Bush Doctrine? In what respect, Charlie?
Well, here’s some audio of Ron Paul getting it right, on Antiwar Radio, in April, 2007.
[audio:http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_04_03_paul_bush_doctrine.mp3]Month: September 2008
Scott Horton Debates the War Party
[audio:http://anomalyaudio.net/wp-content/uploads/HortonVsKushner20080911.mp3]
Well, at least one member of the War Party: terror analyst Harvey Kushner. Scott did a great job in their debate at Texas A&M University. It is hard to sit through Kushner’s crap, but I recommend that you check it out.
Palin Revives Bush’s Most Lethal Lie
In a speech yesterday to U.S. troops departing for Iraq, Alaska Governor and GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin declared that the soldiers would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.â€
Even George W. Bush finally admitted that this justification for attacking Iraq was a fraud.
But apparently it is still sufficient to justify occupying and oppressing Iraqis. (Palin’s son was among the soldiers deploying).
Is Palin a liar or a fool?
In the same way that McCain’s convention acceptance speech made Bob Dole look good, Palin’s interview last night with ABC’s Charles Gibson made former VP Dan Quayle look like a rocket scientist.
Why have so many conservatives – and some libertarians – rushed so fast to idealize this career politician?
Palin Is Dumber Than Bush and More Dangerous Than McCain
Palin is dumber than Bush and more dangerous than McCain to even think about the US possibly needing to go to war with Russia. Let Georgia and Ukraine join NATO–who cares–as long as the US gets out.
Extrude Mahmoud
In an interview in Der Spiegel, former Mossad agent and current cabinet minister, Rafi Eitan suggested that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might find himself in front of an International Criminal Court in The Hague if he doesn’t watch himself. Anyone with even modest knowledge of the 81-year-old Eiten’s activities, in particular his role in Adolf Eichmann’s capture, can’t rule this out as idle speculation, but as my friend Tom wondered, “why would Eitan say this publicly?”
Sure, Ahmadinejad must already figure he is one of the top picks on Mossad’s hit list, so this simply can’t be a clumsy message to the yappy Iranian leader. Besides, Mossad gets off on well-planned and highly secretive operations anyway. Why would Eitan blow the surprise for his former bosses if high profile abductions were still high on their docket? Hmm….
I might’ve glossed over this morning’s story as politics as usual if it were not for last week’s revelation, also by Eitan, that Mossad allowed Nazi witch doctor Josef Mengele get away when agents in Buenos Aires had the opportunity to nab him. Of course, that wasn’t a botched effort: Mossad had to let Mengele escape so they could be assured of completing the more important Eichmann abduction.
Now, I’m not a psychologist, nor do I generally play one on the Internet, but this paroxysm of Eitanmania is too juicy not to analyze. All fisherman great and small have a fish-that-got-away story, and the Mengele tale smells like Eitan’s. Could the Ahmadinejad story likewise be the ramblings of a famous fisherman, whose best days are long over but likes to make people believe he has live bait on his rusty but still sufficiently bent hook? Or is it possible that someday we’ll learn that Mossad did try to kidnap Ahmadinejad, and failed. I only hope we don’t have to wait 50 years for that fish story.
A tip of the pen to Tom Walls for the headline and this morning’s news story.
Dueling Realities
I’m not sure how many of you read the article I wrote this morning about the Pentagon’s “troop cut freeze” in Iraq. I’m not just mentioning it here because I’m hoping to get my readership up (though if that’s a side effect, I sure won’t complain), rather I write this because of an article on the exact same topic that CNN.com put up around the same time.
While my story is based on the reports already out there publicly, CNN sites all sorts of “sources”. Both articles say much the same thing, but what strikes me is the dramatically different tone.
On 9/11/07, General Petraeus predicted the troop level would be down to 130,000 by this summer. In April of this year, the AP said the pause would leave over 100,000 troops in Iraq by the time President Bush leaves office. The reality is that 146,000 troops are still there, and the Pentagon is urging the President to keep them there until he is out of office. Then, and only then, they suggest that 7,500 troops could be pulled out of Iraq, and most of them would end up in Afghanistan. These are the facts as I presented then this morning. Here is what CNN said:
The top U.S. general in Iraq is recommending nearly 8,000 troop cuts in Iraq because of the improving situation there, a source close to the process has told CNN.
Nowhere is it mentioned that what they’re actually proposing is a several-month-long further delay of already planned troop cuts. And what is the deal with “because of the improving situation there” featuring so prominently in the opening paragraph? What sense does that make? The situation has improved so much that a year later we still can’t reduce troops to the pre-surge level the General in charge predicted a year ago when he said the surge had accomplished all its goals? Can someone explain that to me?