Then there were, among others, four senators who were in the vanguard promoting the Iraq war: McCain, Kerry, Biden and Clinton. McCain and Kerry were nominated by their respective parties to run for president, Biden was elected vice president, and now Clinton is the reputed favorite to be the Democratic Party's nominee for president in 2016. If ever there was any doubt, these and other examples should prove conclusively that morality plays no role whatsoever in American politics and governance.
Rice is not the only facilitator of the Iraq war to give college commencement addresses. Search "colin powell commencement address" and you'll find the welcome mat was also laid out for him in several instances with, apparently, no protests. Substitute other names and you'll probably get similar results.
"American hawks who never learn: The mainstream U.S. news media has taken great umbrage over President Obama’s defense of the more peaceful parts of his foreign policy, when he suggested lessons were not learned by the many pundits and pols who supported the disastrous Iraq War", as ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar explains. - link to consortiumnews.com
"Yet we have not witnessed one war criminal out of the Bush administration be held accountable ..."
Not only have they not been held accountable but what makes this story much more vile and sordid is the willingness and, in some cases, eagerness of countless people who would be friends with these villains.
Recently, a Democratic Party operative claimed that Rice was a friend of hers and that she had a lot of respect for her. I have a thought about that but it probably wouldn't pass the moderator.
The greater question is, "Why would these supposed institutions of higher learning even invite people accused with good reason of being war criminals to be guest speakers, never mind paying them ridiculous sums of money?
"What is striking is that the preventable diseases occur at a much higher rate in the Deep South than in the rest of the country, especially in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama."
The senate has always had, and probably always will have, its share of scurrilous characters. Who ever concocted the canard that the US senate was the world's greatest deliberative body?
"Only when Muslim-hating is as offensive to Americans as other forms of bigotry will true American values prevail."
What American values? Those of the majority that approved the illegal and immoral war on Iraq and would have been willing to do the same to Iran and Syria? Those that have approved the continuing warmongering of the people who caused the iraqi war? Those that go along with the obscene wealth gap? Presumably, you are referring to the values of the minority of Americans who have some sense of decency and morality.
Clearly, Dubya and Darth Vader never considered the Scottish bard's words when they planned the invasion of Iraq: "The best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley." On the other hand the Bush-Cheney scheme was far from being "best laid."
If the "patriots" who rushed so eagerly to Bundy's defense were so concerned about tyranny, why are they so silent on real issues of increasing oppressions? For example: DC thinks it can silence a new Snowden, but the anti-leak hypocrisy is backfiring: The Obama administration's latest secrecy guidelines would make Deep Throat spin in his grave. Good thing the floodgates are about to open on drones" by Trrevor Timm - link to theguardian.com
Can it be because such things are beyond their comprehension while they can identify with Bundy's simplistic rants?
Bundy is only a small part of the problem. The real problem is the swarms of unthinking, robotic people who charged, in many cases with loaded guns, to support him.
Gavrilo Princip (link to en.wikipedia.org) was only a small part of Europe's problems in 1914, but his gunslinging showed how little fish can blow up the aquarium.
"Trying not to give peace a chance: Exclusive: The trust between President Obama and President Putin helped avert a U.S. war on Syria and got Iran to agree to limit its nuclear program, but the neocon-driven crisis in Ukraine has dashed hopes of building on that success for a more peaceful world, writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern." - link to consortiumnews.com
Note the part describing the "macho" Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed to JFK's diplomacy with Khrushchev over the Bay of Pigs incident.
There's an old saying attributable to the Chinese: "He who strikes the first blow admits to having the weaker mind." In other words, people who lack the intelligence to win resort to violence.
We might also note that people exhibiting what passes for courage by military aggression may also be lacking in moral courage such as obeying orders they know to be immoral and illegal.
"Brooks, of course, was a cheerleader for the Iraq War. How often do you have to be completely wrong on the big issues of our time before you stop being given a prominent perch in giving the country policy advice?"
And, it's not only Brooks. The media are littered with pontificators who got it disastrously wrong on Iraq and are just as wrong and amoral as ever on current events.
With some, or more likely lot of luck, Native-Americans and their supporters will turn back the Feds on Keystone XL: 'Moccasins on the Ground' Aims to Shield People from 'Black Venom' of Keystone XL by Tom Weis - link to commondreams.org
As I recall from reading Benny Morris's "Righteous Victims" Jews and Palestinians lived in relative harmony until the Zionists among the Jews became aggressive.
"The Oslo criminals: A mendacious narrative" by Uri Avnery - link to counterpunch.org..."On that day (September 10, 1993), the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Prime Minister of the State of Israel exchanged letters of mutual recognition. Yasser Arafat recognized Israel, Yitzhak Rabin recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people."
Your facts will be trumped by AIPAC's campaign finance donations and all but a few elected officials in Congress will give Netanyahu standing ovations the next time he addresses his puppets.
Terrorism: noun: An act of violence committed by "them." Acts of violence committed by "us" are peacekeeping efforts to keep America safe and/or bring democracy to nations we want in our empire.
"The US inability to separate out intelligence work from dirty tricks and covert operations, and its inability to separate out the latter from diplomacy, is what put American diplomats’ lives in danger in late 1979."
In other words, "blowback" and the blame for the hostage taking belongs in great part, short of completely, with the original troublemakers.
The oligarchs of the GOP and their loyal foot soldiers will continue their primary goals of seeking power to facilitate more power and wealth for the already powerful and wealthy regardless of whether Jesus was married or not. At the same time they will practice their versions of Christianity, some of which supported un-Christian activities such as segregation and, still, slavery by other names.
"What I am referring to, is how all these political candidates change there stands once they enter into the Oval Office."
If whoever gets into the Oval Office doesn't toe one of the party lines and the dictates of Wall Street and the Israel Lobby then he will find the oligarchs of both parties undermining him, just as they did when Jimmy Carter was president.
There are many problems with Rand Paul, but given the putative candidates for president in 2016 a case can be made that he is probably the least of all the evils we will have to choose from. He does seem to take the Constitution seriously which appears to be more than can be said for the others; however, that may not hold up if a shot at the presidency seduces him to change.
Obama volunteered in competition with Hillary and McCain to be a patsy for the Israel lobby at the AIPAC conference in June 2008 when he was running for president so he wasn't forced by the lobby.
Let us know if you ever hear a candidate say that he or she will push for the United States to be a truly honest broker in the Israel-Palestine issue. But don't tell the Lobby or they will pounce on that candidate like some animal after its prey.
If the Taliban were not part of this political process and remain outside a government that will be incapable of prevailing over the Taliban, then the US/NATO forces are either in for another few more years of war or being nonentities in "safe" areas just keeping money flowing to the M-I complex.
I'm reminded of a story I was told as a child. Whether it was true or not I don't know, but it has a good moral to it. The story told of a trick some indigenous people used to catch monkeys. They would build small cages and place a nut inside. The monkey would grab the nut but when he tried to remove his hand with the nut he couldn't because his fist was too large with the nut in its grasp to get through the bars. The monkey couldn't bring himself to give up his treasure and so was caught. People are similar. They are locked into their habits and can't bring themselves to change so they put their well-being at risk.
"A Gallup poll has found that only 35% of Americans are concerned about climate change, and that proportion is barely up from the previous year."
To some extent it is surprising that as many as 35% care about climate change. It seems only a small minority of people care about the more significant aspects of life such as the decline of democracy, the corruption of politics, shredding of the Constitution, multiple versions of the law that allow major criminals to go free while minor crimes are punished severely, 50 million people living in poverty, and militarism. And the list could go on.
"1. The operation will make developing countries who need US economic aid chary about accepting it from USAID, since leaders will fear that the agency may be trying to overthrow them."
It is probably safe to say that any leaders of other nations from the more powerful to the weakest must already be aware that if they don't play ball according to American rules they will be overthrown.
Perhaps those studying why some people succumb to PTSD should also study their opposites who have no qualms or regrets about instigating wars of choice. The same goes for others who totally ignore the crimes of such people. To cite just one example of many, consider Condoleeza Rice, she of the famous mushroom cloud threatening us if we didn't do something about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction that never existed. Some time ago I listened to a Democratic Party operative claim to have a lot of respect for Ms. Rice and that she was a friend. Now we learn that a major university is going to pay her $150K for a speech. "Misguided honor for Condi Rice: U.S. officials lecture others about respecting international law and punishing human rights crimes, but those principles are ignored when the violators are U.S. officials. Offenders like ex-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice even get honors," as Coleen Rowley and Todd E. Pierce note. - link to consortiumnews.com
If, instead of also losing that war Iraq had won and applied the same principles against the architects of that illegal and immoral aggression that the Allies applied at Nuremberg against the Nazis then many of them would have been dangling at the end of a rope a long time ago instead of justifying their past actions and, in some cases, promoting new wars.
And a recent poll indicated 38 percent of respondents still consider going into Iraq was the right decision - link to pollingreport.com. Unfortunately, the poll doesn't have the respondents explain how they could be so stupid. Then there are the financial costs of the Iraq war that are expected to exceed $3 trillion, considerably more than the $60 billion projected by former Bush official and now Indiana governor Mitch Daniels and supposedly believed by a majority in Congress.
Inconceivable as it may be, can it be possible that the Obama administration and others before it have failed to comprehend they are being jerked around by Israel's right wing and its lobby and exposing the US to ridicule? The same goes for Congress. Why is Jonathan Pollard in prison for betraying the US when our top-ranking politicians go free for something similar by different means?
"US ‘peace process’ charade plays on: The United States is scrambling to rescue a framework agreement between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, but Washington likely knows its efforts are doomed by the right-wing majority in Israel's ruling coalition. By pursuing talks that achieve little but advance Israeli military objectives, the Obama administration continues a pattern repeated since its launch by Henry Kissinger." By Ramzy Baroud - link to atimes.com
Adelson may have been delighted to learn that Christie had reversed himself to conform to Adelson's wishes and the possibility of getting campaign donations (bribes) out of him, but it isn't likely this gained Christie any respect from anyone witnessing this spectacle - including Adelson.
Jack: I believe you overlooked the fact that the system was corrupt long before Obama was born, never mind running for president. It's a good bet that Obama was (and is) a front man for others, most likely the Daley machine or some other group in Chicago. He wasn't just some guy with lofty ideals who walked in off the street and into the Boston Convention Center and gave a rousing speech that appeared so good after listening to Dubya for eight years. Obama got on that stage because he was promoted by some oligarchic faction in the Democratic Party. And, we have to give them credit. Who would have thought a black man in our still very-much-racist society could have been elected president?
The likes of Adelson, the Koch brothers and their ilk with incomprehensible sums of money to spend on political corruption are only part of the problem. Another part of the equation that spells a grim future for the United States and those nations in its orbit includes their enablers; that is, the supreme and lesser courts, Congress, the White House, and the mainstream/fawning corporate media. Completing this concoction for decline and fall of the American empire are the people who go along with the plutocrats and their hatchet men and women. Just like the millions of soldiers who marched off to the "Great War," the "war to end all wars" the people will be the ones to pay dearly for the follies being created in the present.
That's all we need. Another hand on the tail wagging the American dog. However, this presents Obama with a chance to add some virtue to his legacy by establishing a policy of no more wars.
And he set an example in integrity that Obama would do well, but is unlikely to follow: Spending Scandal: Pope Francis Banishes Bishop of Limburg link to spiegel.de
The Israel-Palestine "peace talks" are not helping Obama with the threat of their likely failure bringing US credibility into question:
"Yossi Mekelberg, an expert on the Middle East and North Africa at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, said Kerry's unscheduled meeting with Abbas underlined the further danger to US credibility of a peace process unravelling, and the inability of both sides to reach a compromise. "I think the US embarked on something very difficult that is gradually becoming impossible. US credibility is on the line – and not just in the Middle East. The prognosis is not good and both sides are making demands they know are impossible for the other side. That is compounded by two weak leaders of two weak political systems that cannot make decisions."" link to theguardian.com
" Russia without hydrocarbon resources to sell would be lumped in with the Less Economically Developed countries at this point."
If 21st Century Russia has inherited the qualities that helped 20th Century Russia win the Battle of Stalingrad and reverse the direction of WWII to reach Berlin and conquer the once-mightiest army in Europe, it probably shouldn't be written off yet.
"And we have considerable influence on our neighbors. We generally don’t need to invade them in order to have a strong, cooperative relationship with them."
Not as long as we can support locals to overthrow governments not to our liking; e.g., Chile, most of Central American and now Venezuela.
With Putin having the impertinence of placing Russia's perceived interests over those of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex's agency in Europe (NATO) then we might have to send the National Endowment for Democracy into Russia to bring "democracy" to the Russians.
"Are the GOP insiders going to push another warmonger on us in 2016?"
Most likely someone with similarly inadequate experience brought to the White House by Obama.
What happened that caused CBS to take a lurch to the right? Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Don Hewitt, Mike Wallace and Andrew Rooney would be appalled to witness what has become of "60 Minutes" and "Face the Nation."
In his history of the First World War, "To End All Wars," Adam Hochschild described the enthusiasm among the civilian populations of Europe that would eventually do the fighting. They were totally out of touch with what the reality of that war would be like. Even after some young men had transitioned to serving on the front lines they continued to live in another world. One wrote home that he was looking forward to his first battle. His letter and the battle were also his last. The incompetence of the military leaders of all nations was astounding. A century later, not much has changed regarding the human aspects of war. People talk about more wars not knowing what they are talking about. Military leaders appear to be of questionable competence. Other than the technological advances, there is one difference. Young men and women from the ruling classes served in the front lines. Now they serve in some safe location encouraging others to do the fighting.
It's probably a means for his supporters to justify his thirty pieces of silver, the same as presidents get paid for services rendered after they leave the White House. According to a report at the time, Reagan was paid one or two million dollars for a speech he gave to some Japanese. In HRC's case, it looks like the $400K she received from Goldman Sachs for two speeches might have been payments in advance.
No one should be surprised at the likes of Dan Senor. Words have mostly lost their meaning on Animal Farm, USA. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance has become an act of national hypocrisy. Oaths taken by many politicians and people in the armed forces, law enforcement and government agencies (including the White House) to uphold the Constitution are virtually meaningless. People say what others with authority over them want them to say while others believe what they want to believe regardless of how much evidence and how many facts contradict them. Senor is far from being the only one. TV talk shows and printed media continue to give exposure to many neocons and other charlatans who got it disastrously wrong on Iraq and the stock market and, it appears, many of the same people who were gullible enough to believe these frauds and hypocrites in the past are just as credulous as ever.
In his book "The Case Against Israel" Michael Neuman essentially advocated forgetting the law and, instead, focus on the morality of Israel's actions. There is much to be said for this approach in the case of Crimea/Ukraine and other issues, especially when so many participants pick and choose when and which laws to apply and to ignore.
"And why shouldn’t the Jewish people have a state? "
The problem is not that the Jews who form Israel's right wing want a state. The problem is the way the Zionists before them went about creating the state of Israel and how the Likudniks and their allies are continuing the process of ethnic cleansing.
"Metropolitan police strip searched more than 4,500 children in five years: Data obtained under freedom of information reveals thousands of 10 – 16-year-olds faced procedure from April 2008" by Joe Sandler Clarke - link to theguardian.com
"the British prime Minister’s fawning speech to knesset"
No surprise there. Cameron and the cabal of which he is a part are following in Thatcher's despicable wake leading the United Kingdom step by step towards a fascist state.
"Britain is treating journalists as terrorists – believe me, I know: My links to WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden mean I am treated as a threat and can't return to the UK. We need a free speech roadmap" by Sarah Harrison - link to theguardian.com
" This issue is too important. We can rake her over the coals later."
"Later" may mean after DiFi and the CIA kiss and make up: "If Feinstein and the CIA kiss and make up, will America up and forget torture?: Like all DC infighting, this will blow over, But we’ve already lost sight of the lives that have been ruined by interrogation" by Amy Goodman - link to theguardian.com
"You should note that the reason is Obama’s own decision in his first month in office not to prosecute the torturers and their bosses. He announced he didn’t want to “look back.”"
Unfortunately, he chose to "look back" when it came to Bradley/Chelsea Manning, John Kiriakou and other whistleblowers. That is when he should have looked forward. Then there was the abusive (some thought torture) of Bradley Manning at Quantico that Obama considered "appropriate." Appropriate for what? Implicate Julian Assange?
"A seemingly very long time ago I felt hopeful because of Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy, to build the Democratic Party from the ground up in every single precinct, city, and state …"
There never was much chance of Dean or any other rebel in the Democratic Party making a significant change then or now. The oligarchs are too powerful and too well funded and the rank and file too quiescent with whatever passes as the leadership. The only changes that are likely to happen will come from one faction in the oligarchy trying to gain ascendancy as happened with the people behind Obama trumping those supporting the Clintons.
Jimmy Carter's presidency was ruined in part by the oligarchs through Tip O'Neill and Robert Byrd opposing him.
The Tea Partiers showed it is possible to make a change, but to make it stick requires more intelligence than they exhibited.
The best hope for real change probably lies with a truly independent party based on principles. If it held a swing vote position in Congress, that could make a difference. But the chances of developing an independent part at this time are very slim.
"On the other hand if she actually makes a serious attempt and hopefully manages to accomplish something in reigning (sic) in the so called security and intelligence agencies I will be delighted."
Your chances of becoming delighted in this instance are slim to none.
At least, it appears the CIA hasn't blackmailed this senator personally - yet.
"Surely the Senator had to know, in making this speech that she would be told of the utter hypocrisy of her speech. It truly is ironic. But if not her, who?"
Sometimes hypocrites are oblivious to their own hypocrisy. In other instances, they could be aware, but they presume there are enough gullible citizens who will believe their latest opinion without any connection to previous contradictions.
"Brennan has challenged the president to act. What the president does will tell us much about the future of our democracy. As radio host Guillermo Jimenez has said, “On this Grand Chessboard, it is We the People who are now in check. It’s our move.”"
" Why there isn’t more burning outrage among Americans about this egregious domestic spying I’ll never understand."
Simple, Professor Cole. The masses lack any knowledge as to what is happening, and they lack the intelligence and moral courage to know what to do with that knowledge if they had it. The suggestion that we remain a nation of sheep after William J. Lederer created that term 50-some years ago is persuasive but an insult to sheep.
"The historical analogies to LBJ’s specious Gulf of Tonkin resolution were quite striking, at least to me, and they should have known better."
They probably did know better, but they most likely concluded supporting the war was better for their short-term interests. There was a report that Bob Schrum, Democratic Party "consultant." told Kerry if he wanted to become president he would have to vote for the war. I haven't been able to get any solid proof of this, just indications it probably happened. As for McCain, he seems to get a thrill out of wars while being oblivious to their horrendous costs.
It would be a measure of progress if the United States elected a woman for president - but not any woman, and not Hillary. It is very likely if we are not to vote "none of the above" then we will be given the usual task of picking the lesser evil. If the choice is between Hillary and Rand Paul, I would have to pick the latter. At least he might take his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously. As for his libertarianism, that would probably be no worse than the consequences of Hillary's allegiance to Wall Street recently boosted by a reported $400K speaking fee from Goldman Sachs.
"The US won’t accept that Russia has any legitimate spheres of influence, while Washington’s span the globe. Last week, US Secretary of State John Kerry, who used to be a sensible fellow before becoming corrupted by power, blasted Russia: “you just don’t invade a country under a phony pretext!”
"I guess Kerry has never heard of the US invasions of the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Libya. Or can’t remember Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin “incident.”
"Kerry should cut the hypocrisy and get to work on a diplomatic settlement. Two major nuclear-armed powers cannot – must not – be allowed to confront one another." - link to commondreams.org
"Explaining US hypocrisy on Ukraine: U.S. government hypocrisy toward the Ukraine crisis has been breathtaking, as has the U.S. press corps’ stubborn refusal to see the hypocrisy (i.e. the Iraq War and many other U.S. interventions). William Blum looks at the reasons behind the double standards". - link to consortiumnews.com
Very well said. Item 2. bears repeating with my emphasis:
"2- There is no limit to how far Western powers are prepared to go in order to weaken Russia. President Reagan promised Gorbachev on the eve of the breakup of the Soviet Union that NATO would not incorporate former Soviet republics. However, practically all East European members of the former Warsaw Pact are now NATO members, <strong>and now the West is even pushing to separate Ukraine that has a substantial number of Russian speakers and even ethnic Russians from Moscow."
Has there ever in American history been a time when hypocrisy was as rampant as it is now? The first colonists fleeing religious persecution in Europe didn't take long to doing a little persecuting themselves. Then there were the slave owners who declared that all men are created equal with a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when they had no intentions of freeing their slaves. That was hypocrisy then but nothing on today's scale.
"What readers should also know is that when I wanted to re read this report a 3 pm this after noon local time the report had disappeared. I googled it and I could not find any mention of it."
"Ukraine crisis: bugged call reveals conspiracy theory about Kiev snipers: Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet tells EU's Cathy Ashton about claim that provocateurs were behind Maidan killings" by Ewen MacAskill - link to theguardian.com
" Obama could just have Samantha Powers decline to veto UN Security Council sanctions on Israel any time he liked. He won’t do it, because the Israel lobbies would cause trouble for him with Congress if he did."
And Obama is probably anticipating hustling up some donations for his presidential library that, like Dubya's and Slick Willie's, will stand as testimony to our national capacity for hypocrisy.
"It did not help that the Crimea crisis had broken out, which rather cast a bad light on one country militarily occupying parts of another. Most observers in Europe and even some in the US could see the hypocrisy of the US denouncing Russian troops in Crimea but supporting Israeli troops in Hebron."
To use an automobile metaphor, Russia's movements into Crimea are a fender bender compared with Israel's hit-and-run homicides during Operation Cast Lead and the US's total wreck in Iraq. But hypocrisy, like love, apparently means never having to say "Sorry."
The Ukraine crisis has prompted lots of chatter that has revealed what may be a fatal malady for what is left of our democracy: rampant hypocrisy and mendacity among the ruling elite and those who aspire to join them. And it is not only the GOP that is guilty of those sins. Add to that a gullible and ignorant populace and there is no cause for optimism.
The difference between you, George, and Kerry and McCain is that you learned from your experiences; whereas, Kerry and McCain decided to cash in on theirs.
And today at the AIPAC fest, McCain was horrified at barrel bombs Russia is purportedly introducing in the Ukraine. He didn't seem to have any problem with cluster bombs and depleted uranium introduced by US forces in Iraq.
Unfortunately, McCain isn't the only one in Congress spouting this hypocritical claptrap, but that is no surprise. It's okay for the US to commit war crimes but wrong for others to do so.
The Guardian (UK) has a very sensible opinion on this situation: "The Ukraine crisis: John Kerry and Nato must calm down and back off: The hysterical reaction to Russian military movements in Crimea won't help. Only Kiev can stop this crisis becoming a catastrophe" by Jonathan Steele - link to theguardian.com
Very well said. We should be concerned about Putin's actions but probably more concerned about official and neocon efforts emanating from the US. There is little reason to have confidence in the leadership of the Obama administration.
"Of course, it was that "hollowed out" military that rolled so effortlessly through Iraq in March-April 2003. Later, of course, during the occupation, it turned out that there weren't enough troops for that mission - not for the invasion, but for the occupation - resulting in multiple extended tours and stop-loss orders for the soldiers tasked with that mission."
Just as General Shinseki warned and for which he was fired.
"...what kind of a fool would take advice about national security policy from this man?"
It appears that the mainstream media (the fawning corporate media according to Ray McGovern) and the neocon think tanks believe there are lots of fools out there. Notice how many columnists and talking heads who got it disastrously wrong on Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel are still provided space in print and face time on television to promote more wars - Iran and coming down the pike, Ukraine.
We would do well to scrap both "liberal" and "conservative" in political discourse. Both words have acquired so many meanings and implications they are more confusing than informative.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Your commentary on Israel brings to mind Greece - noted for its tragedies past and present.
Then there were, among others, four senators who were in the vanguard promoting the Iraq war: McCain, Kerry, Biden and Clinton. McCain and Kerry were nominated by their respective parties to run for president, Biden was elected vice president, and now Clinton is the reputed favorite to be the Democratic Party's nominee for president in 2016. If ever there was any doubt, these and other examples should prove conclusively that morality plays no role whatsoever in American politics and governance.
Rice is not the only facilitator of the Iraq war to give college commencement addresses. Search "colin powell commencement address" and you'll find the welcome mat was also laid out for him in several instances with, apparently, no protests. Substitute other names and you'll probably get similar results.
The "next one" couldn't have been any worse than what has happened since March 19, 2003.
"American hawks who never learn: The mainstream U.S. news media has taken great umbrage over President Obama’s defense of the more peaceful parts of his foreign policy, when he suggested lessons were not learned by the many pundits and pols who supported the disastrous Iraq War", as ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar explains. - link to consortiumnews.com
"Yet we have not witnessed one war criminal out of the Bush administration be held accountable ..."
Not only have they not been held accountable but what makes this story much more vile and sordid is the willingness and, in some cases, eagerness of countless people who would be friends with these villains.
Recently, a Democratic Party operative claimed that Rice was a friend of hers and that she had a lot of respect for her. I have a thought about that but it probably wouldn't pass the moderator.
The greater question is, "Why would these supposed institutions of higher learning even invite people accused with good reason of being war criminals to be guest speakers, never mind paying them ridiculous sums of money?
When people in the Deep South can elect people like this - link to firedoglake.com - no one should be surprised if they are self-destructive.
Hopefully, Rick Perry will resurrect his campaign to have Texas secede from the Union and take the rest of the Deep South with him.
"What is striking is that the preventable diseases occur at a much higher rate in the Deep South than in the rest of the country, especially in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama."
It may be "striking" but not surprising.
The senate has always had, and probably always will have, its share of scurrilous characters. Who ever concocted the canard that the US senate was the world's greatest deliberative body?
"Only when Muslim-hating is as offensive to Americans as other forms of bigotry will true American values prevail."
What American values? Those of the majority that approved the illegal and immoral war on Iraq and would have been willing to do the same to Iran and Syria? Those that have approved the continuing warmongering of the people who caused the iraqi war? Those that go along with the obscene wealth gap? Presumably, you are referring to the values of the minority of Americans who have some sense of decency and morality.
Clearly, Dubya and Darth Vader never considered the Scottish bard's words when they planned the invasion of Iraq: "The best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley." On the other hand the Bush-Cheney scheme was far from being "best laid."
How did Mr. Hansen get on my page?
If the "patriots" who rushed so eagerly to Bundy's defense were so concerned about tyranny, why are they so silent on real issues of increasing oppressions? For example: DC thinks it can silence a new Snowden, but the anti-leak hypocrisy is backfiring: The Obama administration's latest secrecy guidelines would make Deep Throat spin in his grave. Good thing the floodgates are about to open on drones" by Trrevor Timm - link to theguardian.com
Can it be because such things are beyond their comprehension while they can identify with Bundy's simplistic rants?
Before Bundy: "Cliven Bundy’s dead elephant in the room" by Phoenix Woman - link to firedoglake.com
Bundy is only a small part of the problem. The real problem is the swarms of unthinking, robotic people who charged, in many cases with loaded guns, to support him.
Gavrilo Princip (link to en.wikipedia.org) was only a small part of Europe's problems in 1914, but his gunslinging showed how little fish can blow up the aquarium.
"Trying not to give peace a chance: Exclusive: The trust between President Obama and President Putin helped avert a U.S. war on Syria and got Iran to agree to limit its nuclear program, but the neocon-driven crisis in Ukraine has dashed hopes of building on that success for a more peaceful world, writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern." - link to consortiumnews.com
Note the part describing the "macho" Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed to JFK's diplomacy with Khrushchev over the Bay of Pigs incident.
There's an old saying attributable to the Chinese: "He who strikes the first blow admits to having the weaker mind." In other words, people who lack the intelligence to win resort to violence.
We might also note that people exhibiting what passes for courage by military aggression may also be lacking in moral courage such as obeying orders they know to be immoral and illegal.
"Brooks, of course, was a cheerleader for the Iraq War. How often do you have to be completely wrong on the big issues of our time before you stop being given a prominent perch in giving the country policy advice?"
And, it's not only Brooks. The media are littered with pontificators who got it disastrously wrong on Iraq and are just as wrong and amoral as ever on current events.
As usual, Hanan Ashrawi got it right. As equally usual, Israel's right wing grabbed another chance to stick it to the Palestinians.
With some, or more likely lot of luck, Native-Americans and their supporters will turn back the Feds on Keystone XL: 'Moccasins on the Ground' Aims to Shield People from 'Black Venom' of Keystone XL by Tom Weis - link to commondreams.org
As I recall from reading Benny Morris's "Righteous Victims" Jews and Palestinians lived in relative harmony until the Zionists among the Jews became aggressive.
"The Oslo criminals: A mendacious narrative" by Uri Avnery - link to counterpunch.org..."On that day (September 10, 1993), the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Prime Minister of the State of Israel exchanged letters of mutual recognition. Yasser Arafat recognized Israel, Yitzhak Rabin recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people."
Your facts will be trumped by AIPAC's campaign finance donations and all but a few elected officials in Congress will give Netanyahu standing ovations the next time he addresses his puppets.
" If the killer was a white terrorist why did he murder three white people?"
The understanding is that he wanted to kill Jewish people. Skin color is not the only reason for creating terror.
Terrorism: noun: An act of violence committed by "them." Acts of violence committed by "us" are peacekeeping efforts to keep America safe and/or bring democracy to nations we want in our empire.
"The US inability to separate out intelligence work from dirty tricks and covert operations, and its inability to separate out the latter from diplomacy, is what put American diplomats’ lives in danger in late 1979."
In other words, "blowback" and the blame for the hostage taking belongs in great part, short of completely, with the original troublemakers.
The oligarchs of the GOP and their loyal foot soldiers will continue their primary goals of seeking power to facilitate more power and wealth for the already powerful and wealthy regardless of whether Jesus was married or not. At the same time they will practice their versions of Christianity, some of which supported un-Christian activities such as segregation and, still, slavery by other names.
"What I am referring to, is how all these political candidates change there stands once they enter into the Oval Office."
If whoever gets into the Oval Office doesn't toe one of the party lines and the dictates of Wall Street and the Israel Lobby then he will find the oligarchs of both parties undermining him, just as they did when Jimmy Carter was president.
There are many problems with Rand Paul, but given the putative candidates for president in 2016 a case can be made that he is probably the least of all the evils we will have to choose from. He does seem to take the Constitution seriously which appears to be more than can be said for the others; however, that may not hold up if a shot at the presidency seduces him to change.
On the other hand he has to give some thought to his post presidential career and the big bucks he will need for his library.
Obama volunteered in competition with Hillary and McCain to be a patsy for the Israel lobby at the AIPAC conference in June 2008 when he was running for president so he wasn't forced by the lobby.
Let us know if you ever hear a candidate say that he or she will push for the United States to be a truly honest broker in the Israel-Palestine issue. But don't tell the Lobby or they will pounce on that candidate like some animal after its prey.
11. Israel Lobby ownership of the key players in the White House and Congress.
If the Taliban were not part of this political process and remain outside a government that will be incapable of prevailing over the Taliban, then the US/NATO forces are either in for another few more years of war or being nonentities in "safe" areas just keeping money flowing to the M-I complex.
I'm reminded of a story I was told as a child. Whether it was true or not I don't know, but it has a good moral to it. The story told of a trick some indigenous people used to catch monkeys. They would build small cages and place a nut inside. The monkey would grab the nut but when he tried to remove his hand with the nut he couldn't because his fist was too large with the nut in its grasp to get through the bars. The monkey couldn't bring himself to give up his treasure and so was caught. People are similar. They are locked into their habits and can't bring themselves to change so they put their well-being at risk.
"A Gallup poll has found that only 35% of Americans are concerned about climate change, and that proportion is barely up from the previous year."
To some extent it is surprising that as many as 35% care about climate change. It seems only a small minority of people care about the more significant aspects of life such as the decline of democracy, the corruption of politics, shredding of the Constitution, multiple versions of the law that allow major criminals to go free while minor crimes are punished severely, 50 million people living in poverty, and militarism. And the list could go on.
"1. The operation will make developing countries who need US economic aid chary about accepting it from USAID, since leaders will fear that the agency may be trying to overthrow them."
It is probably safe to say that any leaders of other nations from the more powerful to the weakest must already be aware that if they don't play ball according to American rules they will be overthrown.
Perhaps those studying why some people succumb to PTSD should also study their opposites who have no qualms or regrets about instigating wars of choice. The same goes for others who totally ignore the crimes of such people. To cite just one example of many, consider Condoleeza Rice, she of the famous mushroom cloud threatening us if we didn't do something about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction that never existed. Some time ago I listened to a Democratic Party operative claim to have a lot of respect for Ms. Rice and that she was a friend. Now we learn that a major university is going to pay her $150K for a speech. "Misguided honor for Condi Rice: U.S. officials lecture others about respecting international law and punishing human rights crimes, but those principles are ignored when the violators are U.S. officials. Offenders like ex-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice even get honors," as Coleen Rowley and Todd E. Pierce note. - link to consortiumnews.com
If, instead of also losing that war Iraq had won and applied the same principles against the architects of that illegal and immoral aggression that the Allies applied at Nuremberg against the Nazis then many of them would have been dangling at the end of a rope a long time ago instead of justifying their past actions and, in some cases, promoting new wars.
And a recent poll indicated 38 percent of respondents still consider going into Iraq was the right decision - link to pollingreport.com. Unfortunately, the poll doesn't have the respondents explain how they could be so stupid. Then there are the financial costs of the Iraq war that are expected to exceed $3 trillion, considerably more than the $60 billion projected by former Bush official and now Indiana governor Mitch Daniels and supposedly believed by a majority in Congress.
"Why the US should consider Israel an ally is beyond belief."
Follow the bribes in the form of campaign finance donations and votes.
Inconceivable as it may be, can it be possible that the Obama administration and others before it have failed to comprehend they are being jerked around by Israel's right wing and its lobby and exposing the US to ridicule? The same goes for Congress. Why is Jonathan Pollard in prison for betraying the US when our top-ranking politicians go free for something similar by different means?
"US ‘peace process’ charade plays on: The United States is scrambling to rescue a framework agreement between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, but Washington likely knows its efforts are doomed by the right-wing majority in Israel's ruling coalition. By pursuing talks that achieve little but advance Israeli military objectives, the Obama administration continues a pattern repeated since its launch by Henry Kissinger." By Ramzy Baroud - link to atimes.com
And in the United States we shall learn painfully that "one nation, ..., indivisible" will be as meaningless as "liberty and justice for all."
Adelson may have been delighted to learn that Christie had reversed himself to conform to Adelson's wishes and the possibility of getting campaign donations (bribes) out of him, but it isn't likely this gained Christie any respect from anyone witnessing this spectacle - including Adelson.
And so the parade of presidential hopefuls begin their groveling spectacle.
Jack: I believe you overlooked the fact that the system was corrupt long before Obama was born, never mind running for president. It's a good bet that Obama was (and is) a front man for others, most likely the Daley machine or some other group in Chicago. He wasn't just some guy with lofty ideals who walked in off the street and into the Boston Convention Center and gave a rousing speech that appeared so good after listening to Dubya for eight years. Obama got on that stage because he was promoted by some oligarchic faction in the Democratic Party. And, we have to give them credit. Who would have thought a black man in our still very-much-racist society could have been elected president?
The likes of Adelson, the Koch brothers and their ilk with incomprehensible sums of money to spend on political corruption are only part of the problem. Another part of the equation that spells a grim future for the United States and those nations in its orbit includes their enablers; that is, the supreme and lesser courts, Congress, the White House, and the mainstream/fawning corporate media. Completing this concoction for decline and fall of the American empire are the people who go along with the plutocrats and their hatchet men and women. Just like the millions of soldiers who marched off to the "Great War," the "war to end all wars" the people will be the ones to pay dearly for the follies being created in the present.
That's all we need. Another hand on the tail wagging the American dog. However, this presents Obama with a chance to add some virtue to his legacy by establishing a policy of no more wars.
"Is Pope Francis good for the Democrats?"
Forget the Pope. Judge the Democrats and the Republicans by their actions.
" Pope Francis is worried about inequality, ..."
And he set an example in integrity that Obama would do well, but is unlikely to follow: Spending Scandal: Pope Francis Banishes Bishop of Limburg link to spiegel.de
"Meeting with Israel’s enemy in private does not bring the credibility of the U.S. into question. "
But the very likely collapse of the "peace talks" will certainly not enhance Obama's, Kerry's or the US's image.
The Israel-Palestine "peace talks" are not helping Obama with the threat of their likely failure bringing US credibility into question:
"Yossi Mekelberg, an expert on the Middle East and North Africa at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, said Kerry's unscheduled meeting with Abbas underlined the further danger to US credibility of a peace process unravelling, and the inability of both sides to reach a compromise. "I think the US embarked on something very difficult that is gradually becoming impossible. US credibility is on the line – and not just in the Middle East. The prognosis is not good and both sides are making demands they know are impossible for the other side. That is compounded by two weak leaders of two weak political systems that cannot make decisions."" link to theguardian.com
" Russia without hydrocarbon resources to sell would be lumped in with the Less Economically Developed countries at this point."
If 21st Century Russia has inherited the qualities that helped 20th Century Russia win the Battle of Stalingrad and reverse the direction of WWII to reach Berlin and conquer the once-mightiest army in Europe, it probably shouldn't be written off yet.
"And we have considerable influence on our neighbors. We generally don’t need to invade them in order to have a strong, cooperative relationship with them."
Not as long as we can support locals to overthrow governments not to our liking; e.g., Chile, most of Central American and now Venezuela.
With Putin having the impertinence of placing Russia's perceived interests over those of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex's agency in Europe (NATO) then we might have to send the National Endowment for Democracy into Russia to bring "democracy" to the Russians.
This demonstrates the hazard of violent revolutions. The new regime might be worse than the old.
"Putin is paying a heavy price to take something he already had."
And wanted to keep when he saw further encroachment from the west.
"Are the GOP insiders going to push another warmonger on us in 2016?"
Most likely someone with similarly inadequate experience brought to the White House by Obama.
What happened that caused CBS to take a lurch to the right? Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Don Hewitt, Mike Wallace and Andrew Rooney would be appalled to witness what has become of "60 Minutes" and "Face the Nation."
In his history of the First World War, "To End All Wars," Adam Hochschild described the enthusiasm among the civilian populations of Europe that would eventually do the fighting. They were totally out of touch with what the reality of that war would be like. Even after some young men had transitioned to serving on the front lines they continued to live in another world. One wrote home that he was looking forward to his first battle. His letter and the battle were also his last. The incompetence of the military leaders of all nations was astounding. A century later, not much has changed regarding the human aspects of war. People talk about more wars not knowing what they are talking about. Military leaders appear to be of questionable competence. Other than the technological advances, there is one difference. Young men and women from the ruling classes served in the front lines. Now they serve in some safe location encouraging others to do the fighting.
" It’s not clear why Mr Senor is doing speeches."
It's probably a means for his supporters to justify his thirty pieces of silver, the same as presidents get paid for services rendered after they leave the White House. According to a report at the time, Reagan was paid one or two million dollars for a speech he gave to some Japanese. In HRC's case, it looks like the $400K she received from Goldman Sachs for two speeches might have been payments in advance.
" TV talk shows and printed media continue to give exposure to many neocons and other charlatans ..."
Make that "neocons, neoliberals and other charlatans..."
No one should be surprised at the likes of Dan Senor. Words have mostly lost their meaning on Animal Farm, USA. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance has become an act of national hypocrisy. Oaths taken by many politicians and people in the armed forces, law enforcement and government agencies (including the White House) to uphold the Constitution are virtually meaningless. People say what others with authority over them want them to say while others believe what they want to believe regardless of how much evidence and how many facts contradict them. Senor is far from being the only one. TV talk shows and printed media continue to give exposure to many neocons and other charlatans who got it disastrously wrong on Iraq and the stock market and, it appears, many of the same people who were gullible enough to believe these frauds and hypocrites in the past are just as credulous as ever.
"In a perfect world he would be only welcomed on AIPAC’s website."
In a better world he would be in The Hague.
In his book "The Case Against Israel" Michael Neuman essentially advocated forgetting the law and, instead, focus on the morality of Israel's actions. There is much to be said for this approach in the case of Crimea/Ukraine and other issues, especially when so many participants pick and choose when and which laws to apply and to ignore.
"And why shouldn’t the Jewish people have a state? "
The problem is not that the Jews who form Israel's right wing want a state. The problem is the way the Zionists before them went about creating the state of Israel and how the Likudniks and their allies are continuing the process of ethnic cleansing.
But wait, as they say on TV, there's more:
"Metropolitan police strip searched more than 4,500 children in five years: Data obtained under freedom of information reveals thousands of 10 – 16-year-olds faced procedure from April 2008" by Joe Sandler Clarke - link to theguardian.com
"... it might be a good idea to give up the right of return in exchange for an end to land theft."
Not a chance when the goal of Israel's right wing continues to be the complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestine Territories.
"the British prime Minister’s fawning speech to knesset"
No surprise there. Cameron and the cabal of which he is a part are following in Thatcher's despicable wake leading the United Kingdom step by step towards a fascist state.
"Britain is treating journalists as terrorists – believe me, I know: My links to WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden mean I am treated as a threat and can't return to the UK. We need a free speech roadmap" by Sarah Harrison - link to theguardian.com
" This issue is too important. We can rake her over the coals later."
"Later" may mean after DiFi and the CIA kiss and make up: "If Feinstein and the CIA kiss and make up, will America up and forget torture?: Like all DC infighting, this will blow over, But we’ve already lost sight of the lives that have been ruined by interrogation" by Amy Goodman - link to theguardian.com
On the other hand, to get her to do something meaningful there is much to be said for keeping the pressure on her.
"You should note that the reason is Obama’s own decision in his first month in office not to prosecute the torturers and their bosses. He announced he didn’t want to “look back.”"
Unfortunately, he chose to "look back" when it came to Bradley/Chelsea Manning, John Kiriakou and other whistleblowers. That is when he should have looked forward. Then there was the abusive (some thought torture) of Bradley Manning at Quantico that Obama considered "appropriate." Appropriate for what? Implicate Julian Assange?
"A seemingly very long time ago I felt hopeful because of Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy, to build the Democratic Party from the ground up in every single precinct, city, and state …"
There never was much chance of Dean or any other rebel in the Democratic Party making a significant change then or now. The oligarchs are too powerful and too well funded and the rank and file too quiescent with whatever passes as the leadership. The only changes that are likely to happen will come from one faction in the oligarchy trying to gain ascendancy as happened with the people behind Obama trumping those supporting the Clintons.
Jimmy Carter's presidency was ruined in part by the oligarchs through Tip O'Neill and Robert Byrd opposing him.
The Tea Partiers showed it is possible to make a change, but to make it stick requires more intelligence than they exhibited.
The best hope for real change probably lies with a truly independent party based on principles. If it held a swing vote position in Congress, that could make a difference. But the chances of developing an independent part at this time are very slim.
"On the other hand if she actually makes a serious attempt and hopefully manages to accomplish something in reigning (sic) in the so called security and intelligence agencies I will be delighted."
Your chances of becoming delighted in this instance are slim to none.
At least, it appears the CIA hasn't blackmailed this senator personally - yet.
"Surely the Senator had to know, in making this speech that she would be told of the utter hypocrisy of her speech. It truly is ironic. But if not her, who?"
Sometimes hypocrites are oblivious to their own hypocrisy. In other instances, they could be aware, but they presume there are enough gullible citizens who will believe their latest opinion without any connection to previous contradictions.
"CIA, senate and a Constitutional crisis (if you’ll keep it)" by Peter Van Buren - link to dissenter.firedoglake.com
"Brennan has challenged the president to act. What the president does will tell us much about the future of our democracy. As radio host Guillermo Jimenez has said, “On this Grand Chessboard, it is We the People who are now in check. It’s our move.”"
"The Feinstein syndrome: Fourth Amendment for me, but not for thee" by Norman Solomon - link to counterpunch.org
" Why there isn’t more burning outrage among Americans about this egregious domestic spying I’ll never understand."
Simple, Professor Cole. The masses lack any knowledge as to what is happening, and they lack the intelligence and moral courage to know what to do with that knowledge if they had it. The suggestion that we remain a nation of sheep after William J. Lederer created that term 50-some years ago is persuasive but an insult to sheep.
"The historical analogies to LBJ’s specious Gulf of Tonkin resolution were quite striking, at least to me, and they should have known better."
They probably did know better, but they most likely concluded supporting the war was better for their short-term interests. There was a report that Bob Schrum, Democratic Party "consultant." told Kerry if he wanted to become president he would have to vote for the war. I haven't been able to get any solid proof of this, just indications it probably happened. As for McCain, he seems to get a thrill out of wars while being oblivious to their horrendous costs.
It would be a measure of progress if the United States elected a woman for president - but not any woman, and not Hillary. It is very likely if we are not to vote "none of the above" then we will be given the usual task of picking the lesser evil. If the choice is between Hillary and Rand Paul, I would have to pick the latter. At least he might take his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously. As for his libertarianism, that would probably be no worse than the consequences of Hillary's allegiance to Wall Street recently boosted by a reported $400K speaking fee from Goldman Sachs.
From Eric Margolis:
"The US won’t accept that Russia has any legitimate spheres of influence, while Washington’s span the globe. Last week, US Secretary of State John Kerry, who used to be a sensible fellow before becoming corrupted by power, blasted Russia: “you just don’t invade a country under a phony pretext!”
"I guess Kerry has never heard of the US invasions of the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Libya. Or can’t remember Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin “incident.”
"Kerry should cut the hypocrisy and get to work on a diplomatic settlement. Two major nuclear-armed powers cannot – must not – be allowed to confront one another." - link to commondreams.org
"Explaining US hypocrisy on Ukraine: U.S. government hypocrisy toward the Ukraine crisis has been breathtaking, as has the U.S. press corps’ stubborn refusal to see the hypocrisy (i.e. the Iraq War and many other U.S. interventions). William Blum looks at the reasons behind the double standards". - link to consortiumnews.com
Very well said. Item 2. bears repeating with my emphasis:
"2- There is no limit to how far Western powers are prepared to go in order to weaken Russia. President Reagan promised Gorbachev on the eve of the breakup of the Soviet Union that NATO would not incorporate former Soviet republics. However, practically all East European members of the former Warsaw Pact are now NATO members, <strong>and now the West is even pushing to separate Ukraine that has a substantial number of Russian speakers and even ethnic Russians from Moscow."
Has there ever in American history been a time when hypocrisy was as rampant as it is now? The first colonists fleeing religious persecution in Europe didn't take long to doing a little persecuting themselves. Then there were the slave owners who declared that all men are created equal with a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when they had no intentions of freeing their slaves. That was hypocrisy then but nothing on today's scale.
"What readers should also know is that when I wanted to re read this report a 3 pm this after noon local time the report had disappeared. I googled it and I could not find any mention of it."
"Ukraine crisis: bugged call reveals conspiracy theory about Kiev snipers: Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet tells EU's Cathy Ashton about claim that provocateurs were behind Maidan killings" by Ewen MacAskill - link to theguardian.com
" Obama could just have Samantha Powers decline to veto UN Security Council sanctions on Israel any time he liked. He won’t do it, because the Israel lobbies would cause trouble for him with Congress if he did."
And Obama is probably anticipating hustling up some donations for his presidential library that, like Dubya's and Slick Willie's, will stand as testimony to our national capacity for hypocrisy.
"It did not help that the Crimea crisis had broken out, which rather cast a bad light on one country militarily occupying parts of another. Most observers in Europe and even some in the US could see the hypocrisy of the US denouncing Russian troops in Crimea but supporting Israeli troops in Hebron."
To use an automobile metaphor, Russia's movements into Crimea are a fender bender compared with Israel's hit-and-run homicides during Operation Cast Lead and the US's total wreck in Iraq. But hypocrisy, like love, apparently means never having to say "Sorry."
The Ukraine crisis has prompted lots of chatter that has revealed what may be a fatal malady for what is left of our democracy: rampant hypocrisy and mendacity among the ruling elite and those who aspire to join them. And it is not only the GOP that is guilty of those sins. Add to that a gullible and ignorant populace and there is no cause for optimism.
The difference between you, George, and Kerry and McCain is that you learned from your experiences; whereas, Kerry and McCain decided to cash in on theirs.
And today at the AIPAC fest, McCain was horrified at barrel bombs Russia is purportedly introducing in the Ukraine. He didn't seem to have any problem with cluster bombs and depleted uranium introduced by US forces in Iraq.
Unfortunately, McCain isn't the only one in Congress spouting this hypocritical claptrap, but that is no surprise. It's okay for the US to commit war crimes but wrong for others to do so.
This quote by John Kerry on CBS is cited in the Guardian (UK): “It’s an incredible act of aggression,”
And that is from someone who voted for the illegal and immoral war on Iraq. It would be difficult to trump that for an Oscar for hypocrisy.
The Guardian (UK) has a very sensible opinion on this situation: "The Ukraine crisis: John Kerry and Nato must calm down and back off: The hysterical reaction to Russian military movements in Crimea won't help. Only Kiev can stop this crisis becoming a catastrophe" by Jonathan Steele - link to theguardian.com
Nel, you have more confidence in the American people - informed or not - than I have.
Very well said. We should be concerned about Putin's actions but probably more concerned about official and neocon efforts emanating from the US. There is little reason to have confidence in the leadership of the Obama administration.
"The U.S. Army captured Baghdad in six weeks."
And secured a place for the US in a quagmire.
"Of course, it was that "hollowed out" military that rolled so effortlessly through Iraq in March-April 2003. Later, of course, during the occupation, it turned out that there weren't enough troops for that mission - not for the invasion, but for the occupation - resulting in multiple extended tours and stop-loss orders for the soldiers tasked with that mission."
Just as General Shinseki warned and for which he was fired.
“Let’s call it what it really is, offense spending.”
Don't stop there. Change the Department of Defense to a more honest title: The department of wars.
"...what kind of a fool would take advice about national security policy from this man?"
It appears that the mainstream media (the fawning corporate media according to Ray McGovern) and the neocon think tanks believe there are lots of fools out there. Notice how many columnists and talking heads who got it disastrously wrong on Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel are still provided space in print and face time on television to promote more wars - Iran and coming down the pike, Ukraine.
" The American public wants nothing to do with such seedy operations, and is unlikely to want anything to do with them again in my lifetime."
I hope your assessment is right on this point, but I wouldn't bet on it.
There's was not to reason why, there's was to do or die - for what?
We would do well to scrap both "liberal" and "conservative" in political discourse. Both words have acquired so many meanings and implications they are more confusing than informative.