Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Another Leaked British Memo = More Bad News for Bush

Just when you thought things couldn't look much worse for Bush, support for his war dropping even with members of his own party, members of his administration being indicted, people finally qestioning his sale of the war in Iraq... another British memo gets leaked that makes him look like an even bigger asshole than usual. If the Downing Street Memos weren't bad enough, this new one exposes his plan to bomb Al Jazeera's headquarters in Quatar (an allied country no less).
PRESIDENT Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a "Top Secret" No 10 memo reveals.

But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash.

A source said: "There's no doubt what Bush wanted, and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." Al-Jazeera is accused by the US of fuelling the Iraqi insurgency.

The attack would have led to a massacre of innocents on the territory of a key ally, enraged the Middle East and almost certainly have sparked bloody retaliation.

A source said last night: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.

"He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem.

"There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do - and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."

A Government official suggested that the Bush threat had been "humorous, not serious".

But another source declared: "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."

3 Comments:

Blogger Arlen Crawford said...

Good afternoon. Your blog is thought provoking. However, reading your blog, I had to write. I am 50 years old, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world to those who want His salvation and I try (try being the operative word) to live by the morals of the Bible. I would like to think that you would not brand me a religious zealot or a right wing nut case just because I hold these beliefs, but if so, so be it.

I understand that you do not like the current administration and yes, there are many disturbing things that alarm me (Katrina response, torture, over 2000 deaths in Iraq and a border situation out of control.) But I believe that you accomplish very little other than complete negativity when you try to build your political philosophy by tearing another person's down, or in this case another party's down (or conservatives in general.)

I also understand your anger. But if you channel the energy that your anger expends into a blog that builds a positive political philosophy (even though I may partially disagree), is not your cause better served? Instead of trying to tear down capitalism (and some tenants of the system are indeed bad) would it not be better to raise the positive discussion of socialism, which is really nothing more than government redistribution?

The one area that you discount could be the one significant area that could help you: the Book of Acts in the New Testament.

Socialism is basically government forced redistribution of everything as equally as possible. However, Christian Socialism, as written about by Luke in the book of Acts is redistribution of property on a VOLUNTARY basis. And it works SO MUCH BETTER. Most Christians don't even think about socialism as a preferred way of helping the world because of governemntal enforcement. But indeed, if it were all voluntary (giving), we could save thousands in africa who die of starvation and AIDS and the world would be a better place (strength through diversity.)

I challenge you to read the first eight chapters in the Book of Acts and write your thoughts in a post.

And then if you still think I'm a right-winged, religious zealot or nut, I'll leave well enough be.

Respectfully,
Arlen

11/22/2005 01:08:00 PM  
Blogger Liberal Traitor said...

Arlen, thanks for writing. I'm not one to go and throw names and labels around at people unless they make an asshat of themselves, which you most certainly do not do. While I don't subscribe to any religion, I certainly do not have a problem with those who do, so long as they don't use that religion to push miserable politics, which you also certainly do not seem to do.

While I agree with certain elements of both capitalism and socialism, I would not consider myself a capitalist or a socialist. I think that each has merits, but neither one really works out well for the people when practiced in an absolute form. I'm more for European or Canadian style democratic socialism. The market is still free, but not so easily exploitable by the higher classes. If a socio-economic system doesn't work for all classes, it's a failure in my book.

I appreciate your well thought post. I think that you have a much firmer grasp on what Jesus was all about than the most vocal people calling themselves Christian today. We need Christians like yourself to take your religion back from the wingnuts and make it respectable again. I'd be much more open to it if there were more people like you and less people like Pat Robertson and that lady in the video (who I recently found out might be an actress).

11/22/2005 03:15:00 PM  
Blogger Arlen Crawford said...

Thank you for indeed having an open mind and for your kind words.

I just read an article on CNN.com where the White House denies the possible Al-Jazeera bombing:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/22/us.al.jazeera/index.html

I mean, I guess what else are they going to do, admit it? I am somewhat conflicted by who's telling the truth. So much of politics is "he said, she said."

While the majority of my beliefs would probably be considered conservative by someone like yourself, I can easily identify and relate to your reasoning regarding an economic system that works for the classes.

In my opinion, this is what prompted the poor response behind Katrina, not racism. I believe that because the general citizenry of New Orleans were lower class (both Caucasians and African Americans and other minorities), the response was "taken for granted." And typically, I believe all governments share the blame, with the largest part falling squarely on the national.

I cringe when Christianity is exploited and represented by those who almost subvert its true meaning to forward their own agendas. When Christ spoke of peace in John 14:27, he spoke of something more than an absence of conflict, and made it quite personal. This is something that EVERY person can have, though their lives may be in the eye of a personal hurricane. Hatred in its many forms has no place in Christianity and neither does elitism. Christ came for EVERYONE who would accept Him, not just the rich and middle class.

Though faults in our present political, economic and legal systems are larger than obvious, I tire of the constant, shrill noises made by those who would complain on both sides of the isle instead of proposing solutions. I mean, in most instances, the solutions may or may not be feasible, but just the fact they they THOUGHT about solutions would be a huge step forward.

Quoting Lewis Black: "The Democrats are the party of no ideas. The Republicans are the party of BAD ideas." If you relate that to relationships, no relationship is certainly better than a bad one. Just ask anyone who is abused. But we must create good ideas and good relationships. The primary reason that Republican ideas are bad is because they try to answer complex problems with "one size fits all" solutions and in the process, reduce themselves to trite. It's fine to keep it simple, but too often simplicity devolves into triteness.

It's EASY to tear down, but it takes effort, pain, guts, sacrifice and love to build. That's a very general statement, but if you have specific issues you'd like to eventually discuss, I can do that as well.

Have a GREAT Thanksgiving. Blessings to you.

Respectfully,
Arlen

11/23/2005 02:47:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home