Seriously, Can We Have a New UN Ambasador, Already?

Open Mouth, Insert Bolton:

Lebanon civilian deaths morally not same as terror victims — Bolton – Yahoo! News

“It’s simply not the same thing to say that it’s the same act to deliberately target innocent civilians, to desire their deaths, to fire rockets and use explosive devices or kidnapping versus the sad and highly unfortunate consequences of self-defense,” Bolton noted.

Oh, thank goodness we have such thoughtful, intelligent people in the service of representing the United States around the world. Otherwise, people might get the wrong impression about us.

I would love for someone to please ask John Bolton (remember, now: not approved even by a Republican Congress and needing to be shuffled into the office in the dead of night) to please expound at length for us all to explain exactly what the rules of “moral equivalence” are concerning the manufacture of corpses.  I think it probably repetative to state that people who didn’t do anything wrong don’t deserve to die, regardless of how that happened, but for some reason there are people who still need to learn that.  Worse, those people deposit thier ignorance all over our American reputation, providing ever more fuel for Islamic extremist’s rhetoric against us.

So, in addition to wanting a new White House Spokesman, I would also like to look into getting a new UN Ambassador.  Ooh!  And a spiffy new President who actually thinks once in a while, reads polls (like it or not, Mr. President, you got elected in a poll) and governs wisely.  Oh yeah!  And how about a new Secretary of State who is capable of evacuating American citizens from a war zone?  Yeah, it’s like Katrina with bombs.

Technorati Tags: , ,

powered by performancing firefox

MTP: The Astonishing Mr. Gingrich

It’s a failed policy.

That’s what Newt Gingrich wants you to understand. He went on Meet the Press earlier this morning to point this out to us. The Bush Administration’s policy (though he won’t admit he’s condemning Bush) is a failed one where Iran is concerned; it’s a failed policy where Middle East peace is concerned; it’s a failed policy where Iraq is concerned; and it’s a failed policy where North Korea is concerned. Newt has the answer:

You gotta get tough with the evil of the world. . . .

John Sacheli Comments on the Zionist Conspiracy

Local folk musician John Sacheli found a great article on, highlighting the important sub-text (oh, really, it’s just the “text”) of the current widening of Isreali aggression:

John Sacheli’s Blog: Another New War?!

Just note though that even reading about it at I was able to do some easy, clear math that if nothing else tells me that Israel is killing a lot more civilians than the “terrorists” that they’re bombing. That was enough to get me thinking a bit more on this.

As I commented in his blog, I remember the good old days when we used to be able to laugh at crazy Muslim terrorists who screamed about a Zionist conspiracy. That is no longer possible, and indeed the plot is getting less and less disguized by a group of unrepentant Neo-Con Zionists bent on delivering our world to the Judgement Day.

Scarrier still is the larger history of Zionism (of which I have been to this point largely unaware), as explained by the religion section of American Theocracy : The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury. I’m working on a book review soon, I just need to get past the last bit on the debt society that we’re building. This is a fascinating book on many levels, but his longer view of the historical context of the Isreali/Palastinian Conflict is rivvoting, as it shows how the seed for the Zionist plot to create Isreal actually begins to take on the backing of Britan at the outset of the First World War.

This is an important concept to understand when you look at the aggression of Arabs and Palastinians, because it slots in seamlessly with the Imperialism era of European and British history, and cannot be separated: from European Imperialism and the White Man’s Burden, to the rumblings of a new Zion in the religious fervor of Britan during WWI (anyone ever heard the tune “Onward Christian Soldiers?” it really means what it says), to American oil hegemony and financial Imperialism, to the creation of Isreal and now finally the approach of Peak Oil. It is all one story, only little bits of which ever get explained in the media.

Before a Neo-Con jumps down my gullet about this: no, you cannot justify 9-11 (assuming what they say happened really did happen). And (not but) you cannot justify Isreal’s continued, unmitigated or restrained aggression against the Palastinian people. Niether can you justify the untold thousands of Iraqi dead. There is plenty of blame to go around, but on balance, Isreal and America are the larger evils, I am afraid.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury

Daily News: WWIII Has Begun

An excellently written piece from the magazine partially responsible for the mentality that led us into this mess, Micheal Goodwin of the New York Daily News finally draws the conclusion many of us predicted a long time ago:

We’re screwed.

Micheal admits that he thought Iraq was “the key,” but is now not so sure. It certainly sounds as though he’s another PNAC sympathizer, ready, willing and able to believe that American military force can solve all problems. Well, it didn’t work, but he’s suddenly developed an amazing sense of clarity now that this philosephy has midwived our nations ultimate collapse.

Think of it: if indeed WWIII has begun, who are our allies? Isreal, certainly, but they’re not going to be much help at all. If the World War becomes a nuclear war, they’ll be helpful while they still have a few nukes left, but that won’t be long. You might think that if things really get nutty in Iran or North Korea, the Europeans would more or less be forced to side with us. I am not so certain that they will do that, or at least, I suspect that Europe would largely abstain from any such conflict until absolutely necessary ~ the exact opposite of the kind of behaviour in Washington that has led us to such impasses around the world.

In the impending World War, the bad guy nation is us.

Think about that! Sure, we’re not gassing Jews, but Germany cited as motivation national preservation in both World Wars they started. Even our friends, assuming we have any left when the dust clears, cannot avoid realizing that it was us and the reckless policies of our Idiot Emperor that brought the world to war this time. There will be penalties, and they will be severe. Imagine a world fed up and imposing sanctions on an America too weakened by war to object. This is the future that George Bush is creating. It is unlikely we will ever be invaded, protected as we are by oceans from most of our enemies. That is arguably the scariest part of all, since an American collapse might just end up a starving America all alone.
Don’t bother talking about impeachment. I gave up that rag a long time ago. Worry about getting Democrat control of the Congress, and then hope like hell that one of them will have brains enough to get something done. Good god, think about that: our only hope is Hapless Harry Reid and his non-existent national policy. And even if the Dems to control both houses of Congress (an entirely doubtful outcome), it really doesn’t matter much because it is the Executive Branch that fights wars, and it is the execution of the Iraq War more than anything else that is causing us such fits.

With or without a World War, there is no other alternative than an American Denouement. Our oil hegemony is now our Achilles Heel, we are in debt that we likely will never repay, and we have incited enough hostility across the globe that there is very little chance of sympathy from the rest of the world. Our only hope now is a controlled crash. Our best hope is that somewhere out there in the American political wilderness there exists a politician who might have brains enough to know how to invest our dwindling reserves into a bid for oil independance and parlay that into a new economy that can keep us from starving.

Any takers?

The Saddam Canard

So against my better judgement, I spent some of my Sunday morning watching the news programs.  Some Senator dude from New York State rolled out an interesting variation on the Iraqi Democracy canard: that it was Saddam Hussein whom created the greatest stability problem in the Middle East. 

That is a very different thing than what the Administration has said up until now.  The Administration’s position has always been that an Iraqi democracy would help stabilize the region, which is a much different thing than saying that Saddam *contributed* do the instability already present.

I’m just writing a quick post to point out that this is assinine.  If you wanted to stabilize the region, the best bet would have been ~ and it still continues to be a good choice, not that anyone in the Administration appears to be interested ~ solving the Isreali-Palastinian problem.

That’s the Levelheadedness That We Know and Love From Isreal!

Ah, nothing like the measured, surefooted movement of the Isreali parliament to make the rest of the world secure in the notion of Middle East peace.

Without the new Hammas government in Palastine even having taken office, the Isreali government has decided to cut off the $50 million in funding for the Palastinian state. I can say I am a bit surprised to learn that there ever was such funding, but at the same time, pulling the funding now just looks like they’re itching for a fight again.