Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
L.W.M.
Published Letters: 6225 Editor's Choice: 5
Kleiman just wan't enough for me without corroboration...
Speaking of militarism... sad news
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014135.php
Regarding Richard Perle, a series of recent posts at Col. Lang's...
Apparently it was known and "on the record" at the CIA that Chalabi was an Iranian agent...
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/
Just go and scroll down thru the last 5 posts... there is a new one I haven't read yet...
Richly and Royally Fooled
In the piece by Dexter Filkins on Chalabi that appeared in the NYT last November, Richard Perle said the question was 'is he fooling the Iranians or are the Iranians using him?' -- and went on to suggest that 'Chalabi has been very shrewd in getting the things he has needed over the years out of the Iranians without giving anything in return.' As Iran's great enemy Saddam has been destroyed, and as the U.S. continues to fight the Sunnis who are the implacable opponents of the Iranians, and also appear implacably hostile to the most 'nationalist' of Shi'a leaders, al-Sadr, Perle's remark is simply surreal. One really has to ask what it would take to persuade Perle that Chalabi might have given the Iranians as much as he has got out of them -- American generals taking direct orders from Tehran, perhaps?
The fact that Perle still cannot grasp that he has been richly and royally fooled by Chalabi is testament to the extraordinary combination of arrogance and imbecility which has characterised neocon policymaking from the start. That the Iranians and Chalabi were both using each other, for essentially complementary purposes, also seems evident. How far the gains achieved by the Iranians were the product of a deep-laid Machiavellian strategy is of course another question. But I think one can say that one is rather more likely to find effective Machiavellianism today in Tehran, than in Washington or London."
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/05/richly_and_roya.html
More Sale on Chalabi
Some amplification about Chalabi from a former CIA official...
In any case, Vince Cannistaro has had no doubts: "Chalabi was working for Iran, and Iran took us to breakfast, lunch and dinner."
When first published in 1906, Bierce was forced to title "The Devil's Dictionary" (his choice), book "The Cynic's Word Book".
WORD HISTORY: A cynic may be pardoned for thinking that this is a dog's life. The Greek word kunikos, from which cynic comes, was originally an adjective meaning “doglike,” from kuōn, “dog.” The word was probably applied to the Cynic philosophers because of the nickname kuōn given to Diogenes of Sinope, the prototypical Cynic. He is reported to have been seen barking in public, urinating on the leg of a table, and masturbating on the street. The first use of the word recorded in English, in a work published from 1547 to 1564, is in the plural for members of this philosophical sect. In 1596 we find the first instance of cynic meaning “faultfinder,” a sense that was to develop into our modern sense. The meaning “faultfinder” came naturally from the behavior of countless Cynics who in their pursuit of virtue pointed out the flaws in others. Such faultfinding could lead quite naturally to the belief associated with cynics of today that selfishness determines human behavior.
http://www.answers.com/topic/cynic
Compare this
CYNIC, n.A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
With this from that superior lexicographer...
FRIENDLESS, adj.Having no favors to bestow. Destitute of fortune. Addicted to utterance of truth and common sense.
It can be lonely at the truth.
That Christians don't follow their own religion seems to be obvious to anyone that's not a Christian and has bothered to read their book.
and then there are christians.
Thomas Merton?
http://www.merton.org/
Or Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.
Or my favorite, Father Camillo Torres
http://www.talk2action.org/
I'm an agnostic/gnostic/I don't think about it too much
LWM
Oh, yes there are non-scary people of faith, I grant that. They are just a little too far scattered about and without the megaphone, that's all.
The reasonable always seem to be drowned out by the unreasonable.
I suspect that anyone with a megaphone is not a person of faith. In fact, I'm sure of it. Real people of faith go about their business comforting the afflicted in relative obscurity.
Knowing how to "conduct business" with a member of the "oldest profession" in more than one language does not a linguist make.
I can't stand organized religions and yet I'm always defending some notable individuals from some church or another, usually because I find them spiritually superior to most very religious types.
From TPM:
Ahhh, great moments in real-time cable news. MSNBC cites White House praise of Falwell. Only it's from whitehouse.org, well-known anti-Bush White House spoof site. D'oh ...
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014151.php
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
