This isn't really an opinion piece...but there's enough fiction in it to disqualify it from the fact-based pages.
THE US Military believes that it can hold detainees at Guantanamo Bay simply for wearing a certain kind of Casio watch, lawyers representing three Bahraini detainees said yesterday. Military officials at the prison do not believe that Bahraini detainee Salah Al Blooshi, 24, has "any information of interest - or ever did", said his lawyers.
At one point his American captors apparently accused him of being in Bosnia during the civil war in 1995, but he would have only been 14 years old at the time, lawyers' interview notes revealed.
Since the US military do not accuse Mr Al Blooshi of involvement "in any way with any violent activity" there is "no justification" for his continued detention, legal team head Joshua-Colangelo Bryan told the GDN yesterday. The legal team representing the Bahraini three last visited Salah on November 12 and 13, but notes taken during the meeting were only declassified by US officials last week.
"Interrogators have asked questions about the kind of watch that Salah wore," according to the notes. "We have come to know that the military believes it can hold people at Guantanamo simply for wearing a particular type of Casio watch. Salah did not have a watch of that sort.
"As I understand there is a certain type of Casio watch that I think has a compass on it," Mr Colangelo-Bryan said. "The fact that an individual has been in possession of such a watch has been used by the military in certain circumstances to classify the person as an 'enemy combatant'," he said.
In the past year, interrogators have only come to speak to Salah once, the notes say. "Naturally, one can only conclude that the military does not believe that Salah has - or ever had - any information of interest.
"He told us that he was interrogated a number of times, almost all during the first two years of his imprisonment in Guantanamo.
"He described a number of the interrogations as 'silly'. For example, an interrogator once accused him of having been in Bosnia in 1995. As Salah pointed out to the interrogator, he was 14 in 1995."
"It is understood Salah eventually stopped speaking to interrogators because of their repeated "preposterous" questions, Mr Colangelo-Bryan said in the notes.
They said he has been made to suffer consequences as a result of this, but does not wish for them to be known publicly. "At a certain point Salah decided not to speak with interrogators any further because they asked the same questions repeatedly and many of them were preposterous," said the notes. "Salah said that there were some negative consequences that resulted from his decision not to speak to interrogators, but that he did not them known publicly."
"With Salah, as with several of our other clients the military does not allege that he was involved in any way with any violent activity," Mr Colangelo-Bryan said. "In light of that there can be no justification for his continued detention considering the release of our other clients," he said.
Salah's arm was in a sling during the lawyers' most recent visit, which was apparently made for him by fellow detainees after doctors told him there was "no problem" with it. He has also allegedly been denied treatment for pain in his tooth, which he complained to Mr Colangelo-Bryan of during the lawyers' first visit more than one year ago, according to the notes.
"Military personnel took an x-ray and told Salah that there was no problem with the arm. Shortly thereafter, military personnel came to bring him to another medical examination.
"However, they insisted on shackling Salah's hands, which is very painful because of the condition of his arm. Salah refused to be shackled and as a result he was not taken for the examination.
"Salah is very gracious in conversation, especially for a man of his young age. His manner is gentle and calm."
The US says Salah was captured during ground sweeps by Pakistani authorities while fleeing Afghanistan in 2001. He has been accused of travelling from Bahrain to Afghanistan via Pakistan in August 2001 and spending two weeks at a guesthouse belonging to a suspected Al Qaeda recruiter in Kandahar. He is also alleged to have given his passport to a local scholar, who is also a suspected Al Qaeda recruiter.
It is claimed that an alias used by him and the scholar were found on lists discovered during searches of suspected Al Qaeda safe houses in Afghanistan. However, he has declined to take part in military tribunals and his family have denied the claims.
#1
"Military officials at the prison do not believe that Bahraini detainee Salah Al Blooshi, 24, has "any information of interest - or ever did", said his lawyers."
OK...I'll bite. Why do ya spose they continue to hold him. Oh wait...I see...to repeatedly ask him "preposterous" questions. Now it's all clear.
Tipper, posting from sunny Guandgong, China
What's the deal with these riots in Sydney? You switch on the television and there's scenes of urban conflagration and you think, "Hang on, I saw this story last month." But no. They were French riots. These are Australian riots. Entirely different. The French riots were perpetrated by - what's the word? - "youths". The Australian riots were perpetrated by "white youths". Same age cohort, but adjectivally enhanced.
And, being "white youths", they thus offered "a chilling glimpse into the darker corners of Australian society", as Nick Squires put it last week, "with thousands of white youths rampaging through a well-known beach suburb, attacking people of Middle Eastern background. They were egged on by white supremacists and neo-Nazis."
Gotcha. White youths egged on by white supremacists. You can't make a racist omelette without egged whites. Cate Blanchett also subscribes to the Squires line and, no disrespect to our man down under, she does it rather more fetchingly. I'm goo-goo for Miss Blanchett in just about every movie she's made and I'd cut her an awful lot of slack.
But on Friday she toddled along to Dolphin Point on Coogee Beach wearing a white T-shirt showing the outline of Australia with the single word "THINK" inside and stood in front of a banner calling for "a wave of tolerance" to sweep the country (which sounds more like a tsunami of tolerance). And, even as I was still drooling like a schoolboy, I could feel myself starting to roll my eyes. At that point, Miss Blanchett unburdened herself of this great insight: "It's actually very clear and simple. Violence and racism are bad."
Thank God somebody had the courage to say it, eh? But isn't the problem, in Australia and elsewhere, that it's not quite that "clear and simple"?
Take "tolerance", for example. Wave-of-tolerance-wise, Australia for years has looked like New Orleans the day after Katrina hit. The broader Blanchett-Squires culture has been tolerant to a fault. In Sydney in 2002, the leader of a group of Lebanese-Australian Muslim gang-rapists was sentenced to 55 years (halved on appeal).
The lads liked to tell the lucky lady that she was about to be "fucked Leb-style" and that she deserved it because she was an "Australian pig". It was the sentence that was "controversial". As Monroe Reimers wrote to the Sydney Morning Herald: "As terrible as the crime was, we must not confuse justice with revenge. Where has this hatred come from? How have we contributed to it? Perhaps it's time to take a good hard look at the racism by exclusion practised with such a vengeance by our community and cultural institutions."
After 9/11, a friend in London said to me she couldn't stand all the America-needs-to-ask-itself-what-it-did-to-provoke-this-anger stuff because she used to work at a rape crisis centre and she'd heard this blame-the-victim routine far too often: the Great Satan, like the dolly bird in the low-cut top and mini-skirt, was asking for it. Even so, it's still a surprise to hear the multiculti apologists apply the argument to actual rape victims.
So suppose we do as Mr Reimers suggests and "take a good hard look" at "racism by exclusion". As Monday's Australian reported: "Sydney's western suburbs remained quiet yesterday after a call for a full day's curfew by Lebanese community leaders. Mohammed Elriche, 19, said he and his friends would have enjoyed nothing more than their regular swim at Cronulla Beach, but their parents had asked him to stay at home.
"His parents, Eddy and Samira, who have lived in Australia since 1972, said their five children would be allowed to go to the beach again only when the 'conflict is resolved and peace is restored' in the Sutherland shire region. 'If there's no more conflict, I will let him go,' Samira, 42, told the Australian in Arabic."
In Arabic? Let's suppose that Cate Blanchett got her wish and a tidal wave of tolerance washed into all those "dark corners of Australian society" taking the chill off the chilling glimpse Squires got. How are even the most impeccably diverse multicultural types supposed to welcome into the bosom of their boundlessly tolerant family a woman who prefers to speak the language of the land she left at nine? When it comes to "racism by exclusion", who's excluding whom?
There are no doubt "white racists" down under, but, as an explanation of what's going on, it's almost quaintly absurd. "People of Middle Eastern background" have prospered in Australia. The governor of New South Wales, Marie Bashir, is Lebanese, as is her husband, Sir Nicholas Shehadie, as is the premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks. Likewise, in my own state of New Hampshire, one of the least racially diverse jurisdictions in North America, the last Senate race was nevertheless fought between a Republican, John Sununu, and a Democrat, Jeanne Shaheen, both from Lebanese families.
All these successful politicians are of Lebanese Christian stock: that's to say, after a third of a century in their new countries, they weren't conversing with reporters in Arabic. It's not racial, it's cultural. And the cries of "Racist!" are intended to make any discussion of that cultural problem beyond the pale. In that sense, Sydney's beach riots are a logical sequel to what happened in France. From opposite ends of the planet, there are nevertheless many similarities: non-Muslim women are hectored and insulted in the streets of both Clichy-sous-Bois and Brighton-le-Sands. The only difference is that, in Oz, the "white youths" decided to have a go back.
These days, whenever something goofy turns up on the news, chances are it involves a fellow called Mohammed. A plane flies into the World Trade Centre? Mohammed Atta. A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet. A sniper starts killing petrol station customers around Washington, DC? John Allen Muhammed. A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri. A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed. A gang-rapist in Sydney? Mohammed Skaf.
Maybe all these Mohammeds are victims of Australian white racists and American white racists and Dutch white racists and Balinese white racists and Beslan schoolgirl white racists.
But the eagerness of the Aussie and British and Canadian and European media, week in, week out, to attribute each outbreak of an apparently universal phenomenon to strictly local factors is starting to look pathological. "Violence and racism are bad", but so is self-delusion.
RWN has its annual roundup of the most entertaining DU postings. Coming in at number three on our top ten countdown is this gem:
why do you think the (American) people are so dumb because they have been being dumb down consistantly alst decade especially during bush time. i refuse and tell my children i refuse to allow them to be dumb down. they had better use their brain to follow me. i have high expectation,. i will not feed into the dumbing down of america. i tell my friends, exactly i expect more out of them, i especially tell my older nieces and nephews and their friends, i will not play their dumb down game
no no no
Go read it all.
Moonbats. 'Nuff to crack you up, it is.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/20/2005 06:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lol, Mike. Precious, heh.
The example you provided brought this [edited] quote to mind - dunno why, lol:
"I've been [dumbed] down so long that it all looks like up to me."
-no no no
#4
BH--LOL! While I respect your self-restraint, unfortunately I need to remind you that this informed (and, I hope, heavily medicated) opinionator has a vote that carries the same weight and significance as your vote--so you can take off the kid gloves!
Posted by: Dar ||
12/20/2005 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Here's a beaut!
Honorable Mention: Syrinx: The Conspiracy Is Real And It Must Be Stopped. Now tell me again why "conspiracy theories" are out of bounds? If conspiracies don't exist, why are there federal laws against them, and laws against them in every state?
There most definitlely is a conspiracy in place, ongoing, that is transforming our country into a fascist oligarchy. The evidence is undeniable. And the Bush family is at the epicenter of it.
Bush's grandfather was a buddy of Hitler. Bush's daddy murdered JFK. That's the answer to the great mystery. No mystery at all. Why the f*ck was George H.W. Bush in Dallas that day. Hmm? Why can't he recall where he was? Bullsh*t.
Why are the Bush's best buddies the bloodthirsty oil-barons of Saudi Arabia -- Bandar Bush and all? Why were they buddies with Saddam Hussein. With the Iranian clerics? Even with Osama Bin Laden?
The Bush family are cold-blooded murderers. And they will not rest until they have a stranglehold on you and everyone and everything you hold dear. They are evil, and must be stopped.
Can they be stopped?"
I'd say someone found their bong and are making up for lost time....
#7
Lol. Yep, our country is such a "fascist oligarchy" (Didn't we get this drivel from CNN's Amanpour just before the revelation that CNN was cutting deals with Saddam?) that morons are prevented from whipping up wild-eyed fantasies and posting them openly, freely, without even the slightest hint of censorship...
Posted by: ed ||
12/20/2005 06:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
These days, whenever something goofy turns up on the news, chances are it involves a fellow called Mohammed. A plane flies into the World Trade Centre? Mohammed Atta. A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet. A sniper starts killing petrol station customers around Washington, DC? John Allen Muhammed. A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri. A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed. A gang-rapist in Sydney? Mohammed Skaf.
There is a pattern here, but only a racist like myself would see it.
#2
Kudos to Steyn for tackling the white 'racism' meme.
Over the last week, I've watched the Australian media morph a protest against crime and lack of respect on the beaches (which got out of hand and was exploited by some trouble makers) into endemic white racism, complete with 'white supremacists'.
The next NSW state election should be interesting. I predict some serious blowback onto politicians who are seen to be pandering to minorities.
Canada has been described lately by a conservative U.S. television host as "a stalker" and a "retarded cousin."
Another pundit recently asked if Canadians weren't getting "a little too big for their britches."
There's been a spate of Canada-bashing by right-wing media commentators in the United States ever since Prime Minister Paul Martin's complaints about lumber penalties and U.S. policy on climate change. His remarks prompted an unusual rebuke last week from the American ambassador.
The attacks on Canada have had web bloggers typing overtime and a non-profit group that's monitoring the trend, Media Matters for America, says it's disturbing.
Yet Paul Waldman, a senior fellow for the group, said Monday the criticism is confined to the usual faction that erupts whenever there's criticism of President George W. Bush's administration and it probably won't last past Canada's Jan. 23 election.
"There are always going to be occasions when it pops up. But Canada is never going to occupy an extraordinary amount of American thought," said Waldman.
"It's more like: `Who can we beat on today?' It's never going to reach the heights of animosity toward France in the run-up to the Iraq war."
Last week, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson, a well-known conservative pundit, let loose with a string of anti-Canada rants.
"Anybody with any ambition at all, or intelligence, has left Canada and is now living in New York," he said.
"Canada is a sweet country. It is like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know, he's nice but you don't take him seriously. That's Canada."
Carlson also said it's pointless to tell Canada to stop criticizing the United States.
"It only eggs them on. Canada is essentially a stalker, stalking the United States, right? Canada has little pictures of us in its bedroom, right?"
"It's unrequited love between Canada and the United States. We, meanwhile, don't even know Canada's name. We pay no attention at all," he said.
The day before, Fox News host Neil Cavuto highlighted Martin's remark at a news conference that the United States is a "reticent nation" lacking a "global conscience" on climate change.
"So have the Canadians gotten a little too big for their britches?" Cavuto asked.
"Could our neighbours to the north soon be our enemies?"
Douglas MacKinnon, a press secretary to former Republican senator Bob Dole, also recently accused Canada of harbouring terrorists.
"Can Canada really be considered our friend anymore?" he asked in a recent commentary in the right-wing Washington Times newspaper.
"What other question can be asked when the Canadian government not only willingly allows Islamic terrorists into their country but does nothing to stop them from entering our nation?"
U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins warned Martin last week to tone down anti-American jabs or risk hurting bilateral relations. But Martin was unrepentant, saying he would "not be dictated to" by the United States and his hard line appears to be resonating with some voters.
While the offensive from American pundits isn't widespread, it still has the potential to affect cross-border ties, said Waldman.
"On Capitol Hill, the TVs are turned to Fox News. This kind of media environment is what the White House pays attention to," he said.
"That hostility is probably shared by a lot of people in the administration."
#1
It's never going to reach the heights of animosity toward France in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Wrong. Kanuckistan is changing and becoming France's closest ally. If the next terrorist gets into the U. S. from Kanuckistan, a regiment of Sergeant Prestons won't be able to help.
#2
"There are always going to be occasions when it pops up. But Canada is never going to occupy an extraordinary amount of American thought," said Waldman.
This assumes that things are static and couldn't possibly get more intense or widespread. Pretty naive of him.
BTW, does MMFA track America-bashing and find it to be "disturbing" as well?
Probably only in the sense that we need to change to suit the world.
#3
You hit the nail on the head WT. Media Matters is funded by George Soros and Peter Lewis (Progressive Insurance), the dynamic duo behind America Coming Together and MoveOn. MM is run by the disgraced David Brock.
Posted by: ed ||
12/20/2005 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's not our Retarded Cousin.
It's our younger brother who we're worried about because he's hanging around the wrong sort of people and going to art films.
#6
LOL, OCSpemble! Art films, indeed. Qanadian politics... Felliniesque, throw in a little Dali, some Kafka, Satre, Ibsen, a touch of Nietzsche nihilism, and a large dollop of French superior culture babble, and top it off with Maurice Strong's Power Corp - aka Tranzi Scam Scum International and voilà ! Purrfekt fit.
#7
Canada is not a monolith, but the "intellegencia" of Ontario and the French Seperatists in Quebec is all we hear about in the MSM. The former acts like the Democrats in the Senate, and the latter is a wannabe in the mold of their big brothers across the Atlantic.
My gut is that there are plenty of folks in the Western part of Canada and in the Maratimes who are a little worried about the blindness of the threat by the mainstream of the Canadian Liberal Party, and the Quebecers acting like the Frenchmen that they are, or as Oil can put it so well:
It's our younger brother who we're worried about because he's hanging around the wrong sort of people and going to art films.
#8
"What other question can be asked when the Canadian government not only willingly allows Islamic terrorists into their country but does nothing to stop them from entering our nation?"
What do you mean? Khadr entered your nation because you've asked us to extradite him.
My gut is that there are plenty of folks in the Western part of Canada and in the Maratimes who are a little worried about the blindness of the threat by the mainstream of the Canadian Liberal Party
You do know that B.C. has a Liberal provincial government? And both Saskatchewan and Manitoba have NDP governments. I think by "the Western part of Canada" you meant Alberta. Don't forget that Canada has three major political parties.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/20/2005 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#9
So there is a reason they call it Can-uh-duh!
Sorry, couldnt help it.
Posted by: Gir ||
12/20/2005 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Last week, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson, a well-known conservative pundit, let loose with a string of anti-Canada rants.
Who the hell is Tucker Carlson?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/20/2005 17:59 Comments ||
Top||
#11
He's that really well-known - oh, you saw it in the article. Nevermind. Heh.
#13
Tucker Carlson used to face off against Bill Press, Paul Begala, et al at CNN. Now that he and Bob Novak jumped ship, I think Lou Dobbs is the only one left to hold the conservative fort at CNN.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/20/2005 22:29 Comments ||
Top||
#14
MSNBC? Isn't that the next generation of MS Windows XP? Is it a video game for the Xbox 360?
Think of it as terrorism's version of Social Security: The Palestinian Authority has passed a law that grants a $250 stipend to the families of suicide bombers. The day after the law was approved, a man blew himself up in a shopping mall, killing five, hurting dozens.
News travels fast.
But this cannot be! Surely the new head of the P.A. will veto this, you think. Mahmoud Abbas is nothing like Yasser Arafat. He wears a suit and a tie!
Alas for those who put great stock in Western appearances, Abbas approved the law, his ability to tie a Windsor knot not withstanding.
Granted, it would be worse if Arafat were alive -- the stipend would have been $500, half of it would have gone into Arafat's pocket, and a quarter would have been paid to phantom families that did not exist. (If anyone could have combined terrorism and featherbedding and invent the concept of the no-show suicide bomber, it would have been Arafat.)
So perhaps one should withhold criticism. Perhaps the correct spin would be "New Family Benefit Highlights P.A. Anti-Corruption Effort."
Who pays for the stipend? Americans. Europeans.
The P.A. is not exactly an economic powerhouse; aside from the greenhouses left to the P.A. by settlers kicked out of Gaza, the only thing the P.A. produces that the world wants is a big Victim Stick with which scowling leftists can beat the Zionists.
The Palestinian Authority relies on handouts, and it's easy to understand why the European Union pays up -- protection money, business kickbacks, goopy-headed notions of solidarity with the oppressed topped with a delicious glaze of carmelized anti-Semitism. Win-win all around.
But why does the U.S. pay? Simple. Since the U.S. supports Israel, it is obliged to support the P.A. The Palestians will let us know when we've paid enough. Thanks, and keep it coming; they have Swiss accountants to feed.
Keep all this in mind should Israel attack Iran's nuclear facilities, an event some reports have penciled in for March.
We've been told that Iran's nuclear program cannot be destroyed; the enriched uranium has been dispersed and hidden in the molars of imams who sit glowering in hardened bunkers 10 miles underground, etc. Such a strike would not be like the raid on Iraq's Osirak site, but it doesn't have to be a knock-out punch to set the mullahs' nuke quest back a year or two.
Israel might be excused for thinking that time is not on its side. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, recently declared Israel a tumor that must be removed from the region -- by radiation treatment, one infers. He also suggested that the Jews be moved to Europe, and scoffed at the Holocaust.
Some diplomats will assure Israel that Ahmadinejad is speaking metaphorically, but these are the same fools who would see the Eiffel Tower brought down by a terrorist bomb and immediately think in terms of phallic detumescence. A pity it fell on that tourist bus, but you have to admire the symbolism.
If Israel does attack Iran's nuke plants, expect the world to pitch a fit: those uppity Jews, defending themselves again! No surprise there.
But how will President Bush react?
This could be his Tookie Williams moment. Just as the right worried that Arnold Schwarzenegger would wobble and give in to the pretty, popular kids who wanted clemency for the murderous ex-gangster, many fear Bush will issue a rote chide to placate the international community.
If his previous remarks are any guide, he knows a nuclear Iran is unacceptable -- at least under current management. No one would care if Switzerland went nuclear. Belize gets the bomb? Big shrug. Iran under the mullahs? Not on Bush's watch.
Then again, one of the arguments against Saddam was his payouts to the families of suicide bombers. This made him complicit in terrorism.
Apparently it's OK for us to do the same, as long as we don't actually sign the checks.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/20/2005 09:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
many fear Bush will issue a rote chide to placate the international community.
I was recently back at the ouija board with my old friend, the late James Jesus Angleton, once upon a time the head of CIA Counterintelligence. I had wanted to talk to him about the latest warnings from the interminable 9/11 Commission, a.k.a. The Monologue That Will Not Die, that we hadn't done enough with homeland security. I knew his view of the commission was much like mine â namely that these guys need a day job. Or maybe a Caribbean cruise. Or maybe a proper spanking. But he didn't want any of it, he was all worked up over Iran, and he had a wild theory about what was going on.
JJA: "Be logical for once, don't always assume that the CIA is totally incompetent. You only hear about the bad things, the screw-ups, the accidents. No one's going to tell you about the brilliant operations."
ML: "All right, everybody knows that. But to suggest that somehow the CIA maneuvered the Iranian elections, and got Ahmadi Nezhad into the presidency, that's just wacky."
JJA: "Has anyone ever doubted CIA's ability to manipulate the Iranian populace? How did the shah get to power in the first place?"
ML: "Yeah, but only the craziest Iranians think that CIA has accomplished anything there since the 1950s."
JJA: "Good news. But some day this generation's Archie Roosevelt will tell the inside story of how the CIA managed to recruit this guy from central casting, the perfect person to get the West to take the Iranian threat seriously, the perfect person to terrify undecided Iranians and get them ready to take desperate measures, into office."
ML: "Is there any evidence at all?"
JJA: "You bet there is. There's Tenet."
ML: "Tenet's gone, fired."
JJA: "The hell you say. He left surrounded by glory and adulation. He got the damn medal, didn't he? You think the president didn't know what he was doing?"
ML: "What was he doing? I thought it was a disgrace."
JJA: "He was giving the award in advance, because he knew he wouldn't be able to praise Tenet afterwards, if the operation worked."
ML: "So you think that Tenet..."
JJA: "Tenet pretended to leave. He had to. He and the president realized that the only way to generate public support for a vigorous campaign of regime change in Iran, was if everyone was totally frightened. But the mullahs were too smart to let that happen, they had all these sly reformers who pretended to be somehow ready to make a nice deal with us. You know, Rafsanjani, Khatami, all those smooth talkers with their clever slogans tailor made for Western intellectuals, "dialogue of civilizations," etc. etc..."
ML: "And so, you're saying, CIA spotted Ahmadi Nezhad, recruited him, and..."
JJA: "And ran him. And bought off enough mullahs to get him named president."
ML: "And now?"
JJA: "And now they're running him. That is, Tenet's running him. That's what Tenet is doing. Forget all that nonsense about writing a book. He'll never write a book. He's too busy sabotaging Iran."
ML: "Let me try to follow this, please. Are you also saying that those guys that left when Goss came in are part of the scheme?"
JJA: "Well, obviously. I mean, a new guy comes in and the top two officers from the Operations Directorate just pack up and leave? Give me a break. It was all coordinated, all staged, the usual disinformation for a gullible public. And they went for it, didn't they?"
ML: "Yes, it all made perfect sense. It was time to clean house and so Goss was brought in to do the dirty work."
JJA: "Hahahahaha, you went for it too. Hahaha. The two most important guys in the building had their feelings hurt by that nasty old congressman, and they just couldn't bear it, and they left. Let's see, how many directors had they survived already? Four? Five? Six? I can't count them all. But this one was just too much. And where did they go to work, did anyone notice that?"
ML: "Yeah, they went to work for Scowcroft."
JJA: "Exactly, the buddy of George H. W. Bush, the former director of what?"
ML: "You're turning into a conspiracy-theory nutcase."
JJA: "What do you mean, turning into? What do you think counterintelligence is, anyway?"
I couldn't stand it anymore. You're of course free to believe whatever you want, I think it's ridiculous. Even if it does somehow explain everything.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/20/2005 00:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
