HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JackRiddler » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 24,979

Journal Archives

The drug dealing, for a start.

Pardons were handed out for some of the figures involved in the televised version of the Iran-Contra scandal. That left plenty of room for both exposures and prosecutions for the new administration to pursue. Criminal investigations could have been initiated into Contra drug dealing (the most explosive front) and the 1980 October Surprise deal (this was killed slowly in a Congressional cover-up-slash-investigation fronted by later 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton). On the exposure front, it could have released documentation of the martial law and military rule plannings and exercises run by North and FEMA under Giuffrida, and material on the Bush mob's relationships with Noriega and the Saddam Hussein dictatorship. (The Clinton admin ended up hosting, in the bowels of the Pentagon, neocon planning exercises in much the same key, under Cheney and Rumsfeld!) Some of this could have been done without fanfare but to great effect - let the DoJ do it, or expose shit through the NARA. Nothing of the sort ensued.

No, it's not good.

"The information provided" by the Bush regime at the time was obviously a pack of lies, and was exposed as such prior to the vote. 23 senators understood this. You could read it all about it in the foreign press. The weapons inspectors said so. Scott Ritter, who personally oversaw the destruction of the Iraqi WMD infrastructure, left no doubt. If anyone with an Internet connection could inform themselves properly about the reality that there were no WMDs in Iraq, then obviously Sen. Clinton could have as well. But more than this: since when is possession of a WMD stockpile a legitimate reason to invade a country and murder hundreds of thousands of people? Iraq posed and made no threat to the U.S.

Informative & appreciated

Many Western writers are selectively blind to the unfortunate reality that Putin is popular in Russia, and the Communists and nationalists are the opposition, and somewhere down below are the liberals the West likes, who are seen as having failed miserably, fairly or not. It's unfortunate, but it's a lot like the U.S. under Nixon -- he was a dirty crook and cheated in the elections but he didn't actually need to do this, especially not in 1972. And given the absolute disasters of the Yeltsin years, the insane failures of Harvard-planned shock therapy, the creation of the oligarchs and mafias through privatization, the assault on the parliament in 1993, the first Chechen war, the meltdowns of the late 1990s -- it's not so surprising that you should see this kind of reaction and desire for a strongman. And they fall for a lot of authoritarian horrors, repression against gays, racial minorities, journalists, artists. But smart, liberal Western writers think Pussy Riot and Kasparov are a serious opposition, when these are an unwelcome joke to most Russians, like the hippies were to the U.S. majority in 1972. And as long as what they're offering is a different oligarchy (Pussy Riot endorsed Khodorkovsky, for fuck's sake), it's not like they are in any way a progressive alternative. It sucks.

Help me out, what's the name for your fallacy?

I mean this one: "Someone lied or did something bad in the past. Therefore any bad claim made about this person must be true." Even if there is no evidence for the claim. Even if it's just an invention, or wishful thinking.

Kerry himself seems to lack the evidence of a Russian state intervention in Ukraine and it ain't, as someone suggested above, because the Americans are too nice (use unsecured phones!) and therefore leave evidence, whereas the Russians are so devious that they can "wipe their fingerprints" of the evil the New York Times presumes but cannot prove they have done.

The fact of the matter is that right now by admission of CIA and FBI, they have their personnel (not volunteers, like the Russians) in Ukraine, serving as "advisers" to the Yatsenyuk government coalition (which consists of neoliberals with outright fascists as the junior partner). Kiev is conducting a bloody crackdown on the ethnic Russians of eastern Urkraine.

And neither the New York Times nor Kerry can produce evidence of intervention by the Russian state. If Russian nationals are helping the ethnic Russians being attacked in Ukraine, this is not much of a surprise.

Nor should he apologize for Bergdahl deal! ...

Nor should he apologize for "Benghazi," unless by that we mean the assistance in destroying that nation and plunging it into a continuing war.

But as for conducting a "surge," in the course of which Berghdahl was captured, instead of ending the Afghanistan war... yes he should apologize!

Or the expansion of the Bush drone war and the attempt to justify this atrocity through legalism...

Or the continuing atrocity of Guantanamo... and the failure to even investigate the war criminals of the Bush regime...

Or the bailouts and protection for the criminals of Wall Street...

Or letting Comcast run the FCC to end net neutrality and Monsanto the FDA to protect its interests...

But hey, two non-insane Supreme Court justices and no war on Iran. Also, when the timing was politically opportune, stopped opposing rights equality for gay people. This is pretty much the best one is allowed to expect?

"Ed Snowden, Russian TV star, hands Putin a propaganda coup"

That's the headline of an article from the "news" channel on which you provide your services as a commentator (for free, as you've said). It indicates the typical (and predictable) right-wing view of Snowden. Oh look, it also rhymes with your own views.

You are apparently free to push your opinions here, but it remains a fact that they are more often heard on the right than the left. This will continue to be the case insofar as authoritarian affirmations tend to be more a right-wing specialty (not that the left or designated "left" is immune).


Bold statement!

I don't think 99% are watching you and your colleagues on FOXNEWS, but there are many other distractions, so it is true that too many people don't understand that Wall Street (meaning the owners and managers of the major institutions) is a criminal syndicate, their enemy in a murderous class war from above, and a driving force in the ongoing destruction of the biosphere itself.

I can't imagine why anyone informed would think it was a good thing that many people are so hopelessly ignorant about their own interests, not to mention right and wrong. Of course, some well-informed people still want for some reason to protect the banksters, or at least sustain their own denial. Perish the thought, in your case.

Fuck the Walton Family Foundation

Like the rest of the billionaire "philanthropic" foundations, it is devoted to the pet social engineering projects of its founder and controllers. This one is most heavily involved in sustaining the corporate school reform.


This bogus movement, a war on teachers and children and the public education system, is largely the product of financing from Walton, Gates and the Broads. While there is a lot of neoliberal logic driving it, one wonders how powerful it would be without the ample foundation money creating most of the astroturf for it.

It makes no difference whether the Waltons put their swag into more luxury homes or a pretend charity. Either way, they are making the world a worse place. It doesn't even matter if the charity does good. They shouldn't have the money in the first place.

No one should wield this kind of money as a private individual. 99.999% of it should be expropriated through a 100% inheritance tax above a few million in assets. I'm not a fan of the state owning anything, so we need to come up with models of collective ownership of capital at the levels of localities, regions, industries, states and nations. Foundations should exist: but as bodies under the control of larger collectives than the whims of some robber baron who decides it's time to play "philanthropist" and reshape society according to his singular vision -- which almost inevitably means, according to his own economic interest disguised as some charitable project (like the Gates' promotion of more tech in education).

Who says they, or Gates, or Bloomberg, or Rockefellers, should decide what society becomes simply because they or their parents or their great-grandparents were successful in gathering wealth under the capitalist system? Fuck them all. They are the wealth hoarders.

So did this guy desert the imperialist army or not?

All those soldiers should come home, of course, since they shouldn't have been sent there in the first place. Even better if they had not believed the propaganda and enlisted.

But now I'm having trouble figuring this case out. So much haze around this. I'm wondering if he deserves our exceptional support, or if he is only being wrongfully praised as a war resister.

Fantastic - it's the Commies at fault!

No, Svoboda's presence in a government is the result of the senior partner party's choice to form a coalition with Svoboda. If this was impossible, there was nothing stopping Fatherland and Yatsenyuk from calling parliamentary elections at a time when the country was still at peace, instead of allowing violence to escalate so that they could implement the EU-IMF economic program. God forbid the people should have gotten to vote, since of course the time before they had elected the other set of kleptocrats.

My focus is not on them "merely existing," so you are engaging in sophistry as usual. My focus is on them being welcomed into the government, given the defense ministry (until they fucked up with their extremism), and allowed to push through measures like the abolition of Russian as a language of the state.

My focus is also on the way you support them, twisting yourself up on behalf of ethnic chauvinism to the point where (given that your preferred government indeed abolished Russian prior to the president's reversal of it) you imply it's a minor matter for U.S. states to enact "English only." Clearly, you think it was better to have this coup government instead of waiting for the next election. You're implying Yatsenyuk, IMF, etc. is something worth fighting for even by these means of destroying the country. Too bad you're not the one there on the ground fighting to help them out.

PS - Those fucking commies, why didn't they vote for a government that included fascists?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »