Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Should Obama attack McCain?
In the 2nd Presidential debate on Tuesday, October 7th, Obama remained his usual: civil and to the point. He did not attack McCain the person, as McCain did when he pointed towards Obama and said "that one". The media should have grilled McCain on that.

Here are the dialogues, I wish Obama could deliver;

"Senator McCain, you keep parroting "you don't understand" as if that is the only phrase you know, thank you, just tell me if you understand, or even hear what I have said many times and just three minutes ago that " when we find where Bin Laden is holed up and the Pakistani Government is unwilling and does not want to get him, then we will attack the centers where he is, isn’t' that what I said? Senator McCain, you turn around and say that ‘I will attack Pakistan. Do you really hear things out ? Is that how you make you judgments?’

Didn't Lieberman correct you on Camera that Iran was not training Al-Qaeda, and then you corrected yourselves right on the CNN camera?" Senator McCain do you understand, what you utter?

"Do you want me to give you the list, or two items are enough for you to know to back off. I hope you get this ‘it is you who do not hear, let alone understand.’”

“Senator McCain, you are the one who wants your government to buy houses and you have gall to call that 'he wants bigger a government?" Do you understand what you are saying?

“Senator McCain, let’s focus on topics and what we need to do to create societies of co-existence, when you talk about creating a club of democracies, you are dividing the nations into two groups, let’s strengthen United Nations, where the entire community of Nations can dialogue. Please don’t continue Bushing, “you are either with us” and bring disaster to our economy and our nation”. Do you understand that? The Americans understand that and they don't want four more years of Bush around you.

Personally, I know Obama would stick to the point and I admire that. But to those gossiping Republicans who like lines like that, he should deliver. Because Republicans are not looking for anything of substance, they don't even get it that American Public is not with their wars, with their threats, with their budget deficit, bonuses to the criminals and with their loot in the name of deregulation. McCain does not understand any of that.

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at


  1. I know!!! Preach on man, preach on!!! American politics needs to be better than it is, like this guy suggests:

  2. Dear Mr Mike,

    US Democrats too aren't angels either. A glimpse:


    When the United States invaded Iraq, a New York Times/CBS News survey estimated that 42 percent of the American public believed that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And an ABC News poll said that 55 percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein directly supported Al Qaida. None of this opinion is based on evidence (because there isn't any). All of it is based on insinuation, auto-suggestion, and outright lies circulated by the U.S. corporate media, otherwise known as the "Free Press," that hollow pillar on which contemporary American democracy rests. Public support in the U.S. for the war against Iraq was founded on a multi-tiered edifice of falsehood and deceit, coordinated by the U.S. government and faithfully amplified by the corporate media.

    Never mind that forty years ago, the CIA, under President John F. Kennedy, orchestrated a regime change in Baghdad. In 1963, after a successful coup, the Ba'ath party came to power in Iraq. Using lists provided by the CIA, the new Ba'ath regime systematically eliminated hundreds of doctors, teachers, lawyers, and political figures known to be leftists. An entire intellectual community was slaughtered. (The same technique was used to massacre hundreds of thousands of people in Indonesia and East Timor.) The young Saddam Hussein was said to have had a hand in supervising the bloodbath. In 1979, after factional infighting within the Ba'ath Party, Saddam Hussein became the President of Iraq. In April 1980, while he was massacring Shias, the U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinksi declared, "We see no fundamental incompatibility of interests between the United States and Iraq." Washington and London overtly and covertly supported Saddam Hussein.

    They financed him, equipped him, armed him, and provided him with dual-use materials to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. They supported his worst excesses financially, materially, and morally. They supported the eight-year war against Iran and the 1988 gassing of Kurdish people in Halabja, crimes which 14 years later were re-heated and served up as reasons to justify invading Iraq. After the first Gulf War, the "Allies" fomented an uprising of Shias in Basra and then looked away while Saddam Hussein crushed the revolt and slaughtered thousands in an act of vengeful reprisal. It was Herman Goering, that old Nazi, who said, "People can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.… All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." He's right. It's dead easy. That's what the Bush regime banks on. The distinction
    between election campaigns and war, between democracy and oligarchy, seems to be closing fast.

    Democracy has become Empire's euphemism for neo-liberal capitalism.

    In countries of the first world, too, the machinery of democracy has been effectively subverted. Politicians, media barons, judges, powerful corporate lobbies, and government officials are imbricated in an elaborate underhand configuration that completely undermines the lateral arrangement of checks and balances between the constitution, courts of law, parliament, the administration and, perhaps most important of all, the independent media that form the structural basis of a parliamentary democracy. Increasingly, the imbrication is neither subtle nor elaborate. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, for instance, has a controlling interest in major Italian newspapers, magazines, television channels, and publishing houses. The Financial Times reported that he controls about 90 percent of Italy's TV viewership. Recently, during a trial on bribery charges, while insisting he was the only person who could save Italy from the left, he said, "How much
    longer do I have to keep living this life of sacrifices?" That bodes ill for the remaining 10 percent of Italy's TV viewership. What price Free Speech? Free Speech for whom? In the United States, the arrangement is more complex. Clear Channel Worldwide Incorporated is the largest radio station owner in the country. It runs more than 1,200 channels, which together account for 9 percent of the market. Its CEO contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bush's election campaign. When hundreds of thousands of American citizens took to the streets to protest against the war on Iraq, Clear Channel organized pro-war patriotic "Rallies for America" across the country. It used its radio stations to advertise the events and then sent correspondents to cover them as though they were breaking news. The era of manufacturing consent has given way to the era of manufacturing news. Soon media newsrooms will drop the pretense, and start hiring theatre directors
    instead of journalists.

    As America's show business gets more and more violent and war-like, and America's wars get more and more like show business, some interesting cross-overs are taking place. The designer who built the 250,000 dollar set in Qatar from which General Tommy Franks stage-managed news coverage of Operation Shock and Awe also built sets for Disney, MGM, and "Good Morning America." It is a cruel irony that the U.S., which has the most ardent, vociferous defenders of the idea of Free Speech, and (until recently) the most elaborate legislation to protect it, has so circumscribed the space in which that freedom can be expressed. In a strange, convoluted way, the sound and fury that accompanies the legal and conceptual defense of Free Speech in America serves to mask the process of the rapid erosion of the possibilities of actually exercising that freedom. The news and entertainment industry in the U.S. is for the most part controlled by a few major corporations -
    AOL-Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, News Corporation. Each of these corporations owns and controls TV stations, film studios, record companies, and publishing ventures. Effectively, the exits are sealed. America's media empire is controlled by a tiny coterie of people. Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Michael Powell, the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell, has proposed even further deregulation of the communication industry, which will lead to even greater consolidation. So here it is - the World's Greatest Democracy, led by a man who was not legally elected Another urgent challenge is to expose the corporate media for the boardroom bulletin that it really is.

    Instant-Mix Imperial Democracy (Buy One, Get One Free) by Arundhati Roy
    Presented in New York City at The Riverside Church May 13, 2003 Published on Sunday, May 18, 2003 by Copyright 2003 by Arundhati Roy

    Instant-Mix Imperial Democracy (Buy One, Get One Free), by Arundhati Roy

    Transcript of full speech by Arundhati Roy in San Francisco, California on August 16th, 2004. Copyright 2004 Arundhati Roy. For permission to reprint contact


  3. You can check out my profile.

    Good piece again. did you write this? Can I have the source to refer to itThanks for sharing this... it is indeed enlightening, I wish when they were disenchanted, they should have gone the course of Buddha - the middle path, instead of the other extreme.


    Dear Mr Mike,

    Not at all the below mentioned was a compilation from different sources because I am not that genious neither that much educated to write down in my own words.

    Please correct where the text I am quoting is wrong?





    Dear Sir,

    From 2002 to 2007 I was a Free Lance Contributor of a website formed by two American Indians Ms. Rashmi Sinha and Mr V Kumar on Pak India friendship and these three posts on US Republicans/Democrats were the posts we shared with each other. I just saved the text of the posts above which I compiled through Zmag, Atimes, and whatever I read in Daily Dawn and elsewhere, unfortunately I lost all the references and bibliography due to and lost all data which was stored in my old computer the text some how i recollected and recompiled.