How come heads roll over a bombing in Baghdad that claimed 22 lives, but when 3,000 people die in the worst terrorist attack in the history of the US, not one person is fired or held accountable in any way?
What’s the difference?
How come heads roll over a bombing in Baghdad that claimed 22 lives, but when 3,000 people die in the worst terrorist attack in the history of the US, not one person is fired or held accountable in any way?
What’s the difference?
Sean-Paul at the Agonist and Nathan at Argus are having an interesting exchange of speculation on the situation in Uzbekistan. Both Sean-Paul and Nathan’s posts are crammed full of links, excerpts and knowledgeable commentary.
Sean-Paul discusses the possibility of an al Qaida connection to the bombings here- L’Affaire d’Ouzbeq and here – L’affaire d’Ouzbeq, Part II. His analysis strikes me as correct, considering that everyone is working with a minimum of hard information and the situation is very volatile.
It is for some time now that the International Crisis Group has featured prominently in agency reports and newspaper articles, especially when dealing with the Balkans. If just one “expert” is quoted in any report, odds are it will be someone from the ICG. With more than one, it is guaranteed. But why?
Chris Deliso has done some great work on exposing the ICG-IWPR axis in Macedonia, which he called “the barking dogs of intervention” back in 2002. IWPR’s agenda is not a mystery, and neither is ICG’s, as it should be apparent from their reports. From denying the existence of Islamic terrorism in the Balkans to advocating the separation of Kosovo and Montenegro, occupation of Serbia and forcible unitarization of Bosnia, the ICG has been an extremist voice of Imperial intervention, saying things the regime in Washington (whoever runs it) could not say in public. Their board is a veritable Who’s Who of Imperial policy, including some “luminaries” of the previous decade’s Balkans cataclysm. This explains why, while technically just a minor NGO, staffed by second-hand analysts and advocacy journalists, ICG gets mention in the press all the time: it represents the Voice of Authority (i.e. the foreign policy-makers), always dear to the presstitutes. Better yet, because they are not the government, they – and the presstitutes – can pretend there is no agenda behind their rhetoric other than “peace” and “stability.” But every time you see an ICG “expert” (who is nothing of the sort) quoted in a media report of any kind, remember – this is a conduit of Empire, no more, no less. Continue reading “Presstitutes’ Darling”
Bravo, Senator Daschle! I’m also tired of the the Bush Administration’s attacks on those who criticize them!
Read today’s Floor Statement by Senator Daschle, on the Abuse of Government Power.
Here’s the letter setting forth the conditions under which the White House agreed to let Condoleezza Rice testify publicly, under oath to the 9/11 commission.
A couple of interesting passages:
It starts off with a little joke to break the ice, “The president has consistently stated a policy of strong support for the commission and instructed the executive branch to provide unprecedented and extraordinary access to the commission. Ok, now to the meat of the thing.
So, the main point is that they get one shot at Rice and NO ONE ELSE.
Here’s the deal on Georgie and BackSeat:
I am authorized to advise you that the president and vice president have agreed to one joint private session with all 10 commissioners, with one commission staff member present to take notes of the session.
No time limit, apparently.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall on the Shrub/Backseat joint testimony condition, “One can speculate about several reasons — one in particular — for making this stipulation. And, in addition to having no conceivable constitutional basis, none of them are flattering.”
Pass the popcorn.
Rice is going to testify under oath to the 9/11 commission after all.