Something has gone very, very wrong in this second Bush administration. That is obvious to everyone. One of the few merits of this week's North Korea nuclear deal is that we can get a clearer view of what exactly the problem is --or should I say, what the problems are?
First problem: The deal demonstrates a lethal failure of strategic vision.
The Bush administration entered office determined to take a tougher line on North Korea than Bill Clinton. In February, 2002, George Bush warned in his "axis of evil" speech that North Korea was arming to threaten world peace. In October 2002, his administration confronted the North Koreans with proof that they had cheated on their 1994 deal with the United States, secretly starting a whole new nuclear program. All excellent moves --if you have a plan to follow through. But it turns out: there was no plan.
North Korea responded (predictably) by accelerating its nuclear development, completing half a dozen bombs and testing a nuclear device in October, 2006. Now, five years after "axis of evil," the Bush administration finds itself signing almost exactly the same deal that the Clinton administration bequeathed it, with no more safeguards against cheating than before. The only difference is that North Korea has become a declared nuclear power in the interim. And it will remain a declared nuclear power: Last week's deal does not call on North Korea to surrender its existing weapons. All this raises the question: What was the point of confronting North Korea in the first place?
Second problem: The deal reveals a breakdown of the administration's decision-making process.
It's always a good idea in government to hear lots of points of view. But as David Sanger reports in Thursday's New York Times: "To win approval of a deal with North Korea that has been assailed by conservatives inside and outside the administration, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice bypassed layers of government policy review that had derailed past efforts to negotiate an agreement, several senior administration officials said this week. ? 'There was no process here,' said an official who has been deeply involved in the issue. 'Nothing. There was no airing of whether this is the way to deal with the North Koreans.'" (Ms. Rice talks often to Sanger: his reporting on her actions can be taken as authoritative.)
This is not the first time Rice has practised management-by-avoidance. As National Security Adviser during Bush's first term, it was her job to broker and reconcile disagreements among the national security bureaucracies. But when State, Defence and CIA quarrelled over how postwar Iraq was to be governed, Rice backed away from this absolutely essential issue. Each bureaucracy went on its own contradictory way. The United States arrived in Baghdad with no consensus at all on what was to happen next. Result: chaos.
In the Korean case, Rice's bypassing of the rest of the government again means that important questions went unasked. For example: Under the new deal, the US has promised to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. That may seem an easy concession, since North Korea is not known to have murdered any foreigners since 1987.
However, North Korea did kidnap 17 Japanese citizens in the 1990s -- apparently in order to obtain language tutors for its spy services. Some of the kidnapped Japanese still remain in North Korea; none has received restitution. Understandably, these kidnappings ignite huge passions in Japan. Was Japan consulted before North Korea was offered absolution? If not, Rice's deal will inflict terrible damage on the all-important U.S.-Japan relationship.
Third problem: The deal highlights the Bush administration's reluctance to convince or persuade.
At his press conference on Wednesday, President Bush was asked about the sharp public objection to the deal by his former UN ambassador, conservative stalwart John Bolton. Mr. Bolton's main objection: the deal offered North Korea immediate relief from U.S. financial sanctions in exchange for North Korean concessions that would not materialize for months, if ever.
The President's reply: "I strongly disagree -- strongly disagree with his assessment." Okay, but why? Why was Bolton wrong? As to that, the President offered a vague half-sentence that dismissed financial sanctions as "a separate item," and then hastily moved on. If you cannot explain your case, you leave behind the impression that you have not got a case to explain.
Of course, everyone hopes the deal will succeed. But on the evidence, the deal looks a lot more like a guide to better understanding the administration's failures.
#1
Not sure it matters any more which party controls the government. Our government is largely unresponsive to the will of the people. Example: 70% say to close the border but both parties flipped the electorate off. The war is no different.
#2
The NORKORS have to decide what they wanna be in this world - the northern Commies proclaimed to fight for pan-Korean nationalism and anti-foreign control of the Koreas, nor merely the north. Not just against Japan or White Europeans, but also against the Chinese. RIAN.RU > JAPAN allegedly has enuff nuke materials for roughly 5,500 warheads, wid most materials stored in britain and France; CSIS > NORKOR may have enuff for up to 12.
Much snipped from this long Opinion piece in Investor's Business Daily; ALL of it is worth reading. A few hilights:
If Clinton and Murtha et al. have their way, we may yet see U.S. helicopters lifting off our embassy roof in Baghdad and a jihadist bloodbath like the killing fields of post-Vietnam Cambodia. If her husband's cowardly withdrawal from Somalia after the bodies of U.S. soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu inspired Osama bin Laden to plan 9/11, imagine what a Democrat-led defeat in Iraq might spawn.
Clinton would leave us with an Iraq as the new base camp for terror, replacing Afghanistan under the Taliban. She has already warned the Bush administration that it must come to the Democratic majority in Congress for permission to deal with an Iran that is providing high-tech explosives to kill American soldiers and developing nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.
It's not that the Democrats think we're losing or that the war is unwinnable. They simply don't want to win it.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/18/2007 17:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
THE RIDICULE CONTINUES (HAS JUST BEGUN)
(2007-02-18) Moments after Republicans in the senate blocked a Democrat attempt to vote on a non-binding resolution expressing disapproval of a U.S. troop surge in Iraq, Majority Leader Harry Reid hailed the non-vote as perhaps the greatest Democrat military accomplishment of the past 40 years.
History will celebrate the moment that our brave new Democrat majority forced an unsuccessful cloture vote on the filibuster of a measure that would have symbolically ended the troop surge, said Sen. Reid. And in November 2008, when Americans go to the polls, theyll ask themselves Who stood up for our freedom to express displeasure and very nearly secured it?.
Sen. Reid devoted 20 or 30 seconds to recounting in detail the great moments in Democrat military policy during the past four decades, then said, I predict that years from now, a history book or pamphlet will be written about this act of heroism on a Saturday afternoon, when a few bold individuals sacrificed their golf games to answer the call of duty and very nearly voted on a measure that would have virtually turned the tide in this war.
The Nevada senator added that the lack of a vote on the non-binding resolution would serve as a great encouragement to U.S. troops overseas.
By almost showing the Senates disapproval of Bushs plan to send 21,500 more troops, he said, we demonstrated our desire to protect our men and women in Iraq from the overcrowding on their bases and in their barracks that the presidents plan will surely cause.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/18/2007 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The best thing that could happen now is that everyone who voted for this travesty gets publicly bitch slapped. They are hyper sensitive about it, and it would take them down a dozen notches on the old ego-meter. If left unchallenged, however, they will get more daring.
Providing aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason. And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."
The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.
The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias. The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."
We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage. Yes, some members voted their conscience. But does anyone believe they were in the majority?
This troop surge might not work. We can't know yet. But we can be damned sure that the shameful action taken on the Hill while our troops are fighting isn't going to help.
And a word about those troops: It's going to come as a shock to the massive egos in Congress, but this resolution won't hurt morale - for the simple reason that our men and women in uniform have such low expectations of our politicians that they'll shrug this off as business as usual.
This resolution has teeth, though: It's going to bite our combat commanders. By undermining their credibility and shaking the trust of their Iraqi counterparts, it makes it far tougher to build the alliances that might give Iraq a chance. If you were an Iraqi, would you be willing to trust Americans and risk your life after the United States Congress voted to abandon you?
Now that Donald Rumsfeld's gone, the Democrats are doing just what they pilloried the former Secretary of Defense for doing: Denying battlefield commanders the troops and resources they need. Congresswoman Pelosi, have you no shame?
As a former soldier who still spends a good bit of time with those in uniform, what infuriates me personally is the Doublespeak, Stalin-Prize lie that undercutting our troops and encouraging our enemies is really a way to "support our troops." As for bringing them home, why not respect the vote the troops themselves are taking: Sustained re-enlistment rates have been at a record high.
And our soldiers and Marines know they'll go back to Iraq or Afghanistan. And no, Senator Kerry, it's not because they're too stupid to get a "real" job like yours or because they're "mercenaries." Some Americans still believe in America. If our troops are willing to fight this bitter war, how dare Congress knife them in the back?
On Thursday night, I was in Nashville as a guest of the 506th Regimental Combat Team - with whom I'd spent all too brief a time in Baghdad. The occasion was their welcome-home ball, complete with dress uniforms spangled with awards for bravery. Proud spouses sat beside their returned warriors.
Of course, those soldiers were glad to be home with their loved ones. But they also know they'll go back to one theater of war or another - and no one complained. They share a value that Congress has forgotten: duty. They're willing to bear the weight of the world on their shoulders. Because they know that freedom has a price.
As you entered the ballroom for the event, the first thing you saw was a line of 34 photographs. A single white candle softly lit each frame. Those were the members of the 506th who didn't come home.
Soldiers honor their dead. It's the least Congress could do to honor the living men and women in uniform. You don't support our troops by supporting our enemies.
#2
It can be pointed out that the democrats great "victory" is like a wicked small girl, Pelosi, who is not allowed at the "big peoples' party", who runs up to an adult, slaps them on a leg and says "You're IT!", before running away laughing and giggling.
For their part the adults just stand there and look at her.
She accomplishes nothing with her Parthian shot any more substantial than sticking out her tongue and going "Nyah!"
#5
nice job by Ralph Peters (I haven't always supported him), in a major NY paper, to escalate the debate to where it belongs: motives, consequences
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/18/2007 16:49 Comments ||
Top||
#6
HHHHMMMMM, HHHHHHHMMMM, America = Amerika, the USSA = SSR/USR, can't be under OWG unless we are first ashamed, humiliated, degraded defeated andor destroyed, brought to you by personages whom love Totalitarian Socialism- Govt-ism so much they [most of them] don't wanna move to the USSR-Red China-Commie Bloc/Third World.
The 229 Democrats and 17 Republicans who voted in the House Friday for a nonbinding disapproval of the troop surge in Baghdad, designed and proposed by General Petraeus, think they are pretty smart. Yet even as they were taking a risky gamble that the Coalition forces already on the move into Baghdad in force will certainly fail, many of the first escalation reports in from Baghdad (and in Anbar) have been good signs. The Iraqi army is moving up in force, as promised, and the Americans were already arriving just behind them. According to the Iraqi army, the numbers of bombings and killings in the city has fallen by 89 percent.
Meanwhile, the senior leaders in the Mahdi army in Sadr City no doubt encouraging their followers to go to their deaths for Allah have apparently heeded warnings to abandon ship. Slinking away like embarrassed rats, they have already, by some reports, disappeared from view. In Anbar Province, a dozen tribal leaders have signed up with the American Marines to provide small armies of police and rapid-reaction forces, angry enough to drive al Qaeda murderers out of their midst (al Qaeda assassinations have hit too close to home for many of them)...
Posted by: Fred ||
02/18/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
O'REILLY Show > DINESH D'SOUZA author of "The Enemy at Home" > D'Souza's so-called "CULTURAL LEFT" [= O'Reilly's FAR LEFT] wants to save, rejuvenate, and PERMANENTLY entrench the Left's agenda in America, as represented in the Democrat Party, whose Leftist "purity" or merits D'Souza believes the US Left no longer believes in as their is an internal war going on within Dems for the soul of Leftism [including SOCIALISM]in America. * FOX > WSJ Perts > CLINTONISM/CLINTONIAN POLICY = summed up as pol HEDGING, and Hillary's biggest prob is that many in the Democrats no longer trust her to take a true-blue. moral = ethicist stand on anything. IOW, HILLARY HAS TO REGAIN THE TRUST OF MANY DEMS TO WIN IN 2008. ALso, MONEYTALK Radio SHow > Host Bob > "believes that Radical Islam has been shown that Amer, or at least Washington DC, is a divided country and that Amer does not have the will = unity to prevail. Hence WOT > Radical islam > now a "WAITING GAME" against Dubya-USA, WAITING FOR THE DEMS TO STOP DUBYA NOW; OR FOR A NEW POTUS IN 2009 TO INDUCE COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ & ME. DUBYA'S POL OPPOSITION IS MORE INTERESTED IN WINNING THE WH, WINNING AN ELECTION OR DOMESTIC AGENDAS THAN WINNING A WAR AGAINST AN ENEMY(S) THAT WOULD DESTROY AMERICA.
IOW, MONEYTALK > Radical Islam > Radics have won, Amer has lost, Radics are waiting for the Dems or the anti-Dubya NPE to PC withdraw US milfors and PC affirm the victory of Radical Islam.
#3
The media has been granted a pass on one misrepresentation in particular, IMHO - that the U.S. is losing a "war" in Iraq. We actually won the armed conflict against a legitimate army in weeks, a fact which ran entirely contrary to the MSM's dire predictions about heavy U.S. troop casualaties against Saddam's military.
What we actually have there is a messy political evolution - a somewhat successful exercise in nation-building with crosswinds of insurgency present (Sunni former Baathists, Shiite death squads, al-Qaeda style elements and some foreign fighters mixed in). These elements are responsible for a great deal of carnage and terror but no political gains for their side whatsoever other than in trying to convince Americans through their corresponding propaganda war that Iraq is "another Vietnam".
--William Kristol
Politicians often say foolish things. Members of both parties criticize cavalierly and thunder thoughtlessly. They advance irresponsible suggestions and embrace mistaken policies. But most of our politicians, most of the time, stop short of knowingly hurting the country. Watching developments in Congress this past week, though, one has to ask: Can that be said any longer about the leadership of the Democratic party?
President Bush is sending reinforcements to join our soldiers fighting in Iraq. Democrats are entitled to doubt this will work. They are entitled to conclude the whole cause is hopeless or unjust--and that we should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible or on some other more responsible timetable. They are entitled to move legislation in Congress to compel such a withdrawal, on a schedule and with provisions that seem to them appropriate.
But surely they should not fecklessly try to weaken the U.S. position in Iraq, and America's standing in the world, by raising doubts as to our commitment in Iraq without advancing an alternative. That is precisely what they are doing with the nonbinding resolution condemning the dispatch of additional troops to Iraq. The fact that some Republicans have embraced this resolution does not excuse the Democratic party for its virtually monolithic support of it. The GOP has its share of fools and weaklings. But it is the Democratic party that now seems willing to commit itself, en masse, to a foreign policy of foolishness and weakness.
For the nonbinding resolution passed by the House Friday is merely the first round. What comes next are legislative restrictions and budgetary limitations designed to cripple our effort in Iraq. As Politico.com reported Thursday:
Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options. . . . The House strategy is being crafted quietly. . . . [Rep. Jack] Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels of adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet. . . . Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha.
So the nonbinding resolution is only the first step in the slow-bleed strategy. The Murtha plan intends to block further relief and reinforcement for American troops, leaving them exposed and unable to succeed. Surely Democrats (and fellow-traveling Republicans) will turn back from this path while they still have time to save some of their honor. But the antiwar groups won't make it easy. John Bresnahan's Politico.com report continues:
Anti-war groups like [Tom] Mazzie's are prepared to spend at least $6.5 million on a TV ad campaign and at least $2 million more on a grass-roots lobbying effort. Vulnerable GOP incumbents . . . will be targeted by the anti-war organizations, according to Mazzie and former Rep. Tom Andrews, D-Maine, head of the Win Without War Coalition. . . . Mazzie also said anti-war groups would field primary and general election challengers to Democratic lawmakers who do not support proposals to end the war. . . . Andrews, who met with Murtha on Tuesday to discuss legislative strategy, acknowledged "there is a relationship" with the House Democratic leadership and the anti-war groups, but added, "It is important for our members that we not be seen as an arm of the Democratic Caucus or the Democratic Party. We're not hand in glove." . . . "I don't know how you vote against Murtha," said Andrews. "It's kind of an ingenious thing."
No, the Democrats and the antiwar groups shouldn't "be seen" as "hand in glove." But they are. The national Democratic party has become the puppet of antiwar groups. These groups do not merely accept-reluctantly--American defeat in the Middle East. They seek to hasten it. Some seem to welcome it.
The leaders of those groups believe their slow-bleed strategy is "kind of an ingenious thing." In truth, it's not really so "ingenious." But it is disgraceful. In our judgment, it will fail as a political strategem, it will fail to derail the president's policy--and we will ultimately prevail in Iraq. The slow-bleed strategy will, however, stain the reputation of its champions, and of the useful idiots in both parties who have gone along with it.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/18/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Democrats have decided they would rather rule in the hell of a defeated and diminished America than serve honorably in a strong, secure USA.
#3
The leftists weren't on board in WWII until Germany invaded the old Soviet Union. Now they don't see an existential threat to their philosopy beyond a successful, capitalist US.
It seems that the Senate Judiciary Committee had hearings in January on its power over the Commander-in-Chief. One of the more impressive witnesses, Prof. Robert F. Turner, S.J.D., gave devastating testimony which no doubt left some members seething. The statement he submitted is lengthy, but the last two sections (pp. 40-63) in particular are a must-read for all Americans. It is a powerful indictment of Congress for its unconstitutional intervention in matters of war and intelligence since Vietnam. Here are a few excerpts from his introduction:
[T]he Founding Fathers viewed the powers of Congress and the Senate related to war and foreign affairs as exceptions to the general grant of executive Power vested in the President; and, as such, these powers were intended to be strictly construed...
In candor, in recent decades I have witnessed far more lawbreaking by Congress in the national security realm than by the President...
Consider the consequences [of defunding the surge]. Even if Congress has the constitutional power to cut off food and ammunition to our forces at war and ultimately guarantee a victory in Iraq for those who have been killing our forces and engaging in the wholesale and brutal slaughter of the people of Iraq be they members of al Qaeda in Iraq, followers of pro-Iranian factions, or other radical groups I beseech you to think through the wisdom of taking such action... will they listen?
There is a reason the Framers vested considerable discretion in the President in this area, and unconstitutional efforts by Congress to usurp that discretion since 1970 have led to the unnecessary slaughter of millions, the consignment to totalitarian tyranny of tens of millions, the needless deaths of large numbers of our own military forces, and quite possibly contributed to the slaughter of 3000 innocent people on September 11, 2001.
Scrappleface. Sometimes you actually have to look before you can tell for sure.
A coalition of major terror groups operating in Iraq today announced a symbolic, non-binding ceasefire in response to House Democrats passage of a non-binding resolution rejecting President George Bushs troop surge plan.
Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Shiite Mahdi army and representatives of a Sunni car-bomb cartel said they would continue to fully fund martyrdom operations, with help from their friends in Iran, Syria and elsewhere.
An unnamed spokesman for the terror coalition said, The non-binding ceasefire serves as a kind of imaginary turning point in the mythical pursuit of peace among those who have pledged their lives to the destruction of the U.S., Christianity, Judaism and Western civilization in general.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, said the terrorists symbolic initiative confirms that Democrats are on the right track with their strategy to end the war in Iraq through non-binding means.
Meanwhile, the White House released a conciliatory statement from President George Bush in the wake of the Democrat-sponsored anti-surge resolution.
Our friends in Congress continue to display the rich diversity of patriotism, the president said. Their actions demonstrate to all Americans that you, in fact, can support the troops while opposing the war, as long as youre not too specific about whose troops you support. heh
Mr. Bush also said the House vote shows that its possible to pass a resolution without being overly resolute. heh heh
#1
I realize the organizational boundaries and alliances between the various terrorist groups are fluid, but are the Democrats considered to part of Al Qaeda now?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/18/2007 0:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Not too nay yarns ago when var Lefty pundits argued Amer should hire out our national defense to foreign nations, espec Russia-China. At same time, the Commies should have a major say in the future OWG in order to "counterbalance" or "counterweigh" Amer influence in the new OWG. IOW, Amer can control = rule OWG as long as somebody else has all our guns [not controlling = ruling at all].
...There's clearly an audience for Hirsi Ali in America too. The recently released "Infidel" (titled "My Freedom" in the Netherlands) has climbed to No. 6 on the New York Times best-seller list. The most indelible moments in this book are when the author evokes the details of her early years, then simply lets these scenes speak for themselves. "We told our father [Abeh] we didn't want to be girls," she writes. "Abeh would always protest and quote the Qur'an: 'Paradise is at the feet of your mother.' But when we looked down at them, our mother's bare feet were cracked from washing the floor every day, and Abeh's were clad in expensive Italian leather shoes."...
But Hirsi Ali's memoir is as much about her political agenda as it is her life, andin between tales of her youth she wedges harsh and uncompromising declarations: "True Islam," she writes at one point, "leads to cruelty." If her coming-of-age storyand the saga of her nomadic family, who moved from prewar Somalia to Saudi Arabia, then Ethiopia and finally Kenyawere allowed to breathe on its own, "Infidel" would prove an eye-opening look into the plight of African Muslim women. But throughout the book, you can't help but feel manipulated, rather than moved. In describing the 9/11 hijackers, she comes up with an inflammatory conclusion tailor-made for her right-wing constituency: "It was not a lunatic fringe who felt this way about America and the West. I knew that a vast majority of Muslims would see the attacks as justified retaliation against the infidel enemies of Islam."...
Hirsi Ali is more a hero among Islamophobes than Islamic women. That's problematic considering she describes herself in "Infidel" as a woman who "fights for the rights of Muslim women, the enlightenment of Islam and the security of the West." How can you change the lives of your former sisters, and work toward reform, when you've forged a career upon renouncing the religion and insulting its followers? Hirsi Ali says overhauling Islam is not her responsibility: she just lays out "the facts" and leaves it to others to go about fixing this supposedly broken faith. But her facts are often subjective: at one point she characterizes "every devout Muslim who aspires to practice genuine Islam" as a follower of the Muslim Brotherhood. That may have been true in Hirsi Ali's experience, but it hardly speaks for the globe's 1.3 billion other followers. It's ironic that this would-be "infidel" often sounds as single-minded and reactionary as the zealots she's worked so hard to oppose.
This shameful hit piece is accompanied by two more outrages:
- A picture of three women; two in hijab and one wearing a Paleo keffiyeh, with this caption: Many Faces of Islam: Sewda Sadfi (from left to right), Nadia Mouzai and Sama Afroz Khan are all residents of London's thriving Muslim community, which is modern and diverse. It is not clear why these women have anything to do with the content of this article. The article is not about London or diversity.
-A separate story at MSNBC is the transcript of another interview with Ayaan with a different reporter, mostly about her security and personal safety. The reporter does manage to get in a few sly digs:
Q: Some accuse you of being critical of Islam because of your rough childhood. What was the moment that transformed you into the person we see nowa woman more likely to wear Prada than a veil?
*and*
Q: You're at a conservative think tank. Does that reflect your position on American politics?
But the worst insult is the headline of this interview (at the time of this post, in the online version): "A Bombthrower's Life"
Not exactly Saturday night party material, but how often do you get a crack at a full hour of AHA? Youre clicking the image and then selecting Video on the upper right-hand side.
#3
Written by Lorraine Ali. I'm sure you would get a similar piece on Roosevelt if written by Joseph Goebbles.
Posted by: ed ||
02/18/2007 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
#4
" Only One Side of the Story
One of Europe's foremost critics of Islam is drawing attention stateside with her controversial new memoir, 'Infidel.' But how fair is the book?"
Hey! No fair! That's Newseek's job presenting only one side of the story!
#5
The second-most advantage of being a Marxism*, IMO, is that you never have to think---the central committee has already thought for you.
*The foremost is that you have on good authority that you're smart. That's why so many university professors are left-wing---the self esteem of academics is constantly challenged by the outstanding work in their field.
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.
