And so the charade begins once again. A state ripped apart by war, poverty and corruption promises to hold elections, and optimistic Western leaders pump in money and troops in a bid to ensure a window of comparative peace for the ballot. The battered populace votes, the results are declared and everyone proclaims the triumph of democracy in another land.
Leon Panetta, the C.I.A.’s new director—and the man who bears much of the responsibility for keeping the country safe—learned the details of Cheney’s speech when he arrived in his office, on the seventh floor of the agency’s headquarters. An hour earlier, he had been standing at the side of President Barack Obama, who was giving a speech at the National Archives, in which he argued that America could “fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law.” In January, the Obama Administration banned the “enhanced” techniques that the Bush Administration had approved for the agency, including waterboarding and depriving prisoners of sleep for up to eleven days. Panetta, pouring a cup of coffee, responded to Cheney’s speech with surprising candor. “I think he smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue,” he told me. “It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics.”
LIKE all students caught up in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, I was riveted by the violent confrontations between the police and protestors in Selma, 1965, and Chicago, 1968. But I never heard about the several days of riots that rocked Greenwich Village after the police raided a gay bar called the Stonewall Inn in the wee hours of June 28, 1969 — 40 years ago today.
It's the 2009 presidential election in Iran and opposition leader Mir-Houssein Mousavi declares victory hours before the polls close, insuring that any result to the contrary will be called into question. Western media goes into overdrive, fighting with each other to see who can offer the most hyperbolic denunciation of the vote and President Ahmadenijad's apparent victory (BBC wins by publishing bald-faced lies about the supposed popular uprising which it is later forced to retract). On June 13th, 30000 "tweets" begin to flood Twitter with live updates from Iran, most written in English and provided by a handful of newly-registered users with identical profile photos. The Jerusalem Post writes a story about the Iran Twitter phenomenon a few hours after it starts (and who says Mossad isn't staying up to date with new media?). Now, YouTube is providing a "Breaking News" link at the top of every page linking to the latest footage of the Iranian protests (all shot in high def, no less). Welcome to Destabilization 2.0, the latest version of a program that the western powers have been running for decades in order to overthrow foreign, democratically elected governments that don't yield to the whims of western governments and multinational corporations.
Ironically, Iran was also the birthplace of the original CIA program for destabilizing a foreign government.
The Bible teaches “whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). But is a carnivorous diet consistent with Judeo-Christian values? Is eating meat glorifying to God? Many Christians I have discussed this topic with, contend that God permitted humankind to eat animals; usually starting with the verse in which God gave humankind dominion over the animals (Genesis 1:28), and ending with Jesus’ comment that the food one uses to fill their belly does not defile the individual (Mark 7:15). I believe that these arguments are shallow in analysis of Scripture, and completely miss the mark for what God had intended for His creation.
Note from author–To all young people–please force yourself to read this to the end, and if you still don’t understand, research it.
“An important step forward” –this is what President Obama called Netanyahu’s most recent speech.
It is beyond my mental comprehension to understand why we, as Palestinians and Arabs, do not act on Israel’s long term plans and yet continue to react to their frequent petty games and distractions. The truth is that the Netanyahu speech was written back in 1996 but could not be delivered because Clinton did not agree with the “Clean Break” group and their plans at that time.
As strange as it may sound the fact is that the speech Netanyahu recently gave is in fact actually 13 years old. The problem was that at the time it was initially written (1996) the players involved (including Netanyahu and a few other infamously well-known individuals such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, et al) could not implement its proposals because “events on the ground” had not materialized as they had originally hoped or planned, namely that the Jewish state break away from the mother ship, the United States of America.
Page 100 of 129