I think the whole point of the deletion of the amendments is not about differences between the House & Senate versions. It was done to protect Bush from having to veto it (or do a ’signing-statement-veto’).

If he had to do that, it would send the ultimate message to Iraqis that ‘we’re never leaving, even if you guys work out your differences’ and ‘when you stand up, we’re not standing down.’

It’d destroy all incentive to stand up. It’d say ‘despite your new democracy, I’m still your daddy’ and their new puppetocracy would thus be official.

It’d also say: ‘achieving this neocon vision is the real reason we invaded. It’s our oil, dammit.’

As far as stimulating the recruiting for Bin Laden, I think Bush knows this and is doing it to say ‘recruit all you want; we’ll kick your new guys’ asses, too’. And the troops bear the brunt of that arrogance, of course.

Finally, regarding the neocon’s claiming ‘Mission Accomplished’, I hope that proves as true as the last time their empty-suit-in-chief said it, everything went to hell and he became the country’s top fool. If PNAC follows that precedent, they’ll soon become the Beltway bagladies, talking their crazy shit to thin air.

To those who believe that the construction of the permanent bases and the embassy fortress means that the US will never leave Iraq, I’d like to remind them that the US thought it would have permanent bases in Vietnam, too. Sooner or later (it can’t be soon enough for me) the US will be driven out, the only question being how much blood and destruction it will entail. Everything that will have gone into those fortresses will be lost — except for the billions paid out to Haliburton, Bechtel, et. al., of course.

It’s amazing how accurately Dick Cheney and the first President Bush anticipated what a quagmire an invasion of Iraq would turn out to be. In 1998 Bush wrote: “Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.” Cheney’s comments in 1991 were similar.

‘Reading the bopsecrets thingy, it seems like Detournement has some problems in the political sphere in that it intends to disrupt the perceptual reality of the observer, and in its most potent form, does so in ways that lead to indeterminate outcomes.’

Quite true, because of the element of chaos introduced as a medium for change. It must be acknowledged that there is as much a reactionary point on the scale of potential outcomes as there is a revolutionary one, and that the potential for either extreme is based on purely subjective issues within the individual that are not under general control. I suspect that the authors (Debord and Wolman) of the Les Levres Nues article found on bopsecrets.org were limited by their own ideological prism of European situationism…A compulsive desire for upheaval until all existing societal structures were altered unrecognizably. But detournement is not limited conceptually or operationally by ideologies, being at core a vehicle for heightening contrasts, and there are marked degrees of subtlety available within the overall application that can be directed toward specific goals.
For example, the difference between ‘minor’ and ‘deceptive’ detournements, ‘minor’ involving an element which, by itself, has no importance and thus draws its power from the context into which it is placed…And ‘deceptive’, using an element of some importance to alter the context. Subsequently, a greater detournement is composed using both minor and deceptive form with infinite combinations.
For those who might find such Byzantine machinations distasteful, simple everyday adaptations used within conventional frameworks exist, such as advancing the meme, ‘pol A advocates position X’, then restating ‘position X’ in such a way as to make ‘pol A’ look irredeemably foolish…Or revealing the cause and effect previously kept ‘backstage’: ‘Pol A’ voted for/against ‘Proposition X’ even though ‘Pol A’s’ vote would be seen to be contradictory to a previously held stance, because ‘Pol A’ was under pressure to make a deal for votes on their own ‘Proposition Y’.

culture jamming…Such a concept could certainly be used against a culture of corruption, no?

Maybe…maybe not. Political strategies that are too clever by half are often doomed to fail. While we might understand the underlying theory, making it work in the real world of hand-to-hand political combat with two second soundbites is the challenge.
*
This would then force the user of detournement to use broad strokes rather than a pointillistic approach, to use a painting metaphor. The art would be in selection of the soundbite and its subsequent placement for maximal impact and advantage.

To sum up: Crashing your opponents message so that they are forced to rethink on the defensive allows you space to put forward your own message, loudly and repeatedly.

A relentless approach to this two-pronged attack portends success in message penetration…And keep the crowd smiling.

Turn your opponents message against them…

Make them look ridiculous…

and Entertain your audience.
*
Exactly, but one must also have a concerted effort made to get an easily understandable, truthful accounting of one’s own ideas writ large into the public arena, and make efforts to vigilantly defend them.

Some dumb ass on the radio today said the suicides at Gitmo over the weekend are “publicity stunts,designed to make the US look bad”?And the person was quoting a US government official?I was in the car with a kid post oral surgery so I didn’t catch who the idiot was who supposedly said this.What the hell has happened to people’s souls and and notion of empathy?It breaks my heart,then it pisses me off.

I should stop now,before I just lose it in various explatives.

All I can say is that we need it ALL,we have to multi-task,we can do it,there’s enough work for everyone.From protests to gatherings like YKos,to people pressuring government officials,to exposing scandalous and corrupt behavior(with facts to back it up.These people have become so inflated and arrogant,evidence is all over the place,IMO it needs to be gathered and USED.Go hardcore,it needs to be done.We’ll knock it off when they stop smearing and lying and dehumanizing us),to assuring fair elections,to legal actions against lawbreakers when and wherever possible,to running for office or working for candidates,I’m not even against a little schmoozing and playing the game if it helps(proceeding with caution and ego in check).We need people in and out of the system,under it,over it,around it.And somehow we have to start weaving a web that includes all of that,as much as is possible.There’s power in numbers.We may have different problems we want fixed,but in the end most people want the same things.That boils down to the best life possible for the most people.

Progressives who are gaining a foothold in the system and getting the attention of the powers that be also need,IMO,to reach outside the political realm to other people who are creating home grown solutions to various”single issues”of importance to Progressives in general.Veterans groups,labor unions,small businesses,groups that feed the poor and work with the homeless,urban and rural food/farm/garden co-ops,educators,domestic abuse shelters and rape crisis centers,doctors and nurses groups,social workers,etc.These are people working in communities now,trying to fix stuff that’s broken and doing stuff for their communities,one person or family at a time.They know who’s who,and probably even know a bit about the local political atmosphere.These groups and progressive politics share many of the same goals and are seeking solutions to the same problems,for the most part it would be a good match.There’s the potential to accelerate the process of creating an infrastructure by inviting those folks to crash the gates too.A simple model is a beehive,bees have different jobs to keep the hive alive and healthy.Without all those bees,there’s no honey,or any new baby bees,or food,or much of anything.And theres lots of humming and communication amongst everyone all the time,it hardly ever slows down,something’s always abuzz(yes,I’ve studied bees a little in my day,lol).

Political action matters,but it’s not the only thing that needs to be happening.If there’s a way to somehow bring together a larger web of people,in and outside of politics,it might help us put this country back together a bit faster.

George Bernard Shaw: “I want to go to Hell. All of the interesting people will be there.”