![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 17 of 17. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by zeugma on January 17, 2006, at 20:07:19
Al-Jazeera asks to see Bush 'bombing' transcript
Richard Norton-Taylor
Tuesday January 17, 2006
The Guardian
Lawyers representing al-Jazeera yesterday demanded to see a Downing Street record of a conversation between Tony Blair and George Bush in which the US president said he wanted to bomb the Arabic satellite television station based in the Gulf state of Qatar.
The document is said to be a transcript of a conversation between the two leaders in April 2004. "Any thought of bombing al-Jazeera ... would be both morally wicked and legally indefensible," said Mark Stephens, the TV station's lawyer.>>I would like very much for this document to be released.
-z
Posted by caraher on January 18, 2006, at 10:30:33
In reply to could this be true?, posted by zeugma on January 17, 2006, at 20:07:19
It certainly could be true!
The British government has charged officials with violating the Official Secrets act. From
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1682258,00.html"David Keogh, a Cabinet Office employee, is charged with leaking information damaging to international relations to Leo O'Connor, researcher to Tony Clarke, former MP for Northampton South. The two are due to appear in court tomorrow for committal hearings."
What kind of case could they possibly mount if the document did not exist, and did not record substantially what news reports say Bush said?
The original Mirror story did say the memo included details concerning troop movements, which I suppose would provide justification for classifying its contents as top secret and therefore criminalizing its dissemination. But there's nothing to stop Blair from releasing a copy of the memo with possibly sensitive military information redacted if indeed the claims about Bush are baseless.
Posted by zeugma on January 18, 2006, at 18:46:08
In reply to Re: could this be true?, posted by caraher on January 18, 2006, at 10:30:33
I wonder how many people in the U.S. really care about this.
I think it's true. As you say, why go to all this trouble if Bush said nothing that would incriminate him?
-z
Posted by Declan on January 18, 2006, at 21:56:37
In reply to Re: could this be true? » caraher, posted by zeugma on January 18, 2006, at 18:46:08
It's our governments too, ie Australian, and UK, that are doing all this and therefore we are implicated. That's how we see it in different cases (from the 30s) that it would be offensive to name.
Declan
Posted by caraher on January 19, 2006, at 11:16:21
In reply to Re: could this be true? » caraher, posted by zeugma on January 18, 2006, at 18:46:08
> I wonder how many people in the U.S. really care about this.
I think a truly frightening number of Americans would actually approve of bombing Al Jazeera. Not a majority, mind you, but more than just a few "fringe" characters. Some right-wing pundits muse openly about how appropriate it would be for their political opponents to suffer assorted gruesome fates (evidently reasoning that anyone opposed to the war is in favor of terror and tyranny and thus deserves to suffer the way, say, Saddam's enemies in Iraq did). If that's how they think about fellow Americans one can only imagine how much less regard they might have for employees of what they consider a pro-terrorism news organization!
I live in a "red state" that voted overwhelmingly for Bush, and it's not unusual to see letters to the editor in the local paper such as one a year or so ago that advocated indiscriminate automatic weapons fire as the one sure path to order and stability in Iraq.
Posted by Declan on January 19, 2006, at 14:37:05
In reply to Re: could this be true?, posted by caraher on January 19, 2006, at 11:16:21
Was it Reagan, or maybe not, was it Goldwater, who said 'we could pave Vietnam and be home by Christmas'?
Declan
Posted by zeugma on January 19, 2006, at 16:24:48
In reply to Re: could this be true? » caraher, posted by Declan on January 19, 2006, at 14:37:05
> Was it Reagan, or maybe not, was it Goldwater, who said 'we could pave Vietnam and be home by Christmas'?
> DeclanI don't know, but it was certainly Cheney who said that Iraq represented a unique business opportunity, excuse me, that the Americans would be greeted as liberators.
Halliburton is certainly making profits, but the execs (of whom Cheney was one until recently) are the only ones who are profiting. The average Halliburton worker sent to Iraq gets blown up with alarming frequency by those self-sacrificing individuals, affiliated with al Qaeda or not, that are opposed to Halliburton business interests.
Cheney is a very safe man in his bunker. He is not the sort to sacrifice himself, not even in the name of the corporate good.
-z
Posted by zeugma on January 19, 2006, at 16:42:32
In reply to Re: could this be true?, posted by caraher on January 19, 2006, at 11:16:21
I think a truly frightening number of Americans would actually approve of bombing Al Jazeera>>
agreed.
I live in a blue state. Figuratively, and literally.
The tragic thing is that attitudes like these likely bring joy to Osama bin Laden's heart. Attacking Iraq only emboldens the Iranians to defy the U.N., since their traditional enemy is now in chaos, so it's really no surprise they're unsealing their uranium plants now. That prospect is far more dangerous to the U.S. than Saddam ever was.
I think of an Egyptian's quote when we first invaded Iraq: "Before, there was one bin Laden. Now there are thousands." Many analysts think that just as Afghanistan in 1979 proved to be an ideal training ground for a generation of terrorists, Iraq will be even more propitious a training ground for new terrorists. And we should not overlook the role a decade of bloody war played in the disintegration of the U.S.S.R.
-z
Posted by James K on January 19, 2006, at 16:50:47
In reply to Re: could this be true? » caraher, posted by zeugma on January 18, 2006, at 18:46:08
> I wonder how many people in the U.S. really care about this.
>
I don't understand the attitudes I see here in Texas. I happen to be liberal and am firmly against the current administrations attitudes and activities. The people around me however don't seem to care one way or the other. I worked in a bookstore of all places - where we talked politics all day and sold political books all day, and I think only 1 or 3 of us voted in the last two elections. Lifelong liberals that didn't vote because it wont change anything, conservatives who want to blow up the whole mid-east, but didn't vote because they trust the government to take care of it.I know usa has very low turn-out, but sometimes I wonder just who is voting? or even watching the news. I have pot smoker friends who vote republican over the issue of machine guns? To the rest of the world - I think we are confused over here.
James K
Posted by zeugma on January 19, 2006, at 17:39:39
In reply to Re: could this be true? » zeugma, posted by James K on January 19, 2006, at 16:50:47
know usa has very low turn-out, but sometimes I wonder just who is voting? or even watching the news. I have pot smoker friends who vote republican over the issue of machine guns? To the rest of the world - I think we are confused over here. >>.
I can't speculate over the reasons for U.S. confusion (it would be uncivil of me). But in a dangerous world, we can't afford it.
By the way, Bush's comments about al-Jazeera have provided fodder for bin Laden's latest tape.
Talk about provding succour for your worst enemies. That, I would argue, is the net result of Bush's foreign policy.
-z
Posted by Declan on January 19, 2006, at 20:03:26
In reply to Re: could this be true? » Declan, posted by zeugma on January 19, 2006, at 16:24:48
I'd be kinda curious to know the gross incomings, both documented and not, both Iraqi money and all other, to Halliburton since the beginning of the war. Anyone got an idea?
Declan
Posted by Declan on January 19, 2006, at 20:11:05
In reply to Re: could this be true? » caraher, posted by zeugma on January 19, 2006, at 16:42:32
Yah so Iraq will prove an effective training ground for terrorists. That's not wholly a bad thing. In order to reverse the regrettable 60's consensus it may be neccessary to believe in enemies that are not strictly real (Leo Strauss). And when we make them so, that's not so bad either. Conscription has drawbacks and the military doesn't like it, but it has a salutary effect on the young. Nay sayers and leftists may call this gambling with the future of the nation, but we all know where their policies led to.
Declan
Posted by James K on January 19, 2006, at 20:27:41
In reply to Halliburton cash position » zeugma, posted by Declan on January 19, 2006, at 20:03:26
> I'd be kinda curious to know the gross incomings, both documented and not, both Iraqi money and all other, to Halliburton since the beginning of the war. Anyone got an idea?
> Declan--heres a recent link http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml
I also found a huffington post (I know, extremely liberal site) discussing multi-million no-bid contract to rebuild New Orleans pretty quick after the disaster.
Posted by zeugma on January 21, 2006, at 13:08:11
In reply to Re: Halliburton cash position » Declan, posted by James K on January 19, 2006, at 20:27:41
also found a huffington post (I know, extremely liberal site) discussing multi-million no-bid contract to rebuild New Orleans pretty quick after the disaster. >>
the site may be liberal, but the information accurate.
it was a disaster for the people of new orleans, and for the nation. But that is no reason to make things less convenient for shady corporations.
And any good capitalist knows that no-bid contracts are poor prognosticators of jobs done well, and there is also a correlation between no-bid contracts and higher taxpayer burdens.
But as Shakespeare wisely observed, "He jests at scars, that never felt a wound."
-z
Posted by zeugma on January 22, 2006, at 14:59:53
In reply to Re: Halliburton cash position » James K, posted by zeugma on January 21, 2006, at 13:08:11
Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, disputes the allegations about water problems at Camp Junction City, in Ramadi, even though they were made by its own employees and documented in company e-mails>>
The pattern is depressing. It fills me with despair just to think about why we are in Iraq.
-z
Posted by Declan on January 22, 2006, at 16:21:04
In reply to Halliburton and its employees in Iraq, posted by zeugma on January 22, 2006, at 14:59:53
One reason, z, which comes from "Blood and Oil" is that the troops really had to leave Saudi(promises, internal unrest, radicalisation etc) but needed to stay in the region (supply), and the opportunity presented itself.
Declan
Posted by James K on January 22, 2006, at 18:32:18
In reply to Re: Halliburton and its employees in Iraq, posted by Declan on January 22, 2006, at 16:21:04
There is a branch of conservatism here in USA (it's funny, we call it America, but I've become conscious that this is an international board, and America is two continents and many countries).
Anyway, some conservatives are appalled at the financial cost of this and it's betrayel of limited government. I do fear that our days as an economic power may come to an end in my lifetime. But again, that's not my point.
All the deaths and the even multiple more maimings have yet to be felt in this country. We don't really get information about the devastation of the non-American population, so I'm just going to discuss our guys.
It's not just soldiers either, there was an article in today's paper about a local contractor who lost their (if i did the math right) 36th employee. These people signed on to do a job and expected to work hard and serve and make big money (for them), not to be on the front lines. But you can't really resign under the circumstances. The reservists and national guard members many of whom are in their 40s, never were intended to be used in this manner after a lifetime of serving their country.
We've become such a great country over the years, even with our problems, that I see much fewer wheelchairs and disfigured people than when I was a child. We are all going to have to get used to seeing the young and old in that condition. I hope we treat them better as a society than we did our vietnam vets. Signs don't seem good though. Charity is doing much of the work in rehabilition and services that the soldiers were promised from the Veterans Administration.
We see the returning vets on feel-good television shows and none of them express any regret or bitterness. I have great respect for their service. I hope that my fear that this was all for nothing is incorrect and they never have to face the betrayal. I don't know any vets of this war yet, but I know I will. They are going to be everywhere.
If the group that has gained almost absolute power over us is correct, and this is the right thing to be doing, someday I can look back and marvel at my simplicity. I know that's not the case though deep in my heart. I cry about this.
I cry when I remember one of my good friends who served in the first Gulf War, and how embarrassed I was to be able to get him a job at the drugstore I was working at. This man could drive a tank. He had served his country and no one would hire him. He was grateful for a near minimum wage job in the video dept.
I don't even remember my point. Maybe it's that this government and associated corporations may be destroying what once was the greatest country in history (personal patriotism). I'm not insensitive to the greater devastation of innocents over there, I just think I can only wrap my head around so much at once.
I welcome and am respectful of those who feel differently. I've tried to express my thoughts and feelings in a way that shows sadness not anger. We all have to get through this life and form our opinions and base our decisions through our own filters.
Thank you for reading my perspective.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.