The Republican Party is an International Relations Nightmare, Disaster, and Greater Disaster-Waiting-To-Happen

I'm not into starting or embellishing 'witchhunts' where the wrong man, woman, party, or people get(s) nailed to the cross for something they don't, and/or didn't say, do, believe in, and/or deserve. I will write 'fingerpointing' essays (a term I just borrowed from the movie, 'I'm Not There') if I think the fingerpointing is deserved. Indeed, I will write a fingerpointing essay at Bush -- he's got a long list of fingerpointers pointing their collective fingers at him these days -- The Republican Party (old and new), McCain, Palin but I do not want to be stereotyped as a 'partisan' journalist. I am not 'anti-Republican' per se, nor am I 'pro-Democrat' per se. I will point my finger at Obama if I think he is distorting or fabricating the truth, or at Joe 'what's his name' if I think he is too invisible or too quiet in this close election race, or being outperformed by Palin, or put his foot in his mouth by plagerizing another man's speech and not at least giving him due credit for his contribution to the speech.

Furthermore, if I think I have been too hard on The Republicans (old and/or new), too hard on McCain, and/or too hard on Palin -- if I think that I have flown too far away from the truth, dived too far off the deep end, started engaging in 'rhetorical sophism' myself, even as I rail against those politicians who are in the habit of engaging in political and rhetorical sophism for the purpose of falsely stereotyping their political opponent, and/or their opponent's political position, and finally if I have crossed a line of journalist ethics, hit somebody below the belt with a comment, a piece of imagery, and/or a crude negative stereotype, then I will not be so proud, so arrogant, so uncaring about what I've written to retract a statement, even apologize for it, and try as best I can to correct what and where I've gone wrong -- in short, point my finger back at myself if it be so deserved.

I will not take responsibility for anyone who copies one of my essays onto another website and uses it in ways that are contradictory to the aims and goals of DGB Humanistic-Existential Philosophy. Nor will I take responsibility for anyone who quotes a passage from one of my essays without taking into context everything that is said within that essay. 'Snapshots' taken out of context can distort meaning.

However, I will take responsibility for anything that I have written within the context of this or any other essay that I have written in Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy. I will 'satirize' Governor Sarah Palin if I think that my satire is getting to the essence of something that is important. I, like millions of Americans -- and Canadians -- these days, is trying to get to, and at, the 'essence' of who Sarah Palin is, what she is made of, what makes her tick, what about her is real and what is fake, how close her words stay to the truth of what she is all about, vs. putting on a 'sophist, rhetorical, theatrical show' for the American people in order to get her and Senator McCain elected. Most important in all of this perhaps is the queston of just how 'right wing' she is and whether she is going to take us deeper and deeper into war, vs. eventually helping America and everybody else get out of the 'current hellhole in the Middle East' -- not to mention, opening up any possible new ones in, and around North Korea, Russian.

We have to remember that 'The Masters of War' live -- and die -- off of statements like: 'I am proud my son is going off to war for the right reason' -- as if there is any 'right reason' for war.

We have to remember too, that it is easy to label anyone a 'terrorist'. You just go to the person's country and shoot up the person's family and/or friends. Then you label him (or her) a 'terrorist' when he (or she) comes back looking for you. We used to use the term 'Communist' in the same sense -- to embellish fear and paranoia, and to justify more 'witchhunting' and more killing. It is a 're-cycling of McCartyism'. These types of terms -- 'terrorists' and 'insurgents' -- are constantly used by 'The Masters of War' (with credit going to Bob Dylan for borrowing his term), the 'marketers of war', the 'propogandizers of war'.

So if I get partly carried away with my negative comments, my negative analogies, my negative imagery, it is because I am becoming more and more sick of war, more and more sick of innocent lives being lost -- with American troops now crossing the border of Afghanastan into Pakistan to do 'raids' in a country they have absolutely no right to be in without the explicit consent of a country that is supposed to be America's 'ally'. How long can we expect Pakistan to stay an American ally when America is crossing their border in 'covert raids' that kill their innocent citizens in the 'bombs' and 'crossfire'... Does America really think that the rest of the world will support this type of action when each and every country knows that they could just as easily be the next country that is invaded? This is not 'international democracy'; it is a continuation of the policy and philosophy of 'Republican unilateralism'. How can America believe that it is in any way 'teaching the rest of the world democracy' when it keeps invading new countries unilaterally -- with absolutely no type of international consent -- supposedly in the name of democracy? This would be absolutely laughable if it was not so terrifying to world peace. And meanwhile, Governor Palin continues to stand up there on platform after platform preaching that 'we are going to war for the right reason -- democracy'. America -- please see through hypocrisy!

This introductory paragraphs above were written on the morning of September 20th, 2008in response to a deservedly negative American reaction against a Canadian journalist's article that has been on a government-sponsored Canadian website for allegedly about a week now in which the author goes deeper off the deep end in her rhetorical attacks against Palin using very crude language that you will never see used or supported here. My goal here is to try to stop all the innocent people who are being killed and/or otherwise traumatized by war -- and in doing so, to stay as close as I possibly can to the 'truth'; I do not mind my work being examined by the 'truth police'. I would rather modify my rhetorical statements if I deem them to be false, than 'prop up my argument and tear down my opponent with negative sophism'.

Enough said for this morning. I will take some time to re-read and re-examine what I wrote yesterday. -- dgb, Sept. 20th, 2008.

...........................................................................

Has anyone read what is happening in Pakistan right now? I included two articles on American forces invading Pakistan looking for Al Queda both above and below this essay. I shudder and shake my head. This is unbelievable.

Can you imagine what would happen if another country invaded America looking to kill terrorists? Where innocent Americans were killed in the 'crossfire' and/or 'coalateral damage'?

Where are the brains of the people working at the whitehouse? Who gave American soldiers the right to invade Pakistan? Again -- unilaterally! No consent from Pakistan? Of course not -- what leadership of what country would give America permission to kill their innocent civilians? Terrorists or no terrorists within the country. Again, no permission from the United Nations. No word from NATO. Just America going it alone -- regardless of what country and what people they blow up in the process!

With all due respect to 'America As A Whole' -- which is a critical distintion that needs to be made and which is where both the Reverend and Mrs. Obama got into serious trouble for not making this distinction: specifically, differentiating between 'the goodwill of the American people as a whole' who I want nothing but the best for as if I was an American myself, and this 'type of pathological Bush-led Republican leadership' that seems intent on starting up another war before they leave office. What greater disaster can they add to their legacy?

You don't think that telling the world that America wanted to plant missiles in Eastern Europe was just about as stupid as stupid can be! How do you think Russia and all those Eastern Europeon and Asian countries would feel about this? How would America like it if Russia told the world that they were going to plant some missiles in Cuba? Or in The Arctic above Canada which they were to claim was 'international territory'. How do you think Canadians would feel about this let alone Americans?

Did everyone one of The Republicans currently in the Whitehouse executive decision-making circles -- fail 'international relations and diplomacy'?

Does the George Bush-led Republicans believe that is absolutely immune to any and all forms of international law and justice?

This present Republican Party must have watched 'Dr. Strangelove' -- and taken it seriously rather than as a satire.
Again, I shake my head in total disbelief!

Afghanastan was one thing -- America had the support of the world on this one as they pushed into Afghanastan looking for Al Queda -- and even the Taliban.

Iraq was a whole different matter. Sadaam Hussein was obviously a sociopathic leader -- but there are lots of those in the world, and nobody to my knowledge, every connected Sadaam Hussein to 9/11. Nor any 'weapons of mass destruction' that Sadaam was intent on letting off at a moment's notice. Sure, he might have done it if he had the capability -- but false 'war propoganda' as it would seem now was being used to connect Sadaam to capabilities that he did not have.

And besides, the hunt was supposed to be for Bin Laden. Again, the world was all in support of America hunting down Bin Laden. Surround him, contain him, prevent he and his men from escaping into Pakistan -- this would have to be lesson 101 in any military and/or SWAT training manuel.

And yet, Bin Laden and his men escaped into Pakistan! What kind of military stupidity was this?

Not only that -- but even worse -- America split its military into two fronts! Now they were invading Iraq! Bin Laden was all but forgotten. American troops were barely even chasing him anymore! Their main focus became Iraq and Sadaam Hussein! How in the heck do you explain this? To the American people, let alone the world?

Here's what you do: you feed them false 'war propoganda' exaggerating both Sadaam's connection with Al Queda, and his capability in Iraq for 'creating mass destruction' in enemy countries -- mainly America -- where he didn't even have the missile capability of flying and closing the distance that separated Iraq -- and a lot of ocean -- from America.

But the CIA had 'pictures'. Remember that! Fear-mongering -- that's what this was. If you want to start a war, just convince the people of your nation that you are about to be attacked! Then it becomes: 'Pro-active, pre-emptive, self-defense'! How many judges and juries have heard that line a million times? I killed the man, Your Honor, because I thought he was going to kill me. So I killed him first! 'Pro-active, pre-emptive self-defense'! Never mind that the man I killed didn't have a weapon to kill me. He just looked like he wanted to kill me. It's my thoughts that count, even if they turn out to be totally empirically unsupported, and most of you might therefore believe them to be untrue. But I knew -- and still know -- better. I was totally justified in what I did. We live in a dangerous world, you know. It's 'Lord of The Flies'. It's 'Darwinian Survival of The Fittest'. It's 'kill or be killed'.

How many judges and juries would believe that line of reasoning.

Let's put it this way -- very succinctly: The American People and The World as A Whole were 'bamboozled' by a group of Republican 'sophists' and 'war-propogandists' with seemingly no ethical regard for the 'unembellished and undistorted truth'.

It destroyed Tony Blair's political career and left him with a legacy that will be almost as bad as Bush's for the one blunderous move that they both made at the same time, hand in hand: invading Iraq without the consent of The United Nations and, more than that, as it turned out later, any 'epistemological justification' that had any co-relation to the 'objective reality in Iraq' that they were claiming to be as real as the recent collapse on Wall Street.

And in doing so -- again, hand in hand while they thumbed up their respective noses at The United Nations and The World as A Whole -- it destroyed both of the respective economies of the countries they were supposed to be leading. Not to mention destroying the international relations reputation that both countries held in the world before this collosal double-headed foreign relations and economic disaster.

The soon-to-be, McCain-led Republican Party doesn't get it either. They keep differentiating themselves from Bush. Tell the American people how they are going to ride in on their 'dual white horses' -- the totally legitimate and respected war hero on the one horse who still doesn't seem to understand that 'for every enemy you kill, 'crossfire and colateral damage' is likely to create ten more; and the barracuda or pitbull with lipstick on calls herself a 'pro-lifer', seems to enjoy and support recreational hunting -- even aerial hunting -- has no problem 'not blinking' as she sends at one of her sons off to war.

I keep hearing how 'proud Ms. Palin is to be sending her son off to war for the right reason'; I would just once like to hear react as most mothers would and say that she is scared to death to send her son off to Iraq. I know, as a father, that would be by far my dominant emotion. With all due respect, from what I am hearing you say -- and mean -- you can take your 'hard right' Republican pride back to your hunter friends in Alaska -- and/or even better, take them on 'a hunting trip' to Iraq or Afghanastan. Then they'll get a 'real thrill' -- when they find that their 'hunting game' shoots back! (And let me try to be perfectly clear here: I am not negatively sstirizing the type of hunter who has to hunt for a living, or hunt to feed his family -- not at all; rather, I am satirizing the 'recreational hunter', the hunter that hants and kills for the 'thrill of it all', the worst of the worst being those 'aerial hunters' who we saw pictures of on CNN. Also, I am satirizing those hunters and/or 'hard right wiingers' who proclaim to be 'pro-lifers' or 'anti-abortionists' on the one hand -- they may even go to Church every Sunday and proclaim or even believe themselves to be good 'Christians' -- while at the same time they are the first people to have our young kids go marching off to war, to proclaim that 'they have the right to bear arms', to keep a gun in their house, and quite frankly, 'enjoy the power of a gun', whethr you want to give a Freudian interpretation to that or not. These are the people I am satirizing -- and right now, unless or until I view her differently, I include Sarah Palin in that category.)

My experience with 'Republican Pride' is that it keeps starting up new wars in the name of 'democratizing the world' and/or in the name of 'national security'. I'd like to know how it can be in the name of national security to have about half the world as your enemy -- and growing. Here's how you do it: just keep invading the countries that are now your allies.

I hear not a whisper or a word of protest from either McCain's or Palin's mouth (or for that matter Obama's) as word leaks out as the American army has invaded a part of Pakistan and killed innocent civilians -- as I hear Bush's new head of defense -- Gates -- just finish apologizing for killing innocent civilians in Afghanastan. And these 'new' and 'old' Republicans call themselves 'pro-lifers'. Are there any 'real pro-life' Republicans out there -- someone with real courage who can say enough is enough: we are not invading any more new countries?

The American Republican Party -- old and new -- are, to use the Dylan phrase, 'Masters of War'; they are not 'Masters of Self-Defense'. If they were, they would not constantly be looking for excuses to invade new countries.

How many more countries does America need to invade in the name of 'pro-active, pre-emptive, justice, freedom, democracy, God, and country -- before we all take one gigantic step back and say to ourselves,

Maybe Madonna -- and the Nazi imagery that she showed at her concert -- wasn't so stupid and grossly out in left field after all.'

Isn't it time that somebody got their head back on straight? And if the Republican Party can't do it -- which it certainly looks that way to me -- then, how many people have to die, how many new war fronts have to be opened up -- Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Saudia Arabia, North Korea? -- before the American people get it right and vote Obama and The Democrats into power.

Obama is the only leader in this election campaigning in the name of 'differential unity' and 'integrationism'. With The Republians its all about 'divisionism'. It's all about 'either/or'. It's all about Nationalism. It's all about Patriotism. It's all about 'not blinking'. Send your child to war -- and don't blink. Be a 'real' man or a 'real' woman. Shoot up testosterone. Be a Republican. Be a pitbull or a barracuda with lipstick on.

To my memory, there was only one political party, indeed, only one political leader at the start of this election process that was talking about 'reforming Washington and eliminating the ability of lobbyists 'to pull strings and control the political, legal, and economic policies in Washinton'. That was Obama. To me, the difference between Obama and the McCain-Palin 'reform ticket' is the difference between a rolex watch and a replica. It is the difference between a 'real' essay or speech -- and a 'plagerized' one. (With all due respect, that applies to you too Mr. Joe Biden because plagerized speeches don't look good on you. Surely, you should have enough good speech writers in the Democratic Party that you do not have to recycle someone else's old speeches -- and worse, not give them credit for it. Right now, Mr. Biden, rhetorically and motivationally speaking, Mrs. Palin has been out-performing you even though you may have a ton more experience than her, and you may have strong character qualities in your own right. Still, it's all about the 'now' -- and getting the 'Obama-Biden' tandem back on the right track with the American people without being 'derailed' by Republican shananagans.)

I remember someone saying not too long ago that, 'You can wrap up an old fish in new paper. But it's still going to stink.' Obama had a perfect right to make this complaint against the Republican's 'new, Convention-engineered, get on the Democrat boat and reform Washington stance'. America, don't be fooled by the Republican's 'Johnny come lately-let's jump on a winning horse' rhetoric. I call their 'maverick' and 'reform' stance 'flip-flopping'. This kind of talk was not on their party platform before Palin arrived on the scene. The Republicans 'stole' from the Obama playbook. They liked how the 'anti-lobbyist play' was working for Obama so they copied it -- with a young (by political standards), vibrant, beautiful, rhetorically-sharp female vice-president who seemingly came out of nowhere (Alaska) to give her own unique rendition of what Obama was doing from the start.

Same with the direction out a bankrupt economy. The direction here is not the Republican direction to lower taxes for the richest people in America. This makes their 'anti-lobbyist' political stance seem very shallow if not downright fake.

The McCain-led Republican Party looks to me like they are chastising these Washington lobbyists with the finger on one hand in front of the American people -- while they still have their other hand reaching out for 'political support' in the back meeting rooms of the Republicans and lobbyists.

I loved Obama's line earlier this week some time. He called the meetings the Republicans had with the seven biggest corporate lobbyists in America -- a 'staff meeting'. This to me, is the 'same old, same old'. It's the same 'GOP' (Good Old Party) -- the same 'GOB' (Good Old Boys with the addition of one 'Good-looking Middle Age Woman with strong 'GOP' principles).'

Call these 'Republican-Lobbyist meetings the 'oil of mutual back rubbing'. And then The Two Republicans -- The 'Maverick' and 'The Barracuda or Pitbull With Lipstick On' get on stage and do their best 'Obama impressions' (Palin does it much better and is so good she is almost believable if it weren't for the context and the history of the whole situation. They both stand up there -- separately or together -- shaking their respective fingers at 'those bad, bad lobbyists'. Meanwhile, lobbyist deals continue to be negotiated and finalized under the cloak of privacy and darkness, not under the transparency of what should be a 'real democracy' and 'equal opportunity Capitalism' -- where every American is involved; not just the rich and elite. McCain calling Obama 'elite' -- that is laughable. Who is the prospective President here who wants lower taxes for himself and his elitist buddies while the rest of America does not get to enjoy anywhere near the same kind of tax breaks -- or even the same kind of percentage of tax breaks. Who needs the tax breaks more: McCain and his lobbyist friends? Or the rest of the working middle and lower class American people?

McCain says that Obama is going to add an extra tax burden onto the American people. No, Mr. McCain, Obama is simply going to add extra taxes onto you and your lobbyist friends -- as well as himself. That's what I like -- a politician (Obama) who is willing to pay for the sins of the Greedy in Washington and on Wall Street that hurt the American people. Out of his own pocket. That's one thing that I rarely hear about a rich politician who is willing to pay a bill or take a hit out of his or her own pocket book. Unless there is something coming back on the other end. Usually that is from a corporate lobbyist.

So yes, Senator McCain and Govenor Palin -- your 'anti-lobbyist stance' is great American theatre. But (have I used this analogy already?) it's like a replica of a rolex watch. The rolex watch -- i.e. the real anti-lobbyist -- is Obama.


Kudos for Bush on one move that may actually turn out to be a good one. His 'half a trillion dollar bailout on Wall Street' seems to have done immediate wonders for the confidence of Wall Street investors. So far, so good. Time will tell.

However, let us not forget that it was the Republicans that created the mess in the first place. And aside from the lending fiasco that cannot be undone, the direction out of a bankrupt economy is the same direction as the direction in. And that is out of Iraq. Out of a 'double war-created deficit'. Reduce the huge, huge amount of money going to two different warfronts.

There is only one party in America that seems seriously interested in doing that.

And I don't think I have to tell you any more which party that is.

Goodnight.

-- dgb, Sept. 16th-19th, 2008.

Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party (Original Sept. 7th, 2008, Part 1 Edition)

The impetus for this paper -- and what will likely become a series of papers -- came out of my Sept. 6th, 2008 preface to my 1979 Honors Thesis in psychology called -- 'Evaluation and Health'.

Here is the particular paragraph of my preface yesterday that stimulated what is about to develop here:

..............................................

In particular, Evaluation and Health provides a good introductory study of General Semantics through these two classic General Semantic books: Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933; and H.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1949, updated and republished about 6 times).

The General Semantics of Korzybski and Hayakawa provide the main philosophical grounding for DGB Epistemology and much of what would, or what has, developed into DGB Dialectic Philosophy as a whole. Wrote Hayakawa, regarding his classic introductory book to General Semantics:

"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."

See my article on the American Politics blogsite called, Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party. It should be finished by lunch tomorrow, Sunday September 7th, 2008, unless I get carried away with it.

............................................................................

Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party

Madonna may have been strongly criticized for her visual political connections between Nazism and The Republican Party but sometimes I too can start to see some scary parallels between Republican right-wing extremism, nationalism, and patriotism on the one hand -- and the same type of German right wing extremism, Nationalism and Patriotism that led Hitler, Germany, and half the world off the deep end, and into destruction and self-destruction, in World War 11.

We all have to be very careful how we use the word 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' because these words can be used pathologically such as in the Hitler regime -- and in the McCarthy era -- to negatively stereotype anyone who doesn't look the same as us and/or anyone who doesn't believe the same as us -- or anyone who doesn't believe the same as the American Republican Party (even though there is 'differential unity' -- or 'faked unity' or 'masked disunity' -- within the confines of The American Republican Party itself. There are differences in the degree of 'right wing extremism vs. moderation' as well as on many of the separate national issues such as 'pro-life' vs. 'pro-choice').

Once a word is 'negatively stereotyped' -- like 'communist' or 'socialist' or 'left wing' or 'terrorist' or 'insurgent' -- then anyone so labelled in a context/environment of fear and paranoia -- can become the subject of a civil and/or political witch hunt including degradation, humiliation, condemnation, punishment, imprisonment, torture, execution...

Unfortunately, this type of negative stereotyping and discrimination represents a number of sad chapters in American history -- slavery, The Civil War... -- but we as both individual and collective members of the human race -- and what is meant to be a 'civilian' -- must be extremely careful that we don't go back in history and repeat ourselves. This type of phenomena is based on a combination of ignorance, fear, anxiety, paranoia often masked as 'righteous intolerance' and a 'righteous superiority complex'.

In times of war -- or fear of war -- political divisionism can easily explode into more and more spiralling negative stereotypes, discrimination, hatred -- and violence.

It is easy to be 'nationalistic' and 'patriotic' -- until your son (or daughter) comes home in a box.

And then people might finally start taking a closer look at the 'nationalistic' and 'patriotic' leaders who are using nationalistic and patriotic rhetoric to the rhythm of 'war drums' to stir us up into an angry, discriminatory, hateful frenzy. 'Yes! We can and will defeat all evil in the world that is unwilling to march to the American drum...'

It is a 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry'/Wild West approach to justice. You are either with me or you are against me. And if you are against me, then you are evil. Or you are weak. You have no onions. No courage. No testosterone. You're a wus, a weakling, a wimp...unwilling or unable to stand up to the evil in this world. And you are a part of this evil because you are too weak and unwilling to confront evil when it confronts you...When the going gets tough, the tough get going...'

This is a tried and true formula for The Republican Party. It works like a charm. Emasculate your opponent. It worked for Bush, and now just recently, after the Democrats got rousing speeches, ovations, and energy at their own convention from Jackson Junior, both Clintons, Biden, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama himself...and their was the danger of again falling behind in the polls to the Democrats after McCain had just caught up...it was obviously time to bring out the 'attack dogs' again...You thought Biden was good...this is what the Republicans do best -- humiliate their Democrat opponent with 'negative campaign ads and speeches'...

If you were watching and listening to the Republican speeches this week, they lined up the attack dogs...and let them loose...Bush on video talked about 'angry left'...but this was nothing compared to what was coming...

Mitt Romney gave an 'Adam Smith' type speech -- and I admire Adam Smith but, personally, I think Adam Smith would be embarrassed and disgusted with The Republican rendition of 'free market Capitalism'...Adam Smith distrusted rich business owners...and with good reason...they can manipulate and exploit the 'free market'. Washington during the Bush-Republican Administration is only the latest, most blatant example of this fact... We will talk more about Mitt Romney later...I have mixed thoughts and feelings on Mitt Romney which I wish to explore in another essay...Right now, I do believe he is probably the best economist in America -- the one with the most likelihood of turning the American economy around -- but probably not in an overall Republican 'GOP' context of corrupt politics, business, and lobbyism...

Then came the real 'Rottweillers', 'Dobermans', 'pitbulls' -- and shall we say 'barracudas'...

Rudolph Giuliani: After a brief introduction, he went straight for Obama's jugular vein...in prototypical good attack dog fashion... I can't remember all the blows and bites...but they all seemed orchestrated around the idea of having 'two resumes in front of his face: McCain's and Obama's...

Giuliani made his point -- the usual Republican point -- Obama's too inexperienced, he does not have enough intestinal fortitude to make the really hard political and business decisions to be an American Commander-in-Chief, he 'flipflops', he says what is 'politically expedient', he wavers when he gets into trouble, he doesn't have one firm, stable point of view, he's only been a community worker...how many Bills has he put through as a Senator?...and so on...Palin would pick up all of these same themes and run them out there again for The American people to hear again...in her own fresh, 'new-to-the-American-people-who-don't-live-in-Alaska'-barracuda' style...But I'm getting ahead of myself...

Regarding Giuliani, time will tell Mr. Giuliani whether you are right or you are wrong, and before that even perhaps, time will tell whether you rained enough negative blows and bites on Obama to scare away the American people from voting for him...The crucial question: Is Obama too weak and too indecisive, particularly in a time of war and/or the threats of new pending wars due to countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea beating their war drums on anywhere from a semi-regular to regular basis?...That's what the Republican Party is asking the American people -- quite sarcastically I might add: Does Obama basically have enough Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry testosterone in him? And you know how the Republican Party would love for the American people to answer that question: Vote Republican -- 'for the real men' -- and 'the barracuda woman'.

And again, before we leave Giuliani, let me say this: You may or may not be right in some, or all, of your criticisms of Obama but there are some obvious differences between you and Obama that you did not focus on -- and I will, in the name of, shall we say, 'political transparency and a debater's give and take'. Remember, there are no 'counterpunches' and 'counterbites' at Republican Convention...You are only immue from criticism yourself while you are in the friendly confines of the Arena...Once you leave the arena, you too are fair -- and foul -- political game. I don't have to tell you, Mr. Giuliani that 'What goes around comes around.' So stand or sit wherever you may be and take some -- shall we say -- 'return volleys':

Obama knows how to inspire hope and optimism in people where it is obvious from your speech, Mr. Giuliani, that you are much better at ridiculing and demeaning people than you are at inspiring people with hope and optimism. In these bleak American economic and war-infested times -- and excuse me if I forgot anything you may or may not have said, Mr. Giuliani, about the economy and about ending the war -- anyways, regarding Obama's obviously superior strength over you and everyone else in the Republican Party that is not wearing a dress at inspiring people with hope and optimism -- maybe that is why you are no longer a Republican candidate. Was your speech one of 'sour grapes', Mr. Giuliani?

When I hear Barack Obama speak, I am inspired -- inspired even to vote and to politically participate in what a 'democracy' should be, and can be, in the hands of the right people with the right spirit, the right intent, the right goals, the right dream. And with Obama, that dream, in these bleak economic, war-infested, energy challenged, environmentally polluted, global-warming times, inspires even something more than can be captured in the dream of 'the pursuit of health, happiness, and prosperity'.

When Obama talks, I have visions of Martin Luther King streaming through my brain -- and that is something I will never, never say about you and your 'attack dog mentality and ridicule your opponent' speech there, Mr. Giuliani. Did you inspire any new and fresh hope of what The Republican Party can be? Or did you just offer up more Republican poison and 'macho bullcrap' to the American people which we have seen and heard from the Bush-led Republican Party and Administration over the last eight years -- and what got the American people to the bleak and dreary hole that they are now trying desperately to climb their way back out of -- in the first place.

Yes, Mr. Giuliani -- for a political party that is trying desperately to separate itself with as much distance as possible from the soon to be departing Bush Administration -- you just offered up more of the same. Political and economic narissism and sophism. Idealistic 'macho' mysticism hiding the sorry, corrupted, and poisonous truth of what really happens in The Republican regime: The party aims to divide and conquer people -- which is what it is trying to do between the American people and Obama, right now.

My question is this: How can The Republican Party control and reverse the evil abroad when they don't even know how to control and reverse it at home -- in their own party. 'Imperialism is good' to the GOP Republican. Or should I say: 'Good for the GOP Republican? So too is lobbyism. And political-corporate narcissism -- anything that is good for the top economic layer of American society is good for The GOP Republican Party. Then hide it with 'mysticism' and 'sophism'. Hide it with GOP Republican -- Adam Smith -- Idealism. And then blame anything else that is left over -- anything that people may actually want to disagree on relative to the teeterng, hypocritical, and self-destructive ideology of The GOP Republican Party -- on 'the angry left'.

Bush still doesn't get it. And neither, obviously, does Giuliani. Maybe they can both start up a GOP 'oldtimers' Republican Party and talk about 'GOD' -- that's a DGB acronym for -- 'Good Old Days'.

Should McCain be included in the 'new' Republican Party? Or the 'old' one? That is the 50 million dollar question.

It's amazing how The Republican Party all of a sudden 'changed campaign horses right in midstream'. Actually, not in midstream -- rather, almost at the end of their stream. Their Republican horse was starting to run out of energy, losing the power and thrust in its legs -- so right in the middle of The Republican Convention, towards the end of the stream (as we are finally getting pretty close to the election now) -- the Republicans jump off their Republican horse and jump onto a Democratic horse! What's with this? What happened?

I will tell you what happened. When I first heard Obama speak - and it was probably about a year or so ago now, that I first heard him speak on 'The Larry King Show' -- I was impressed. Not for any other reason than the fact that he was talking about getting rid of the 'special interest lobbyists' in Washington -- or at least derailing their power of influence.

I know I was left thinking, 'Wow, this guy got some onions, some serious testosterone. (Well, maybe not in those words, but you get the idea of what I'm starting to come at here...)

I remember thinking, 'Never, never do I remember an American politician -- or a Canadian politician for that matter -- talk about addressing and getting rid of the special interest lobbyism problem in Washington (or Ottawa). Maybe this 'Obama' guy -- who I had never seen or heard before that day -- really is interested in addressing a serious type of political change in America. A politics of 'differential unity' and a 'democracy for the middle and lower class -- as well as the upper class'. It is one thing for a politician to talk about the 'American Dream'. It is another thing for a politician to seriously talk about the types of democratic changes that need to be made in order to make the American Dream accessible to all Americans regardless of class or color or religion; not just for that elite section of society that has 'networking contacts and power strings that they can pull at a moment's notice' in Washington.

So anyway, yes indeed, this 'anti-special-interest-lobbyism-in-Washington' factor did start to become a major thrust in the Obama-Democratic campaign. I don't even think it was a part of the Clinton campaign, let alone any one of GOP Republican campaigns...If you go back and check the records of about a year or so ago, I don't think you will hear any Republican -- not McCain, not Romney, not Huckabee, not Giuliani, not anyone -- making a peep about 'getting rid of lobbyism and lobbyists in Washington'.

But Obama was making great headway with this and other parts of his Democratic campaign. He had a fresh, energetic horse crossing the stream -- and it was still fresh and energetic as it started to close in on the final end of the stream.

So what do The Republicans do? A year or so later...

They say...'Hmmm, I like that 'breed' of campaign horse. Are there any others of this 'Obama' breed around?

And someone else in the Republican Party chirped up, 'Yeah, sure, I can find you one of that kind, that breed. I hear they breed them up in Alaska! Part barracuda, part attack dog, part pitull -- and part, sleek race horse too. Even better still -- she's partly a woman too! And a fine looking one at that. Just what a fading GOP -- or is it 'GOB' -- that's a DGB acronym for 'Good Old Boys' -- just what a fast fading Republican Party needs for a strong finishing kick before the election: A beautiful woman with a radiating smile -- perhaps she can be marketed as a female rendition of Obama? -- yes a female rendition of Obama who can almost speak like him but with the underlying jaws of a barracuda beneath that perfectly sexy, womanly smile -- or is it a Rottweiler? A Doberman? A pitbull? A racehorse? Did I miss anything?

Oh yes, a woman who won't sit down when you tell her to sit down. That's nice. Does that mean she doesn't know how to listen? Does that mean she is so narcissistic that she does not know how to see beyond her own face? Does that mean that any other opinion, especially among the men she will be mainly debating with, is an opinion that needs to be connected to its masculine owner and then, well the owner of the opinion needs to be -- emasculated?

Well, Ms. - or is it Mrs., or Governor -- Sarah Palin, I think I might have said this earlier: 'What goes around comes around'. 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander'. 'What's fair is fair'. Or is it, 'All's fair in love and war.' That actually may be more appropriate to this circumstance, this context. 'Ms. Palin, you have set yourself up with a Republican bullseye on your heart.

I remember reading a book on Canadian history (Will Ferguson, Canadian History for Dummies, 2000). According to Ferguson, they used to call the early feminists in the early 1900s 'hyenas in petticoats'.

I have all the respect in the world for these ladies -- and I mean that seriously -- Nellie McClung in particular.

'Never retract, never explain, never apologize -- just get the job done and let them howl.' -- personal motto of activist Nellie McClung

I can certainly see some of the spirit of Nellie McClung in you, Ms. Palin. 'Just get the job done and let them howl'.

DGB Philosophy -- and for better or for worse, through fair and foul weather, I am the one and only founder of DGB Philosophy -- believes in equal rights for both sexes, all religions, all colors...

But with equal rights -- and often we all forget this, particularly the equal rights special interests groups and every politician and citizen who hangs on to the concept and practise of 'political correctness' for dear life -- with equal rights -- comes equal responsibility and accountability.

My point here, Ms. Palin, is that Mr. Obama I think has tried for the most part to debate political issues 'above the belt' in a spirit of fairness, respect, and integrity -- without delving seriously into the area of 'character assasinations', 'negative stereotyping' and/or trying to 'emasculate his opponent' -- or in your case, that might mean 'masculating you'.

It's like Obama wants to conduct a boxing match with boxing gloves on while you Ms. Palin -- and the rest of your Republican Party -- seem intent on packing 'steel' inside your boxing gloves. Okay, let's have a little boxing match here -- steel for steel, wit for wit. I agree, it's kind of fun when your'e on the top end delivering the blow, not on the bottom end receiving it.

DGB Deconstructionism seeks to reverse the direction of flight of all negative stereotypes and critcisms so that they land back in the face of the person and/or the party that initially threw the first 'punch of steel', the first serious negative stereotype and/or character assination, and/or hyocritical statement.

Such as: McCain and The Republican Party riding a Republican horse (not a peep or sound about 'anti-lobbyism' until their convention). But then they saw that Obama was riding a faster, stronger, more energized campaign horse, so then they went out and got one too -- a Democratic racehorse with Alaskan barracuda jaws -- one that is going to shake up Washinton and derail all the 'GOB' ('Good Old Boy') lobbyists who will now die with the Bush regime, not move on to the McCain regime. Funny, but I never heard a word about 'anti-lobbyism' earlier in your campaign, Mr. McCain. Isn't that what you -- and Giuliani and Ms. Palin -- would call 'flipflopping'. Not having the intestinal fortitude -- or the 'onions' -- of sticking with what you believed, or rather, didn't believe -- through all the earlier parts of your campaign. I do believe that you flip-flopped -- exactly what you complained of most about Obama at your campaign convention. I think that is what you would call -- 'hypocrisy'. And it certainly isn't very 'macho-like', very 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry/Wild West' like.

That was very sneaky, Mr. McCain. Was that the work of you or your chief Republican strategist?

or was it you, Mr. McCain, who wanted the one and only, the beautiful and sexy, the charasmatic, Ms. Sarah Palin, the female rendition of Obama with a much sharper bite -- i.e., 'The Alaskan Barracuda -- with a Republican jock strap on.'

Are you ready for some more, Ms. Palin. Can you take a punch or a bite as well as you can give it? ..

Ms. Palin; No abortions on your watch...but you have no problem sending any American 18, 19, and 20 year old son off to Iraq, including it almost would seem, your own son or sons. How do you explain that one? Isn't that a little hypocritical? Personally, I would be eating myself alive -- or someone at the top of the Republican Party, like you -- if it was my son going to Iraq to fight a war based on Repubican 'false epistemology' -- that is Republican narcissism, sophism and -- propoganda. Maybe you can tell me Ms. Palin, seeing as Mr. Bush doesn't seem to have done too well on this account:

Just where are those 'weapons of mass destruction in Iraq' again?

On that one television show -- I forget who chaired it, some religious person who did a very good job at interviewing both Obama and McCain -- and both were asked the same questions, on the spot improvisation in the case of Obama since he started first, and assumedly unrehearsed on McCain's part even though he arrived a little late at the forum -- and I don't think his private limo was exactly 'the cone of silence' that the interviewer and the American people were expecting.

Anyway, both were asked a question something along the lines of: 'What would you do as American President about evil?

And Senator McCain, the fighter pilot, John McCain -- gave just the answer the American people wanted to hear: Don't quote me exactly, but basically he said: 'Defeat it!' -- in strong Republican, Clint Eastwood (Is Clint Eastwood a Republican or a Democrat?), Dirty Harry, Wild West fashion.

Yes, that's what the American people wanted to hear. No wavering. No equivocation. No hesitation. No hemming and hawing. No 'boundary straddling' or 'fence hopping'. Just -- 'GOF' (that's a DGB anacronym for 'Good Old Fashioned') 'We're the good guys and we kick the butts of the bad guys!'

'Either/or'. 'Good or bad'. 'Good and evil.' 'Black and white'. That's the philosophy -- the ideology -- of The 'GOB' (Good Old Boy) Republican Party, and don't you ever forget it. Macho, macho man. I wanna be a Republican macho man!

America, hang with us. We will save you! We may send all our young adults to war and some of them --many of them -- might not come back again, or they might come back beaten up and/or disfigured. We may stand by while the banks foreclose your homes. We may stand by while the oil companies rob you blind. We may even stand by while all our manufacturing companies move to China, or Mexico, or basically anywhere where they can find cheap, cheap labor. You know, its the priciple of 'free trade'. In order to 'compete' with countries who have cheap, cheap labor, we need to move our manufacturing plants out of America and over to these same countries with the cheap labor. Then we can sell our goods back to you at a very cheap price! You can find them at your local department store! Beware of the Chinese and Mexican goods however. They may not be entirely safe. You know, these countries don't have quite the same safety measures and standards as we do. But that's why their goods are cheap. Watch the Mexican Jalapeno peppers. And the Chinese toys. Other than that the Republican lesson here regarding 'free trade' is simply this: 'If you can't beat them -- if you can't outcompete their cheap labor in China or Mexico or wherever -- then join them! Send our manufacturing firms there so they can take advantage of the cheap, cheap labor -- and the 'free trade' laws -- as well!

Tell me what a 'sweat shop' is again. Oh, America doesn't have to lose all their manufacturing plants and/or farms. Rather, here's a good idea for you manufacturing owners out there who are going out of business because of cheap imported goods. Just move your plants close to the border of Mexico -- and just wait til the Mexican 'sweat shops' come to you!

I think we were talking about 'evil' before I started to get distracted and carried away in a different direction. Or was/is it a different direction. I would call all of the above 'evil' to the American people.

But then there was Obama and he equivocated a little longer. Took a little longer to answer the question, from what I remember hearing about his reply. His answer -- and I don't remember it except in the gist of what I think he was trying to say -- was a little more convoluted, which was not quite the 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry/Wild West/Shoot From The Hip/Republican Type answer that the American people for the most part wanted to hear. Obama's ratings slipped, I do believe, a bit after this 'double header' interview.

I believe Obama was basically trying to say this, and if this is what he meant, then DGB Philosophy -- meaning I -- fully support this line of reasoning and argumentation. Paraphasing from what I believe he meant: 'It usually takes two to tango' -- and directly or indirectly, not always, but usually -- it takes two to start a war.

Worded otherwise, it's not only a matter of looking for 'evil' in other parts of the world, of chasing down and killing bad dictators, 'terrorists' and/or 'insurgents'. Even if America wanted to, they don't have the manpower and the money to fight all the different kinds of evil and unfreedom and narcissism that there is in the world. And more than this, there is another part of the problem -- and this is the part of the problem that I think Obama was trying to get at.

We also -- everyone of us, politician and citizen alike -- need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves bluntly and honestly and directly: How do we ourselves contribute to the 'evil' that there is in the world? Do our American politicians 'pamper' some countries, while punishing, and/or denying others? Does America sell nuclear arms -- or have they in the past -- to some countries while not to others? Does America torture? Why are so many American female soldiers coming back -- raped -- by America's own men. How can America expect other countries like Iran and North Korea be expected to 'disarm their nuclear weapons' when they are being pointed out by The American Bush-led Republican Party as being a 'part of the axis of evil' when the Bush-led Republican Party just happens to be in control of the largest asenal of nuclear weapons in the world? Not only that, but then all of Iran and North Korea and Russia see America invade Iraq with an 'epistemological justification' (remember again: Iraq was supposed to have 'weapons of mass destruction') -- that turned out to be totally phony propoganda and narcissistic sophistry. What is this, if it is not evil?

What's that quote from the Bible? Again, I can't remember exactly but it's something like this, and I am paraphrasing: 'Let no person throw the first stone that has committed a sin him or herself.'

What, Ms. Palin, did you say you were -- a 'pro-lifer'? How about 'hunting'? Aren't you a hunter -- for sport, or for survival and necessity? Is 'hunting for sport' being 'pro-life'? Isn't there something hypocritical about a hunter who hunts for sport saying that he or she is 'pro-life'. My dad took my brother and sister and me hunting for groundhogs once. He was a good shot. He hit the groundhog right between the eyes. We never went hunting again.

I say that refraining from hunting for sport, and refraining from turning war into an Olympic sports competition is being 'pro-life'. War is not about 'winning and losing'. In war, everyone loses.

So Ms. Palin, you're proud of the man who would sooner win a war than win an election. How about when the stakes are not an election -- but a life, a son, many lives, many sons, and even daughters now? Do you still feel the same?

I watched and listened to your speech -- and much of it was good -- a good Republican speech. You said you are going to shake up Washington -- presumably notably distinguish yourself from the Bush administration -- and stand up to special interests groups which you've already done in Alaska, in ways that no recent Republican administration has done before you...

But there was something about your speech that made me cringe...perhaps your barracuda bites that seemed at least partly -- if not more than partly -- aimed at Obama's 'manhood' -- or shall we say -- his courage, his decision-making, and his credibility to lead America'; his 'integrative, differential unity politics' which you called 'flip-flopping'. But as I've already demonstrated, Ms. Palin -- McCain and the whole Republican Party -- can 'flipflop' too -- and in fact, just did.

In this regard, you, Ms. Palin, have been annointed as the new Republican 'Alaskan barracuda with a jock strap on'. A Washington 'lobbyist buster'. Before you came upon the scene, Ms. Palin, it's funny, but that just happened to be a very, very large Republican 'middle class, public relations void'. We will see how long you can or will last playing that role, Ms. Palin. Playing the role of the mighty Greek Goddess -- Athena. Sister of the her Greek brother-God -- Ares. Both were into 'war'.

Anyways, Ms. Palin, enjoy your pedestal while you can: your moment of greater modesty and humility, and hopefully, compassion, will come; it will perhaps take a trip to the bottom of the Republican and/or American abyss in contrast to the top of the mountain -- before you get there.

Time will tell.

The impetus for this paper -- and what will likely become a series of papers -- came out of my Sept. 6th, 2008 preface to my 1979 Honors Thesis in psychology called -- 'Evaluation and Health'.

Here is the particular paragraph of my preface yesterday that stimulated what is about to develop here:

..............................................

In particular, Evaluation and Health provides a good introductory study of General Semantics through these two classic General Semantic books: Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933; and H.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1949, updated and republished about 6 times).

The General Semantics of Korzybski and Hayakawa provide the main philosophical grounding for DGB Epistemology and much of what would, or what has, developed into DGB Dialectic Philosophy as a whole. Wrote Hayakawa, regarding his classic introductory book to General Semantics:

"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."

See my article on the American Politics blogsite called, Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party. It should be finished by lunch tomorrow, Sunday September 7th, 2008, unless I get carried away with it.

............................................................................

Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party

Madonna may have been strongly criticized for her visual political connections between Nazism and The Republican Party but sometimes I too can start to see some scary parallels between Republican right-wing extremism, nationalism, and patriotism on the one hand -- and the same type of German right wing extremism, Nationalism and Patriotism that led Hitler, Germany, and half the world off the deep end, and into destruction and self-destruction, in World War 11.

We all have to be very careful how we use the word 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' because these words can be used pathologically such as in the Hitler regime -- and in the McCarthy era -- to negatively stereotype anyone who doesn't look the same as us and/or anyone who doesn't believe the same as us -- or anyone who doesn't believe the same as the American Republican Party (even though there is 'differential unity' -- or 'faked unity' or 'masked disunity' -- within the confines of The American Republican Party itself. There are differences in the degree of 'right wing extremism vs. moderation' as well as on many of the separate national issues such as 'pro-life' vs. 'pro-choice').

Once a word is 'negatively stereotyped' -- like 'communist' or 'socialist' or 'left wing' or 'terrorist' or 'insurgent' -- then anyone so labelled in a context/environment of fear and paranoia -- can become the subject of a civil and/or political witch hunt including degradation, humiliation, condemnation, punishment, imprisonment, torture, execution...

Unfortunately, this type of negative stereotyping and discrimination represents a number of sad chapters in American history -- slavery, The Civil War... -- but we as both individual and collective members of the human race -- and what is meant to be a 'civilian' -- must be extremely careful that we don't go back in history and repeat ourselves. This type of phenomena is based on a combination of ignorance, fear, anxiety, paranoia often masked as 'righteous intolerance' and a 'righteous superiority complex'.

In times of war -- or fear of war -- political divisionism can easily explode into more and more spiralling negative stereotypes, discrimination, hatred -- and violence.

It is easy to be 'nationalistic' and 'patriotic' -- until your son (or daughter) comes home in a box.

And then people might finally start taking a closer look at the 'nationalistic' and 'patriotic' leaders who are using nationalistic and patriotic rhetoric to the rhythm of 'war drums' to stir us up into an angry, discriminatory, hateful frenzy. 'Yes! We can and will defeat all evil in the world that is unwilling to march to the American drum...'

It is a 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry'/Wild West approach to justice. You are either with me or you are against me. And if you are against me, then you are evil. Or you are weak. You have no onions. No courage. No testosterone. You're a wus, a weakling, a wimp...unwilling or unable to stand up to the evil in this world. And you are a part of this evil because you are too weak and unwilling to confront evil when it confronts you...When the going gets tough, the tough get going...'

This is a tried and true formula for The Republican Party. It works like a charm. Emasculate your opponent. It worked for Bush, and now just recently, after the Democrats got rousing speeches, ovations, and energy at their own convention from Jackson Junior, both Clintons, Biden, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama himself...and their was the danger of again falling behind in the polls to the Democrats after McCain had just caught up...it was obviously time to bring out the 'attack dogs' again...You thought Biden was good...this is what the Republicans do best -- humiliate their Democrat opponent with 'negative campaign ads and speeches'...

If you were watching and listening to the Republican speeches this week, they lined up the attack dogs...and let them loose...Bush on video talked about 'angry left'...but this was nothing compared to what was coming...

Mitt Romney gave an 'Adam Smith' type speech -- and I admire Adam Smith but, personally, I think Adam Smith would be embarrassed and disgusted with The Republican rendition of 'free market Capitalism'...Adam Smith distrusted rich business owners...and with good reason...they can manipulate and exploit the 'free market'. Washington during the Bush-Republican Administration is only the latest, most blatant example of this fact... We will talk more about Mitt Romney later...I have mixed thoughts and feelings on Mitt Romney which I wish to explore in another essay...Right now, I do believe he is probably the best economist in America -- the one with the most likelihood of turning the American economy around -- but probably not in an overall Republican 'GOP' context of corrupt politics, business, and lobbyism...

Then came the real 'Rottweillers', 'Dobermans', 'pitbulls' -- and shall we say 'barracudas'...

Rudolph Giuliani: After a brief introduction, he went straight for Obama's jugular vein...in prototypical good attack dog fashion... I can't remember all the blows and bites...but they all seemed orchestrated around the idea of having 'two resumes in front of his face: McCain's and Obama's...

Giuliani made his point -- the usual Republican point -- Obama's too inexperienced, he does not have enough intestinal fortitude to make the really hard political and business decisions to be an American Commander-in-Chief, he 'flipflops', he says what is 'politically expedient', he wavers when he gets into trouble, he doesn't have one firm, stable point of view, he's only been a community worker...how many Bills has he put through as a Senator?...and so on...Palin would pick up all of these same themes and run them out there again for The American people to hear again...in her own fresh, 'new-to-the-American-people-who-don't-live-in-Alaska'-barracuda' style...But I'm getting ahead of myself...

Regarding Giuliani, time will tell Mr. Giuliani whether you are right or you are wrong, and before that even perhaps, time will tell whether you rained enough negative blows and bites on Obama to scare away the American people from voting for him...The crucial question: Is Obama too weak and too indecisive, particularly in a time of war and/or the threats of new pending wars due to countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea beating their war drums on anywhere from a semi-regular to regular basis?...That's what the Republican Party is asking the American people -- quite sarcastically I might add: Does Obama basically have enough Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry testosterone in him? And you know how the Republican Party would love for the American people to answer that question: Vote Republican -- 'for the real men' -- and 'the barracuda woman'.

And again, before we leave Giuliani, let me say this: You may or may not be right in some, or all, of your criticisms of Obama but there are some obvious differences between you and Obama that you did not focus on -- and I will, in the name of, shall we say, 'political transparency and a debater's give and take'. Remember, there are no 'counterpunches' and 'counterbites' at Republican Convention...You are only immue from criticism yourself while you are in the friendly confines of the Arena...Once you leave the arena, you too are fair -- and foul -- political game. I don't have to tell you, Mr. Giuliani that 'What goes around comes around.' So stand or sit wherever you may be and take some -- shall we say -- 'return volleys':

Obama knows how to inspire hope and optimism in people where it is obvious from your speech, Mr. Giuliani, that you are much better at ridiculing and demeaning people than you are at inspiring people with hope and optimism. In these bleak American economic and war-infested times -- and excuse me if I forgot anything you may or may not have said, Mr. Giuliani, about the economy and about ending the war -- anyways, regarding Obama's obviously superior strength over you and everyone else in the Republican Party that is not wearing a dress at inspiring people with hope and optimism -- maybe that is why you are no longer a Republican candidate. Was your speech one of 'sour grapes', Mr. Giuliani?

When I hear Barack Obama speak, I am inspired -- inspired even to vote and to politically participate in what a 'democracy' should be, and can be, in the hands of the right people with the right spirit, the right intent, the right goals, the right dream. And with Obama, that dream, in these bleak economic, war-infested, energy challenged, environmentally polluted, global-warming times, inspires even something more than can be captured in the dream of 'the pursuit of health, happiness, and prosperity'.

When Obama talks, I have visions of Martin Luther King streaming through my brain -- and that is something I will never, never say about you and your 'attack dog mentality and ridicule your opponent' speech there, Mr. Giuliani. Did you inspire any new and fresh hope of what The Republican Party can be? Or did you just offer up more Republican poison and 'macho bullcrap' to the American people which we have seen and heard from the Bush-led Republican Party and Administration over the last eight years -- and what got the American people to the bleak and dreary hole that they are now trying desperately to climb their way back out of -- in the first place.

Yes, Mr. Giuliani -- for a political party that is trying desperately to separate itself with as much distance as possible from the soon to be departing Bush Administration -- you just offered up more of the same. Political and economic narissism and sophism. Idealistic 'macho' mysticism hiding the sorry, corrupted, and poisonous truth of what really happens in The Republican regime: The party aims to divide and conquer people -- which is what it is trying to do between the American people and Obama, right now.

My question is this: How can The Republican Party control and reverse the evil abroad when they don't even know how to control and reverse it at home -- in their own party. 'Imperialism is good' to the GOP Republican. Or should I say: 'Good for the GOP Republican? So too is lobbyism. And political-corporate narcissism -- anything that is good for the top economic layer of American society is good for The GOP Republican Party. Then hide it with 'mysticism' and 'sophism'. Hide it with GOP Republican -- Adam Smith -- Idealism. And then blame anything else that is left over -- anything that people may actually want to disagree on relative to the teeterng, hypocritical, and self-destructive ideology of The GOP Republican Party -- on 'the angry left'.

Bush still doesn't get it. And neither, obviously, does Giuliani. Maybe they can both start up a GOP 'oldtimers' Republican Party and talk about 'GOD' -- that's a DGB acronym for -- 'Good Old Days'.

Should McCain be included in the 'new' Republican Party? Or the 'old' one? That is the 50 million dollar question.

It's amazing how The Republican Party all of a sudden 'changed campaign horses right in midstream'. Actually, not in midstream -- rather, almost at the end of their stream. Their Republican horse was starting to run out of energy, losing the power and thrust in its legs -- so right in the middle of The Republican Convention, towards the end of the stream (as we are finally getting pretty close to the election now) -- the Republicans jump off their Republican horse and jump onto a Democratic horse! What's with this? What happened?

I will tell you what happened. When I first heard Obama speak - and it was probably about a year or so ago now, that I first heard him speak on 'The Larry King Show' -- I was impressed. Not for any other reason than the fact that he was talking about getting rid of the 'special interest lobbyists' in Washington -- or at least derailing their power of influence.

I know I was left thinking, 'Wow, this guy got some onions, some serious testosterone. (Well, maybe not in those words, but you get the idea of what I'm starting to come at here...)

I remember thinking, 'Never, never do I remember an American politician -- or a Canadian politician for that matter -- talk about addressing and getting rid of the special interest lobbyism problem in Washington (or Ottawa). Maybe this 'Obama' guy -- who I had never seen or heard before that day -- really is interested in addressing a serious type of political change in America. A politics of 'differential unity' and a 'democracy for the middle and lower class -- as well as the upper class'. It is one thing for a politician to talk about the 'American Dream'. It is another thing for a politician to seriously talk about the types of democratic changes that need to be made in order to make the American Dream accessible to all Americans regardless of class or color or religion; not just for that elite section of society that has 'networking contacts and power strings that they can pull at a moment's notice' in Washington.

So anyway, yes indeed, this 'anti-special-interest-lobbyism-in-Washington' factor did start to become a major thrust in the Obama-Democratic campaign. I don't even think it was a part of the Clinton campaign, let alone any one of GOP Republican campaigns...If you go back and check the records of about a year or so ago, I don't think you will hear any Republican -- not McCain, not Romney, not Huckabee, not Giuliani, not anyone -- making a peep about 'getting rid of lobbyism and lobbyists in Washington'.

But Obama was making great headway with this and other parts of his Democratic campaign. He had a fresh, energetic horse crossing the stream -- and it was still fresh and energetic as it started to close in on the final end of the stream.

So what do The Republicans do? A year or so later...

They say...'Hmmm, I like that 'breed' of campaign horse. Are there any others of this 'Obama' breed around?

And someone else in the Republican Party chirped up, 'Yeah, sure, I can find you one of that kind, that breed. I hear they breed them up in Alaska! Part barracuda, part attack dog, part pitull -- and part, sleek race horse too. Even better still -- she's partly a woman too! And a fine looking one at that. Just what a fading GOP -- or is it 'GOB' -- that's a DGB acronym for 'Good Old Boys' -- just what a fast fading Republican Party needs for a strong finishing kick before the election: A beautiful woman with a radiating smile -- perhaps she can be marketed as a female rendition of Obama? -- yes a female rendition of Obama who can almost speak like him but with the underlying jaws of a barracuda beneath that perfectly sexy, womanly smile -- or is it a Rottweiler? A Doberman? A pitbull? A racehorse? Did I miss anything?

Oh yes, a woman who won't sit down when you tell her to sit down. That's nice. Does that mean she doesn't know how to listen? Does that mean she is so narcissistic that she does not know how to see beyond her own face? Does that mean that any other opinion, especially among the men she will be mainly debating with, is an opinion that needs to be connected to its masculine owner and then, well the owner of the opinion needs to be -- emasculated?

Well, Ms. - or is it Mrs., or Governor -- Sarah Palin, I think I might have said this earlier: 'What goes around comes around'. 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander'. 'What's fair is fair'. Or is it, 'All's fair in love and war.' That actually may be more appropriate to this circumstance, this context. 'Ms. Palin, you have set yourself up with a Republican bullseye on your heart.

I remember reading a book on Canadian history (Will Ferguson, Canadian History for Dummies, 2000). According to Ferguson, they used to call the early feminists in the early 1900s 'hyenas in petticoats'.

I have all the respect in the world for these ladies -- and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically. Nellie McClung in particular.

'Never retract, never explain, never apologize -- just get the job done and let them howl.' -- personal motto of activist Nellie McClung

I can certainly see some of the spirit of Nellie McClung in you, Ms. Palin. 'Just get the job done and let them howl'.

DGB Philosophy -- and for better or for worse, through fair and foul weather, I am the one and only founder of DGB Philosophy -- believes in equal rights for both sexes, all religions, all colors...

But with equal rights -- and often we all forget this, particularly the equal rights special interests groups and every politician and citizen who hangs on to the concept and practise of 'political correctness' for dear life -- with equal rights -- comes equal responsibility and accountability.

My point here, Ms. Palin, is that Mr. Obama I think has tried for the most part to debate political issues 'above the belt' in a spirit of fairness, respect, and integrity -- without delving seriously into the area of 'character assasinations', 'negative stereotyping' and/or trying to 'emasculate his opponent' -- or in your case, that might mean 'masculating you'.

It's like Obama wants to conduct a boxing match with boxing gloves on while you Ms. Palin -- and the rest of your Republican Party -- seem intent on packing 'steel' inside your boxing gloves. Okay, let's have a little boxing match here -- steel for steel, wit for wit. I agree, it's kind of fun when your'e on the top end delivering the blow, not on the bottom end receiving it.

DGB Deconstructionism seeks to reverse the direction of flight of all negative stereotypes and critcisms so that they land back in the face of the person and/or the party that initially threw the first 'punch of steel', the first serious negative stereotype and/or character assination, and/or hyocritical statement.

Such as: McCain and The Republican Party riding a Republican horse (not a peep or sound about 'anti-lobbyism' until their convention). But then they saw that Obama was riding a faster, stronger, more energized campaign horse, so then they went out and got one too -- a Democratic racehorse with Alaskan barracuda jaws -- one that is going to shake up Washinton and derail all the 'GOB' ('Good Old Boy') lobbyists who will now die with the Bush regime, not move on to the McCain regime. Funny, but I never heard a word about 'anti-lobbyism' earlier in your campaign, Mr. McCain. Isn't that what you -- and Giuliani and Ms. Palin -- would call 'flipflopping'. Not having the intestinal fortitude -- or the 'onions' -- of sticking with what you believed, or rather, didn't believe -- through all the earlier parts of your campaign. I do believe that you flip-flopped -- exactly what you complained of most about Obama at your campaign convention. I think that is what you would call -- 'hypocrisy'. And it certainly isn't very 'macho-like', very 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry/Wild West' like.

That was very sneaky, Mr. McCain. Was that the work of you or your chief Republican strategist?

or was it you, Mr. McCain, who wanted the one and only, the beautiful and sexy, the charasmatic, Ms. Sarah Palin, the female rendition of Obama with a much sharper bite -- i.e., 'The Alaskan Barracuda -- with a Republican jock strap on.'

Are you ready for some more, Ms. Palin. Can you take a punch or a bite as well as you can give it? ..

Ms. Palin; No abortions on your watch...but you have no problem sending any American 18, 19, and 20 year old son off to Iraq, including it almost would seem, your own son or sons. How do you explain that one? Isn't that a little hypocritical? Personally, I would be eating myself alive -- or someone at the top of the Republican Party, like you -- if it was my son going to Iraq to fight a war based on Repubican 'false epistemology' -- that is Republican narcissism, sophism and -- propoganda. Maybe you can tell me Ms. Palin, seeing as Mr. Bush doesn't seem to have done too well on this account:

Just where are those 'weapons of mass destruction in Iraq' again?

On that one television show -- I forget who chaired it, some religious person who did a very good job at interviewing both Obama and McCain -- and both were asked the same questions, on the spot improvisation in the case of Obama since he started first, and assumedly unrehearsed on McCain's part even though he arrived a little late at the forum -- and I don't think his private limo was exactly 'the cone of silence' that the interviewer and the American people were expecting.

Anyway, both were asked a question something along the lines of: 'What would you do as American President about evil?

And Senator McCain, the fighter pilot, John McCain -- gave just the answer the American people wanted to hear: Don't quote me exactly, but basically he said: 'Defeat it!' -- in strong Republican, Clint Eastwood (Is Clint Eastwood a Republican or a Democrat?), Dirty Harry, Wild West fashion.

Yes, that's what the American people wanted to hear. No wavering. No equivocation. No hesitation. No hemming and hawing. No 'boundary straddling' or 'fence hopping'. Just -- 'GOF' (that's a DGB anacronym for 'Good Old Fashioned') 'We're the good guys and we kick the butts of the bad guys!'

'Either/or'. 'Good or bad'. 'Good and evil.' 'Black and white'. That's the philosophy -- the ideology -- of The 'GOB' (Good Old Boy) Republican Party, and don't you ever forget it. Macho, macho man. I wanna be a Republican macho man!

America, hang with us. We will save you! We may send all our young adults to war and some of them --many of them -- might not come back again, or they might come back beaten up and/or disfigured. We may stand by while the banks foreclose your homes. We may stand by while the oil companies rob you blind. We may even stand by while all our manufacturing companies move to China, or Mexico, or basically anywhere where they can find cheap, cheap labor. You know, its the priciple of 'free trade'. In order to 'compete' with countries who have cheap, cheap labor, we need to move our manufacturing plants out of America and over to these same countries with the cheap labor. Then we can sell our goods back to you at a very cheap price! You can find them at your local department store! Beware of the Chinese and Mexican goods however. They may not be entirely safe. You know, these countries don't have quite the same safety measures and standards as we do. But that's why their goods are cheap. Watch the Mexican Jalapeno peppers. And the Chinese toys. Other than that the Republican lesson here regarding 'free trade' is simply this: 'If you can't beat them -- if you can't outcompete their cheap labor in China or Mexico or wherever -- then join them! Send our manufacturing firms there so they can take advantage of the cheap, cheap labor -- and the 'free trade' laws -- as well!

Tell me what a 'sweat shop' is again. Oh, America doesn't have to lose all their manufacturing plants and/or farms. Rather, here's a good idea for you manufacturing owners out there who are going out of business because of cheap imported goods. Just move your plants close to the border of Mexico -- and just wait til the Mexican 'sweat shops' come to you!

I think we were talking about 'evil' before I started to get distracted and carried away in a different direction. Or was/is it a different direction. I would call all of the above 'evil' to the American people.

But then there was Obama and he equivocated a little longer. Took a little longer to answer the question, from what I remember hearing about his reply. His answer -- and I don't remember it except in the gist of what I think he was trying to say -- was a little more convoluted, which was not quite the 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry/Wild West/Shoot From The Hip/Republican Type answer that the American people for the most part wanted to hear. Obama's ratings slipped, I do believe, a bit after this 'double header' interview.

I believe Obama was basically trying to say this, and if this is what he meant, then DGB Philosophy -- meaning I -- fully support this line of reasoning and argumentation. Paraphasing from what I believe he meant: 'It usually takes two to tango' -- and directly or indirectly, not always, but usually -- it takes two to start a war.

Worded otherwise, it's not only a matter of looking for 'evil' in other parts of the world, of chasing down and killing bad dictators, 'terrorists' and/or 'insurgents'. Even if America wanted to, they don't have the manpower and the money to fight all the different kinds of evil and unfreedom and narcissism that there is in the world. And more than this, there is another part of the problem -- and this is the part of the problem that I think Obama was trying to get at.

We also -- everyone of us, politician and citizen alike -- need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves bluntly and honestly and directly: How do we ourselves contribute to the 'evil' that there is in the world? Do our American politicians 'pamper' some countries, while punishing, and/or denying others? Does America sell nuclear arms -- or have they in the past -- to some countries while not to others? Does America torture? Why are so many American female soldiers coming back -- raped -- by America's own men. How can America expect other countries like Iran and North Korea be expected to 'disarm their nuclear weapons' when they are being pointed out by The American Bush-led Republican Party as being a 'part of the axis of evil' when the Bush-led Republican Party just happens to be in control of the largest asenal of nuclear weapons in the world? Not only that, but then all of Iran and North Korea and Russia see America invade Iraq with an 'epistemological justification' (remember again: Iraq was supposed to have 'weapons of mass destruction') -- that turned out to be totally phony propoganda and narcissistic sophistry. What is this, if it is not evil?

What's that quote from the Bible? Again, I can't remember exactly but it's something like this, and I am paraphrasing: 'Let no person throw the first stone that has committed a sin him or herself.'

What, Ms. Palin, did you say you were -- a 'pro-lifer'? How about 'hunting'? Aren't you a hunter -- for sport, or for survival and necessity? Is 'hunting for sport' being 'pro-life'? Isn't there something hypocritical about a hunter who hunts for sport saying that he or she is 'pro-life'. My dad took my brother and sister and me hunting for groundhogs once. He was a good shot. He hit the groundhog right between the eyes. We never went hunting again.

So Ms. Palin, you're proud of the man who would sooner win a war than win an election. How about when the stakes are not an election -- but a life, a son, many lives, many sons, and even daughters now? Do you still feel the same?

I watched and listened to your speech -- and much of it was good -- a good Republican speech. You said you are going to shake up Washington -- presumably notably distinguish yourself from the Bush administration -- and stand up to special interests groups which you've already done in Alaska, in ways that no recent Republican administration has done before you...

But there was something about your speech that made me cringe...perhaps your barracuda bites that seemed at least partly -- if not more than partly -- aimed at Obama's 'manhood' -- or shall we say -- his courage, his decision-making, and his credibility to lead America'; his 'integrative, differential unity politics' which you called 'flip-flopping'. But as I've already demonstrated, Ms. Palin -- McCain and the whole Republican Party -- can 'flipflop' too -- and in fact, just did.

In this regard, you, Ms. Palin, have been annointed as the new Republican 'Alaskan barracuda with a jock strap on'. A Washington 'lobbyist buster'. Before you came upon the scene, Ms. Palin, it's funny, but that just happened to be a very, very large Republican 'middle class, public relations void'. We will see how long you can or will last playing that role, Ms. Palin. Playing the role of the mighty Greek Goddess -- Athena. Sister of the her Greek brother-God -- Ares. Both were into 'war'.

Anyways, Ms. Palin, enjoy your pedestal while you can: your moment of greater modesty and humility, and hopefully, compassion, will come; it will perhaps take a trip to the bottom of the Republican and/or American abyss in contrast to the top of the mountain -- before you get there.

Time will tell.

-- dgb, September 7th, 2008, 5:48pm.

This essay took a little longer than 'til lunch' to finish. It also took a lot out of me. Time to get some dinner and a drink.

...............................................................................

John Brown went off to war to fight on a foreign shore.
His mama sure was proud of him!
He stood straight and tall in his uniform and all.
His mama's face broke out all in a grin.

"Oh son, you look so fine, I'm glad you're a son of mine,
You make me proud to know you hold a gun.
Do what the captain says, lots of medals you will get,
And we'll put them on the wall when you come home."

As that old train pulled out, John's ma began to shout,
Tellin' ev'ryone in the neighborhood:
"That's my son that's about to go, he's a soldier now, you know."
She made well sure her neighbors understood.

She got a letter once in a while and her face broke into a smile
As she showed them to the people from next door.
And she bragged about her son with his uniform and gun,
And these things you called a good old-fashioned war.

Oh! Good old-fashioned war!

Then the letters ceased to come, for a long time they did not come.
They ceased to come for about ten months or more.
Then a letter finally came saying, "Go down and meet the train.
Your son's a-coming home from the war."

She smiled and went right down, she looked everywhere around
But she could not see her soldier son in sight.
But as all the people passed, she saw her son at last,
When she did she could hardly believe her eyes.

Oh his face was all shot up and his hand was all blown off
And he wore a metal brace around his waist.
He whispered kind of slow, in a voice she did not know,
While she couldn't even recognize his face!

Oh! Lord! Not even recognize his face.

"Oh tell me, my darling son, pray tell me what they done.
How is it you come to be this way?"
He tried his best to talk but his mouth could hardly move
And the mother had to turn her face away.

"Don't you remember, Ma, when I went off to war
You thought it was the best thing I could do?
I was on the battleground, you were home . . . acting proud.
You wasn't there standing in my shoes."

"Oh, and I thought when I was there, God, what am I doing here?
I'm a-tryin' to kill somebody or die tryin'.
But the thing that scared me most was when my enemy came close
And I saw that his face looked just like mine."

Oh! Lord! Just like mine!

"And I couldn't help but think, through the thunder rolling and stink,
That I was just a puppet in a play.
And through the roar and smoke, this string is finally broke,
And a cannon ball blew my eyes away."

As he turned away to walk, his Ma was still in shock
At seein' the metal brace that helped him stand.
But as he turned to go, he called his mother close
And he dropped his medals down into her hand.

-- Bob Dylan

........................................................................
...............................................................................

On Dialectical-Democracy and The Balance Between Individual Freedom, Civil Order, and The Leaders of The Country/Organization

Once we enter the sphere of 'public space and time' there is - or at least should be - a 'multi-dialectical' relationship between individual freedom, systemic organization, ethical responsibility and civil order, and the leaders of the country/organization.

The more flexibility there is in the organization, the more room there is for individual freedom within the organization - but the more room there is for chaos, anarchy, and unprofessional conduct as well. There is always a balancing act going on between individual freedom and civil order.

Too much individual liberty and people will inevitably seek to exploit this situation, whereas too much civil restraint, and the individuals in the system will inevitably scream that their rights and liberties are being blocked, suppressed, etc.

Now, if you have one person (an autocracy or a dictatorship) running the system, or a group of people (like a parliament and/or a representative democracy with various people fulfilling various job functions and governing roles), then these people too need to be policed and/or have their ideas 'deconstructed' by democratic forces in the citizenry.

Otherwise: 1. ideas will stagnate, and/or remain one-sided, creating chronic, serial side-effects and no evolutionary process other than within the tight box of the governing person and/or people, assuming that he, or she, or they, is/are open=minded at all; and/or 2. the governing person and/or people will take advanage of their power positions and narcissistically exploit the citizenry.

In contrast, if you have no leader or leadership group, the potential problems are also at least twofold; 1. no speed and/or efficiency in making a decision; and/or 2. no coherent gameplan and overseeing visionary person or group of people; only a hogpodge of unorganized ideas strewn together.

The answer to this problem: there needs to be a balance between the ideas of the governing body and the ideas of the governed people constantly bouncing off each other in an open dialogue, an open 'multi-dialectical relationship'.

A homeostatic balance needs to be maintained between personal self-expression and a politically governing body that serves as a watch dog over ethical integrity and civil order relative to individual freedom.

However, the same homeostatic balance needs to also be maintained by the citizenry - including non-partisan and/or deconstructive philosophers and journalists - keeping a watchful ethical eye on the self-expression of the governing body and its political directive of maintaining civil order, ethical integrity, and a balanced, organized, efficient system; not one that drops to levels of private power and narcissism, ethical improprieties and scandals, and a non-balanced, inefficient political-social system.

If either part of this 'dialectical-democracy' is not functioning properly, then the system as a whole is going to start to implode on the basis of narcissistic self-destruction and/or suppressed self-rights of personal expressions and opinions from the citizenry, and/or either of the same from the politically ruling body.

- dgb, Aug. 17th, 2008.

Pakistan army says it has orders to fire on U.S. forces

Tue Sep. 16 2008 9:11:22 AM

Pakistan army says it has orders to fire on U.S. forces
Stephen Graham, The Associated Press


Pakistani villagers use a makeshift trolley to cross the Swat river to flee to safer places on Thursday, Sept 11, 2008. Nearly a week after a deadly American-led ground assault in Pakistani territory, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said Pakistan would defend its sovereignty, saying there was no deal to allow foreign forces to operate inside its borders.(AP Photo/Sherin Zada)



ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan's military has ordered its forces to open fire if U.S. troops launch another air or ground raid across the Afghan border, an army spokesman said Tuesday.

The orders, which come in response to a highly unusual Sept. 3 ground attack by U.S. commandos inside Pakistan, are certain to heighten tension between Washington and a key ally in its war on terrorism.

Pakistan's civilian leaders protested the raid but have said the dispute should be resolved through diplomatic channels.

However, army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told The Associated Press that the military leadership told field commanders after the raid in the South Waziristan tribal region to prevent any similar raids.

"The orders are clear," Abbas said in an interview. "In case it happens again in this form, that there is a very significant detection, which is very definite, no ambiguity, across the border, on ground or in the air: open fire."

U.S. military commanders accuse Islamabad of doing too little to prevent the Taliban and other militant groups from using the tribal regions to recruit, train and resupplying the rebel movement in Afghanistan.

Pakistan acknowledges the presence of al-Qaida operatives and the difficulty it faces in preventing militants from seeping through the mountainous border into Afghanistan.

However, it insists it is doing what it can and paying a heavy price for doing it, pointing to its deployment of more then 100,000 troops in its increasingly restive northwest and a wave of suicide bombings across the country.


E-Mail Story Share
DEL.ICIO.US
DIGG
FACEBOOK

Any U.S. blunder in Pakistan could aid al Qaeda cause

By Simon Cameron-Moore

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri might allow themselves a mirthless smile at the thought of U.S. President George Bush unleashing U.S. commando raids in Pakistan without Islamabad's approval.

"They'd be gleefully looking at this as a great opportunity," said Nasim Zehra, an Islamabad-based defence analyst concerned over the prospect for more turmoil in nuclear-armed Pakistan.

If the United States sends troops across the border from Afghanistan, and its alliance with Pakistan is weakened, or, worse still, Pakistani forces try to repel them, who wins?

The answer to many Pakistani analysts is obvious -- al Qaeda, the Taliban and a host of Islamist militant groups who want the United States out of the region and Pakistan in chaos.

A week ago a helicopter-borne raiding party swept into a Pakistani border village and killed 20 people, including women and children. The New York Times reported on Thursday that Bush has given permission to unleash U.S. special forces in Pakistan to eliminate al Qaeda and Taliban targets.

If true, the militants should be worried. The special forces could decimate al Qaeda. They could even kill or catch one of its top leaders, bin Laden or Zawahri.

But the policy could also go horribly wrong. Analysts in Pakistan say it appeared to be a desperate decision by a U.S. president four months away from the end of his term.

"The U.S. homeland, no matter what, is relatively secure after 9/11. It's our homeland that is going to go down the drain," said Zehra, upset at the new government's lack of a coherent policy on internal security to stay America's hand.


FEAR OF ENCIRCLEMENT

There is no official confirmation that Bush has embarked on this course, and the scope of U.S. missions is unknown.

The United States may be hoping covert operations could reap swift rewards. But Pakistan is scared.

The risks are considerable for a new civilian government that just a month ago forced former army chief Pervez Musharraf to relinquish the presidency.

Pakistan's army insists it will protect its borders at all cost. Analysts wonder how it can back words with action given the nation's economic and military dependence on the United States.

"I've yet to see the Pakistan military turn round and say 'thanks but no thanks to your F-16 aircraft, we don't want your weapons'," said defence analyst Ayesha Siddiqa.

But the American lack of sensitivity risks losing an ally, albeit an arguably unreliable one, and could shut down an important source of intelligence.

Of course, there are grave suspicions that Pakistani intelligence has selectively protected militants in the region ever since Musharraf was strong-armed into supporting the U.S. war on terrorism in 2001.

But whatever the gripes, Pakistan has lost more men than the United States fighting militants in the region, and hundreds of al Qaeda have been eliminated.

Islamabad is unhappy that, despite these sacrifices, Washington pays no heed to Pakistani strategic interests.

The Pakistani military is very unhappy with American tolerance of India's growing influence in Afghanistan.

It fears encirclement. If U.S. forces start incursions it could have regional repercussions.

"It's going to increase tension between India and Pakistan," said Siddiqa.

Analysts see a deteriorating security situation in Indian Kashmir as partly a consequence of their rivalry in Afghanistan.

"The temperature is going up there and part of the reason is Afghanistan," said Siddiqa.


NO "PLAN B"

In the seven years since al Qaeda's Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, Bush has alternated between cajoling and praising Pakistan for its support in the war against terrorism.

Analysts have criticised the U.S. administration's handling of its complicated ally throughout.

Should the United States and Pakistan remain on a collision course, Washington would risk destabilising a government it had helped get elected last February, without having any acceptable alternative to turn to.

It would also force moderate, progressive forces in Pakistan into retreat, and dramatically revive the fortunes of conservative religious parties who were trounced in the election.

"Pakistanis are very unhappy, it will lead to more anti-Americanism," said Najam Sethi, editor of the Daily Times and a respected political commentator.

"It will make life more difficult for the government and the army, create more tension in the coalition and give the media another stick with which to beat the government."

It would also risk tipping Pakistan's economy into full-blown crisis, with foreign currency already draining out of the central bank's coffers at an alarming rate.

It would extend the U.S. forces' theatre of operations, at a time when they are already stretched in Afghanistan.

Increased civilian casualties will inevitably lead to a backlash in ethnic-Pashtun lands straddling the border.

"You have a huge area where people are going to be affected, they're going to get angry and they're going to want to take revenge," Siddiqa said.

If Bush has authorised cross-border raids it is, according to analysts, either a very belated admission of failures, or a cynical attempt to sway the U.S. presidential election campaign in the Republican party's favour.

"Are these the kind of actions that Bush thinks will help his candidate in the election?" Zehra asked. "Because otherwise it is merely expanding the parameters of failure of U.S. policy from Iraq to Afghanistan and now here," said Zehra.