The Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, had covered with gifts the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her historic visit to Tripoli in September last year, according to a State Department report released Thursday.

Colonel Qaddafi, who did not hide his admiration for the woman he called “Leezza” or “my little black African woman”, has offered a particular diamond ring and a pendant decorated with his portrait, according to the report on gifts received by the official for the U.S. administration in 2008, published in the Federal Register, the American official journal.

First head of U.S. diplomacy to visit Libya since 55 years, Ms. Rice has also been given a musical instrument from the hands of the Libyan leader at their meeting on 5 September, the report, which assesses all those present at 212,225 dollars.

John Maxwell

Jamaican Observer, May 24, 2009

History is littered with treachery. In the noisome Slough of Dishonour are mired thousands of reputations, most of those who betrayed their own countries, like Pierre Laval, Vidkun Quisling, Jonas Savimbi and Augusto Pinochet.

JOHN MAXWELL

The deepest pits, though, the most purulent sinks, are reserved for those who have ranged abroad to betray and sabotage strangers, to inflict unnecessary suffering on people who have never given them cause for complaint. People like Leopold of Belgium, Neville Chamberlain, Hitler, Ariel Sharon and George W Bush spring readily to mind. On Monday, former President Clinton announced that he would accept an invitation from the UN secretary general, Ban Ki Moon of South Korea, to become the SG’s personal envoy in Haiti. It is an appointment that will end in disaster. I mention Ban Ki Moon’s nationality because I believe that the disaster that already exists in Haiti is the result of a culture clash which is entirely incomprehensible to most people outside the Western hemisphere and not easily understood by most people outside the international crime scene that has been created in Haiti.

Ground Zero for Modern Civilisation

It is my contention that the modern world was born in Haiti. When you understand that the modern rotary printing press is a direct descendant of mills made to grind sugar you may begin to get the drift of my argument. Since I am not a historian my arguments will not be subtle and nuanced. I am simply presenting a few crude facts which, however you interpret them, will lead inexorably, I believe, to the conclusion that modern ideas of liberty and freedom, modern capitalism and globalisation of production and exchange, would have spent much longer in gestation had it not been for the black slaves of Haiti who abolished slavery and the slave trade. In the process they defeated the armies of the leading world powers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, destroyed the French empire in the western hemisphere, doubled the size and power of the United States and incidentally promoted the European sugar beet industry and revolutionised European farming.

The problem with all this, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is that had the Haitians been ethnically European, their achievements would now suffuse the world narrative; conversely, had Spartacus been black, he would long ago have faded into the mists of barbarian myth. The Haitians and all the other blacks of the Western hemisphere were uprooted from their native grounds, their civilisations laid waste, and they themselves transported to unknown lands in which they were forced to create unexampled riches and luxury for their rapists and despoilers.

For reasons lost to history, the blacks in Haiti and Jamaica were, for most of their captivity, the most unwilling subjects and continued to fight for their freedom for more than three centuries. The Enlightenment and its prophets and philosophers popularised the ideas of freedom and liberty, the rights of man. Nowhere was freedom taken more seriously than by the Haitians, who, described as Frenchmen, fought valiantly for American freedom in that nation’s Revolutionary War of Independence. When Revolution convulsed France in turn, the Haitians threw their support to those they thought were fighting for freedom. When that proved a false trail, the Haitians continued to fight, defeating the French, British and Spanish armies sent to re-enslave them.

Although the Americans and the French said they believed in freedom, they formed an unholy combination to restrict Haiti’s liberty. The fact of Haitian freedom frightened the Americans and other world powers. Haiti promised freedom to any captive who set foot on her soil and armed, provisioned and supplied trained soldiers to Simon Bolivar for the liberation of South America. Nearly 200 years before the United Nations (and France and the USA), Haiti proclaimed Universal Human Rights, threatening the slave societies in America and the Caribbean. Haiti’s freedom was compromised by French and American financial blackmail, and as I’ve said before, what the Atlantic powers could not achieve by force of arms they achieved by compound interest. Haiti was the first heavily indebted poor country, and the United States, Canada, France and the multilateral financial organisations, the World Bank, the InterAmerican Development Bank and the IMF have worked hard to keep her in that bondage.

In this March 10, 2009 file photo, former US President Bill Clinton greets United Nations workers in Port-au-Prince. The United Nations recently named Clinton as its special envoy to Haiti, with a mission to help the impoverished nation achieve some measure of stability after devastating floods and other crises. (Photo: AP)

Eventually, 93 years ago, the Americans invaded Haiti, destroyed the constitution, the government and their social system. American Jim Crow segregation and injustice destroyed the Haitian middle class, enhanced and exacerbated class distinctions and antagonisms and left Haiti a ravaged, dysfunctional mess, ruled by a corrupt American-trained military in the interest of a small, corrupt gang of mainly expatriate or white capitalists, ready to support any and every murderous dictator who protected their interests.

Finally, 20 years ago, the Haitians rose up and overthrew the Duvaliers and the apprentice dictators who followed. In their first free election the Haitians elected a black parish priest of small stature, the man whose words and spirit had embodied their struggle. But the real rulers of Haiti, the corrupt, bloodthirsty capitalists with their American passports and their bulletproof SUVs, had no intention of letting Haitians exercise the universal human rights their leaders had proclaimed two centuries before.

When Jean Bertrand Aristide was deposed after a few months in office, it was with the help of the CIA, USAID, and other American entities. Then ensued one of the most disgraceful episodes in the long, unsavoury history of diplomacy. Bill Clinton – elected president promising to treat the Haitian refugees as human beings – elected instead to observe the same barbarous policies as George Bush I, and when the refugees became a flood, Clinton’s answer was more illegality. He parked two massive floating slave barracoons in Kingston Harbour where refugees picked up in Jamaican waters were, with the craven connivance of the Patterson government, denied asylum, captured and processed and 22 per cent of them selected for the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp while the rest were returned to their murderers in Haiti.

Eventually, largely due to pressure from black pressure groups in the US and crucially, a fast to the death begun by Randall Robinson, Clinton agreed to restore Aristide while General Colin Powell talked grandly of the soldier’s honour he shared with Haiti’s then murderer-in-chief, a scamp called Raoul Cedras. President Clinton made several pledges to Aristide and to Haiti, but history does not seem to record that any were kept. Had even a few been kept, Haiti may have been able to guarantee public security and to install some desperately needed infrastructure. Instead Haitians are still scooping water to drink from potholes in the street and stave off hunger with ‘fritters’ made from earth and cooking fat.

The Haitian Army, the most corrupt and evil public institution in the western hemisphere, was abolished by Aristide, to the displeasure of the North American powers. Now that the Americans have deposed Aristide for the second time, security is in the hands of a motley mercenary army, a UN peacekeeping force. Security in Haiti is so good that three years ago, the then head of this force, a Brazilian general, was found shot to death after a friendly chat with Haitian elites. The rapes, massacres, disappearances and kidnappings continue unabated and the only popular political force, the Fanmi Lavalas, has been effectively neutered. President Clinton “will aim to attract private and government investment and aid for the poor Caribbean island nation”, according to Clinton’s office and a senior UN official. “A UN official said that Clinton would act as a ‘cheerleader’ for the economically distressed country, cajoling government and business leaders into pouring fresh money into a place that is largely dependent on foreign assistance.”

It all sounds so nice and cozy, a poor, black ‘hapless’ nation under the tutelage of the rich and civilised of the earth. I am prepared to bet that neither Haitian democracy nor Bill Clinton’s reputation will survive this appointment. Democracy is impossible without popular participation and decision making. In Haiti, democracy is impossible without Lavalas and Aristide. If Haiti itself is to survive, the UN General Assembly needs to seize this baton from the spectacularly unqualified and ignorant Security Council and its very nice and affable secretary general, even less attuned to Haitian reality than the last SG, Kofi Annan and his accomplices, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, PJ Patterson and Patrick Manning.

Copyright -2009 John Maxwell jankunnu@gmail.com

Aluno da 4a série questiona Condoleezza sobre tortura

I recall a bit from a Seinfeld episode that involved a bedroom technique known only as “the move.” It was apparently a very potent and successful “move,” indeed:

Elaine: I was with David *Putty* last night.

Jerry: Yeah, so.

Elaine: He did the move.

Jerry: What move?

Elaine: You know…*the* move.

Jerry: Wait a second. *My* move?

[Elaine nods].

Jerry: David Putty used *my* move?

Elaine: Yes, yes.

Jerry: Are you sure?

Elaine: Jerry! There is no confusing *that* move with any other move.

Jerry: I can’t believe it. He *stole* my move.

Elaine: What else did you tell [reaches over to slap Jerry] him. [does it

again] The two of you must have had *quite* a little chat!

Jerry: Oh, it wasn’t like that! I didn’t even mention you. You know, we

were in the garage. You know how garages are. They’re conducive to sex

talk. It’s a high-testosterone area.

Elaine: Because of all the pistons and the lube jobs?

Jerry: Well, I’m going down to that garage and telling him to stop doing it.

Elaine: Well, wait—wait a second.

Jerry: What?

Elaine: Isn’t that a little…rash?

Jerry: No! He stole my move!

Elaine: Yeah, but…*I* like the move.

Jerry: Yeah, but it’s like another comedian stealing my material.

Elaine: Well, he doesn’t even do it exactly the same. He–he–he uses a

pinch at the end instead of the *swirl*!

Jerry: Oh, yeah. The pinch. *I’ve* done the pinch. That’s not new.

Well, with that that long bit of introduction, the Democrats have their very own “move,” – an extremely potent and successful “move” – and they are clearly angry that Republicans are beginning to steal their move.

The Democrat’s “move” – by the way – is demonization.  It’s their move, they’ve used it to great effect for the last twenty years or so, and they don’t want their rivals using it.

Here’s a little story to illustrate the Democrat’s and their “move”:

It Takes One to Know One
“Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon, one of the most prominent Catholic conservative intellectuals in the United States, announced yesterday that she would refuse a prestigious award from the University of Notre Dame rather than appear on the same platform on which President Obama is being awarded an honorary degree,” the Boston Globe reports.

The Globe notes that not all Catholics are unhappy with Notre Dame’s plan to give the president an honorary degree:

“There are some well-meaning people who think Notre Dame has given away its Catholic identity, because they have been caught up in the gamesmanship of American higher education, bringing in a star commencement speaker even if that means sacrificing their values, and that accounts for some of this,” said the Rev. Kenneth Himes, chairman of theology department at Boston College. “But one also has to say that there is a political game going on here, and part of that is that you demonize the people who disagree with you, you question their integrity, you challenge their character, and you brand these people as moral poison. Some people have simply reduced Catholicism to the abortion issue, and, consequently, they have simply launched a crusade to bar anything from Catholic institutions that smacks of any sort of open conversation.”

Now read this 2006 Associated Press dispatch:

Nearly 100 faculty members at Boston College have signed a letter objecting to the college’s decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree.

The letter entitled “Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree,” was written by the Rev. Kenneth Himes. . . .

“On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice’s approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College’s commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university’s work,” the letter said.

Himes, it seems, is an expert on demonization.

Kenneth Himes lectures us: How DARE you do what I did to you!  There must be something morally WRONG with you!!!  Demonization is “OUR” move, and you can’t steal it!

Well, as Obama folk like to say, “YES, WE CAN!”

Being a liberal means being a hypocrite.  Hypocrisy defines liberals; their shriveled little souls swim in it.  And part of being a total hypocrite means having the pathological ability to be perfectly at home with their own massive contradictions.

For instance, liberals are “tolerant,” which means they lash out and demonize anyone who doesn’t think exactly like them – in the name of “tolerance.”

A few other examples of liberal hypocrisy:

Liberals support high taxes on the rich.  As long as it is understood that they have no expectation to pay such taxes themselves.  Ask pretty much anyone on Barack Obama’s cabinet.  Liberals like “Turbo Tax” Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Ron Kirk, Hilda Solis, Nancy Kelleher, and Kathleen Sebelius.  And that doesn’t include Congressional Democrats such as Charles Rangel – who is writing YOUR tax laws even as he cheats on HIS taxes.  And don’t forget the mantra from Rangel’s former fellow member of the House Ways and Means Committee William Jefferson: “FBI sting money hidden in freezers is NOT taxable.”

Liberals claim that it is the rich’s “patriotic duty” to pay a shockingly high percentage of total income taxes while simultaneously pandering to the clearly unpatriotic – by their own standard – 42% of Americans who pay NO federal income taxes at all.

Liberals claim that they are generous and conservatives are stingy; yet the facts demand the exact OPPOSITE conclusion.  The fact of the matter is that conservatives are FAR more “liberal” givers than liberals.  Conservatives give 30% more than liberals even though liberals earn slightly more.  And religious conservatives give THREE AND A HALF TIMES more of their income to charities than secular liberals.  If you’d like some particular cases, consider the loathsome lack of personal generosity displayed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden relative to the extremely generous conservatives like Dick Cheney, George Bush, and John McCain.

Liberals love racial diversity – as long as they can continue demonizing black conservatives such as Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, and Condoleezza Rice as “Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimahs” or “race traitors.”  Janeane Garafalo is completely free to be a hard-core racist, just as long as the minorities she viciously attacks are conservatives.  Newsweek Magazine -  in wholehearted agreement with Garafalo – literally argued that whites who don’t vote for Obama are racist.

In the same vein, liberals are pro-woman – just as long as “women” are defined as “liberal feminist”; otherwise, they hand out the Sarah Palin treatment (e.g., “Palin: Bad Mother, Bad Woman”).  Ultimately, of course, Sarah Palin is a “bad mother” for allowing her baby born with Down Syndrome to live.

Liberals stand for the helpless and oppressed victim: as long as that helpless and oppressed victim isn’t a baby having his brains sucked out.  Meanwhile liberals attack conservatives as not caring about the poor, even though – as has already been pointed out – conservatives are in fact FAR more generous than liberals (example 1, example 2).

Liberals continually decry the “rightwing smear machine” even as they have hard-core hate sites such as Moveon.org, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos – which DWARF anything even remotely compatible on the right.   The primary funding comes from documented Nazi collaborator George Soros, an American-sovereignty-undermining trans-nationalist who has made his billions undermining currencies all over the world – including America’s.  And his friends have been just as bad.  And Soros and friends such as Peter Lewis, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler have used their massive fortunes to ensure that NOBODY smears like the left: think “General Betray Us.”

Liberals “interpret” the Constitution to find “penumbras and emanations” that they allege mandate a constitutional and sacred right to abortion on demand, but twist and contort the English language until the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give the people the right to bear arms.

Liberals demand socialized medicine.  Michael Moore made a ton of money demonizing America’s privatized system and claiming that Cuba’s socialized medicine was better; yet when that fat SOB needed heart surgery, he elected to go to Cleveland rather than Cuba.  Even more glaring, Belinda Stronach of the Canadian Parliament opposed even allowing private medicine in Canada; but when she was diagnosed with breast cancer she came to the United States to obtain the very thing she denied her fellow citizens from having.

As to the death penalty for convicted murderers, liberals argue that inserting a hypodermic needle into the vein of a death row inmate constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, yet insist that sucking the  brains out of a viable baby whose head is sticking out of a birth canal is compassionate.

They also say that a 13 year old girl should be able to have an abortion without her parents’ consent, then tell parents that they face jail if they don’t ensure that that same 13 year old girl doesn’t miss school (with attendance being the barometer for public school funding).

Liberals demand that they be able to teach issues such as homosexuality in the guise of open-mindedness and diversity, but come absolutely unglued if any school board so much as suggest that evolution is only a theory rather than a law, let alone present any alternative to evolution whatsoever.

On the subject of evolution as it relates to morality, liberals denounce any dependence on the natural law (grounded in a transcendent Creator God) as the only basis for objective morality, and then impose one utterly subjective moral norm after another.  In so doing, they literally subjective natural law and objectivize their own highly subjective moral preferences.

Liberals demand that all children go to government schools and fight any effort to provide vouchers to parents, and then send their own children to private schools.  For all of liberals’ indignant outrage concerning “the children,” the fact is that the teachers’ unions are far more important than the education of children.   Barack Obama ensured that children like Marquis Greene couldn’t go to his daughters’ Sidwell Friends School.

Liberals take private jets to denounce people for being polluters.

Liberals claim that whether the Antarctic ice sheet grows or whether it shrinks, it still proves global warming.

Liberals lampooned President Bush for his verbal gaffes, and yet idolize the “sublime speaking ability” of a man who can’t so much as say, “Good morning” without reading from a teleprompter screen.  Barack Obama has already used his teleprompter FAR more in just his first 100 days than George Bush did in his entire 8 year term.

Liberals repeatedly (falsely) claimed that Jefferson said “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” when conservatives attacked their lack of patriotism.  They were terribly upset with any insinuation that they might be unpatriotic – because when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed defeat in Iraq (QUOTE: “I believe that this war is lost” UNQUOTE) even as our troops were in the field fighting to prevail, he was surrendering as a “patriot.”  And when John Murtha proclaimed Marines who turned out to be innocent of murderous war crimes in Haditha, his demonization of our Marines was “patriotic.” Now, of course, Democrats are all over themselves labeling Republican opposition to their socialist agenda as “unpatriotic.”

As for liberals’ view on patriotism, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words – when that picture is a cartoon drawn by Ted Rall:

Let’s see: racial hatred directed at white males.  Check.  Cynicism of the patriotism that would make a young man fight for his country.  Check.  Mockery of religion.  Check.  Contempt for America as a country of suicide bombers.  Check.

Or another liberal cartoon.  America as viewed through the warped lenses of the liberal New York Times: the Statue of Liberty swinging a whip at the poor, tired, huddled masses.

As liberals now demand that conservatives stop using “their move,” realize that they will NEVER stop using it themselves.  It is simply who they are.  So we might as well sick their own dog on them – and let us make sure that dog is foaming at the mouth when it bites them back.

Carrie Prejean, 1st Runner-up
Originally uploaded by vrysxy

I flipped on the TV Sunday night to find the Miss USA Pageant in it’s “Q & A” period. I had stopped watching beauty pageants some time in the late 80’s, when it was regular family viewing for most American families. While my toddler sat in her high-chair playing with her dinner, I asked myself, “Will I want Reagan to grow up watching these pageants the way I did,” “is this the image I want her to have of what a woman should be?” and “is this relevant to my daughter today?” I considered whether or not I should change the channel even now. But, before I could do so, the questions being asked caught my attention. These were topical questions dealing with the real issues of the day, such as should the government bail out bankrupt companies and should same-sex marriage be legal in all 50 states? The later being the shock of the evening when Miss California, Carrie Prejean, stated her own personal belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. “Well,” I said to myself, “that’s it for her. She’s done.” I was then committed to finding out what her fate would be. After all, this is the ultimate public platform for political correctness – “creating world peace” and “ending world hunger” – is it not? And, didn’t she know who was asking the question? Perez Hilton! Either this woman was very brave, or very stupid. She had to know. Therefore, I could only conclude that she had spoken her conscience knowing full well it would mean her demise. Such conviction is to be applauded in a time when saying what you know people want to hear to get ahead seems to be the rule. Bucking that rule has catapulted Prejean into instant hero status.

Prejean gave me the answer to my original question, “Is this relevant to my daughter today?” I instantly decided why not allow Reagan to see what beauty combined with poise, grace, confidence, talent and intelligence looks like? Are those not all the things we want our daughters to grow up to be? Yes, we’ve come a long way, and there are plenty of examples of these qualities for our daughters to look up to now: Oprah, Condoleezza and Sarah Palin to name just a few. Two of those three were former beauty pageant queens themselves. Didn’t work out so bad for them, did it?

ABC News

Robert Parry, March 5, 2009, www.consortiumnews.com

New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof – like many of his American colleagues – is applauding the International Criminal Court’s arrest order against Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for his role in the Darfur conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of lives.

In his Thursday column, Kristof describes the plight of an eight-year-old boy named Bakit who blew off his hands picking up a grenade that Kristof suspects was left behind by Bashir’s forces operating on the Chad side of the border with Sudan.

“Bakit became, inadvertently, one more casualty of the havoc and brutality that President Bashir has unleashed in Sudan and surrounding countries,” Kristof wrote. “So let’s applaud the I.C.C.’s arrest warrant, on behalf of children like Bakit who can’t.”

By all accounts, Kristof is a well-meaning journalist who travels to dangerous parts of the world, like Darfur, to report on human rights crimes. However, he also could be a case study of what’s wrong with American journalism.

While Kristof writes movingly about atrocities that can be blamed on Third World despots like Bashir, he won’t hold U.S. officials to the same standards.

Most notably, Kristof doesn’t call for prosecuting former President George W. Bush for war crimes, despite hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush’s illegal invasion of their country. Many Iraqi children also don’t have hands – or legs or homes or parents.

But no one in a position of power in American journalism is demanding that former President Bush join President Bashir in the dock at The Hague.

Tortured Commission

As for the unpleasant reality that Bush and his top aides authorized torture of “war on terror” detainees, Kristof suggests only a Republican-dominated commission, including people with close ties to the Bush Family and to Bush’s first national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

“It could be co-chaired by Brent Scowcroft and John McCain, with its conclusions written by Philip Zelikow, a former aide to Condoleezza Rice who wrote the best-selling report of the 9/11 commission,” Kristof wrote in a Jan. 29 column entitled “Putting Torture Behind Us.”

“If the three most prominent members were all Republicans, no one on the Right could denounce it as a witch hunt — and its criticisms would have far more credibility,” Kristof wrote.

“Democrats might begrudge the heavy Republican presence on such a commission, but surely any panel is better than where we’re headed: which is no investigation at all. …

“My bet, based on my conversations with military and intelligence experts, is that such a commission would issue a stinging repudiation of torture that no one could lightly dismiss.”

In an earlier formulation of this plan, Kristof suggested that the truth commission be run, in part, by Bush’s first Secretary of State Colin Powell.

One of the obvious problems with Kristof’s timid proposal is that Rice and Powell were among the senior Bush officials who allegedly sat in on meetings of the Principals Committee that choreographed the abuse and torture of specific detainees.

Zelikow remained a close associate of Rice even after she replaced Powell as Secretary of State. And Scowcroft was President George H.W. Bush’s national security adviser and one of Rice’s key mentors.

It’s also not true that any investigation is always better than no investigation. I have witnessed cover-up investigations that not only failed to get anywhere near the truth but tried to discredit and destroy whistleblowers who came forward with important evidence. [For examples, see Secrecy & Privilege.]

In other words, bogus and self-interested investigations can advance bogus and self-interested history, which only emboldens corrupt officials to commit similar crimes again.

No Other Context

Kristof’s vision of having President Bush’s friends, allies and even co-conspirators handle the investigation of Bush’s crimes would be considered laughable if placed in any other context.

But Kristof’s cockeyed scheme passes almost as conventional wisdom in today’s Washington.

On Wednesday, the Washington Post assigned its satirical writer, Dana Milbank, to cover – and mock – Sen. Patrick Leahy’s Judiciary Committee hearing on his own plan for a truth commission to examine Bush-era abuses.

Milbank’s clever article opened with the knee-slapping observation: “Let’s be truthful about it. Things aren’t looking so good for the Truth Commission.”

The derisive tone of the article also came as no surprise. Milbank has made a cottage industry out of ridiculing anyone who dares think that President Bush should be held accountable for his crimes.

In 2005, when the Democrats were in the minority and the Republicans gave Rep. John Conyers only a Capitol Hill basement room for a hearing on the Downing Street Memo’s disclosures about “fixed” intelligence to justify the Iraq War, Milbank’s column dripped with sarcasm.

“In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe,” Milbank wrote. “They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.”

And the insults – especially aimed at Conyers – kept on coming. The Michigan Democrat “banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him ‘Mr. Chairman,’” Milbank wrote snidely. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Mocking the Downing Street Memo.”]

Then, last July, Milbank ridiculed a regular House Judiciary Committee hearing on Bush’s abuses of presidential power. The column ignored the strong case for believing that Bush had violated a number of international and domestic laws, the U.S. Constitution, and honorable American traditions, like George Washington’s prohibition against torture.

Instead, it was time to laugh at the peaceniks. Milbank opened by agreeing with a put-down from Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, calling the session “an anger management class.” Milbank wrote: “House Democrats had called the session … to allow the left wing to vent its collective spleen.”

Milbank then insulted Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who had introduced impeachment resolutions against Bush, by calling the Ohio Democrat “diminutive” and noting that Kucinich’s wife is “much taller” than he is.

What Kucinich’s height had to do with an issue as serious as abuses of presidential power was never made clear. What Milbank did make clear, through his derisive tone and repeated insults, was that the Washington Establishment takes none of Bush’s crimes seriously.

So, Milbank’s mocking of Leahy’s latest initiative fits with this pattern of the past eight years – protecting Bush from the “nut cases” who think international law and war-crimes tribunals should apply to leaders of big countries as well as small ones.

The pattern of “American exceptionalism” also can be seen in Kristof cheering the application of international law against an African tyrant but suggesting that Bush’s offenses should be handled discreetly by his friends.

Journalist Murray Waas often used the saying, “all power is proximate.” I never quite understood what he meant, but my best guess was that Waas was saying that careerists – whether journalists or from other professions – might have the guts to take on someone far away or who lacked power, while ignoring or excusing similar actions by someone close by with the power to hurt them.

That seems to be especially true about Washington and its current cast of “respected” journalists. They can be very tough on President Bashir but only make excuses for President Bush.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’ are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

Friday 20 February 2009

»

Som jag tidigare skrev att om jag måste välja mellan de två skrämmande scenarierna:

Att Barack Obama slutar som:

-Richard Nixon

eller

-John F Kennedy

…så måste jag medge att jag skulle föredra Kennedys slut. Ja, helst slipper jag förstås välja, men trots att Obama i så fall alltså skulle dödas skulle en hel värld slippa känna sig förrådd. Och de där söta flickorna han är pappa till sen.
Men fan vad jobbig världen skulle bli, både om det ena eller det andra skedde!

Let’s just hope it won’t. Don’t be such a pessimist!

För du…fatta!:

Obama är president!

Det känns som om de åtta åren med Bush vore färre (tiden går fort då man har kul?). Jag minns så tydligt hur vi liksom uppgivet förfasades över Bush och USA för att allt annat tycktes omöjligt,orealistiskt och utopiskt. Jag minns hur vi utan tillstymmelse till hopp önskade oss “en svart kvinna” till makten. Och jag minns hur vi sedermera, då Condoleezza dök upp, bittert antog att hon var straffet vi fått för vårt naiva tänkande. Hur vi jämförde henne med Margret Thatcher, och hur vi kom på att det kanske inte är ett självändamål att hon ska vara varken kvinna eller svart: utan att det framförallt bör vara en vettig person.

Hur hela Europa* var överens:

“Det är hopplöst: Amerikaner är korkade och de styr världen for ever and ever.”

Men nu då? Obama verkar ju så europeisk, mer än så, han känner världen. Som utlandsboende tror jag att det är oerhört viktigt att sätta sitt eget land i perspektiv**.

Speciellt om man ska ha mest makt i världen.

Afrika för Guds skull! Hans pappa var ingen afro-amerikan, han var afrikan rätt och slätt. Och gossen hans inte bara levererar fantastiska tal som inger hopp, han verkar smart under vanliga intervjuer också, rent spontant. Och rolig därpå! Kan de korkade amerikanerna verkligen rösta på en sån man? En rolig man? En man vars efternamn rimmar på Osama? En man vars mellannamn är Hussein? En man som är mulatt, vars fru är svart och deras döttrar likaså?

Nej, det trodde vi fanimig inte var möjligt!

Han gör nu saker vi rättfärdiga europeer* anser självklara att göra. Guantánamo är en omänsklig inrättning tycker de allra flesta på den här sidan atlanten och Obama han stänger. Folk klagar på att han inte gör det fort nog men det vore nog dumt. Det är ju fullt möjligt att många av de som sitter där inte alls är oskyldiga små lamm. Men mänskliga rättigheter ska alla ha, tycker vi europeer, eller*? Jävla problem att handskas med det där! Men Obama, han klarar det! (Obama klarar allt!)

Och är det inte ironiskt att Guantánamo-basen ligger på Kuba av alla öar?

Vi nöjer oss inte med annat än att Obama räddar världen.

OK -vi kanse också borde rädda lite värld, men mest Obama, så det så! Vi är så rädda att han ska ha lurat oss, att han ska bedra oss. Han har ju sagt att han ska älska oss för alltid så nu måste han göra det.

Men Obama gör misstag och kommer att göra fler misstag.Vi kommer inte att gilla allt han gör. Förälsken är starkast i början. Varar kärleken mer än tre år? Är han den Superhjälte vi kräver? Är han frälsaren?

Nej, frälsaren heter nog inte Barack.

Din egen frälsare är bara du.

* Nej, jag vet att inte hela Europa är pro-Obama, att många tycker att man ska tänka “vi och dom”, att “dom” för många är “muslimerna” och att krig och bomber är lösningen. Annars “daltas man med och tillåter terror”. De finns till och med en hel del -vad jag anser- vettig skepsism gentemot honom. För är han inte lite för bra för att vara sann? Och du -hade vi kanske fel då vi trodde att europeer är smartare en jänkarna? Kanske?

**Igår fick bloggaren och bloggläsaren “El Rubio” mig att tänka på hur viktigt det är med perspektiv. Han och jag tycker inte alltid detsamma, men han törs tänka både efter och om.

intressant.se

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om barack obama, USA, Guantánamo, europa, rasism, perspektiv, världen

                                                                                                               photo©annie leibovitz

Me la immagino mentre impartisce ordini: “Scusa  Julia (Roberts) scansati più a sinistra  di Al (Gore) … no, aspetta, manca qualcosa, portatemi una banda di 100 elementi che suonano la cornamusa cinese e dipingetemeli d’oro… tu George (Clooney) mettiti in mezzo a quella quindicina di modelle strafighe col sorriso tuo solito… ora andatemi a cercare un setting dove vedo tutta Manhattan e un pezzo di Giappone, mi servirebbe anche una piscina piena di Brunello di Montalcino del 1345 e costruitemi una zattera di marzapane su cui Carla Bruni possa navigare con indosso un abito da 70 milioni di dollari…” E’ bello essere Annie Leibovitz, oggi. Bella anche la sua mostra fotografica esposta alla National Portrait Gallery di Londra fino al 1 febbraio. Ok, molte delle foto si conoscono già, dopotutto di copertine che hanno fatto la storia ne ha firmate una marea ma fa un bell’effetto trovarsele davanti in formato gigante. In mostra ci sono le foto commissionate per lavoro mischiate a quelle personali: tanto quando vedi indiscriminatamente tutto il mondo attraverso l’obiettivo della tua macchina fotografica, che differenza fa?

Col suo modo di lavorare, di collaborare e comunicare con i soggetti delle sue foto, ha creato uno stile tutto suo che l’ha resa una delle ritrattiste più famose del nostro tempo, se non la più famosa. Nel 1970 aveva iniziato scattando ritratti di rockstars per Rolling Stone, ben presto ne sarebbe diventata la photo editor, poi è passata a Vanity Fair e Vogue. La mostra raccoglie le foto dal 1990 al 2005 e guardando quelle immagini mi chiedevo cosa le rendesse così perfette anche quando volutamente ci infilava degli “errori”. Come i fan arancioni che ha voluto lasciare sul ritratto, qui sopra, dei White Stripes (angoli in basso a sinistra e a destra). Oppure quella ad Al Pacino, scattata su un negativo di polaroid, in cui lascia in vista il segno a terra messo per indicare la posizione al soggetto. A volte ti prende e ti sbatte davanti alla realtà, come nelle foto scattate ai genitori in fin di vita o quelle della salma di Susan Sontag, sua compagna e celebre autrice. Inquietante è il ritratto a Dennis Hopper e Christopher Walken, almeno quanto inquietanti sono i volti dei due soggetti, seduti uno di fianco all’altro, simmetrici in una asettica stanza d’albergo. Johnny Cash è diventato un nonno di famiglia, seduto sotto il porticato di casa (tipical Nashville style) accanto al nipote, la figlia che suona la chitarra e la moglie con l’arpa. I volti di Dick Cheney e Condoleezza Rice sono invece scattati con grandangolo e formato “wanted”. Insomma, ci vogliono le idee, tutto qui. Per semplici che siano, come infilare Whoopi Goldberg in una vasca piena di latte, mostrare il pancione incinta di Demi Moore, o lasciar Yoko Ono vestita accanto a un John Lennon nudo e raggomitolato su di lei. Adesso, ho detto una banalità? Forse, sono quasi le 4 di mattina e sono come al solito insonne e rincoionita. Ma la mostra della Leibovitz è gustosissima e mi fa venire voglia di pensare a quale ritratto farei per chicchesia (bella sta parola, chicchessia). Dove metterei Neil Young se mai dovesse chiamarmi per dei ritratti!?! O Tom Waits!?! Eeeh? Ok, vado ad abbattermi…

Last few days have been quite eventful. Satyam went bust, UNSC voted for ceasefire in Gaza strip, Hayden retired and I lost a kilo or something. All events, huge on their own.

Satyam Fiasco
It might sound a bit harsh but frankly speaking I could never have imagined in my wildest dreams that a person from down South could pull off such a scam. Admit it; South Indians are considered quiet naïve by us North Indians. We think they lack the shrewdness needed for such an occasion. For us from the North such things are nothing new, as one of my gujju friend rightly exclaimed, “This will go down as one of the few financial frauds in which no gujju is involved.” Going by the examples of Ketan Parekh and Harshad Mehta, this didn’t come to me as news. Let me admit it, People from South, I have been wrong till now. You guys are not so naïve after all and have full capabilities of performing such a scam and can take us guys from UP, Bihar or the Gujju stronghold, head on. Also there is a need for a personal apology to all my South Indian friends for my considering them naïve and at times un-sansarik. Sorry Manda, Vamsee, Ajay and company. I have been so very wrong.

UNSC vote on Israel
This was another case of male chauvinism post the master and slave poster of Singh is King in which Katrina was sitting on the floor with Akshay as King on the throne. Poor Condoleezza prepared and arranged this whole resolution and Bush, the master made just a call and she had to abstain from voting, being left thoroughly embarrassed. We can be quite sure such an embarrassment would not have been meted out to a male Secretary of State. Die Die feminism, long live male supremacy.

Hayden retired
At last God you granted my wish. I so love you God that I can even give you my dear cell phone, if you ask me right now. Finally someone, other that an Indian player, got not so great a farewell and had to be thrown out of the squad before retiring into oblivion. It used to pain me lot, seeing Kapil Dev, Azharuddin, Ganguly, Kumble etc carrying on painfully, admist calls for their retirement. Whereas Gilchrist, McGrath, Warne chose to retire at their peak. Damn you Australia, now.

I lost a kilo
This has been the story of my life. Losing few, Gaining lot. Still these are one of the few losses,  I love to enjoy.

Rice, who is at the invitation of Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, is slated to attend the activities marking the 30th anniversary of China-US diplomatic ties, Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.

With weeks to go before her job as secretary of state comes to an end, Condoleezza Rice said Monday she is looking for a new home near Stanford University in northern California, reports the AFP. 

With weeks to go before her job as secretary of state comes to an end, Condoleezza Rice said Monday she is looking for a new home near Stanford University in northern California, reports the AFP.