Satiating a Gnawing Hunger for Vengeance

Throughout Bush’s tenure in the White House, our Commander in Chef and his staff of gourmets have prepared a veritable smorgasbord of propagandistic delights for the psyches of those who still cling to the myth of America’s innate superiority.

American Exceptionalism is a pathological fiction which our wealthy and corporate elites have cynically employed for years to justify their acts of imperialism, exploitation, enslavement, and genocide. America’s current regime has taken this rationalization for crimes against humanity to new heights.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s death is the latest Haute cuisine to emerge from the perverse kitchen of America’s ruling elite. Bush’s sub-30% approval rating indicated that the minds of America’s masses were starving for propaganda to realign their thinking.

Strauss’s disciples responded with a particularly delicious meal. On 6/8/06 George Bush presided over the execution of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

A butcher of over a hundred thousand human beings sentenced a murderer of a relative handful of people to die by explosion. American justice was served, ladies and gentlemen.

"Father, we thank you for providing us with this blessed bounty which will satisfy our wretched masses’ ravenous appetite for violence, drama, revenge, and evidence of their righteousness. And bless Israel, the World Bank, Tony Blair, and Fox News. Amen."

While the Neocons and their bellicose supporters are thanking their God for bestowing the blessing of Zarqawi’s execution upon America and the “free world”, this killjoy sees very little cause for celebration.

Proudly displaying their macabre trophy picture of Zarqawi, the US military and its hand-maidens in the mainstream media now have “tangible proof” that America is succeeding in the “War on Terror”.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden, a man who walks with a cane and survives on dialysis, is still at large nearly five years after 9/11.

Forget the fact that many of the “terrorists” exist as reactionaries to unwavering American support of the ruthless Israeli squatters in Palestine and cruel tyrants like the Shah of Iran.

Disregard the knowledge that the Iraqi Resistance shows little or no sign of relenting, despite the staggering human and financial toll the invasion has taken on the United States.

.........

Who is better off with Zarqawi dead?


While it is true that a sociopathic religious fanatic is dead, the equally conscienceless imperial invaders who provoked his reactionary violence continue to decimate Iraq and abet the Palestinian Genocide, creating a whole new generation of Zarqawis.

Cheney, Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, Israel, and many other beneficiaries of the “War on Terror” can hang their hats on the “success” of killing Zarqawi as they justify perpetuating American oppression and war crimes in the Middle East.

Aside from an excuse to continue the war, Zarqawi’s execution yields yet another nugget for the ruling elite at America’s helm.

Bush Regime propagandists in the mainstream media are trumpeting that cell phone technology yielded the intelligence that located Zarqawi.

What could better justify Bush’s trampling of the Bill of Rights? Look what the NSA can do once that goddamn piece of paper is out of the way!

And then there are the Congressional elections in 2006, which could favor the war-mongers and further cement their power now that they have achieved a "major victory".

Mighty America pursued Zarqawi for two years with 140,000 well-equipped personnel at its disposal and a $25 million reward on his head before finally bringing him to “justice”.

Zarqawi’s death on 6/8/06 simply provides further evidence of the increasing impotence and self-destructiveness of the United States.

Revenge is indeed a dish best served cold. A chilled platter now sets before you, America. As you savor each bite, remember the devastating cost of preparing this truly grotesque repast.

Jason Miller/Thomas Paine's Corner

http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2006/06/bon-apptit-america.html

______________________________________

Bon Appétit, America

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2665/919/1600/mad_tea_party.0.jpg

Fretting about your buddy I see .........*L*.


Slim

Poorly written, jumps around and interjects mush heresay. This tory is much better written and shows who the real christian is in this situation:

http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/06/16/120.html
Global Eye
Dangerous Mind

By Chris Floyd
Published: June 16, 2006

After last week's killing of terrorist chieftain Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (or someone just like him) in Iraq, remembrances of his most celebrated alleged victim surfaced briefly in the press: Nicholas Berg, the young American businessman whose horrific beheading was publicized in a video fortuitously released a few days after the first revelations of torture by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib.

It was this video -- which featured five surprisingly chubby terrorists, masked, one wearing a gold ring forbidden by extremist Islam, another reading in halting Arabic -- that made Zarqawi the Pentagon poster boy for the insurgency. Pentagon documents unearthed by The Washington Post this April revealed that the elevation of Zarqawi's profile was a deliberate, multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign aimed at the U.S. people to foment the lie that the insurgency was largely an al-Qaida terrorist operation, not a native rebellion against the occupation. As one Pentagon general put it: "The Zarqawi Psy-Op program is the most successful information campaign to date." One can only hope that the timely beheading of Nicholas Berg was not part of this "information campaign."

Of course, Zarqawi was a Bush tool from the beginning. Before the war, his two-bit terrorist group -- operating in the Kurdish-held Iraqi north, where Saddam had no power -- was targeted for destruction by U.S. forces. But the White House canceled the strike three times, the Atlantic reports, because it would have interfered with that earlier psy-ops attack on the U.S. people: selling the Iraq invasion. The war-peddlers needed Zarqawi to "prove" the nonexistent link between Saddam and al-Qaida.

But despite the central role that Berg unwillingly played in the concoction of the Zarqawi legend, he was largely airbrushed from the lurid coverage of its grand finale. That's because any new story on Berg would naturally center around his most outspoken survivor, his father Michael. And Michael Berg is a man with a dangerous message, a radical subversion of every value that the Bush administration is fighting to preserve.

In many ways, of course, it's an ancient danger, a destabilizing notion that has threatened the guardians of civilization for thousands of years. Its advocates have always been relegated to the lunatic fringe, ignored and forgotten, except in rare cases when their subversion has taken hold, usually among the lower orders. In each such case, however, the civilized world has, like a healthy body, acted swiftly to remove the carriers of disorder. Still, in every generation the bacillus emerges once again, and Michael Berg, no doubt weakened by his grief, has become seriously infected.

It's no wonder, then, that his media appearances last week were so brief and circumscribed. For there he was, the father of a victim murdered in the most gruesome fashion imaginable by the terrorist Zarqawi (or someone just like him), a survivor fully entitled to exult in the revenging fury and violent self-righteousness that are among the chief values of the Bush imperium -- and all Berg could talk about was mercy and forgiveness. He would not even take pleasure in the death of Zarqawi, whom he called a "fellow human being." Instead, he grieved for Zarqawi's family and wished that the brutal killer could have been subjected to "restorative justice" -- made to work in a hospital with children maimed by war, for example -- setting him on a path where his human decency might have been restored.

Nor would Berg praise that guardian of civilization, President Bush, for finally ending the career of the terrorist he had used so cynically to justify aggressive war. Instead, Berg blamed Bush for unleashing mass death on the people of Iraq, and instigating the cycle of violence that had consumed his son -- in murky circumstances. Just before his death, Nicholas Berg had been held by U.S. forces for 13 days without any charges or stated reason, missing his scheduled flight home; he was released only after his family filed a lawsuit charging illegal detention. Four days later, he disappeared again, into that dark maw where high politics and low murder feast on the same lies, the same flesh.

But even for the authors of war, for the state terrorists who kill on an industrial scale, Berg called for restoration, not revenge: They should be removed from power and compelled to some compassionate labor that might redeem their corrupted humanity.

It goes without saying that Berg's comments were instantly condemned throughout the vast engine of bile-driven groupthink known as the right-wing media. He was reviled as a traitor, a fool, a terrorist-lover, "less than human," a monster whose son will slap his face in the afterlife. He was derided for his quixotic congressional campaign as the Green Party candidate for Delaware: What place do such weapons of the weak -- mercy, forgiveness, nonviolence -- have in the halls of power? For the mainstream, he was just a blip, a quirky diversion in the flood of triumphant stories on Zarqawi's demise.

And to be sure, it is foolish to oppose the cherished values of our 21st-century civilization: violence, bluster, ignorance and fear. It's foolish to take upon oneself the responsibility to break the cycle of violence at last, to say, "Let it end with me, if nowhere else; let it end now, no matter what the provocation; let something new, something more human, some restoration take root in this bloodstained ground."

But what if such folly is the only way for humankind to begin climbing out of the festering pit we have made of the world?

http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/06/16/120.html

Only a select number of people would choose to spin this, FT. I'm glad to know that I can argue with one of the foolish few right here on Allforums. And what, exactly, would've been your candy-assed take if Osama Bin Laden HAD been killed........?

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling - we're throwing fuel on the fire....EVERYONE, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!"

Get a grip, will ya?

Free, good cut and paste. You have real talent there. I give credit to 500 for at least having the creativity to add a sentence.

500's article proves Ann Coulter's point. To wit: after Zarqawi is killed, after excellent on-the-ground intelligence work and amazing technology, who does the media interview? The father of a murdered young man who rips Bush a new one. And who can argue with a person in that circumstance? Nobody.

The media are falling over themselves to help make her point.

500's article proves Ann Coulter's point. To wit: after Zarqawi is killed, after excellent on-the-ground intelligence work and amazing technology, who does the media interview? The father of a murdered young man who rips Bush a new one.

Rightwingers never cease to amuse;

It is not enough that 100 media outlets are endlessly trumpeting the dropping of the bombs on Zarqawi, acting as if it some fantastic accomplishment...........NO!....the fact that one of the media outlets interviews someone (the father of the murdered young man mentioned above) who is NOT a Bush acolyte means that the entire media coverage is faulty.

Unbelievable.



The media are falling over themselves to help (Coulter) make her point.

Coulter has no point.

She continually crows that --"well, the left puts up these people who cannot be criticized or objected to!.........all the while the fucking bitch in question is doing nothing BUT criticizing and condemning them.

With a positive story about Zarqawi being removed, somehow the father of Nick Berg is tracked down to spew the typical anti-Bush rhetoric. And he does completely fit Coulter's mold. He's barely relevant to the bigger story, and you can't question him because of his loss.

And you made the best point of all. You're right, she did spend time "criticizing and condemning them." And look what everyone is saying about her for daring to question them.

You're right, she did spend time "criticizing and condemning them." And look what everyone is saying about her for daring to question them.

I don't think she's being criticized for what she said as much as the way she said it.

With a positive story about Zarqawi being removed, somehow the father of Nick Berg is tracked down to spew the typical anti-Bush rhetoric.

a) the story about Zarqawi was not "removed". Just because one media outlet out of a hundred is not kissing the Bush Administration's ass does not mean that the story (of Zarqawi) suddenly ceases to exist. Sheesh.

b) could you give some examples of things he said that are, to you, "anti-Bush rhetoric".........??

You're right, she did spend time "criticizing and condemning them."

Exactly.

So her supposed point that ---"Nobody can question them!"--- is bullshit.

And NOBODY from the rightwing media establishment is leveling (or has ever to my knowledge leveled) any criticism at the venomous Coulter bitch.

the father of Nick Berg is tracked down to spew the typical anti-Bush rhetoric.

Yeah......too bad the Media did NOT go to any great lengths to tell the American people that when the U.S. bravely dropped their bombs from the airplane, they also killed a little 7 year old girl.

But then, the Bush worshippers will probably claim she was some sort of e-ville terrorist mastermind who HAD to be killed.

For her own good, of course.......

Yeah......too bad the Media did NOT go to any great lengths to tell the American people that when the U.S. bravely dropped their bombs from the airplane, they also killed a little 7 year old girl.

But then, the Bush worshippers will probably claim she was some sort of e-ville terrorist mastermind who HAD to be killed.
I wish the media HAD reported this more.
If you know you're a target, and you travel with your children, you either don't care if they die, or you're using your own kids as human shields. Either way you don't care about your own children.

I think emphasizing this particular point would better point out to the world just how perverse this guy was (and not the Bush creation some on this thread have claimed)

1. the story about Zarqawi was not "removed".
2. could you give some examples of things he said that are, to you, "anti-Bush rhetoric".........??
3. So her supposed point that ---"Nobody can question them!"--- is bullshit.
4. And NOBODY from the rightwing media establishment is leveling (or has ever to my knowledge leveled) any criticism at the venomous Coulter bitch.1. Badly worded. I didn't mean"
"the story of Zarqawi" being removed.
I meant
the story of "Zarqawi being removed".

2. Berg said the blame for most deaths in Iraq should be placed on President Bush, who he said is "more of a terrorist than Zarqawi.". And this is who the media choose to interview after Zarqawi is killed. Who is he, besides an anti-Bush blowhard who you can't criticize because his son was killed.

3. Obviously I didn't mean that one isn't physically capable of forming the words to forward any criticism. It means that if you do, they will come down hard on you for even daring to do so. And the reaction MAKES HER POINT.

4. Maybe because some of us agree with her. Others on the left say much worse and get proportionately less criticism. Coulter's words about the widows pales in comparison to Ward Churchill's calling the WTC victims "little Eichmans". Hers may be cruelly worded in your opinion, but it's based on some fact, whereas "little Eichmans" is just hatred that came out of nowhere.

ummm...coulter said we "should convert them all to christianity and murder their leaders" replace Christianity with Islam and Coulter is now the voice of Osama...

I'm not familiar with her specific writings prior to the publicity this book has received. I've been talking about this specific book.

1. Badly worded. I didn't mean"
"the story of Zarqawi" being removed.
I meant
the story of "Zarqawi being removed".

Oh. Ok. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

2. Berg said the blame for most deaths in Iraq should be placed on President Bush...

I would agree with that assessment.

.....he (Berg) said (Mr Bush) is "more of a terrorist than Zarqawi.".

I am in 100% agreement with THAT statement.

""The US is one of the leading terrorist states in the world. The guys who are in charge right now were all condemned for terrorism by the World Court. They would have been condemned by the U.N. Security Council except they vetoed the resolution, with Britain abstaining of course."" ____Noam Chomsky

Zarqawi has killed --or been responsible for causing to be killed-- maybe a few dozens of people.

Bush has killed --or been responsible for causing to be killed-- a minimum of 100,000 people.

And this (Berg) is who the media choose to interview after Zarqawi is killed.

ONE outlet of the media interviewed him!....what about the innumerable OTHER outlets who screeched non-stop about how world-changingly wonderful it was that this "e-ville turrurrist" Zarqawi was blown up by U.S.-dropped bombs...........?!?!?!?

Who is (Berg) besides an anti-Bush blowhard who you can't criticize because his son was killed.

He's a person who sacrificed his son's life for a bullshit cause, an illegal and unethical "war" being fought for no other reason than to keep oil supplies to the U.S. readily available. Maybe if you sacrifice one of your sons the media will (once in a blue moon) interview you too.

Coulter's words about the widows pales in comparison to Ward Churchill's calling the WTC victims "little Eichmans". Hers may be cruelly worded in your opinion, but it's based on some fact, whereas "little Eichmans" is just hatred that came out of nowhere.

I would say that Churchill's words may have been harsh, although based on some fact, whereas --"the widows ENJOYED their husband's deaths"-- remark by the haglike, emaciated succubus, Ann Coulter, is just pure hatred that came out of her unrelievedly RightWing mindset.

Berg didn't sacrifice anyone - sonny boy went willingly into the area.

"...the widows ENJOYED their husband's deaths"

Had the statement read "... enjoyed the fruits of their husband's ..." would that have made it more palatable?

1. He's a person who sacrificed his son's life for a bullshit cause,
2. I would say that Churchill's words may have been harsh, although based on some fact, whereas "the widows ENJOYED their husband's deaths"1. I'm pretty sure Nick Berg went to Iraq to make money. What does that have to do with his father.

2. Tell me the facts behind the "Little Eichman" moniker.

Berg didn't sacrifice anyone - sonny boy went willingly into the area.

Absolutely correct. I meant it more that Berg has suffered the loss of his son.

"...the widows ENJOYED their husband's deaths"

Had the statement read "... enjoyed the fruits of their husband's ..." would that have made it more palatable?

No. I think it would have been simply another way of saying the same thing.

Coulter has ZERO way of knowing whether or not the widows in question are --as Coulter suggests-- deliriously happy to trade the lives of their husbands for the monies they've recieved, or whether they would give up everything they have --along with everything they have EVER owned-- to have their husbands back alive.

Coulter has no point.

I'll judge that for myself, FT. I just bought her latest book thereby adding to her bank account. When I am finished reading it, it will join my other books by her along with books by P.J. O'Rourke, Robert Bork, John Stossel, Mona Charin, Robert Nozick and a host of other authors who tell it like it is rather than how the liberal news media tell it.

I'll judge that for myself, FT. I just bought her latest book thereby adding to her bank account. When I am finished reading it, it will join my other books by her along with books by P.J. O'Rourke, Robert Bork, John Stossel, Mona Charin, Robert Nozick and a host of other authors who tell it like it is rather than how the liberal news media tell it.

...................YEP!

........books by P.J. O'Rourke, Robert Bork, John Stossel, Mona Charin, Robert Nozick and a host of other authors who tell it like it is rather than how the liberal news media tell it.

It seems you're unaware that people like Mona Charin and John Stossel ARE very prominent voices in the Media in this country.

__________________________________________________ __

The idea that there is a huge "liberal Media" operation in this country that is equal in power to and acting as a counterbalance to the mainstream, whitebread, status-quo, flagwaving Corporate-owned-and-controlled-Media is a preposterous farce. It is a myth and an effort to further push us into a divisive mentality meant to create conflict and population division. The conservative mainstream Media, especially the talk radio shills, do not report anything that would cast negative opinions on the ruling classes.....i.e., *the Administration*.

Freethinker, you fail to differentiate between talk radio which admits to being biased opinion and news broadcasts which purport to be unbiased.

Three letters and one name....................C.B.S. Dan Rather

Freethinker, you fail to differentiate between talk radio which admits to being biased opinion and news broadcasts which purport to be unbiased.

Three letters and one name....................C.B.S. Dan Rather

Alright.

Name a few instances of this *bias* you allege.

_____________________________________________

"I would willingly die for my country at a moment's notice and on the command of my president (GWBush)" ________Dan Rather

Yeah....he's a real America-hater, that Dan Rather.

Alright.

Name a few instances of this *bias* you allege.
:rolleyes:

Oh, get real, FT.
"I would willingly die for my country at a moment's notice and on the command of my president (GWBush)" ________Dan Rather

Yeah....he's a real America-hater, that Dan Rather.
If it were that easy, don't you think old GW would have simply sent him a request to off himself? Let's put it this way - if I were the president, and he blatantly tried to discredit me via forwarding forged documents during a crucial (not to mention strategically planned) time (read; during the election), I would've issued an executive order DEMANDING that he be the first one in US military fatigues to raid hot zones. Hell, even before I had him deployed to Iraq, I would've already taken the liberty to personally make sure his wife (or his multiple boyfriends) got a neatly folded flag by way of the US mail system. Patriot that, you lying, politically-biased, panty-wearing motherfucker.

:rolleyes:

Oh, get real, FT.

Translation: "I can't give any examples. I just "know" that Dan Rather is a commie pinko because the Corporate Media says he is".

Let's put it this way - if I were the president, and he blatantly tried to discredit me via forwarding forged documents during a crucial (not to mention strategically planned) time (read; during the election), I would've issued an executive order DEMANDING that he be the first one in US military fatigues to raid hot zones.

Firstly, it has been revealed that the documents were NOT forgeries.

Lost in the commotion over the authenticity of the documents is that the underlying facts of Rather's 60 Minutes report are substantially true. Bush did not take the physical exam required of all pilots; his superiors gave him the benefit of any doubt; he did receive special treatment and Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer, was unhappy with the loss of ANG's investment in him when Bush informed Killian he was leaving for Alabama. Before the broadcast, Mary Mapes, the CBS producer of the program, confirmed the facts in the documents with retired Major General Bobby Hodges, who had been Killian's superior in the ANG. Later Hodges told the panel he did not think the documents were authentic, but did not disagree that the facts were substantially correct.

Following the broadcast, Marian Carr Knox, who was Killian's secretary at the time, confirmed the facts of the broadcast, saying, "There's no doubt in my mind that [the] information is correct." When the panel cross-examined Knox she seemed less certain of what she had told Rather but she did not contradict any of the broadcast. Since the broadcast, no one has come forward to say the program was untruthful.

The panel attacks the four experts CBS hired to authenticate the documents. One of the four, James Pierce, concluded that the signatures on the documents were authentic and that there was no reason to believe the documents were not genuine. Such conclusions are common for document examiners. A second, Marcel Matley, also concluded that the signatures were genuine.

The other two experts had reservations about the documents. One, Emily Will, said that from the documents made available to her, she did not think the signatures matched; the other, Linda James, stated that she could not authenticate the documents without the originals. The report asserts that CBS should not have relied on Matley and Pierce. It should have known, according to the panel, that copies of documents, which these were, can rarely be authenticated. A copied document can only be authenticated when compared to the original. There were no originals. Matley, for his part, continues to disagree with the panel's view and has demanded that it correct the eighteen places in the report where he believes he has been libeled.

Mr. Pierce had said that the signatures were authentic and he has never modified his conclusion. The panel never interviewed him. If the panel never talked to the one expert upon whom CBS principally relied, how could it determine whether he was credible?

But it matters not in the slightest if the documents HAD been forged and written in crayon by Charles Manson; it does nothing to change the FACT that the sob GWBush was A.W.O.L. from the Texas Air National Guard.

Rather was 100% correct. His only failure was to prove it to the brainwashed-to-hate-anyone-who-questions-the-powers-that-be American Public.

The Rightwing was simply able to create enough controversy over the authenticity of the documents (in the mind of the gullible American Public) that they were able to MISdirect the focus of the argument long enough to fool the ignorant masses.

They were able to fool the masses by forwarding the following argument ------ ""Hey, look...these documents Rather has don't seem genuine...ergo, since the documents authenticity is in question, that PROVES that GWBush was not AWOL!!!!".

It was an extremely illogical and irrational argument; but the America Public, being (collectively) the dim-wits that they are, bought it.

Patriot that, you lying, politically-biased, panty-wearing motherfucker.

Clearly, the most egregious, bald-faced LIARS in this episode are the operatives (iow, Rove and company) who managed to convince the American Public that the (purported) questionable authenticity of the documents meant that GWBush wasn't AWOL, when the facts reveal that he was.