Former US president Jimmy Carter speaks with DER SPIEGEL about the danger posed to American values by George W. Bush, the difficult situation in the Middle East and Cuba's ailing Fidel Castro. Yes, Virginia, he really was a President of the United States...
SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, in your new book you write that only the American people can ensure that the US government returns to the country's old moral principles. Are you suggesting that the current US administration of George W. Bush of acting immorally?
Carter: There's no doubt that this administration has made a radical and unpressured departure from the basic policies of all previous administrations including those of both Republican and Democratic presidents. We'll take that as a "yes"?
#3
Yes yes, Camp David accords. Such a success.
Really worked out well for Anwar Sadat and democracy in Egypt.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
08/17/2006 10:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't The Camp David Accords the reason the US has been writing a $2 Billion check to Egypt every year as "foreign aid".
#5
Sure it is. And that in tuern holds Mubaraks "strongman position.
See other thread on CAmp David "reformists" and see what you get when yoou don't support the "strongman".
Pretty muuch the same deal with Jordan.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
08/17/2006 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I think that if Andropov had been in power in 1977, we would have lost Western Europe.
I could go on endlessly about Carter's hypocrisies, but didn't he run for office in 1976 as a Bible Belt Christian Fundamentalist? "I've lusted in my heart," and all that...
#7
While he certainly was considered a "Christian", and I would say - pretty fundemental - he ran as an outsider, right after Nixon/Watergate and Gerald Ford was appointed. I could see he was going to win in March.
Yes, he confessed to "lusting in his heart", which made the main scream media wet its' pants.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/17/2006 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The Contrarian Indicator has spoken! Bush is definitely doing the right thing!
I only had the stomach to read about 30% of this speech. I am so glad this man is no longer President. It pains me that he ever was. I will never understand how he got to be President. All he can do is wring his hands, think misguided thoughts, and talk about same. The guy is a total loon! If someone, anyone, else were to make these comments, he'd be declared certifiable. Not this guy. Why? Gahhhhh! I'm going to go find a sharp corner on a filing cabinet somewhere and beat my head on it.
#9
Never thought I'd do this, but I will. To quote the Dixie Twits (on U.S. soil, not foreign soil, no less):
"I'm ashamed that this man is from my home State, Georgia."
Now, to get back to the fisking at hand:
Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this. The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.
I won't even get started on the Separation of Church and State issue. I will however take Jimmuh to task over his taxes issue. Federal income taxes were not implemented until sometime in the 19-teens. Payroll deduction taxes weren't implemented until well after that. Therefore, I'd be the Founding Fathers, not to mention Lincoln et al, would have severe issues with his "tax cuts for the rich." Taxes can't be much lower than 0, which they were until the 19-teens, now could they?
I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon.
Uhm, I'm no UN expert, but isn't crossing a border, kidnapping a STATE's soldiers and killing other STATE's soldiers an "act of war" under int'l law? Next!
This administration has not attempted at all in the last six years to negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement between Israel and any of its neighbors or the Palestinians.
Israel doesn't have any real beef with it's neighbors (at least the States) except for maybe Syria. It DOES have issues with terrorists within those States, who are aided and abetted by said States. Also, when one side has NO ONE to "negotiate" with, it's pretty much a mute point.
...Hezbollah said they would comply, I hope Israel will comply...
Uh, was it just me, or did he miss Nasrallah saying they'd (Hezbollah) NEVER disarm (even after the mighty UN's resolution)? I think he's got his characters backwards in this statement.
I think most people believe that enough time has passed so that historical facts can be ignored.
I think that sums it up for Jimmuh. I believe he's now trying to re-write history to look favorably upon himself. What a complete ignoramus. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" comes to mind.
And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made.
Boy, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. HE was a "fundamentalist" (Baptist) back in office and HE admitted to "lusting in his heart," etc. Now that he has a beef with the Prez and thusly, with a lot of Baptists in general, he wants to project upon us. I, as a "fundie" have no qualms in "apologizing" for Gitmo/Abu Gharib/etc. HOWEVER, I won't do it until the jihadis STOP and apologize for Daniel Pearl, 9/11, USS Cole, WTC I, invading Kuwait (GW I), Beirut barracks bombing, Khobar Towers, African embassies bombing, Sudan, Somalia, homicide bombings in Israel, beheading contractors in Iraq, Leon Klinghoffer, Bali, Madrid, London, Renault burning in Paris, etc. UNTIL then, I will not apologize for something no worse than a bad day of frat hazing on any college campus in the U.S.
I think the administration learned a lesson, but I don't see any indication that the administration would ever admit that it did make a mistake and needed to learn a lesson. I haven't seen much indication, by the way, of your premise that this administration is now reconciling itself to other countries. I think that at this moment the United States and Israel probably stand more alone than our country has in generations.
Don't need to apologize if no mistake was made. The hypocrisy of the Demos (who are supposedly for the lil' man and the oppressed(tm)) abounds. EVEN without the WMD issue, Carter should be praising us for deposing someone who started 2 regional wars (vs. Iran and vs. Kuwait), raped, murdered and gassed his own folks and allowed them to live in squalor while he and his spawn lived like the sultan of Brunai.
Posted by: BA ||
08/17/2006 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#10
...massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon...
Well Jimmuh, some of us wish that were true, but it's not.
...we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo...
The Justice Department is prosecuting lobbyists for what reporters do every day.
Oh, so we should be prosecuting reporters for leaks as well?
The prosecution of government "leaks" that began with the Valerie Plame case has already sent one reporter to jail and limited the ability of all journalists to protect their sources. But now things are getting worse, as the Justice Department is prosecuting a pair of lobbyists for doing what journalists do every day.
We're talking about the indictment under the 1917 Espionage Act of two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. Prosecutions under the Espionage Act have been very rare, but at least government officials swear not to leak secrets when they take the job. In this case Justice has already squeezed a guilty plea from former Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin for leaking classified information. He's been sentenced to 12 years in jail, or two more than Andrew Fastow received for fleecing Enron.
Where Justice is breaking all precedent is by indicting Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, the former AIPAC staffers, for a "conspiracy" to pass on information from Mr. Franklin to at least one journalist and one employee of the Israeli Embassy. To our knowledge no such secondary sources have ever been prosecuted in this fashion, even during World War II when the Chicago Tribune disclosed highly classified military secrets.
One of the more important details about this case is that it doesn't involve the transmission of, say, microfiche or any classified documents. Rather, the defendants appear merely to have told others some of what they heard from Mr. Franklin--about U.S. Iran policy, for instance. They thus stand accused of doing exactly what hundreds of journalists do in Washington to make a living, albeit for a much larger audience.
Perhaps sensing a problem, Justice sought to amend its original charges to suggest Mr. Weissman knowingly sought a classified document. But seeking classified documents is also what journalists do every day. In any case, federal Judge Thomas Ellis III ruled that this amendment was outside the bounds of the indictment approved by the grand jury.
Last week, Judge Ellis also declined the defendants' request to dismiss the case on the grounds that the Espionage Act is unconstitutionally vague and that the prosecution abridges their First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government. But one doesn't have to read too much between the lines to see that the judge is troubled by the government's conduct. He acknowledges that the case "implicates the core values of the 1st Amendment." And he has set a high bar for prosecutors, asking them to prove the defendants knew that Mr. Franklin was not authorized to give them the information he did and that passing it on could harm national security. He also added an extraordinary footnote to last week's opinion saying nothing in it is "intended to suggest or intimate any view about the wisdom of the government's decision to pursue this prosecution."
We realize that few of our readers have much sympathy for the press these days, and with ample cause. As we recently wrote after the Swift terror financing disclosure by the New York Times, we think the press sometimes has an obligation not to publish everything it knows. By revealing security secrets for no apparent reason other than its own partisan and ideological agenda, the Times has invited a government backlash against the entire press corps.
But these Espionage Act prosecutions are dangerous to more than the media. The statute is notably vague, meaning it is ripe for selective prosecution and misuse against political or partisan enemies. On any given day in Washington, numerous classified details are whispered across lunch tables and many of them make it into print or on the air. Many of these "secrets" aren't truly vital to national security but have been classified for political reasons, or because information is power and many bureaucrats like to control the flow of information. Is Justice going to investigate and prosecute every one of those leaks? The potential for political abuse is obvious.
The current prosecution has its own suspicious political beginnings, with some of the early leaks to the media suggesting that Mr. Franklin deserved his fate because he was one of those "neocons" who got us into Iraq. Some of the more breathless media reports seemed to cheer the FBI and Justice on, again for partisan reasons, and again ignoring the dangers to the press itself. This is the same mistake that liberal newspapers made as they campaigned for a special counsel in the Plame probe because the journalist in the dock was merely conservative columnist Robert Novak.
More broadly, this use of the Espionage Act amounts to the imposition, by executive fiat, of a U.S. version of Britain's Official Secrets Act. That law criminalizes the publication--and even the re-publication--of certain kinds of information. This kind of "prior restraint" on the press is alien to the American legal tradition of First Amendment rights. If Attorney General Alberto Gonzales thinks we need an Official Secrets Act, then he ought to say so and ask Congress to debate and pass it, rather than let his prosecutors impose one by the back door.
The matchless power of inherited Cold War weapons was more than overcome by withering of the very mental attitudes which made them effective. Mark Steyn argued that as a result the West's power shrank in direct proportion to the effectiveness of weaponry because the laws of political correctness always diminished the will to use them faster than their increase in destructiveness. "We live in an age of inversely proportional deterrence: The more militarily powerful a civilized nation is, the less its enemies have to fear the full force of that power ever being unleashed. They know America and other Western powers fight under the most stringent self-imposed etiquette. Overwhelming force is one thing; overwhelming force behaving underwhelmingly as a matter of policy is quite another. ... The U.S. military is the best-equipped and best-trained in the world. But it's not enough, it never has been, and it never will be."
#1
A lot of interesting comments, including one that articulated (rather poorly) that those in the West who seek to appease and accomodate the Jihadists (PC multicult types) are precisely the same people who are promoting the (amoral/immoral) lifestyles and social policies that the Jihadists claim to be fighting against.
Thus this is not a war between the Jihadists and Neocons (broadly defined) but between Jihadists and multicult liberals, who refuse to fight their own war and rely on the neocons to defend them - a fractal pattern I see from the local to the global level.
Ive been wondering if it is possible for me to describe exactly how much I dont give a damn what actors think.Or rock stars.
I should state at the outset that when actors lend their celebrity to raise money for cancer research and similar causes, I think its wonderful. On foreign policy, I just dont give a damn. . . .
The problem with the gratuitous yammering is, actors and rock stars generally arent very bright. They are superficial. Their professional focus is on conveying emotion, whatever emotion the pay check and the director demands at any given moment. They spend most of their time on stage, on movie sets, in Hollywood or in various vacation locales where the emphasis is not on reality. They are surrounded by staff whose jobs depend on keeping all mortal nuisances at bay. Presumeably, were supposed to care what they think, because we feel like we know these people, and they are everything we wish we could be. They say clever things on screen, look good and have money.
And war is bad. The tragic plight of innocents is important. These are easily grasped truths. Bitter experience shows us it is sometimes necessary to look beyond these immediate undeniable facts. This is a cruel truth. Foreign policy and war are extremely complex matters. . . . This level of complexity is generally beyond the scope of the glitterati.
Yesterday, a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times by an A-list of actors denounced the killing of innocents in Lebanon and Israel. They laid the blame exactly where it belongs.
La-la luminaries Nicole Kidman, Michael Douglas, Danny DeVito, Dennis Hopper, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Don Johnson, James Woods, Kelly Preston, Patricia Heaton of "Everyone Loves Raymond," William Hurt and 73 others said they are "pained and devastated by the civilian casualties in Israel and Lebanon caused by terrorist actions initiated by terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas."
The amount of logic and empathy on display, the willingness to break from prevailing views that Israels act of self-defense was "disproportionate" and that Hezbollah should be allowed to fire from within civilian populations, is astonishing.
I still, by and large, dont give a damn what actors think. But in this case, the pigs have taken flight. I have a prediction. More of them will emerge. Actors who think its cool to oppose murderous terrorist groups and have the totally cool sophistication to appreciate some level of complexity in world affairs. Actors who have the ability to look past the immediate emotional impulse, buck the cocktail party clucking, and transcend superficiality. This is something different, and Im interested.
Besides, Nicole Kidman is hot.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/17/2006 12:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They fly commercial, they could be on a flight.
If they start using too many private planes, their enviro cred goes down the tube.
#2
Crittenden was embedded with A Co., 4-64 Armor, 2nd Brigade, 3rd ID during the battle for Baghdad. I remember his reporting on the way up. He knows what this thing is all about.
#3
"Woods had been accepted to attend the United States Air Force Academy with the intention of becoming a fighter pilot. Unfortunately, several weeks before he was to depart, Woods suffered an accident involving falling through a plate glass window -- which injured his hand tendons severely enough to result in his acceptance to the Academy being retracted.
At 17, James sat his SAT tests and scored a perfect 800 on the verbal part and 779 on the math portion - something not exactly all of his acting-peers can put on their CV."
#4
I really like James Wood, a very powerful actor who bring a real intensity in every role (damn, I wish I could look/act like him), conservative, and, IIRC, he's got an IQ of... 180!!!
FrontPageMagazine is on a roll today. Recommend you click and visit the site.
By Patrick Poole
When Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes recently sat down in Tehran with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for an interview, perhaps the most important questions were the ones that went unasked. They talked about Hezbollah, nuclear weapons, Israel and President Bush, but the one question that ties all of these together in Ahmadinejads mind is his religious faith. It is the prism through which he views all of these other policy issues, which is why it is of singular importance to understand the ideology that drives this man. This was apparently lost on Mike Wallace.
No one can accuse Ahmadinejad of being circumspect about the religious views that shape his worldview. He speaks on those views quite frequently, but they are a taboo subject for Westerners unaccustomed to thinking that is self-consciously religious. The reactionary response is to dismiss it as mental instability or label it as fundamentalist, but facing the reality of a nuclear Iran, such a reaction is not only short-sighted and narrow minded, but possibly suicidal.
Ahmadinejads worldview is shaped by the radical Hojjatieh Shiism that is best represented by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the Iranian Presidents ideological mentor and marja-e taqlid (object of emulation), of the popular Haqqani religious school located in Qom. The affection seems to be mutual: in the 2005 Iranian presidential campaign, Ayatollah Yazdi issued a fatwa calling on his supporters to vote for Ahmadinejad.
The Hojjatieh movement is considered to be so radical that it was banned in 1983 by the Ayatollah Khomeini and is still opposed by the majority of the Iranian clerics, including the Supreme Leader of the Supreme National Security Council, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei. That should be telling in and of itself. That opposition notwithstanding, it is believed that several adherents of the Hojjatieh sect are in Cabinet-level positions in Ahmadinejads government.
Most Shiites await the return of the 12th Shiite Imam, Muhammad ibn Hasan, the last direct male descendent of the Prophet Mohammeds son-in-law Ali, who disappeared in 874AD and is believed to be in an invisible, deathless state of existene, or occultation, awaiting his return. Though it is discounted even by the most extremist clerics, a popular belief in Iran holds that the 12th Imam, also called the Mahdi or the sahib-e zaman (the Ruler of Time), lives at the bottom of a well in Jamkaran, just outside of Qom. Devotees drop written requests into the well to communicate with the Mahdi. His reappearance will usher in a new era of peace as Islam vanquishes all of its enemies. The Sunnis, who reject the successors of Ali, believe that the Mahdi has yet to be born.
But rooted in the Shiite ideology of martyrdom and violence, the Hojjatieh sect adds messianic and apocalyptic elements to an already volatile theology. They believe that chaos and bloodshed must precede the return of the 12th Imam, called the Mahdi. But unlike the biblical apocalypse, where the return of Jesus is preceded by waves of divinely decreed natural disasters, the summoning of the Mahdi through chaos and violence is wholly in the realm of human action. The Hojjatieh faith puts inordinate stress on the human ability to direct divinely appointed events. By creating the apocalyptic chaos, the Hojjatiehs believe it is entirely in the power of believers to affect the Mahdis reappearance, the institution of Islamic government worldwide, and the destruction of all competing faiths. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
08/17/2006 07:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That sack of S$#% has to go. That is all.
The next generation cannot be subject to that genocidal maniac.
GWB: This creep is an "Islamofascist." Kill him, and you will get 80% US support.
An August 12 Washington Times editorial endorsed President Bushs use of the term Islamic Fascism to denote the ideology of the jihad terrorists whose plot to slaughter thousands of airline passengers leaving Britain was thankfully disrupted. The editorialists characterized the jihadists ideology more specifically as
chauvinistic, regarding non-Muslims as a lesser breed of expendable or contemptible dhimmis and infidels. It favors autocracy and severe social and economic restrictions, as did the Taliban. It demands the total subordination of the individual to the groupsometimes manifesting in murderously suicidal deaths like the fiery destruction Britain's would-be bombers sought. This is not mainstream Islam, of course. It is a corruption of the faith.
Ignoring the expected outpouring of complaints from apologists for jihad terror who cynically decried (for example here, here) any Islamic references, or other less pressing semantic concerns ( Islamism versus Islamic fascism ), the Washington Times editorial, indirectly, raises this critical question: just what comprises mainstream Islam (of course), as opposed to corruption of the faith?
These pressing corollary questions arise as well: What is the origin of chauvinistic concepts such as the treatment of non-Muslims as contemptible dhimmis and infidels who are rightfully placed under severe social and economic restrictions? Is it accurate to maintain that such discriminatory beliefs and practices merely derive from the very recent Taliban movement in (Pakistan and) Afghanistan, are unrelated to mainstream Islam, and further, represent a corruption of Islam? Is it really out of bounds to even consider that the heinous practice of suicide-homicide bombings may have profound Islamic religious justification? Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
08/17/2006 07:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't think other muslims see them as lunatics.
I believe they see them as the "Ultimate Muslim Faithfull".
Blog of the Week Vital Perspective notes that the government of Iran is going from building to building in Tehran, smashing satellite dishes. This can only be construed as an effort to cut Iranians off, as much as possible, from news originating in the outside world. Which strikes me as ominous, especially with August 22 only five days away.
#1
I hope this is just 'SOP' for the 'new apocalyptic theocratic thinking' going on there, but these particular actions really bother me. In order to keep the populace in the dark about what you're really doing, whether you're winning or losing, remove their sources of outside infomation, then you can spoon-feed whatever you want.
As much as I distrust the international media, they do let me know I'm alive (because I can feel my bloodpressure rising).
Of course, the Hidden Imam (pbtui) wouldn't need TVs.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
08/17/2006 20:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Actually, I'm glad to see they're "doing the dishes." Shutting down a man's TV ranks right up there with kicking his dog or telling him his sister is a whore. Makes em all seethin mad.
In the frenzy surrounding the exposed plot to simultaneously blow up ten airliners flying from Britain to the United States, one line of inquiry being pursued by investigators should make the Bush administration very nervous. British and Pakistani law enforcement officials are examining whether the British plotters of Pakistani descent received money from an Islamic charity, Jamaat ud Dawa. The charity has been used as a front for a militant group fighting for the separation of the Muslim province of Kashmir from the predominantly Hindu India. The most important element in the whole investigation is that Jamaat ud Dawa was recently labeled a terrorist organization by the Bush administration. Could this labeling have motivated the plot in the first place?
Jamaat ud Dawa has no direct association with al Qaeda and focuses its efforts on ousting the army of a non-Muslim state (India) from Muslim lands (Kashmir)the key issue that enrages and motivates the most Islamic jihadist attacks. In fact, jihadist groups battled the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s, the French and Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, the Russians in Chechnya, the Israelis in Gaza and the West Bank, and the Americans in Afghanistan and now Iraq. In spite of this, the United States seems to have gone out of its way to pick a fight with the Jamaat ud Dawa.
And the group has apparently noticed. The organizations website shows a photo of Mohammed Saeed, the groups leader, protesting the Bush administrations designation of Jamaat ud Dawa as a terrorist organization in May of this year. If the group was involved in the bomb plot, occurring three months later, it appears to be no coincidence.
Jamaat ud Dawa is the perfect example of the type of local and regional insurgent group the United States government continues to add to the U.S. terrorism list in the name of the global war on terror. Yet, because these groups dont start out with an antiU.S. focus, the U.S. government is endangering its own citizens by making new enemies needlessly. The United States cannot and should notfor the security of its own peoplehelp every government put down threats from local insurgents and terrorists.
India and Pakistan do need to solve the Kashmir problem, and the United States might even be able to help mediate a settlement, since it now has a loose alliance with both nations. But labeling Kashmiri groups as terrorists does nothing for any future U.S. role as an honest broker in the dispute.
Similarly, slavish support for Israels over-the-top response in Lebanon to Hezbollahs attack on Israeli military targets could provoke Hezbollah to again attack U.S. targets. The group virtually ended its strikes against U.S. targets when the United States withdrew its forces from Lebanon in the early 1980s. Hezbollah, as it has proven before, is a formidable foe, but its main target is Israel. Why did the Bush administration needlessly shake the Hezbollah hornets nest by stalling the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon so that Israel could have more time to futilely attack Hezbollahs and Lebanons infrastructure?
No conflict in the world is apparently too unimportant or irrelevant to U.S. security for the worlds superpower to refrain from intervening. The first responsibility of any government is to try to make its people genuinely secure, not to perpetuate empire. Empire does not generate security, but rather undermines it. The bomb plot should be a wake-up call to the Bush administration to disengage from needless meddling in other countries wars and conflicts.
Posted by: john ||
08/17/2006 20:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yet, because these groups dont start out with an antiU.S. focus
Neither did the Japs or Hitler. More wonking from a beltway, Georgetown genius wannabe. Maybe we should tell him what we told the Russian border guard years ago...."Phuech you Ivan."
Posted by: john ||
08/17/2006 21:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The most important element in the whole investigation is that Jamaat ud Dawa was recently labeled a terrorist organization by the Bush administration. Could this labeling have motivated the plot in the first place?
Jamaat ud Dawa was designated a terrorist organization on April 28, 2006 because it was linked to last year's July 7 London bombings.
This is wacky conspiracist nonsense. What is depressing is it gets published in a national UK newspaper.
#7
P: Jamaat ud Dawa was designated a terrorist organization on April 28, 2006 because it was linked to last year's July 7 London bombings.
This is wacky conspiracist nonsense. What is depressing is it gets published in a national UK newspaper.
Eland is really, really sloppy. He also used to write for the Cato Institute. I wondered if they dropped him after one too many errors of fact. Cato had a few isolationist types who wrote pretty well, in terms of supporting their ideas with good arguments. Eland was not one of them.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
