Nov 26, 2006

Email Of The Week...

Mr. Fitzpatrick,

Perhaps you could have the timer fixed on your blog to have the Earth rotating at something approximating natural cycles?
Regards,
XXXXX X.
Boston, Ma.

Dear Dizzy in Boston,

I will ask "Russell" "No Comment" Samborn to look into that right away - seeing that he has plenty of time on his hands - but we do like our coffee strong and frothy. ;)

49 Comments:

Blogger teak said...

The world stopped.

9:41 AM  
Blogger jan said...

no it didn't.

9:49 AM  
Anonymous Jack Abramoff said...

Special Prosecutor,

Try decaff or cutting back to half a cup. BTW, I wrote a song last night. What do you think?

You asked the question
Can I come in for coffee
I thought this could never be
I thought for a minute, then smiled for a second
‘Cause you’re just my cup of tea

The coffee was steaming
And I, I was dreaming
You take me to boiling point
Your lips starting kissing, my heart started missing
We damn nearly wrecked the joint

Like a dream
You held my body tight (You held my body tight)
Like caffeine
You kept me up all night

Chorus
I like my men
Like I like my coffee
Hot, strong and sweet like toffee
Oh! So you know that I can’t let you go
I like my men
Like I like my coffee
Hot, strong and sweet like toffee
Oh! And I know that I can’t let you go

I thought that maybe
I'd slept like a baby
And last night was just a dream
Then in walked my lover
And pulled back the covers
Cause I like my coffee with cream

Then I felt a stirring deep inside
(you stir me up inside)
Fill my cup, till it’s flowing down the side

Chorus

Men like my coffee
Really turn me on
Sometimes expresso
Sometimes he’s too strong
Then there’s Costa Rican
Mellow but he’s rich
But never give me instant
'Cause baby... he’s too quick

Like a dream
You held my body tight (You held my body tight)
Like caffeine
You kept me up all night (You kept me up all night)

9:50 AM  
Blogger Global Evildoer Fighter said...

Good Afternoon Fitz and the Justice Bloggers...

We're seeing more connections here people..


Biloxi,

KBR-HALLIBURTON IMPLICATES THE SAUDIS...

Ex-KBR Employee Pleads Guilty to Kickbacks

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. Mar 24, 2006 (AP)— An ex-employee of a Halliburton subsidiary pleaded guilty to taking kickbacks from a Saudi subcontractor that was awarded a multimillion-dollar U.S. military contract. An official with the subcontractor, meanwhile, was charged with lying to authorities.

-----

Like I said yesterday...

The Saudis are in charge of the USA!

We're coming for you AMBIEN...
Dead man walking..

THUMP
THUMP
THUMP

hee hee hee!

9:54 AM  
Blogger teak said...

Mr. Fitz's little globe stopped, Jan.

Personally, I was hoping he was trying to get all the evil-doers to lose gravity.

"Dizzy" should realize that Mr. Fitzgerald's world probably does seem like it is spinning that fast with all he has to do. Have a Krispy Kreme, the last picture posted of you, you are looking on the skinny side. Add some bacon and eggs to those donuts. :)

9:58 AM  
Anonymous just wondering said...

I thought his name was Randall Samborn. Who's Russell?

10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sanborn or Samborn?

10:19 AM  
Anonymous just wondering said...

I think Fitz just made this Samborn character up. This guy doesn't exist.

10:25 AM  
Blogger Patrick J. Fitzgerald said...

inside joke - Randall Samborn aka Randy - often called "Russell" and "Sanborn" in press reports - it drives him crazy ;)

10:31 AM  
Anonymous maf54 said...

Oh my God! I sooooooooooo love that song, except with your permission Jack, I will insert boys where you have men.

10:39 AM  
Anonymous Kathleen M. Dickson said...

Hey I think "Jack Abramoff" is a girl, because she got it right.

The vast majority of American men think we like em, vicious, stupid, lazy, smelly, and out of control. That's the abundant evidence anyway.

Kathleen

10:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy Sunday Everyone!

Fitz, that email was funny! LOL

It reminds me of the musical.. "Stop The World I Want To Get Off"... :D

10:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Saudis are in charge of the USA!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEF:

I was thinking...What IF the USA was the ONLY source for oil and other countries invaded US for our oil?

But, then I thought..what IF the USA weren't the biggest consumer of oil in the world?

The world would certainly be different, wouldn't it?

11:01 AM  
Blogger jan said...

Here's one for Ms. Miller ;D

I've been looking for this video for a long time- it's so awesome!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=I8B3pf3mOh0

11:04 AM  
Blogger Global Evildoer Fighter said...

s-q,

quote:
was thinking...What IF the USA was the ONLY source for oil and other countries invaded US for our oil?
But, then I thought..what IF the USA weren't the biggest consumer of oil in the world?
The world would certainly be different, wouldn't it?

Yep, and so which country is becoming a hindrance in the eyes of the world ?

This is not good s-q

11:46 AM  
Blogger Global Evildoer Fighter said...

Fitz,

Randy in England means...

LOL*)

11:48 AM  
Anonymous t said...

Good Morning

and good point S-Q

We're in "Saudi America" Gef

Email of the week? Fitz actually reads his email?

Nice try Jack, doing well in the big house, huh? hehe

12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep, and so which country is becoming a hindrance in the eyes of the world ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEF:

And, so, if WE AMERICANS had alternative sources of energy..

that would change everything, wouldn't it?

However, the oil companies wouldn't be reaping RECORD PROFITS from John and Jane Consumer, would they?

The Oil Kings wouldn't be calling the shots in the world, would they?

And, last but not least, the Financial Institutions wouldn't be owning everything in the world, would they?

12:10 PM  
Blogger Global Evildoer Fighter said...

s-q,

In this order

Yep
Nope
Nope

quote:
And, last but not least, the Financial Institutions wouldn't be owning everything in the world, would they?

Thats a different matter. A matter of public perception that a Corporation(Named the Federal Bank) should have monopoly power over our government.

Remove the Monopoly by the Government printing it's own money and you dethrone the power of the Federal Bank and it's baby banks..

Break the chain!

12:27 PM  
Blogger Global Evildoer Fighter said...

Hi Tee,

Tee, you've been scarce...

The Imperialist Arabs already know what nightmare the gerbil has unleashed in the Middle East! Look who's talking 2


Who's side is the gerbil on anyway ?

Historical Marker:
The Iraq War will be known as the war that Bankrupted America!

Bet me..

12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A matter of public perception that a Corporation(Named the Federal Bank) should have monopoly power over our government.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEF:

Oh, this is what happened?

The Bank was bitterly opposed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who saw it as an engine for speculation, financial manipulation, and corruption.

12:45 PM  
Anonymous t said...

Hi GEF:-)

That's a bet we would both win-look at this:

Angry fellow Shi'ites stoned Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's motorcade in a Shi'ite stronghold of Baghdad on Sunday in a display of fury over a devastating car bomb that tore through their area.

Maliki was visiting the Sadr City slum to pay respects to some of the 202 victims of last week's devastating bombing.

"It's all your fault!" one man shouted as, in unprecedented scenes, a hostile crowd began to surge around the premier and then jeered as his armored convoy edged through the throng away from a mourning ceremony.

12:50 PM  
Blogger Global Evildoer Fighter said...

s-q,

Check this out...

Both Big Pharma and now Big Oil are bracing themselves for Democrat Control..

The Climate is about to get Hostile for both Big Oil and Big Pharma...

and as it gets Hostile, the people would benefit from the hostility.

Accountability is gonna be a b#tc@ now ain't it!

;)

12:52 PM  
Blogger Global Evildoer Fighter said...

tee,

quote:
"It's all your fault!" one man shouted as, in unprecedented scenes, a hostile crowd began to surge around the premier and then jeered as his armored convoy edged through the throng away from a mourning ceremony.

Hee hee hee..The People are throwing their leaders under the bus and their leaders are about to throw America under that same bus...

There's an outcry now from everywhere in the Middle east as to the daily carnage that's going on there..

Neighboring Arab Countries are twitchy now that the violence will spread...

12:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/
truth/McFadden.htm

"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.

THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN RANSACKED

12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/
flight_emergency

A medical transport plane arriving from the United States skidded off the runway Sunday morning at Montreal's Trudeau Airport.

None of the six people aboard the Learjet was injured.

The plane coming from Georgia experienced problems with its hydraulic system after making a normal landing in good weather.

1:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Accountability is gonna be a b#tc@ now ain't it!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEF:

The big oil & pharma companies know the Dems represent the PEOPLE of this country and not special interests...

Nervous? Yep, you bet they are..their 'security blanket' has been pulled off of them! hehe

1:13 PM  
Anonymous t said...

Gee wonder why the Iraqis can't stand the yes man Dubya installed? ha

When will these "thinkers" get it through their minds that no society or community, anywhere - will tolerate their messed up policies which directly and quickly affect the millions if not billions of people

I hope I don't faint with relief when team Fitz gets these guys.

Years ago I was at a job and a guy crushed his foot on machinery-no one seemed to know what to do running around in a panic-I had 1st aid training & I was fine coordinating 911, ice etc and comforting him (big ole truck driver dude)-shortly after the ambulance left, I fainted! My co-workers couldn't believe it ;-)

1:28 PM  
Blogger Global Evildoer Fighter said...

Tee,

quote:
I hope I don't faint with relief when team Fitz gets these guys.

You need to get that fainting checked...

It may be a lack of chocolate! :)

hee hee hee!

1:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

T:

That's funny! I have only fainted once in my life and it was funny too! LOL

I was in a well known jewelry store and I was standing over a jewelry case and I had just picked out some diamond jewelry..and was paying for the items..when suddenly my head fell on top of the glass jewelry case and I fainted!
LOL

They rushed me to their back room and laid me on a cot..which is where I came to...much to my surprise! ROFLMAO

1:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following is an old article from The Journalism Review

My reasons for posting it will become clearer when I post my next comment in a minute

Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Journalist

British journalists – and British journals – are being manipulated by the secret intelligence agencies, and I think we ought to try and put a stop to it.

The manipulation takes three forms. The first is the attempt to recruit journalists to spy on other people, or for spies to go themselves under journalistic “cover”. This occurs today and it has gone on for years. It is dangerous, not only for the journalist concerned, but for other journalists who get tarred with the espionage brush. Farzad Bazoft was a colleague of mine on the London Observer when he was executed by Saddam Hussein for espionage. It did not, in a sense, matter whether he was really a spy or not. Either way, he ended up dead.

The second form of manipulation that worries me is when intelligence officers are allowed to pose as journalists in order to write tendentious articles under false names. Evidence of this only rarely comes to light, but two examples have surfaced recently – mainly because of the whistleblowing activities of a couple of renegade officers – David Shayler from MI5 and Richard Tomlinson from MI6.

The third sort of manipulation is the most insidious – when intelligence agency propaganda stories are planted on willing journalists, who disguise their origin from their readers. There is – or has been until recently – a very active programme by the secret agencies to colour what appears in the British press, called, if publications by various defectors can be believed, “I/Ops”. That is an abbreviation for Information Operations, and I am – unusually – in a position to provide some information about it.

http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/
2000/no2_leigh.htm

1:41 PM  
Blogger Global Evildoer Fighter said...

Well if you faint often then you have to go to F.A. meetings..

Fainters Anonymous has a 3 step program to stop your fainting..

:)

1:44 PM  
Blogger Global Evildoer Fighter said...

er..Unfortunately I can't get their phone number because the Fainters Anonymous spokeswoman has just fainted...

hee hee hee!

1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More news from the UK, this time from The Sunday Express. The Daily Express, the Sunday Express's sister paper, has been following with keen interest the ongoing investigation into the death, nearly ten years ago, of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed in a car accident in a Paris subway (that's Britspeak for underpass), and produced a series of articles on this investigation called "The Diana files" which left no doubt in the reader's mind (this reader's at any rate), that the "official" account of her death was a fabrication and that there had been a cover-up with the French driver being the patsy.

Please bear in mind my previous comment on this thread while you read it, and in the meantime, I'll compose my own comment on this story.

26/11/06
From Peter Allen
in Paris

PRINCESS Diana may have been led to her death at the hands of assassins who wanted to murder Dodi Fayed.

The killers were believed to be mercenaries working for Arab arms dealers.
They wanted her boyfriend Dodi to attend a meeting in a Paris office block.

Diana had agreed to travel to the late-night rendezvous alongside Dodi. She would protect him against business enemies who might want to harm him.

Instead, their saloon veered into an underpass pillar at high speed, killing them and their driver, Henri Paul.

The well-sourced revelations have been described as being of “major interest” by those investigating the tragedy in August 1997.

http://dailyexpress.co.uk/
news_detail.html?sku=773

1:48 PM  
Anonymous t said...

S-Q, Picking out diamond jewelry and you fainted? *LOL*

I can understand that! I think its the trauma involved :-D *LOL*

Fainters Anon *LOL* Not often Geffy-its only happened about 3 times in my life- only under unusual stressor conditions-once the danger has passed! heehee

Very interesting Anthony

1:52 PM  
Anonymous t said...

laughing too hard forgot to post this flashback speaking of Saudi oil
December 26 2002
Defence redefined means securing cheap energy

As troops and equipment pour into the Gulf for a looming war with Iraq, United States military thinkers admit that "defence" means protecting the circumstances of "daily life" - and in the US daily life runs on cheap oil.

As far back as 1975, Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state, said America was prepared to wage war over oil. Separate plans advocating US conquest of Saudi oilfields were published in the '70s. So it should come as little surprise that in May last year - four months before the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York - a battle plan for Afghanistan was already being reviewed by the US Command that would carry it out after September 11. Military strategists were highlighting the energy wealth of the Caspian Sea and Central Asia and its importance to America's "security".

The Indian media and Jane's Intelligence Review reported that the US was fighting covert battles against the Taliban, months before the "war on terrorism" was declared.

1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

S-Q, Picking out diamond jewelry and you fainted? *LOL*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

T:

Yeah, I was embarassed when I came to... but laughed about it with the store personnel who were helping me.

I left with a big goose egg on my forehead but I was wearing my new diamonds so I felt alright! hehe

2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It may be a lack of chocolate! :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEF:

I'll have to remember that and put some chocolates in my "First Aid" kit in my car! LOLMAO

2:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In 1980, when George H.W. Bush was elected vice president, he placed his father's family inherence in a blind trust. The trust was managed by his old friend and quail hunting partner, William "Stamps" Farish III. Bush's choice of Farish to manage the family wealth is quite revealing in that it demonstrates that the former president might know exactly where some of his inheritance originated. Farish's grandfather, William Farish Jr., on March 25th, 1942, pleaded "no contest" to conspiring with Nazi Germany while president of Standard Oil in New Jersey. He was described by Senator Harry Truman in public of approaching "treason" for profiting off the Nazi war machine. Standard Oil, invested millions in IG Farben, who opened a gasoline factory within Auschwitz in 1940. The billions "Stamps" inherited had more blood on it then Bush, so the paper trail of UBC stock would be safe during his 12 years in presidential politics.

http://prorev.com/bush2.htm

Looking behind the bushes.

2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://prorev.com/bush4.htm#leeden

2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, boys and girl’s. Time for anthony’s take on the latest Princess Diana death story.

In the summer of 1997, photos appeared in the British tabloid press of Princess Diana cavorting in a swimsuit with Dodi Fayed, Egyptian businessman Al Fayed’s son. One of these photos showed Princess Di about to dive into the sea. One of my female colleagues, looking at the photos, made a catty remark about Princess Di’s apparently flabby tummy. Now, as anyone who has seen photos of Princess Diana in a swimsuit or jogging gear will know, Princess Di was one of the fittest women in the nation who regularly worked out at a gym.

Why the flab?

Some time ago, Dominic Lawson, son of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and former editor of the Spectator and more recently of the Sunday Times, said that Princess Diana couldn’t possibly have been pregnant at the time because she had confided to his wife, Rosa Monckton, a close friend of the princess’s, that Diana couldn’t possibly have been pregnant because she was having her period.

More recently, the Daily Express, which has been following with keen interest the ongoing investigation into the death of the princess, produced a series of articles over a period of a few days called “the Diana Files”, about the findings of the investigation which left no doubt in the reader’s (this reader’s) mind, that the “official account” of the accident was untrue and that there had in fact been a cover-up.

How brave of the Daily Express to publish these articles, thought old bonzo here. And how brave of the journalist for attaching her name to them.

One thing puzzled me, though.
The Express published a photo of Princess Diana going for a walk along the beach in her swimsuit, this time, a sexy, little, leopard’s skin number, with her son, Prince William, second in line to the throne.

This time, there is a very obvious bump.

How did the folk at the Express not notice this? Now, I know that the picture editor of the Express is a half-wit, who once published a photo of Russia Prime Minister, Chernomyrdin, with the caption, Helmut Kohl, but they cannot have failed to notice this.

Or maybe they did and chose, for reasons best known to themselves, not to comment?

When I read this latest article, I immediately smelt a rat. Unlike in America, where those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job are still in a minority, albeit, hopefully, a growing one, in the UK, those who disbelieve the official version of Diana’s death and think she was assassinated, form a distinct majority. It must, by now, be becoming increasingly clear to the powers that be that if this investigation upholds the official version, everyone will know that there has been a cover up.

Hence, the latest story.
The thing is, how long ago, did the powers that be know that they could no longer run with the official story and did the Express know this to be the case?

By the way, Anthony Monckton, Dominic Lawson’s brother-in-law, is a serving MI6 officer (not covert) and Dominic Lawson was himself named as a an MI6 agent (Richard Norton-Taylor & Ewen MacAskill, Editor Lawson named as MI6 agent, The Guardian, 17 December 1998).

2:17 PM  
Blogger Special Prosecutor Biloxi said...

Interesting email from Fitz. Is that it? I wonder if Brian Williams from NBC News gets emails like that. LOL! Thank goodness that I don't get a lot of emails like that. But, then again, it is that person's opinion and that person has a right to speak his or her mind.

3:19 PM  
Blogger Special Prosecutor Biloxi said...

For GEF only:

Thanks for the article. However, that old news. I did hear about the KBR employee charged for kickbacks. That is why Cheney wasn't deeply investigated thanks to the controlled GOP Congress. A lot will be exposed from the investigaation by Waxman. That is why Kenny Lay pointed the figure to other employees in the Enron collapse. He blames Andrew Fastow for the collapse. He claimed that Fastow was the mastermind of the cooking the books. And notice that Lay got sentenced to over 100 years in prison and Fastow is on sentenced to 6 years because he cooperated with the government.

About the Saudias? Yes, the Saudias are behind this. They are also behind how the Gerbil got into office. From Michael Moore's film, the Saudias own 7% of the U.S. That was back in 2001. So, do you think that the Saudias own more more of the U.S. today? Yes! The U.S. is more like pie. A section of the U.S. is owned by the Saudias and China. The real qestion is how much of that slice of the pie that the Saudias and China own in the U.S.?

4:33 PM  
Blogger Special Prosecutor Biloxi said...

Fitz,

I can relate to Randall being irritated by being called "Russell" in the press reports or being called the wrong name. There is nothing more irritating by having some asswipe that can't get your name or the spelling of your name right!

4:36 PM  
Blogger Jackie said...

Leave Randall alone. He's a nice young man and takes good care of my little angel. No more JOKES about Randall or you'll have me to deal with.

6:16 PM  
Blogger Quzi Formerly CC said...

Oooooooooh...
so that's why I feel so dizzy when I blog here...

I thought it was the sugar-high from the Krispy Kremes ;)

8:45 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Fisher said...

Jim Miles: Farewell John Bolton

The current deputy-secretary general of the UN has dampened this happiness somewhat by recognizing that the U.S. is trying to manipulate the UN to its own advantage while ignoring its responsibilities.

Show Your Support

The Palestine Chronicle is 100% reader-supported. If you find our publication worthwhile and valuable, we urge you to subscribe to our online edition today. Without your voluntary subscription the Chronicle cannot survive.

Subscribe Now

By Jim Miles
PalestineChronicle.com

American democracy is truly a wonder, not because of its own self-inflated glory and rhetoric of its greatness, but because, contrary to that, of its shallowness and lack of democratic processes that put some of the most powerful people in the world into positions for which none of them have been elected. Further, they are mostly people who have not been elected by anyone at all for anything.

Congress is elected on a proportional basis, but with only two co-joined parties to choose from there is not much in the way of true representation of the wide diversity of the American population, the majority of whom have opted out of the electoral process. Rather, elections are mainly a contest between different interest groups (no surprise there) – business, religious sects, AIPAC, military procurements – more than it is a discussion of fundamental policies from a broad spectrum of political views. The Senate is elected state by state, part of the plan to balance the elements of government, operates in the same manner – two vaguely different parties striving for the political riches and power that elections bring. Another part of the government is the presidency, among other powers given is the role of Commander in Chief of the armed forces but that also is theoretically subject to Congress to make any declaration of war.

It is what I consider the fourth part of the government that is truly scary - although the features of elections in the U.S. that emphasizes money and power are scary enough – the unelected representatives that are called advisors, or are in unelected cabinet positions, or those ideologue zealots that are appointed to various sub-ministries within the government and government agencies. These unelected officials – Karl Rove, formerly John Aschcroft and Donald Rumsfield, the new World Bank head Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney (although it could be argued he was elected along with Bush, although the vote was not directly for him, but also under the electoral college system, no vote is directly for the president, after all we would not want any disruptive factions to enter the contest), Condaleeza Rice - among the best known names, along with some ‘lesser’ players such as Douglas Feith and Richard Perle – are the ones who set the basic agenda for both foreign policy and through such acts as the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act, set the agenda for much of the national scene as well. Not only are these people in power in the government, they also have to varying degrees an open door policy with transnational corporate business, and while some are not overtly part of the fundamentalist Christian right, their association with various religious groups supports the fundamentalist Armageddon bound intent of that now important Republican element.

Just as Paul Wolfowitz has expanded his horizons to the World Bank, John Bolton was appointed to the UN as the U.S. ambassador, ready to expand on the administration’s unilateralism and contempt for international law. In Bolton’s case, he becomes the perfect fifth columnist, as he is very outspoken in his contempt for the United Nations and is very much against international negotiations and international treaties that impinge on the ‘freedom’ of the U.S. to act unilaterally. Another leopard who will not change his spots.

It is not that Bolton is actually against the United Nations, it is that he sees it as being used against the United States and needs reforming to become a tool of U.S. foreign policy rather than a tool wielded by the Third World to contain and control the U.S. In his own words, Bolton, while Senior Vice President of the American Enterprise Institute, affirmed the uniqueness of the American way, stating, “Scepticism about the United Nations is another aspect of what scholars have termed "American exceptionalism," the idea that the United States is, simply stated, different from other countries. I completely agree.” From that he asserts that “the United Nations can be a useful instrument in the conduct of American foreign policy” but that “No one…should be under any illusions that American support for the United Nations as one of several options for implementing American foreign policy translates into unlimited support for the world organization”[1]

His contempt of the United Nations is also expressed in a similarly blunt manner in his contempt for international treaties. He opposed the UN trade regulations on small arms saying they would “abrogate the constitutional right to bear arms.” His renouncement of Clinton’s signature on the International Criminal Court Treaty was “the happiest moment in my government service.”[2] Along with this moment of happiness he “almost gleefully pulled the United States out of negotiations on a protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention in late 2001 and he negotiated the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with Russia”, allowing the U.S. to proceed with its ABM defences.[3] He scuttled the biological weapons ban, as well as “fiercely opposing” international agreements on landmines and child soldiers. Obviously, Bolton has been having some very successful moments of personal satisfaction in his quest for preserving the rights of that American exceptionalism, much to the detriment of the rest of the world and its citizens.

The current deputy-secretary general of the UN has dampened this happiness somewhat by recognizing that the U.S. is trying to manipulate the UN to its own advantage while ignoring its responsibilities – or more blatantly, denouncing them - to the international community and pursuing its own unilateralist position. Malloch Brown, in referring to U.S. actions concerning the UN, said, "The prevailing practice of seeking to use the United Nations almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable. You will lose the United Nations one way or another." He said his remarks were "a warning about the serious consequences of a decades-long tendency by U.S. administrations of both parties to engage only fitfully with the United Nations."[4]

Anti-internationalism

One of the main thrusts of Bolton’s argument against international treaties is that they are not truly laws, and because they are not truly laws, the U.S. does not have to abide by them, they serve only as guidelines that the U.S. can ignore if its purposes are not served. It is very difficult to argue with Bolton because his arguments are not based on sequential reasoning but are essentially self-contradictory and based on rhetoric lined up to sound good but effectively meaning little in practical terms. He also ignores practical applications of ideas contrary to his and always seems to settle on the argument that America is right because America can ignore the international treaties because they hold all the power. Might is right.

He says, “Treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations.”[5] This is a nonsensical statement, especially the first part. If a treaty is ignored internationally, why would it be a law for domestic purposes? Looked at another way, it would mean that international criminal law is okay if it suits the United States purposes to prosecute someone, but don’t dare prosecute an American under any circumstances, which is exactly the line the U.S. takes with its international relations. It is self-serving meaningless rhetoric.

In an article in Foreign Affairs, he concludes his arguments with a blanket statement that “None of the international organizations that exist today could pass for accountable law-giving, law-interpreting, or law-enforcing bodies.”[6] Perhaps not by the strict rules of perfection, but no legal organization in the world is perfect, and in spite of American belief in its “transcendent perfection” and Bolton’s acceptance of its exceptionalism, the American system is very far from being fully accountable, although it does its best at being fully enforceable, with, as stated before, a bare minimum of acceptance of socially responsible behaviour. Yes, these organizations and treaties are not perfect, but they are all steps in the right direction, leading towards a safer, non-violent, socially secure world. It is a long path and will not come easily, just as all movements towards democracy in the past have been struggles that have been ongoing for decades and centuries.

As for John Bolton’s legacy, Brooke Lierman, the special assistant to the senior vice president for national security of the Center for American Progress, said after his role as guardian of the non-proliferation treaty, “At this point it is clear that the world Bolton has left us four years later is one that is more dangerous. He can only do more damage from a position of greater power.”[7] James Carroll writes in his history of the Pentagon, a personal history in relation to his father Lieutenant General Joseph F. Carroll, that “Bolton was the living icon of the two most dismaying facts of global politics today: nuclear arms control is dead; America killed it.”[8]

Nuclear non-proliferation

Before arriving at the United Nations, Bolton’s main position in the Bush administration was as Undersecretary of State for arms control, non-proliferation and international security. This is perhaps the most laughable assignment within the administration, laughable in a scary absurd perspective. Bolton is very hawkish, consorts with the Israeli government, and has not had any military service, all of which fits him comfortably into the ‘guidelines’ for participation with the other neocons in the Bush administration. His title “has an Orwellian ring to it: Here’s the undersecretary of state for disarmament who is pushing for a U.S. armed to its teeth,”[9] and “he is a committed unilateralist who opposes global arms treaties on principle.”[10] Bolton himself has said the U.S. should “Recognize obligations only when it’s in our interest” and that the supporters of test ban treaties were “misguided individuals following a timid and neo-pacifist line of thought.”[11]

When the United Nations was discussing world trade in small arms Bolton declared “that the United States intended to thwart any agreement that might constrict the right of its citizens to possess guns,”[12] which could have one wondering if he might state the same objections about nuclear arms, that the U.S. would not restrict any state having access to them if that might constrict their right to them as well. As with most of these hawkish proponents of nuclear first strike capability, there is a different set of rules for other states than for themselves - non-proliferation and arms control should by necessity start at home.

Others however escape the rules of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Bolton said that America “Was not interested in taking Israel to task for its continuing development of nuclear weapons because it was not a ‘threat’ to the United States.”[13] Quite the contrary, in the event that Israel uses non-conventional weapons (a pleasant euphemism for nuclear weapons) to attack another country, the U.S. position arriving from bilateral discussions on non-conventional weapons between Bush and Ariel Sharon, then Israeli Prime Minister, is that “Israel has the right to defend itself with its own forces.”[14] That it has not done so yet can probably be attributed to American pressure not to do so, as in the first Iraqi war in 1991, and in other instances because it would be a fully perceived irrational and ridiculous action against a nebulous enemy – terrorists – who really have no hard targets to aim for.

For Iran, however, “Israel is unlikely to ask the United States to approve on any attack on Iran,”[15] although if other actions of Israel are indicative of their strategy, the U.S. would probably be cognizant of the plans, if not the timing, well before hand, nor would it be surprising to find them actually involved in such planning. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter indicates that Bolton, “a decidedly split personality…has developed a strong relationship with Israel, one that had him undermine official U.S. policy…[and] with Israeli intelligence officials, again outside of official bureaucratic channels.” He considers it “curious” that Bolton was assigned to the UN “unless the goal and objective was to undermine and/or discredit the U.N. process as a whole, thereby freeing up U.S.-centric unilateralism.” Bolton has acted not “on his own volition…but rather as part of a larger U.S. policy to force a confrontation with Iran,” a confrontation based integrally on Israeli desires.[16]

I will delve more into the nuclear issue shortly, including America’s own ignoring of one major component of the NPT, that of working towards reducing its own arsenal, but it is Bolton’s nefarious character that requires a bit more definition here first. When it comes to nuclear possibilities, including its extension to Armageddon, Bolton is one of its leading proponents and while he is a Lutheran, he fits in very well with the Christian right and their self-fulfilling prophecies of the end of times. This leads to the most frequently quoted statement about any of the American hawks in books, articles, and web sites. It is a comment that leaves no doubt that these officials are willing to use nuclear weapons as a means of sorting out the ‘good’ from the ‘evil’. It is Senator Jesse Helms describing him: “Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, for what the Bible describes as the final battle between good and evil in this world.”[17] One wonders about the intelligence of appointing someone to an office for which they support opposite views, as indicated by Sen. Joseph Biden who said, "I have always voted against nominees who oppose the avowed purpose of the position for which they have been nominated.”[18] Scott Ritter agrees fully, as “Bush could not have sent a stronger signal about his ultimate intentions than sending to the U.N. a man who had, throughout his career, openly mocked the world organization.”[19]

Bolton and Israel

Bolton’s support for Israel and from Israel is obvious. He has attended meetings with Sharon and his government. He is a former member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. He participates frequently in representations involving the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), along with Wolfowitz, and is now pursuing Syria as the next threat with weapons of mass destruction. AIPAC actively lobbies members of the Senate and Congress as well as distributing materials for public consumption, ending by asking the public to thank your members for supporting whatever legislation they see is good. In meetings with Israeli officials in 2003 concerning American actions in Iraq, Bolton said “It will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran, and North Korea afterward,” with Sharon replying that “the American action is of vital importance,” – which begs the question, vital to whom?[20]

Bolton does not speak of Palestine, neither as a problem that Israel has to deal with, nor as a people with their own proper aspirations for their own homeland. It leads to the obvious thought that Bolton’s (and most of the hawks) support for Israel extends from the Mediterranean in the west to the Jordan in the east, and from the Sinai in the south to the Golan in the north. Anything or anybody else does not even measure as an inconvenience, it is simply ‘conveniently’ ignored. The more and the longer it is ignored, the more and the longer Israel will be established in the occupied territories. While the U.S. occupies and ‘democratizes’ the Middle East countries, Israel will be more secure in its occupation, colonization, and settling of Palestine.

There is a further contradiction within Bolton’s definitions of laws and constitutional validity when his position on Israel is examined. He argues “To have real law in a free society, there must be a framework (a constitution) that defines the government’s authority, thereby limiting it and preventing the exercise of arbitrary power.”[21] [italics added]. His argument then has two parts: one, that a constitution limits the powers of a government; and two that without one there is no real law. So now juxtapose this anti-internationalist with his rabid support of Israel and his comments on constitutional government and multiple problems arise. First of all, Israel has no constitution, therefore it has no real law. Secondly, without a constitution there is little to restrict its arbitrary use of power. Finally there are no guarantees of “freedom of speech, freedom of religion or, most importantly, equality.”[22] Bolton’s arguments deserve no respect as they dissolve under his double standard acceptance of a non-democratic theocratic Jewish state in Israel that has no constitution while he rejects the same non-constitutional format for international organizations and treaties. But perhaps as a zealot he is fully aware of that and because his arguments carry little weight logically there is no dissonance within his own mind.

By Bolton’s arguments, the Jewish government of Israel can rule arbitrarily without constitutional limits on its use of power, something he sees as a danger in international institutions. And that, unfortunately, is exactly what Israel does, both internally with its resident Palestinian population, and ‘externally’ against the Palestinians in the Westbank and Gaza strip. Added to that, Israel “has never revoked a state of emergency that allows gross violations of human rights inside Israel.”[23] Again, it is hard to formulate an argument against an illogical non-coherent set of beliefs, but Bolton’s illogical presentation simply highlights the knowledge that Israel treats its internal Palestinian population as non-citizens, as the ‘other’, simply as residents who are excluded from the supposed democratic processes of the country. His elevation to the UN as the U.S. representative will benefit Israel in two policy areas: its nuclear policy, without a requirement for recognition of an international treaty that it holds in contempt and disdain; and its policy of exclusion of an indigenous group within a non-democratic theocratic government, an ethnocracy. With a Security Council Resolution presented to denounce the Israeli bombing of Beit Hanoun in the Gaza Strip, the U.S. applied their veto, calling the resolution "unbalanced" and "biased against Israel and politically motivated".[24] Of course anything that goes against Israel or the U.S. would automatically be ‘biased’ and ‘unbalanced’ in Bolton’s peculiar manner of thinking. Although Bolton argues for constitutionality, he is quite happy to operate outside of it, a fully contradictory position.

Goodbye

Bolton is an ideologue who uses quick and catchy phrases that when looked at closely find no point of argument to support them. He has continually been a proponent of nuclear weapons, continually been a proponent of pre-emptive military action, and like many in the current administration, views it as an American right to act unilaterally to protect American ‘rights’ around the globe. This is the man that now represents the U.S. in the United Nations, and as with his role of demonizing the Nuclear Weapons Test Ban Treaty and ignoring the fundamentals of the NPT as they should be applied to the United States, he will do his best to manipulate the UN to act as an instrument of American foreign policy. If not, he will be able to walk away from it all without guilt or concern, fierce in his arrogance and conceit of American exceptionalism, and proceed with promoting whatever unilateral designs the U.S. has conceived for the rest of the world.

It appears now that Bolton is walking away from this position, probably to assume some form of ‘private’ life in a reconstituted neocon think-tank waiting for the next opportunity to revive itself with some future government. He is far too familiar with the bureacracy and hallways of power to leave them behind if opportunity presented itself otherwise. Who will replace Bolton is likely irrelevant – someone less acerbic and egomaniacal, softer of speech with a better modulated tone – as American policy underneath whatever rhetoric is presented is unlikely to change.



Notes

[1] Bolton, John. “America’s Skepticism About the United Nations” http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0597/ijpe/pj2bolt.htm

[2] http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/972

[3] Bosco, David. “The World According to Bolton,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 2005 pp. 24-31 (vol. 61, no. 04). www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja05bosco

[4]“U.N. rejects U.S. demand for retraction” http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060607-013127-8199r

[5] Bosco, ibid.

[6] Bolton, John. “The Global Prosecutors: Hunting War Criminals in the Name of Utopia”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 1999. www.foreignaffairs.org/19990101fareviewessay1029/john-r-bolton/the-global-prosecutors-hunting-war-criminals-in-the-name-of-utopia.html

[7] Lierman, Brooke. “Who is John Bolton?” March 7, 2005. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=252671

[8] Carroll, James. House of War – The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power. Houghton Mifflin Company, N.Y. 2006. p. 501.

[9] Williams, Ian “Beware of Bolton” www.alternet.org/story/13256 . November 21, 2004.

[10] Kellner, Douglas. From 9/11 to Terror War, Rowman and Littlefield New, York 2003.

[11] Bolton cited in Williams, ibid.

[12] Johson, Chalmers. The Sorrow of Empires Metropolitan Books New York, 2004.

[13] http://lunaville.com/mt/archives/000358.html

[14] Karpin, Michael. The Bomb in the Basement – How Israel Went Nuclear and What that Means for the World. Simon & Schuster, N.Y. 2006. p. 349.

[15] Ibid, p. 348

[16] Ritter, Scott. Target Iran – The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change. Nation Books, N.Y. 2006. p. 142-3.

[17] cited in almost every source that has any comment on the politics of John Bolton.

[18] Lierman, ibid.

[19] Ritter, ibid p. 168

[20] Raimondo, Justin “War is not in U.S. interest” www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-03-17-oppose_x.htm

[21] Bosco, ibid.

[22] Cook, Jonathan. Blood and Religion – The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State. Pluto Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 2006. p. 17-18.

[23] Ibid, p. 18.

[24] Bolton, John. Cited in “U.S. veto of Gaza resolution criticised.” November 12, 2006. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1A32EA5C-7462-4EA0-B642-9363F23A9E79.htm

-Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor of opinion pieces and book reviews to Palestine Chronicles. His interest in this topic stems originally from an environmental perspective, which encompasses the militarization and economic subjugation of the global community and its commodification by corporate governance and by the American government.



'Masterful prose - a scathing but heartfelt portrait.' Norman G. Finkelstein

The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle

By Ramzy Baroud


Now Available

1:58 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Fisher said...

Jimmy Carter Dared to Speak: The White House and US Congress Are Submissive to AIPAC and the Israel Lobby

Al-Jazeerah, December 9, 2006

Al-Jazeerah comments are in parentheses.

Jimmy Carter: even talking about international law in this situation is political suicide

Palestine News Network Saturday, 09 December 2006

Former President Jimmy Carter published “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid” last month. It is considered by many to be critical of Israeli and United States policy. Some are lashing out , but mostly the book is being ignored (by the US Zionist-controlled corporate media). This is not a debate that the US seems ready to have.

Referring to Congress, Carter points out that to even call on international law to be applied in the situation, or to talk about Palestinians from a human rights perspective, is akin to political suicide.

The Carter Center's Executive Director and founder of its Middle East Program, Kenneth Stein, resigned because he objected, although Carter pointed out that Stein was not actively involved in the Carter Center for 12 years. The Center's objective, and Carter's, is stated as “committed to advancing human rights and alleviating unnecessary human suffering.”

The debate, or lack thereof, on Palestine in the US is summed up by (an apparent Zionist campaign to assassinate President Carter's credibility, such as the stunt position of Ken Stein). Stein's claims that Carter's book was not only factually incorrect, but that he had “simply invented statements” as quoted from an Atlanta paper.

(Yesterday, CNN's Wolf Blitzer orchestrated a Carter's character assassination session, in which he invited Stein and Dennis Ross to carry out the charges against Carter. They never discussed Carter's main argument, the racist Israeli practices in Palestine. Instead, they started attacking his credibility as an author by focusing on two maps Carter used from an Israeli source. Zionist Ross insisted that the maps were his maps, not the maps of that Israeli source. There were no discussions about the greedy Israeli Zionists who forced and still keep forcing Palestinians out of their lands, thus causing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to continue until now. There were no discussions about how AIPAC controls US Congress and the White House or how Israel-Firsters in Congress and the White House serve Israel, not the United States. Only character assassination attacks against anyone who dares to speak, even if he is a respectable former US President, like Jimmy Carter).

Jimmy Carter's book is based on the elections he laid eyewitness to in 1996, 2005 and 2006. He notes that the only malfeasance in the elections was committed on the part of the Israelis, whose measures greatly reduced Jerusalem participation.

Simon & Schuster signed the Nobel Peace Price winner two years ago to write a book on the Middle East. He used his years of diplomacy in the region, three Palestinian elections, personal impressions, USAID meetings, and those with Israeli leaders.

Carter said that the issue of peace as it concerns Palestine and Israel is widely discussed everywhere except the US. He blamed the Israeli lobby, specifically AIPAC, which for the past 30 years has ensured that debate is squelched. Those critical of Israeli policy in the US are generally labled "anti-Semitic."

An excerpt from "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid" reads:

“Two other interrelated factors have contributed to the perpetuation of violence and regional upheaval: the condoning of illegal Israeli actions from a submissive White House and U.S. Congress during recent years, and the deference with which other international leaders permit this unofficial U.S. policy in the Middle East to prevail. There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank, but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories. At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7,500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan. The United States has used its U.N. Security Council veto more than forty times to block resolutions critical of Israel.”

Some university campuses have denied him the right to speak. A democratic in Congress jumped to say that Carter, a democrat himself, does not represent the party. Carter could hardly be described as “radically pro-Palestinian,” as this excerpt from the Introduction to Chapter 17 illustrates:

“There are two interrelated obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East:

1. Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians; and

2. Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories.

(This is an inaccurate explanation of suicide bombing. It is a military tactic in the hand of those who cannot reach the heartland of the enemy except by their bodies. Bringing religion into the discussion is not right simply because the tactic has been used also by non-Muslims. It's called altruistic suicide, in Sociology, Kamikazi Japanese pilots, for example. If Palestinians have jetfighters and helicopters, like the Israelis, they would not use suicide bombing).

In turn, Israel responds with retribution and oppression, and (Palestinian resistance fighters) refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Israel and vow to destroy the nation.

The cycle of distrust and violence is sustained, and efforts for peace are frustrated. Casualties have been high as the occupying forces impose ever tighter controls. From September 2000 until March 2006, 3,982 Palestinians and 1,084 Israelis were killed in the second intifada, and these numbers include many children: 708 Palestinians and 123 Israelis. As indicated earlier, there was an ever-rising toll of dead and wounded from the latest outbreak of violence in Gaza and Lebanon.”

Carter is clearly not "pro-Palestinian." Instead he is a former US President who engages international law, the Geneva Conventions, United Nations resolutions, and international human rights law, in his discourse on the subject of Palestine. And this is unusual in the US where over three million dollars per day go to fund the Israeli (brutal occupation of Palestine). And Carter is considered to be echoing an opinion that has been registered by several visitors to the West Bank coming from South Africa: Israeli policy is more racist than Apartheid South Africa. These are realities that most of Americans are not yet willing to even debate.

***

Long Live Jimmy Carter!

He Dared to Speak!

May Other Americans Start to Speak, Too.

It's High Time for America to Free itself from AIPAC and the Israel Lobby.

1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Members of the Armed Forces, who have sworn to uphold the constitution, protect against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and obey the orders of the officers appointed over him/her are in a bad situation.

What should a military member do, if the Commander in Chief is not upholding the oath of office, is amassing greater and greater powers within the executive branch, and using these powers in direct violation of the constitution?

Does this not also make the military member an accomplice?

Seems to me that the military member is placed into a loop and would need to sue the President. Because the military member is placed in a position, unable to fulfill the oath of enlistment and obey the orders of the Commander in Chief, at the same time.

But what would the precise law suit (or other legal action) be?

Comments?

V/r,

Military Member

10:18 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home