Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
milo.d.venus
Published Letters: 4
jpincus @5:19 p5 writes:
First of all, the 9/11 Commission report, had Mr. Greenwald bothered to read it, compiled strong evidence that Iran was suspected of training and supporting elements from Al Quaida in areas where both groups had common grievance. More specifically, the Khobar Towers attack, it has been argued, was carried out by both entities with one group supporting the other. Iran has long played a duplicitous role in the Middle East. They frequently use, like many Arab and non-Arab governments, disinformation to ensure that their public image as a solely Shia-aligned oligarchy is maintained.
The 9/11 Commission report states:
In June 1996, an enormous truck bomb detonated in the Khobar Towers residential complex in Dhahran,Saudi Arabia,that housed U.S.Air Force personnel.Nineteen Americans were killed,and 372 were wounded.The operation was carried out principally, perhaps exclusively, by Saudi Hezbollah, an organization that had received support from the government of Iran.While the evidence of Iranian involvement is strong, there are also signs that al Qaeda played some role, as yet unknown.
I'm sure that Glenn has read the report, as have I. What I am wondering, jpincus, is how you characterize those two paragraphs as strong evidence, because the wording strong evidence does not make it strong evidence. That is the only reference to Khobar Towers in the report. It's not strong evidence to state that you have strong evidence. You kind of have to provide the evidence, and they didn't because they didn't have it. You know, because, it's not there. You know, kind of like WMDs.
Who, exactly is the idealogical zealot here? I think it's you, jpincus.
Glenn, you write: But what's most striking about the reaction is how explicit this strain of neocons has become about the fact that being "pro-Israel" is their overriding political concern. It also reveals, yet again, that there is no issue that permits less free debate than ones related to Israel.
I think that the neocon's overriding concern is to create animus and thus enemies so that they may lead others to fight. They seek nothing more than the glory of victory while carefully ensuring that others do the suffering.
Military action would incur significant risks, including the possibility of U.S. and allied losses, wide-scale terrorist reprisals against Israel and other nations, and heightened unrest in the region.
Hmm, no mention of the possibility of disruption to world oil supplies. If these village idiots can't at least mention the possibility, no one should take them seriously. In fact, they should be disregarded as the fools that they are.
I don't understand your classification of the Rich pardon as a paradigm of Village sleaze. The act of pardoning is a merciful act above all. It is of a completely different nature from ordinary political deal making which is designed to benefit a few at the likely expense or in preference to others. While Mr. Rich certainly benefited in preference to others, doesn't the nature of the underlying behavior matter? And while Mr. Rich may have been a ruthless business man, does it not matter that he was pursued in a criminal prosecution for acts which normally would be pursued as a civil matter?
Again, it was a merciful act, cf. Karl Rove: "I'm going to f$^k him like he's never been f$!ked before."
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 survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
