Freedomloversunite!

"Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it."--GWB

You a Freedomlover? Subscribe!

Atom Site Feed

Get Freedomloversunite! by Email

Saturday, November 19, 2005

I'm Rubber You're Glue...

Dearest Freedomlovers,

Earlier this week faux ami of freedom Dick Cheney and the GOP (see their entertaining new videos at GOP.org) reverted to one of the most puerile of rhetorical tactics; one scarcely seen since Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure; one we can sadly only expect to hear with greater frequency in the next three years. That's right, freedomlovers, we're on the playground. In certain bad faith during those single digit halcyon days, your nemesis calls you his pal, or Personal Ass Licker. What is your best defense against this airtight argument? You could simply deny it and up the ante: You wish, dickweed.

Similarly, you could shift the attention with the most dreaded of red herrings: Your mamma (which actually can not indisputably lay claim to the superlative comeback, since you always have the reliably emasculating "Homosaywhat"). But then you can always just "dog" them ("ooh, that's a face!")by pulling out the mirror. The mirror tactic actually has two major forms.

First, a la PeeWee: I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. And second: I know you are, what am I? These are slight variations of the equally annoying but more self-incriminating pure mirror: You're a butthole. [response] You're a butthole. [pre-pubescent interlocutor] Stop copying me. [response] Stop copying me.

Sooner or later, your nemesis either goes away, or is provoked to give you a noogie, wedgie, kick in the nuts, or, most likely of all, just clock you. The problem is, freedomlovers, in playground culture, noone ever admits he lost the cutdown war, or that he's really attacking you because his father works long hours, never tosses the pigskin with him, leaving him to identify with his poor, pathetic mother, who is equally neglected by his crazy workaholic pop (you represent his father). But Freud is nowhere to be found on the playground. So the situation recurs, daily, for five to eight years, at which time it just tapers off into a purer, healthier form of FightClub violence. Yes, I'm talking men here, bearded pigs or not. And yes, while slightly more civilized than the human counterpart, the male bearded pig has been known to engage in the cutdown war as part of the playground polity.

Perhaps we should not be surprised, freedomlovers, that the enemies of freedom try to reduce our edifice erected in the name of freedom, our democracy, to a species of the playground cutdown fight. Thus, GOP.org pulls out its mirror: "Democrats: Dishonest on Iraq." I know, I know, at first I thought it was just a misspelling of "Republicans," that political debate had at long last embraced the lifeblood of freedom, honesty. But then I caught wind of Vice-President Cheney's ersatz freedomloving address wednesday at the utterly profane Frontiers of Freedom Institute's Ronald Reagan Gala. The Vice-President of the FakeFreedom Co. spoke thus:
"[I]n Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition. And the suggestion that’s been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

What do we make of this, freedomlovers? Afterall, top White House advisor on terrorism Richard Clarke says he was ordered to look for a link between 9/11 and Hussein immediately following the attacks (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml).
In Clarke's words to CBS's 60 Minutes: "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

What to make of this, freedomlovers? Afterall, Bush's tres Austin Powers "Number 2 Man on the National Security Council" disagreed with his boss, claiming that the freedomtalking president was also freedomwalking, "making the homeland safer" and "taking the fight to the terrorists." Yet we already learned, did we not, that those who thought Iraq was in cahoots with THE TEARRISTS, incidentally still Wanted Dead or Alive but suffering from a dearth of bounty hunters at the moment, was misinformed at best, a deliberate lie at worst. Why believe in the lie, as Mulder might encourage us? A couple of reasons.

First, other Bush administration officials (and other evidence, such as PNAC)corroborate Clarke's claims. According to the Glasgow Sunday Herald among others (http://www.sundayherald.com/39221):

[begin quote] GEORGE Bush’s former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill has revealed that the President took office in January 2001 fully intending to invade Iraq and desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein.

O’Neill’s claims tally with long-running investigations by the Sunday Herald which have shown how the Bush cabinet planned a pre- meditated attack on Iraq in order to “regime change” Saddam long before the neoconservative Republicans took power.

The Sunday Herald previously uncovered how a think-tank – run by vice-president Dick Cheney; defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Bush’s younger brother Jeb, the governor of Florida; and Lewis Libby, Cheney’s deputy – wrote a blueprint for regime change as early as September 2000.[end quote]

Secondly, Anti-freedom inc's CEO George W. Bush sought consent for the invasion of Iraq by claiming ongoing and strong ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda. While under 5% of the population thought Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 just after it, by the beginning of the Iraq invasion, about half of all Americans believed there was a significant tie (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html). This accusation of significant collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda was repeatedly made by the Bush administration in the two months prior to the invasion of Iraq, and even occasionally thereafter.
"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."
- Bush in January 2003 State of the Union address.

“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks…Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.” President George W. Bush made this well-circulated statement on February 8, 2003.

Over a year later, in June 2004, Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay stated, “We simply didn’t find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all.”

We could perform the same genealogy of deception on the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue, freedomlovers. Saddam Hussein was no lover of freedom, of course. But we have reason to believe that George W. Bush isn't either. Never has he once come out and said, "I am sorry. I was wrong to emphasize 'longstanding, direct, and continuing ties' between Hussein and Al Qaeda." Never once has he come out and said, "Yes, my main argument for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and the capacity to build more, but my information was wrong." Instead, he pulled the your mamma/homosaywhat move, so as to throw us off his trail, to shift the burden of proof onto us, freedomlovers ("Say what you want, but don't talk about my mom, man." and "I'm not gay, you're the fag, now what were we talking about? Oh yeah, can I play dodge ball?"). He dropped the old line as if he had never made those claims. He started chanting over and over again the mantra: The world is safer now that Saddam Hussein the tyrant is gone. We are bringing freedom to Iraq and the world, and we're fighting terrorism (since because of the invasion, they ARE now fighting terrorists who flocked to unstable Iraq; now there are training activities in Iraq, but there weren't before: homosaywhat! Your momma! Fag! I lost my thought. What was it I wanted to accuse him of?).

You are not easily fooled, freedomlovers. The spirit of freedom does not die so easily despite the virus of lies the FakeFreedom Inc. network spreads. Hold your ground, freedomlovers; fend off the rubber/glue tactics. When they give you their homosaywhat red herring, give them "homosayhomosaywhat." Of course, you could always just be honest when receiving the "homosaywhat" slur: "Yeah, what are you going to do about it?"
In any case, they call that "democracy?"
We shall prevail, freedomlovers. Democracy will rise again.
Stay free!
CF

You a Freedomlover? Subscribe!

Atom Site Feed

Get Freedomloversunite! by Email

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Freedomlovers doubt

Dearest freedomlovers,
Friday I read that freedomlovers all over America (well over half of them) have come to doubt the freedomloving capablities and devotion of our Great Freedomlover. Though he entreats us to steady our faith in freedom now, at the contemporary crossroads of a 40-year old campaign that had resulted in the "swiftest advance of freedom" ever known,there is reason to doubt his own love of liberty.

I was once a footsoldier in the Great Freedomlover's army to spread freedom and demolish tyranny the world o'er. But I have reason to doubt the leader's devotion to freedom. He cites the great inspiration to freedomlovers, yet it is unclear that he understands the inspiration. The suspicion comes from his use of lies to wage war in the name of freedom; his underlings' willingness to risk a nation's freedom and security by revealing the identity of an exponent of security, in order to silence the free expression of criticism and difference. The list of disappointing betrayals of freedom are many. Witness the confusion with the words of the original Great Emancipator, freedomlovers:

"The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name, liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names— liberty and tyranny.
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the process by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. Recently, as it seems, the people of Maryland have been doing something to define liberty, and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf’s dictionary has been repudiated." --Abraham Lincoln, LECTURE ON LIBERTY ADDRESS AT SANITARY FAIR IN BALTIMORE, APRIL 18, 1864.

Beware of the wolf's definition of freedom, freedomlovers. Beware of freedom-loving wolves in sheep's clothing. Blessed are the freedomlovers.
Stay Free,
CF

You a Freedomlover? Subscribe!

Atom Site Feed

Get Freedomloversunite! by Email

Friday, November 04, 2005

A prophet is not without honor save in his own country

It has just been reported that freedomlovers are losing faith in the ability of the Great Freedomlover of the United States to secure freedom for all Americans (and the entire world, for that matter). A record 58% of Americans question the Great Freedomlover's integrity. What's that you say? Did freedomlovers of America make a mistake? Is not the great Freedomlover who he claimed to be? Have you not heeded the words of the Great Freedomlover at his own second inauguration.
Let me remind you: "Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.--GWB