December 13, 2004

Regime Change at Turtle Bay!

While some are trying to run Kofi out of the East 40s (prematurely, in B.D.'s view, let Volker's investigation play out)--others appear intent to do the same with respect to ElBaredei. Check out this story out about telephone intercepts being reviewed for evidence of overly pro-Iranian leanings.

Isn't this more a case of shooting the messenger? There is no evidence ElBaredei is actively in bed with the Iranians. Would a Brazilian nuclear specialist brought onboard instead be parroting John Bolton's talking points if he were rotated into the position? Er, no. The bottom line is that we have no coherent Iran policy. It's not ElBaraedi's fault. And it's not John Bolton's either. But that is the reality--and time isn't on our side. Frankly, it's becoming likelier every day that we need to begin preparing ourselves for the prospects of a nuclear Iran and the strategic implications thereto. And spending resources beating up on ElBaredei isn't making that unfortunate outcome less likely. It's a sideshow and waste of time. Let's skip the diversions and focus on the main show, shall we?

Posted by Gregory at December 13, 2004 01:01 AM
Comments

And as we proceed with developing a coherent Iran policy, let's keep in mind that they have become very chummy with China as of late. There is little doubt that the recent dealing between the two nations is more than just good business. It is a strategic move to block - or at least seriously frustrate - US machinations.

I actually agree with you, Greg, on El Baredei. However, what is happening there is typical neocon revenge/warning tactics. You're either with our message or against our message. You will say only what we want to be said or you will be punished.

Very dangerous bunch living in an echo chamber.

Posted by: avedis at December 13, 2004 03:17 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Ah, I should have figured you'd be a Bolton fan (as indicated by an archived post as well as your affinity for neocon dope in general).

The neocons want Iran for Isreal's sake, of course.

I wonder how many Americans would be willing to fight a war for Isreal. I wonder how many Americans would vote for Bush if they knew that Isreal and the US essentially now have interlocking governments.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/uscfl.php

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/0308damascus.htm

www.fpif.org/pdf/papers/SRmen.pdf

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2717

http://www.irmep.org/essays/ksa.htm

http://www.iraqtimeline.com/theysaid.html

(misc. interesting snips)

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May_2004/0405020.html


The last URL is the best. I find it sickening actually.

Posted by: avedis at December 13, 2004 04:38 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Jeez ... didn't we already go through this in the Dreyfuss Affair?

Kinda sad when the Left displays it's innate anti-Semitism. Yes all the "Jews" are involved in some massive, neo-con conspiracy. As Nietchze said, anti-semitism is the mark of the profoundly ignorant mind.

El Baredei is an enemy of the United States, and needs to go from the post. He's openly boasted of never shaking the hand of a Jew, and the "need" for an "Islamic Bomb" to counter the US nuclear arsenal. He's suspected of helping the Iranians evade detection of their nuclear program by passing on information by the IAEA.

He's gone on record stating that Iran's nuclear program was completely clean, only to have the MEK dump evidence that the Iranians were cheating massively and then frantically backpedalling.

The Iranians are but a few years away from the Shahab 5 missle, capable of reaching the East Coast of the United States. The Iranian regime technically remains in a state of war with the US over the invasion of our Embassy, and considers the US the "great Satan." It hangs 16 year old girls for having sex (under duress) and stones 13 year old girls to death for the crime of being raped. Tehran has engaged in so many terror acts against the US it's almost too much to count, from the Beirut barracks bombings to the Khobar Towers bombings. Iran also shelters and protects from the US many Al Queda senior leaders, perhaps even Bin Laden himself.

Ominously, the Iranian regime seems to believe that a nuclear attack or two destroying a US city would cause the US to "collapse" and allow them hegemony over the Gulf which is what they really want (killing all the Israelis in Final Solution Part Two aside).

Which city are you prepared to lose, Avedis, when the Mullahs who run Iran decide to nuke the US to "destroy the great Satan?" NYC? Washington? Baltimore?

The US simply cannot live with a nuclear Iran because we will the first target. Getting rid of El Baredi is the first step, but if needful the US needs to be prepared for unilateral, comprehensive, military action if and when diplomacy to avoid the threat of the insane Mullahs nukes going off in American cities fails.

To think otherwise is to pretend the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or Kofi Annan's "words of concern" are a defense against nuclear destruction killing millions and injuring millions more.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at December 13, 2004 10:12 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

The US will soon come to the point of publically treating countries like Iran and Syria as "sub states" -- countries not to be accorded the presumption of minimal rationality and civility required for peaceful interaction between states. There are an ocean of iron clad, unimpeachable justifications for doing this. The US then simply declares Iran in need of house cleaning which could be accomplished in a few months with nothing more than a vigorous embargo of Iran's ports, the lifeline upon which the Iranian economy is totally dependant. This technically being an act of war against Iran, the US has to be prepared to react outsided the bounds of 'proportional response' in the case of an Iranian attack on the Saudi oil fields. It is also preferable the the Iranians know in advance the the US is really p***ed off at them, to the point where the US is finally and rightfully no longer seeing EU dissaproval as an obstacle to the pursuit of its interests.

Posted by: Ronald Proby at December 13, 2004 11:48 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Jim, Ronald, you guys don't care about China's reaction? Blinded by blood lust?

Where will the troops come from? Or are we going to drop the big one now?

"Ominously, the Iranian regime seems to believe that a nuclear attack or two destroying a US city would cause the US to "collapse" and allow them hegemony over the Gulf which is what they really want (killing all the Israelis in Final Solution Part Two aside).


This comes from where?

"To think otherwise is to pretend the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or Kofi Annan's "words of concern" are a defense against nuclear destruction killing millions and injuring millions more."

There are medications available now to treat paranoid schizophrenia and with fewer side-effects than the older generation of medications.

"Jeez ... didn't we already go through this in the Dreyfuss Affair?"

One of the lamest conservative responses I've ever heard. There is concrete evidence that important members of Washington foreign policy formation are involved with conflicts of interest of Isreal and have strong ties to the Likud party.

Noting this is not anti-semitic. Criticism of the Likud party is not anti-semitic. Since when is it illegal to critize Isreal. I thought you conservatives are against PC crap.

At any rate, there is very good reson to believe that our government has been in part subverted by agents with a conflict of interest with another country and all you can do is toss out lame attempts to avoid even discussing the issue.

You sir, are not the patriot you claim to be. You are an empty sycophantic zombie; a toy of whatever rightwing boss may happen by. And a traitor.

Posted by: avedis at December 13, 2004 02:54 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Suppose that the Bush administration is not able to stop iran from getting nukes.

There's every reason to think that will happen.

Isn't the most important priority then to pick somebody to blame for it?

Our primary preparation for a nuclear iran will be to foam at the mouth and kick the carpet and blame anybody who talked like they weren't completely onboard.

So who do we blame? Democrats, obviously. Clinton. Obstructionist democrats since. Liberals. Pacifists.

Europe.

The UN.

The iranians themselves.

We can't really afford to blame china because they might take offense and do something.

So then what? The obvious next step is israel bombs iran with bunker-busting bombs, and fails to stop their nuclear project. Israel of course would fly over jordan and US-controlled iraq, with our full cooperation.

Iran then does not bomb israel with nukes or anything else, and so we establish a new precedent -- that even though israel and iran are both nuclear states iran does not have a deterrent wrt israel, israel can still do whatever they want without fear of getting nuked.

And once it's established that the new status quo is not that different from the old status quo, over a period of months the frothing-at-the-mouth will gradually stop.

I have no confidence in this scenario but to me it's a plausible one.

Posted by: J Thomas at December 13, 2004 04:29 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

J. T. I also think that is a plausible scenario.

And so the circle of violence continues. Iran will sponsor a massive terrorist campaign against Isreal. Iran will also sponsor a massive terrorist campaign against the US and US interests in Iraq. Al Qaeda will see their ranks of recruits swell to new highs.............

Why is nuclear Iran such a big deal? We have nuclear Pakistan, Nuclear N. Korea, Nuclear Isreal, Nuclear Isreal, NUclear China............but Iran somehow becomes a big problem.

A better strategy would be to let Iran know that if they use a nuke offensively, they will be retaliated against not only in kind, but by many orders of magnitude.

Thus, using their nukes would be an act of national suicide. There would probably be sufficient international support behind such a strategy.

As far as hyperbole regarding an Iranian nuclear attack on the US, Iran just doesn't have the delivery system; can't happen.

Posted by: avedis at December 13, 2004 05:24 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Another consideration must be the reaction of Iraqi Shiites to an attack on the biggest Shiite nation in the world. Striking Iran, or worse still, allowing Israel to do so, would alienate and enrage large portions of the majority Iraqi Shiites. If they turn against us, game over. There is no way we can maintain control of Iraq with only the Kurds on our side, unless we take the stance that you have to raze a country to liberate it. I'm not putting that past us, but it wasn't a particularly effective strategy in Vietnam, and I don't suppose a redux would lead to a different outcome. What's worse, in the current context, such overly aggressive measures on our part would be an even bigger blow against us in the battle for hearts and minds in the greater Muslim world - the key component to defeating Bin Laden and his ilk.

Aside from the fact that our armed forces are stretched paper thin and bogged down in Iraq, this is one of the reasons Iran has been so emboldened. Add to that the fact that we have already eliminated two erstwhile rivals in the region, Saddam and the Taliban, and Iran has made out the best from our recent forays.

If Iran is as bad as Jim Rockford makes them out to be, and they might be, then invading Iraq was an even bigger blunder than previously anticipated. Our current predicament has empowered Iran, emboldened Iran and left us with fewer options for dealing with Iran. Unfortunately, this state of affairs is not lost on the Mullahs.

Posted by: Eric Martin at December 13, 2004 06:04 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Will someone explain why simple old containment -- which worked on such certifiable revolutionary nutballs as Joe Stalin and Mao -- won't work on Iran?

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at December 13, 2004 06:46 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"If Iran is as bad as Jim Rockford makes them out to be, and they might be, then invading Iraq was an even bigger blunder than previously anticipated. Our current predicament has empowered Iran, emboldened Iran and left us with fewer options for dealing with Iran. Unfortunately, this state of affairs is not lost on the Mullahs."

Precisely. That is also why we backed Saddam for so many years. In many ways, only a Saddam could hold Iraq - and possibly the region - together.

So now some Straussian gamblers looking to validate their ivory tower concepts, protect Isreal and make some $ in the process have implimented a new strategy.

Some are now saying that we may be handing Iraq to the Iranians (Galbraith) through the election process.

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows. The invasion of Iraq has created much uncertainty and that uncertainty is in Iran's favor.

They're hedging by allying with China and that's a strong hedge.

RE: Containment. Yes. Why not. Tit for Tat would work just fine. I don't think that Iran is so desirous of Isreal's destruction that they would commit to it at the expense of their entire culture.

Posted by: avedis at December 13, 2004 07:10 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"The last URL is the best. I find it sickening actually."

I do too. But I'm sure for very different reasons than you do, Avedis.

This whole "neo-con" witch hunt is dispicable.

The dual-loyalty canard is something the Jews have faced for longer than there have been neo-cons, while the Jewish connection to the neo-conservative movement is universally recognized.

One should be able to criticize the policies of the neo-cons without trying to impeach them personally, with classic anti-Jewish stereotypes at that.

"One of the lamest conservative responses I've ever heard. There is concrete evidence that important members of Washington foreign policy formation are involved with conflicts of interest of Isreal and have strong ties to the Likud party.

Noting this is not anti-semitic. Criticism of the Likud party is not anti-semitic. Since when is it illegal to critize Isreal. I thought you conservatives are against PC crap."

It is worth noting that the source, WRMEA, calls AIPAC an "ethnic lobby". "Likudnik", as far as I know, is not an ethnicity. It also publishes this:

"It is because the Israeli lobby recognized long ago that the real power base in the United States lay with the media and the Congress. And so major American Jewish organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) worked tirelessly to take control of these two bastions of power. Now, even if the president or the secretary of state are to ever acknowledge the legitimate rights of Palestinians, American Zionists can manipulate the media and Congress to defeat any policy favoring Palestinian self-rule."

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0798/9807033.html

Complete with the oldie but goodie - "Zionist" "control" and "manipulation" of the media.

Since WRMEA itself takes the stance that pro-Israel = Jew, don't blame others when we take them at their word and draw the appropriate conclusions.

If you want to know what this organization is all about, just read this screed, complete with fabricated quote from Sharon. Ostensibly this is about cautioning the US not to lash out after the 9/11 attacks, but of course, everything leads back to the "Zionists"...

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/november01/0111114.html

"Pro-Israel forces and media in the U.S. will make every effort to convince angry Americans that all Arabs are terrorists... [A ludicrous charge - ed.]

...But, as we’ve said in the past, knowledge is the Zionists’ Achilles’ heel..."

As I said, dispicable.

Posted by: David at December 13, 2004 11:26 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

David engages in political correctness to its extreme.

We cannot mention that there is a cohesive group working for our government's foreign policy wing that also works for the government of Isreal, that members of this group have illegaly transferred US military technology and US confidential security data to Isreal, and that, for obvious reasons, serious conflicts of interest exist (unless you accept that Isreal's interest and the US' interest is one and the same now and forever).

All documented facts.


No other religious, national or ethnic group presents this problem in Washington. I can't imagine another group being allowed to form and gain access to the highest levels of US policy and strategy forming. A cohesive group of Germans that also sit in positions in the German department of defense? How about Chinese?

The group in question happens to mostly have Jewish members and these members have well documented ties (conflicts of interest) with the Isreali Defense Ministry. They write hard line policy position papers (like advice to scrap the Oslo Accords and to go on the offensive) for Isreal. They write hard line position papers for the US government (like the PNAC, Securing the Realm, etc, etc). There is an obvious dovetail between what Isreali and US policy in their writings.

This phenomena is real, documented, and ongoing and, I believe, very dangerous. No foreign government should have that much access and influence in our highest circles. Not Isreali, French, English, whatever.


But David says this discussion is off limits because the people in question are Jews and the country in question is Isreal.

How clever.

And how stupid.

David, perhaps, would like to characterize me as some sort of antisemitic red-neck conspiracy theorists. No doubt sitting around the trailer in a dirty t-shirt with barking dogs drinking beer with the neighbor and complaining about the Jews taking over the gubmint.

Far from the truth, David.

I have no problem with Jews in general. I'm ok with Isreal's right to exist. In fact, as an Armenian, I feel as certain kinship with Jews.

What David is saying is that since there were pogroms in Europe - culminating in Hitler's final solution - and sometimes these pogroms were set aflame by accusations against Jews of international intrigue and manipulation and conflicts of interest, etc we can never critize Isreal or Jews again.

Isreal now has a carte blanche to do whatever it wants; so great is the political capital gained in the aftermath of the Holocaust.

Again, as an Armenian, perhaps I am in a better position to call bullshit on that one. I don't bear the whiteman's guilt, or whatever it is that makes people shy from criticizing Isreal. Armenians, having been the victims of a genocide that, proportionately, may even have been worse than the Holocaust, have never received special status because of the experience. We know that life can go on with out it. A genocide does not excuse a people from responsibility into perpetuity.

In the governing of a democracy, facts and truth should never be off-limit. If there is an influencial group of people responsible for developing foreign policy and that group has demonstrated active ties to two governments - both sovereign nations - and both with interests in the same region, then only a fool would not assume at least potential conflict of interest problems.

David would like the discussion of that potential to be off-limits.

David, I challenge you to read all the links and using the bulk of the information, discuss with me, rationally, why we shouldn't be concerned about conflicts of interest. Tell me why the evidence provided in the links isn't disconcerting at least.

And crying antisemite would suffice. Deal with the facts, please.


Posted by: avedis at December 14, 2004 04:45 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"But David says this discussion is off limits because the people in question are Jews and the country in question is Isreal."

Are we addressing each other in the third person now? OK then...

If Avedis actually had a leg to stand on, he would not have to set up strawmen like this.

"I have no problem with Jews in general."

Okaaaay...

"What David is saying is that since there were pogroms in Europe - culminating in Hitler's final solution - and sometimes these pogroms were set aflame by accusations against Jews of international intrigue and manipulation and conflicts of interest, etc we can never critize Isreal or Jews again."

More strawmen, anyone?

"Isreal now has a carte blanche to do whatever it wants; so great is the political capital gained in the aftermath of the Holocaust."

And yet more...

"Again, as an Armenian, perhaps I am in a better position to call bullshit on that one."

Call...or spew...

"David would like the discussion of that potential to be off-limits."

And Avedis can't actually bring himself to address what I actually said, so ascribes these things to me which I didn't say.

"And crying antisemite would suffice. Deal with the facts, please."

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Next time you should vet your sources better. The slurs in the WRMEA article are unseemly, at *best*, and fit into an editorial position that makes someone posing a question about the Dreyfus affair not unreasonable. Certainly one asking this isn't a traitor, as you called the other poster.

I have no problem with criticism towards Israel. It is the agenda driven demonization of American Jews that I have a problem with. And *insinuating* that someone is a traitor, as WRMEA does, is certainly that.

The questions you want to ask can *easily* be posed without ascribing nefarious motives to the "neo-cons". But that is not WRMEA's agenda, and so they publish articles screaming about dual loyalties, media manipulation by so-called "Jewish groups", etc., complete with fabricated quotes.

"Tell me why the evidence provided in the links isn't disconcerting at least."

Because the neo-con position is sensible, if a bit idealistic. You ask the neo-cons why they adopt the positions they do and they will tell you that it is in *America's* best interest to support beleaguered democracies in the world. What your links won't mention is that these neo-cons have been consistent in their position over time and geography. Whether it is Central America, Taiwan, the USSR, or Israel, their thinking is the same.

So maybe in your next post you can address what I actually say, and not your creative interpretation of it.

There are some who do try to shout down all criticism of Israel with shrill cries of "anti-Semitism". They are at one end of the spectrum. And then there are those, such as you, who will turn a blind eye to invocations of the age-old calumnys because you agree with the position of those uttering them. And anyone pointing them out gets a post like you just made, with equally shrill accusations of "But David says this discussion is off limits because the people in question are Jews and the country in question is Isreal". And you are at the other end of the spectrum.

While it may be painful for you to admit, some criticism of Israel is actually motivated by anti-Semitism. And other criticisms of Israel (and American Jews) cross the line even if they aren't directly motivated by anti-Semitism. And sometimes even things you might agree with will do that, shocking though it may seem.

Bottom line - go nuts with criticizing Israel...just don't paint Jews as having horns. Ascribing traitorous motives on circumstantial evidence is just that. And it is OK to point it out when it does happen, even if you get hyper-defensive about it. And THAT is my point, not all of the strawmen you set up.


Posted by: David at December 14, 2004 08:15 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Just so you know, this is the kind of thing I am referring to:

Serving Two Flags: Neocons, Israel and the Bush Administration

[Dual Loyalties, front and center]

Some skeptics, noting the neo-cons’ past academic and professional associations, writings and public utterances, have suggested that their underlying agenda...

[OK, some people are suspicious of them]

Have the neoconservatives—many of whom are senior officials in the Department of Defense (DOD), National Security Council (NSC) and Office of the Vice President—had dual agendas, while professing to work for the internal security of the United States against its terrorist enemies?

[Posing the charge as a question. Insinuation rather than coming out and actually making the charge.]

A review of the internal security backgrounds of some of the best known among them strongly suggests the answer.

[I'm sure it does to the author, but he knows the case isn't strong so only insinuates it again.]

[Then we get to the "evidence". Most of the hard evidence seems to center on one guy, who I never even heard of.

Most of the rest seems to be that investigations took place. "He was investigated, so maybe...", just more insinuation.

And the crutch of all conspiracy theorists - the investigations didn't lead to anything so...COVERUP!!! Again, only insinuated.

Of course, it may have been that nothing was actually there, but that doesn't fit the agenda, so he just mentions the investigation and lets it hang there. As the author put it in the intro "strongly suggesting an answer".

The rest of the case here seems to be that some individuals had a problem with some of the people targeted in this smear campaign. So-and-so said they didn't want Mr. Neo-con near the classified files...must be dual loyalty, not that anyone will actually come out and say it, but insinuating it achieves the same purpose.]

Posted by: David at December 14, 2004 08:50 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"...will tell you that it is in *America's* best interest to support beleaguered democracies in the world. What your links won't mention is that these neo-cons have been consistent in their position over time and geography."

Sure they'll say that.

I own a piece of this wonderful bridge in this city in New York. Would you like to buy some shares in it?

Instead of addressing one article that you find antisemitic, why don't you address all the info.?

Posted by: avedis at December 15, 2004 07:45 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

As so many understood in the 30s, it was clearly not in the interest of Europe, or America, or the world to fight Hitler merely for the sake of the Jews (who were, in any event, intent on plunging the world into war, as Hitler himself was so fond of stating).

How, indeed, could anything that remotely helped Jews be in the interest of the West?

Much rather have peace at any price. And peace in our time---for surely peace is the highest value. Why would anyone in his right mind fight Germany for the sake of the Rothschilds?

As so many understood in the 30s (ah, clever, clever Adolf).

And so today. Why fight for Israel, that shitty little country that wants to plunge the world into war?

Clearly, the fight against Islamicism is, after all is said and done, merely to do battle for Israel against her enemies, not ours.

No, those whom America fights are certainly not America's enemies; nor are they Europe's, nor the world's. They are Israel's enemies alone.

And clearly, American foreign policy has been hijacked by Israeli interests, its Amen Corner in the US and its cunning Neo-Con acolytes. Did America liberate Kuwait, unseat the Taliban, overthrow Saddam serve warning to the Mullahs, because of any reasonable American self-interest? Not at all; the only reasonable conclusion is that it has done so only because it was/is in Israel's interest.

Like the 30s, it's just another case of the Jews wanting someone else, manipulating others, to do their dirty work for them.

Well, the world may have fallen for it once; but it must do everything in its power to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Truth to power. Eh, Avedis?


Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 15, 2004 09:46 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

David wrote, The slurs in the WRMEA article are unseemly, at *best*,

OK, toss out that one and consider his other links.

Do you disagree that a number of promient neocons have written policy papers for israel from an israeli point of view? They say what "we" should do in israel's best intgerest, when "we" refers to their Likud friends.

When I read those papers I can have no doubt that they're loyal to israel. The question becomes whether the're also loyal to the USA. Do they have dual loyalty or not?

Posted by: J Thomas at December 15, 2004 11:11 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"Sure they'll say that.

I own a piece of this wonderful bridge in this city in New York. Would you like to buy some shares in it?"

Actually, I'd just like you to merely drop the insinuations and prove the slander or acknowledge that it is just that.

"Instead of addressing one article that you find antisemitic, why don't you address all the info.?"

My curiousity was piqued when you said:

"The last URL is the best. I find it sickening actually."

So I read that one, and realized that it was a bunch of unsubstantiated slurs. I was disgusted and addressed that, and in answer you started putting all kinds of words in my mouth.

You said you want to debate the facts. Fine. Why don't you bring the facts as WRMEA presents them? Lay out the case for why WRMEA impugns that Wolfowitz has dual loyalties. You can do it succinctly and in bullet points.

And when you do that, if your intellectual honesty trumps your anti-Israel demogoguery, you will acknowledge that there is nothing there. It is a smear and little different than McCarthyism.

And if you think about it, smearing Wolfowitz with charges of treason based on insinuation is not all that far off from the Dreyfus case. Certainly the other poster didn't deserve to be called a traitor for making the observation, and perhaps you will apologize to him.



Posted by: David at December 15, 2004 03:19 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"Instead of addressing one article that you find antisemitic..."

And I should note, IMO in and of itself the article isn't anti-Semitic. I have said what I think it is - a thinly veiled smear campaign. I think it is politically motivated.

And agreeing with it, or being Armenian, or whatever other reason you can think up, doesn't absolve you from the responsibility for reading it critically (at least, if you want others to take you seriously).

However, the editorial position of WRMEA's publication is not so clear cut, as I have pointed out, and so what the other poster said was strong, but not totally beyond reason. It certainly was worth considering and not flat out attacking him.

Posted by: David at December 15, 2004 03:40 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Playing texas holdem at http://texas-holdem-000.net right now is a great idea, i thing!

Posted by: texas holdem at December 24, 2004 05:56 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Whant casino at home? Go to online casino games at http://online-casino-games-000.com!!!

Posted by: casino games at December 24, 2004 06:01 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Whant casino at home? Go to online casino games at http://online-casino-games-000.com!!!

Posted by: casino games at December 24, 2004 08:14 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Playing texas holdem at http://texas-holdem-000.net right now is a great idea, i thing!

Posted by: texas holdem at December 24, 2004 08:27 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
Search
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Columnists
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Security
Books
The City
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Syria
B.D. In the Press
Archives
Categories
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS RDF

G2E

Powered by