Does the Plame leak investigation end only with VP Chief of Staff, Libby indicted--not for participating in the leak but for lying about his pre-leak actions? That's possible. And the prosecutor, US Attorney Fitzgerald refused to reveal any information about the case that was not included in the indictment. Who were Novak's sources for the leak? Fitzgerald wouldn't say. Is Official A a new name for Mr. X--the term used by reporters to refer to Novak's original source? Fitzgerald didn't say. Might Rove be Official A? Fitzgerald didn't say. Why did the leak refer to Valerie Wilson by her maiden name of Plame? Fitzgerald didn't say. What sort of cooperation did Fitzgerald receive from Novak? Fitzgerald didn't say. Was Cheney in cahoots with Libby regarding the latter's false testimony? Fitzgerald didn't say. How much damage was done to the CIA and its operations by the leak? Fitzgerald didn't say. Then, what about George W. Bush? What did he know and when did he know it?
--edited from an article in The Nation
More to come!
Blog On
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Interesting Discussion on Iraq at Daily Kos
*Just click on the link to read and/or participate in an interesting discussion on the situation in Iraq at Daily Kos.
--Please add your comments here, there and everywhere. . .
Blog On
--Please add your comments here, there and everywhere. . .
Blog On
Monday, October 24, 2005
Bush's Impoverished America
The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau conveniently and quietly released its annual report entitled, "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States." It provided a context to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. Despite another of President Bush's infamous lies last month that, "Americans have more money in their pockets," more and more people from the middle class are falling into abject poverty.
The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families- the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years! Check out the sadly and demonstrably uncompassionate results of Bush's economic policy:
*The average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.
*Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134 (the average income for white families was $48,977).
*The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389 (the lowest it has been since 1997).
*The portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year (the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent).
*The average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004 (the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase).
*Men working full-time had their annual incomes decline 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798 (the largest one-year decline in 14 years).
*Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223 (the largest one-year decline in nine years).
*Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year in all major sectors (e.g. in management women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services).
Most telling:
*There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty in 2004 (an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003). This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. Since Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have fallen into poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003!
*Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year (the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined).
*A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance (the uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics).
--The report by the Census Bureau reveals, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, that most Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the Bush administrated had the report released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.
BLOG ON
The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families- the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years! Check out the sadly and demonstrably uncompassionate results of Bush's economic policy:
*The average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.
*Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134 (the average income for white families was $48,977).
*The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389 (the lowest it has been since 1997).
*The portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year (the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent).
*The average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004 (the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase).
*Men working full-time had their annual incomes decline 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798 (the largest one-year decline in 14 years).
*Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223 (the largest one-year decline in nine years).
*Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year in all major sectors (e.g. in management women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services).
Most telling:
*There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty in 2004 (an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003). This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. Since Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have fallen into poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003!
*Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year (the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined).
*A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance (the uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics).
--The report by the Census Bureau reveals, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, that most Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the Bush administrated had the report released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.
BLOG ON
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Bush; Try Again
No crones, I mean cronies, on the Supreme Court!
--from a letter to the editor of The St. Augustine Record
BLOG ON
--from a letter to the editor of The St. Augustine Record
BLOG ON
Lose-Lose Situation in Iraq
Edited from: Inter Press Service, Washington
Five days before Saturday's referendum on Iraq's proposed constitution, the U.S. foreign policy elite appears both anxious and gloomy, increasingly worried that win or lose, the process will bring Iraq one step closer to civil war and, with it, the possible destabilisation of the wider region. The constitution's approval, in the view of many experts, will likely further alienate the Sunni population from the political process. . .
. . . "A defeat of the constitution [by Sunnis] could deepen Sunni-Shiite-Kurd divisions, and many observers fear that the odds of Shiite retaliation would increase," wrote Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who advised the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq, in the New York Times Sunday Magazine this week. "The fact that Shiites have not retaliated systematically (against Sunni attacks) is the only thing now standing between Iraq and a major civil war," he warned.
Some experts believe that a civil war is already underway, even if it is not yet a full-blown conflict. . . If accounts from the ground are to be believed, there is already some ethnic cleansing going on in some neighbourhoods and some areas within Iraq. The reason, according to top U.S. military officers in Iraq, is clear enough. "We've looked for the constitution to be a national pact, and the perception now is that it's not," Gen. George Casey, the commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, told lawmakers here last week. Indeed, the most important parts of the draft charter -- or at least those to which the Sunnis are most strongly opposed -- were worked out between the Kurds and the major Shiite parties despite U.S. efforts [to the contrary]. . .
The Sunnis' main concerns include provisions that could be used to discriminate against ex-Baathist Party members, ambiguous language about how the country's oil wealth will be divided between the national and local governments, and, most important, the constitutional mandate that permits the establishment of a nine-province, highly autonomous region for the predominantly Shiite south, as well as a less controversial, three-province Kurdish region in the north. Sunnis object to this confederal structure because it would both severely weaken the central government, which Sunnis had dominated since the Ottoman Empire, and possibly exclude the predominantly Sunni western provinces from getting a proportional share of Iraq's oil wealth, which is produced only in the northern and southern parts of the country. In addition, Sunnis express concerns that an autonomous Shiite south will be dominated by neighbouring Iran, which is believed to provide material and other support to the Shiite parties there. Even some supporters of the U.S. invasion have complained about the result. . . that approval of the constitution could provoke civil war. . .
*****************************
The United States has 'Lebanonised' Iraq. It is ironic that a structure that worked so poorly for Lebanon is now the template for Iraq.
Five days before Saturday's referendum on Iraq's proposed constitution, the U.S. foreign policy elite appears both anxious and gloomy, increasingly worried that win or lose, the process will bring Iraq one step closer to civil war and, with it, the possible destabilisation of the wider region. The constitution's approval, in the view of many experts, will likely further alienate the Sunni population from the political process. . .
. . . "A defeat of the constitution [by Sunnis] could deepen Sunni-Shiite-Kurd divisions, and many observers fear that the odds of Shiite retaliation would increase," wrote Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who advised the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq, in the New York Times Sunday Magazine this week. "The fact that Shiites have not retaliated systematically (against Sunni attacks) is the only thing now standing between Iraq and a major civil war," he warned.
Some experts believe that a civil war is already underway, even if it is not yet a full-blown conflict. . . If accounts from the ground are to be believed, there is already some ethnic cleansing going on in some neighbourhoods and some areas within Iraq. The reason, according to top U.S. military officers in Iraq, is clear enough. "We've looked for the constitution to be a national pact, and the perception now is that it's not," Gen. George Casey, the commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, told lawmakers here last week. Indeed, the most important parts of the draft charter -- or at least those to which the Sunnis are most strongly opposed -- were worked out between the Kurds and the major Shiite parties despite U.S. efforts [to the contrary]. . .
The Sunnis' main concerns include provisions that could be used to discriminate against ex-Baathist Party members, ambiguous language about how the country's oil wealth will be divided between the national and local governments, and, most important, the constitutional mandate that permits the establishment of a nine-province, highly autonomous region for the predominantly Shiite south, as well as a less controversial, three-province Kurdish region in the north. Sunnis object to this confederal structure because it would both severely weaken the central government, which Sunnis had dominated since the Ottoman Empire, and possibly exclude the predominantly Sunni western provinces from getting a proportional share of Iraq's oil wealth, which is produced only in the northern and southern parts of the country. In addition, Sunnis express concerns that an autonomous Shiite south will be dominated by neighbouring Iran, which is believed to provide material and other support to the Shiite parties there. Even some supporters of the U.S. invasion have complained about the result. . . that approval of the constitution could provoke civil war. . .
*****************************
The United States has 'Lebanonised' Iraq. It is ironic that a structure that worked so poorly for Lebanon is now the template for Iraq.
BLOG ON
Friday, September 30, 2005
The DARKSIDE
The dark soul of modern American-style fascism, more commonly known in it's latest orwellian denotation- 'compassionate conservatism', exposes itself occasionally and unintentionally (albeit subconciously) to the light. . .
Consider the recent comments of conservative darling Bob Bennett about blacks and crime, on his right-wing radio talk show. Regarding the implications of a controversial new book 'Freakonomics', which concerns statistics, economic data and their manipulation to enhance most any end or argument apparently (something the right-wing in America has gotten very good at doing), he let slip the stuff of what serious, right thinking, good ol' boy republicans no doubt talk about among themselves all the time. That is: How to ignore, marginalize, persecute or 'eliminate' blacks, browns, gays, emancipated women or any other group not acceptable or inconvenient to their authoritarian, christian fundamentalist, corporate-owned catachism. All of these groups are more and more undermined and attacked by the rightwing through legislation, the courts or even on the streets by the least among them. The fervent success of the right-wing in this area has only gotten more strident, blatant and painfully effective as their grip on power has increased.
Bennett's quick, in same sentence retraction of the notion of aborting all blacks to reduce crime (no doubt ONLY based in a guilt ridden catholicism), was eerily like the myriad discussions among the Nazis over the course of their stay in power of the 'final solution' and its political and moral implications. The very fact that the discussions occurred at all was indicative that the Holocaust that followed was inevitable, especially when the Nazis' power to do so was unassailable. Carl Jung would agree surely. This obsession and developed hatred of all that is communal, non-christian and non-white middle, upper class by the new reich of the new right-wing in America can only follow a similar slide into the dark abyss where fascist thought and action has historically flowed. . .
Their god is not who they believe he is!
BLOG ON
Consider the recent comments of conservative darling Bob Bennett about blacks and crime, on his right-wing radio talk show. Regarding the implications of a controversial new book 'Freakonomics', which concerns statistics, economic data and their manipulation to enhance most any end or argument apparently (something the right-wing in America has gotten very good at doing), he let slip the stuff of what serious, right thinking, good ol' boy republicans no doubt talk about among themselves all the time. That is: How to ignore, marginalize, persecute or 'eliminate' blacks, browns, gays, emancipated women or any other group not acceptable or inconvenient to their authoritarian, christian fundamentalist, corporate-owned catachism. All of these groups are more and more undermined and attacked by the rightwing through legislation, the courts or even on the streets by the least among them. The fervent success of the right-wing in this area has only gotten more strident, blatant and painfully effective as their grip on power has increased.
Bennett's quick, in same sentence retraction of the notion of aborting all blacks to reduce crime (no doubt ONLY based in a guilt ridden catholicism), was eerily like the myriad discussions among the Nazis over the course of their stay in power of the 'final solution' and its political and moral implications. The very fact that the discussions occurred at all was indicative that the Holocaust that followed was inevitable, especially when the Nazis' power to do so was unassailable. Carl Jung would agree surely. This obsession and developed hatred of all that is communal, non-christian and non-white middle, upper class by the new reich of the new right-wing in America can only follow a similar slide into the dark abyss where fascist thought and action has historically flowed. . .
Their god is not who they believe he is!
BLOG ON
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
What's Conservative about the Pledge of Allegiance?
--Edited from an article by Gene Healy, senior editor at the Cato Institute.
(suggested by Julie Johnson)
It seems there's no escaping America's culture wars for the Supreme Court: On Tuesday, Oct. 14, the Court announced that it would hear Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a case on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow arose out of a California parent's attempt to get the phrase "under God" stripped from the Pledge, on the grounds that it represents an establishment of religion.
The Newdow case is a Republican campaign strategist's dream. It gives G.O.P. candidates a grand old opportunity to position themselves as defenders of tradition against militant atheists and liberal judges. But any conservatives so inclined should think about what they're defending.
Very little, as it turns out. From its inception, in 1892, the Pledge has been a slavish ritual of devotion to the state, wholly inappropriate for a free people. It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist pushed out of his post as a Baptist minister for delivering pulpit-pounding sermons on such topics as "Jesus the Socialist." Bellamy was devoted to the ideas of his more-famous cousin Edward Bellamy, author of the 1888 utopian novel Looking Backward. Looking Backward describes the future United States as a regimented worker's paradise where everyone has equal incomes, and men are drafted into the country's "industrial army" at the age of 21, serving in the jobs assigned them by the state. Bellamy's novel was extremely popular, selling more copies than other any 19th century American novel except Uncle Tom's Cabin. Bellamy's book inspired a movement of "Nationalist Clubs," whose members campaigned for a government takeover of the economy. A few years before he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy became a founding member of Boston's first Nationalist Club.
After leaving the pulpit, Francis Bellamy decided to advance his authoritarian ideas through the public schools. Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance for Youth's Companion, a popular children's magazine. With the aid of the National Education Association, Bellamy and the editors of Youth's Companion got the Pledge adopted as part of the National Public School Celebration on Columbus Day 1892.
Bellamy's recommended ritual for honoring the flag had students all but goosestepping their way through the Pledge: "At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the Flag the military salute--right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it... At the words, 'to my Flag,' the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, towards the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side." After the rise of Nazism, this form of salute was thought to be in poor taste, to say the least, and replaced with today's hand-on-heart gesture.
Hands on their hearts, more than 100 Republican members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge shortly after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Newdow in June 2002. It was an effective photo-op, allowing the G.O.P. to cast itself as the defender of tradition. But not every tradition deserves defending. Though no one can be legally compelled to salute the flag, encouraging the ritual smacks of promoting a quasi-religious genuflection to the state. That's not surprising, given that the Pledge was designed by an avowed socialist to encourage greater regimentation of society.
Regardless of the legal merits of Newdow's case -- which rests on a rather ambitious interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment clause -- it's ironic to see conservatives rally to such a questionable custom. Why do so many conservatives who, by and large, exalt the individual and the family above the state, endorse this ceremony of subordination to the government? Why do Christian conservatives say it's important for schoolchildren to bow before a symbol of secular power? Indeed, why should conservatives support the Pledge at all, with or without "under God"?
-Never expect the religious right to be rational!
BLOG ON. . .
(suggested by Julie Johnson)
It seems there's no escaping America's culture wars for the Supreme Court: On Tuesday, Oct. 14, the Court announced that it would hear Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a case on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow arose out of a California parent's attempt to get the phrase "under God" stripped from the Pledge, on the grounds that it represents an establishment of religion.
The Newdow case is a Republican campaign strategist's dream. It gives G.O.P. candidates a grand old opportunity to position themselves as defenders of tradition against militant atheists and liberal judges. But any conservatives so inclined should think about what they're defending.
Very little, as it turns out. From its inception, in 1892, the Pledge has been a slavish ritual of devotion to the state, wholly inappropriate for a free people. It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist pushed out of his post as a Baptist minister for delivering pulpit-pounding sermons on such topics as "Jesus the Socialist." Bellamy was devoted to the ideas of his more-famous cousin Edward Bellamy, author of the 1888 utopian novel Looking Backward. Looking Backward describes the future United States as a regimented worker's paradise where everyone has equal incomes, and men are drafted into the country's "industrial army" at the age of 21, serving in the jobs assigned them by the state. Bellamy's novel was extremely popular, selling more copies than other any 19th century American novel except Uncle Tom's Cabin. Bellamy's book inspired a movement of "Nationalist Clubs," whose members campaigned for a government takeover of the economy. A few years before he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy became a founding member of Boston's first Nationalist Club.
After leaving the pulpit, Francis Bellamy decided to advance his authoritarian ideas through the public schools. Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance for Youth's Companion, a popular children's magazine. With the aid of the National Education Association, Bellamy and the editors of Youth's Companion got the Pledge adopted as part of the National Public School Celebration on Columbus Day 1892.
Bellamy's recommended ritual for honoring the flag had students all but goosestepping their way through the Pledge: "At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the Flag the military salute--right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it... At the words, 'to my Flag,' the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, towards the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side." After the rise of Nazism, this form of salute was thought to be in poor taste, to say the least, and replaced with today's hand-on-heart gesture.
Hands on their hearts, more than 100 Republican members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge shortly after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Newdow in June 2002. It was an effective photo-op, allowing the G.O.P. to cast itself as the defender of tradition. But not every tradition deserves defending. Though no one can be legally compelled to salute the flag, encouraging the ritual smacks of promoting a quasi-religious genuflection to the state. That's not surprising, given that the Pledge was designed by an avowed socialist to encourage greater regimentation of society.
Regardless of the legal merits of Newdow's case -- which rests on a rather ambitious interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment clause -- it's ironic to see conservatives rally to such a questionable custom. Why do so many conservatives who, by and large, exalt the individual and the family above the state, endorse this ceremony of subordination to the government? Why do Christian conservatives say it's important for schoolchildren to bow before a symbol of secular power? Indeed, why should conservatives support the Pledge at all, with or without "under God"?
-Never expect the religious right to be rational!
BLOG ON. . .
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Revolution No. 9
1- 1841 soldiers dead in Iraq as of 8/12/05.
2- $300 Billion spent on Iraq war as of 8/12/05.
3- 0 is the number of wmds found in Iraq.
4- $240 Billion is the yearly surplus Clinton left Bush.
5- $350 Billiion is the current yearly deficit under Bush.
6- 1 in 5 is the number of American children in poverty (up 15% since Bush took office).
7- 5 Million is the number of people who have lost health insurance since Bush took office.
8- 0 is the number of mistakes of any kind admitted by the Bush administration.
9- 4 is the multiple by which N. Korea has increased its nuclear weapons since Bush took office.
--and then there is the handling of the Katrina catastrophe (no numbers yet available). . .
REVOLUTION ANYONE?
Blog On
2- $300 Billion spent on Iraq war as of 8/12/05.
3- 0 is the number of wmds found in Iraq.
4- $240 Billion is the yearly surplus Clinton left Bush.
5- $350 Billiion is the current yearly deficit under Bush.
6- 1 in 5 is the number of American children in poverty (up 15% since Bush took office).
7- 5 Million is the number of people who have lost health insurance since Bush took office.
8- 0 is the number of mistakes of any kind admitted by the Bush administration.
9- 4 is the multiple by which N. Korea has increased its nuclear weapons since Bush took office.
--and then there is the handling of the Katrina catastrophe (no numbers yet available). . .
REVOLUTION ANYONE?
Blog On
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Kissing Saudi Ass
The only evidence you need that President Bush is losing the "war on terror" is this: On Sunday, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia said that relations with the United States "couldn't be better."
Tell that to the parents of those who have died in two wars defending this corrupt spawning ground of violent extremism. Never mind the ugly facts: We are deeply entwined with Saudi Arabia even though it shares none of our values and supports our enemies. Yet on Friday, Bush senior and VP Cheney made another in a long line of obsequious American pilgrimages to Riyadh to assure the Saudis that we continue to be grateful for the punishment they dish out.
"The relationship has tremendously improved with the United States," Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal told a news conference in Riyadh. "With the government, of course, it is very harmonious, as it ever was. Whether it has returned to the same level as it was before in terms of public opinion [in both countries], that is debatable."
Well, score one for public opinion. It makes sense to distrust the mercenary and distasteful alliance between the United States and Saudi Arabia. We protect the repressive kingdom that spawned Osama bin Laden, and most of the 9/11 hijackers, in exchange for the Saudis keeping our fecklessly oil-addicted country lubricated.
Yes, it has stuck deep in the craw of many of us Americans that after 9/11, Washington squandered global goodwill and a huge percentage of our resources invading a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, while continuing to pander to this dysfunctional dynasty. After all, Saudi Arabia is believed to have paid bin Laden's murderous gang millions in protection money in the years before 9/11, and it lavishly funds extremist religious schools throughout the region that preach and teach anti-Western jihad.
"Al Qaeda found fertile fundraising ground in the kingdom," noted the 9/11 commission report in one of its many careful understatements. The fact is, without Saudi Arabia, there would be no Al Qaeda today! (from THE NATION)
--WHAT A FRIEND!
Tell that to the parents of those who have died in two wars defending this corrupt spawning ground of violent extremism. Never mind the ugly facts: We are deeply entwined with Saudi Arabia even though it shares none of our values and supports our enemies. Yet on Friday, Bush senior and VP Cheney made another in a long line of obsequious American pilgrimages to Riyadh to assure the Saudis that we continue to be grateful for the punishment they dish out.
"The relationship has tremendously improved with the United States," Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal told a news conference in Riyadh. "With the government, of course, it is very harmonious, as it ever was. Whether it has returned to the same level as it was before in terms of public opinion [in both countries], that is debatable."
Well, score one for public opinion. It makes sense to distrust the mercenary and distasteful alliance between the United States and Saudi Arabia. We protect the repressive kingdom that spawned Osama bin Laden, and most of the 9/11 hijackers, in exchange for the Saudis keeping our fecklessly oil-addicted country lubricated.
Yes, it has stuck deep in the craw of many of us Americans that after 9/11, Washington squandered global goodwill and a huge percentage of our resources invading a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, while continuing to pander to this dysfunctional dynasty. After all, Saudi Arabia is believed to have paid bin Laden's murderous gang millions in protection money in the years before 9/11, and it lavishly funds extremist religious schools throughout the region that preach and teach anti-Western jihad.
"Al Qaeda found fertile fundraising ground in the kingdom," noted the 9/11 commission report in one of its many careful understatements. The fact is, without Saudi Arabia, there would be no Al Qaeda today! (from THE NATION)
--WHAT A FRIEND!
blog on. . .
Sunday, August 14, 2005
PAINE-ful Times!
THESE are the times that try men's souls. . . Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us. . . it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. [America]. . ., with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX [all but the rich]) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER [as in the 'patriot act']," and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God [?]. . .
I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent. Neither have I so much of the infidel in me, as to suppose that He has relinquished the government of the world, and given us up to the care of devils; and as I do not, I cannot see on what grounds the [American President]. . .can look up to heaven for help. . .: a common murderer, a highwayman, or a house-breaker, has as good a pretence as he. . .
'Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them. . .Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. But their peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer. They sift out the hidden thoughts of man, and hold them up in public to the world. . .
But, before the line of irrecoverable separation be drawn between us, let us reason the matter together: [President Bush] your conduct is an invitation to the enemy. . . [The enemy] is as much deceived by you as the American cause is injured by you. . .Your opinions are of no use. . .
America did not, nor does not want force; but she wanted a proper application of that force. Wisdom is not the purchase of a day, and it is no wonder that we should err at the first setting off. From an excess of tenderness, we were unwilling to raise an army, and trusted our cause to the temporary defence of a well-meaning militia [but not that of it's Commander]. A summer's experience has now taught us better; yet with those troops, while they were collected, we were able to set bounds to the progress of the enemy. . .I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out. . .
My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder. . .There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them. . . It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both.
-edited from:
The American Crisis No. 1
COMMON SENSE by Thomas Paine
December 23, 1776
Blog On
I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent. Neither have I so much of the infidel in me, as to suppose that He has relinquished the government of the world, and given us up to the care of devils; and as I do not, I cannot see on what grounds the [American President]. . .can look up to heaven for help. . .: a common murderer, a highwayman, or a house-breaker, has as good a pretence as he. . .
'Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them. . .Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. But their peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer. They sift out the hidden thoughts of man, and hold them up in public to the world. . .
But, before the line of irrecoverable separation be drawn between us, let us reason the matter together: [President Bush] your conduct is an invitation to the enemy. . . [The enemy] is as much deceived by you as the American cause is injured by you. . .Your opinions are of no use. . .
America did not, nor does not want force; but she wanted a proper application of that force. Wisdom is not the purchase of a day, and it is no wonder that we should err at the first setting off. From an excess of tenderness, we were unwilling to raise an army, and trusted our cause to the temporary defence of a well-meaning militia [but not that of it's Commander]. A summer's experience has now taught us better; yet with those troops, while they were collected, we were able to set bounds to the progress of the enemy. . .I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out. . .
My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder. . .There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them. . . It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both.
-edited from:
The American Crisis No. 1
COMMON SENSE by Thomas Paine
December 23, 1776
Blog On
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)