Dissenting historian Mark Curtis reveals how the British provided assistance in the Ba'ath party's seizure of power in Iraq in 1963. Furthermore, "the February 1963 coup was masterminded by the CIA, which provided the coup leaders with a list of 5,000 people who were hunted down and murdered. Ostensibly directed at eliminating the Iraqi Communist Party, they included senior army officers as well as lawyers, professors, teachers and doctors, who were killed mostly in house-to-house visits by hit squads."
How does this evidence fit with the thinking of the neo-conservatives such as William Kristol? Long arguing that America should be a "benevolent hegemony", Kristol was one of the leading brains behind the Iraq invasion. He is still paraded on Australian TV as an authoritative voice of the Right, despite the fact that he received money from disgraced multinational Enron and never disclosed the payments. Does our national broadcaster not think it's appropriate to acknowledge this fact? Kristol is the kind of Republican who prefers preaching American-directed democracy to the Arab world and ignoring hypocrisies closer to home.
How does this evidence fit with the thinking of the neo-conservatives such as William Kristol? Long arguing that America should be a "benevolent hegemony", Kristol was one of the leading brains behind the Iraq invasion. He is still paraded on Australian TV as an authoritative voice of the Right, despite the fact that he received money from disgraced multinational Enron and never disclosed the payments. Does our national broadcaster not think it's appropriate to acknowledge this fact? Kristol is the kind of Republican who prefers preaching American-directed democracy to the Arab world and ignoring hypocrisies closer to home.
10 Comments:
Kristol is the kind of Republican who prefers preaching American-directed democracy to the Arab world and ignoring hypocrisies closer to home.
Are you implying that there is a kind of Republican who doesn't act in this manner?
Newt Gingrich liked to point out hypocrisies in other people's homes. Namely that of Bill Clinton. Still, Newt didn't like to acknowledge his own dirty laundry - stuff like serving his first wife with divorce papers whilst she was in hospital undergoing chemotherapy.
Yes, fair point. But I'd also argue that most Democrats are little better. Heard Hilary Clinton's recent pronouncements re Israel and Iran? She's been getting neo-con lessons from Cheney.
Come on Khalil, what's your real name? At least anonymous hasn't stooped to pretending to be someone or something he's (or she's) not. Checked out ypur blog - are you actually Mike Jericho, the wingnut fantasist who told opponents at Surfdom that he was a vet, only to be pulled up short by a persistent Nabokov? Standard wingnut Likudnik practice to pretend to be an Arab so that your bias appears to be self-examination.
'Fess up.
Is this you, Glenn?
http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/is/bin/phlookup.cgi?type=people&name=glenn+condell&title=&position=&department=&phone=&email=
No bias in the Unis at all.
Hear, hear. One of the struggles is making people realise that the "Liberals" are in fact very similiar to the right-wingers. Hillary Clinton is a great example. Her comments on Iran and Israel make Bolton seem neutral!
'And as I'm not busy kissing Muslim ass, but instead exposing them for who they are, I stand nothing to gain and everything to lose by flaunting my identity.'
Coward.
'By the way, I'm an Arab, but not a Muslim.'
Balls.
Glenn, you failed to answer the question regarding Sydney University. Is that you?
If you are dodging questions in regard to your own identity, perhaps it would be best to hold off on throwing stones.
Also, are you Nabakov?
Do you believe all anonymous writers to be cowards?
Hi Khalil and Simon. How about reading Curtis' article and commenting upon its content?
No one else is interested in your little virtual duels. Stop carrying on like wankers. Try treating people on line as you would if they were standing next to you at the pub with a pool queue in one hand and a schooner in the other.
Doylie, if you look back up the chain of comments, you'll see that it was Glenn who first went OT, by totally ignoring Khalil's on topic argument, and attacking him ad hominem.
It's a preferred technique of Nabakov, as it happens.
'Glenn, you failed to answer the question regarding Sydney University. Is that you?'
Some of us leave the keyboard alone occasionally.
The question was : is that me? Yes of course it is... what do you think, I'm ashamed of where I work? Of what I do? Of who I am? I'm not like you, you gutless troll. I stand four square behind my opinions, unlike you.
I work at Sydney Uni. So what? You're obviously part of that callow cohort of pimply Blairites that swallow every second hand trope that your superiors throw at you, like 'Uni types are un Australian leftists.' Tastes good enough to repeat ad infinitum, eh?
Let's see.. Unis are full of un-Australian leftists; the ABC is fatally biased against huge multinationals; peace loving protestors are objectively pro-Saddam... you've got a million of 'em haven't you, or rather 'haven't y'all'.
'Try treating people on line as you would if they were standing next to you at the pub with a pool queue in one hand and a schooner in the other.'
Exactly. I've copped the odd belting in my time but it's better than wimping out. It gets hot in the kitchen occasionally, if you don't like it, go and watch telly instead.
'Also, are you Nabakov?'
No
'Do you believe all anonymous writers to be cowards?'
Some are more cowardly than others and some have better reasons than others.
And some don't abuse their anonymity by pretending to be people they're not.
Post a Comment
<< Home