The article "Wisdom amid a world tired of the US megaphone" at
states "We talk about democracy and human rights. Iraqis talk about justice and honor." That comment from Lieutenant Colonel David Kilcullen, made at a seminar
last month on counterinsurgency, is the beginning of wisdom for an America that is trying to repair the damage of recent years. It applies not simply to Iraq but the range of problems in a world tired of listening to an American megaphone.
Dignity is the issue that vexes billions of people around the world, not democracy. Indeed, when people hear President George W. Bush preaching about democratic values, it often comes across as a veiled assertion of America power.
The implicit message is that other countries should be more like us - replacing their institutions, values and traditions with ours. We mean well, but people feel disrespected.
The bromides and exhortations are a further assault on their dignity."
The article considers that Condoleezza Rice isn't as vile as other members of W's crew "But she also conveys an American arrogance, a message that when it comes to good governance, it's "our way or the highway."
The article examines many concepts relating to this matter and decides that "A final item on my dignity reading list is "Violent Politics," a new book by the iconoclastic historian William R. Polk. He examines 10 insurgencies through history - from the American Revolution to the Irish struggle for independence to the Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation - to make a stunningly simple point, which we managed to forget in Iraq: People don't like to be told what to do by outsiders. "The very presence of foreigners, indeed, stimulates the sense first of apartness and ultimately of group cohesion." Foreign intervention offends people's dignity, Polk reminds us. That's why insurgencies are so hard to defeat.People will fight to protect their honor even - and perhaps, especially - when they have nothing else left....But if foreign governments try to make people do the right thing, it won't work. They have to do it for themselves."
Not so long ago the US fought off the British occupiers. We didn't adopt their government which is that of a constitutional monarchy of a parliamentary form with the monarch being regarded as the head of state but the prime minister, whose power derives directly or indirectly from elections, is head of government.
Maybe the "intellectual incurious" one thinks that if he tries to steal powers that aren't his with his radical "unitary executive" usurpation of the powers of
the other branches will protect him from future problems, but he's wrong! His crimes would cause any moral being to suffer extensive psychological trauma, but not big bro 43. He is without remorse, and he's stacked a lot of lies and also the US Supreme Court, but he'll have his day in court somewhere along the way! You don't lie and cherry-pick intelligence for a war that the UN didn't sanction,without breaking a fair share of US and international laws.
You don't dismantle civil rights of US citizens either and that's exactly what W is doing. The article "Surveillance Update" at
states "The House considers a balanced bill on collecting foreign intelligence.
WHEN IT comes to updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for a new technological age, the Bush administration refuses to take yes for an answer.
The House is poised this week to take up a carefully crafted revision to the law that addresses the administration's valid complaint about the old statute: that because of technological changes in international communications, intelligence agencies were being required to go through the time-consuming process of obtaining court orders to eavesdrop on foreign targets. The measure produced by the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees would alleviate the burden of obtaining individualized warrants in such situations while still maintaining a critical oversight role for the FISA court. Instead of having to seek warrants on a case-by-case basis, intelligence agencies would be able to obtain blanket, year-long orders from the court for such surveillance programs. However, the FISA court would have to approve the procedures under which that surveillance is conducted--specifically, to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of Americans whose communications with foreigners happen to be intercepted.
The administration, however, has deemed this sensible change unacceptable.
Instead, it wants lawmakers simply to make permanent the overly broad statute rushed into law before Congress left for its August recess. That law virtually eliminates any meaningful role for the FISA court and largely relies on
intelligence agencies to police themselves.
The administration says that FISA wasn't intended to cover the collection of intelligence information overseas. That is correct, but many of the communications are being intercepted in the United States and, more important,
may involve U.S. citizens. In that situation, and with telephone and e-mail communications between the U.S. and foreign countries far more common than when FISA was enacted in 1978, it is reasonable to bring the court into the picture.
The measure strikes an appropriate balance between the demands of some civil liberties groups for individualized warrants and the administration's desire for sweeping authority."
Why doesn't W accept this Democrat compromise? It is 99% of what he wants, but he wants it his way and won't accept any different wordings. Rove probably has some trick up his sleeve.
The Democrat's legislation also doesn't want to give telecommunications companies "retroactive immunity from being sued," but this doesn't merit being a show-stopper by itself, and the democrats would probably compromise. They have suggested that if the vile W regime gave them
documentation behind this crime against US citizens that they would give W the ability to tell his "Ranger" and "Pioneer" CEO cronies in the telecommunications
industries a free pass, but W doesn't deign to make concessions with the commoners in the Legislative branch!
W should not be allowed to sell our military might to our enemies either as the article "U.S. Military Technology Being Exported Illegally Is a Growing Concern" at
notes "Pentagon investigators thought they had discovered a major shipment of contraband when they intercepted parts for F-14 Tomcat warplanes headed to Iran, via FedEx, from Southern California. Under U.S. sanctions since its 1979 revolution, Tehran had been trying for years to illegally obtain spare parts for the fighters, which are used only in Iran.
But when agents descended on the Orange County, Calif., home of Reza Tabib, the 51-year-old former flight instructor at John Wayne Airport who sent the shipment, they were astonished to discover 13,000 other aircraft parts, worth an estimated $540,000, as well as a list of additional requests by an Iranian military officer and two airplane tickets for Tehran.
Caught red-handed, the Iranian-born American citizen pleaded guilty in May and was sentenced to two years in prison.
The Tabib tale is among a growing array of cases either under investigation or being prosecuted for illegally exporting sensitive military equipment, from missile parts and body armor to nuclear submarine technology, according to the Justice Department. Many are destined for groups or countries that target the United States and its allies, such as night-vision equipment destined for Iran
and for Lebanon's Hezbollah, and components for improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, used against U.S. troops in Iraq."
Isn't this same startlingly identical to the Dubai controversy? For his Middle East shipping cronies, even if they were from Islamic countries who W has labeled as those "who are against us", W will toss away our safety! His cronies always line his pockets and 43 assumes he'll need big-time lawyers for the foreseeable future! W doesn't let our security bother him if there is a buck to be made! Two
of the hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks came from Dubai, the United Arab Emirates chief port and laundered some of their money through its banking system. It was also the transshipment point for Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani
nuclear engineer who ran the world's largest nuclear proliferation ring from warehouses near the port, met Iranian officials there, and shipped centrifuge equipment, which can be used to enrich uranium, from there to Libya.
The article continues "At least 108 countries have "full-fledged procurement networks that work through front companies, joint ventures, trade delegations and other mechanisms to methodically target our government, our private industries and our universities as sources of this material," Assistant Attorney General Kenneth L. Wainstein told reporters last week.....
The problem of military technology illegally exported abroad "is a threat carried out in the shadows, and it does not raise the same level of alarm as the violence of a terrorist attack or the sword-rattling of a belligerent rogue state," Wainstein said. "But it is a very serious threat, nonetheless."
One of the former favorites of big bro 43, retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, is developing a conscience-which is always a bad thing if you have been
played by the GOP. They don't give out merit badges. They deal in death.
The article "Top US general hits out at lack of planning behind Iraq war" at
states "A retired general who led US forces in Iraq at the start of the insurgency has indicated that he may name and shame the individuals in the Bush administration he blames for a "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan".
Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez has delivered one of the most damning assessments of US policy in Iraq, becoming the most senior war commander to do so. "There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," he told reporters in Arlington, Virginia.
The White House responded with a statement that though there was more work to be done in Iraq, progress was being made. But what might cause anxiety within the administration was the veiled threat contained in Gen Sanchez's comments to identify individuals.
Asked by reporters to say who he blamed for the chaos in US policy, he declined, but added: "More to follow later."
Gen Sanchez's threat chimes with speculation that he is planning to write a book about his experiences as chief of the US-led forces in 2003/4 during a period that saw the flaring of the early anti-American insurgency and the outbreak of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.
Were he to put his criticisms down on paper he would join a growing line of former officials who have played out their disgruntlement with the Bush administration in book form. They include Paul Bremer, Gen Sanchez's civilian
counterpart in Iraq, who published My Year in Iraq in January 2006, and George Tenet, the former CIA director, who accused the Bush administration of deciding to invade Iraq with little or no debate.
Critics may accuse him of sour grapes should he seek to take his criticisms to a more personal level."
That last remark might seem to be hyperbole, but if you understand the vileness that is W's core, it seems merely prescient.
At CNN.com the transcript for October 14th 2007 "Late Edition" at
has Wolf Blitzer interviewing a W supporter, the leading member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.