The Cons say: Praise Welfare! (as long as it is for the Corporations!)

Here is a one-two punch for y'all.

Here is an excellent article on Counterpunch.org It's a Welfare State ... If You're Rich by Walter Brasch.

In the same vein, I offer you the video commentary of Jim Hightower, a Texan in the Molly Ivins mold:

Read well and ponder on the 'morals' of the mega-wealthy. They are all for privatizing their profits (keeping all the wealth for themselves) all the while socializing the costs (all failures and bailouts are to be paid for by we, the peons...err, people.)

Lest we delude ourselves with nostalgia…

Much has been made, and rightly so, of the myriad abuses by the Bush (mal)administration of domestic, Constitutional and international law. However, we must keep firmly in mind that the path to many, many of these abuses had been laid by previous administrations, at least some of them Democratic ones.

Bush and others of his cabal have stated repeatedly that the U.S. "does not torture" and much has been made by Bush apologists about various practices and whether or not they fall under the definition of ‘torture’. William Blum has turned an excellent phrase in this regard, "Like pornography, torture doesn't require a definition; you know it when you see it or feel it." Albeit Michael McConnell has stated that he would find waterboarding to be torture if done to him, our oh so independent Attorney General, Michael Mukasey just can’t find it in him to declare waterboarding (or, for that matter, any other ‘coercive’ questioning techniques approved by the WH) as being torture. For, to do so, he would then be forced to start legal proceedings to determine who has sanctioned, permitted or approved of these procedures and then to prosecute them for it.

However, even before we get to our own instances of torture, horrendous as it is, we must examine the practice of "extraordinary rendition" of persons to states where it is fairly certain that they will be tortured. Why this, you ask? Well, it so happens that the practice of "extraordinary rendition" did not begin with the Bush (mal)administration. No, on the contrary, it was during the "liberal" Clinton administration that the practice was begun. I refer you all to several articles in "Mother Jones" that lay out the ugly genesis and development of this heinous practice. First, there is "Disappearing Act: Rendition by the Numbers", by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann. Now, prior to the ascendancy of the Bush cabal, there were an even dozen such "extraordinary renditions". This means that the "liberal" Clinton administration violated "…the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which prohibits delivering someone to a country where there are "substantial grounds" to assume that he might be tortured." And, according to Michael Scheuer, the original "extraordinary rendition" program was not even to collect information.

"The extraordinary rendition program was not primarily intended to yield information, according to Michael Scheuer, the cia official whom the Clinton White House tasked with implementing it. "It came from an improvisation to dismantle these terrorist cells overseas. We wanted to get suspects off the streets and grab their papers," Scheuer explains. "The interrogation part wasn't important." - "I Was Kidnapped by the CIA", by Peter Bergen

Yes, I know, it’s not "liberally correct" to speak ill of a former Democratic reign. The problem is, it is true and it needs to be addressed for, without knowing where we have been we cannot hope to know where we are nor just how we got here. Granted, with the coming to power of the Bush cabal, and especially after 9/11, the "extraordinary rendition" process has been thrown into high gear but, we must remember it was Bubba Clinton and his administration that started it.

Further, those that decry Bush’s Iraq attack (even if they hold that the equally illegal assault on Afghanistan had some legitimacy), let’s all remember what was wrong with it.

1. The "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" (AUMF) is NOT a declaration of war and, even though we’ve been rather lackadaisical in declaring war since WWII, that is the sole Constitutional means by which the U.S. can actually go to war;
   
   
2. Both the Afghanistan and Iraq misadventures were launched without UN Security Council imprimatur. Barring an imminent attack, the ONLY internationally sanctioned way to go to war is to be sanctioned to do so by the UNSC; and
   
   
3. The U.S. has engaged in myriad blatant war crimes in these instances (use of disproportionate force, use of illegal weapons, intentional targeting of civilian populations, intentional and needless destruction of civilian infrastructure, etc. ad nauseam).

Oddly enough, the three charges above are exactly the same as those that can be leveled against the Clinton administration and its ‘use of force’ against the Serbs in Bosnia in 1995 and against Yugoslavia in 1999.

1. Clinton and his cabal did not secure a declaration of war from the Congress.
   
   
2. They also, just as Bush II did after them, did NOT secure a UN Security Council Resolution permitting the U.S. (or NATO as we insist) to attack the Bosnian Serbs or Yugoslavia.
   
   
3. Further, the U.S. committed myriad war crimes during the 78 day and night bombing of Yugoslavia. They used illegal weapons (Depleted Uranium), intentionally targeted civilian populations, intentionally and needlessly destroyed civilian infrastructure to cause needless suffering to the civilian population.

Any of us with even ½ a grain of intelligence know that Bush’s fabled maxim of "They hate us for our freedom" as the "explanation" for 9/11 is garbage, pure and simple. However, those that dared suggest that it could possibly be blowback were derided as "Hate America Firsters". Oddly enough, the real explanation, or at least part of it, was made public in 1998. In an interview with "Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski made some rather revealing comments:

"Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries."

That question, Mr. Brzezinski, should be asked of the people of New York City, the Pentagon, the friends and families of those on those hijacked planes. Think that, maybe, "some stirred-up Moslems" could be a bit of a problem?

Ain’t it amazing?

Here is a quick dissection of a portion of a news article from “Civil Georgia”, entitled “U.S Rules Out Recognising S.Ossetia”.

“…A journalist asked the U.S. secretary of state whether she thought the appeal was "a provocation" from Moscow, “or do you think it’s something inevitable?”

Rice responded: “I don’t want to try to judge the motives, but we’ve been very clear that Kosovo is sui generis and that that is because of the special circumstances out of which the breakup of Yugoslavia came. The special circumstances of the aggression of the Milosevic forces against Kosovars, particularly Albanian Kosovars, and it’s a special circumstance.””

“…but we’ve been very clear that Kosovo is sui generis and that that is because of the special circumstances out of which the breakup of Yugoslavia came.”

Hmmmm, “…we’ve been very clear that Kosovo is sui generis…”. OK, Ms. Rice, you’ve made clear that you (U.S.) consider the Kosovo situation to be sui generis, that’s fine. However, it is much like the quote by Abraham Lincoln,

“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.” - Abraham Lincoln

Just as Madeline Albright before her, Condoleezza Rice calls many a tail a leg, which is their option, of course. However, the problem lies in the fact that they (and we, U.S.) then proceed to act as though by simply calling a tail a leg has made it so.

The Clinton cabal in the 90s resorted to this tactic early and often. A little known fact is that the Clinton’s were in contact with the Saudis and other radical Muslim regimes even before coming to power and floating the idea of supporting the then illegal Muslim breakaway province of Bosnia as a means of garnering Muslim support. Very early in the Bosnian phase of the Wars of Yugoslav Dissolution, even though there was a standing arms embargo against all parties, the Clinton cabal was deeply enmeshed and involved in illegally and clandestinely providing arms to the Bosniak(sic) Muslim government of Alija Izetbegović (and the Croatian and Croatian Bosnian forces). Additionally, it was with the active cooperation (or, at the very least, tacit approval and knowledge) of the Clinton cabal that mujahideen, veterans of the Afghanistan and Chechnya campaigns (many former acolytes and colleagues of Usama bin Laden), were filtered into Bosnia also to aid the Izetbegović regime. Interestingly enough, during this entire period the U.S. and its compliant, subservient mainline media (and even large portions of the ‘liberal’ media) were 4-square behind the continual bashing of the Serbs, Serbia and Milošević for, purportedly, supplying the Bosnian Serbs with arms to defend themselves against Izetbegović’s forces, including the foreign mujahideen. I say ‘purportedly’ because there is little if any evidence that this was so. Certainly, undeniably, there were Serb paramilitary groups fighting in Bosnia on the side of the Bosnian Serbs. However, these paramilitary formations did not answer either to Milošević or the Yugoslav government. This is quite different from the situation of many Croatian paramilitary as well as official Croatian military formations fighting in Bosnia on behalf of Croatian Bosnians. This is not even to mention, again, the foreign mujahideen fighters. It would be good to note here that David Hicks, the Australian kangaroo skinner who was imprisoned in Guantánamo until his conditional release to Australia, was a veteran from Afghanistan who was imported into Bosnia and was photographed with the severed heads of Bosnian Serb civilians he had murdered. So, foreign (Muslim) “freedom fighters” and literally hundreds of tons of military equipment, weapons and munitions being covertly supplied by the U.S. and their willing minions, in violation of an international embargo, is totally OK; the participation of volunteer Serb paramilitary formations, without any government imprimatur are bad and evidence of Milošević’s and/or Serbian “illegal involvement” in the conflict in Bosnia. Tail meet leg.

With regard to Rice and her proclamation that:

“…that is because of the special circumstances out of which the breakup of Yugoslavia came. The special circumstances of the aggression of the Milosevic forces against Kosovars, particularly Albanian Kosovars, and it’s a special circumstance.”

“…the special circumstances out of which the breakup of Yugoslavia came.” Gee, could she possibly mean the “special circumstances” evinced at the 1991 Maastericht meeting at which the EC morphed into the EU? That same meeting where, in blatant violation of the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act and even the entire premise of the Westphalian order since 1648, Germany blackmailed the U.S. and the rest of Europe into unilaterally dismembering a founding member of the UN? Could those “special circumstances” refer to US policy since Reagan to dissolve Socialist Yugoslavia into its constituent components…and beyond? Or could it be the “special circumstances” that permitted all the “indiscretions” cited above, as well as the planning, provisioning, and aiding of the Croatian “Operation Storm” which led to the largest “ethnic cleansing” in Europe since WWII? Or, perhaps it refers to the “special circumstances” which led U.S. envoy to perceive a “massacre” at Racak…even before any forensic personnel had even arrived at the scene? Well, one cannot say that William Walker was unfamiliar with massacres, after all it was this same William Walker who ‘happened’ to be present at many a massacre in Central America during the Reagan Administration. It was William Walker who pronounced the rightist El Salvador government blameless in the massacre of 6 Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her 15 year old daughter. Yes, William Walker has a long record of ‘exemplary service’ to the empire, regardless of the party in power.

“…The special circumstances of the aggression of the Milosevic forces against Kosovars, particularly Albanian Kosovars, and it’s a special circumstance.”

Hmmmm, oddly enough, the “special circumstances” of “aggression” seem to be especially selective in the case of the U.S. When Suharto supplanted Sukarno in Indonesia and liquidated upwards of ½ a million Indonesians (on lists provided Suharto by the U.S.) labeled “Communists” or “Leftists” or “liberals”, we said he was doing an exemplary job. When Indonesia invaded and decimated East Timor in 1975, “U.S. political and military support for Indonesia was vital to its ability to invade East Timor in December 1975 and to sustain a brutal 24-year occupation that cost the lives of at least 100,000 people, parts of a Timorese inquiry made public Tuesday show.” (U.S. Arms Helped Indonesia Attack East Timor, By Colum Lynch, Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, January 25, 2006; Page A15). So, one must assume that that aggression was also Washington approved. Contemporaneous with the Wars of Yugoslav Dissolution, when the Turks set about razing villages, murdering 10s of 1,000s of Turkish Kurds “…seldom is heard a discouraging word…”. This even though the magnitude of death and destruction visited upon the Turkish Kurds never qualified as “special circumstances” that forever severed Turkey’s right to its Kurdish provinces. On the contrary, as we have seen in recent days, Turkey is allowed to engage in what would normally be considered ‘acts of war’ by striking at Kurdish settlements and villages deep inside Iraq. But, of course, since Turkey is an important NATO ally and we (U.S.) de facto control Iraq (all talk of any Iraqi sovereignty is just that, talk), this certainly doesn’t qualify as a “special circumstance”.

And, in terms of “aggression” against a people and ethnic cleansing, the displacement of the Native American population doesn’t even merit a passing mention! So much for calling a tail a leg and having it be one!

Back to the bloody Balkans…again

Well, as predicted, on February 17, 2008 (another day that will live in infamy in the Serbian heart and mind) the illegal puppet Kosovar(sic) Albanian regime in Priština declared it’s “independence” (considering that the Serbian province of Kosovo has been governed the last 9 years by UNMIK with no connection to Serbia, it is unclear just what independence and from whom this declaration was made).

Again, as in 1999, various ‘pundits’ are banging on about how “Belgrade lost any right over Kosovo due to their brutal treatment of the Albanian majority.” Odd. Virtually contemporaneous with NATO’s gang rape of Yugoslavia, Turkey was deeply involved in bloodily putting down their own insurgency by the Kurds. In brutality, bloodiness and numbers of innocent civilian casualties, the Turkish suppression of the Kurds was orders of magnitude worse than the Serbian operations against the KLA in Kosovo in 1998-1999. Yet, somehow, it was not even suggested that the Kurdish region of Turkey be forcibly separated from Turkey nor that, due to the heavy handedness of the Turks, that Turkey had lost any right over the predominantly Kurdish populated section of Turkey.

I well recall how in the period immediately subsequent to NATO’s gang rape of Serbia (June 1999 onwards) there were myriad attacks by members of the KLA and Kosovar Albanians on non-Albanian Kosovars (primarily Serbs but also Kosovar Jews, Roma, Gorani, etc.). In less than a year following the cessation of the NATO bombings, over 1,000 Serbs had been brutally murdered while another more than 1,000 Serbs had been ’disappeared’ and presumed dead. ALL these attacks were ’justified’ by the ’pundits’ and reporters as ’revenge’ attacks. This on the basis of the insanely inflated casualty numbers bruited about by the Western press (“100,000 Kosovar Albanians missing and probably dead”, “mass killings of Kosovar Albanians, at least 50,000”, “mass graves containing the remains of 10,000 murdered Albanians”), all these claims were proven to be endless recitations of Clinton administration propaganda and totally and completely baseless. After NATO forces occupied the province and searched it with a fine tooth comb, less than 3,000 bodies could be turned up, Albanian and Serb, who had been primarily killed in the NATO bombing itself or in armed conflict with Serbian forces.

Now we are enduring the spectacle of Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, waxing apoplectic about "They had an obligation to protect diplomatic missions, and, from what we can tell, the police presence was either inadequate or unresponsive at the time.", while the U.S. (and its major toadies and ‘allies’) continence the explicit abrogation of UNSC Resolution 1244, the Helsinki Final Act and the entire Westphalian order! What cheek! What effrontery! What chutzpah! What Ms. Rice fails to address is the fact that the police have found serious evidence that the firing of the U.S. Embassy was, in all likelihood, the work of agent provocateurs, very likely in the pay and under the control of foreign (dare we say, “Western”?) intelligence agencies! What better way to distract attention from peaceful demonstrations in Belgrade of over ½ million Serbs than to have a small handful of ’drunk soccer hooligans’ setting the U.S. Embassy alight and provide an arguable casus belli for the U.S. and its miserable minions to once again assail the Serbs and their government?

“All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” - Jesus, Sermon on the Mount

I find it absolutely unbelievable how so many commentators, even ‘liberal, open minded’ commentators, buy into the CW (Common Wisdom). Perhaps it is because it is repeated so very often by the MSM (Main Stream Media), without any question. After all, all the ‘Village elders’ keep telling us, “I heard it in the media so that makes it so.” Let me delve into this with a few concrete examples.

Lately I’ve had several e-mail exchanges with a couple of ‘liberal’ commentators regarding the malfeasance of the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations in the context of Yugoslavia and the intentional malicious pillorying of the Serbian people. Immediately I was attacked, knee jerk fashion, having all manner of specious, vacuous propaganda talking points that had been manufactured by the MSM and the various administrations to ‘justify’ their positions thrown at me. Yet, every time I have provided numerous links to articles and information that totally debunk these talking points (much as the ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ argument has been dismantled in Iraq), without exception, the e-mail exchanges ceased abruptly. This even though the sources I linked to were hardly partisan Serb sources (such as Diana Johnstone, Edward Herman, David Peterson, etc.). I’m fairly certain that none of these e-mailers who assailed me have troubled themselves to even follow the links provided, much less do any real research on their own. C’est la vie!

Then, there is a rather well read, well rounded liberal commentator on the radio/internet. I must admit, he and I do truly agree on many topics and I find him to be rather thoughtful. However, one of his several blind spots is that he loves to bang on about the ‘wonderful’ color revolutions in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia. He endlessly lauds the ‘Bulldozer revolution’ in Serbia in 2000, the ‘Rose Revolution’ in Georgia in 2003, the ‘Orange Revolution’ in Ukraine in 2004, the ‘Tulip Revolution’ in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 as well as the failed ‘Denim Revolution’ in Belarus in 2005.

Gee, I wonder what this self same commentator would have to say if some foreign country, let’s say China, were to provide 100s of millions of dollars to some dissident groups in the U.S. (like the Black Panthers of the 1960s and early 1970s), provided millions of dollars more in equipment, facilities and services, provided cadre and training for how to destabilize the government? I vividly recall the apoplexy that was suffered by the reich wing nuts on the imaginary political contributions by the Chinese to the Democrats. Just how much more agitated do you think any sane commentator, right or left, were the initial scenario to be played out? Yet, that is exactly what has happened in ALL the various ‘color revolutions’ cited above. Most of the personnel, materials and training were provided by NED (National Endowment for Democracy, “…a U.S. non-profit organization that was founded in 1983, to promote democracy by providing cash grants funded primarily through an annual allocation from the U.S. Congress.” In addition to the NED there is also the IRI (International Republican Institute) "...an organization, funded by United States government, that conducts international political programs, sometimes labeled 'democratization programs'." Wikipedia Yet, by gosh, with about as much truthfulness and sincerity as the toppling of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad, this particular (and other commentators) regurgitate this schlock and the mind numbed proles lap it up like a baby bird swallowing it’s parents’ regurgitata. Sigh!

Blame America First…or Blame America NEVER?

I am weary on to death of constantly hearing from reichwing nutters, every time anyone levels any criticism at U.S. policies. One corollary of this inane argument is the accusation that any criticism of Israeli policies somehow automatically makes one an ‘anti-Semite’. Let’s deconstruct these two arguments simultaneously but separately.

To suggest that criticism of U.S. policy somehow makes one “anti-American” is ludicrous. A policy, any policy, is not the country, much like a flag is a symbol and not the embodiment of the country by any stretch of the imagination. To suggest otherwise is to insist that, for example, an actor is his role By this inane standard, Sir Anthony Hopkins should be incarcerated and restrained like this:

1. Because he played Dr. Hannibal Lechter! If you think about it for even a moment, you can see how ludicrous this is. Of course, if we actually take to heart that the U.S. is actually a “...government of the people, by the people, for the people...”, then we truly must take responsibility for those policies, which necessitates that we criticize policies of the government with which we disagree. If we don’t, then we are responsible for such policies and all the attendant consequences and blowback.

2. In the case of Israel, simply due to the fact that one may take issue with any particular, or even all, policies of the Israeli state cannot in any way realistically be said to be, per se, evidence of anti-Semitism. As is, unfortunately, the case in the U.S., the policies of the state of Israel are not necessarily congruent with the population of Israel. For example, the entirety of the population of Israel do not agree with the settlement project, just as the entirety of the U.S. polity does not agree with the present occupation of Iraq.

3. The main thrust of both groups, the “Blame America First!” reichwing nutters and the “Oppose Israeli policies = anti-Semite”, is to equate disagreement, criticism or even questioning as equivalent to absolute antithesis. The “Blame America First!” crowd, in particular, takes the position that every policy of the U.S., past, present and future, is always right, never to be questioned. However, when one brings up such unsettling questions as the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans, the chattel slavery of African Americans, the brutal treatment of various immigrant groups (“No Irish need apply”, “No Dogs or Irishmen Allowed”, etc., etc., etc.,), these self same chest thumping uber-patriots dismiss all such behaviors, repeated time and time and time again in our history as ‘aberrations’. Aberrant, as defined by Merriam-Webster is a: “straying from the right or normal way”. However, if a behavior is repeated over and over and over it is no longer a “straying from the right or normal way”; it is the normal way.

In conclusion, it is of utmost importance that, on every occasion when confronted by those who try to denigrate any opinion contrary to the reichwing CW and their own, that we try to educate them to their own ignorance (i.e., “the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness”). Please be gentle in your instruction; most of these nutters simply don’t understand the depths of their own ignorance and the shock of having to deal with reality could push these poor delusional dingbats right over the edge.

Lack of Logic and Civility in Discourse…on the ‘Liberal’ Left?

An e-mail discourse with an acquaintance who is a ‘liberal’ Democrat, which started cordially enough, was abruptly terminated once I started challenging some of his internalized memes. Sadly, it is not just this particular acquaintance but many, many other ‘liberal’ Democrats who fall back on the memes generated by the Clinton Administration.

In the second of his e-mails, he points to a State Department Report on Kosovo from 1999 and says:

“According to the State Department, at least 90%(!) of the entire 1998 Kosovar Albanian population were forcibly expelled from their home

Perhaps you dispute this, but this strikes me as justifying NATO's war.”

I find his statement that “…this strikes me as justifying NATO's war.” disquieting on a variety of levels. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the then head of the National Security Council and now Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, make the rounds of the Sunday talk shows prior to this Administration’s attack on Iraq, bruiting the meme of “…we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." And yet, after our attack upon Iraq and a most thorough search for that ‘smoking gun’, no such weapons were found. But, according to the ‘reasoning’ of my acquaintance, that statement of Ms. Rice ‘justified’ the Bush Administration attack on Iraq.

Further, this acquaintance is an attorney by trade. Therefore, the idea of there being any ‘justification’ for a war other than a UNSC resolution or serious threat of an imminent attack is totally farcical! This is akin to the nonsensical notion, arrived at by the British parliamentary Foreign Affairs Select Committee, that:

"The NATO military intervention was illegal but legitimate. It was illegal because it did not receive prior approval from the United Nations Security Council...."

The internal illogic of the first sentence is simply stunning! The first definition in the dictionary of the word ‘legitimate’ is: “Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.” So, the ‘great minds’ of the cruise missile Left have had to come up with a sentence that is totally and completely self-contradictory! How can something, anything, be both ‘illegal’ and yet ‘legitimate’?

Yet, this ‘liberal’ Democratic acquaintance would be, and to my knowledge has been at the forefront of decrying Bush’s illegal attack on Iraq because he, too, never bothered to get the imprimatur of the UNSC.

Also, many ‘liberals’ laud such as Gen. Wesley Clark as being ‘honorable men’ while decrying such as Gen. Petreaus as being a ‘war criminal’ and a ‘political general’. And yet one of Gen. Clark’s direct subordinates, Lt. Gen. Michael Short, NATO’s air war commander said:

“Lt-Gen Short told the New York Times Yugoslav civilians had to be made to suffer. “I think no power to your refrigerator, no gas to your stove, you can't get to work because the bridge is down -- the bridge on which you held your rock concerts and you all stood with targets on your heads. That needs to disappear at three o'clock in the morning.” As for targets in Kosovo, Lt-Gen Short said he wanted to “take the monkey off the (bomber's) back.”

Yet, far too many ‘liberals’ laud NATO’s air war on Yugoslavia as a ‘humanitarian’ war. Odd, agitating explicitly for the commission of heinous war crimes hardly seems to fit the definition of ‘humanitarian’! And, it should be noted here that, even excepting NATO’s attack on the Chinese Embassy (an act of war, by any definition), there were far, far too many attacks on obviously civilian structures (hospitals, water purification systems, power systems, schools, private residences) to be classed as ‘collateral damage’. By the way, the definition of ‘collateral’ is: Of a secondary nature; subordinate.

As far as Gen. Wesley Clark himself was concerned, he presided over the massive use of Depleted Uranium weapons during the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. As to his being a ‘political’ general, he was “…in charge of NATO's "spin" in the Yugoslavia bombardment. Clark called the destruction of a Yugoslav train filled with civilians by a NATO missile "an uncanny accident." He said the same each time that NATO bombed civilian targets, which happened frequently.” ~ “Gen. Wesley Clark: War Criminal” By MITCHEL COHEN And yet, to this day, he is reverently deferred to as some kind of ‘honorable’ man whose opinions and judgments should be taken seriously.

Again, it needs to be pointed out, simply because Clinton and his administration are, in comparison to the Bush administration, better, that is hardly something to be proud of. A band of syphilitic chimps would show themselves superior to this administration.