State Vigilantism: American Adventure Politics

———-
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:03:37 -0400
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: State Vigilantism: American Adventure Politics

> ———————————————————————
State Vigilantism: American Adventure Politics

An attempt to account for
the apparent support that
G.W. Bush still enjoys
among Americans in
late 2002, addressing
the vengeful role being
played by the President,
and arguing that familiar
vigilante action film
narratives are the
operative leitmotif for
his brand of post-9/11
adventure politics.

http://www.artcontext.org/crit/essays/stateVigilantism/

———————————————————————

State Vigilantism: American Adventure Politics

An attempt to account for
the apparent support that
G.W. Bush still enjoys
among Americans in
late 2002, addressing
the vengeful role being
played by the President,
and arguing that familiar
vigilante action film
narratives are the
operative leitmotif for
his brand of post-9/11
adventure politics.

http://www.artcontext.org/crit/essays/stateVigilantism/

———————————————————————

—– Original Message —–
From: "Lewis LaCook" <[email protected]>
> > I'd hereby like to apologize to the citizens of the world for our
president here in America…he's not very bright, and most of us didn't
elect him…

It's unfortunate that you are not an Iraqi citizen because you wouldn't have
to apologize for the brilliant Saddam Hussein who achieved a 100% voter
turnout as well as a 100% approval rating. It is a reflection of the unity
of purpose of the Iraqi people, unlike the USAmerican people and their
inability to achieve amongst themselves such unity.

> I'd hereby like to apologize to the citizens of the world for our president here in America…he's not very bright, and most of us didn't elect him…
bliss
l

There is nothing defensive in my remarks. I never claimed you asserted anyt=
hing to the contrary; however, if you have such evidence, I'd be most inter=
ested to see it. Of course the Bush administration dismissed the Saddam ref=
erendum results, scorned them, etc. Of course, being the Bush administratio=
n, who could honestly believe what they have to say about anything – where=
as the referendum campaign was open and transparent to Western media. The B=
ush administration has a political agenda which directs that they scorn the=
Iraqi referendum results. How about you? Do you share the Bush administrat=
ion's perception of the Iraqi referendum?

And I have noticed on this list that there is a disproportionate number of =
people highly critical of Bush, the Bush administration, whereas hardly a w=
ord has been posted critical of Saddam & his dictatorshit. I wonder why tha=
t is? I really don't know why – perhaps you do. Please be generous with yo=
ur perceptions.

—– Original Message —–
From: Eryk Salvaggio
Hi Wally. I never said anything to the contrary. Why are you so defensive=
?

Wally Keeler wrote:
I saw the news. Western journalists were in Iraq providing "independent" =
observer status and reported no irregularities in the electoral stations. A=
ll of the voters eagerly stated to the news media that they voted YES for S=
addam. No one was shot at. What evidence do you have to assert that there w=
as not 100% turnout with 100% YES vote?
—– Original Message —–
From:Eryk Salvaggio
Just clarifying something here Wally- are you suggesting that the rea=
son Hussein got 100% of the vote is because there is 100% support for him i=
n Iraq, and not because he simply lied about the results? And secondly, do =
you think that anyone on the list is "in favor" of Saddam Hussein?


Wally Keeler wrote:
—– Original Message —–
From: "Lewis LaCook" <[email protected]>
I'd hereby like to apologize to the citizens of the world for our
president here in America…he's not very bright, and most of us didn=
't
elect him…
It's unfortunate that you are not an Iraqi citizen because you wouldn't hav=
eto apologize for the brilliant Saddam Hussein who achieved a 100% votertur=
nout as well as a 100% approval rating. It is a reflection of the unityof p=
urpose of the Iraqi people, unlike the USAmerican people and theirinability=
to achieve amongst themselves such unity.+ perplex propaganda subtile inva=
sion ???-> post: [email protected]> questions: [email protected]> subscribe=
/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz-> give: http://=
rhizome.org/support+Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms se
t out in theMembership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/inf=
o/29.php

I would assume people are not saying anything negative about Saddam
because there is no one who needs convincing. He's very clearly a
terrible human being and leader. We don't sit around reiterating how
terrible Hitler was, either, or saying "Bad things are bad." For me
anyway, it's taken as a given.

-e.




Wally Keeler wrote:

> There is nothing defensive in my remarks. I never claimed you asserted
> anything to the contrary; however, if you have such evidence, I'd be
> most interested to see it. Of course the Bush administration dismissed
> the Saddam referendum results, scorned them, etc. Of course, being the
> Bush administration, who could honestly believe what they have to say
> about anything – whereas the referendum campaign was open and
> transparent to Western media. The Bush administration has a political
> agenda which directs that they scorn the Iraqi referendum results. How
> about you? Do you share the Bush administration's perception of the
> Iraqi referendum?
>
>
>
> And I have noticed on this list that there is a disproportionate
> number of people highly critical of Bush, the Bush administration,
> whereas hardly a word has been posted critical of Saddam & his
> dictatorshit. I wonder why that is? I really don't know why – perhaps
> you do. Please be generous with your perceptions.
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
>
> From:Eryk Salvaggio <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> Hi Wally. I never said anything to the contrary. Why are you so
> defensive?
>
> Wally Keeler wrote:
> I saw the news. Western journalists were in Iraq providing
> "independent" observer status and reported no irregularities in
> the electoral stations. All of the voters eagerly stated to the
> news media that they voted YES for Saddam. No one was shot at.
> What evidence do you have to assert that there was not 100%
> turnout with 100% YES vote?
>
>> —– Original Message —–
>>
>> From:Eryk Salvaggio <mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>> Just clarifying something here Wally- are you suggesting that
>> the reason Hussein got 100% of the vote is because there is
>> 100% support for him in Iraq, and not because he simply lied
>> about the results? And secondly, do you think that anyone on
>> the list is "in favor" of Saddam Hussein?
>>
>>
>> Wally Keeler wrote:
>> —– Original Message —–
>> From: "Lewis LaCook" <[email protected]>
>> I'd hereby like to apologize to the citizens of the world for our
>> president here in America…he's not very bright, and most of
>> us didn't
>> elect him…
>>
>>>It's unfortunate that you are not an Iraqi citizen because you wouldn't have
>>>to apologize for the brilliant Saddam Hussein who achieved a 100% voter
>>>turnout as well as a 100% approval rating. It is a reflection of the unity
>>>of purpose of the Iraqi people, unlike the USAmerican people and their
>>>inability to achieve amongst themselves such unity.
>>>
>>>+ perplex propaganda subtile invasion ???
>>>-> post: [email protected]
>>>-> questions: [email protected]
>>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>+
>>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms se
>>>t out in the
>>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>
>

I saw the news. Western journalists were in Iraq providing "independent" ob=
server status and reported no irregularities in the electoral stations. All=
of the voters eagerly stated to the news media that they voted YES for Sad=
dam. No one was shot at. What evidence do you have to assert that there was=
not 100% turnout with 100% YES vote?
—– Original Message —–
From: Eryk Salvaggio
To: Wally Keeler
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: State Vigilantism: American Adventure Polit=
ics



Just clarifying something here Wally- are you suggesting that the reason =
Hussein got 100% of the vote is because there is 100% support for him in Ir=
aq, and not because he simply lied about the results? And secondly, do you =
think that anyone on the list is "in favor" of Saddam Hussein?


Wally Keeler wrote:

—– Original Message —–From: "Lewis LaCook" <[email protected]>
I'd hereby like to apologize to the citizens of the world for our
president here in America…he's not very bright, and most of us didn'telec=
t him…
It's unfortunate that you are not an Iraqi citizen because you wouldn't hav=
eto apologize for the brilliant Saddam Hussein who achieved a 100% votertur=
nout as well as a 100% approval rating. It is a reflection of the unityof p=
urpose of the Iraqi people, unlike the USAmerican people and theirinability=
to achieve amongst themselves such unity.+ perplex propaganda subtile inva=
sion ???-> post: [email protected]> questions: [email protected]> subscribe=
/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz-> give: http://=
rhizome.org/support+Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out=
in theMembership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.=
php

Hi Wally. I never said anything to the contrary. Why are you so defensive?

-e.



Wally Keeler wrote:

> I saw the news. Western journalists were in Iraq providing
> "independent" observer status and reported no irregularities in the
> electoral stations. All of the voters eagerly stated to the news media
> that they voted YES for Saddam. No one was shot at. What evidence do
> you have to assert that there was not 100% turnout with 100% YES vote?
>
> —– Original Message —–
>
> From:Eryk Salvaggio <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> To: Wally Keeler <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 12:59 AM
>
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: State Vigilantism: American
> Adventure Politics
>
>
>
> Just clarifying something here Wally- are you suggesting that the
> reason Hussein got 100% of the vote is because there is 100%
> support for him in Iraq, and not because he simply lied about the
> results? And secondly, do you think that anyone on the list is "in
> favor" of Saddam Hussein?
>
>
> Wally Keeler wrote:
>
>>—– Original Message —–
>>From: "Lewis LaCook" <[email protected]>
>>
>>>>I'd hereby like to apologize to the citizens of the world for our
>>>>
>>president here in America…he's not very bright, and most of us didn't
>>elect him…
>>
>>
>>
>>It's unfortunate that you are not an Iraqi citizen because you wouldn't have
>>to apologize for the brilliant Saddam Hussein who achieved a 100% voter
>>turnout as well as a 100% approval rating. It is a reflection of the unity
>>of purpose of the Iraqi people, unlike the USAmerican people and their
>>inability to achieve amongst themselves such unity.
>>
>>+ perplex propaganda subtile invasion ???
>>-> post: [email protected]
>>-> questions: [email protected]
>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>+
>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>

Oh, and I meant to ask; if Hussein had 100% approval in Iraq without
coersion, what does that prove? Like what does that mean, in your
opinion? If it's the truth, then it tells me that people aren't
suffering as badly as you have said they were, and that the Iraqi people
are living comfortably and safely, and that we should think twice about
going into Iraq and replacing such a popular elected leader of a democracy.

I just don't trust it Wally; this is a really strange stance it seems
like- that Hussein is a liar who murders his own people and allows them
to starve, but that he has a 100% approval rating and that people are
overjoyed with the opportunity to vote for him and tell it to all the
television cameras. That's why I have to ask what you think it means. Do
you think that if there is 100% support for Hussein in Iraq without the
rigging of elections, then how is he a dictator? He's an elected
official, I would think. If he has 100% support and is an enemy of the
USA, is it okay to execute 100% of the people as enemies of the USA?

-e.



Wally Keeler wrote:

> I saw the news. Western journalists were in Iraq providing
> "independent" observer status and reported no irregularities in the
> electoral stations. All of the voters eagerly stated to the news media
> that they voted YES for Saddam. No one was shot at. What evidence do
> you have to assert that there was not 100% turnout with 100% YES vote?
>
> —– Original Message —–
>
> From:Eryk Salvaggio <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> To: Wally Keeler <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 12:59 AM
>
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: State Vigilantism: American
> Adventure Politics
>
>
>
> Just clarifying something here Wally- are you suggesting that the
> reason Hussein got 100% of the vote is because there is 100%
> support for him in Iraq, and not because he simply lied about the
> results? And secondly, do you think that anyone on the list is "in
> favor" of Saddam Hussein?
>
>
> Wally Keeler wrote:
>
>>—– Original Message —–
>>From: "Lewis LaCook" <[email protected]>
>>
>>>>I'd hereby like to apologize to the citizens of the world for our
>>>>
>>president here in America…he's not very bright, and most of us didn't
>>elect him…
>>
>>
>>
>>It's unfortunate that you are not an Iraqi citizen because you wouldn't have
>>to apologize for the brilliant Saddam Hussein who achieved a 100% voter
>>turnout as well as a 100% approval rating. It is a reflection of the unity
>>of purpose of the Iraqi people, unlike the USAmerican people and their
>>inability to achieve amongst themselves such unity.
>>
>>+ perplex propaganda subtile invasion ???
>>-> post: [email protected]
>>-> questions: [email protected]
>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>+
>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>