Podcasts about bush regime

Get BETTER HEALTH with Field of Greens Go to www.fieldofgreens.com and use promo code LT for 15% off your first order ——————————— Protect your investments with And We Know http://andweknow.com/gold Or call 720-605-3900, Tell them “LT” sent you. ————————————————————— *Our AWK Website: https://www.andweknow.com/ *Our 24/7 NEWS SITE: https://thepatriotlight.com/ *BOWLING BROS: Sons Bowling channel: https://www.youtube.com/@Bowling_Bros/videos ————————————————— Remnant Revolution Tour https://remnantrevolutiontour.com/ German MEP Christine Anderson urges noncompliance with COVID and biomedical tyranny: https://t.me/NoAgendaLara/5285 “Panama is bearing the brunt of America's open border policy”…. https://t.me/NoAgendaLara/5267 "The cesspool of the MAGA base!" https://t.me/ThePatriotAU/96155 AG Paxton's lawyer Tony Buzbee calls out the “Bush Regime”

Die Mondlandung? Wurde in Hollywood gedreht. 9/11? Wurde nicht von Al-Quaida sondern vom Bush-Regime geplant und durchgeführt. Impfungen? Verbreitet Autismus. Klingt alles nach Hirngespinst? Nur wenn man alle Fakten kennt und/oder der Regierung und der offiziellen Wissenschaft Glauben schenken mag. Wer einen Teil der Fakten ignoriert und sich gewisse Dinge dazu dichtet, der kann schneller von einer Verschwörungstheorie überzeugt sein, als ihm oder ihr lieb ist. Was eine Verschwörungstheorie ausmacht, warum wir alle einen Hang dazu haben und was Donald Trump damit zu tun hat, damit befasst sich dieser Talk. Christophe Hutmacher im Subkutan-Talk mit dem Sozialwissenschaftler Marko Kovic. Er ist Präsident des Think Tank Skeptiker Schweiz und Betreiber des Podcasts Denkatelier.

The 9-11 Moment [col. writ. 9/9/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal It is true that 9-11 changed everything, but not quite the way that the Bush Regime intended. It changed how many in the world perceived the U.S., for sure, but the U.S. response to 9-11 has done more to change such perceptions. As the ashes began to cool from the embers of what was once the World Trade Center, allies and enemies alike expressed solidarity with the U.S., and shed tears of sympathy. What a difference six years makes. What was once solidarity has cooled to bitter toleration, and barely disguised anger. Remember the so-called "Coalition of the Willing?" It has dwindled in number and fervor. Politicians know enough to talk the talk, but precious few are willing to walk that walk. Even America's staunchest ally - England - has marched its troops out of the southern Iraqi city of Basra, under cover of darkness. In many of the countries where leaders signed up to join the U.S. crusade, their people have voted them out of office, and sent some leaders into political retirement. Such are the wages of democracy. At home, the war has deepened divisions not seen since the ravages of the Vietnam War. And the President? Not only are his numbers in the basement, but he's pulling his party into the cellar with him. His latest ploy, to buy time by pointing to the Gen. (David) Petraeus report, neatly juxtaposes the power relations between civilians and military. Civilian leaders, in a democracy, aren't supposed to do what military leaders says; the military is supposed to obey their civilian political leaders. But, since 9-11, the nation has fled so far, so fast, from any real semblance of democracy, that listening to the most profoundly undemocratic institution in the American republic seems almost normal. If the Bush regime has changed anything, it has changed this. A war begun in bad faith, cannot end well. From the day George W. Bush announced his "shock and awe" bombing runs over Baghdad, we have seen nothing but a long train of disasters. The Gen. Petraeus report may do quite a few things, but it won't change that. --(c) '07 maj

A 'Lesson' From Vietnam col. writ. 8/23/07 (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal Speaking before a Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) group recently, US President George W. Bush evoked the slaughter, concentration camps, and devastation following the US pullout from Vietnam, to warn against the costs of precipitous withdrawal from the Iraq debacle. The argument boiled down to the recent conservative claim that if the US leaves Iraq now, it'll result in a societal bloodbath. There is something quite unseemly about a man who, when he was of age, declined to go to Vietnam, now arguing for its lessons before men who did go, some of whom have lost limbs. There is another odd, almost surreal quality to hearing the president who went to war on the most naked of lies, who authorized a bombing campaign called "shock and awe", who sent the entire region into a tizzy of maddening discontent, which led to the deaths of an estimated 500,000 Iraqis, argue about the costs of withdrawal. His "stay the course" is as empty an echo as was that of one of his presidential predecessors, Lyndon B. Johnson when he called for troop increases in Vietnam. What is missing from his convenient 'lesson' from Vietnam, is the reckoning of just how such pain, suffering and death was visited upon the Vietnamese by the American war. According to many sources, some 3 million Vietnamese were killed by US military forces (the number isn't clearer, simply because, as they were Asians, it wasn't deemed necessary for an accurate count). What Bush conveniently forgot to mention was the continuing costs of war facing Vietnam, because of the US use of toxic chemicals, such as the defoliant, Agent Orange. The US dropped over 10 million gallons of that poison on Vietnam, and the country still suffers from this aerial assault. According to Anthony Arnova's The Logic of Withdrawal (N. Y.: The New Press, 2006), some four million people suffered from this barrage, which has left an untold number with serious birth defects, and has caused an unprecedented environmental and ecological damage to the rural regions. A recent civil lawsuit against Dow Chemical (which created the weapon) was dismissed by US courts. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from Vietnam after all, but not ones the Bush Regime may wish to address. Recent Bush Administration criticisms of Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki, that his government is 'ineffective', and doesn't listen enough to his American paymasters, sounds eerily similar to mumbled musings against South Vietnam's President Ngo Dinh Diem. The CIA 1st key military leaders know that the US was losing faith in their chosen puppet, and thus laid the groundwork for a military coup that not only toppled Diem's government, but led to his brutal assassination. Are we witnessing the opening stages of this 'lesson', being replayed in Iraq? Let us not think for a moment that the US doesn't prefer generals to presidents; or, as in Pakistan's Musharraf, both for the price of one. The history of 20th century Latin America has been one of an American love affair with generals, and -- yes, with death squads (many trained in the infamous School of the Americas --since renamed --at Fort Benning, Georgia). "Dubya", who was apparently a poor student of history, is not much better as a teacher, for if this is the only lesson learned from Vietnam, then he needs to go back to summer school. One lesson is that lies and scare tactics may lead people to war, but it won't keep them there once they learn the truth. (c) '07 maj

If the minions of the neocon right are to be believed, the struggle in Iraq, (and by extension, the Middle East) is essentially a war against what they call "extremism." Even the verbally challenged President George W. Bush has argued, quite strenuously, against "Islamic extremists." It seems like many in the right are trying out new terms every week, to stoke the fires of fear about new and foreboding threats to the besieged American republic: "extremists"; "Islamic extremists"; "Islamofascists"; "dead-enders", et al. For politicians words are weapons, which are used to sell images, such like Madison Ave. sells soap. Every so often, even the best product must be made "new" or "improved!" And why shouldn't they? Hasn't it worked before? We now sneer at the phrase 'weapons of mass destruction', but several years ago it rang in the head like a klaxon. Is it radical or extremist to fight against foreigners who invade your country, and try to impose strangers who function as puppets for these foreigners? Why is the administration never seen as "extremist" for invading a foreign country based on false pretenses? Why isn't it viewed as "extreme" for its mad plan to 'remake the face of the Middle East?' Why isn't its response for the desperate acts of 19 men, (9/11), of invading a nation that had nothing to do with that act, seen as "extreme?" That it isn't is largely because of the obedient services of the corporate media, which sought obscene ratings by playing the fear card, and waving the flag. They did so because their paychecks are signed by big business, and this administration has been good for big business. They served their corporate masters, but betrayed their publics. Yet this is hardly a new thing. Scholar and writer, Michael Parenti, in the 2004 book Super Patriotism (San Francisco: City Lights Books) looks beyond the present manic Bush Regime, to view a long history of US extremism all around the world: "US LEADERS HAVE LONG PROFESSED A DEDICATION TO DEMOCRACY, yet over the last half century they have devoted themselves to overthrowing democratic governments in Guatemala, Guyana, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Syria, Indonesia (under Sukarno), Greece (twice), Argentina (twice), Haiti (twice), Bolivia, Jamaica, Yugoslavia, and other countries. These countries were all guilty of pursuing policies that occasionally favored the poorer elements and infringed upon the more affluent. In most instances, the US-sponsored coups were accompanied by widespread killings of democratic activists. "US leaders have supported covert actions, sanctions, or proxy mercenary wars against revolutionary governments in Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Iraq (with the CIA ushering in Saddam Hussein's reign of repression), Portugal, South Yemen, Nicaragua, Cambodia, East Timor, Western Sahara, and elsewhere. "US interventions and destabilization campaigns have been directed against other populist nationalistic governments, including Egypt, Lebanon, Peru, Iran, Syria, Zaire, Venezuela, the Fiji Islands, and Afghanistan (before the Soviets ever went into the country). "And since World War II, direct US military invasions or aerial attacks or both have been perpetrated against Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, North Korea, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Libya, Somalia, and Iraq (twice). There is no 'rogue state,' 'axis of evil,' or communist country that has a comparable record of such criminal aggression against other nations." (pp. 133-34] In light of this kind of history, who are the "extremists?" In light of this history, who are the "radicals?" This isn't a 'war against extremism' -- it is a war waged by extremists. It is a war waged by ideologues drunk on power, and willing to break a nation to prove their theories of the so-called 'free market.' Iraq is essentially a broken state, awaiting its final crack. Like hungry wolves, these dudes are looking for the next morsel to munch on. Column Written 10/15/06. Copyright '06 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Discussion of the Bush Regime and an update on the 7/7 London Bombings. Also featuring music track "You Lied" performed by Away With The Fairys. Running Time: 00:39:23 Download: MP3

Discussion of the Bush Regime and an update on the 7/7 London Bombings. Also featuring music track "You Lied" performed by Away With The Fairys. Running Time: 00:39:23 Download: MP3

Discussion of the Bush Regime and an update on the 7/7 London Bombings. Also featuring music track "You Lied" performed by Away With The Fairys. Running Time: 00:39:23 Download: MP3