Why Does the Media Cover Up War Crimes? i.e.: Why am I always the only one to see these things?
LOS ANGELES--In last week's column I cited New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau as a prime example of what ails us: reporters who don't report, a.k.a. journalists who love the government too much.
When Lichtblau found out that the Bush Administration was listening to Americans' phone calls and reading their e-mail, he decided to hold the story. Instead of fulfilling his duty to the Times' readers and running with it, he asked the White House for permission. By the time the NSA domestic surveillance story finally ran, 14 months had passed--and Bush had won the 2004 election.
Again, in a May 17th piece bearing the headline "FBI Gets Mixed Review in Interrogation Report," Lichtblau is running interference for the government. "A new Justice Department report praises the refusal of FBI agents to take part in the military's abusive questioning of prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan," begins the article, "but it also finds fault with the bureau's slow response to complaints about the tactics from its own agents."
According to the Justice Department report, "routine" treatment of Guantánamo prisoners--witnessed by the FBI--includes "bending the detainee's thumbs back and grabbing his genitals." Military and CIA torturers chained detainees' hands and feet together for as long as a full day, "left to defecate on themselves." They terrorized them with dogs, stripped them and made them wear women's underwear and subjected them to blaring music, freezing cold and searing heat.
Torture. Such a simple word. Why not use it?
Lichtblau's "mixed review" appellation notwithstanding, the report by the Justice Department paints a shocking, uniformly negative portrait of a federal law enforcement agency whose officers react to appalling conduct with the Nuremberg defense--"I was just following orders."
"Indeed," reported U.S. News & World Report, "time after time, the report concludes that FBI agents saw or heard about numerous interrogation methods--from sleep deprivation to duct-taping detainees' mouths to scaring them with dogs--that plainly violated their own agency's code of conduct." (Not to mention the Geneva Conventions.) Rather than report their scruples to someone who might raise hell and put a stop to the systemic torture at Gitmo and other U.S. concentration camps--i.e., the public--FBI agents turned to the criminals. Just like Lichtblau did with domestic spying.
"When [one] agent mentioned [a torture] incident to the general [at Guantánamo], the general's response...was 'Thank you, gentlemen, but my boys know what they're doing.'" Ultimately the FBI, worried that agents could be charged with war crimes if they continued to witness the torture by CIA operatives and mercenaries, pulled its employees out of Gitmo and other camps. No one called a Congressman. None called a press conference.
FBI agents kept quiet--even when the CIA frat-boy-style torture tactics screwed up their interrogations.
In 2003 one FBI agent had "begin building a rapport" with Yussef Mohammed Mubarak al-Shihri, a Saudi citizen. Al-Shihri told the agent that female CIA agents had "forced to listen to the 'meow mix' jingle for cat food for hours and had a women's dress 'draped' on him." As usual, the agent turned to the torturer. "The agent said he confronted a female military intelligence interrogator who admitted to 'poaching' his detainee, but there was little more the agent could do. Following the incident, al-Shihri became uncooperative, and the agent said he never bothered to tell his superiors about the military interrogator's actions."
Turning a blind eye to torture. Watching passively as CIA goons destroy the trust of a possible material witness to terrorism. What "mixed review"?
As usual, the Newspaper of Record's worst sins in Gitmogate are those of omission--the really weird stuff that could deprive the Administration of its few remaining supporters. "Buried in a Department of Justice report," reported ABC News, "are new allegations about a 2002 arrangement between the United States and China, which allowed Chinese intelligence to visit Guantánamo and interrogate Chinese Uyghurs held there."
Like their Tibetan neighbors, the Uyghurs of western China are victims of government oppression, including mass executions. Throughout the 1990s, U.S.-funded Radio Free Asia urged Uyghurs to revolt against Chinese occupation. After 9/11, however, the U.S. agreed to help China capture and torture Uyghur independence activists--as a quid pro quo for not using its U.N. veto to stop the American invasion of Afghanistan. (There's more about the U.S. betrayal of the Uyghurs in my book "Silk Road to Ruin.") Which you can find on Amazon! Hopefully my royalties will pay for a rabies shot.
"Uyghur detainees were kept awake for long periods, deprived of food and forced to endure cold for hours on end, just prior to questioning by Chinese interrogators," said ABC. "When Uyghur detainees refused to talk to Chinese interrogators in 2002, U.S. military personnel put them in solitary confinement as punishment."
It's a tale bizarre enough to make Rush Limbaugh blush: intelligence agents from communist China invited to an American military base, where they're allowed to torture political dissidents in American custody, with American soldiers as their sidekicks. In light of China's crackdown on Tibet during the run-up to the Olympics, it's a tasty news tidbit. But it didn't run in The Times--as far as I can tell, it only ran in one newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor.
At the same time journo-wimp Lichtblau was penning his "balanced" take on the Justice Department's bombshell report, the U.S. government admitted that it has more than 500 children in its torture and concentration camps. More than 2,500 children have gone through U.S. secret prisons since 2002, including at least eight at Guantánamo.
I know a lot of right-wing conservatives. We don't share much political common ground, but it's hard to imagine any of them thinking the indefinite detention and torture of children, against whom there is no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing, is anything other than the behavior of a monster.
If a man screams in a government torture chamber, does he make a sound? Not if the only one who hears him is an American reporter.
(Ted Rall is the author of the book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.)
#5
RD, I took Gorb's comment (i.e.: Why am I always the only one to see these things?) as if it were made by Ted Rall. Ted is a nut highly perceptiive and and wonders why he (Ted) is the only one who can clearly see "The Truth".
The only answer is everyone else is stupid / evil / (fill in with your own term).
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
06/01/2008 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Rall loves putting dead American soldiers in his sick cartoons. What a dirtbag.
#8
Eric Lichtblau covered a case I tried in the late 80's in Orange County. I generally haven't found reporters to be trustworthy but was surprised that Lichtblau did such a fair and accurate story. No wonder Mr. Rall doesn't like him.
The ossified conventional wisdom among much of America's political class is that talking to terrorists is always and everywhere a bad idea. The ghosts of the 1938 Munich Agreement forever linked with capitulation to Nazi Germany aren't allowed any rest, busy as they are being hurled at the target of the day.
Sen. Barack Obama felt he was the target when President Bush criticized the "false comfort of appeasement" in a speech before the Israeli Knesset earlier this month. Recalling Hitler's march across Europe, Mr. Bush mocked those who "believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." Sen. John McCain quickly echoed the sentiment.
While many politicians are willing to engage with "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea, they draw the line at terrorists, who are seen as intrinsically ruthless and radical. That's why "I will not negotiate with terrorists" is a refrain heard across the political spectrum and why Jimmy Carter took such flak recently for visiting with Hamas.
But this knee-jerk rejection of negotiation with radicals is deeply misguided and likely to do more harm than good. The smart question is not whether to talk to terrorists, but, instead, which terrorists to talk to and how to talk to them.
Many nonstate militants are weak and peripheral; they can be quickly squashed or contained without any need for negotiation. For instance, violent left-wing groups such as the Red Brigades in Italy and Weather Underground in the US were eliminated in the 1970s without negotiation.
But some terrorist and insurgent groups are very powerful. They are embedded in robust social networks, generate revenues from areas under their control, and have enough military power to impose serious costs on governments. They cannot be easily crushed, nor can they be wished away.Negotiations and cease-fire talks, or their offer, should be seen as one of a range of tools for overcoming militancy. Indeed, there are three good strategic reasons to talk to these kinds of armed organizations.
First, and most ambitiously, it is possible that an arrangement can be made with militant groups to end violence. The Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland, African National Congress in South Africa, and Mizo National Front in northeastern India have all been fully brought into the political system. The Maoist rebels in Nepal, meanwhile, may be heading in this direction.
One of the most striking, if tentative, recent examples comes from Iraq, where the US military has come to understandings with Sunni armed groups to cooperate against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Washington initially denounced these groups in the most vitriolic terms as ruthless and blood-thirsty terrorists, yet engaging with them has provided some measure of peace and stability in a troubled society. Second, the prospect of negotiation can weaken armed groups, leading to splits and internal dissension that reduce the threat they pose. Most terrorist and insurgent groups are not monolithic they have multiple factions, competing leaders, and a diversity of individual motivations for fighting.
The possibility of cease-fires or a peace settlement often brings these internal contradictions and disagreements to the fore. Even the extraordinarily disciplined Tamil Tigers suffered a major split in 2004 during a peace process, as internal tensions intensified that had been submerged during full-scale war.
In Kashmir, the largest insurgent group, Hizbul Mujahideen, fractured into rival factions between 2000 and 2003 due to internal disagreement about a cease-fire. In both cases, talking or even just its possibility weakened highly cohesive and motivated insurgents. Extending an invitation to talk can give governments the space and leverage to identify and isolate the truly irreconcilable militants, and to reach out to more-moderate factions.
Third, cease-fires and negotiations can provide breathing room to a hard-pressed government to refit and rearm. This represents a purely tactical use of talking, but still a valuable one. The British government used a 1975 cease-fire in Northern Ireland to prepare its intelligence and security services for a long-term struggle. Periodic cease-fires between the US and Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army have reduced the pressure on American troops in times of intense strain.
Opponents of talking to terrorists often argue that negotiations will offer legitimacy and credibility to militants. This represents a profound and self-absorbed misunderstanding of the roots of militancy. Armed groups do not emerge and disappear in response to the dictates of the United States. Fighters in the back alleys of Gaza, jungles of Sri Lanka, or mountains of Kashmir wage war for their own reasons, not to gain the approval of American political elites.
Furthermore, as with the "Anbar Awakening" in Iraq or the peace process in Northern Ireland, successful engagement with armed groups is likely to be seen as smart strategic adaptation rather than appeasement. It will often fail to bring peace, but even then can still weaken armed groups by fostering internal dissension or provide valuable breathing room to government forces.
Talking with terrorists doesn't always make sense. And political leaders who want to sound tough on national security can surely score points by promising they'll never negotiate with them. But taking this tool off the table makes it far harder to keep America and its allies safe.
Paul Staniland is a PhD candidate in political science at MIT and a member of the MIT Security Studies Program. He will be a predoctoral research fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in 2008-09. Ahh. Now it all makes sense. Aren't you glad you read everything all the way to the bottom? :-)
#1
I'm sure the author would find Lincoln's position equally unacceptable and that all we had to do was talk with the states in rebellion and the intent to continue that peculiar institution. Cause we all can fathom that if preserving the republic was tantamount then all Mr. Lincoln had to do was throw the slaves under the bus to reach an accommodation.
#2
I believe in talking to terrorists & on T.V. to boot - MAKE IT A THIRTY-SECOND ONE WAY CONVERSATION. I'll leave the substance of the dialogue up to your own imaginations.
Posted by: Snash Oppressor of the Mohammatans aka Broadhead6 ||
06/01/2008 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I guess you could talk with them when they want to surrender; otherwise what's the point--they are terrorists. They are dedicated to destroying us. They declared war on us sometime ago. They carried out an act of war on 911; and many times before.
#4
"Engagement ...can still weaken armed groups ..." > Radical Islam has already indic or inferred they have a stake in whom wins the 2008 US POTUS elex, and that they also prefer a US DemoLeftie to be victor. AS BEFORE, GIVEN THEIR LOSSES IN IRAQ + AFGHANISTSAN, etc. OSAMA + ISLAMISTS HAVE TO DECIDE THE MERITS + PRIORITIZE ON WHETHER SIX OR MORE MONTHS OF [Jihad/
Insurgency-damaging]STATUS QUO = MINIMAL LEVEL OF VIOLENCE/INSURGENS IS WORTH HELPING A US DEM BECOME POTUS COME JAN 2009.
AT present or prevailing rates of losses - IN MEN, MATERIEL, $$$, + SUPPORT - CAN JIHAD + ISLAMIST INSURGENCIES SURVIVE 2008 - 2010 NLT 2012/13???
VERSUS
FOX NEWS AM > reminds that OBAMA has said as POTUS he will seek unilateral disengagement and withdrawal of US milfors from Iraq, albeit "measured/calculated", refocus on Afghanistan, and gener find a way to END THE WAR + GET US FORCES OUT OF THE ME.
THERE'S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war.
It's not that odd. The U.S. media doesn't pay attention. I've become increasingly impressed over the past seven years with how bad they really are. And I wasn't real impressed in 2001.
While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere,
The Hillary-B.O. battle is the most important thing going at the moment, Britney and Lindsey being inactive, in rehab, or otherwise indisposed, Miley not having dropped her sheet, and Anna Nicole being still dead...
military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran.
There was a brief spate of stories when it looked like the Iraqis might get their butts handed to them when they first went into Basra. The Mahdi Army fifth columnists in the police went over to the other side, which was supposed to cause things to collapse. The actual result was to show where the snakes were in the grass. The bad boyz in uniform were fired en masse and then the Mahdi Army in Basra got its own nether regions handed to it, despite the brief wailing and gnashing to teeth of the Noo Yawk Times..
At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda.
Thereby causing a serious exodus toward the Syrian border of those Too Important to the Movement to be killed or captured...
So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."
The press is now waiting breathlessly, when not attending B.O. rallies, for his words to turn around and bite him...
Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007
We normally refer to that as the "surge." It's been successful enough for B.O. to call for a "diplomatic surge" to enhance our chances of failure...
produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites.
There really is no solution to an insurgency but to kill enough of the cannon fodder to clear a path to the head cheeses, who can then be fondued.
Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans.
The Iraqi army has historically been much better at this sort of thing than at winning wars. This has probably been enhanced in the current version of the Iraqi army by allowing a certain number of vetted Baathist-era officers to resume their duties. I'm guessing that after being trained by the U.S. they'll be better at winning any wars they may fight in the future, too.
. . . the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). . . .
It won't, though. The success of the effort will be discounted, ignored even. The emphasis will remain on the contention that we shouldn't have gotten into it in the first place. With the military end of things under control -- on the path toward success, in fact -- the "peace lobby" switched its attention to the supposedly unsolvable problem of the Iraqi government. With the military problem under control, Maliki was able to get the political problem under control. That left nothing for the Dems but generic opposition to the war, and ultimately to war in general.
If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise.
If they achieve power they can actually do sensible things with Iraq, under the umbrella of pulling the incompetent Bush's chestnuts out of the fire. As a side benefit, taking the money out of the war effort and probably drawing down the armed forces will have the same sort of efficatious effect it always does, releasing large numbers of trained and competent men and women back into the work force to actually build things and innovate. Same thing happened at the end of WWI, WWII, and the Cold War.
That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial.
To the U.S., maybe. The Iraqis are over the hump -- they'll be getting stronger, unless B.O., the UN, or the Arab League actually sells them out to the Medes and the Persians.
It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.
He won't do it. He'll continue to see failure, and if he succeeds with his campaign he'll reap the fruits of Bush's achievements. I think I need another shower.
This article starring:
Ryan C. Crocker
Posted by: Mike ||
06/01/2008 09:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
PayyPal, I go dare.
Posted by: George Smiley ||
06/01/2008 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Oppps, Skamzon!
Posted by: George Smiley ||
06/01/2008 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I still pity the next POTUS, whoever that will be. The domestic & global economic chickens are coming home to roost, and the next POTUS will get much of the blame/hatred for the ensuing difficulties.
#4
HMMMMMM, TOPIX > WAPA - IRAQ:THE US MAY BE WINNING THIS WAR.
versus:
SAME > PANARMENIAN,net > MUSLIM ENCLAVES MAY OCCUR IN RUSSIA, and concept is strongly supported by even non-Muslim Russ ethnic minorities', + WITH ARMENIA'S HELP, RUSSIA CAN CONTROL THE ENTIRE REGION; + TOPIX > FRANCE: ASIA AT STAKE FOR EUROPE. World's Centre of Gravity will likely shift to ASIA in aproxi 25 years.
As one of the early trailblazers for the Rev Wright put it, greater love hath no man than to lay down his friends for his life. In among all the usual presidential ditching of inconvenient associations, I can't think of anything to compare with Obama's dumping of Trinity. It's like Jimmy Carter renouncing his Baptist Church in Plains, Ga - although Carter never went so far as to title his campaign-launch promotional book after one of his preacher's sermons. Perhaps it's closer to Howard Dean quitting the Episcopal Church in Burlington, Vt over its objection to a proposed bike path - although even that arcane theological dispute seems more principled than Obama's wholesale abandonment of Trinity, its congregation, and the man who married him and was entrusted with the spiritual education of his children.
Over at Powerline, Paul Mirengoff says: "Obama left Trinity Church for the same reason he joined it - political opportunism." Faith-wise, Obama would seem to be closer to Dean than Carter - an essentially secular figure whose genuflections to religion were driven more by political expediency. In Governor Dean's case, this involved flying down to Georgia in the last primary campaign to appear with President Carter at church in Plains. A little obvious but it was just for one desperate Sunday morning when the numbers were wobbling. Senator Obama has 20 years of Sunday mornings: in effect, he's asking the media to give him a pass on unloading virtually his entire adult life. He's demanding an industrial-strength version of Herblock's famous "one free shave" to Nixon - in this case, a full head-to-toe depilation.
Will the media give it to him and continue the fawning iconography? Or will Bob Herbert, Joe Klein, Garry Wills and the other bobbysoxers resent being made to look like saps over their this-is-the-greatest-speech-since-Gettysburg hooey and confront the fraudulent nature of the image they've promoted so assiduously?
Gee, that's a tough one...
Posted by: Mike ||
06/01/2008 12:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Senator, in my church we love and worship Jesus. We believe the Bible is the word of God. Our preachers faithfully proclaim the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Our people live out their faith in a variety of ways, from feeding the poor, to providing medical care in rural Africa and elsewhere, to taking the good news of Jesus to Tanzania, France, England and several dozen other places around the world.
Sen. Obama, if you love Jesus, and enjoy the fellowship of others who share your faith in Christ, then you and Michelle and the girls might feel at home here.
Of course, we're not perfect. We lack some of the features to which your family has become accustomed. For example, our pastors never talk about political candidates from the pulpit. There's not a whole lot of angry screaming -- in fact, none. No preacher here has ever called down God's condemnation upon our native land. . . .
We're Republicans. We're Democrats. We're Independents. We're political apathetics. We're Americans. Above all, we're people who love Jesus. Through Jesus, we have come to love others, even those with whom we disagree. We're happy that "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:1,2)
If you like liberation theology, at our church you get it, but it's not limited to the poor, or to any particular race, because "if the Son (Jesus) sets you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:38) no matter what you look like or how much you earn. . . .
For a man who's all about "change" this one might be refreshing.
Sincerely,
Scott Ott
Posted by: Mike ||
06/01/2008 12:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is the Scott Ott of Scrappleface?
This is better than satire!
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/01/2008 13:55 Comments ||
Top||
Barack Obamas resignation from Trinity United Church of Christ over, in part, a cultural and a stylistic gap raises additional doubts about him. The obvious question is what cultural and stylistic gap exists now that hasnt existed during the last two decades, when Obama was a member of Trinity United and an intimate friend with its pastor, Jeremiah Wright Jr.? The answer, of course, is none. Trinity United and Jeremiah Wright are what they have always been; it is Obama or more precisely, Obamas political interests that have changed.
Its been just over two months since Obamas Philadelphia speech on race the one that was compared by the historian Garry Wills to Lincolns Cooper Union address. In that speech Obama famously said he could not more disown the Reverend Jeremiah Wright than he could disown the black community or his own grandmother and spoke about how Trinity United embodies the black community in its entirety.
Since that speech Wright has been tossed under the bus and now, so has Trinity United. And, arguably, "the black community in its entirety." Hope the thing has high ground clearance.
Obamas twenty-year participation at Trinity United and his close relationship with its senior pastor raised a lot of questions about Obama both about his decision to associate himself with Trinity United and Wright in the first place and Obamas tortured explanations since the public first learned of Wrights anti-American tirades.
What Obama did today may have been politically necessary. It was certainly politically expedient. And it is yet one more blow to Obamas image as a different kind of politician. In fact, as weve learned over the last few months, Obama appears to be a Chicago politician through and through. When he perceived a threat to his self-interest, he cut his ties to first his pastor and then his church, both of which he had expressed familial love and fidelity. This whole episode is deeply unattractive, even as it is deeply revealing.
Underneath the attractive veneer of Barack Obama beats the heart of a very, very ambitious man. Time will tell how problematic this may be and what snares this character trait may eventually lead him into.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/01/2008 00:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Selling out to whitey to get the big office.
Posted by: Kelly ||
06/01/2008 1:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
In that speech Obama famously said he could not more disown the Reverend Jeremiah Wright than he could disown the black community or his own grandmother...
He's currently batting 2 for 3. Black community...check your six.
#4
When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Jimmy Carter said, "I now understand Soviet intentions." Maybe a prospective president should have a good grasp of the enemy. All I am hearing from Obama is how we need to value diplomacy, notwithstanding entrenched positions of an enemy. Chamberlain said he understood Hitler; sure didn't.
#7
He's on the right track with leaving Trinity. His next steps should be to divorce Michelle, buy an F-150 and a bass boat, start attending NASCAR races, and move to Nashville. We can take another look at him in 2020.
#11
From Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles, "The Martian" Nov '49 -
"LaFarge and his wife Anna have forged a new life for themselves, but they still miss their dead son Tom. A night thunderstorm startles the elderly pair, who see a figure standing outside their home in the rain. Anna retires to bed afraid, while LaFarge believes that somehow, Tom is standing before him. He leaves his house unlocked.
That morning, "Tom" is busy helping Anna with chores. LaFarge sees that Anna is somehow unaware of Tom's death, and after speaking privately with him, LaFarge learns that "Tom" is a Martian with an apparent empathic shapeshifting ability: it appears as their dead son to them.
Later that day, Anna insists on a visit to the town. "Tom" is deathly afraid of being so close to so many people. LaFarge promises to keep him close, but at the town they become separated. While searching for "Tom," LaFarge hears that the Spaulding family in town has miraculously found their lost daughter Lavinia. Desperate to avoid a second devastating heartbreak to his wife, LaFarge stands outside Spaulding's home and finds "Tom" now masquerading as Lavinia. He is able to coax "Tom" to come back, and they run desperately back for their boat to leave town. However, everyone "Tom" passes sees a person of their own â a lost husband, a son, a criminal. The Martian, exhausted from his constant shape-changing, spasms and dies."
#15
OTOH, FOX NEWS + CNBC/MSNBC this AM > in time of WAR, NATIONAL CRISES, + UNCERTAINTY, AMERS WILL PREFER A WHITE REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE MALE WID MIL CREDENTIALS-EXPERIENCE AS POTUS come elex time, and 2008 DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY EXCEPTION TO THIS ADAGE.
SAME > The DEMS are making substantial gains in MAJOR RED-GOP STATES FORMERLY WON BY DUBYA.
* PUNDIT CONVENTIONAL WISDOM > 2008 ELEX- JAN 2009 > GOP POTUS + MOSTLY DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS. AMER VOTERS TRUST THE GOP MORE IN FOREIGN POLICY, FIGHTING WARS, + ECON MACROS, DEMS IN ALTERNATIVE VIEWS + "COMMON MAN" MORALISM + WELFARE SPENDING???
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.
