"The Army has cleared another hurdle in its attempt to court-martial First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. In a report released Thursday afternoon, investigating officer Lieutenant Colonel Mark Keith determined that the Army has grounds to proceed with a full court-martial of Lieutenant Watada. "I find that 1st Lieutenant Watada's beliefs regarding the war in Iraq do not excuse his refusal to deploy or his public statements," wrote Lieutenant Colonel Keith."
* an interview with nasrallah:
"We salute the leaders and the peoples of Latin America. They have resisted heroically against the American bandits and have been a source of morale for us. They are guiding the way for the oppressed peoples. Go and wander around our streets...! You will witness how our people have embraced Chávez and Ernesto Che Gue vara. Nearly in every house, you will come across posters of Che or Chávez. What we are saying to our socialist friends who want to fight together with us for fraternity and freedom, do not come at all if you are going to say religion is an opiate. We do not agree with this analysis. Here is the biggest proof of this in our streets with the pictures of Chávez, Che, Sadr and Hamaney waving along together. These leaders are saluting our people in unison. So long as we respect your beliefs, and you respect ours, there is no imperialist power we cannot defeat!* amy:
[]
We are an independent Lebanese organization. We do not take orders from anyone. But this does not mean that we are not going to form alli ances. Let me reiterate, we are on a side. We are on the side of Iran and Syria. They are our brothers. We are going to oppose any attack directed at Tehran and Dama scus to the last drop of our blood just as we do in Lebanon. We uphold global resistance against global imperial terrorism. Peace cannot be unilateral. So long as there is imperialism in the world, a permanent peace is impossible. This war will not come to an end as long as there are occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine."
"Here in this country, a growing number of hawkish Repblicans are advocating a U.S. attack on Iran. Weekly Standard editor William Kristol recently said on Fox News “We could be in a military confrontation with Iran much sooner than people expect.”"ont thing i didnt mention about the james bamford interview the other day, is that he said that the military is already on high-trigger-alert - ready to go within a day
* amy:
"Here in New York, the Daily News has revealed that less than a month after 9/11, a top city Health Department official blasted an order from City Hall to reopen several blocks near Ground Zero. In an internal memo, the official warned in October 2001 that air quality for asbestos at those locations was not yet suitable for re-occupancy."
4 comments:
Was Bamford truly suggesting that Iran orchestrated the US invasion of Iraq?
IMO, that doesn't make sense.
Corporatocracy...mainly MIC companies + Big Oil.
The neocon idealogues make it seem like the motive wasn't as base as bank robbing.
Noise - it was always a very weird epeisode re the raid on chalabi's house. make sure you listen to that interview - it 'confirms' a lot of the stuff that laura and larisa have been saying. the interesting thing therefore is where the views diverge
I listend to the interview and read Bamford's article in RS.
IMO, the Palast, Juhasz and Perkins ideas ring true...corporate interests trump everything. I know you have said you are opposed (if that's the right word) to the 'class warfare' concept, but I think that is the main agenda.
Then you have PNAC/AIPAC/Clean Break/Iraq/Iran/9/11 aspects. I don't know how the idealogy intersects w/ the corporate agenda. My current theory is that the corporate agenda is disguised by way of the 1. War on Terror 2. Fearmongering that accompanies the WoT 3. Idealogues (neocons). Meaning, the reason the neocons are not reigned in is because they are taking all the heat while Big Oil/MIC/and other connected corporations feed at the war profiteering trough.
i'm 'opposed' to the idea of class warfare to the extent that it implies that the rich are intentionally keeping everyone poor. i just can't see any logic to that. I think that the rich want as much money as possible, and i presume that they also want the poor people to have as much money as possible, as well - so long as it doesnt cost them anything.
at a minimum, the wealthier the poor people are, the more money they have to buy goods from rich folks, and the more the poor people can contribute to the tax base.
i agree with you that 'corporate' (including illegal activites) interests trump (nearly) everything - but we can trace that all the way back to individuals who want to be richer, 'financing' congressional enablers. consider the MBNA bill - it's not that they want people in debt peonage forever - it's just that mbna wants more money.
re PNAC/AIPAC/Clean Break/Iraq/Iran/9/11 - my gut feel is that there is a lot more 'corporate' ($) stuff in there than we tend to generally recognize - with some dollops of ideology that i dont really understand. i presume that there are some idealistic neocons, but i suspect that if we scratch below the surface a little, much of that can possibly be traced back to money interests. contra you, i suspect that the reason that neocons are allowed free reign is not becuase they take the heat - but becuase look who wins: "Big Oil/MIC/and other connected corporations feed at the war profiteering trough"
Post a Comment