I am a recent blogger. I started in the last six months. I have been reading blogs since they first started showing up. Before I started a blog, I responded to some (still do of course). But before I started blogging, I started writing to the editorial page on my local daily.
I am a private person. Completely introvert. On the Myers-Briggs scale I peg the INFP rating in the INP categories. The F cat being a sex influenced one I out F many if not most females (hint: I am male). So anyway – understand: me <> spotlight. You can look it up INFP
I started writing to the editor on a certain date. Don’t recall it offhand but I can tell you what got to me. It was Abu Graib. It wasn’t what specifically happened AT Abu Graib that did it. I was disgusted by it. At the time it was a hint that it was official policy to allow torture and that pushed me into the ozone. But I didn’t write.
No, what got me was the fact that a grunt came forward to report it. He had to fight his chain of command. To my consternation I can’t find the soldier’s name. HE DESERVES A FREAKIN’ MEDAL. As I recall the guy was being vilified by the Right Wing Noise Machine for being a rat. The Abu Graib shit wasn’t as bad as all that they said. Rush equated it to frat house hijinx. That got to me.
My first letter to the editor said that the guy was a hero. I never dreamed at the time that MY AMERICA would fall so low. It has become a country that condones torture despite its own laws (but then I guess that is true of most of our brethren torturing countries).
I got a call at home after that letter was printed commending me on writing it.
I rarely read the letters to the editor in a newspaper. That is still true. I was surprised that someone did and felt strongly enough to let me know.
Since that time I have written many letters. The Bush Administration provides a wealth of material that will grate on a citizen’s conscience enough to get him to write. I did and do.
You should too.
I sometimes get stopped and told by people how much they appreciate my letters. I have even been commended on my “courage” for writing them. And I guess that is my point.
We have come to a point in our history when it is thought that merely stating one’s opinion on an editorial page is an act of courage. That is sad. I can attest that it isn’t true but I can understand how the poison in our political climate can make it appear so. I don’t know what I would do if real police came for people who wrote letters to the editor (I mean real police not those sent by Bill O’Reilly ).
So, my point – blog if you want but write letters. That is where you live. You will get people who disagree with you but you will get if not more then at least some people that agree. You become the voice for the voiceless and maybe more importantly you add to the critical mass of opinion where it counts – locally. It is only where we live that we can really change anything and we have to win our own backyard before we can wing the nation back.
So write dammit. Ok?
Saturday, March 25, 2006
We write letters
Below is the text of my most recent letter to the editor of my local daily. Not to be sanctimonious but are you writing to your local paper too?
We can read and blog all we want but really the bogosphere is largely a closed universe. Sure it leaks into the real world - like in the Dan Rather dustup. But not always. Will anyone in the real world hear about the Washington Post blog fiasco in hiring a serial plagerist as a conservative balance to Dan Froomkin? I'll kill the suspense -no.
So anyway, what I'm saying is. if you want to change something, change Main Street. And still the only way to do that is to do it locally. OK end of sermon. I'll have more to say about it. Here's the letter:
Mr. President, Iraq is George Bush’s War. Make no mistake. Despite the various rationales for starting this war: The central front on the war on terror; The march of democracy in the world; WMD; Oil; 9/11 – all of which (except maybe for oil) have been shown to be pipedreams, lies, or hallucinations- this is your war of choice, George Bush’s war.
At your most recent news conference you said that getting troops out of Iraq was for “future presidents” to decide (I noted the plural - presidents).
No, Mr. President. No, Mr. Commander-In-Chief-Because-I-Said-So. No.
Iraq is your war. It is the war of choice that you decided to wage. It is the war for which you decided that no lie was too egregious, that no callousness in calling dissenters of your plans traitors was too extreme, that no manipulation of the bogus color coded “terrorist alert” index was too spurious, that no national security leak to get back at your critics was too damaging to actual national security.
You recall that you told us how important it is for you to make the hard decisions. Amidst all your lies about Iraq, your lie about preserving and protecting the Constitution, you may recall how you said you struggled to make the decisions that you make. “It’s hard work.” Yes, you told us.
Well Mr. President, you must struggle a bit more.
Iraq is your war.
Over two thousand American soldiers in Iraq have been killed in your name. Many more Americans have been maimed in your name. You have crushed the lives of thousands of American families beyond that in your perverse need to pursue a war of lies by using America’s part time soldiers for full time combat three times over.
And you are exactly one international crisis from destroying our armed services outright.
Mr. President, Iraq is your failure, a failure that is your legacy to the American people and to history as surely as the crushing deficit that you will leave to generations is.
It is not up to “future presidents” to get American soldiers out of Iraq. What makes you think future American presidents will want to be known as the President That Lost Iraq? No, it is up to one President George W. Bush to get the American soldiers out of Iraq.
I know that you don’t want to do it – to admit that you have visited a disaster upon our nation and the world. I know too that the Congress will not make you do it. The rubber-stamp House and Senate leadership is too corrupt and too busy helping you dismantle what remains of our Constitutional government after all. And the members in Congress in both parties who refuse to hold you to account are equally culpable in allowing you to continue your assault on our nation’s well being.
But, Mr. President, this cup cannot be taken from your hand. The Iraq War is your war. Only you can honorably bring our American soldiers home.
We can read and blog all we want but really the bogosphere is largely a closed universe. Sure it leaks into the real world - like in the Dan Rather dustup. But not always. Will anyone in the real world hear about the Washington Post blog fiasco in hiring a serial plagerist as a conservative balance to Dan Froomkin? I'll kill the suspense -no.
So anyway, what I'm saying is. if you want to change something, change Main Street. And still the only way to do that is to do it locally. OK end of sermon. I'll have more to say about it. Here's the letter:
Mr. President, Iraq is George Bush’s War. Make no mistake. Despite the various rationales for starting this war: The central front on the war on terror; The march of democracy in the world; WMD; Oil; 9/11 – all of which (except maybe for oil) have been shown to be pipedreams, lies, or hallucinations- this is your war of choice, George Bush’s war.
At your most recent news conference you said that getting troops out of Iraq was for “future presidents” to decide (I noted the plural - presidents).
No, Mr. President. No, Mr. Commander-In-Chief-Because-I-Said-So. No.
Iraq is your war. It is the war of choice that you decided to wage. It is the war for which you decided that no lie was too egregious, that no callousness in calling dissenters of your plans traitors was too extreme, that no manipulation of the bogus color coded “terrorist alert” index was too spurious, that no national security leak to get back at your critics was too damaging to actual national security.
You recall that you told us how important it is for you to make the hard decisions. Amidst all your lies about Iraq, your lie about preserving and protecting the Constitution, you may recall how you said you struggled to make the decisions that you make. “It’s hard work.” Yes, you told us.
Well Mr. President, you must struggle a bit more.
Iraq is your war.
Over two thousand American soldiers in Iraq have been killed in your name. Many more Americans have been maimed in your name. You have crushed the lives of thousands of American families beyond that in your perverse need to pursue a war of lies by using America’s part time soldiers for full time combat three times over.
And you are exactly one international crisis from destroying our armed services outright.
Mr. President, Iraq is your failure, a failure that is your legacy to the American people and to history as surely as the crushing deficit that you will leave to generations is.
It is not up to “future presidents” to get American soldiers out of Iraq. What makes you think future American presidents will want to be known as the President That Lost Iraq? No, it is up to one President George W. Bush to get the American soldiers out of Iraq.
I know that you don’t want to do it – to admit that you have visited a disaster upon our nation and the world. I know too that the Congress will not make you do it. The rubber-stamp House and Senate leadership is too corrupt and too busy helping you dismantle what remains of our Constitutional government after all. And the members in Congress in both parties who refuse to hold you to account are equally culpable in allowing you to continue your assault on our nation’s well being.
But, Mr. President, this cup cannot be taken from your hand. The Iraq War is your war. Only you can honorably bring our American soldiers home.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
A change in the wind?
So the Washington Post hired themselves a blogger. A right winger - for balance doncha know. I guess it must be because newspapers are oh so leftie. Even my own local. The Portsmouth Herald several months ago hired a regular columnist – not a blogger but someone to write for the Sunday print edition. They call it The Conservative Corner.
Now, I for one do not think of the Portsmouth Herald is particularly liberal. It tends to be Chamber of Commerce safe in its editorials. But what I have found is that its letters page has become decidedly more left wing (full disclosure – I do my part).
It’s a phenomenon maybe. I do not equate my local daily with the Washington Post and I believe my local daily would not equate themselves thus. But there seems to be a certain resonance in their actions. I think they are in fact reactions.
What immediately comes to mind is that they are kowtowing to the right wing whinery. You know the constant railing against the liberal media. And to some degree that is probably the case. Not that the media is liberal, it is because the letters page has become decidedly more leftie.
That is the interesting part. I don’t know if this holds for the Washington Post but my un-empirical conclusion is that it is absolutely the case with my local daily. The letters that deal with national issues are very nearly all to the left. There are the few right ones but really even the Republican operatives have stopped writing in to defend the current state of this nation.
Some time ago there was a Midwest paper that actually put out the call for more pro-Bush right-wingers to write in because the letters page was getting too left heavy. And that was when Bush was popular.
The acknowledgement- putting a right winger on the payroll - is itself a victory for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And that is exactly what happened with my local daily and what has happened with the Washington Post. They are “balancing” meaining that they are pre-emptively caving to the right wing. They marching themselves to the re-education camp.
But there is a deeper truth here. If my anecdotal conclusion is correct that for my local daily the letters page is becoming tilted left and for the Post that the blogosphere that is attached to it is becoming tilted left, it suggests that there is a left tilt happening in reality.
If the news media pulp-edition and the news-media internets edition both need to self-censor – I mean "balance" because the public is tilting the other way then maybe there really is something happening here.
Now, I for one do not think of the Portsmouth Herald is particularly liberal. It tends to be Chamber of Commerce safe in its editorials. But what I have found is that its letters page has become decidedly more left wing (full disclosure – I do my part).
It’s a phenomenon maybe. I do not equate my local daily with the Washington Post and I believe my local daily would not equate themselves thus. But there seems to be a certain resonance in their actions. I think they are in fact reactions.
What immediately comes to mind is that they are kowtowing to the right wing whinery. You know the constant railing against the liberal media. And to some degree that is probably the case. Not that the media is liberal, it is because the letters page has become decidedly more leftie.
That is the interesting part. I don’t know if this holds for the Washington Post but my un-empirical conclusion is that it is absolutely the case with my local daily. The letters that deal with national issues are very nearly all to the left. There are the few right ones but really even the Republican operatives have stopped writing in to defend the current state of this nation.
Some time ago there was a Midwest paper that actually put out the call for more pro-Bush right-wingers to write in because the letters page was getting too left heavy. And that was when Bush was popular.
The acknowledgement- putting a right winger on the payroll - is itself a victory for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And that is exactly what happened with my local daily and what has happened with the Washington Post. They are “balancing” meaining that they are pre-emptively caving to the right wing. They marching themselves to the re-education camp.
But there is a deeper truth here. If my anecdotal conclusion is correct that for my local daily the letters page is becoming tilted left and for the Post that the blogosphere that is attached to it is becoming tilted left, it suggests that there is a left tilt happening in reality.
If the news media pulp-edition and the news-media internets edition both need to self-censor – I mean "balance" because the public is tilting the other way then maybe there really is something happening here.
A change in the wind?
So the Washington Post hired themselves a blogger. A right winger - for balance doncha know. I guess it must be because newspapers are oh so leftie. Even my own local. The Portsmouth Herald several months ago hired a regular columnist – not a blogger but someone to write for the Sunday print edition. They call it The Conservative Corner.
Now, I for one do not think of the Portsmouth Herald is particularly liberal. It tends to be Chamber of Commerce safe in its editorials. But what I have found is that its letters page has become decidedly more left wing (full disclosure – I do my part).
It’s a phenomenon maybe. I do not equate my local daily with the Washington Post and I believe my local daily would not equate themselves thus. But there seems to be a certain resonance in their actions. I think they are in fact reactions.
What immediately comes to mind is that they are kowtowing to the right wing whinery. You know the constant railing against the liberal media. And to some degree that is probably the case. Not that the media is liberal, it is because the letters page has become decidedly more leftie.
That is the interesting part. I don’t know if this holds for the Washington Post but my un-empirical conclusion is that it is absolutely the case with my local daily. The letters that deal with national issues are very nearly all to the left. There are the few right ones but really even the Republican operatives have stopped writing in to defend the current state of this nation.
Some time ago there was a Midwest paper that actually put out the call for more pro-Bush right-wingers to write in because the letters page was getting too left heavy. And that was when Bush was popular.
The acknowledgement- putting a right winger on the payroll - is itself a victory for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And that is exactly what happened with my local daily and what has happened with the Washington Post. They are “balancing” meaining that they are pre-emptively caving to the right wing. They marching themselves to the re-education camp.
But there is a deeper truth here. If my anecdotal conclusion is correct that for my local daily the letters page is becoming tilted left and for the Post that the blogosphere that is attached to it is becoming tilted left, it suggests that there is a left tilt happening in reality.
If the news media pulp-edition and the news-media internets edition both need to self-censor – I mean "balance" because the public is tilting the other way then maybe there really is something happening here.
Now, I for one do not think of the Portsmouth Herald is particularly liberal. It tends to be Chamber of Commerce safe in its editorials. But what I have found is that its letters page has become decidedly more left wing (full disclosure – I do my part).
It’s a phenomenon maybe. I do not equate my local daily with the Washington Post and I believe my local daily would not equate themselves thus. But there seems to be a certain resonance in their actions. I think they are in fact reactions.
What immediately comes to mind is that they are kowtowing to the right wing whinery. You know the constant railing against the liberal media. And to some degree that is probably the case. Not that the media is liberal, it is because the letters page has become decidedly more leftie.
That is the interesting part. I don’t know if this holds for the Washington Post but my un-empirical conclusion is that it is absolutely the case with my local daily. The letters that deal with national issues are very nearly all to the left. There are the few right ones but really even the Republican operatives have stopped writing in to defend the current state of this nation.
Some time ago there was a Midwest paper that actually put out the call for more pro-Bush right-wingers to write in because the letters page was getting too left heavy. And that was when Bush was popular.
The acknowledgement- putting a right winger on the payroll - is itself a victory for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And that is exactly what happened with my local daily and what has happened with the Washington Post. They are “balancing” meaining that they are pre-emptively caving to the right wing. They marching themselves to the re-education camp.
But there is a deeper truth here. If my anecdotal conclusion is correct that for my local daily the letters page is becoming tilted left and for the Post that the blogosphere that is attached to it is becoming tilted left, it suggests that there is a left tilt happening in reality.
If the news media pulp-edition and the news-media internets edition both need to self-censor – I mean "balance" because the public is tilting the other way then maybe there really is something happening here.
A change in the wind?
So the Washington Post hired themselves a blogger. A right winger. It’s for balance doncha know. I guess it must be because newspapers are oh so leftie. Even my own local. The Portsmouth Herald several months ago hired a regular columnist – not a blogger but someone to write for the Sunday print edition. They call it The Conservative Corner.
Now, I for one do not think of the Portsmouth Herald is particularly liberal. It tends to be Chamber of Commerce safe in its editorials. But what I have found is that its letters page has become decidedly more left wing (full disclosure – I do my part).
It’s a phenomenon maybe. I do not equate my local daily with the Washington Post and I believe my local daily would not equate themselves thus. But there seems to be a certain resonance in their actions. I think they are in fact reactions.
What immediately comes to mind is that they are kowtowing to the right wing whinery. You know the constant railing against the liberal media. And to some degree that is probably the case. Not that the media is liberal, it is because the letters page has become decidedly more leftie.
That is the interesting part. I don’t know if this holds for the Washington Post but my un-empirical conclusion is that it is absolutely the case with my local daily. The letters that deal with national issues are very nearly all to the left. There are the few right ones but really even the Republican operatives have stopped writing in to defend the current state of this nation.
Some time ago there was a Midwest paper that actually put out the call for more pro-Bush right-wingers to write in because the letters page was getting too left heavy. And that was when Bush was popular.
The acknowledgement- putting a right winger on the payroll - is itself a victory for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And that is exactly what happened with my local daily and what has happened with the Washington Post. They are “balancing” meaining that they are pre-emptively caving to the right wing. They marching themselves to the re-education camp.
But there is a deeper truth here. If my anecdotal conclusion is correct that for my local daily the letters page is becoming tilted left and for the Post that the blogosphere that is attached to it is becoming tilted left, it suggests that there is a left tilt happening in reality.
If the news media pulp-edition and the news-media internets edition both need to self-censor – I mean "balance" because the public is tilting the other way then maybe there really is something happening here.
Now, I for one do not think of the Portsmouth Herald is particularly liberal. It tends to be Chamber of Commerce safe in its editorials. But what I have found is that its letters page has become decidedly more left wing (full disclosure – I do my part).
It’s a phenomenon maybe. I do not equate my local daily with the Washington Post and I believe my local daily would not equate themselves thus. But there seems to be a certain resonance in their actions. I think they are in fact reactions.
What immediately comes to mind is that they are kowtowing to the right wing whinery. You know the constant railing against the liberal media. And to some degree that is probably the case. Not that the media is liberal, it is because the letters page has become decidedly more leftie.
That is the interesting part. I don’t know if this holds for the Washington Post but my un-empirical conclusion is that it is absolutely the case with my local daily. The letters that deal with national issues are very nearly all to the left. There are the few right ones but really even the Republican operatives have stopped writing in to defend the current state of this nation.
Some time ago there was a Midwest paper that actually put out the call for more pro-Bush right-wingers to write in because the letters page was getting too left heavy. And that was when Bush was popular.
The acknowledgement- putting a right winger on the payroll - is itself a victory for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And that is exactly what happened with my local daily and what has happened with the Washington Post. They are “balancing” meaining that they are pre-emptively caving to the right wing. They marching themselves to the re-education camp.
But there is a deeper truth here. If my anecdotal conclusion is correct that for my local daily the letters page is becoming tilted left and for the Post that the blogosphere that is attached to it is becoming tilted left, it suggests that there is a left tilt happening in reality.
If the news media pulp-edition and the news-media internets edition both need to self-censor – I mean "balance" because the public is tilting the other way then maybe there really is something happening here.
Implosion ain't pretty
Maybe it is just that it is spring. Maybe it is because we are now one quarter way into an election year. Maybe the American people have finally had enough of the Bush bullshit: malfeasance, incompetence, lies and his rubber stamp Congress.
Maybe it is none of those things but it seems Russ Feingold’s motion to censure the war criminal in chief is causing the collective head of the Washington wise guys to explode. It took a while. At first it was ignored, then the rubber stamp leadership in Congress brought out the blowtorches. Then we had the spectacle of the Democrats in the Senate surrendering before the battle was joined (so far it sounds like business as usual). But before the Democrats could round themselves up and send themselves to a re-education camp something extraordinary happened.
The polls that show that Americans are willing to consider censuring Bush over his illegal and unconstitutional habits (just as they are willing to consider impeachment for same) started to seep into the consciousness of the pros in Washington.
The seepage maybe was aided by Bush’s favorability ratings tanking yet again. But whatever. The meme is taking hold. Not that I expect that there will be a real up-or-down vote to censure Bush in the Senate. What it will do though is more effective if not as satisfying.
When the issue of warrantless domestic spying starts to fade, Feingold gives it new life. And he did it just as the Republican rubber stamp was crafting a bill to make the illegal activity legal – I guess you could call it the Bush exemption. And on top of that is the just breaking news that says that operatives didn’t just wiretap but may have in fact illegally physically searched not only those that were the “targets” (Peace Groups) but the target’s lawyers office’s. Shades of Watergate.
And now Republican Washington has a problem. Despite their rubber-stamping habits, the Republican Party needs desperately to distance itself from Bush. His numbers are falling faster than he does riding his bicycle. Americans have decided that they really don’t like this man. They don’t believe him. And after 3 years in Iraq (going on forever) and the Katrina disaster they wouldn’t trust him with the responsibility of feeding their gold fish without proper supervision. Republicans must start deserting the ship – and soon but they can’t completely look like rats doing it.
Then along comes Feingold whose motion to censure turns Bush into a tar baby. If you are a Republican up for re-election do you stand by the president the leader of your party who even your constituents use words like “idiot” and “incompetent” to describe him? Or do you run as fast as you can, knowing that the way this White House operates you are going to get hacked to pieces in the right wing noise machine.
As W. has said – It’s hard.
Meanwhile Bush has decided that a pre-emptive strike on his legacy is all that matters. Debt and an economy that is rending the nation into a two-class society (very very rich and everybody else), a health system that is collapsing almost as fast as Iraq and oh yes Iraq – not to mention a military that is likely broken for at least a decade, a foreign policy whose disarray would make a Pollack painting seem organized and a Constitution in shreds all need spinning so that he can tell historians what to think about the facts he is leaving behind.
And spin he has decided to do. In the name of drumming up support for his Iraq albatross he has actually taken questions from real people and real reporters in two consecutive days. That shows you how afraid he is that his presidential library fund may be in jeopardy. Because he has no intention of placing anything he might have heard into his own thinking (I use that term in its biological sense). And he has every intention of placing all the domestic blame on Congress (that would be the rubber stamp Republicans) and defer as much Iraq blame as possible.
Good old George. A slacker from the start. He knows how to get a passing grade from the prof when he is failing. He has no doubt had much practice. And now he is trying to do it again as his administration sinks into the scum that is the government he has created.
Maybe it is none of those things but it seems Russ Feingold’s motion to censure the war criminal in chief is causing the collective head of the Washington wise guys to explode. It took a while. At first it was ignored, then the rubber stamp leadership in Congress brought out the blowtorches. Then we had the spectacle of the Democrats in the Senate surrendering before the battle was joined (so far it sounds like business as usual). But before the Democrats could round themselves up and send themselves to a re-education camp something extraordinary happened.
The polls that show that Americans are willing to consider censuring Bush over his illegal and unconstitutional habits (just as they are willing to consider impeachment for same) started to seep into the consciousness of the pros in Washington.
The seepage maybe was aided by Bush’s favorability ratings tanking yet again. But whatever. The meme is taking hold. Not that I expect that there will be a real up-or-down vote to censure Bush in the Senate. What it will do though is more effective if not as satisfying.
When the issue of warrantless domestic spying starts to fade, Feingold gives it new life. And he did it just as the Republican rubber stamp was crafting a bill to make the illegal activity legal – I guess you could call it the Bush exemption. And on top of that is the just breaking news that says that operatives didn’t just wiretap but may have in fact illegally physically searched not only those that were the “targets” (Peace Groups) but the target’s lawyers office’s. Shades of Watergate.
And now Republican Washington has a problem. Despite their rubber-stamping habits, the Republican Party needs desperately to distance itself from Bush. His numbers are falling faster than he does riding his bicycle. Americans have decided that they really don’t like this man. They don’t believe him. And after 3 years in Iraq (going on forever) and the Katrina disaster they wouldn’t trust him with the responsibility of feeding their gold fish without proper supervision. Republicans must start deserting the ship – and soon but they can’t completely look like rats doing it.
Then along comes Feingold whose motion to censure turns Bush into a tar baby. If you are a Republican up for re-election do you stand by the president the leader of your party who even your constituents use words like “idiot” and “incompetent” to describe him? Or do you run as fast as you can, knowing that the way this White House operates you are going to get hacked to pieces in the right wing noise machine.
As W. has said – It’s hard.
Meanwhile Bush has decided that a pre-emptive strike on his legacy is all that matters. Debt and an economy that is rending the nation into a two-class society (very very rich and everybody else), a health system that is collapsing almost as fast as Iraq and oh yes Iraq – not to mention a military that is likely broken for at least a decade, a foreign policy whose disarray would make a Pollack painting seem organized and a Constitution in shreds all need spinning so that he can tell historians what to think about the facts he is leaving behind.
And spin he has decided to do. In the name of drumming up support for his Iraq albatross he has actually taken questions from real people and real reporters in two consecutive days. That shows you how afraid he is that his presidential library fund may be in jeopardy. Because he has no intention of placing anything he might have heard into his own thinking (I use that term in its biological sense). And he has every intention of placing all the domestic blame on Congress (that would be the rubber stamp Republicans) and defer as much Iraq blame as possible.
Good old George. A slacker from the start. He knows how to get a passing grade from the prof when he is failing. He has no doubt had much practice. And now he is trying to do it again as his administration sinks into the scum that is the government he has created.
Monday, March 06, 2006
no nuke race in south asia?
Sometimes I just have to wonder how much oxycontin W and friends are taking. That has to be the only explanation for this: US insists India nuclear deal will not spark arms race . Really what are they thinking? Are they thinking in any meaningful definition of that word?
Last year The Atlantic published a multipart series by the insanely anal William Langewiesche (I mean that in a good way. He is/was a pilot and like all the pilots I have known he shares an obsession with detail that despite how much air travel sucks makes me feel good that people like him are driving).
Langewiesche documents the rise of A. Q. Khan the Father of Pakistan's Nuke. That is not too much to say. Pakistan honors him as such. Like a George Washington of megatonnage.
Langewiesche's article produces this one quote which puts the lie to the Bush pollyanna insanity and points the way for the next two decades in South Asia. Here it is - sadly subscription required - go to the library and read it (The Wrath of Khan) if you must.
"Bhutto, who was then the foreign minister, uttered the now famous remark that Pakistanis would eat grass if necessary, but they would have their bomb."
Thanks to Khan, Pakistan has its bomb. Khan and Pakistan helped North Korea, Iran, and Libya in their pursuit of a nuke. Today Khan is under house detention. Off limits to not only the IAEA but to Musharef's allies in the War on Terror - the US.
And now George Bush has insanely given India - whose success in developing a nuke was the entire reason that Pakistan felt it too must have an "Islamic" (that's how Pakistan got the money for it) bomb - the green light to build as many bombs as it wishes.
Please someone anyone tell me what the fuck is George Bush thinking? How can this development lead to anything other than a more intensive nuke race between India and Pakistan? The arms race between these two countries has been ongoing since the partition of Pakistan from India. The nuke race was an organic outgrowth.
Now George Bush has told India it is ok for them to openly build nukes. But not Pakistan. What does any sentient being expect Pakistan's response to be? What would your response be? (The issue of how George Bush has the international authority to even grant such a right is an open question.)
I have political and philosophical difference with the Bush junta on every issue - but this one has me phlummoxed like no other.
Granted Bush desperately wants India as an economic partner (India was famously non-aligned during the cold war). For what reason Bush sees good things coming economically from India eludes me seeing that so far India seems to be absorbing U.S jobs like a sponge. And has no discernable market for America's all but phantom manufactured goods (nuclear technology excepted). But ok globalization is good. I can suspend my disbelief.
And I can understand the Bush wants India as a bulwark in Asia against China.
But Pakistan's dictator Musharef is a great friend of democracy - just not in Pakistan - and of the United States (kinda/sorta) in the war against terror. What meaningful sanctions are going to be placed on Pakistan when they seek parity with India? We can't even get Musharef to turn over Mullah Omar, nevermind Osama Bin Laden.
The next major catastrophic Asian conflict is not going to be in Asia proper. It is going to be in South Asia. India and Pakistan will once again skirmish. Both have nukes now. Soon, thanks to George Bush both will have more nukes and India has the green light to build them; Pakistan will be desperate to build them and they no longer have to steal the technology to do so.
I have said this before but now it is more pertinent than ever: God have mercy on George Bush's soul. He has condemned South Asia to a holocaust.
Last year The Atlantic published a multipart series by the insanely anal William Langewiesche (I mean that in a good way. He is/was a pilot and like all the pilots I have known he shares an obsession with detail that despite how much air travel sucks makes me feel good that people like him are driving).
Langewiesche documents the rise of A. Q. Khan the Father of Pakistan's Nuke. That is not too much to say. Pakistan honors him as such. Like a George Washington of megatonnage.
Langewiesche's article produces this one quote which puts the lie to the Bush pollyanna insanity and points the way for the next two decades in South Asia. Here it is - sadly subscription required - go to the library and read it (The Wrath of Khan) if you must.
"Bhutto, who was then the foreign minister, uttered the now famous remark that Pakistanis would eat grass if necessary, but they would have their bomb."
Thanks to Khan, Pakistan has its bomb. Khan and Pakistan helped North Korea, Iran, and Libya in their pursuit of a nuke. Today Khan is under house detention. Off limits to not only the IAEA but to Musharef's allies in the War on Terror - the US.
And now George Bush has insanely given India - whose success in developing a nuke was the entire reason that Pakistan felt it too must have an "Islamic" (that's how Pakistan got the money for it) bomb - the green light to build as many bombs as it wishes.
Please someone anyone tell me what the fuck is George Bush thinking? How can this development lead to anything other than a more intensive nuke race between India and Pakistan? The arms race between these two countries has been ongoing since the partition of Pakistan from India. The nuke race was an organic outgrowth.
Now George Bush has told India it is ok for them to openly build nukes. But not Pakistan. What does any sentient being expect Pakistan's response to be? What would your response be? (The issue of how George Bush has the international authority to even grant such a right is an open question.)
I have political and philosophical difference with the Bush junta on every issue - but this one has me phlummoxed like no other.
Granted Bush desperately wants India as an economic partner (India was famously non-aligned during the cold war). For what reason Bush sees good things coming economically from India eludes me seeing that so far India seems to be absorbing U.S jobs like a sponge. And has no discernable market for America's all but phantom manufactured goods (nuclear technology excepted). But ok globalization is good. I can suspend my disbelief.
And I can understand the Bush wants India as a bulwark in Asia against China.
But Pakistan's dictator Musharef is a great friend of democracy - just not in Pakistan - and of the United States (kinda/sorta) in the war against terror. What meaningful sanctions are going to be placed on Pakistan when they seek parity with India? We can't even get Musharef to turn over Mullah Omar, nevermind Osama Bin Laden.
The next major catastrophic Asian conflict is not going to be in Asia proper. It is going to be in South Asia. India and Pakistan will once again skirmish. Both have nukes now. Soon, thanks to George Bush both will have more nukes and India has the green light to build them; Pakistan will be desperate to build them and they no longer have to steal the technology to do so.
I have said this before but now it is more pertinent than ever: God have mercy on George Bush's soul. He has condemned South Asia to a holocaust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)