democracy. Just tell them they are being attacked and they will follow their leaders. If anyone criticizes, just say they are a danger to the country (George Bush is now saying that about the New York Times because they leaked information about his domestic spying programs).

"Why of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Hermann Goering, Nazi General

"I'm the Commander - see, I don't need to explain. That's the interesting thing about being President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

George W. Bush, August 2002

"At some point, we may be the only ones left. That's okay with me. We are Americans."

George W. Bush

"God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

George W. Bush

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America." The revelation, he added, "makes it harder to win the war on terror."

George W. Bush talking about the New York Times publishing reports about the government’s program to spy on people’s bank accounts. June 2006

Analysis of War in Iraq

This is a nice Analysis of the US War against Iraq for domination in the Middle East. I know it will be diffiucult for some people to read, if you are not very fluent in English. Try to read it. Just go past the words you dont know and try to understand the basic ideas. Its worthwhile. Good luck. - Gene.

The Empire Needs New Clothes

by Thom Hartmann

It's easy to vilify George W. Bush as a cynical warmonger, anxious to attack Iraq to repay the oil companies that funded his election campaigns. But to do so is to make a dangerous and fundamental error, and such a myopic view of the Bush administration's policies puts America's future at risk.

The reality is that the current administration has a clear and specific vision for the future of America and the world, and they believe it's a positive vision. In order to put forward an alternative vision, it's essential to first understand the vision of America held by the New Right.

The core of the neoconservative vision was first articulated on June 3, 1997, in the Statement of Principles put forth by the Project For The New American Century. Signed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Bennett, Jeb Bush, Gary Bauer, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Vin Weber, Steve Forbes and others from the Reagan/Bush administration, it clearly stated that "the history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."

Frankly acknowledging that America is a small portion of the world's population but uses a large percentage of the world's oil and other natural resources, Poppy Bush is famous for having said, "The American lifestyle is not negotiable."

McMansions for two-person families, a transportation infrastructure based on 6,000-pound SUVs carrying single individuals, cheap Chinese goods at Wal-Mart and cheap Mexican food in the supermarket - all of this is not anything America intends to give up. We're king of the hill, and we intend to stay that way, even if it means going to war to keep it.

At the core of this is oil. When the administration's people say American involvement in Iraq is "not about oil," they're often responding to charges that they're only going after profits for American oil companies. They speak truth, in that context, when they say the war isn't about revenues from oil - the profits will only be a desirable side-effect. What the war is really about is the survival of the American lifestyle, which, in their world-view, is both non-negotiable and based almost entirely on access to cheap oil.

The same year Cheney, et al, wrote their papers on The New American Century, I wrote a book about the coming end of American peace and prosperity because of our dependence on a dwindling supply of oil. "Since the discovery of oil in Titusville, PA, where the world's first oil well was drilled in 1859," I wrote in The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, "humans have extracted 742 billion barrels of oil from the Earth. Currently, world oil reserves are estimated at about 1,000 billion barrels, which will last (according to the most optimistic estimates of the oil industry) 'for almost 45 years at current rates of consumption.'"

But that doesn't mean that we'll suck on the straw for 45 years and then it'll suddenly stop. When about half the oil has been removed from an underground oil field, it starts to get much harder (and thus more expensive) to extract the remaining half. The last third to quarter can be excruciatingly expensive to extract - so much so that wells these days that have hit that point are usually just capped because it costs more to extract the oil than it can be sold for, or it's more profitable to ship oil in from the Middle East, even after accounting for the cost of shipping.

The halfway point of an oil field is referred to as "The Hubbert Peak," after scientist M. King Hubbert, who first pointed this out in 1956 and projected 1970 as the year for the Hubbert Peak of US oil supplies. Hubbert was off by four years - 1974 saw the initial decline in US oil production and the consequent rise in price. In 1975, Hubbert, who is now deceased, projected 2000 for a worldwide Hubbert Peak. Once that point had been hit, he and other experts suggested, the world could expect economy-destabilizing spikes in the price of oil, and wars to begin over control of this vital resource.

Most of the world has now been digitally "X-rayed" using satellites, seismic data, and computers, in the process of locating 41,000 oil fields. Over 641,000 exploratory wells have been drilled, and virtually all fields which show any promise are well-known and factored into the one-trillion barrel estimate the oil industry uses for world oil reserves.

And of that 1 trillion barrels, Saudi Arabia has about 259 billion barrels and Iraq is estimated by the US Government to have 432 billion barrels, although at the moment only about 112 billion barrels have been tapped. The rest, virgin oil, can be pumped out for as little as $1.50 a barrel, making Iraqi oil not only the most abundant in the world, but the most profitable. This at a time when virtually all American oil fields (except the Alaska North Slope) have dwindled past the Hubbert Peak into $5 to $25 per barrel pumping costs.

Thus, we see that our "lifestyle" - our ability to maintain our auto-based transportation systems, our demand for big, warm houses, and our appetite for a wide variety of cheap foods and consumer goods - is currently based on access to cheap oil. If we assume that the American people won't tolerate a change in that lifestyle, then we can extrapolate that our very security as a stable democracy is dependent on cheap oil.

Viewed in this context, the rush to seize control of the Middle East - where about a third of the planet's oil is located - makes perfect sense. It's a noble endeavor, in that view, maintaining the strength and vitality of the American Empire.

Of course, there are a few cracks in this vision. In order to have such a new American century, we must be willing to foul our waters and air with the byproducts of oil combustion and oil-fired power plants, and tolerate the explosions in cancer they bring. We must be willing to gamble that raising CO2 levels won't destabilize the atmosphere and tip us into a new ice age by shutting down the Great Conveyor Belt warm-water currents in the Atlantic. We must be willing to hold the rest of the world off at the point of a bayonet, and to take on the England/Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine type of terrorism that inevitably comes when people decide to assert nationalism and confront empire.

And, perhaps most distressing, the third George to be President of the United States must be willing to clamp down on his own dissident citizens the same way that King George III of England did in 1776. These are the requirements of empire.

The last American statesman to put forth a different vision was President Jimmy Carter, who candidly pointed out to the American people that oil was a dwindling domestic resource. Carter said that we mustn't find ourselves in a position of having to fight wars to seize other people's oil, and that a decade or two of transition to renewable energy sources would ensure the stability and future of America without destabilizing the rest of the world.

It would even lead to a cleaner environment and a better quality of life. Carter put in place energy tax credits and incentives that birthed an exploding new industry based on building solar-heated homes, windmill-powered communities, and the development of fuel alternatives to petroleum.

Ronald Reagan's first official act of office was to remove Carter's solar panels from the roof of the White House. He then repealed Carter's tax incentives for renewable energy and killed off an entire industry. No president since then has had the courage or vision to face the hard reality that Carter shared with us.

And so now we discover these oddities. Osama bin Laden, for example, explicitly said that he had attacked the US because we had troops stationed on the holy soil of his homeland - a position not that different from Northern Irish, Palestinian, Tamil, and Kashmiri terrorists. And our troops are there to protect our access to Saudi oil, a dependence legacy we inherited from Reagan's rejection of Carter's initiatives.

If we are to hold a vision of America that doesn't depend on foreign sources of oil and doesn't require the enormous expenditures of money and blood to project and protect empire, simply saying "stop the war" isn't enough. We must clearly articulate a vision of what America could be in a world in balance, a world at peace, and a world where the planet's vital natural resources are protected and renewed. This is the ultimate family value, the highest patriotism, and the most desperately needed story to guide the next generation of Americans.

As President John F. Kennedy said in his 1961 Inaugural Address, "All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

Thom Hartmann is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

Source: CommonDreams.org

Some Comments from George Bush & Co.

US Says No to Talks With North Korea


By Burt Herman
The Associated Press


U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton:

"You don't normally engage in conversations by threatening to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles, and it's not a way to produce a conversation because if you acquiesce in aberrant behavior, you simply encourage the repetition of it, which we're obviously not going to do," Bolton told reporters at U.N. headquarters in New York.

[but if you are threatening to launch wars of aggression against them, its ok: Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Iran. Threats are fine as part of “conversations” as long as it’s the US doing the threatening.]

"It should make people nervous when non-transparent regimes who have announced they have nuclear warheads, fire missiles," Bush said at a meeting with European leaders in Vienna, Austria. "This is not the way you conduct business in the world."

[Bush giving lessons on how to behave as a responsible member of the global community?? No to Kyoto Protocols, No to ICC in the Hague, No to Geneva Conventions whenever its suits them, No to ban on Proliferation etc.]


BBC News:

President Bush said that he was "pleased" the Chinese government had also advised North Korea against testing the missile.

This is a "positive sign", he said, adding that Pyongyang must realise there are "certain international norms" to live by.

Here are some examples of the US living by “international norms”:

Source:

The International Criminal Court:

It is no small irony that the nation that championed the Nuremberg trials and helped bring about the indictment and capture of Slobodan Milosevic now stands as the single greatest opponent of the International Criminal Court.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child:

This historic document recognizing the inalienable rights of children has been ratified by every nation in the world with the exception of the U. S. and Somalia.

The World Arms Trade:

But despite the evidence demonstrating the deadly impact of the small arms trade in nations such as Rwanda and Bosnia, the Bush Administration refused to support a UN Conference seeking to ban small arms trafficking, alleging it interfered with the United States' constitutional guarantees on the right to bear arms.

The International Ban on Landmines:

Anti-personnel landmines kill or maim several thousand people each month. Some are soldiers. Most are civilians. Many are children. And to date some 139 governments have signed and 107 have ratified the historic treaty that establishes a comprehensive ban on the use of these mines in all circumstances.

The Clinton Administration refused to join the Mine Ban Treaty, claiming that anti-personnel mines were needed to protect the Republic of Korea from invasion by North Korea. But even some military commanders now consider these anti-personnel mines not only outmoded but a real and deadly liability to U. S. troops.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW):

More than 160 nations have ratified CEDAW, yet the United States joins Iran and Sudan as one of those few nations who have not accepted this important treaty.

#######

The US 'wants to end Guantanamo'

BBC News

US President George W Bush has said he would like to close the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay and send many detainees back to their home countries.

However, he said not all the inmates would be returned - some would need to be put on trial in the US because they were "cold-blooded killers".

[Thought Crime at its best. Nice that George is able to know if someone is a cold blooded killer before they have done any killing. I guess dropping bombs on other countries and killing countless civilians gives him the ability to spot other killers.]

Mr Bush said he understood European concerns over the US detention camp in Cuba.

"I'd like to end Guantanamo. I'd like it to be over with," he said.

He said 200 detainees had been sent home, and most of those remaining were from Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Afghanistan.

[Remember that Donald Rumsfeld called them “the worst of the worst” as justification for the prison camp. Now 200 have been released. Are we all in danger then??

> No comments from anyone in the media. Interesting]

But he added that there were some detainees "who need to be tried in US courts".

"They will murder somebody if they are let out on the street."

Buoyant Bush sees common ground

BBC News


President Bush addressed the issue in his trademark style, but with more subtlety when it came to content.

"Some people," he said, "say it's okay to condemn people to tyranny. I don't believe it's okay to condemn people to tyranny. And I'll try to do my best to explain to the Europeans that on the one hand we are tough on the war on terror, and on the other we are providing more money than ever before in the world's history for HIV and Aids on the continent of Africa.

"I'll do my best to explain our foreign policy. On the one hand it is tough when needs be, on the other hand it's compassionate."

[Funny comments from a guy who has invaded and occupied two countries recently. No one else has done that. So who is the tyrant??]

Where Is The Airplane That Crashed into Pentagon...?



(Pesawat Boeing 747 yang menabrak Pentagon langsung hilang dari lokasi tabrakan.)

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Don't miss this. Where are the airplane parts?
Go on this website and watch this film...do it quickly as it has been pulled off several websites already - and YOU'LL SEE WHY.

(Cepat menyaksikan film ini. Bagian2 dari Pesawat Boeing itu TIDAK ADA di lokasi. Cepat. Film ini sudah dicabut dari beberapa situs. Setelah melihatnya, anda akan tahu kenapa!!!)
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...