BELIEVING BAD THINGS VS. BELIEVING GOOD THINGS
In my recent research into the 9/11 Truth movement, I stopped and asked myself a question–do I buy into this simply because I want to believe bad things about Bush and Republicans? Will I believe anything about them as long as it casts them in a negative light? Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and their hordes of adherents constantly suggest as much. In online forums and letters to the editor, “left-wing wackos” are accused of simply “hating Bush” and being “blind” to the truth.
My own father suggests that by reading liberal blogs and anti-Bush books and shunning their opposites, I am therefore unable to get at the truth because I’m only listening to one side of the story.
And I answered that question to myself with another question–will Bush supporters believe anything about Bush and Republicans as long as it casts them in a positive light?
After all, in the same online forums and letters to the editor, Bush supporters say they support him “100 percent” and that Bush is a good Christian man and we should follow him merely because he says he prays every day.
But no, I bought the official story about 9/11 until I saw “Loose Change.” The facts make me believe bad things about Bush and Republicans, not my ideology.
If anything, a liberal/progressive ideology would tend to make one more forgiving and more understanding and tolerant of Bush and Republicans. And I adhere to a liberal and progressive way of thinking, but the facts lead me negative conclusions about Bush and Republicans.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
THE MOST IMPORTANT AND SUCCESSFUL BUSH POLICY...
...is unmitigated chutzpah. Check out Bush’s defense today of the Dubai Ports World deal:
Such is the logic here in Bushland...We know that Bush and Co. frequently and purposely misuse the meaning of words. So is the “now” qualifier in his statement the operative word or is he trying to do to the word “fairly” what he’s done to the word “reform?”
...is unmitigated chutzpah. Check out Bush’s defense today of the Dubai Ports World deal:
"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a great British company," Bush said.WTF? Is that what we’re saying to Iran? To Venezuela? Would anyone say that’s what we’ve said to Iraq? Although Bush is saying that “we’ll treat you fairly” is what he’s saying “now” as opposed to just before he said it. And that “now” is now over, so I guess that justifies the way we’ll continue to treat other countries.
"I'm trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world 'we'll treat you fairly.'"
Such is the logic here in Bushland...We know that Bush and Co. frequently and purposely misuse the meaning of words. So is the “now” qualifier in his statement the operative word or is he trying to do to the word “fairly” what he’s done to the word “reform?”
NO WIRETAPPING OF AMERICANS. PERIOD.
A reader writes in to Altercation and has this to say:
OK, not a terrible counter-argument, but here’s the counter-argument to that–America needs to ask itself why people would want to harm it and once it knows the answer (which, if it isn’t already painfully obvious, can be found be simply asking or listening to those who want to harm us), take steps to stop doing the things that aggrieve these people, i.e., stop overthrowing governments, invading countries without provocation, etc.
Because you get what you deserve. Oh horror–am I suggesting that America “asks for” terrorism? In a word, yes. It’s very clear why “terrorists” want to harm us–we keep our boot on the neck of large parts of the world to feed our military-industrial complex. And we’ve got to stop doing that.
Yes, all the defense contractors and oil companies will lose money if we stop doing that. But if we don’t stop meddling around the world, we soon won’t even have what sets our country apart (in theory, anyway) from all the others–our civil liberties.
In other words, we have a choice–keep our military-industrial complex or our civil liberties. Which do we want to keep more?
The Crux of The Biscuit
Here's the crux of the biscuit: We wouldn't need warrantless wiretapping if we weren't provoking the world into wanting to do us harm. Y'see what I'm saying? So rather than allow Bush to break the law and have so much power that he's more king than president, we need to go about getting people to like us more. Then there would be no "war on terror" and hence no "need" for domestic spying.
And a good way to do that is to stop starting wars of aggression. And torturing prisoners. And destabilizing democratic governments. It's really very simple. To have a friend (or at least avoid having enemies), you gotta be one. No one likes a bully and the U.S. is being and has been a bully for quite a while.
See, the people we call "terrorists" are fighting their own war on terror--against us. "Terrorism" is nothing more than a point of view difference: to us, "they" are terrorists and to them, we are. So our "war on terror" fuels their "war on terror" and it goes on and on with no end.
Why can't we be the bigger country and say, you know what? We ain't gonna study war no more. We're gonna do what Bill Hicks said: Love all the people. In his cool book that bears that title, he imagined a better scenario for America:
A reader writes in to Altercation and has this to say:
Rove wants to frame Bush's warrantless wire-tapping as though the issue were whether or not the U.S. government can spy on terrorists. This is ridiculous. Of course we can and should spy on terrorists. Who in their right mind would oppose that? The real issue is a much bigger one: Do we want a president or do we want a king? If we want a president, then he must be subject to constraints as the Founders envisioned. He must come under oversight. He must be checked and balanced. Once we lift these constraints, he can do whatever he wants and becomes a king.Of course, he’s right. And the counter-argument might go something like this–there will always be people, i.e. “terrorists” that want to harm Americans, so the President should have whatever authority is necessary to stop such people.
OK, not a terrible counter-argument, but here’s the counter-argument to that–America needs to ask itself why people would want to harm it and once it knows the answer (which, if it isn’t already painfully obvious, can be found be simply asking or listening to those who want to harm us), take steps to stop doing the things that aggrieve these people, i.e., stop overthrowing governments, invading countries without provocation, etc.
Because you get what you deserve. Oh horror–am I suggesting that America “asks for” terrorism? In a word, yes. It’s very clear why “terrorists” want to harm us–we keep our boot on the neck of large parts of the world to feed our military-industrial complex. And we’ve got to stop doing that.
Yes, all the defense contractors and oil companies will lose money if we stop doing that. But if we don’t stop meddling around the world, we soon won’t even have what sets our country apart (in theory, anyway) from all the others–our civil liberties.
In other words, we have a choice–keep our military-industrial complex or our civil liberties. Which do we want to keep more?
The Crux of The Biscuit
Here's the crux of the biscuit: We wouldn't need warrantless wiretapping if we weren't provoking the world into wanting to do us harm. Y'see what I'm saying? So rather than allow Bush to break the law and have so much power that he's more king than president, we need to go about getting people to like us more. Then there would be no "war on terror" and hence no "need" for domestic spying.
And a good way to do that is to stop starting wars of aggression. And torturing prisoners. And destabilizing democratic governments. It's really very simple. To have a friend (or at least avoid having enemies), you gotta be one. No one likes a bully and the U.S. is being and has been a bully for quite a while.
See, the people we call "terrorists" are fighting their own war on terror--against us. "Terrorism" is nothing more than a point of view difference: to us, "they" are terrorists and to them, we are. So our "war on terror" fuels their "war on terror" and it goes on and on with no end.
Why can't we be the bigger country and say, you know what? We ain't gonna study war no more. We're gonna do what Bill Hicks said: Love all the people. In his cool book that bears that title, he imagined a better scenario for America:
"The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns,
close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one.
Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride.
Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defense each year, and instead spend it feeding, clothing, and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace. [p. 135]"
IRAQ=BAD, 9/11=GOOD?
So let me get this straight. Regarding countries (i.e., Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.) that spawned or aided (or both) the so-called 9/11 hijackers, we not only don’t invade them, we approve of them controlling port security in 6 major American cities. Regarding countries that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 (i.e., Iraq, Iran), we invade and/or rattle sabers at them.
Does that make a ball of shit’s worth of sense?
Frankly, this state of affairs just gives more ammunition to the so-called 9/11 conspiracy theorists (9/11, by the way, DID involve conspiracy–it’s just that the Bushies want you to believe it was a conspiracy among Middle Easterners rather than among neocons). I mean, 15 of the 19 purported hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and to this day, when Saudi Arabia says jump, we ask how high. And as Paul O’Neill has told us, Iraq was on the Bush agenda from their first Cabinet meeting.
So if you buy the idea that 9/11 wasn’t perpetrated by Middle Eastern terrorists at all, this UAE port security deal makes perfect sense. What I mean to say is, Saudi Arabia and the UAE don’t get attacked or invaded by us because the Bushies know that Middle Eastern terrorists really didn’t pull off 9/11. And Iraq does because that’s the country the neocons have been wanting to knock off since Gulf War I.
And people ask what could possibly be going on behind the scenes, what sort of tit-for-tat arrangement has been work out between the Bushies and the UAE? Obviously I have no idea, but this deal makes sense as hush money for not revealing details of 9/11 and/or other terror plots.
So let me get this straight. Regarding countries (i.e., Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.) that spawned or aided (or both) the so-called 9/11 hijackers, we not only don’t invade them, we approve of them controlling port security in 6 major American cities. Regarding countries that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 (i.e., Iraq, Iran), we invade and/or rattle sabers at them.
Does that make a ball of shit’s worth of sense?
Frankly, this state of affairs just gives more ammunition to the so-called 9/11 conspiracy theorists (9/11, by the way, DID involve conspiracy–it’s just that the Bushies want you to believe it was a conspiracy among Middle Easterners rather than among neocons). I mean, 15 of the 19 purported hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and to this day, when Saudi Arabia says jump, we ask how high. And as Paul O’Neill has told us, Iraq was on the Bush agenda from their first Cabinet meeting.
So if you buy the idea that 9/11 wasn’t perpetrated by Middle Eastern terrorists at all, this UAE port security deal makes perfect sense. What I mean to say is, Saudi Arabia and the UAE don’t get attacked or invaded by us because the Bushies know that Middle Eastern terrorists really didn’t pull off 9/11. And Iraq does because that’s the country the neocons have been wanting to knock off since Gulf War I.
And people ask what could possibly be going on behind the scenes, what sort of tit-for-tat arrangement has been work out between the Bushies and the UAE? Obviously I have no idea, but this deal makes sense as hush money for not revealing details of 9/11 and/or other terror plots.
Monday, February 20, 2006
THE NEXT BEST REASON TO END THE WAR...
Besides bringing the troops home so that they can stop killing and being killed, the next best reason to end the war in Iraq is so that Bushistas will no longer be able to justify everything bad they want to do (domestic spying, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, contract cronyism, etc.) as being necessary because we are "in a time of war."
Those five words or some variation thereof are like a magic spell for Republicans...and those who nuzzle their taints. We must break the spell!!
Besides bringing the troops home so that they can stop killing and being killed, the next best reason to end the war in Iraq is so that Bushistas will no longer be able to justify everything bad they want to do (domestic spying, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, contract cronyism, etc.) as being necessary because we are "in a time of war."
Those five words or some variation thereof are like a magic spell for Republicans...and those who nuzzle their taints. We must break the spell!!
GREAT QUOTE
I'm reading this book about the media and the war and was struck by this quote:
Nice to see history repeating itself...
I'm reading this book about the media and the war and was struck by this quote:
"Given the conformism and obedience of the media during this crucial period, when the basis for U.S. aggression was firmly and irrevocably laid, it is small wonder that public concern was so slight, and that opposition was so negligible as to be entirely without significance. Only the most ardent researcher could have developed a moderately clear understanding of what was taking place...we see very clearly the consequences of mindless media obedience in a state with enormous resources of violence. [pp. 192-93]"Unfortunately, this is not a recent book (but with a new introduction) and not about a recent war. The quote is from "Manufacturing Consent" by Herman and Chomsky, first published in 1988, and the above quote comes from an examination of the media record on Vietnam.
Nice to see history repeating itself...
WAVELAND PARADE
Rockzilla, the cover band I play in (that's one of many names we go by), has been playing in the Krewe of Nereids (NAIR-eeds) parade for 5 or 6 years now. We didn't know if they'd have the parade this year, given the devastation down there, but to our delight, they did, and it rolled yesterday.
Here are some pictures from the parade:
This is the Super Kmart, in whose parking lot the floats always line up.
Both shopping center parking lots that the parade uses as end points looked like this...
I couldn't stray far from the float we were on, so these pictures aren't great, but all the stores were gutted or boarded up.
And I couldn't get close enough to this float to get a good shot, but these guys used the ubiquitous FEMA tarps as decoration on the roof of their float...
And then here's a couple of shots of the boys...
It was cold, but not so bad once we started rockin'...
But Waveland was a mess. The only stores that seemed to be open were Wal-Mart and Rite Aid. And six months after the hurricane, there are still so many buildings that are just standing in ruins, not being fixed or demolished or what have you.
Rockzilla, the cover band I play in (that's one of many names we go by), has been playing in the Krewe of Nereids (NAIR-eeds) parade for 5 or 6 years now. We didn't know if they'd have the parade this year, given the devastation down there, but to our delight, they did, and it rolled yesterday.
Here are some pictures from the parade:
This is the Super Kmart, in whose parking lot the floats always line up.
Both shopping center parking lots that the parade uses as end points looked like this...
I couldn't stray far from the float we were on, so these pictures aren't great, but all the stores were gutted or boarded up.
And I couldn't get close enough to this float to get a good shot, but these guys used the ubiquitous FEMA tarps as decoration on the roof of their float...
And then here's a couple of shots of the boys...
It was cold, but not so bad once we started rockin'...
But Waveland was a mess. The only stores that seemed to be open were Wal-Mart and Rite Aid. And six months after the hurricane, there are still so many buildings that are just standing in ruins, not being fixed or demolished or what have you.
SET UP AGAIN?
So we've all heard by now that Bushco has approved the sale of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company to Dubai Ports World (a company owned by the United Arab Emirates), giving this UAE firm control of many operations, including security, at the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Does such a move ring a bell?
Anyone remember who "backed" Securacom (now Stratesec)--the company in charge of electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International, and United Airlines--for which George W.'s brother Marvin sat on the board of directors?
It was the Kuwait-American corporation, another Middle Eastern-related company.
And we know how well security was handled at Dulles, WTC, and on United Airlines...
So we've all heard by now that Bushco has approved the sale of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company to Dubai Ports World (a company owned by the United Arab Emirates), giving this UAE firm control of many operations, including security, at the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Does such a move ring a bell?
Anyone remember who "backed" Securacom (now Stratesec)--the company in charge of electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International, and United Airlines--for which George W.'s brother Marvin sat on the board of directors?
It was the Kuwait-American corporation, another Middle Eastern-related company.
And we know how well security was handled at Dulles, WTC, and on United Airlines...
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
LANOIS, ABRAMOFF, DICK
Saw the big Daniel Lanois show in Hattiesburg this past Friday...he played at a club that holds 125 or so people a week after he played Carnegie Hall and two days after hanging out at the Grammys with U2...His show was really good, and it was interesting to watch his technique...he never used a pick on either the Les Paul or the pedal steel...when playing the LP, he playing single notes with his fingers all against each other, like his whole hand was a giant flipper-pick...
I was intrigued by that because that sort of technique guarantees you're not going to be ripping hot licks, which is good. I tried it myself when I got home, but I don't know if I can pull it off--the flipper-pick, I mean..
Abramoff
And at the Lanois show, I talked to a friend of mine who lives in another town and it turns out he did some odd jobs for Jack Abramoff 3 or 4 years ago. This friend prefers not to be named, so I'll call him No Name. No Name lived in D.C. during this time and was hooked up with Abramoff jobs through a friend of his that worked full-time for Casino Jack.
There's nothing juicy to tell really--No Name just organized Abramoff's books, cleaned out his garage, and helped organize some files. No Name said there was what seemed to be some unsavory stuff in those files, but nothing obviously incriminating.
Dickshot
And No Name was telling me that he didn't like Air America maybe as much as he wanted to because he felt like they were just engaging in the same kind of smearing and name-calling that the right wing engages in, which is a criticism I've heard a lot. But I think if you actually listen to Air America, particularly my favorite show the Majority Report, you might feel differently.
I mean, it's one thing to tune in for a minute or two and hear Sam Seder refer to Sean Hannity as a "pig," or whatever, but if you hang around and listen for a while, you'll realize that for the most part, they are fair. For example, they don't smear all Republicans and conservatives--they acknowledge that not only is it permissible to have an opinion different than theirs, it's healthy and useful. But they do direct name-calling and derision toward people that really do deserve it--i.e., the neocon gang that lied us into the Iraq war.
But I say all that to say that I'm glad the Dick Cheney shooting spree is such a big story. Not that there aren't more important stories to discuss, but I think the left-wingers should always take anything that happens and say "how would the rightwingers mock us for this if this had happened to one of ours" and then do that times one hundred...
In other news, my father says he is becoming increasingly apolitical because the "two sides" are just so nasty to each other, and he may not even vote anymore. WTF?
Saw the big Daniel Lanois show in Hattiesburg this past Friday...he played at a club that holds 125 or so people a week after he played Carnegie Hall and two days after hanging out at the Grammys with U2...His show was really good, and it was interesting to watch his technique...he never used a pick on either the Les Paul or the pedal steel...when playing the LP, he playing single notes with his fingers all against each other, like his whole hand was a giant flipper-pick...
I was intrigued by that because that sort of technique guarantees you're not going to be ripping hot licks, which is good. I tried it myself when I got home, but I don't know if I can pull it off--the flipper-pick, I mean..
Abramoff
And at the Lanois show, I talked to a friend of mine who lives in another town and it turns out he did some odd jobs for Jack Abramoff 3 or 4 years ago. This friend prefers not to be named, so I'll call him No Name. No Name lived in D.C. during this time and was hooked up with Abramoff jobs through a friend of his that worked full-time for Casino Jack.
There's nothing juicy to tell really--No Name just organized Abramoff's books, cleaned out his garage, and helped organize some files. No Name said there was what seemed to be some unsavory stuff in those files, but nothing obviously incriminating.
Dickshot
And No Name was telling me that he didn't like Air America maybe as much as he wanted to because he felt like they were just engaging in the same kind of smearing and name-calling that the right wing engages in, which is a criticism I've heard a lot. But I think if you actually listen to Air America, particularly my favorite show the Majority Report, you might feel differently.
I mean, it's one thing to tune in for a minute or two and hear Sam Seder refer to Sean Hannity as a "pig," or whatever, but if you hang around and listen for a while, you'll realize that for the most part, they are fair. For example, they don't smear all Republicans and conservatives--they acknowledge that not only is it permissible to have an opinion different than theirs, it's healthy and useful. But they do direct name-calling and derision toward people that really do deserve it--i.e., the neocon gang that lied us into the Iraq war.
But I say all that to say that I'm glad the Dick Cheney shooting spree is such a big story. Not that there aren't more important stories to discuss, but I think the left-wingers should always take anything that happens and say "how would the rightwingers mock us for this if this had happened to one of ours" and then do that times one hundred...
In other news, my father says he is becoming increasingly apolitical because the "two sides" are just so nasty to each other, and he may not even vote anymore. WTF?
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
REPUBLICAN CARICATURES
This was the caption to a photo of Dick Cheney on the AFP site in a slideshow of pictures of Muslim protests about some cartoons I've never even seen:
But that's not what I was really trying to say--Cheney's comments about violence not being justified in this case illustrate very simply the rest of the world's problem with us, and that is, we require behavior from others that we do not adhere to ourselves. In other words, we fly into a (seemingly) unthinking rage after 9/11 and direct it mainly against a country that didn't even have anything to do with 9/11 yet argue every day that that was somehow justified but when they feel their religion is being shat upon by infidels and fly into a blind rage, Dick has the gall to say "your violence based on a caricature is not justified, but ours is."
And really this controversy sheds light on Republican/Rove/conservative methodology, which is to caricature everything. The caricature of John Kerry: French-looking flip-flopper. The caricature of tax cuts: "[B]y far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum."
On that note, the Wikipedia definition of "caricature" seems particularly apt:
This was the caption to a photo of Dick Cheney on the AFP site in a slideshow of pictures of Muslim protests about some cartoons I've never even seen:
US Vice President Dick Cheney, seen here in January 2006, said in a television interview that Muslim violence in response to newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed was not justified(AFP/File/Don Emmert)You read that right. Dick fuckin' Cheney has the nerve to suggest that violence is not justified when "cartoons" or "caricatures" are printed in the newspaper. But I seem to remember him arguing for, and then engaging in violence when caricatures of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi WMD program were printed in American papers. Dick even came up with the caricatures himself. Here's a really memorable one:
“...we believe that he [Saddam Hussein] has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.”This is the entire problem in a nutshell--the Muslim world feels it is under attack, and they jolly well should feel that way, because it is. Not necessarily for being Muslim--that's not the stated reason, anyway--but the people who are under attack do have that one thing in common.
But that's not what I was really trying to say--Cheney's comments about violence not being justified in this case illustrate very simply the rest of the world's problem with us, and that is, we require behavior from others that we do not adhere to ourselves. In other words, we fly into a (seemingly) unthinking rage after 9/11 and direct it mainly against a country that didn't even have anything to do with 9/11 yet argue every day that that was somehow justified but when they feel their religion is being shat upon by infidels and fly into a blind rage, Dick has the gall to say "your violence based on a caricature is not justified, but ours is."
And really this controversy sheds light on Republican/Rove/conservative methodology, which is to caricature everything. The caricature of John Kerry: French-looking flip-flopper. The caricature of tax cuts: "[B]y far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum."
On that note, the Wikipedia definition of "caricature" seems particularly apt:
A caricature is a humorous illustration that exaggerates or distorts the basic essence of a person or thing to create an easily identifiable visual likeness.Humorous distortions of the basic essence of something: sounds like everything today's Republicans stand for.
Monday, February 06, 2006
WHO'S SILLY NOW?
Just got back from a bread run to the grocery store...
Saw a bumper sticker I hadn't seen...tried to take a picture, but it didn't come out well in the dark.
But it was on the tailgate of one of those dually pickup trucks with a deep purple, tricked-out paint job. The back window had the slogan "Silly Boys Trucks Are For Girls" in silver lettering, it had the obligatory "Support The Troops" yellow ribbon magnets, and a Mississippi National Guard license plate.
The sticker said:
Yes, those silly Iraqis and their silly IEDs and their silly insurgency. And the silly fact that they um, kinda sorta actually didn't at all have weapons of mass destruction. And all those silly dead and wounded Americans and Iraqis. It's just silly, is all it is...
Who is the silly one, I wonder? Them or us?
Just got back from a bread run to the grocery store...
Saw a bumper sticker I hadn't seen...tried to take a picture, but it didn't come out well in the dark.
But it was on the tailgate of one of those dually pickup trucks with a deep purple, tricked-out paint job. The back window had the slogan "Silly Boys Trucks Are For Girls" in silver lettering, it had the obligatory "Support The Troops" yellow ribbon magnets, and a Mississippi National Guard license plate.
The sticker said:
Silly Iraqis, Weapons of Mass Destruction Are For Americans"
Yes, those silly Iraqis and their silly IEDs and their silly insurgency. And the silly fact that they um, kinda sorta actually didn't at all have weapons of mass destruction. And all those silly dead and wounded Americans and Iraqis. It's just silly, is all it is...
Who is the silly one, I wonder? Them or us?
Thursday, February 02, 2006
LET THEM EAT WAR!!!
This--Bush to seek $120 billion more for wars--is why this--the largest cut ever in the student loan program--is happening.
But don't worry if you can't afford to go/send your kid to college. There'll always be a cannon fodder slot open for them.
And how do Bush and the Grim Reapublicans plan to pay for these wars? Make the tax cuts permanent!!
It all makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Maybe to a psychopath...
This--Bush to seek $120 billion more for wars--is why this--the largest cut ever in the student loan program--is happening.
But don't worry if you can't afford to go/send your kid to college. There'll always be a cannon fodder slot open for them.
And how do Bush and the Grim Reapublicans plan to pay for these wars? Make the tax cuts permanent!!
It all makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Maybe to a psychopath...
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
A TALE OF TWO LETTERS...
So here's something funny...a letter to the editor in the Hattiesburg American that was published on their website this past Sunday was re-published today with a little tweaking...
And the interesting thing about it to me is that when it mentions me, it is referring to a letter about Bush's warrantless wiretaps that appeared only two days before...
My letter appeared Friday, Jan. 27, along with another from Dustin Keys, both about warrantless wiretapping. I had sent my letter in at least a week prior to its appearance in the newspaper, which is typical. Then a letter responding to my letter and the Keys letter appeared just two days later on Sunday, Jan. 29 and then was reprinted yet again with some editing today!!
WTF? As I said, I have to wait at least a week to see one of my letters in the paper, and this guy (who is actually the father of one of my friends from high school) gets a letter printed in two days and gets to have it reprinted a few days later with some edits?
Here are the two letters from Kenneth Hall, Sr.
From Sunday, Jan. 29:
From Wed., Feb. 1:
Really the only changes in the second version are that instead of referring to me and Keys as "Messrs. Keys and Kirby" we are now "Mr. Keys and Mr. Kirby" and that the word "convinced" is italicized.
But what is up with that?
So here's something funny...a letter to the editor in the Hattiesburg American that was published on their website this past Sunday was re-published today with a little tweaking...
And the interesting thing about it to me is that when it mentions me, it is referring to a letter about Bush's warrantless wiretaps that appeared only two days before...
My letter appeared Friday, Jan. 27, along with another from Dustin Keys, both about warrantless wiretapping. I had sent my letter in at least a week prior to its appearance in the newspaper, which is typical. Then a letter responding to my letter and the Keys letter appeared just two days later on Sunday, Jan. 29 and then was reprinted yet again with some editing today!!
WTF? As I said, I have to wait at least a week to see one of my letters in the paper, and this guy (who is actually the father of one of my friends from high school) gets a letter printed in two days and gets to have it reprinted a few days later with some edits?
Here are the two letters from Kenneth Hall, Sr.
From Sunday, Jan. 29:
Bush surveillance not against law
I just read the letters from Messrs. Keys and Kirby, both of which claim that President Bush has broken the law with his authorization of electronic surveillance of people with known and/or suspected terrorist connections. You'll be glad to know that I won't write about this again.
Let me say unequivocally that I am convinced that the president has not broken the law and I am glad that hearings will be conducted into the matter. I can only hope that Messrs. Keys and Kirby and others who feel that Bush broke the law will diligently keep up with those hearings. If they do, they'll find that the president is doing the right thing.
I'm personally grateful that Bush has authorized the NSA (National Security Agency) to conduct this surveillance. I have children and grandchildren who I hope will have a long life in the pursuit of happiness, not to be interrupted by terrorists who have committed their lives to killing us by the most violent means possible.
It is important to note that the very provision of the law that Mr. Keys cites is precisely what Attorney General Gonzales has done. It's also important to note that members of both U.S. House and Senate Intelligence Committees from both parties have said that they were briefed on the matter, that they did not object & that they in fact support the concept.
Kenneth Hall Sr.
Picayune
Originally published January 29, 2006
From Wed., Feb. 1:
Bush is doing the right thing
I read the letters from Dustin Keys and Clinton Kirby, both of which claim that President Bush has broken the law with his authorization of electronic surveillance of people with known and/or suspected terrorist connections. You'll be glad to know that I won't write about this again.
Let me say unequivocally that I am convinced that the president has not broken the law, and I am glad that hearings will be conducted into the matter. I can only hope that Mr. Keys and Mr. Kirby and others who feel that Bush broke the law will diligently keep up with those hearings. If they do, they'll find that the president is doing the right thing.
I'm personally grateful that Bush has authorized the National Security Agency to conduct this surveillance. I have children and grandchildren whom I hope will have long lives that will not to be interrupted by terrorists who have committed their lives to killing us by the most violent means possible.
It is important to note that the very provision of the law that Mr. Keys cites is precisely what U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has done. It's also important to note that members of both U.S. House and Senate Intelligence committees from both parties have said they were briefed on the matter, that they did not object and that they in fact support the concept.
Kenneth Hall Sr.,
Picayune
Originally published February 1, 2006
Really the only changes in the second version are that instead of referring to me and Keys as "Messrs. Keys and Kirby" we are now "Mr. Keys and Mr. Kirby" and that the word "convinced" is italicized.
But what is up with that?
CALLING BULLSHIT...SOTU EDITION
My thinking about the Cindy Sheehan incident throughout today, with my latest thoughts first....
Did Beverly Young really wear such a shirt to a formal event?
I have yet to see a picture of Beverly Young, the wife of Republican congressman Bill Young, in a T-shirt that said "Support The Troops." In contrast, photos of Cindy Sheehan's shirt have been widely posted, and there's even a picture of her wearing it in the Capitol building.
I'm still skeptical about this incident--do spouses of members of Congress typically wear T-shirts to formal government events? Wouldn't Young's husband have talked her out of wearing such a shirt, if only because of the formality of the event? If she was being hassled by Capitol Police, would/could she not have told them who she was and who to call to verify her identity? Could she not have just put on a jacket?
Bev Young A Plant (or would the R's even go to that much trouble)?
Just a thought...could it be that the REPUBLICAN congressman's wife wore her "Support The Troops" shirt precisely so she could be thrown out so that media stories would then mention two ejections from the SOTU, one on each side of the partisan divide. Was Cindy Sheehan thrown out before Beverly Young (the congressman's wife), did it happen simultaneously, or was Young thrown out before Sheehan.
The possibility that Beverly Young might be a plant would help explain why she wasn't hauled off to jail in handcuffs as Sheehan was. In fact, why wasn't Young "taken downtown?" Is it because she's the wife of a REPUBLICAN congressman? Or because she was merely a plant and her job was done?
Also, the story about Beverly Young being thrown out didn't seem to surface until today (unless I just missed it)...did Young actually get thrown out at all? Did the Young incident even happen? I mean, it probably did, but you never know...
Sheehan's Ejection > Young's "Ejection"
This MSNBC.com story attempts to show that SOTU ejection was "bipartisan." The lead sentence says:
"Cindy Sheehan, mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq, wasn’t the only one ejected from the House gallery during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt with a war-related slogan that violated the rules. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave."
They undoubtedly were both "ejected" from the gallery (a security guard says in this story that the congressman's wife left of her own accord), but with a crucial difference: Sheehan was led away in handcuffs, booked and jailed. The congressman's wife argued with police, according to both stories. There is no mention of whether or not she went to jail, so presumably she didn't.
My thinking about the Cindy Sheehan incident throughout today, with my latest thoughts first....
Did Beverly Young really wear such a shirt to a formal event?
I have yet to see a picture of Beverly Young, the wife of Republican congressman Bill Young, in a T-shirt that said "Support The Troops." In contrast, photos of Cindy Sheehan's shirt have been widely posted, and there's even a picture of her wearing it in the Capitol building.
I'm still skeptical about this incident--do spouses of members of Congress typically wear T-shirts to formal government events? Wouldn't Young's husband have talked her out of wearing such a shirt, if only because of the formality of the event? If she was being hassled by Capitol Police, would/could she not have told them who she was and who to call to verify her identity? Could she not have just put on a jacket?
Bev Young A Plant (or would the R's even go to that much trouble)?
Just a thought...could it be that the REPUBLICAN congressman's wife wore her "Support The Troops" shirt precisely so she could be thrown out so that media stories would then mention two ejections from the SOTU, one on each side of the partisan divide. Was Cindy Sheehan thrown out before Beverly Young (the congressman's wife), did it happen simultaneously, or was Young thrown out before Sheehan.
The possibility that Beverly Young might be a plant would help explain why she wasn't hauled off to jail in handcuffs as Sheehan was. In fact, why wasn't Young "taken downtown?" Is it because she's the wife of a REPUBLICAN congressman? Or because she was merely a plant and her job was done?
Also, the story about Beverly Young being thrown out didn't seem to surface until today (unless I just missed it)...did Young actually get thrown out at all? Did the Young incident even happen? I mean, it probably did, but you never know...
Sheehan's Ejection > Young's "Ejection"
This MSNBC.com story attempts to show that SOTU ejection was "bipartisan." The lead sentence says:
"Cindy Sheehan, mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq, wasn’t the only one ejected from the House gallery during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt with a war-related slogan that violated the rules. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave."
They undoubtedly were both "ejected" from the gallery (a security guard says in this story that the congressman's wife left of her own accord), but with a crucial difference: Sheehan was led away in handcuffs, booked and jailed. The congressman's wife argued with police, according to both stories. There is no mention of whether or not she went to jail, so presumably she didn't.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
MY LETTER TO TRENT AND THAD ABOUT A-LIE-TOE
Please do not vote to confirm Samuel Alito and please do not invoke the nuclear option over the coming filibuster. Alito is a radical conservative, unlike you. Also, President Bush has been disastrous for our country, his approval ratings of late have been the worst since Nixon, and he has recently admitted to one of the most audaciously illegal presidential power grabs in American history. He will more than likely face impeachment proceedings sometime in the coming months.
This is a frightening time to be an American. I fear the worst for our country if Alito is granted a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. I know that in general, you like to align yourself with President Bush because he is a Republican and claims to be conservative. But President Bush is radical and his presidency has been a miserable failure.
His ethical lapses have only recently been beginning to receive much scrutiny, such as signing statements appended to legislation, spying on Americans without warrants, no-bid contracts in Iraq and on the Gulf Coast, and so forth. And it has yet to be revealed exactly how close he was to Jack Abramoff.
President Bush is bad for America and really doesn't deserve to be given whatever he wants just because he's the president. He has failed the American people in the following ways:
-the worst terrorist attack in American history happened on his watch
-he has created (intentionally, I believe) a record deficit
-he misled us about WMD in Iraq
-he let Osama bin Laden go in Afghanistan
-he appointed an unqualified man to head FEMA which was of no help at all in the aftermath of Katrina
-he has personally authorized warrantless wiretapping of American citizens
-poverty has increased every year he has been in office
-by the end of his first term, he had lost more jobs than any president since Herbert Hoover
You get the picture. Any president with such a dismal, questionable record does not deserve to have his choice of a person to sit on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment. Of course any vacancies should be filled, but filled by someone who is more reasonable and less radical than Alito.
That is my sincere wish as your humble constituent. I doubt anything I have to say will change your mind, but if I don't have hope, I don't have anything.
Please do not vote to confirm Samuel Alito and please do not invoke the nuclear option over the coming filibuster. Alito is a radical conservative, unlike you. Also, President Bush has been disastrous for our country, his approval ratings of late have been the worst since Nixon, and he has recently admitted to one of the most audaciously illegal presidential power grabs in American history. He will more than likely face impeachment proceedings sometime in the coming months.
This is a frightening time to be an American. I fear the worst for our country if Alito is granted a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. I know that in general, you like to align yourself with President Bush because he is a Republican and claims to be conservative. But President Bush is radical and his presidency has been a miserable failure.
His ethical lapses have only recently been beginning to receive much scrutiny, such as signing statements appended to legislation, spying on Americans without warrants, no-bid contracts in Iraq and on the Gulf Coast, and so forth. And it has yet to be revealed exactly how close he was to Jack Abramoff.
President Bush is bad for America and really doesn't deserve to be given whatever he wants just because he's the president. He has failed the American people in the following ways:
-the worst terrorist attack in American history happened on his watch
-he has created (intentionally, I believe) a record deficit
-he misled us about WMD in Iraq
-he let Osama bin Laden go in Afghanistan
-he appointed an unqualified man to head FEMA which was of no help at all in the aftermath of Katrina
-he has personally authorized warrantless wiretapping of American citizens
-poverty has increased every year he has been in office
-by the end of his first term, he had lost more jobs than any president since Herbert Hoover
You get the picture. Any president with such a dismal, questionable record does not deserve to have his choice of a person to sit on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment. Of course any vacancies should be filled, but filled by someone who is more reasonable and less radical than Alito.
That is my sincere wish as your humble constituent. I doubt anything I have to say will change your mind, but if I don't have hope, I don't have anything.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
MATTHEWS AND WHAT NOT...
So I emailed Hardball's advertisers as per the "Boycott Hardball" campaign. So far just got a generic customer service response back from Toyota. This site has an explanation of what the boycott is all about.
Political Bias Study
My dad emailed this story about how people make political decisions irrationally. I ain't buyin' it, because even the study in the story asserts bias on the part of the participants based on the fact that they are "ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted."
I can agree that most people make all decisions irrationally, political decisions included. But unlike my father, who has concluded that all political convictions are merely opinions, I contend that there are those who can see the merit or lack thereof of a policy or candidate's claim and then decide to support or reject it accordingly. That is how it should work.
But I realize that that is not in vogue these days--being a member of the reality-based community just ain't fly, yo. Dis here da shizzle peeps be bumpin':
That is of course from the famous Ron Suskind piece published in the New York Times Magazine on Oct. 17, 2004.
And that's what this story about political bias gets to. The story draws this conclusion from the study: "The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making."
It's the culmination of the decades-long war on facts, on journalism, the truth, etc. David Brock nailed it when he said in the Republican Noise Machine that one the biggest goals of the conservative movement has been to get the press and the public to treat facts as opinions and opinions as facts (I'm roughly paraphrasing without the book in front of me).
If this becomes the conventional wisdom (if it hasn't already), then there's no hope for our political discourse, as Bob Somerby has tirelessly and painstakingly pointed out. I mean, there's already so little hope that this study is little more than spitting on a rotten corpse, but still...
So I emailed Hardball's advertisers as per the "Boycott Hardball" campaign. So far just got a generic customer service response back from Toyota. This site has an explanation of what the boycott is all about.
Political Bias Study
My dad emailed this story about how people make political decisions irrationally. I ain't buyin' it, because even the study in the story asserts bias on the part of the participants based on the fact that they are "ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted."
I can agree that most people make all decisions irrationally, political decisions included. But unlike my father, who has concluded that all political convictions are merely opinions, I contend that there are those who can see the merit or lack thereof of a policy or candidate's claim and then decide to support or reject it accordingly. That is how it should work.
But I realize that that is not in vogue these days--being a member of the reality-based community just ain't fly, yo. Dis here da shizzle peeps be bumpin':
"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
That is of course from the famous Ron Suskind piece published in the New York Times Magazine on Oct. 17, 2004.
And that's what this story about political bias gets to. The story draws this conclusion from the study: "The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making."
It's the culmination of the decades-long war on facts, on journalism, the truth, etc. David Brock nailed it when he said in the Republican Noise Machine that one the biggest goals of the conservative movement has been to get the press and the public to treat facts as opinions and opinions as facts (I'm roughly paraphrasing without the book in front of me).
If this becomes the conventional wisdom (if it hasn't already), then there's no hope for our political discourse, as Bob Somerby has tirelessly and painstakingly pointed out. I mean, there's already so little hope that this study is little more than spitting on a rotten corpse, but still...
Monday, January 23, 2006
POLISHING A TURD...
So now the Bushistas' preferred term for "warrantless wiretapping" is "terrorist surveillance." I'm sure the lap dogs of the press will, well, lap it right up and when someone has the gall from here on out to refer to Bush's illegal program as "warrantless wiretapping" or "domestic spying," they'll be all-too-quickly reminded of what the Bushies call it. And then if that someone has the temerity to suggest that if something that walks, talks, sounds, and looks like a duck is a "duck," the audience will be assured by the butt-kissing host that such nomenclature is merely the biased opinion of one who is clearly not on the president's team (with the subtext being that if this person doesn't like "terrorist surveillance," how can you listen to anything else they have to say).
Karl Rove must have read "Manufacturing Consent" or "Necessary Illusions" a time or two--he's setting the "bounds of the expressible."
Is OBL dead? Does it matter?
I watched "Loose Change" on the recommendation of a friend (more than a recommendation, actually--he burned me a DVD of it) and I have to say that I found it very intriguing. I watched it just out of curiosity because I knew that the idea that 9/11 was an "inside job" was utter bullshit, primarily because bin Laden admitted to it.
But that is addressed in the movie. The "bin Laden confession tape" does have the aura of being a fake, since he and some of his people are wearing gold rings which is forbidden by Islam, and the left-handed Osama is seen writing on a pad with his right hand, and so forth.
Whether you believe he's alive or dead, you can't argue that his popping up from time to time helps the Bushies even though it theoretically shouldn't--because it means he's still at large, taunting Bush. But like "Loose Change" pointed out, anytime you hear a new statement that "probably" comes from bin Laden, remember that he's "probably" dead.
I mean, in his statement, "bin Laden" recommends the work of a relatively obscure leftist author and cites polls that show Americans' disapproval of the Iraq war. How the hell is he getting this information if he is alive and in the no man's land between Pakistan and Afghanistan? How does he have time to read this leftist book and why would he read it to begin with? Why would he care what an infidel has to say?
Then all the rightwing blowhards go on their shows and say "hey, the Democrats sound just like Osama." I'm not saying Osama is alive or dead or was or wasn't involved in 9/11, but these kinds of statements being released seem to only give Republicans fodder to impugn Democrats. And unfortunately, the Democratic party is just the left wing of the War Party, as Justin Raimondo points out in his perceptive-as-usual takedown of Hillary Clinton's Iran saber-rattling.
So now the Bushistas' preferred term for "warrantless wiretapping" is "terrorist surveillance." I'm sure the lap dogs of the press will, well, lap it right up and when someone has the gall from here on out to refer to Bush's illegal program as "warrantless wiretapping" or "domestic spying," they'll be all-too-quickly reminded of what the Bushies call it. And then if that someone has the temerity to suggest that if something that walks, talks, sounds, and looks like a duck is a "duck," the audience will be assured by the butt-kissing host that such nomenclature is merely the biased opinion of one who is clearly not on the president's team (with the subtext being that if this person doesn't like "terrorist surveillance," how can you listen to anything else they have to say).
Karl Rove must have read "Manufacturing Consent" or "Necessary Illusions" a time or two--he's setting the "bounds of the expressible."
Is OBL dead? Does it matter?
I watched "Loose Change" on the recommendation of a friend (more than a recommendation, actually--he burned me a DVD of it) and I have to say that I found it very intriguing. I watched it just out of curiosity because I knew that the idea that 9/11 was an "inside job" was utter bullshit, primarily because bin Laden admitted to it.
But that is addressed in the movie. The "bin Laden confession tape" does have the aura of being a fake, since he and some of his people are wearing gold rings which is forbidden by Islam, and the left-handed Osama is seen writing on a pad with his right hand, and so forth.
Whether you believe he's alive or dead, you can't argue that his popping up from time to time helps the Bushies even though it theoretically shouldn't--because it means he's still at large, taunting Bush. But like "Loose Change" pointed out, anytime you hear a new statement that "probably" comes from bin Laden, remember that he's "probably" dead.
I mean, in his statement, "bin Laden" recommends the work of a relatively obscure leftist author and cites polls that show Americans' disapproval of the Iraq war. How the hell is he getting this information if he is alive and in the no man's land between Pakistan and Afghanistan? How does he have time to read this leftist book and why would he read it to begin with? Why would he care what an infidel has to say?
Then all the rightwing blowhards go on their shows and say "hey, the Democrats sound just like Osama." I'm not saying Osama is alive or dead or was or wasn't involved in 9/11, but these kinds of statements being released seem to only give Republicans fodder to impugn Democrats. And unfortunately, the Democratic party is just the left wing of the War Party, as Justin Raimondo points out in his perceptive-as-usual takedown of Hillary Clinton's Iran saber-rattling.
Monday, January 16, 2006
RHETORIC CHECK
If there is an invasion of Iran, I just wanted to note that in this, the pre-war period, the rhetoric being bandied about by Bush and Rumsfailed and everyone else is not about bringing democracy to Iran. It's not about that even a little bit, it's about keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, period. So when we finally make the mistake of invading Iran or provoking them into lobbing a missile at us or whatever and then try to stay for decades and Bush says "that's because we started the war to bring democracy to Iran", let's remember what he and others are saying in the run-up to this next war.
Let's check some rhetoric:
Here's Bush from Jan. 13, 2006:
"Iran armed with a nuclear weapon poses a great threat to the security of the world," said Bush, adding: "Countries such as ours have a great obligation to step up, working together to send a message to the Iranians that their behavior, trying to clandestinely develop a nuclear weapon, or using the guise of a civilian nuclear program to attain a nuclear weapon, is unacceptable."
Bush said that "a world without Zionism" was the goal of the Iranian regime. "The current president of Iran has announced that the destruction of Israel is an important part of their agenda. That is unacceptable. The development of a nuclear weapon is a step closer to that agenda."
"It is the world's interest that Iran not have a nuclear weapon," said Bush, insisting that Iran must not "have capacity to blackmail free societies."
Also from that same meeting with new German chancellor Merkel, and reported on Newsmax with the headline "Bush: Iran Intends To Nuke Israel":
"I want to remind you that the current president of Iran has announced that the destruction of Israel is an important part of their agenda. And that's unacceptable. And the development of a nuclear weapon, it seems like to me, would make them a step closer to achieving that objective."
Here's a funny comment from Condoleezza Rice:
“We’ve got to finally demonstrate to Iran that it can’t with impunity just cast aside the just demands of the international community,” Rice said Sunday during a trip to Africa. ("Just because we do it, doesn't mean they can," she went to say--yeah, right.)
So I'll be checking the rhetoric from time to time, just so we know where we stand with the Commander-in-thief.
Val's Comment
And I thought commenter Val had a lot of good things to say over at the Huffington Post. I haven't verified every historical fact or claim therein, but the comment strikes me as a good summary of recent U.S.-Iran dealings and a good refutation of the rhetoric currently being leveled at Iran. I reproduce it without permission, but will remove it if asked:
Well…
From what I have been able to read so far, it looks like WWIII over oil is a certainty. But, I get ahead of myself, first, the background.
We know for a fact that Cheney was involved in secret meetings with ENRON and others concerning energy.
We know for a fact that ENRON went bankrupt trying to keep open an energy factory in India.
We know for a fact that Halliburton has been operating and conducting business with Iran for some years now.
We know for a fact that ENRON sold some of it’s overseas programs to GE, a company that has ex-operatives within the Bush administration.
We know for a fact now that the neo-con’s wanted a “Pearl Harbor-like” attack so they could push their agenda.
We know that nine months after Bush takes office that [Pearl Harbor-like] attack occurs on 9/11.
We know that Bush links Iraq, Iran and North Korea into the Axis of Evil.
We know that Bush sent Bolton to the UN.
We know that Bush invaded Afghanistan but was planning the war on Iraq from even before the Afghan invasion.
We know that Bush has all but forgotten about Afghanistan and Bin Laden, but is using Al-Qaeda as the reason to nation-build Iraq’s puppet government.
We know that WMD’s is used as the premise for the attack on Iraq by admission from Wolfowitz.
We know that WMD’s is being used at the premise for creating a nuclear crisis with Iran.
We know that Sharon [of Israel] was in a CHEMICALLY INDUCED COMA following his “stroke”.
So, what DON’T we know?
How about that Britian wants to move gas from area’s in Iran to areas in India. (ENRON had a factory in India, GE bought some ENRON foreign assets, Britain wants to have energy transfer to India, Halliburton has been working in Iran)
How about that the energy transfer would have to move through Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan? (Afghanistan – Taliban removed from power, Iraq – Saddam Hussein removed from power, Pakistan – Musharref friendly to America, at the moment, Iran – Next on the invasion list!)
How about that Iran is trying to sign a new energy transfer protocol THIS YEAR? (August 21, 2004, Iran takes on west's control of oil trading, Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and Opec producers that could threaten the supremacy of London's International Petroleum Exchange. A contract to design and establish a new platform for crude, natural gas and petrochemical trades is expected to be signed with an international consortium within days.)
How about one of Bolton’s FIRST acts at the UN was to start a case against Iran? (In Switzerland last year [2004], Bolton riled European allies when he voiced skepticism about European negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program.)
How about that America planes have repeatedly violated Iranian airspace which is an act of war? ("While the objective behind the fighters' violation of the Iranian air space is not known yet, some military specialists believe such moves are aimed at assessing the sensitivity of the Islamic Republic's anti-aircraft defense system," it added. It said [U.S.] military and air force officials had refrained from commenting on the incident when contacted.)
How about the U.S. charged that Iran was in violation of the NPT only to later concede that it did in fact have the right to peaceable nuclear energy, only to then later take the stance that even peaceable nuclear energy should be kept from Iran? (German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer here Monday reiterated Iran’s right to use peaceful nuclear energy amid continued U.S. efforts to politicize Iran’s civilian nuclear program.
How about that the U.S. had ADDITIONAL protocols ADDED just for Iran so that they couldn’t comply with the IAEA’s established protocols? (The extraordinary power of the US was again on full display on Sept 11 when France, Germany and Britain simultaneously agreed to a “November dead line for Iran to dispel concern that it has a covert atom bomb program, according to a draft resolution.” (Reuters) This means that Iran, who has already been cleared by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) for not having processed enriched uranium (even though that, in itself, is not forbidden under the NPT) must “prove a negative.” It must somehow prove it does not have something it does not have. Sound familiar? Of course, it is precisely the same trap that was set (successfully) for Saddam Hussein, who had no WMD and who eventually agreed to all of the terms of intrusive inspection regimen that were demanded of him. The UN did not call on Iran to cease all uranium enrichment activities, the IAEA did, and even they admit it was illegal for them to do so. Tests of soil samples have shown no signs of nuclear activities at a site in northern Iran, a diplomat in Vienna said Tuesday. The diplomat said the soil samples of the Lavizan military establishment showed "negative," meaning that the samples contained no traces of nuclear materials.)
How about Israel threatened to strike Iran if the U.S. or the UN wouldn’t? (A military strike is among Israel's options to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons, Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said on Wednesday in the latest threat by the Jewish state against its arch-foe.)
How about that with the NPT and “nuclear weapons” rationales failing, the U.S. is resorting to “terrorism” as justification to invade Iran? (There are indications that the US government is planning to use Hamas as a pretext for a potential attack against Iran.)
How about the fact that Sharon was about to attack Iran? (The Bush Administration urged the members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to approve an October 31 deadline on Iran for compliance or face sanctions at the UN Security Council. Bush lost that vote. Had the motion passed, that would have started the countdown to an Israel-Iran war just days before the November 2nd elections.)
How about the fact that Iran and China were working on a deal for oil exportation? (Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing has said in Tehran that Beijing opposes US efforts to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council over its nuclear program. China's oil giant Sinopec Group has signed a $70 billion oil and natural gas agreement with Iran, which is China's biggest energy deal with the No. 2 OPEC producer.)
How about AFTER all of this, Iran then reached a deal with the EU to halt uranium enrichment! (A senior Iranian official said on Thursday he was optimistic Iran would halt its uranium enrichment program as Europe demands, in a move aimed at easing fears that Iran is secretly developing atomic weapons.)
How about that certain friendly “organizations” told Bush that Iran, not Iraq, but that IRAN has a “secret nuclear plant”? (An Iranian opposition group has claimed evidence of a secret plant where Iran is producing enriched uranium. The New York Times [remember Judy Miller?] reported Wednesday the National Council for Resistance in Iran said the Islamic Republic was producing enriched uranium at the plant, which had not been disclosed to U.N. inspectors. The White House said Thursday that it could not verify an Iranian exile opposition group's [remember Chalabi?] charge that the Islamic republic was running a secret nuclear bomb facility near Tehran.)
How about AFTER ALL OF THIS, THE U.S. AND BUSH ARE STILL CLAIMING IRAN WILL MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND ARE WILLING TO START A WAR WITH IRAN! (As was the case with Iraq in the months immediately preceding Bush's invasion, the IAEA has found no evidence that NPT-proscribed materials have been stolen or diverted, nor that Iran is engaged in any NPT-prohibited activity. In particular, there is no evidence that Iran has been enriching uranium in the facilities it has constructed or is constructing. The Atlantic Monthly magazine reported in its latest issue that the Pentagon held simulations of a U.S. military strike on Iranian bases and nuclear facilities. The magazine said the recent war games also included a ground invasion of Iran. The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.)
How about that AFTER ALL OF THIS, THE U.S. AND BUSH GOT EVEN MORE PROTOCOL’S PUT ONTO IRAN THROUGH THE IAEA SO THEY CAN THEN GET THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL INVOLVED SO THEY CAN GET A UN MANDATE FOR INVASION! (In a defeat for the Bush administration, the 35 countries of the United Nations nuclear agency board adopted a mildly worded resolution Monday welcoming Iran's freeze of a sensitive part of its nuclear program. The US is preparing for the possibility that it will have to deal with Iran's nuclear program without the assistance of the UN Security Council. In the past weeks the administration has been working with European and Japanese allies on a "menu" of sanctions that could be imposed on Iran even if the issue is not referred to the UN Security Council. According to well-placed sources in Washington, the sanctions being discussed are focused on trade issues, since almost half of Iran's trade is with Europe and Japan.)
How about that GE [remember, they bought ENRON assets?] halts business orders in Iran? (General Electric Co., which has been accused of collecting "blood money" by doing business in Iran, will stop accepting any new orders for business in the country, company officials said Wednesday.)
How about a “blast” went off near an Iranian “factory” and an “airplane” was seen at the same time? (Initial reports said that the plane, which was not officially identified, had fired a missile. The possibility was later raised that it could have been an Iranian plane and that it had jettisoned a fuel tank that had happened to land in the area. The television report initially quoted witnesses as saying Wednesday's explosion was the result of a missile fired from a plane seen overhead. However, it later said the blast could have been a falling fuel tank from an Iranian aircraft.)
How about THAT AFTER ALL OF THIS, THE U.S. AND BUSH ARE PUSHING FOR WAR WITH IRAN, AND, COULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS! (Philip Giraldi, a former intelligence officer in the CIA (and DIA), claims that the United States is developing a plan for the bombing of supposed military targets in Iran, which would include the use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The US strike would take place after a 9/11-type terrorist attack on the US. However, the US attack would not depend on Iran actually being involved in the terrorism [Operation Northwoods style]. In short, the planned attack on Iran would be analogous to the unprovoked attack on Iraq. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing - that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack- but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.)
How about that not a month ago, the Iranian Guard Commander died in a “plane crash”? There were conflicting reports on what caused the crash. The official Islamic Republic News Agency reported the plane crashed because its landing gear jammed, preventing the wheels from being fully deployed. But the Revolutionary Guards' spokesman, Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, blamed bad weather and engine failure.
If there is an invasion of Iran, I just wanted to note that in this, the pre-war period, the rhetoric being bandied about by Bush and Rumsfailed and everyone else is not about bringing democracy to Iran. It's not about that even a little bit, it's about keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, period. So when we finally make the mistake of invading Iran or provoking them into lobbing a missile at us or whatever and then try to stay for decades and Bush says "that's because we started the war to bring democracy to Iran", let's remember what he and others are saying in the run-up to this next war.
Let's check some rhetoric:
Here's Bush from Jan. 13, 2006:
"Iran armed with a nuclear weapon poses a great threat to the security of the world," said Bush, adding: "Countries such as ours have a great obligation to step up, working together to send a message to the Iranians that their behavior, trying to clandestinely develop a nuclear weapon, or using the guise of a civilian nuclear program to attain a nuclear weapon, is unacceptable."
Bush said that "a world without Zionism" was the goal of the Iranian regime. "The current president of Iran has announced that the destruction of Israel is an important part of their agenda. That is unacceptable. The development of a nuclear weapon is a step closer to that agenda."
"It is the world's interest that Iran not have a nuclear weapon," said Bush, insisting that Iran must not "have capacity to blackmail free societies."
Also from that same meeting with new German chancellor Merkel, and reported on Newsmax with the headline "Bush: Iran Intends To Nuke Israel":
"I want to remind you that the current president of Iran has announced that the destruction of Israel is an important part of their agenda. And that's unacceptable. And the development of a nuclear weapon, it seems like to me, would make them a step closer to achieving that objective."
Here's a funny comment from Condoleezza Rice:
“We’ve got to finally demonstrate to Iran that it can’t with impunity just cast aside the just demands of the international community,” Rice said Sunday during a trip to Africa. ("Just because we do it, doesn't mean they can," she went to say--yeah, right.)
So I'll be checking the rhetoric from time to time, just so we know where we stand with the Commander-in-thief.
Val's Comment
And I thought commenter Val had a lot of good things to say over at the Huffington Post. I haven't verified every historical fact or claim therein, but the comment strikes me as a good summary of recent U.S.-Iran dealings and a good refutation of the rhetoric currently being leveled at Iran. I reproduce it without permission, but will remove it if asked:
Well…
From what I have been able to read so far, it looks like WWIII over oil is a certainty. But, I get ahead of myself, first, the background.
We know for a fact that Cheney was involved in secret meetings with ENRON and others concerning energy.
We know for a fact that ENRON went bankrupt trying to keep open an energy factory in India.
We know for a fact that Halliburton has been operating and conducting business with Iran for some years now.
We know for a fact that ENRON sold some of it’s overseas programs to GE, a company that has ex-operatives within the Bush administration.
We know for a fact now that the neo-con’s wanted a “Pearl Harbor-like” attack so they could push their agenda.
We know that nine months after Bush takes office that [Pearl Harbor-like] attack occurs on 9/11.
We know that Bush links Iraq, Iran and North Korea into the Axis of Evil.
We know that Bush sent Bolton to the UN.
We know that Bush invaded Afghanistan but was planning the war on Iraq from even before the Afghan invasion.
We know that Bush has all but forgotten about Afghanistan and Bin Laden, but is using Al-Qaeda as the reason to nation-build Iraq’s puppet government.
We know that WMD’s is used as the premise for the attack on Iraq by admission from Wolfowitz.
We know that WMD’s is being used at the premise for creating a nuclear crisis with Iran.
We know that Sharon [of Israel] was in a CHEMICALLY INDUCED COMA following his “stroke”.
So, what DON’T we know?
How about that Britian wants to move gas from area’s in Iran to areas in India. (ENRON had a factory in India, GE bought some ENRON foreign assets, Britain wants to have energy transfer to India, Halliburton has been working in Iran)
How about that the energy transfer would have to move through Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan? (Afghanistan – Taliban removed from power, Iraq – Saddam Hussein removed from power, Pakistan – Musharref friendly to America, at the moment, Iran – Next on the invasion list!)
How about that Iran is trying to sign a new energy transfer protocol THIS YEAR? (August 21, 2004, Iran takes on west's control of oil trading, Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and Opec producers that could threaten the supremacy of London's International Petroleum Exchange. A contract to design and establish a new platform for crude, natural gas and petrochemical trades is expected to be signed with an international consortium within days.)
How about one of Bolton’s FIRST acts at the UN was to start a case against Iran? (In Switzerland last year [2004], Bolton riled European allies when he voiced skepticism about European negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program.)
How about that America planes have repeatedly violated Iranian airspace which is an act of war? ("While the objective behind the fighters' violation of the Iranian air space is not known yet, some military specialists believe such moves are aimed at assessing the sensitivity of the Islamic Republic's anti-aircraft defense system," it added. It said [U.S.] military and air force officials had refrained from commenting on the incident when contacted.)
How about the U.S. charged that Iran was in violation of the NPT only to later concede that it did in fact have the right to peaceable nuclear energy, only to then later take the stance that even peaceable nuclear energy should be kept from Iran? (German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer here Monday reiterated Iran’s right to use peaceful nuclear energy amid continued U.S. efforts to politicize Iran’s civilian nuclear program.
How about that the U.S. had ADDITIONAL protocols ADDED just for Iran so that they couldn’t comply with the IAEA’s established protocols? (The extraordinary power of the US was again on full display on Sept 11 when France, Germany and Britain simultaneously agreed to a “November dead line for Iran to dispel concern that it has a covert atom bomb program, according to a draft resolution.” (Reuters) This means that Iran, who has already been cleared by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) for not having processed enriched uranium (even though that, in itself, is not forbidden under the NPT) must “prove a negative.” It must somehow prove it does not have something it does not have. Sound familiar? Of course, it is precisely the same trap that was set (successfully) for Saddam Hussein, who had no WMD and who eventually agreed to all of the terms of intrusive inspection regimen that were demanded of him. The UN did not call on Iran to cease all uranium enrichment activities, the IAEA did, and even they admit it was illegal for them to do so. Tests of soil samples have shown no signs of nuclear activities at a site in northern Iran, a diplomat in Vienna said Tuesday. The diplomat said the soil samples of the Lavizan military establishment showed "negative," meaning that the samples contained no traces of nuclear materials.)
How about Israel threatened to strike Iran if the U.S. or the UN wouldn’t? (A military strike is among Israel's options to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons, Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said on Wednesday in the latest threat by the Jewish state against its arch-foe.)
How about that with the NPT and “nuclear weapons” rationales failing, the U.S. is resorting to “terrorism” as justification to invade Iran? (There are indications that the US government is planning to use Hamas as a pretext for a potential attack against Iran.)
How about the fact that Sharon was about to attack Iran? (The Bush Administration urged the members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to approve an October 31 deadline on Iran for compliance or face sanctions at the UN Security Council. Bush lost that vote. Had the motion passed, that would have started the countdown to an Israel-Iran war just days before the November 2nd elections.)
How about the fact that Iran and China were working on a deal for oil exportation? (Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing has said in Tehran that Beijing opposes US efforts to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council over its nuclear program. China's oil giant Sinopec Group has signed a $70 billion oil and natural gas agreement with Iran, which is China's biggest energy deal with the No. 2 OPEC producer.)
How about AFTER all of this, Iran then reached a deal with the EU to halt uranium enrichment! (A senior Iranian official said on Thursday he was optimistic Iran would halt its uranium enrichment program as Europe demands, in a move aimed at easing fears that Iran is secretly developing atomic weapons.)
How about that certain friendly “organizations” told Bush that Iran, not Iraq, but that IRAN has a “secret nuclear plant”? (An Iranian opposition group has claimed evidence of a secret plant where Iran is producing enriched uranium. The New York Times [remember Judy Miller?] reported Wednesday the National Council for Resistance in Iran said the Islamic Republic was producing enriched uranium at the plant, which had not been disclosed to U.N. inspectors. The White House said Thursday that it could not verify an Iranian exile opposition group's [remember Chalabi?] charge that the Islamic republic was running a secret nuclear bomb facility near Tehran.)
How about AFTER ALL OF THIS, THE U.S. AND BUSH ARE STILL CLAIMING IRAN WILL MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND ARE WILLING TO START A WAR WITH IRAN! (As was the case with Iraq in the months immediately preceding Bush's invasion, the IAEA has found no evidence that NPT-proscribed materials have been stolen or diverted, nor that Iran is engaged in any NPT-prohibited activity. In particular, there is no evidence that Iran has been enriching uranium in the facilities it has constructed or is constructing. The Atlantic Monthly magazine reported in its latest issue that the Pentagon held simulations of a U.S. military strike on Iranian bases and nuclear facilities. The magazine said the recent war games also included a ground invasion of Iran. The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.)
How about that AFTER ALL OF THIS, THE U.S. AND BUSH GOT EVEN MORE PROTOCOL’S PUT ONTO IRAN THROUGH THE IAEA SO THEY CAN THEN GET THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL INVOLVED SO THEY CAN GET A UN MANDATE FOR INVASION! (In a defeat for the Bush administration, the 35 countries of the United Nations nuclear agency board adopted a mildly worded resolution Monday welcoming Iran's freeze of a sensitive part of its nuclear program. The US is preparing for the possibility that it will have to deal with Iran's nuclear program without the assistance of the UN Security Council. In the past weeks the administration has been working with European and Japanese allies on a "menu" of sanctions that could be imposed on Iran even if the issue is not referred to the UN Security Council. According to well-placed sources in Washington, the sanctions being discussed are focused on trade issues, since almost half of Iran's trade is with Europe and Japan.)
How about that GE [remember, they bought ENRON assets?] halts business orders in Iran? (General Electric Co., which has been accused of collecting "blood money" by doing business in Iran, will stop accepting any new orders for business in the country, company officials said Wednesday.)
How about a “blast” went off near an Iranian “factory” and an “airplane” was seen at the same time? (Initial reports said that the plane, which was not officially identified, had fired a missile. The possibility was later raised that it could have been an Iranian plane and that it had jettisoned a fuel tank that had happened to land in the area. The television report initially quoted witnesses as saying Wednesday's explosion was the result of a missile fired from a plane seen overhead. However, it later said the blast could have been a falling fuel tank from an Iranian aircraft.)
How about THAT AFTER ALL OF THIS, THE U.S. AND BUSH ARE PUSHING FOR WAR WITH IRAN, AND, COULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS! (Philip Giraldi, a former intelligence officer in the CIA (and DIA), claims that the United States is developing a plan for the bombing of supposed military targets in Iran, which would include the use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The US strike would take place after a 9/11-type terrorist attack on the US. However, the US attack would not depend on Iran actually being involved in the terrorism [Operation Northwoods style]. In short, the planned attack on Iran would be analogous to the unprovoked attack on Iraq. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing - that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack- but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.)
How about that not a month ago, the Iranian Guard Commander died in a “plane crash”? There were conflicting reports on what caused the crash. The official Islamic Republic News Agency reported the plane crashed because its landing gear jammed, preventing the wheels from being fully deployed. But the Revolutionary Guards' spokesman, Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, blamed bad weather and engine failure.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
ISN'T THIS "FUNNY"...
Don't push for impeachment, Cindy Sheehan. Let's all just laugh our way into the endless wars...
Don't push for impeachment, Cindy Sheehan. Let's all just laugh our way into the endless wars...
STOP ME IF YOU THINK YOU'VE HEARD THIS ONE BEFORE...
Doesn't this all sound a little too familiar? We're told a Middle Eastern country run by a madman has the intention to acquire nuclear weapons, so we cooperate to get them hauled before the Security Council, where a resolution will be written in such a way that this madman's country will be in violation of it before the ink is dry on the paper.
And that all of this is happening prior to a midterm election. Does it sound remotely similar to anything you've heard before? That this madman's Middle Eastern country is harboring and sponsoring terrorists--al Qaeda and such? That this country is a grave threat to us?
And the media talks about this country's "threat" to our country as a foregone conclusion--i.e., this country is a threat because they talk about it as being, therefore it's a threat, no evidence necessary. But they'll try to manufacture some anyway, just to muddy the water. Just so they'll have something that we'll have to try to disprove, and something to create the official story.
I wrote this yesterday but was too lazy to post it until I read, on Americablog, this much more eloquent, complete, and seasonally coordinated piece from Atrios:
David Kay and "State Of War"
Here's Andrea Mitchell on Hardball last (Thursday, Jan. 12) night pontificating about Iran's "secret nukes" and Chris Matthews treating Iran's "threat" to us as a foregone conclusion. I wasn't even aware that Iran was being accused of having "secret nukes"--I mean, I didn't realize that that was supposed to now be the official story. In "State Of War," James Risen points out that, as in Iraq before our invasion, we haven't had and currently don't have CIA/intelligence resources on the ground to even know these things, thanks to the cable that mistakenly identified our assets in Iran. And David Kay admits as much in this transcript.
And Risen points out that we, the U.S., gave Iran nuclear plans!
And if you haven't or don't have the time to read the book, here's a good synopsis at Alternet, complete with this great comment on the book's perspective (I tried to say something to this in effect in an earlier post, but this nails it):
And of course, Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com turned in a good one on Iran yesterday.
Doesn't this all sound a little too familiar? We're told a Middle Eastern country run by a madman has the intention to acquire nuclear weapons, so we cooperate to get them hauled before the Security Council, where a resolution will be written in such a way that this madman's country will be in violation of it before the ink is dry on the paper.
And that all of this is happening prior to a midterm election. Does it sound remotely similar to anything you've heard before? That this madman's Middle Eastern country is harboring and sponsoring terrorists--al Qaeda and such? That this country is a grave threat to us?
And the media talks about this country's "threat" to our country as a foregone conclusion--i.e., this country is a threat because they talk about it as being, therefore it's a threat, no evidence necessary. But they'll try to manufacture some anyway, just to muddy the water. Just so they'll have something that we'll have to try to disprove, and something to create the official story.
I wrote this yesterday but was too lazy to post it until I read, on Americablog, this much more eloquent, complete, and seasonally coordinated piece from Atrios:
How It Goes
Winter/Spring - The clone army of foreign policy "experts" from conservative foreign policy outfits nobody ever heard of before suddenly appear on all the cable news programs all the time, frowning furiously and expressing concerns about the "grave threat" that Iran poses. Never before heard of Iranian exile group members start appearing regularly, talking about their role in the nuclear program and talking up Iran's human rights violations.
Spring/Summer - "Liberal hawks" point out that all serious people understand the serious threat posed by serious Iran, and while they acknowledge grudgingly that the Bush administration has fucked up everything it touches, they stress, and I mean stress, that we really must support the Bush administration's serious efforts to deal with the serious problem and that criticisms of such serious approaches to a serious problem are highly irresponsible and come only from irrational very unserious Bush haters who would rather live in Iran than the U.S.
Late Summer - Rumsfeld denies having an Iran war plan "on his desk." He refuses to answer if he has one "in his file cabinet." Andy Card explains that you don't roll out new product until after labor day.
Early Fall - Bush suddenly demands Congress give him the authority to attack Iran to ensure they "disarm." Some Democrats have the temerity to ask "with what army?" Marshall Wittman and Peter Beinart explain that courageous Democrats will have the courageous courage to be serious and to confront the "grave threat" with seriousness and vote to send other peoples' kids off to war, otherwise they'll be seen as highly unserious on national security. Neither enlists.
Late October - Despite the fact that all but 30 Democrats vote for the resolution, Republicans run a national ad campaign telling voters that Democrats are objectively pro-Ahmadinejad. Glenn Reynolds muses, sadly, that Democrats aren't just anti-war, but "on the other side." Nick Kristof writes that liberals must support the war due to Ahmadinejad's opposition to gay rights in Iran.
Election Day - Democrats lose 5 seats in the Senate, 30 in the House. Marshall Wittman blames it on the "pro-Iranian caucus."
The Day After Election Day - Miraculously we never hear another word about the grave Iranian threat. Peter Beinart writes a book about how serious Democrats must support the liberation of Venezuela and Bolivia.
David Kay and "State Of War"
Here's Andrea Mitchell on Hardball last (Thursday, Jan. 12) night pontificating about Iran's "secret nukes" and Chris Matthews treating Iran's "threat" to us as a foregone conclusion. I wasn't even aware that Iran was being accused of having "secret nukes"--I mean, I didn't realize that that was supposed to now be the official story. In "State Of War," James Risen points out that, as in Iraq before our invasion, we haven't had and currently don't have CIA/intelligence resources on the ground to even know these things, thanks to the cable that mistakenly identified our assets in Iran. And David Kay admits as much in this transcript.
And Risen points out that we, the U.S., gave Iran nuclear plans!
And if you haven't or don't have the time to read the book, here's a good synopsis at Alternet, complete with this great comment on the book's perspective (I tried to say something to this in effect in an earlier post, but this nails it):
The second, and more grave point is that James Risen is a complete sucker for Bush's tonic for the terrorist threat against America and the prevailing White House rationale for the invasion of Iraq: that we must spread the wings of democracy across the Middle East.
How a reporter can get so close to the White House Big Dogs and reveal such devastating evidence about their cynical geopolitical schemes while at the same time swallow the big narrative that underwrites them all is frankly quite stunning.
And of course, Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com turned in a good one on Iran yesterday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
