Dirty wars

Go over and read this. Lambert at Corrente details Bush's 'war on terror' and likens it to Ronnie-boy's fooling around in South America. This is a far more deadly game, however.

[. . .]

Blowback from the Middle East will probably take the form of the loss of an American city to a loose nuke in the hands of a fundamentalist. However, since most target cities (even Washington, DC) is not part of the base—that is, not SIC, more likely to be gay, more likely to be immigrant, less likely to be white, and much more likely to vote Democratic—they are almost certainly regarded by the Bush administration as expendable. (The rhetoric of "cleansing fire" was already prepared in the aftermath of 9/11. Please refer all comments involving the words "tinfoil hat" to the Department of "No! They would never do that!")

So, yes, the stakes are great in November. Bush—on no authority but his own—has initiated a dirty war in the Middle East that we are almost certain to lose, because a strategy built for Latin America isn't going to scale to the Middle East. In prosecuting this dirty war, which will involve not only "terrorists" but Europe, Russia, and the rest of the Middle East, the United States is going to lose its character as a constitutional republic, plant the cultural seeds of fascism, and lose a city or two to nuclear weapons through blowback.

If you want that, vote for Bush in November.

As I said, go read the whole thing.