| August 9th, 2005 05:44 PM |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
quote:
ListenToTheLion wrote:
Don't invite too many girl friends. They might get jealous and then the fat is in the fire.
I don't have much fat, will I grill well? |
| August 9th, 2005 05:49 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Angiegirl wrote:
I don't have much fat, will I grill well?
sizzling ..........................................
Snarky ! |
| August 9th, 2005 06:31 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Is this what its like? I'm just trying to understand. So I can be of help, help help.
==========
There are times when a woman
Has to say what's on her mind
Even though she knows how much its gonna hurt
Before I say another word
Let me tell you, I love you
Let me hold you close and say these words
As gently as I can
There's been another man
That I've met and I love
But that doesn't mean I love you less
And he knows he can't posses me
And he knows he never will
Is just this empty place inside of me
That only he can fill
Torn between two lovers
Feelin like a fool
Loving both of you
Is breaking all the rules
Torn between two lovers
Feelin like a fool
|
| August 9th, 2005 07:54 PM |
|
|
| The Volitan |
I usually ignore a band's politics, because the music is the important part. Unless it's a band that preaches politics 24/7 like U2 or Green Day, then I ignore the band completely. They just bitch and bitch about it. IMO, politics should be left out of music, period. If I listen to the Stones I wanna hear about going to a market down in new orleans, buying some smack, not about how much they hate G.W. Bush. |
| August 9th, 2005 11:23 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
As I drove home from a long weekend away, I decided to check out the nutjob on AirAmerica(our lefty radio talk show) & the idiot was all a-tingle about this song. I have a feeling this controversy will only help CD sales. |
| August 10th, 2005 08:40 AM |
|
|
| Jair |
quote:
blackandblue wrote:
Just wondering how the right-wing US nationalists on this board combine their love for the Stones with this song...
First of all, they will buy the cln version of the album.
"Oh no not you again fucking up my life" (???)
[Edited by Jair] |
| August 10th, 2005 10:54 AM |
|
|
| CHIEFMOON |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>Whatever Sweet Neo Con turns out to be, it is simply retarded to insult the roughly 50% of the populace of the country you hope to be selling very expensive tickets to.<
That 50% isn't their target market. You and a few others may reside in that 50%, but the core of their US audience would be in that OTHER 50%. AND it will play well in the REST OF THE WORLD(The Stones make big money OUTSIDE of the US market.). Or did you forget about them? Neo-Cons tend to forget about the rest of the world sometimes...or at lest pretend to forget about them when it suits their purpose.
I do indeed think that they will play Sweet Neo-Con live. There will indeed be fans who leave the fold. I'm sure Toby Keith will welcome them with open arms.
But I don't blame them for leaving. I'd probably leave the fold too if my fave band was calling me an assole.
Maybe Toby will give them free seats in exchange for their Stones tickets? |
| August 10th, 2005 11:19 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
What I can't believe is that Mick and Keith were faking it at the 9/11 Benefit Show in NYC, when it turns out they really hated America all along. Now thats goddam hypnocriticalness! |
| August 10th, 2005 12:00 PM |
|
|
| jb |
It's all a publicity stunt as stagnant sales require publicity, be it good or bad. They are on their last ropes, Detroit, Durham, etc wide open, no hit album since 81, and this was a calculated move..it may work or back fire....they have no legacy anymore, so why should they care...it's all about the money................. |
| August 10th, 2005 12:03 PM |
|
|
| USFan |
Interesting point, but Springsteen got burned with his 'Vote For Change' shenanigans...lost a huge amount of his blue-collar fan base for his ridiculous anti-Bush rants. These entertainers are in even more of a bubble than politicians and don't realize that WE realize that they are uneducated millionaires and we don't give two sh!ts about what they say. Case in point: entertainers were more vocal and united than ever against Bush in '04 and look what happened. |
| August 10th, 2005 12:04 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
I wonder if just Mick hates America, or the entire band does now? |
| August 10th, 2005 12:06 PM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
I wonder if just Mick hates America, or the entire band does now?
"They hate us for our freedom"..see Sean Hannity.... |
| August 10th, 2005 12:16 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
jb wrote:
"They hate us for our freedom"..see Sean Hannity....
|
|
|
|
V
|
| August 10th, 2005 12:22 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
Mmmm. . .this is how Bush kept us safe? These guys were being tracked and Bush went on vacation. Where is he now. . .on his 50th vacation in 5 years! His blue collar fan base should be so lucky to have so many vacations!
Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 - More than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress.
In the summer of 2000, the military team, known as Able Danger, prepared a chart that included visa photographs of the four men and recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the congressman, Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, and the former intelligence official said Monday.
The recommendation was rejected and the information was not shared, they said, apparently at least in part because Mr. Atta, and the others were in the United States on valid entry visas. Under American law, United States citizens and green-card holders may not be singled out in intelligence-collection operations by the military or intelligence agencies. That protection does not extend to visa holders, but Mr. Weldon and the former intelligence official said it might have reinforced a sense of discomfort common before Sept. 11 about sharing intelligence information with a law enforcement agency.
A former spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission, Al Felzenberg, confirmed that members of its staff, including Philip Zelikow, the executive director, were told about the program on an overseas trip in October 2003 that included stops in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Mr. Felzenberg said the briefers did not mention Mr. Atta's name.
The report produced by the commission last year does not mention the episode.
Mr. Weldon first spoke publicly about the episode in June, in a little-noticed speech on the House floor and in an interview with The Times-Herald in Norristown, Pa. The matter resurfaced on Monday in a report by GSN: Government Security News, which is published every two weeks and covers domestic-security issues. The GSN report was based on accounts provided by Mr. Weldon and the same former intelligence official, who was interviewed on Monday by The New York Times in Mr. Weldon's office.
In a telephone interview from his home in Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon said he was basing his assertions on similar ones by at least three other former intelligence officers with direct knowledge of the project, and said that some had first called the episode to his attention shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The account is the first assertion that Mr. Atta, an Egyptian who became the lead hijacker in the plot, was identified by any American government agency as a potential threat before the Sept. 11 attacks. Among the 19 hijackers, only Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been identified as potential threats by the Central Intelligence Agency before the summer of 2000, and information about them was not provided to the F.B.I. until the spring of 2001.
Mr. Weldon has long been a champion of the kind of data-mining analysis that was the basis for the work of the Able Danger team.
The former intelligence official spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he did not want to jeopardize political support and the possible financing for future data-mining operations by speaking publicly. He said the team had been established by the Special Operations Command in 1999, under a classified directive issued by Gen. Hugh Shelton, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to assemble information about Al Qaeda networks around the world.
"Ultimately, Able Danger was going to give decision makers options for taking out Al Qaeda targets," the former defense intelligence official said.
He said that he delivered the chart in summer 2000 to the Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., and said that it had been based on information from unclassified sources and government records, including those of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
"We knew these were bad guys, and we wanted to do something about them," the former intelligence official said.
The unit, which relied heavily on data-mining techniques, was modeled after those first established by Army intelligence at the Land Information Warfare Assessment Center, now known as the Information Dominance Center, at Fort Belvoir, Va., the official said.
Mr. Weldon is an outspoken figure who is a vice chairman of both the House Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee. He said he had recognized the significance of the episode only recently, when he contacted members of the military intelligence team as part of research for his book, "Countdown to Terror: The Top-Secret Information That Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America and How the C.I.A. Has Ignored It."
Mr. Weldon's book prompted one veteran C.I.A. case officer to strongly dispute the reliability of one Iranian source cited in the book, saying the Iranian "was a waste of my time and resources."
Mr. Weldon said that he had discussed the Able Danger episode with Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and that at least two Congressional committees were looking into the episode.
In the interview on Monday, Mr. Weldon said he had been aware of the episode since shortly after the Sept. 11 attack, when members of the team first brought it to his attention. He said he had told Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, about it in a conversation in September or October 2001, and had been surprised when the Sept. 11 commission report made no mention of the operation.
Col. Samuel Taylor, a spokesman for the military's Special Operations Command, said no one at the command now had any knowledge of the Able Danger program, its mission or its findings. If the program existed, Colonel Taylor said, it was probably a highly classified "special access program" on which only a few military personnel would have been briefed.
During the interview in Mr. Weldon's office, the former defense intelligence official showed a floor-sized chart depicting Al Qaeda networks around the world that he said was a larger, more detailed version similar to the one prepared by the Able Danger team in the summer of 2000.
He said the original chart, like the new one, had included the names and photographs of Mr. Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, as well as Mr. Mihdhar and Mr. Hazmi, who were identified as members of what was described as an American-based "Brooklyn" cell, as one of five such Al Qaeda cells around the world.
The official said the link to Brooklyn was meant as a term of art rather than to be interpreted literally, saying that the unit had produced no firm evidence linking the men to the borough of New York City but that a computer analysis seeking to establish patterns in links between the four men had found that "the software put them all together in Brooklyn."
According to the commission report, Mr. Mihdhar and Mr. Hazmi were first identified in late 1999 or 2000 by the C.I.A. as Qaeda members who might be involved in a terrorist operation. They were tracked from Yemen to Malaysia before their trail was lost in Thailand. Neither man was put on a State Department watch list before they flew to Los Angeles in early 2000. The F.B.I. was not warned about them until the spring of 2001, and no efforts to track them were made until August 2001.
Neither Mr. Shehhi nor Mr. Atta was identified by the American intelligence agencies as a potential threat, the commission report said. Mr. Shehhi arrived in Newark on a flight from Brussels on May 29, 2000, and Mr. Atta arrived in Newark from Prague on June 3 that year.
The former intelligence official said the first Able Danger report identified all four men as members of a "Brooklyn" cell, and was produced within two months after Mr. Atta arrived in the United States. The former intelligence official said he was among a group that briefed Mr. Zelikow and at least three other members of the Sept. 11 commission staff about Able Danger when they visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in October 2003.
The official said he had explicitly mentioned Mr. Atta as a member of a Qaeda cell in the United States. He said the staff encouraged him to call the commission when he returned to Washington at the end of the year. When he did so, the ex-official said, the calls were not returned.
Mr. Felzenberg, the former Sept. 11 commission spokesman, said on Monday that he had talked with some of the former staff members who participated in the briefing.
"They all say that they were not told anything about a Brooklyn cell," Mr. Felzenberg said. "They were told about the Pentagon operation. They were not told about the Brooklyn cell. They said that if the briefers had mentioned anything that startling, it would have gotten their attention."
As a result of the briefing, he said, the commission staff filed document requests with the Pentagon for information about the program. The Pentagon complied, he said, adding that the staff had not hidden anything from the commissioners.
"The commissioners were certainly told of the document requests and what the findings were," Mr. Felzenberg said
|
| August 10th, 2005 12:25 PM |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
quote:
Joey wrote:
|
|
|
|
V
WTF??? What's with the urrgh haircut??? 
|
| August 10th, 2005 12:26 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Problem is, it was the Clinton Administration -- and in particular, Jamie Gorelick's "wall" that prevented the sharing of information. Here is some additional material from the report:
Weldon said that in September 2000, Able Danger recommended on three separate occasions that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally, so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.
"Lawyers within the administration — and we're talking about the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration ... said 'you can't do it,'" and put post-its over Atta's face, Weldon said. "They said they were concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco ... and the Branch Davidians."
But Able Danger was largely using open-source information that was available on the Internet and other public mediums, Weldon said, adding that there was no law prohibiting such information from being passed on to law enforcement.
|
| August 10th, 2005 12:28 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
Monkey Woman wrote:
WTF??? What's with the urrgh haircut???
|
|
|
|
V
|
| August 10th, 2005 12:29 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
jb wrote:
"They hate us for our freedom"..see Sean Hannity....
Mick and his big Hezbollahical anti-American mouth are finally going to get their come-puppance. The U.S. of A is going to do a Cat Stevens on his skinny ass when he tries to fly to Boston from Toronto. HAH! |
| August 10th, 2005 12:29 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
[quote]nankerphelge wrote:
Problem is, it was the Clinton Administration -- and in particular, Jamie Gorelick's "wall" that prevented the sharing of information. Here is some additional material from the report: "
Nanky ?!?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
V
|
| August 10th, 2005 12:36 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
Problem is, it was the Clinton Administration -- and in particular, Jamie Gorelick's "wall" that prevented the sharing of information.
The team that was shadowing these guys was from the Pentagon. There was nothing to stop the Pentagon from contacting the White House directly.
It's interesting that all these things were going on during Clinton's last year. The contracts to build holding cells on Gitmo were awarded in June of 2000! Check this out. .
1) http://www.dod.gov/contracts/2002/c07262002_ct386-02.html/
2) Scroll down to:
Brown & Root Services, A Division of Kellogg Brown & Root, Arlington, Va., is being awarded $9,700,000 for Task Order 0019 under a cost-reimbursement, indefinite-delivery and indefinite-quantity construction contract for construction of a 204 unit Detention Camp, Phase III, located on the windward side of the Naval Station, at the Radio Range area of U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Units will be of modular steel construction. Each unit measures approximately
6 feet 8 inches by 8 feet and includes a bed, a toilet, and a hand basin with running water. Work will be performed in Guantanamo Bay and is to be completed by October 2002. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The basic contract was competitively procured with 44 proposals solicited, three offers received and award made on June 29, 2000. The total contract amount is not to exceed $300,000,000, which includes the base period and four option years. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Va., is the contracting activity (N62470-00-D-0005).
3) Scratch your head
|
| August 10th, 2005 12:41 PM |
|
|
| CraigP |
I have a feeling I'm gonna love Neo-Con... The Stones are punks, always were, always will be. It's just that they haven't been very political in the past... Fuck Bush, fuck war, listen to the Stones. |
| August 10th, 2005 12:47 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
The White House would have been prevented from contacting FBI too under Gorelick's directive. The wall was designed to prevent the CIA or DIA from spying on people in this country -- so the logical solution from Ms. Gorelick was to build the wall and prevent intelligence from being shared.
It is a shame really -- 9/11 might have been prevented.
|
| August 10th, 2005 12:52 PM |
|
|
| jb |
iT'S A SHAME cONDI IGNORED THE mEMO 'pLANES FLYING INTO BUILDINGS"......BUT WHAT THE FUCK, EVERYTHING WRONG IN THIS WORLD IS cLINTON'S FAULT!!! |
| August 10th, 2005 01:36 PM |
|
|
| Jair |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
I wonder if just Mick hates America, or the entire band does now?
What paranoia, man!
|
| August 10th, 2005 01:44 PM |
|
|
| Zulu Fun Mix |
*News Hounds*
9 August 2005
Now the Fascists at Fox Are After Mick Jagger
Here we go again. First it was the Dixie Chicks, then Eminem, then Bruce Springsteen, and then...the list goes on and on. Now it's Mick Jagger's turn to be slapped around.
According to Fox's Neil Cavuto, who saw fit to air two segments about this looming crisis today (August 9, 2005), Jagger took a "big jab at the White House" in a "very controversial tune called 'Sweet Neo-Con'" in which "Mick Jagger calls the President a hypocrite and worse. A lot worse."
Cavuto turned to Fox reporter Anita Vogel who said one of the Rolling Stones' "brand new songs seems to take aim at the Bush administration without actually naming any names." She said the Stones' next album will be out in September and, "word is, it will feature a track called 'Sweet Neo-Con,' a song that seems to attack the president."
Fox then showed a graphic with these lyrics:
You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite.
You call yourself a patriot.
Well, I think your are full of s**t!
How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con.
Vogel continued: "A publicist for the band says the song doesn't name names and is not about the Bush administration." In closing, lest viewers missed the point, Vogel reminded them about the 2003 boycott of the Dixie Chicks.
After Vogel's report, Cavuto hosted Joseph Anthony of Vital Marketing. Cavuto asked, "Should we boycott him?" We, "boycotted the Dixie Chicks when they railed against the President," he said. Anthony didn't think we should because we have a Constitutional right to say things like this, but nonetheless Cavuto reminded viewers of Eminem's song "Mosh," which Cavuto said "vilified" and "caricatured" Bush, and he brought up Bruce Springsteen who, he said, came out last year "on his political soap box."
Wrapping it up, adding a bit of levity, and trying to make it look like this propaganda belonged in his alleged "business news" show, Cavuto said, "I think this is all planned" and that Jagger wanted to "put a little edge to it" because, after all, he is a "brilliant business man."
Comment: Due to faux patriots like Fox News, the Rush Limbaughs, the Matt Drudges and the Clear Channels of this world, a fairly large segment of our citizenry believes that (l) one should never speak ill of the president - this particular president, that is, and (2) people who disagree with this particular president have no right to say so.
One of the characteristics of fascism is to use violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition. I'd say Fox News (Drudge was on this today too) is doing a good job of employing "modern techniques of propaganda" to mount a campaign "to suppress" the "political opposition" posed by Mick Jagger.
By the way, I thought neo-cons were MACHO men. After all, they bomb countries and kill people for no reason. If they're afraid of four lines in a Mick Jagger song, I think girlie man is the shoe that fits. Geez.
Reported by Melanie at August 9, 2005 07:17 PM
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/08/09/now_the_fascists_at_fox_are_after_mick_jagger.php
*****
*New York Times*
August 10, 2005
Why No Tea and Sympathy?
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
W. can't get no satisfaction on Iraq.
There's an angry mother of a dead soldier camping outside his Crawford ranch, demanding to see a president who prefers his sympathy to be carefully choreographed.
A new CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans now think that going to war was a mistake and that the war has made the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorism. So fighting them there means it's more likely we'll have to fight them here?
Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged yesterday that sophisticated bombs were streaming over the border from Iran to Iraq.
And the Rolling Stones have taken a rare break from sex odes to record an antiwar song called "Sweet Neo Con," chiding Condi Rice and Mr. Bush. "You call yourself a Christian; I call you a hypocrite," Mick Jagger sings.
The N.F.L. put out a press release on Monday announcing that it's teaming up with the Stones and ABC to promote "Monday Night Football." The flag-waving N.F.L. could still back out if there's pressure, but the mood seems to have shifted since Madonna chickened out of showing an antiwar music video in 2003. The White House used to be able to tamp down criticism by saying it hurt our troops, but more people are asking the White House to explain how it plans to stop our troops from getting hurt.
Cindy Sheehan, a 48-year-old Californian with a knack for P.R., says she will camp out in the dusty heat near the ranch until she gets to tell Mr. Bush face to face that he must pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq. Her son, Casey, a 24-year-old Army specialist, was killed in a Sadr City ambush last year.
The president met with her family two months after Casey's death. Capturing W.'s awkwardness in traversing the line between somber and joking, and his love of generic labels, Ms. Sheehan said that W. had referred to her as "Mom" throughout the meeting, and given her the sense that he did not know who her son was.
The Bush team tried to discredit "Mom" by pointing reporters to an old article in which she sounded kinder to W. If only her husband were an undercover C.I.A. operative, the Bushies could out him. But even if they send out a squad of Swift Boat Moms for Truth, there will be a countering Falluja Moms for Truth.
It's amazing that the White House does not have the elementary shrewdness to have Mr. Bush simply walk down the driveway and hear the woman out, or invite her in for a cup of tea. But W., who has spent nearly 20 percent of his presidency at his ranch, is burrowed into his five-week vacation and two-hour daily workouts. He may be in great shape, but Iraq sure isn't.
It's hard to think of another president who lived in such meta-insulation. His rigidly controlled environment allows no chance encounters with anyone who disagrees. He never has to defend himself to anyone, and that is cognitively injurious. He's a populist who never meets people - an ordinary guy who clears brush, and brush is the only thing he talks to. Mr. Bush hails Texas as a place where he can return to his roots. But is he mixing it up there with anyone besides Vulcans, Pioneers and Rangers?
W.'s idea of consolation was to dispatch Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, to talk to Ms. Sheehan, underscoring the inhumane humanitarianism of his foreign policy. Mr. Hadley is just a suit, one of the hard-line Unsweet Neo Cons who helped hype America into this war.
It's getting harder for the president to hide from the human consequences of his actions and to control human sentiment about the war by pulling a curtain over the 1,835 troops killed in Iraq; the more than 13,000 wounded, many shorn of limbs; and the number of slain Iraqi civilians - perhaps 25,000, or perhaps double or triple that. More people with impeccable credentials are coming forward to serve as a countervailing moral authority to challenge Mr. Bush.
Paul Hackett, a Marine major who served in Iraq and criticized the president on his conduct of the war, narrowly lost last week when he ran for Congress as a Democrat in a Republican stronghold in Cincinnati. Newt Gingrich warned that the race should "serve as a wake-up call to Republicans" about 2006.
Selectively humane, Mr. Bush justified his Iraq war by stressing the 9/11 losses. He emphasized the humanity of the Iraqis who desire freedom when his W.M.D. rationale vaporized.
But his humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/opinion/10dowd.html?pagewanted=print
*****
Antiwar.com
August 10, 2005
No Sympathy for the Neocons
Mick Jagger runs with the 'neocon' meme
by Justin Raimondo
The news that the Rolling Stones are coming out with a song called "Sweet Neocon" that takes the administration to task for its Iraq war policy is ¡K music to my ears:
"You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/ You call yourself a patriot. Well, I think your are full of sh*t!... How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con."
Wrong? Neocons? They'll never admit it, although the whole world knows it. That's a defining characteristic of these ex-lefties-turned-rightists ¡V they're so blinded by ideology and their own hubris that even the massive failure of their policies [.pdf] in practice leads not to reconsideration, but to a drunken triumphalism...
Sweet neocons, why are you soooooooo wrong? The answer is they're never wrong ¡V in any conflict between reality and their "idealistic" philosophy, it is the former that must give way. As war clouds hover darkly over Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, and the first few premonitory bolts of lightning split the sky, another Jagger song rises up from the vale of memory, like a ghost mocking us down through the years:
"Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long long year stolen many man's soul and faith
I was around when Jesus Christ had His moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate washed his hands and sealed His fate
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game"
I have no sympathy for the Devil, but I want to understand him: these days a thorough familiarity with evil is absolutely necessary, and not only for us pundits. Toward that end, the lyrics of Jagger's 1968 hit song might almost be taken for a narrative about the long and treacherous history of the neoconservative cult, from its origins on the radical Left:
"Stuck around St. Petersburg when I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Tzar and his ministers, Anastasia screamed in vain"
¡K. to its identification with war:
"I rode a tank held a gen'rals rank when the blitzkrieg
raged and the bodies stank."
Yes, but, as Jagger wonders, as do we: why are we in thrall to these monsters?:
"Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name. Oh yeah
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game. Oh yeah
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game."
Constant war, the iron fist of repression ¡V even the upside-down Bizarro World mentality of the neoconservative ideologues, who reinterpret disaster to mean "victory," is anticipated in Jagger's vision of Satanic evil in the saddle:
"Just as every cop is a criminal and all the sinners, Saints
as heads is tails, just call me Lucifer 'cause I'm in need
of some restraint
"So if you meet me, have some courtesy have some sympathy
and some taste
"Use all your well learned politesse or I'll lay your soul to waste
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game"
The Luciferians who have seized power in Washington are certainly in need of some restraint, and it could be that only a prosecutor is going to have the power to put them in the sort of restraints they really deserve ¡V i.e. handcuffs. As for the nature of their game, I'll leave that dark mystery to the psychologists and other students of abnormal phenomena, and only note that the more we know about these devils the less sympathy they evoke.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6914 |
| August 10th, 2005 01:51 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Jair wrote:
What paranoia, man!
Oh yeah? Well you can trade oil for food all you want, because at least I understand what freedom can resolve if sown right for the democracy that everyone except those against it want to have marched on, because the liberty of beliefhood, which is what America was founded on its core principles, and that is what the terrorists hate because we have it and they don't, so you and Mick Jagger can continue with the politics of hate and divisism while we save millions from the last throes of insurgent tyranny as a nation of principled values and a creator that prevails for the American spirit! HAH! |
| August 10th, 2005 01:54 PM |
|
|
| Jair |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Oh yeah? Well you can trade oil for food all you want, because at least I understand what freedom can resolve if sown right for the democracy that everyone except those against it want to have marched on, because the liberty of beliefhood, which is what America was founded on its core principles, and that is what the terrorists hate because we have it and they don't, so you and Mick Jagger can continue with the politics of hate and divisism while we save millions from the last throes of insurgent tyranny as a nation of principled values and a creator that prevails for the American spirit! HAH!
Must say I loved the part "you and Mick Jagger..." 
|
| August 10th, 2005 01:55 PM |
|
|
| Monkey Woman |
Holy shenanigans! The Bush and Fox boys are going to end up recontructing a whole new liberal virginity to Mick! Stranger things have been seen, Ronnie...
|
| August 10th, 2005 01:57 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
I understand what freedom can resolve if sown right for the democracy that everyone except those against it want to have marched on, because the liberty of beliefhood, which is what America was founded on its core principles, and that is what the terrorists hate because we have it and they don't. . .
How come the terrorists don't hate Holland and Scandanavia for their freedoms. . .they seem a lot more free to me? |
| August 10th, 2005 01:57 PM |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
What a terrible report!
Why did they show the other side of that argument?
Idiots!
That Anthony guy should have been like "YEAH of COURSE we should boycott them!"
Fox News dropped the ball on that one!
|
|
