Thursday, September 09, 2004

1984 checklist

First we have this war between US and THEM (see: Oceania & Eurasia circa 1984):
"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020430-5.html

Second, we are told this war will never end:
When asked: "Can we win the war on terror" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it"
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040830_1685.html

Third, we have Dick Cheney's fear-mongering comments about voting against them:
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040908_2160.html

Fourth, theres Bush's complete euphemistic rape of the English language:
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020618-1.html

Now add 'em up:

Opposition is with the terrorists +
War that never ends +
Change of leadership declared dangerous +
Bush's Newspeak
-------------------------------------------------------------
=Orwell's Nightmare Scenario


Dont let it work, Vote against Fear! Vote Kerry in 2004!

3 comments:

Nate said...

Thank you for visiting my site recently. I thought I'd return the favor. This is all just my opinion:

1. President Bush was quite clearly referring not to Democrats, but to foreign nations that may aid and abet terrorists. You disagree that support for terrorism, no matter how tacit, is standing against America? Also, no nation should have been neutral to the crimes of the Nazis. Nor should they be with the Islamofascists.

2. Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot defeat a tactic, but you can hope to make it undesirable to use. In this way, terrorism will likely always be a problem in the world. But it can be a major problem or a minor one.

3. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, it is hard to parse Kerry's nuances) John Kerry is against the Bush policy of preemption. There is room to believe that Kerry's policies will leave us open to further attack. Democrats haven't been shy about saying that they believe Bush policies make us less safe. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

4. I won't bother to respond other than to say plenty of Americans speak English poorly.

1984 has come and gone. Thank you.

Mercifurious said...

1.) From the CIA:

"The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html

By definition then, this includes the Patriots during the American Revolution raping, looting, and destroying the property of innocent citizens; This includes the US support of drug-thug Terrorists in Nicaragua and all over Central and South America; This also includes the CIA-sponsored Terrorists in Afghanistan during the 1980s; This also includes the CIA-sponsored terrorists in Iran during the 1950s; This also includes the fire-bombing of Dresden during WWII (civilians targeted); This also includes ALL the terrorists supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; This also includes all the Kurdish terrorists in N. Iraq - supported by Al-Queda.

So remember that by definition, "Terrorism" is a neutral concept. Because of this - THE PENDULUM swings both ways. Bush says "Your either with us, or with the terrorists", but quite simply, Bush is cool with some of these terrorist actions.

I myself, am not cool with any terrorist action - and in that, I am AGAINST BUSH (because he is okay with terrorism - when it suits him).

I find it very interesting that Bush is so comfortable with Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan as allies(all 3 have terrorist ties and horrible human rights records), in a post-9/11 reality. The Achilles heel of terrorism is the Wahabi Madras schools supported by these Saudi creep leaders. We have a President with a close financial relationship legacy with these creeps, and is pussy-footing around with them instead taking the gloves off.

Again, Bush is cool with terrorism when it suits him. But he cannot handle having any kind of opposition, and therefore insists on linking US with "the enemy"

2.) Again I disagree with YOU and BUSH. I DO believe that the war on Terrorism can be won. But Bush believes in fighting terrorists by creating more terrorists - by using the aged technique "my enemy's enemy is my friend". This strategy has NEVER worked, and has always made matters worse for US and the rest of the world.

I believe Bush when he says we cannot win the war on terror, because he is not fighting to win - he is fighting to fight more.

3.) John Kerry understands, like I do, that fighting terrorism is not a solo-sport. YOU MUST HAVE ALLIES. Occasionally, yes, we must "go it alone" or act pre-emptively (a drone launching missiles) - but in the case of the FULL-SCALE INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, you must go with allies. (PS, "allies" does not mean a chicken-shit coalition that say "yeah, thats cool" but wont put a boot on the ground, or a dime into the operation.)

With Bush's go-it-alone no-matter-what strategy, making Iraq a greater safe-haven for terrorists (than with Saddam in power), leaving Afghanistan a terrorist wild-card (Kabul still only secured area), his all-too-comfortable stance toward known terrorist supporters (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia), and his inability to create a strong-armed energy policy that would cut-off Saudi oil... these things combined HAVE MADE US LESS SAFE. "Smoke em out", "bring em on", or any other football cliches' will not alter this reality and make us safer.

When Cheney says what he said, he is playing politics - he knows that they've put us up shit-creek with no paddle. A vote for Bush will make us less safe, and more vulnerable to terrorist attacks

4.) I think that you either A.) have never read George Orwell's 1984 or B.) were under some delusion that it only applied to the Soviet Union, and could never happen to us.

George Orwell's nightmare vision applied to ANY society that values security over liberty.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" ~Benjamin Franklin

George Orwell's nightmare vision also saw the twisting of euphemisms into the public acceptence of antitheses - what Orwell calls "Newspeak":

War=Peace
Freedom=Slavery
Ignorance=Strength
(straight from 1984)

Bush has already told us that War=Peace. But he has also said Freedom=Slavery (talks about Liberation=Occupation ad nauseum). And now, with this complete acceptance to an Administration that makes empty claims to be strong - but has made us weaker, you have the Orwellian Trifecta fulfilled: Ignorance=Strength

So if you want to be a Big-Brother Kool-aid drinker, then go ahead. But please use another country for your un-American Orwellian Jonestown experiment.

adrian said...

Absolutely brilliant. That's one of the best comparisons I've seen yet of the Bush-Orwelian connection.

Call me crazy, but I like the fact that Kerry has somewhat nuanced opinions...because if you only ever see things in black and white, and never the shades of gray that life really is, then we'll never get out of this cycle of violence.

I literally shudder to think what four more years of Bush and his henchmen will bring.

Adrian