Letters to the Editor
-
@Reilly
Basically we have a "unitard" too, with the Democrats occupying the area around the ass-flap.
Fair point. And great extension of the metaphor, which will further terrorize Pedinska! :>
I did conflate in 'we' both the people and the media, but here's what I had in mind. Consider the endless primary season: If you were a visiting Nepalese Gurka on a fellowship, you would get an indepth treatment of the voting districts, their racial composition, the health of industries located there, a summary of their main issues, a characterization (probably wrong, but present) of their political culture, and endless conversations with 'the little guy'.
It's true that (a) it's our country and it's natural for us to have an interest in such details that others might not, and (b) we have a rich and powerful (if brainless) media, with the resources to cover these things in ways others cannot. But given that we ... the people and the media... are exposed to those things in our country and about our country, isn't it natural to be EITHER a little curious about comparable details in other countries ... before we bomb them ... OR to be skeptical and have our suspicions aroused when those details are absent or presented as non-existent?
(Pre-empting an answer: There's some truth to the idea, as Aycharaych might say, that we regard people in other countries as subhuman and don't believe they are as capable of such things, being primitive and all, or that they are oppressed by dictators and unable to have proper politics, which is why we need to bomb/liberate them. That's something we could probably discuss further, if there's any interest ... )
-
"You First"
Bamford's article is just a joy to read, as is his letter in response to that clown Ledeen.
Perhaps we have two things going for us, in the odds of going to war with Iran.
First, the neoconservatives are just so damn inept. Yes, they've made some progress, but jesus, they are just hilarious sometimes. Chalabi just played them for fools, it appears. And second, while both this administration and some in Israel are wanting to hit Iran, neither can seem to quite pull the trigger. High government officials on both sides trying to convince the other nation to strike. It's as if two hungry men (let's say Cheney and Olmert) are standing at the open door of a good restaurant, each saying "No, please, you first!"
What appears to be missing is that catalytic event (manufactured or not), or key revelation (fabricated or not) that will tip the scales to war. With any luck, the neocon players involved may simply not be able to come up with that one critical thing that gets them through the door.
-
The Energy Panel
Does anyone remember Cheney's Energy Panel, and it's top-secret deliberations, oh so long ago?
This is pure speculation, of course, but what if a conversation like the following occurred?
"Gentlemen."
"Ten years from now, the Chinese and Indian economies will have developed into serious competitors for the world oil supply. They will be enticing the Middle East to supply it - with good effect, I predict. You could build a pipeline into either country from Bagdad or Tehran - something you cannot do for the U.S.. In addition, anti-American influence is building in the Muslim world, and a chance to snub, even hurt, America would definitely interest them. Especially if it did not hurt their bottom line."
"Gentlemen, in the next ten years, we must control - control - the oil distribution of Iraq and Iran. One way or another, we must block construction of those pipelines, or we will be out of business, both as corporations and as a nation."
"Suggestions?"
Would this not explain a lot of neo-conservative decisions, positions, and strategies over the last few years?
-
...."ass flaps"....
Those pajamas with a "ass flap" buttons are as comfortable as sleeping naked as a bare beer. Well. If president leads the way : GWB holds a weeping mother in Katrina, walks hand in hand with Saudi Princes at a Texan pig sty or Camp David, and visits a cyclone baby with a promise to send rubber flip-flops if it's not held up in Congress.
If 'W' was a Wall Mart clerk he'd frown at irked shoppers saying, "Have a smile face day."
P.S.~ Try those comfortable ass-flaps this fall season?
Ask Santa for a red pair. You will like them, I think?
That's if, if, If we are not obliterated from the Earth.
I got a pair from Michele on my birthday last year.
Serious. Comfy. Drink fuzzy leaf comfrey tea.
-
Alison Weir asked about a year ago in CounterPunch
Newsworthy?
Not when Israel is the attacking nation. Not when Israel is the "ally" to whose interests American needs are said to be subverted.
This extraordinarily high-ranking commission was reporting on the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. Many analysts believe that the Liberty attack could be Israel's undoing --at least as far as US support is concerned --if Americans knew the facts about it.
But they don't. Here's why:
A search of hundreds of the largest news media in this country indexed by Lexis-Nexis does not turn up a single US newspaper that mentioned this commission, a single US television station, a single US radio station, a single US magazine. While it was mentioned in an Associated Press report focusing on one of the commission's most dramatic revelations, Lexis reveals only a sprinkling of news media printed information from this AP report, and those few that that did failed to mention this commission itself, its extremely star-studded composition, and the entirety of its findings.
Apart from a few members of the alternative press and the excellent Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (not indexed by Lexis), this commission might as well not have existed as far as most of the US media is concerned --and therefore, the American public.
While the results of its investigation can be read in the Congressional Record, "Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft while the Ship was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government," only an infinitesimal fraction of the American citizenry has any idea that a commission made up of some of the nation's most respected military leaders stated publicly and forcefully --on Capitol Hill --that a US president chose to sacrifice US interests and US servicemen (specifically, the 25 of the 34 dead who were killed after US rescue missions were recalled) to Israeli interests, and then ordered a cover-up of his actions.
Almost no one knows that the US's purported "special" ally tried to sink a Navy ship, and then quibbled for years over what it would pay in compensation to the widows, children, and parents of those it killed and to the United States for the ship it destroyed. (Thirteen years later it grudgingly paid $6 million for a ship valued at $40 million.)
The one piece of this story that did make it into the mainstream media has also remained astonishingly buried: testimony that provided the final nail in the coffin of claims that the Israeli attack --which lasted two hours; consisted of rockets, napalm, and torpedoes; and killed 34 Americans total and injured over 170 --was somehow accidental.
This testimony, which was read at the Capitol Hill event, was by Captain Ward Boston, the chief counsel to the one US government investigation ever undertaken of this attack, the Naval Court of Inquiry. This quickie investigation, overseen by Admiral John S. McCain (the current Presidential contender's father), who gave subordinates one week to conduct an investigation that normally would have been allotted a minimum of six months, found the attack to be a case of "mistaken identity." The report, which focused on the performance of the crew and the adequacy of communications, and which excluded critical testimony from crew members, is the keystone in Israel partisans' claims that the attack was accidental. All other US reviews of the attack that state it was accidental cite this investigation as their source.
http://www.counterpunch.org/weir06232007.html
It is difficult to confront this paucity of media coverage without stoking the nutbars on either side. There ar those who will claim the "Jews Own The News!" (Does Reverend Moon know he's Jewish?) And then there are those who will accuse you of being an anti-semite because you dare to question this event. You are going to be called anti-something if you question anything. I question everything so whatever it is, I must be against it.