roachboy

regarding the comments about concerning france and germany, and particularly the post by seretogis.

gee, i thought that france and germany and the rest of the security council that did not vote to authorize bushwar did so because they believed the un inspectors had managed to do their work. and that there was not justification for war.

and gee, given what has been coming out over the past weeks--far too long after the fact--it turns out that american intelligance was at best "flawed"--maybe france and germany and russia and the others who did not support bushwar were right.

how about that.


of course, this kind of problem did not stop the heritage foundation.
and i expect nothing better from them than the kind of pseudo-documentary drivel posted above.

after all, this "thinktank" was a big part of the support system that legitimated the "wolfowitz doctrine", and a major source of what at best could be described as disinformation to support that kind of "thinking"....

if you do any research about the circulation of the ideological framework that underpins bushwar, much of it passes through heritage.

and if you look at the campaign of vacant bullshit that flowed to justify bushwar by trying to shift the argument away from what actually happened onto arbitrarily selected information about financial involvements with iraq only running in convenient directions, and never, ever talking about the complete story, you could always count on heritage being a source.

it is not surprising that the poster did not mention heritage in the body of the post.

i imagine that the assumption was the presence of footnotes, which always float about at the bottom of right thinktank position papers, would make the article appear other than problematic. and that the footnotes would preclude chasing the link. i am a bit surprised there even was a link---seems a bit of a break with conservative style. but i am pleased about that break.

if you are going to try to prove a point, use a serious information source.

the heritage foundation is a joke.

it is surprising to still see the uncritical use of neocon thinktank "information" to bolster cases that are otherwise without merit.
and it is a shame, sometimes, that there are not more strigent conventions in spaces like this such that the use of this kind of pseudo-information would get you laughed out of the proceedings.


as for intervention in the sudan....i was not aware that the americans were considering any unilateral action.

first because it would be a human rights action, and we have all now learned that the bush administration only uses human rights justifications when all others have turned out to be worthless.

second becaue of the logistical problems noted above.

third because it would require a concerted internationally-oriented, highly organized effort to do anything.
maybe bushwar is one reasoin why the international community is in disarray to the extent that nothing is happening.

maybe that is something for the right to think about.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite