Obama Pauses Again; Peace Wins, AIPAC Loses
by James M. Wall
Monday, September 9, was planned as a day for the White House to persuade Congress to support military strikes on Syria. The highlight of the day’s “persuade Congress” plan was a White House appearance by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
After a luncheon meeting with President Obama, Clinton pledged her every effort to gain “yes” votes from Congress for a military attack.
Midway through her statement she had to shift, however, from attack mode to peace mode. A rapid series of “surprise” developments swept through London, Moscow and Damascus before dark in Washington Monday.
We may not know until the tell-all book on President Obama’s second term is published. But it sure looks like the Obama team spent this past weekend changing its “persuade Congress” plan to a “further pause for peace” plan.
Whatever it was, something led to the weekend shift in White House…
View original post 1,439 more words
The Bush Award at the University of Denver – Many Korbel Faculty Oppose; National Media Attention
Note: Reproduced here is an open letter to the administration of the University of Denver from the faculty of the Korbel School of International Studies. As can be noted, it is dated July 5, 2013, some two months ago. It was signed by some 24 full time faculty members, most tenured faculty, some lecturers. To my knowledge, it was never formally answered.
Two days from today, on Monday, September 9, 2013, George W. Bush will indeed speak at the annual Korbel dinner and receive some kind of award there. While there was never any question among the signers of denying Bush an opportunity to speak, the fact that he would receive an award, given the wars he unleashed against the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of international law, his support and that of his administration, for torture, was openly opposed by much of the Korbel faculty.
________________________________________________
To: Chancellor Robert Coombe, Provost Gregg Kvistad, and Dean Christopher Hill
Re: Award to President George W. Bush
Date: July 5, 2013
We, all faculty members at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies, have recently learned from the Korbel School’s website, from a memo of July 2nd from Dean Hill and from a petition organized by students and alumni of the school with over 1000 signatures (http://www.change.org/petitions/dean-christopher-hill-josef-korbel-school-of-international-studies-rescind-george-w-bush-s-improving-the-human-condition-award) that former US President George W. Bush is to be honored with an award at the Korbel School’s annual Korbel Dinner in September 2013. According to the website, an award is to be given in the name of the Korbel School and the University of Denver.
When we first learned of the award to the former President, “for improving the human condition,” we were shocked, disappointed, and embarrassed in light of his administration’s decisions to repudiate the US’ responsibilities as a signatory of the UN’s Convention against Torture by authorizing the use of waterboarding of prisoners. President Bush’s culpability is a matter of public evidence and personal admission. Indeed, President Bush affirms waterboarding in an interview with Matt Lauer which can be heard here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjUasA6xeVc. The relevant international treaty obligations and obligations under American law are indicated at the bottom of this letter.
We are extremely proud as faculty members that the Korbel School has long been recognized globally for its leadership in the area of international human rights theory and practice and human development; that the Korbel School has long aimed to nurture students who are “practical idealists”; that the Korbel School has a long and fruitful relationship with the Peace Corps, an institution to which so many of our students and our Dean remain deeply connected; and that the University of Denver is an institution that is explicitly dedicated to promoting “the public good” and ethical behavior. Read more…
Russia Contacts IAEA Over Nuclear Threat From U.S. Strikes On Syria
Check out the map…
For peace, against war: literary selections
Russian Information Agency Novosti
September 5, 2013
Russia Questions IAEA on Syrian Nuclear Risks
Click to enlarge
MOSCOW: Russia has handed over an official request to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to analyze potential nuclear risks of a US airstrike on Syria, a Russian diplomat said Thursday.
Earlier in the day, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Moscow would raise the issue at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors on Monday.
Russia’s permanent envoy to international bodies in Vienna, Vladimir Voronkov, said he had handed over an official letter to IAEA director general Yukia Amano.
“We request the agency to immediately react to the current situation and provide member states with an analysis of risks, related to potential US strikes on a neutron reactor and other objects in Syria,” he said, adding that similar letters were sent to Vienna envoys of other IAEA member…
View original post 205 more words
Striking Syria…What If …..They Strike Back?
a reproduction of Leonardo DaVinci’s powerful (and long lost) description of the stupidity of war: The Battle of Anghiari
also posted at Foreign Policy In Focus
by Rob Prince and Ibrahim Kazerooni
There is an old saying in the military: “When they are in range, so are you.”
At the least, it buys time to build opposition to such a reckless course, at the most, it is the beginning of a change in direction. Too early to tell.We would hope the latter but fear the former.
Didn’t take long for the smoke to clear on that one…
Having lost a key ally as Great Britain announced it would not participate in a military strike, Obama’s foreign base of support had shrunk to nearly naught. He made a tactically clever move: to shore up his domestic support to compensate for the loss. From the tenure of the discussion in the Senate yesterday, which we forced ourselves to watch (for a while anyway), it was pretty clear that the US Senate will stand behind Obama and formally support military action. Although there are stipulations, limitations to Obama’s field of action (no troops on the ground, a sixty day window for military strikes with the possibility of a further Congressional approval), war has a way of escalating from one set of conditions to another and those limitations might turn out the `flexible’, as they were in the case of Libya where a no fly zone transformed almost immediately into an `air attack zone’. Read more…
President Bashar al-Assad’s interview with Le Figaro (and “The Atlantic” Two Part Series by James Fallows)
I checked the French Text (http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2013/09/02/01003-20130902ARTFIG00532-la-mise-en-garde-d-el-assad-a-la-france.php) which checks out with the English Translation..
More excellent sources…
“Your Labor Day Syria Reader: Part One” by James Fallows – in The Atlantic
“Your Labor Day Syria Reader: Part Two” by James Fallows – in The Atlantic
I recommend this series – both parts – it should be required reading, especially for those in the U.S. Senate…
Anti-Empire Report #120 by William Blum (about Obama’s Syria Speech and U.S. intentions)
Malbrunot: Mr. President, the Americans and the French have accused you of perpetrating a chemical attack on the 21st of August in Ghouta, which led to the death of hundreds. Do you have evidence to suggest that your army did not launch the attack?
President al-Assad: First of all, anyone making such an accusation is also responsible for providing the evidence to substantiate the allegation. We have challenged them to present a shred of legitimate evidence, which they have not been able to do. Since their foreign policy should be tailored to suit the interests of their own people, we have challenged them to present legitimate evidence to their own public opinion to substantiate their claims; again they have not done so.
Secondly, where is the logic in us carrying out an attack of this nature: two years into the crisis I can confidently state that the situation on the…
View original post 3,718 more words
Obama Pauses; Calls for Debate in Congress
James Wall, virtually always worth reading
by James M. Wall
In a surprise move Saturday afternoon, President Barack Obama announced he would ask for a Congressional debate before he would order any air strikes on Syria.
Speaking at a hastily-called press conference in the White House rose garden, the President said: “I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.”
Ma’an, the Palestinian news service, notes that the decision to take the issue to Congress “represents a significant gamble for Obama”.
He “risks suffering the same fate as British Prime Minister David Cameron, who on Friday lost his own vote on authorizing military action”.
The television network, MSNBC, reported that White House officials point to Cameron’s defeat in the Parliament as one reason the President decided to delay action against Syria until Congress could return and hold its debate.
The U.S. House of Representatives confirms it will consider…
View original post 704 more words
This is the Iraq-Iran Border. Between 1980-1988 it was the sight of the Iran-Iraq War, that might have killed as many as 1.3 million on both sides. The Iraqis (Saddam’s Iraqis) used chemical weapons, their use encouraged by the then Reagan Administration
Note:
For the second time in two days, President Barack Obama has held a press conference on what most of the world thought was a prelude to a U.S. attack on Syria. This time he announced, to the surprise of many, that there would be no military action taken against Syria unless he gets support from the U.S. Congress – thus at least, postponing the much publicized attack.
This is, of course, good news.
At the least, it buys time to build opposition to such a reckless course, at the most, it is the beginning of a change in direction. Too early to tell. I would hope the latter but fear the former.
A number of factors probably help explain Obama’s decision to hold off. Among them:
a. Undoubtedly the vote in the British Parliament against the UK partnering with the US in the military strike was a blow to the stomach in Obama’s plans – one could feel the tension deflate, the international support (the little there was) unravel immediately. This hurt the military strike’s legitimacy deeply. It was the first time in decades that the USA has not been able to rope Great Britain into one of its misguided military ventures.
b. Although some commentators (on MSNBC) blithely suggested that there would be no military response to a U.S. attack from opponents in the region (Iran, Syria, even Russia), the tension throughout the Middle East was palpable and very much elevated; the danger that a U.S. strike could have escalated into a regional conflict was great. Take a look at the Israeli press of the past few days to see how seriously Israel took the possibility of regional war.
c. Despite the Secretary of State and President’s press conferences of yesterday (August 30) claiming strong evidence that the Assad Government of Syria was behind the chemical attack – this claim is fast unraveling. Not only that, now a counter claim that it was the rebels with the connivance of Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia who were the genuine architects of the chemical gassing. The fact remains that the Obama Administration did not prove its case and thus its pretext for military action was undermined.
d. Some people (on the internet) have suggested that the American people played no role, none whatsoever, in staying Obama’s hand. While it is undeniable that the above factors were probably more central to Obama’s decision, the speed and extensiveness with which domestic opposition grew was really remarkable. The memory of the drumbeat to war with Iraq a decade ago, with false claims of `weapons of mass destruction’, of a mobile chemical weapons factor, of a nuclear threat to New York City (this bullshit actually appeared in the New York Daily News and other media/misinformation outlets) was not forgotten. White House phone lines were inundated; major news outlets, the New York Times, other outlets warned against a military strike without substantial proof; even that dead horse, the US Congress suddenly came alive (for one brief moment) in protest. True there were few demonstrations, but they too were starting to get off the ground and more – demonstrations are not the only manifestation of opposition. There are many others.
e. The two theoretical concepts behind the intervention – “humanitarian interventionalism” and “pre-emption” – the former more or less the Democratic Party’s justification for military aggression, the latter mostly the Republican (and AIPAC)’s pretext were not completely believed this time.
In the past few days, prior to Obama’s announcement, I’ve been involved in some exchanges over the course of events that I’d like to share with people. As might be expected, given that, until a few hours ago the likeliness of a U.S. air (or other) strike on Syria seemed imminent, there were many exchanges taking place about what is happening and why… and I have been in dialogue with a number of people, among them students, alumni and some colleagues at the University of Denver’s Korbel School of International Studies.
I’d like to share some of these more publicly as they might be useful to some readers. There are three below
____________________________________
On “Hit ‘Em Hard” Hill…
The reference to “Hit ‘Em Hard Hill” refers to University of Denver’s Korbel School of International Studies Dean, Christopher Hill, who was quoted a few days ago that he hopes that the U.S. hits Syria hard, a rather curious statement for someone who was/is? a high level U.S. diplomat. A friend reminded me of the comments of Kurtz, the protagonist of Joseph’s Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. Referring to the Congolese whom Belgium was about to colonize in the late 1800s, Kurtz says “exterminate the brutes.” Hill uses a slightly revised expression…”Hit these people and hit them hard” he was quoted as say. “These people?” How different are these comments in the end?
Thinking back, I have a memory of Hill making similar statements about regime change in Iran not all that long ago in a university forum that included Hill, former Korbel dean, Tom Farer and former Colorado governor Richard Lamm. Although on so many domestic issues, he has moved consistently to the right in recent decades, Lamm was the only one of the three who came out squarely against any U.S. attempts to overthrow the Iranian government. He was very clear on that point. Farer, who, when Korbel dean in 2003 supported the invasion of Iraq (if somewhat gingerly), straddled a middle ground, but it was Hill who took the hardline on Iranian regime change; he supported sanctions, counter – insurgency against Iran and seemed to buy into the Bush’s notion of `the evil empire’ even if Hill did not use those terms.
On MSNBC this morning (August 31, 2013) prior to Obama’s second appearance in two days “Hit ‘Em Hard Hill” took a different tack – supporting the strike against Syria by downplaying the possible consequences of an attack. I don’t know what the consequences will be, but they could be serious, more serious than Hill is suggesting.
http://web.mail.comcast.net/zimbra/mail?view=msg&id=1200400
Rebels admit Saudi Prince Bandar set up Chemical massacre
Concerning this article, reblogged from another source – it is possible but needs checking. That said, I was attracted to it because it highlights the role of Saudi Prince Bandar who is a very influential and important figure with strong ties to the Bush family and the U.S. neo-conservatives. This (giving chemical weapons to the Syrian mishugganah Salafist rebels to use, and then blame it on Assad) is exactly the kind of stuff the guy is capable of. Also, the article at least explores the Saudi role in the Syrian crisis, that the U.S. is quite silent about. And keep in mind, there is virtually NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, that Saudi Arabia does in the Middle East that is not coordinated with the United Statees and very closely at that. Those who think otherwise are naive or fools. rjp
Putin holds Prince Bander responsible: Saudis Go On Full Alert As Putin War Threat Stuns Muslim World
Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.
Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.
The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and…
View original post 9,869 more words
No To US Led Attack On Syria: Obama Playing With Fire – Part Two
Syria
_______________________
Post at Foreign Policy In Focus
________________________
by Ibrahim Kazerooni and Rob Prince
False Flag Operations, What Are They?
While the US, UK and France (the old and the new colonial powers) debate their response to the suspected chemical weapons use in Syria, the Syrian government continues to deny the allegations. Since last Saturday we have witnessed a number of reports, documents and pictures that plainly indicates that the use of these weapons was by the mercenaries supported by the US and the Saudis, not by Damascus.
The US on the other hand has ignored all such evidence and continues to talk of attacking Syria, which might have already taken place before this article goes to print. The Syrian government and its allies maintain that it was the mercenaries that launched a “false flag” attack by using chemical weapons on civilians, anticipating that the blame would fall on the government and provoke the international community into a response that would help their positions on the ground after being defeated by the Syrian army in a number of confrontations.
What is a ‘false flag’ operation? Read more…
Missing from this map is the Israeli military build up which is likely, one way or another to become a factor
by Rob Prince and Ibrahim Kazerooni
“Now we sit and wait while the Washington regime makes its next lethal move. Let us lift our voices in unison to prevent it. ”
“Before another rush to judgment and “punishment” based on a presumption of guilt, as in Iraq, this time, let the UN inspectors do their job: We still don’t know who used chemical weapons in Syria — regime or rebels. Without UN Security Council’s approval, any military action by US and its NATO or even Arab allies will itself be illegal, an international war crime itself. Such an attack will not protect innocent civilians, but hurt them. US attacks will backfire, trigger a retaliatory response, escalate the civil war into region or world war.”
– the comments of friends on Facebook –
This is the second time in six months that the United States has accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons. The first time, Washington was forced to eat its words as international organizations, including Human Rights Watch, claimed that it was the rebels and not the government forces which had employed them.
Despite calls from all over the world, not to proceed, it appears that the Obama Administration is heading towards a major air attack on Syria. France, UK and Israel will be involved in some measure, either in preparing targets or in the actual bombing. Syria has both insisted that it was not the Assad government which used nerve gas in a Damascus suburb that might have killed as many as 1300 people but U.S. and Saudi backed Islamic militants who have hijacked the opposition movement, much in the same way similar elements did likewise in both Libya and Mali. Read more…
Turkish Initiative In Arab World Stalls
Plans for the `Neo-Ottoman’ Empire in the Middle East have stalled
by Ibrahim Kazerooni and Rob Prince
As we write these words, from all appearances, the United States, UK and France, with considerable support from Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, is on the verge of launching a Cruise missile attack against Syria. Turkey, for its part, has been an intimate player in the US plans to bring down the Syrian Assad government and will continue to play a prominent role to this end. But, despite this, Turkish influence in the Arab world is starting to shrink as the Turkish alliance with Qatar and the Moslem Brotherhoods is unraveling, and with it, a card in Washington’s Middle Eastern deck is crumbling. Central to all this are the events in Egypt, the removal of Morsi from power and the campaign by the current Egyptian government to crush the Moslem Brotherhoods politically.
In what follows, we look at the evolution – and devolution – of Turkey’s position.
Turkey and the New Regional Political Realignment
In the past few days a number of reports have surfaced on Turkey’s indignation on the turn over the events in Egypt. Yeni Shafak the newspaper close to the Turkish prime minister published a scathing article against the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, UAE as well as Palestinian Mahmud Abbas calling them the “the axis of evil” in the Middle East. This was followed by Bekir Bozdag, Turkish deputy prime minister, attacking the Arab Cooperation Council for not taking a stronger position on Egypt’s military takeover and the removal of Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhoods (MB) from office. Turkish leaders have also taken to laying the blame for the Egyptian coup at Israel’s doorstep (ironically, as Turkey moves closer to Israel strategically, with Washington’s encouragement).
The question that emerges is: “Why the Turkish government is so infuriated by the turn of events in Egypt?” Before suggesting an answer it is useful to journey back a bit in the Middle Eastern history. There can be no denial that Middle East constitutes one of the most important global regions, not just for its vast natural resources, for its geopolitical location and its immeasurable contribution to global human culture. Any shift in the regional balance of power would have global consequences for both regional as well as global stakeholders. Particularly critical for the stakeholders (regional and global) are the shifts that lead to new regional realignments. Read more…
University of Denver and National Trends In Higher Education
University of Denver June, 2010 Graduation; Masters’ Program Graduates. At What Cost? With What Future Employment?
What follows here is mostly for my students. Certainly my interest was provoked by the Korbel School of International Studies, where I teach, offering a `global service’ award to George W. Bush, and to give him the opportunity to address the university community here on September 9. A major element – from where I am sitting – in this invitation is the university’s financial future. Of course right now, the University of Denver is not in anything like a financial crisis, at least to my knowledge. But the signs are everywhere and not just at D.U., but nationally. Tuition is going up and has reached what some (especially students) consider to be unsustainable levels at private institutions nationwide. A new generation of faculty is coming on board as baby boomers and pre-baby boomers retire. Many of them have been heavily influenced by the academic environment of the past thirty years, with the noticeable shift to the right of the political spectrum, most especially where it concerns none questions of neo-liberal economic models (but also in other areas).
In any case, I am going to start to collect relevant articles on the different trends in higher education here on this blog site and will continue to add to them over time. For those interested in how I view the Bush Award – there is a series of entries on the blog `One Toke Over The Line: The University of Denver Offers George W. Bush an International Service Award. It is a six part series. You can get to any and all the series number from Part One.
More to follow.
The College Loan Scandal by Matt Taibbi. Rolling Stone. August 15, 2013
The Market Colonization of Intellectuals by Lewis R. Gordon. Truthout. April 6, 2010
Obama’s New Education Proposal: Change? Or Changed Subject? by Matt Taibbi. Rolling Stone. August 23, 2013
University of Oregon To Faculty: You Belong To Me by Corey Robin, author of the Reactionary Mind. September 16, 2013
What a “wonderful!!!!!!!!!!!!!” world
Only few days ago the US and its western allies thought that finally they had the president of Syria, his Excellency Bashar Al-Asad cornered and the case against him is sealed and the rest was going to be history. Unfortunately things did not go well for the US and Russians spoiled the whole plan by their satellite image that evidently showed that the small missile loaded with chemical material actually came from the mercenary controlled area.
To prove, yet again its innocence, the Syrian government quickly circled the area where the missile came from and the rebels surprised by the swift action, left most of their incriminating material and made a run for it. In a tunnel under the area they controlled the Syrian force came across a well-equipped bomb making facility with the same chemical agents used by them on civilians only a day before. See the following images
http://www.alalam.ir/news/1509127
The embarrassing part of it is that all these materials came from no other than the Saudis with their marks on it. Among other things that the Syrian military found is a video recording, I suppose taken by the mercenaries as a trophy, that clearly show the uses of these drums in their crude projectiles and firing them into the civilian area. See the clip.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=433519696767399&set=vb.242203055848041&type=2&theater
I hope you are with me so far. Few days ago US government decided to sell only 1300 cluster bombs to the Saudis and the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) criticized the US for planning to supply these horrible weapons. CMC Director Sarah Blakemore said on Thursday:
“We are disappointed with the US decision to export cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia as both countries acknowledge the negative humanitarian impact of these weapons on civilians.”
I hope you are still following my drift.
What surprised me was the numbers. Saudis are well known to be extravagant with their purchase of military gadgets. They really buy in bulks, so to speak. It downed on me once the news of the Syrian confiscation of chemical weapon hit the fan, that the ultimate destination of these weapons are not Saudi Arabia, THEY ARE INTENDED TO BE SEND TO THE US MERCENARIES IN SYRIA.
Keep this in mind; in a few months if you hear Syrians government being accused of using cluster bombs against innocent civilians, you know where they have come from.
“What a wonderful world we live in”
Kuneitra Syria. 1981 – at the base of the Golan Heights – Town bulldozed by the Israelis before they returned it to Syria as a part of cease-fire agreement.
Syrie: l’operaction anti-Assad a commence
Some of you probably read French, some not – essence of the above article is that there is a contingent of U.S. (and Israeli, Jordanian) Syrian rebels that started a march on Damascus in mid-August, entering Syria through the Deraa region in the south.
This was reported in the French newspaper, Le Figaro, a mainstream paper. It needs to be verified – as does the chemical weapons charge – but why do i think there could be a connection to the campaign to pin the chemical weapons charge on assad?
Why all of a sudden the moral outrage against Assad? – and what about the massacres, war crimes committed by Wahhabist, Salafist so-called rebels? the moral outrage expressed seems rather selective from what i have read recently…
Neither side in this war has a monopoly on `playing fair’… there will be no military solution to this conflict – it needs to be dealt with politically – a negotiated settlement. The Obama Administration `talks’ negotiation but continues to train and arm Salafist rebels…talking `left’ while moving `right’ …again
too many parallels from where i am sitting with how the media handled Saddam in the period just before the invasion?
My take – which does not seem to resonate with what i have been reading from friends – goes like this:
1. the Syrian opposition has failed to overthrow Assad militarily. it is divided, with the more nutsy, salafist/wahhabist elements having essentially brushed aside the democratic opposition (as happened in Mali not long ago
2. having failed to overthrow Assad – who has a genuine base among some elements of the population (granted a thug, not a democrat and using all means at his disposal to stay in power) …now the US had a number of options: A. – admit defeat (even quietly) and actually go to the negotiating table at Geneva (Geneva II) for some kind of political compromise to end the slaughter, in which no one would get what they want but a compromise could still be reached to end the violence a la Yugoslavia in the 1990s B. talk negotiations while intensifying the efforts to overthrow the Assad Regime using U.S./Israeli trained Syrian rebel units, trained in Jordan (and probably financed to at least some extent by the Saudis).
It looks to me that Option `B’ is being acted out… very dangerous – but typically arrogant, reactionary ultimately U.S. approach to the region under the cover of – this time- `saving the Syrian people’ – like we `saved’ the Iraqis and Libyans from a `madman’ with chemical weapons. . And to get away with implementing this option, of course, Washington needs a cover and the new chem weapons charge provides it? why do you eat up this media spin – it seems to me – so quickly, so willingly? I don’t get it.
How many of you will support this brazen intervention, in the name of some cynical humanitarian internationalism, new cutting edge for an old policy?
So…how many times are you all – good, intelligent, progressive people – with what is often sophisticated analyses on the Middle East – going to fall for the same old song, with a slightly different feeling this time – old wine and i’m not even sure the bottle is that new?
My suggestion is that before jumping to conclusions that you weigh the situation a bit more carefully.
Links:
Daniel Ellsberg – the Bradley Manning of the Vietnam War Era..Bradley Manning should be receiving a human rights award; George W. Bush should be facing trial for war crimes…
“So you think you’ve hit bottom? Oh No! There’s a bottom below!”
– Malvina Reynolds –
“The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war so Mr. Bush has to be into trouble now!”
Yasmeen Bartar – (a friend of my Facebook friend, Paul Wolf) – on Facebook
__________________
And here I thought Part Five of this series was `the end’, that there was nowhere else to go, that five articles of 1500-2000 words on the award the University of Denver’s Korbel School of International Studies is to give to George W. Bush was enough, and that I’d covered the subject about as exhaustively as possible. The last piece – about Bush’s supposed contribution to fighting HIV/AIDS world wide, especially in Africa – was especially interesting to research and learn about. From what can be gleened from different sources, Bush’s main contribution to eliminating AIDS consists of photo ops with what appear to be poor African kids. He hugs them a lot and smiles and the photos are then transmitted worldwide.
But then, but then two articles popped up from a Google search that give more texture, perspective to the said award whose title has changed from an `improving the human condition’ award – that one was REALLY cynical, to a `global service’ award (which if you think about it – you know – the bombs, the torture, the destruction of two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan and many others – isn’t any better), but we’ve been over the ground before.
Then these popped up:
“Jeb Bush to Award Hillary Clinton With 2013 Liberty Medal”
“Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War”
They both deserve comment. Read more…
View from the Left Bank: Rob Prince's Blog 