History is repeating itself. When Carter was President, he was sabotaged and smeared by right-wingers who hated him. The very worst example was called the “October Surprise”. Under President Carter so-called super-patriotic Americans including a former Vice-President who was later to become President, President Bush, in the worst case example, worked with America’s enemies to sabotage Carter’s domestic and foreign policy. It hasn’t been smoking gun proven, but the elder Bush’s emissaries might have actually directly, not indirectly, worked with the Iranian hostage takers, google Wikipedia and October Surprise.
Obama is different, he fights back, but only MoveOn.org is supporting the President’s policy of standing up to the smears hurled against him and this country by so-called friends of America like the super publisher Rupert Murdock and his Fox News. America isn’t weak under President Obama, it is strong. For the first time, really since World War II, the world actually respects and honors this country. The Nobel Peace Prize was actually given to President Obama for bringing back the America, the promoter of peace and stability, that President Wilson once presented to the world.
The biggest hate smearers at Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times newspaper, get honored by being on Rupert Murdock’s Fox News, such as Andrew Breitbart,
http://realsunmyungmoon.blogspot.com/2009/09/andrew-breitbart-throws-stones-at-acorn.html
If the above link sticks, go the Scoobie Davis blog, and scrawl down to Sept 29,
http:www.scoobiedavis.blogspot.com/
The smear that Obama was a Muslim wasn’t urban legend, but a carefully planned hate message,
http://realsunmyungmoon.blogspot.com/2009/06/frank-gaffney-spreads-obama-is-muslim.html
As part of a subliminal hate message, the Washington Times’ story about children murdered in Chicago, had a picture with it of Obama’s children. See Media Matters story # 200905130025
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200905130025
Many think because they have been quiet of late the Moonies are mostly gone or retired. Moon has actually given much, if not all, of his control of his Unification Church to his three sons or in Moon’s mind, God has given control of His church over to His three sons.
Moon just married 40,000 new couples in a mass marriage that covered several countries. Moonies in the past, besides getting married at Moon’s beck and call, have done fund raising, such as selling flowers and small figurines and stuffed animals 16 hours a day, and did a lot of political work for their god.
An article in the Boston Globe covered the mass marriage. It was an Oct 12 Associated Press story by Hyung-Jin-Kim, http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2009/10/12/rev_moon_turning_over_unification_church_to_sons
The only reference to brainwashing in the story was of a child raised in the cult, However, many recruits were college students who’s lives got totally engrossed in a mind bending cult, much to the horror of their parents and other relatives. Since Moonies, in the past, did fund raising and other errands for their god, I wonder how many are now professionals assigned to smear President Obama.
We need a little history. Sun Myung Moon came to this country as part of the Korea-gate lobbying campaign to secure more aid and support for South Korea. Somehow people get all excited about the Israeli Lobby lobbying for more support for Israel. However, many of the complaints against the Israeli Lobby come from Jews that disagree with the lobby, nothing like the conspiracy between Rupert Murdock (who happens to be a foreign lobbyist not an American) Dick Cheney, and the Rev. Moon.
Rev. Moon preaches Godism, not Democracy. A victory for the world Moon envisions would not only be a defeat for what the US represents but any religion that has a concept of free will.
It is interesting to note (if not ominous)that a major paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, took the Associated Press story of Moon’s mass wedding, and removed the reference to brainwashing and to Sun Myung Moon’s ownership of the Washington Times, and added a picture of Moon’s youngest son looking like a ordinary preacher. According to both the Inquirer and Associated Press’s version of the story, Moon’s youngest son rebelled for a while and became a Buddhist. Not emphasized in either version is that this would represent a drastic change since Moonies are supposed to worship Rev. Moon. But the youngest son was only put in charge of Moon’s local church in Korea, not Moon’s overseas lobbying empire. The Inquirer’s cut version of the story only emphasized Moon’s youngest son, Moon Hyung-jin
According to retired University of Pennsylvania Wharton Professor Ed Herman, the right-wing owner who bought out the Philadelphia Inquirer from Knight Newspapers, Brian Tierney, is embedding in right wing causes, see,
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/inky-toes-party-line-lockerbie-expense-truth-and-more
Brian Tierney, mixed in with Rupert Murdoch, Moon’s Washington Times, and with Dick Cheney is a very toxic brew.
The best reference to the conspiracy I am referring to is at, Scoobie Davis’s blogs
http://www.scoobiedavis.blogspot.com/
http://realsunmyungmoon.blogspot.com,
For earlier material see,
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon.html
I wrote, the following which may add a little something to what they wrote,
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2009/06/re-sun-myung-moon-ten-more-facts-about.html
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/washington-times-moonies-are-very-involved-supporting-honduras-coup
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/taxonomy/term/3210
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/author/richardkanepa
http://RichardKanePA.blogspot.com
Moon’s religious views have been called weird. But more than weird, I noticed they are extremely harsh. Moon likes to dwell on the Biblical use of the word “seed” to represent procreation in general. Eve eating the apple in the Garden of Eden represents according to Moon Eve having the Devil’s Child, and the Virgin Birth in the Bible is God changing human genealogy back in God’s hands. So Jesus was supposed to, according to Moon, have a lot of kids and bring God’s seed back to humankind to suppressed the Devil’s genetic line. Thus to Moon’s ideology, Jesus failed. To Moon the only difference between good and evil is who has the most power. To me it almost seems like good means evil to Moon. Moon wants a world where a higher authority makes all the decisions.
I might get in trouble with progressive friends, but I think there is actually some merit in some of the Conservative religious causes that Moon’s Washington Times has been ruining with its support. Destroying and twisting them might be one of his so-called higher purposes Moon is up to. Moon corrupts every cause he gets involved in supporting.
Cheney and Rupert Murdoch don’t hate human rights and civil liberties, they just don’t want such things to get in the way of what they think needs to be done. Someone on the scene that truly hates freedom, and free will, may be more destructive of human freedom then the resistively small number of Moonies would otherwise merit. I expect almost everyone who reads this will think that Moon at best is an only small part of any right-wing conspiracy. But I think that I though conceivably Scoobie Davis is the only people to think otherwise.
One can get most of the details by reading the historical links by Scoobie Davis and Robert Parry at Consortium News, which I linked to earlier.
One thing missing from what they write is Moon’s heavy involvement with Latin America. The Washington Times newspaper has had heavy support for right-wing Cuban-Americans and their effort to change the Cuban government. Most of Latin America especially the governments of Mexico and Brazil were upset at the overthrow of the President of Honduras. But the Washington Times by hammering away at the idea that Obama is supporting Castro’s and Chavez’s policy by pressuring Honduras to return to democracy, got otherwise uninvolved conservative Cuban-Americans to think that by opposing democracy in Honduras they are working for more freedom in Cuba. Without the Washington Times goading them on the overthrown of the President of Honduras might have never happened in the first place.
Many Hispanic Americans including Cuban-Americans, are being pressured by US domestic circumstances in a progressive direction. Most Cuban-Americans voted for President Obama. Heath care reform will benefit Hispanic-Americans the most. If Cheney and Rupert Murdoch win the day, with the next President proud of torture and human rights violations, and elderly Cuban refugees get to march back in style to Cuba the way the Iraqi Congress in Exile did in Iraq expecting to be greeted as returning heroes it will be a disaster for them as much as it was for the Iraqi Congress in Exile. Making peace with the Cuban Government, perhaps on somewhat their terms, is their only real hope for Cuban-Americans for their homeland. The Washington Times can only permanently poison their future.
A very good sign is that many conservative Cuban Americans signed an online petition against the threat to attack any Cuban-American entertainer if he attended the then pending peace concert in Havana,
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/denounce-death-threats-against-juanes.html
This would be like Pat Robertson and Dick Cheney signing an on-line petition against such things as the signs “Bury Obama Next to Kennedy”. Why can’t other conservatives take responsibility for what the extremists among them do? I hope and think it is possible for those angry at former Fidel Castro’s legacy, to take a good look at the plight of the former members of the Iraqi Congress in Exile, and negotiate an end to the blockade directly with Raul Castro, perhaps getting certain significant but minor changes in Cuban society in the process. I also think it is possible for President Obama to get together with, and even befriend former President Bush to work against the current hate campaign against him. When Obama became President he actually called on the Washington Times reporter to ask a question at his press conference. But now Obama must fight back if people like David Corn who has sterling radical credentials will let him. However, it is possible that the Korean version of the Unification Church under Moon Hyung-jin, might eventually end up in charge of the entire Church operations and expose and apologize for past dirty tricks and work for a united world humanity, without the elder Moon’s hate for world democracy mixed in.
By Richard Kane
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/taxonomy/term/3210
PS. I can’t reedit the above for spelling & other errors
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/author/richardkanepa
RichardKanePA.blogspot.com
Read more!
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
We Lost! We already lost the war in Afghanistan! Not admitting it is a serious mistake!
Unless we admit we lost the war, the bad news can only get worse. There are different degrees of defeat. Delaying signing a peace treaty could mean US troops leaving from on top of the US embassy (like in Vietnam) or even a total collapse far worse than the collapse of the Soviet Union after it bankrupted itself partly by the Afghanistan War. General Stanley McChrystal's grim blunt assessment that we would lose unless he got 40,000 new troops in a hurry in order to starve off a relatively quick defeat, in no way expressed any optimism that we would win in the end even with more troops. I would like to reinterpret his statement as implying that we should leave rather quickly rather than face a possibility of a last minute panicky retreat like in Vietnam.
Actually there is still a window of possibility for a quick hollow victory in Afghanistan where the Taliban agrees in the future to hand over any al Qaeda leaders for trial to any international court that requests, in exchange for a quick US withdraw.
There is very little chance for the divided leadership of the Taliban to actually comply with such an agreement or for an al Qaeda leader to allow himself to be taken into Taliban custody. But this would prevent al Qaeda from cheering that a relatively few al Qaeda suicide bombers chased America out of Afghanistan. However people like Dick Cheney would argue that we really lost to al Qaeda and help al Qaeda crow a little.
A similar scenario actually happened once before, but no Democrat, or Bush-hater, sabotaged not allowing al Qaeda to cheer. Bin Laden originally vowed to drive US troops out of Saudi Arabia, It was his main claim for 9/11. In 2003, George Bush withdrew US troops, from Saudi territory and if 9/11 never happened US troops possibly could be still on Sacred Muslim territory. Western infidels in Mecca, in bin Laden’s mind, was the biggest affront to Islam in what he sees as a 1000-year-old war between Islam and the West. When US troops began leaving Saudi Arabia, private contractors moved in. Al Qaeda smelling what they thought was a trick that US troops would stay in Afghanistan disguised as private businessmen and private contractors. Al Qaeda attacked the private contractors. This scared most Saudis who previously had mixed feelings toward al Qaeda. Saudis rely a lot on non-Muslim servants. Muslim servants are supposed to follow the same customs Saudis do like to pray five times a day. It could be a little awkward for a Muslim servant to watch them do such things as skip prayers, or on the other hand for Saudi’s not to frown a little if a Muslim servant had overlooked them. In many little ways, and some major ones, not being able to hire non-Muslim servants would drastically change the Saudi way of life. Attacking contractors made al Qaeda very unpopular in their country. However, if back then when US troops left Democrats would have yelled, "Bin Laden won!", like Cheney would do today, al Qaeda could have crowed a little about victory.
Obama preformed close to miracle in Iraq, US troops left the cities under the condition that they wouldn't return unless ethnic strife or a government request brought them back in. Remember all the warnings during the Bush administration that the bloodbath between Sunnis and Shiites would become extremely intense, unless the US were kept in-between them.
Now, thanks to Obama, the Shiites are ignoring highly provocative al Qaeda suicide attacks because they would rather US troops stay out then to randomly get even with Sunnis in tit-for-tat ethnic strife.
If the US continues to waste vast sums on ever more expensive smart weapons, like drone airplanes, until the dollar collapses, and since most Americans are far away from food sources we will be fighting with each other over food here at home rather than the US fighting a war abroad. The usual way a war ends is that of a signed peace agreement. This is much preferable to a hasty last minute withdrawal. The Taliban doesn’t want to see Afghans continuing to die, they are willing to try to make at least small compromises in exchange for peace.
Sometimes a military defeat is attempted to be covered over by a political event. Hitler didn't seize southern France during World War II, the Vichy government took power. I contend that if moderates like Arlen Specter continue to be kicked out of the Republican Party until the next US administration is proud of torture and human rights infringement like Cheney and the constant escalation of the war advocates at the Washington Times want, it would be a defeat of the US Republic. Sun Myung Moon who founded the Washington Times believes in what he calls "Godism" not democracy, all major decisions made by a central higher authority. Some of those who work at the Washington Times may also go further than Cheney's belief that sometimes human rights and Democracy gets in the way of what needs to be done. I contend that many who shrilly advocate sending more troops to Afghanistan aren’t concerned about Afghanistan but in using the war to disrupt the domestic progressive agenda. They far more interested in change in this country than worrying about change in Afghanistan.
Let's back up a moment. Why is it the US's responsibility to stop al Qaeda when al Qaeda also made horrible attacks in Spain and Britain? To discombobulate Bush's plans for a coalition government in Iraq, al Qaeda blew up Shiite sacred sites which got many thousands of Shiites and Sunnis to kill each other in tit-for-tat violence. This is something many Shiite Muslims in Iran and other Muslims hate him for. If the US wasn’t so egocentric we would realize that purposely creating widespread ethnic strife was a greater crime than 9/11.
Even Saudi Arabia would fight to keep al Qaeda from becoming in charge. The Soviet Union fought militant Muslims in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Unfortunately for them at the time, they did manage to inadvertently convince Muslims around the world that Russia was their enemy, much more that George Bush who constantly insisted that moderates like the King of Jordan was US's friend. Russia would never allow a militant like bin Laden to take charge of much of the world, especially Muslim areas near Russia, or take charge of Pakistani nukes. Also, al Qaeda made it clear that if the US actually withdrew from Afghanistan they would be attacking China in a big way, already looking for a fight with China over suppression of Muslim separatists in Uighur. Time Magazine referred to an Oct 7th al Qaeda statement threatening China that I think is urgent for both US doves and hawks to contemplate,
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1929388,00.html/
Unfortunately the information covered by Time Magazine didn't get central coverage elsewhere in the media.
During both world wars the US government's only central purpose was to win. This held true in Korea as well. But Lyndon Johnson also wanted his Great Society programs, and Obama wants health care reform. US soldiers want to protect their buddies much more than any burning desire to win. If the central purpose of US foreign policy was to defeat al Qaeda, we would let Iran get the weapons it wants in return for attacking al Qaeda, something due to their hate of what al Qaeda did to Shiite holy sites they already would have done if not tension between the US and Iran and Israel and Iran hadn’t gotten in the way. This is the kind of policy that the US had during World War two when even Stalin was considered US’s friend.
There is no way we can win against an enemy that envisions a permanent warring class, without making stopping al Qaeda the overwhelming focus of US foreign and domestic policy. No American believes that al Qaeda would be in charge of the world if we don't take leadership like most did against Hitler and the Soviet Union. Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 because it wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia and feared the then slow march toward victory of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan would have been both a psychological and physical blow to extremism, while temporary control of Afghanistan by the US would only be a physical, not psychological, setback.
Actually like everyone else I really don't have the answers, but let's lobby Obama in the spirit of trying to get him to do a better job, rather than join those who think criticizing Obama on war is a good way to sabotage Obama and the general progressive agenda.
During Vietnam the theme of the antiwar movement was that “Vietnam was not our enemy” which fit in with the fact that Vietnam never had any plans for the US. Today the theme should be we have no business deciding to be in charge of fighting al Qaeda while paying little attention to what they are all about. I wish I could convey the danger I see in belittling the al Qaeda threat by not only the antiwar movement but ordinary Americans tired of a far away conflict.
Bin Laden's dream of a permanent Muslim warring class is grim news for the world, including much of the Muslim World. But unlike with Hitler stopping al Qaeda is in no way dependent on US resolve. The antiwar movement should stop risking being a tool of those who are investing their future political clout in the hope that al Qaeda will have another 9/11 some day. Remember Al Qaeda attacked Spain when the antiwar movement there was strong and Britain when Tony Blair was in danger of losing his party's support, and could only threaten to attack the German Beer fest when Germans wanted to leave Afghanistan, but just the threat had an effect of the German election outcome. But unless we are willing to give up all other domestic and foreign policy in an effort to stop al Qaeda, such as arming Iran who was hurt the most by an al Qaeda attack of Shiite holy sites, we have no business trying to be in charge while are eyes and ears are focused elsewhere. Where there is emotional commitment some want to use anger against bin Laden to spread to anger at Hamas and Hezbollah, others to anger at all religious people who oppose womans rights or gay rights, or anyone who is more than a Sunday Christian. Others just hoping the war ends the progressive social agenda.
I don’t like the way today’s antiwar movement is copying the Vietnam precedent by claiming that al Qaeda is not a problem for us. Let’s reinterpreted General Stanley McChrystal's grim assessment as meaning that it is likely that any kind of US policy toward sustained change in Afghanistan might not work almost no matter what we do. Reinterpreting General McChrystal’s statements as reason to get out might actually bring and earlier end to the war.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/20044
http://phillyimc.org/en/we-lost-we-already-lost-war-afghanistan-not-admitting-it-serious-mistake
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/10214
RichardKanePA.blogspot.com
RichardKanePA
Read more!
Actually there is still a window of possibility for a quick hollow victory in Afghanistan where the Taliban agrees in the future to hand over any al Qaeda leaders for trial to any international court that requests, in exchange for a quick US withdraw.
There is very little chance for the divided leadership of the Taliban to actually comply with such an agreement or for an al Qaeda leader to allow himself to be taken into Taliban custody. But this would prevent al Qaeda from cheering that a relatively few al Qaeda suicide bombers chased America out of Afghanistan. However people like Dick Cheney would argue that we really lost to al Qaeda and help al Qaeda crow a little.
A similar scenario actually happened once before, but no Democrat, or Bush-hater, sabotaged not allowing al Qaeda to cheer. Bin Laden originally vowed to drive US troops out of Saudi Arabia, It was his main claim for 9/11. In 2003, George Bush withdrew US troops, from Saudi territory and if 9/11 never happened US troops possibly could be still on Sacred Muslim territory. Western infidels in Mecca, in bin Laden’s mind, was the biggest affront to Islam in what he sees as a 1000-year-old war between Islam and the West. When US troops began leaving Saudi Arabia, private contractors moved in. Al Qaeda smelling what they thought was a trick that US troops would stay in Afghanistan disguised as private businessmen and private contractors. Al Qaeda attacked the private contractors. This scared most Saudis who previously had mixed feelings toward al Qaeda. Saudis rely a lot on non-Muslim servants. Muslim servants are supposed to follow the same customs Saudis do like to pray five times a day. It could be a little awkward for a Muslim servant to watch them do such things as skip prayers, or on the other hand for Saudi’s not to frown a little if a Muslim servant had overlooked them. In many little ways, and some major ones, not being able to hire non-Muslim servants would drastically change the Saudi way of life. Attacking contractors made al Qaeda very unpopular in their country. However, if back then when US troops left Democrats would have yelled, "Bin Laden won!", like Cheney would do today, al Qaeda could have crowed a little about victory.
Obama preformed close to miracle in Iraq, US troops left the cities under the condition that they wouldn't return unless ethnic strife or a government request brought them back in. Remember all the warnings during the Bush administration that the bloodbath between Sunnis and Shiites would become extremely intense, unless the US were kept in-between them.
Now, thanks to Obama, the Shiites are ignoring highly provocative al Qaeda suicide attacks because they would rather US troops stay out then to randomly get even with Sunnis in tit-for-tat ethnic strife.
If the US continues to waste vast sums on ever more expensive smart weapons, like drone airplanes, until the dollar collapses, and since most Americans are far away from food sources we will be fighting with each other over food here at home rather than the US fighting a war abroad. The usual way a war ends is that of a signed peace agreement. This is much preferable to a hasty last minute withdrawal. The Taliban doesn’t want to see Afghans continuing to die, they are willing to try to make at least small compromises in exchange for peace.
Sometimes a military defeat is attempted to be covered over by a political event. Hitler didn't seize southern France during World War II, the Vichy government took power. I contend that if moderates like Arlen Specter continue to be kicked out of the Republican Party until the next US administration is proud of torture and human rights infringement like Cheney and the constant escalation of the war advocates at the Washington Times want, it would be a defeat of the US Republic. Sun Myung Moon who founded the Washington Times believes in what he calls "Godism" not democracy, all major decisions made by a central higher authority. Some of those who work at the Washington Times may also go further than Cheney's belief that sometimes human rights and Democracy gets in the way of what needs to be done. I contend that many who shrilly advocate sending more troops to Afghanistan aren’t concerned about Afghanistan but in using the war to disrupt the domestic progressive agenda. They far more interested in change in this country than worrying about change in Afghanistan.
Let's back up a moment. Why is it the US's responsibility to stop al Qaeda when al Qaeda also made horrible attacks in Spain and Britain? To discombobulate Bush's plans for a coalition government in Iraq, al Qaeda blew up Shiite sacred sites which got many thousands of Shiites and Sunnis to kill each other in tit-for-tat violence. This is something many Shiite Muslims in Iran and other Muslims hate him for. If the US wasn’t so egocentric we would realize that purposely creating widespread ethnic strife was a greater crime than 9/11.
Even Saudi Arabia would fight to keep al Qaeda from becoming in charge. The Soviet Union fought militant Muslims in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Unfortunately for them at the time, they did manage to inadvertently convince Muslims around the world that Russia was their enemy, much more that George Bush who constantly insisted that moderates like the King of Jordan was US's friend. Russia would never allow a militant like bin Laden to take charge of much of the world, especially Muslim areas near Russia, or take charge of Pakistani nukes. Also, al Qaeda made it clear that if the US actually withdrew from Afghanistan they would be attacking China in a big way, already looking for a fight with China over suppression of Muslim separatists in Uighur. Time Magazine referred to an Oct 7th al Qaeda statement threatening China that I think is urgent for both US doves and hawks to contemplate,
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1929388,00.html/
Unfortunately the information covered by Time Magazine didn't get central coverage elsewhere in the media.
During both world wars the US government's only central purpose was to win. This held true in Korea as well. But Lyndon Johnson also wanted his Great Society programs, and Obama wants health care reform. US soldiers want to protect their buddies much more than any burning desire to win. If the central purpose of US foreign policy was to defeat al Qaeda, we would let Iran get the weapons it wants in return for attacking al Qaeda, something due to their hate of what al Qaeda did to Shiite holy sites they already would have done if not tension between the US and Iran and Israel and Iran hadn’t gotten in the way. This is the kind of policy that the US had during World War two when even Stalin was considered US’s friend.
There is no way we can win against an enemy that envisions a permanent warring class, without making stopping al Qaeda the overwhelming focus of US foreign and domestic policy. No American believes that al Qaeda would be in charge of the world if we don't take leadership like most did against Hitler and the Soviet Union. Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 because it wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia and feared the then slow march toward victory of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan would have been both a psychological and physical blow to extremism, while temporary control of Afghanistan by the US would only be a physical, not psychological, setback.
Actually like everyone else I really don't have the answers, but let's lobby Obama in the spirit of trying to get him to do a better job, rather than join those who think criticizing Obama on war is a good way to sabotage Obama and the general progressive agenda.
During Vietnam the theme of the antiwar movement was that “Vietnam was not our enemy” which fit in with the fact that Vietnam never had any plans for the US. Today the theme should be we have no business deciding to be in charge of fighting al Qaeda while paying little attention to what they are all about. I wish I could convey the danger I see in belittling the al Qaeda threat by not only the antiwar movement but ordinary Americans tired of a far away conflict.
Bin Laden's dream of a permanent Muslim warring class is grim news for the world, including much of the Muslim World. But unlike with Hitler stopping al Qaeda is in no way dependent on US resolve. The antiwar movement should stop risking being a tool of those who are investing their future political clout in the hope that al Qaeda will have another 9/11 some day. Remember Al Qaeda attacked Spain when the antiwar movement there was strong and Britain when Tony Blair was in danger of losing his party's support, and could only threaten to attack the German Beer fest when Germans wanted to leave Afghanistan, but just the threat had an effect of the German election outcome. But unless we are willing to give up all other domestic and foreign policy in an effort to stop al Qaeda, such as arming Iran who was hurt the most by an al Qaeda attack of Shiite holy sites, we have no business trying to be in charge while are eyes and ears are focused elsewhere. Where there is emotional commitment some want to use anger against bin Laden to spread to anger at Hamas and Hezbollah, others to anger at all religious people who oppose womans rights or gay rights, or anyone who is more than a Sunday Christian. Others just hoping the war ends the progressive social agenda.
I don’t like the way today’s antiwar movement is copying the Vietnam precedent by claiming that al Qaeda is not a problem for us. Let’s reinterpreted General Stanley McChrystal's grim assessment as meaning that it is likely that any kind of US policy toward sustained change in Afghanistan might not work almost no matter what we do. Reinterpreting General McChrystal’s statements as reason to get out might actually bring and earlier end to the war.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/20044
http://phillyimc.org/en/we-lost-we-already-lost-war-afghanistan-not-admitting-it-serious-mistake
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/10214
RichardKanePA.blogspot.com
RichardKanePA
Read more!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Washington Times "Moonies" are very involved in supporting the Honduras Coup
It’s been so long since I seem mention of the Washington Times and the Moonies in the same article that I was beginning to fear people were forgetting that they still exist. But things are now changing. I noted two recent blog articles, not only Robert Parry’s “WTimes, Bushes Hail Rev. Moon”,
http://consortiumblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/wtimes-bushes-hail-rev-moon.html
but also Alex Constantine’s “Ten More Facts about a living Messiah who is growing old” which I also responded to,
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2009/06/re-sun-myung-moon-ten-more-facts-about.html.
Also some other new material recently hit the Internet that I haven’t yet digested.
But I was disappointed that none of the articles mentioned the extensive effort of the Washington Times to encourage and then defend the Honduran coup, and their continuous efforts to befriend ultraconservative Miami Cubans.
On other causes the Wash. Times plays both sides. It systematically condemned Chas Freeman, who blamed the Israeli Lobby instead of the Wash. Times for not getting the foreign policy post Obama was going to give him, instead of the Wash Times. Somehow, pro-Israeli groups didn’t want to start condemning the Wash Times for getting many angry at the pro-Israel lobby for something they were not responsible for. See washingtoncitypaper.com, Our Morning Roundup: Washington Times “Owns” Chas Freeman Story,
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/03/11/our-morning-roundup-washington-times-owns-chas-freeman-story
I am torn between wanting to condemn Right-Wing Cuban-Americans and praise the efforts of usually conservative Cuban-Americans to stand up against gross extremism. You don’t see Conservative Republicans loudly condemning the sick “Bury Obama Beside Kennedy" signs. However, some extremely conservative Cuban-Americans signed a petition condemning the death threats against Cuban-American performers participating in a Havana peace concert,
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/denounce-death-threats-against-juanes.html
Some rather conservative Cuban-Americans, “Ladies in White”, who have relatives or who had relatives back in Cuban prisons, during the last election campaign, were hoping Obama would negotiate getting their loved ones out of prison, rather than supporting McCain’s vow to force the Cuban Government to do so,
http://havanajournal.com/cuban_americans/entry/ladies-in-white-back-obamas-promise-to-ease-cuban-family-travel-restriction
The Wash Times is sabotaging every effort by the present US government to improve things, accusing Obama of supporting Chavez’s and Castro’s policies in Honduras. It is a distinct possibility that they, and Dick Cheney, with al Qaeda’s help, might create a US government proud of torture, and human rights violations, with the next or following Presidential election and thus it is possible that the most extreme Cubans along with Washington Times embedded reporters will march back to Cuba in triumph like the Iraqi Congress in exile did, and there will likewise be a grim Cuba to follow. The Wash Times is an albatross around any group it supports.
Robert Parry in “WTimes, Bushes Hail Rev. Moon", reminded people of Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s early sexual ideas. But somehow everyone misses the harsh universe Moon projects about God and Satan in a breeding war to see whose genes come out in the end. According to Moon the apple eaten by Eve was the Devil winning one and Jesus’s Virgin Birth was God winning one. Cuban Americans, people who want to defend traditional marriage, and every other cause supported by the Wash Times should be wary of how accepting help from a group with such a harsh view of reality might affect them in the long run.
Despite being an albatross the Wash Times has done a lot for the pro-immigration movement. In 2006 it outed "'[added Oct 7]' "Rep. Mark Foley for]"' being harshly against immigration which ironically helped the Democratic election sweep,
http://immigrationstance.diggersrealm.com/fl/representative_mark_foleys_record_on_immigration_reform_and_illegal_aliens.html
The W Times exposed that Foley made inappropriate comments and written notes to underaged pages.
More recently it stopped Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich from hysterically condemning the Sotomayor nomination by having an article claiming that future Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor was pro-life,
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060309/content/01125107.guest.html
Because of it's conservative credentials the W. Times has uncanny access to areas no other pro-imagination group can venture. But remember they are far more interested in rich conservative immigrants than poor apolitical or poor immigrants with any kind of progressive credentials.
It seems almost impossible to me that Robert Parry didn’t include some of the Latin American material unless the Washington Times tracking cookies gives different results to different viewers. I wish Parry’s Consortium blog publication would send someone to the Washington DC main library and photocopy back issues. There could even be different versions of W. Times mailed editions. In the 70's I had two Moonie “Rising Tide” Newspapers of identical date. On one page, in identical format, was an article praising the Iranian Revolution and in the other otherwise identical edition was an article condemning it.
I clear tracking cookies before and after I click on a W. Times link. I should only use the public library. If I was the only one at Kinko’s using Kinko’s to read a newspaper they might steer the Kinko’s computers toward a version of their paper they give to hostile readers. Perhaps a conservative might want to google once or twice on a Kinko’s computer with their laptop also Googeling the Wash. Times sites and see if they get a different version of the BrainWashington Times articles than they get on their home computer. Getting this Albatross off all of our necks should be a priority.
Also posted at,
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/washington-times-moonies-are-very-involved-supporting-honduras-coup
l
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/8716
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/author/7723
I’m Richard Kane retired in Philly PA at RichardKanePA.blogspot.com
Read more!
http://consortiumblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/wtimes-bushes-hail-rev-moon.html
but also Alex Constantine’s “Ten More Facts about a living Messiah who is growing old” which I also responded to,
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2009/06/re-sun-myung-moon-ten-more-facts-about.html.
Also some other new material recently hit the Internet that I haven’t yet digested.
But I was disappointed that none of the articles mentioned the extensive effort of the Washington Times to encourage and then defend the Honduran coup, and their continuous efforts to befriend ultraconservative Miami Cubans.
On other causes the Wash. Times plays both sides. It systematically condemned Chas Freeman, who blamed the Israeli Lobby instead of the Wash. Times for not getting the foreign policy post Obama was going to give him, instead of the Wash Times. Somehow, pro-Israeli groups didn’t want to start condemning the Wash Times for getting many angry at the pro-Israel lobby for something they were not responsible for. See washingtoncitypaper.com, Our Morning Roundup: Washington Times “Owns” Chas Freeman Story,
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/03/11/our-morning-roundup-washington-times-owns-chas-freeman-story
I am torn between wanting to condemn Right-Wing Cuban-Americans and praise the efforts of usually conservative Cuban-Americans to stand up against gross extremism. You don’t see Conservative Republicans loudly condemning the sick “Bury Obama Beside Kennedy" signs. However, some extremely conservative Cuban-Americans signed a petition condemning the death threats against Cuban-American performers participating in a Havana peace concert,
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/denounce-death-threats-against-juanes.html
Some rather conservative Cuban-Americans, “Ladies in White”, who have relatives or who had relatives back in Cuban prisons, during the last election campaign, were hoping Obama would negotiate getting their loved ones out of prison, rather than supporting McCain’s vow to force the Cuban Government to do so,
http://havanajournal.com/cuban_americans/entry/ladies-in-white-back-obamas-promise-to-ease-cuban-family-travel-restriction
The Wash Times is sabotaging every effort by the present US government to improve things, accusing Obama of supporting Chavez’s and Castro’s policies in Honduras. It is a distinct possibility that they, and Dick Cheney, with al Qaeda’s help, might create a US government proud of torture, and human rights violations, with the next or following Presidential election and thus it is possible that the most extreme Cubans along with Washington Times embedded reporters will march back to Cuba in triumph like the Iraqi Congress in exile did, and there will likewise be a grim Cuba to follow. The Wash Times is an albatross around any group it supports.
Robert Parry in “WTimes, Bushes Hail Rev. Moon", reminded people of Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s early sexual ideas. But somehow everyone misses the harsh universe Moon projects about God and Satan in a breeding war to see whose genes come out in the end. According to Moon the apple eaten by Eve was the Devil winning one and Jesus’s Virgin Birth was God winning one. Cuban Americans, people who want to defend traditional marriage, and every other cause supported by the Wash Times should be wary of how accepting help from a group with such a harsh view of reality might affect them in the long run.
Despite being an albatross the Wash Times has done a lot for the pro-immigration movement. In 2006 it outed "'[added Oct 7]' "Rep. Mark Foley for]"' being harshly against immigration which ironically helped the Democratic election sweep,
http://immigrationstance.diggersrealm.com/fl/representative_mark_foleys_record_on_immigration_reform_and_illegal_aliens.html
The W Times exposed that Foley made inappropriate comments and written notes to underaged pages.
More recently it stopped Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich from hysterically condemning the Sotomayor nomination by having an article claiming that future Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor was pro-life,
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060309/content/01125107.guest.html
Because of it's conservative credentials the W. Times has uncanny access to areas no other pro-imagination group can venture. But remember they are far more interested in rich conservative immigrants than poor apolitical or poor immigrants with any kind of progressive credentials.
It seems almost impossible to me that Robert Parry didn’t include some of the Latin American material unless the Washington Times tracking cookies gives different results to different viewers. I wish Parry’s Consortium blog publication would send someone to the Washington DC main library and photocopy back issues. There could even be different versions of W. Times mailed editions. In the 70's I had two Moonie “Rising Tide” Newspapers of identical date. On one page, in identical format, was an article praising the Iranian Revolution and in the other otherwise identical edition was an article condemning it.
I clear tracking cookies before and after I click on a W. Times link. I should only use the public library. If I was the only one at Kinko’s using Kinko’s to read a newspaper they might steer the Kinko’s computers toward a version of their paper they give to hostile readers. Perhaps a conservative might want to google once or twice on a Kinko’s computer with their laptop also Googeling the Wash. Times sites and see if they get a different version of the BrainWashington Times articles than they get on their home computer. Getting this Albatross off all of our necks should be a priority.
Also posted at,
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/washington-times-moonies-are-very-involved-supporting-honduras-coup
l
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/8716
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/author/7723
I’m Richard Kane retired in Philly PA at RichardKanePA.blogspot.com
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)