George W and his regime are increasingly seen, by many people around the world, as a danger to decent civilised standards.
News that he had discussed a plan to bomb the Al-Jazeera satellite channel's headquarters in Qatar, while not surprising, is nonetheless horrifying.
We are talking here of the self appointed saviours of the free world, the President and administration of the USA. Those wild adventurers, who in the name of a war on terrorism have put us all into personal peril of savage reprisal.
Bush's alleged comments about bombing Al-Jazeera's building in Doha are reported to be contained in a note of the meeting, with Britain’s Tony Blair, at the White House on April 16 last year.
Fortunately leaders of other allied countries face far more thorough scrutiny and criticism that that allowed in the US.
Criticism is not met, as in the US, with personal attack and vilification. The kind of attacks, on the likes of Murtha in the US, those who would question policy, would be a costly political exercise.
What is curious is that a country which glories in the language of free speech and free press is so ready to be cowered by their own leaders who demonstrate a willingness to attack those very freedoms at home and elsewhere.
Strategically, in the so called ‘war on terrorism’ the fact of the plan, revelations aside, evidences an unspoken agenda by the Bush covin.
Al-Jazeera is not friendly to the Bush administration, but that does not mean they are actively supporting terror campaign.
They are journalists, reporting events to their readership, as they perceive them. Much like US media outlets, which tailor the news you get, filtering out anything which might give cause for doubt.
The US administration would have us believe that all Islamists are terrorists, but Al-Jazeera does not hold the reverse, they simply report the truth they see.
There have been strong suspicions that their offices in Kabul and Baghdad were deliberately targeted by the Pentagon in 2001 and 2003 respectively.
This leaked memo gives currency to those suspicions, and widens the rift created by the ill-founded strategies to date.
The scandals surrounding the Washington political establishment are a mix of, terror related, double dealing and financial plunder.
That in itself creates a picture of policies based, not in security and freedom, but personal gain and enrichment of the elite few.
Again, I give thanks to those of other countries who simply won’t wear bullying of a crooked leadership. Time and again, these revelations come from outside the US and are largely ignored inside. I wager that this the White ‘House of Cards’ is about to fall.
Postmodernism
3 weeks ago
5 comments:
Just commenting on a small part of your larger argument.
Interestingly, I think the attacks on Murtha backfired, not just in the obvious way that it made republicans look bad, but also in that in the Republican attack, they repeated again and again that any sort of withdrawal would be surrender.
By calling for redeployment, he created a situation where the Republican side of Congress predictably attacked him, saying that any withdrawal would be a sign of weakness. Now, the president will have to meet a nearly impossible threshold of success to characterize bringing the troops home as a victory.
If this is the case, this is brilliant jiu jitsu. He played on the Republican's preferred tactic of attack to lead them to a position of imbalance.
And notice, he chose the moment when the President was in China, and presidential staff was spread around the world unable to coordinate a response.
Mike
http://bornatthecrestoftheempire.blogspot.com/
Mike,
I humbly bow to your wonderful insight. The mutterings I have heard reflected a win for the Bush camp.
Of course, a week is a long time in politics and yours is a longer view.
I must say I admire the logic. Thank you.
Thanks for stopping by.
First of all, I think the claim that Bush discussed this is bogus, but it might be legitimate.
Secondly, you said the consideration of striking al jazeera was horrifying and that they don't actively support terrorism. I would argue they do support the insurgency. They are the biggest propaganda mill in the entire Mid-East. I would not mind if they were taken out.
Thanks for stopping by.
First of all, I think the claim that Bush discussed this is bogus, but it might be legitimate.
Secondly, you said the consideration of striking al jazeera was horrifying and that they don't actively support terrorism. I would argue they do support the insurgency. They are the biggest propaganda mill in the entire Mid-East. I would not mind if they were taken out.
But of course. And why should I expect anything different?
I am sorry, however, to inform you that regardless of your doubts to veracity of the claim, they are now well supported.
As to the allegations against al jazeera, I would like to see some proof of that. To my eyes they are no more terrorist supporters than the Fox News. But then, Fox do support the Bush administration, so that is a mute point.
Post a Comment