Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Madeleine Albright

 

Blood Begins to Dry

As War Criminals In Our Midst are put on trial…

Especially, including the leaders of the colonial powers who are exclusively out of trial blame

In transmitting President Richard Nixon’s orders for a “massive” bombing of Cambodia in 1969, Henry Kissinger said, “Anything that flies on everything that moves“.

As Barack Obama ignites his 7th war against the Muslim world since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the orchestrated hysteria and lies make one almost nostalgic for Kissinger’s murderous honesty.

By John Pilger johnpilger.com

As a witness to the human consequences of aerial savagery – including the beheading of victims, their parts festooning trees and fields – I am not surprised by the disregard of memory and history, yet again.

A telling example is the rise to power of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, who had much in common with today’s Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

They, too, were ruthless medievalists who began as a small sect.

They, too, were the product of an American-made apocalypse, this time in Asia.

According to Pol Pot, his movement had consisted of “fewer than 5,000 poorly armed guerrillas uncertain about their strategy, tactics, loyalty and leaders“.

Once Nixon’s and Kissinger’s B 52 bombers had gone to work as part of “Operation Menu“, the west’s ultimate demon could not believe his luck.

The Americans dropped the equivalent of 5 Hiroshimas on rural Cambodia during 1969-73. They levelled village after village, returning to bomb the rubble and corpses. The craters left monstrous necklaces of carnage, still visible from the air.

The terror was unimaginable.

A former Khmer Rouge official described how the survivors “froze up and they would wander around mute for three or four days. Terrified and half-crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told… That was what made it so easy for the Khmer Rouge to win the people over.”

A Finnish Government Commission of Enquiry estimated that 600,000 Cambodians died in the ensuing civil war and described the bombing as the “first stage in a decade of genocide”.

What Nixon and Kissinger began, Pol Pot, their beneficiary, completed.

Under the US bombs, the Khmer Rouge grew to a formidable army of 200,000.

ISIS has a similar past and present.

By most scholarly measure, Bush and Blair’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the deaths of some 700,000 people – in a country that had No history of jihadism.

The Kurds had done territorial and political deals; Sunni and Shia had class and sectarian differences, but they were at peace; intermarriage was common.

Three years before the invasion, I drove the length of Iraq without fear.

On the way I met people proud, above all, to be Iraqis, the heirs of a civilization that seemed, for them, a presence.

Bush and Blair blew all this to bits.

Iraq is now a nest of jihadism. Al-Qaeda – like Pol Pot’s “jihadists” – seized the opportunity provided by the onslaught of Shock and Awe and the civil war that followed.

“Rebel” Syria offered even greater rewards, with CIA and Gulf state ratlines of weapons, logistics and money running through Turkey. The arrival of foreign recruits was inevitable.

A former British ambassador, Oliver Miles, wrote recently, 

“The [Cameron] government seems to be following the example of Tony Blair, who ignored consistent advice from the Foreign Office, MI5 and MI6 that our Middle East policy – and in particular our Middle East wars – had been a principal driver in the recruitment of Muslims in Britain for terrorism here.”

ISIS is the progeny of those in Washington and London who, in destroying Iraq as both a state and a society, conspired to commit an epic crime against humanity.

Like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, ISIS are the mutations of a western state terror dispensed by a venal imperial elite undeterred by the consequences of actions taken at great remove in distance and culture. Their culpability is unmentionable in “our” societies.

It is 23 years since this holocaust enveloped Iraq, immediately after the first Gulf War, when the US and Britain hijacked the United Nations Security Council and imposed punitive “sanctions” on the Iraqi population – ironically, reinforcing the domestic authority of Saddam Hussein.

It was like a medieval siege.

Almost everything that sustained a modern state was, in the jargon, “blocked” – from chlorine for making the water supply safe to school pencils, parts for X-ray machines, common painkillers and drugs to combat previously unknown cancers carried in the dust from the southern battlefields contaminated with Depleted Uranium.

Just before Christmas 1999, the Department of Trade and Industry in London restricted the export of vaccines meant to protect Iraqi children against diphtheria and yellow fever.

Kim Howells, parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Blair government, explained why. “The children’s vaccines”, he said, “were capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction“.

The British Government could get away with such an outrage because media reporting of Iraq – much of it manipulated by the Foreign Office – blamed Saddam Hussein for everything.

Under a bogus “humanitarian” Oil for Food Programme, $100 was allotted for each Iraqi to live on for a year. This figure had to pay for the entire society’s infrastructure and essential services, such as power and water.

“Imagine,” the UN Assistant Secretary General, Hans Von Sponeck, told me, “setting that pittance against the lack of clean water, and the fact that the majority of sick people cannot afford treatment, and the sheer trauma of getting from day to day, and you have a glimpse of the nightmare. And make no mistake, this is deliberate. I have not in the past wanted to use the word genocide, but now it is unavoidable.”

Disgusted, Von Sponeck resigned as UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq. His predecessor, Denis Halliday, an equally distinguished senior UN official, had also resigned. “I was instructed,” Halliday said, “to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults.”

A study by the United Nations Children’s Fund, Unicef, found that between 1991 and 1998, the height of the blockade, there were 500,000 “excess” deaths of Iraqi infants under the age of 5.

An American TV reporter put this to Madeleine Albright, US Ambassador to the United Nations, asking her, “Is the price worth it?” Albright replied, “We think the price is worth it.”

In 2007, the senior British official responsible for the sanctions, Carne Ross, known as “Mr. Iraq”, told a parliamentary selection committee, “[The US and UK governments] effectively denied the entire population a means to live.”

When I interviewed Carne Ross three years later, he was consumed by regret and contrition.

“I feel ashamed,” he said. He is today a rare truth-teller of how governments deceive and how a compliant media plays a critical role in disseminating and maintaining the deception. “We would feed [journalists] factoids of sanitised intelligence,” he said, “or we’d freeze them out.”

On 25 September, a headline in the Guardian read: “Faced with the horror of Isis we must act.” The “we must act” is a ghost risen, a warning of the suppression of informed memory, facts, lessons learned and regrets or shame.

The author of the article was Peter Hain, the former Foreign Office minister responsible for Iraq under Blair.

In 1998, when Denis Halliday revealed the extent of the suffering in Iraq for which the Blair Government shared primary responsibility, Hain abused him on the BBC’s Newsnight as an “apologist for Saddam”.

In 2003, Hain backed Blair’s invasion of stricken Iraq on the basis of transparent lies. At a subsequent Labour Party conference, he dismissed the invasion as a “fringe issue”.

Now Hain is demanding “air strikes, drones, military equipment and other support” for those “facing genocide” in Iraq and Syria. This will further “the imperative of a political solution”.

Obama has the same in mind as he lifts what he calls the “restrictions” on US bombing and drone attacks. This means that missiles and 500-pound bombs can smash the homes of peasant people, as they are doing without restriction in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia – as they did in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos.

On 23 September, a Tomahawk cruise missile hit a village in Idlib Province in Syria, killing as many as a dozen civilians, including women and children. None waved a black flag.

The day Hain’s article appeared, Denis Halliday and Hans Von Sponeck happened to be in London and came to visit me. They were not shocked by the lethal hypocrisy of a politician, but lamented the enduring, almost inexplicable absence of intelligent diplomacy in negotiating a semblance of truce.

Across the world, from Northern Ireland to Nepal, those regarding each other as terrorists and heretics have faced each other across a table. Why not now in Iraq and Syria.

Like Ebola from West Africa, a bacteria called “perpetual war” has crossed the Atlantic. Lord Richards, until recently head of the British military, wants “boots on the ground” now.

There is a vapid, almost sociopathic verboseness from Cameron, Obama and their “coalition of the willing” – notably Australia’s aggressively weird Tony Abbott – as they prescribe more violence delivered from 30,000 feet on places where the blood of previous adventures never dried.

They have never seen bombing and they apparently love it so much they want it to overthrow their one potentially valuable ally,  Syria. This is nothing new, as the following leaked UK-US intelligence file illustrates,  and written in 1957:

In order to facilitate the action of liberative [sic] forces… a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals [and] to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria. CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main [sic] incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals… a necessary degree of fear… frontier and [staged] border clashes [will] provide a pretext for intervention… the CIA and SIS should use… capabilities in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.”

In the imperial world, nothing essentially changes.

Last year, the former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas revealed that “two years before the Arab spring”, he was told in London that a war on Syria was planned.

“I am going to tell you something,” he said in an interview with the French TV channel LPC, “I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria… Britain was organising an invasion of rebels into Syria.

They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister for Foreign Affairs, if I would like to participate… This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned.”

The only effective opponents of ISIS are accredited demons of the west – Syria, Iran, Hezbollah. The obstacle is Turkey, an “ally” and a member of Nato, which has conspired with the CIA, MI6 and the Gulf medievalists to channel support to the Syrian “rebels”, including those now calling themselves ISIS.

Supporting Turkey in its long-held ambition for regional dominance by overthrowing the Assad government beckons a major conventional war and the horrific dismemberment of the most ethnically diverse state in the Middle East.

A truce – however difficult to achieve – is the only way out of this imperial maze; otherwise, the beheadings will continue. That genuine negotiations with Syria should be seen as “morally questionable” (the Guardian) suggests that the assumptions of moral superiority among those who supported the war criminal Blair remain not only absurd, but dangerous.

Together with a truce, there should be an immediate cessation of all shipments of war materials to Israel and recognition of the State of Palestine. The issue of Palestine is the region’s most festering open wound, and the oft-stated justification for the rise of Islamic extremism. Osama bin Laden made that clear. Palestine also offers hope. Give justice to the Palestinians and you begin to change the world around them.

More than 40 years ago, the Nixon-Kissinger bombing of Cambodia unleashed a torrent of suffering from which that country has never recovered. The same is true of the Blair-Bush crime in Iraq.

With impeccable timing, Henry Kissinger’s latest self-serving book has just been released with its satirical title, “World Order“.

In one fawning review, Kissinger is described as a “key shaper of a world order that remained stable for a quarter of a century”.

Tell that to the people of Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Chile, East Timor and all the other victims of his “statecraft”.

Only when “we” recognise the war criminals in our midst will the blood begin to dry.

When You Kill Ten Million Africans You Aren’t Called ‘Hitler’

Note: Lebanon suffered 15 years of civil war and all the militia leaders were pardoned by the parliament and they ruled and controlled Lebanon for another 30 years. Lebanon total bankruptcy is due to these militia/mafia sectarian “leaders’

Currently, Beirut witnessed an atomic conflagration that killed 200 and injured more than 6,000 and devastated residential quarters on a radius of 3 miles. Apparently, no ministers or deputies or any militia leader will face trial

Young women Get With It and vote Hillary: Recommend  Madeleine Albright

Re “Female Icons Tell the Young to Get With It” (front page, Feb. 8):

As a female college student preparing to enter “the real world,” I find that there is little that is more important to me than feminism.

But I am tired of being condescended to by other women about the presidential election.

I find Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright’s arguments that young women who support Bernie Sanders need to wise up incredibly offensive. (Ms. Steinem has apologized.)

How dare these women imply that young women who vote for Senator Sanders are simply too immature and absent-minded to understand that Hillary Clinton is the better candidate?

Is it possible that some young women are voting for Mr. Sanders because they agree with his policies more?

Sure, to cast a vote for Mrs. Clinton is to support a woman. But she is not a messiah, and her presidency would certainly not be the end of a long road for feminism. (And she vehemently supported all US preemptive wars)

Ms. Steinem and Ms. Albright are reacting to Mrs. Clinton’s lack of support among young female voters by slinging insults at the women who have supported and looked up to them for years.

If we are going to assume that women are intelligent enough to form their own opinions, then women must respect other women’s choices.

A woman can be a feminist and vote for Mr. Sanders, and no amount of tantrum-throwing from powerful women will change that.

When it comes down to it, Ms. Steinem and Ms. Albright’s inflammatory claims will serve only to further divide feminists, as they perpetuate the very chasm they lament.

NATALIE BEAM

Charlottesville, Va.

To the Editor:

Although I am a 67-year-old feminist, I am horrified and angry that Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright think that Hillary Clinton should be nominated because she is a woman. That is no different from losing because you are a woman.

Choosing the Democratic presidential nominee is not and never should be a feminist issue. The nominee must be the best person for the job: the person with the most experience and the ability to be elected.

Mrs. Clinton has the most experience to run the country and a greater ability to win the election than Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist.

In 1972 George McGovern was the Sanders of his day, handicapped by the perception that he was a left-leaning extremist. McGovern lost all but one state, and a landslide victory (and mandate) ensued for Richard Nixon and the Republicans, ushering in a shameful period of American history. (Thus, don’t be afraid of the socialist candidate. Be scared of the other Nixon in a female body)

The stakes in this election are extremely high and will determine whether the United States will move further right toward an oligarchy or left toward greater democracy.

CARRIE GOLKIN

New York

To the Editor:

If ever there were an opportunity to alienate young women voters, Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright are carrying the torch with their bewildering reprimands of young female supporters of Bernie Sanders. The cluelessness of these feminist elders is astounding.

Senator Sanders is appealing by virtue of a progressive message that resonates deeply with younger people of both sexes. As a woman over 50 with deep affinity for the feminist movement,

I support Bernie Sanders. I am also embarrassed for the Clinton campaign and the message these endorsements evoke. (mostly Multinational corporations)

We need to encourage and inspire young women who are enthusiastically embracing a social justice platform, not scold them.

More important, if social media is any indication, the insulting messages that young women who do not support Hillary Clinton are going to a “special place in hell” (Ms. Albright) or seeking the attention of boys (Ms. Steinem) is backfiring terribly.

JOAN GROSSMAN

Feeling the Yern: Why One Millennial Woman Would Rather Go to Hell Than Vote for Hillary

Stumping for Hillary Clinton this weekend in New Hampshire, hedge fund manager Madeleine Albright squawked, “There’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help each other.”

When the Democratic National Committee chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was asked earlier this year why she thought Millennials resist Hillary Clinton, she casually threw them under the bus. “Here’s what I see,” she groused. “A complacency among the generation of young women whose entire lives have been lived after Roe v. Wade was decided.”

Asked a similar question by Bill Maher this past Friday, women’s-rights icon Gloria Steinem cawed, “When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie.”

There seems to be no shortage of bizarrely sexist assumptions as to why I, a Millennial feminist, am not voting for Hillary Clinton.

But speaking as a Millennial feminist, let me assure you: None of them is accurate.

Granted, the span of my political biography is only as long as it took Howard Dean to go from human rights crusader to insurance lobbyist. But the reason for my political disaffection is plain: I’ve spent my entire Millennial life watching the Democratic Party claw its way up the ass of corporate America. There’s no persuading me that the Democratic establishment — from where it sits now — has the capacity to represent me, or my values.

And I’m not alone. According to a 2013 poll by Harvard’s Kennedy School, three out of five of my peers now believe politicians prioritize private gain over the public good.

When young people open opensecrets.org to gauge just how cheaply our futures trade these days, are we being cynical, or just realistic?

If Millennials are coming out in droves to support Bernie Sanders, it’s not because we are tripping balls on Geritol.

No, Sanders’s clever strategy of shouting the exact same thing for 40 years simply strikes a chord among the growing number of us who now agree: Washington is bought.

And every time Goldman Sachs buys another million-dollar slice of the next American presidency, we can’t help but drop the needle onto Bernie’s broken record:

The economy is rigged.

Democracy is corrupted.

The billionaires are on the warpath.

Sanders has split the party with hits like these, a catchy stream of pessimistic populism. Behind this arthritic Pied Piper, the youth rally, brandishing red-lettered signs reading “MONEYLENDERS OUT.”

If you ask them, they’ll tell you there’s a special place in Hell for war criminals who launch hedge funds.

Last week in Iowa, Sanders proved his bleak candor is every bit as appealing to American voters as Hillary’s enthusiasm for tweakmanship. Especially among the youth.

According to entrance polls, Millennials backed Comrade Sanders over Neoliberal Clinton by a tidy 70-point margin. And in New Hampshire, the most recent UMass poll has Sanders taking 89 percent of the state’s Democrats under 30.

But these numbers should not surprise you. According to a YouGov poll conducted last week, people under 30 are more likely to say they support socialism than capitalism.

Capitalism, as Vonnegut explained, is “what the people with all our money, drunk or sober, sane or insane, decided to do today.”

We’ve just spent a lifetime watching capitalism buy itself a government.

And I’ll be frank: It’s not working well for most of us. Drones make orphans in our name. Our friends will die indebted. We are poisoning our own well.

The spectacle of our government’s being bought is so obvious, even the youngest among us can see it. “With Hillary,” eighteen-year-old Olivia Sauder told Times reporters at the Iowa Caucus, “sometimes you get this feeling that all of her sentences are owned by someone.”

Ding, ding, ding.

Having once been marked by the Onion‘s A.V. Club as a “hyper-articulate radical feminist communist,” I feel uniquely qualified to pour you a rich cup of cold-brewed truth here: The kids are lit.

And yet despite our frank rejection of establishment politics, establishment media waste no time swooping in to lecture us about our cognitive defects like so many pedantic barn owls.

“Stay sane, America!” hoots David Brooks for the Times, going on to equate voting one’s conscience with voting for overt fascist Donald Trump. It’s plainly bananas, says Brooks, to waste a primary vote on a man threatening disestablishment. There’s no way he can win.

Yet according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on February 5, Bernie has 42 percent of the national Dem vote to Hillary’s 44 percent. “Democrats nationwide are feeling the Bern as Senator Bernie Sanders closes a 31-point gap to tie Secretary Hillary Clinton,” says Quinnipiac’s assistant director Tim Molloy in Friday’s press release.

And according to Gallup’s January numbers, Sanders’s net favorability among Democrats is actually four points higher than Hillary’s. By most poll estimates, Dems say they are just as, if not more, likely to vote for Bernie as Hillary against any Republican front-runner.

But David Brooks is just one gassy bird in the barn. I’ve got a stack of editorials here telling me how insane and delusional I am, each more insulting to my intelligence than the next.

My favorite owl pellet comes from Alexandra Schwartz, writing for the New Yorker, who claimed Bernie’s incessant talk of Wall Street fuckery is somehow outdated: “When [Sanders’s] campaign tweets that it’s ‘high time we stopped bailing out Wall Street and started repairing Main Street,’ you have to wonder,” writes Schwartz, obtusely, “why his youngest supporters, so attuned to staleness in all things cultural, are letting him get away with political rhetoric that would have seemed old even in 2012.”

What a charmed life Alexandra Schwartz must lead to think that the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression should resolve itself according to the needs of the news cycle.

But believe it or not, the poors have not yet moved on from being gobsmacked by a globally devastating market collapse. Freedom from the burdens of financial ruin is a privilege I imagine millions of Americans wish they could share with New Yorker staff writer Alexandra Schwartz.

And what did the great tawny-bellied Paul Krugman have to say to the nation’s waywardly progressive?

“Sorry,” he pecked in his Times column. “There’s nothing noble about seeing your values defeated because you preferred happy dreams to hard thinking about means and ends.” Pausing to cough up a mouse carcass, he chittered on: “Don’t let idealism veer into destructive self-indulgence.” (If he meant to vote Hillary, he fucked up this time around)

I’m trying to imagine an eighteenth-century Krugman admonishing a young Thomas Jefferson against letting his happy dreams of liberty veer into self-indulgence.

For good reason, American historians seem unimpressed by owls counseling restraint in the face of corruption and oppression.

If anything concerns me at this pivotal moment, it’s not the revolutionary tremors of the youth.

Given the Great American Trash Fire we have inherited, this rebellion strikes me as exceedingly reasonable.

Pick a crisis, America: Child poverty? Inexcusable. Medical debt? Immoral. For-profit prison? Medieval. Climate change? Apocalyptic. The Middle East is our Vietnam. Flint, the canary in our coal mine. Tamir Rice, our martyred saint. This place is a mess. We’re due for a hard rain.

If I am alarmed, it is by the profound languor of the comfortable.

What fresh hell must we find ourselves in before those who’ve appointed themselves to lead our thoughts admit that we are in flames?

As I see it, to counsel realism when the reality is fucked is to counsel an adherence to fuckery. Under conditions as distressing as these, acquiescence is absurd. When your nation gets classified as a Class D structure fire, I believe the only wise course is to lose your shit.

The reason Wall Street is dropping zillions of quarters into Hillary’s Super PAC-Man machine isn’t because it wants change — it’s because Wall Street sees revenue in her promises of keeping things much the same.

Under Hillary, our prisons will continue to punish for profit.

Our schools will continue to be sold off to private contractors. (As the Gulf Emirate is doing to all its institutions)

And despite 87 percent of Democrats standing behind universal health care, Hillary insists it will “never, ever come to pass.”

Not from her, I guess, since she’s taken over $13 million from the health care industry.

We really can’t, America, says Hillary. Nope. Not ever. We are a powerful nation, kids, but one run by the Great Market God.

Leave your moral gag reflex at the door. Close that pesky Overton window, won’t you?

And be a doll and bolt those tables to the floor. You’ll love the moneylenders, dear. I do. Hell, my daughter married one!

“Want a selfie?”

No, young heroes, mind not the barnshitting owls. And I insist we take a pass on contracting foxes to assess the holes in our fence.

Abandon no hopes, America. We have important work to do. This democracy will not save itself.

“The note of hope is the only note that can help us or save us from falling to the bottom of the heap of evolution,” sermonized Father Guthrie, musing on what got him through the Great Depression. “All a human being is, anyway, is just a hoping machine.”

Cluster, Orange gas,Phosphorous, depleted uranium bombs… And harsh events and calamities

Ten years ago, the US Secretary of State Colin Powell pronounced to the United Nations his “famous” speech on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Evidence that this stance proved to be false.

In his book “I got lucky”, Powell wrote that this speech will remain a “stain” in his career and that he will remember this 5 February as “deeply” the day of his birth. (And what he did after his rebirth?)

In 1996, during a broadcast on CBS, Lesley Stahl asked Madeleine Albright, as US Secretary of State: “It is estimated 500,000 children died in Iraq following the embargo American against this country. mean, it is more dead children than at Hiroshima. Was the price worth really… Ms. Albright?”

Albright coldly replied: “I think that’s a very difficult choice, but the price… We believe that the price worth it.”

Exactly
Exactly

Israel was accused by the UN and human rights organizations of launching and spreading 4 million cluster bombs in south Lebanon in August 13, 2006. Israel daily Haaretz confirmed: “We infested particular zones in Lebanon with 1,800 bombs containing 1.2 million of cluster bombs…”

Artillery Israeli soldiers declared that in the last 10 days of Israel preemptive war on Lebanon, the army used phosphorous bombs that are prohibited by international conventions. The use of phosphorous bombs was confirmed by Edery, in the name of Amir Peretz, Israel Defense minister.

The commander of a unit of multiple rocket launchers declared “What we did is totally crazy and barbarous…”

John Kerry participated in the Viet Nam war. Has anyone heard Kerry apologizing for the usage of Orange gas, a defoliating agent? During the war, after the war?

The US used all kinds of prohibited weapons in Iraq for 8 years. Has Kerry apologized for the US usage of chemical weapons in Iraq?

I am wondering:

1. How the Palestinian/Israeli “peace” negotiation going on? Has it stopped? Any progress? Any alternative road map?

2. How’s Egypt upheaval faring? Is the situation stable and improving?

3. Have the daily suicide car bombs in Iraq subsiding?

4. What’s going on in Yemen? How many drone attacks were approved this month?

5. Is the famine in Somalia under control?

6. Was this chemical attack in Syria staged, a pure set up, in order to side track the manifold US failure in stabilizing this “Greater Middle East“?

7. Has Obama gone publicly to announce any positive and constructive resolution for any crisis? Internally and externally?

8. Had Obama anything to say about the Washington March anniversary? Had he promised to reverse the worsening trends for the Black citizens since 1960?

The Republican Party made a terrible blunder by not advancing “Con dolcezza”, (a name which means “with softness” that her mother Angelena used as it appeared on piano partitions), to challenging Hillary Clinton in the latest Presidential campaign.  Condoleezza Rice would have been beaten: The Republicans had to be kicked out after two disastrous terms of the Jr. Bush, two wars, and the financial crash of the century.  Nevertheless, Condo would have infused a colorful campaign instead of the decrepit, decaying, boring dinosaur of McCain.

The “No dolcezza” Condo was born in 1954 in Baton Rouge (Louisiana), as her father John Wesley, originally from Birmingham (Alabama), was teaching and preaching at a Presbyterian church.  Condo then moved with her family to Birmingham till the age of ten.  At the time, Birmingham was the most racist city in the US and applying the stringent segregation laws.  Her father was a Presbyterian preacher and inherited the church that his father established in Birmingham.  Her mother was a science and piano teacher.  The Rice and Ray married in their thirties and decided to concentrate all their resources and energy in the only child girl.  The grandmothers of Condo had been house slaves, attached to the mistress of the plantation after the mister got satisfied for a short time.  Their husbands were field slaves with diminished privileges but they managed to get some education: three generations of Rice and Ray went through university studies because only education was the surest way not to returning to the cotton fields.

The Rice family protected Condo from trespassing to the white districts in the city:  The family didn’t need to mingle with the white citizens and could afford everything in their own quarters.  Condo joined a black  school and she was a bright achievers:  She participated in all sorts of contests, especially piano and singing.  Condo learned French with a private teacher. The mother was the organist and Condo the pianist in the choral of the father.  Sundays at 11 am was the time of the mostly segregated hour in the city:  They all joined their respective churches. The father was a football fan and initiated Condo to that sport.

The parents were mentally aware of the terribly discriminating behaviors of the citizens but they built barriers around the house and their emotions; the father owned a car and never had to ride any bus; they traveled westwards, out of Alabama and the southern States, and visited museum, zoos, university campuses.  The parents continued their education and acceded at higher social status and encouraged Condo to keeping her scholarly schedule pretty busy.

At the age of ten, Condo transferred with her family to Denver (Colorado) and joined a private religious school.  Soon after, the mother discovered that she had breast cancer and survived the sickness for another 14 years.  The father had risen in the university administrative positions.  Condo would wake up at 5 am and practice ice skating for 3 hours, go to school, and then practice piano for another 3 hours in the evening.

At the last year in high school, Condo decided to formally finish high school and participate in the diploma ceremony, while taking courses at the Denver university.  She went to the prom at the arm of the most famous university football player.  The year 1974 was a critical stage:  Condo had to decide on her specialty and the university to attend. Condo decided not to integrate the famous music university of Julliard in New York:  She had attended a music instrument competition and realized that many musicians had talents that she lacked. Condo had to be the best in everything she does.

Condo decided in the second semester to major in international politics because she got impressed with her professor Joseph Korbel (father of the infamous Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s State Secretary).  Joseph Korbel was the secretary of Czechoslovakia President before the WWII and then ambassador until Russia annexed Czechoslovakia and ended up teaching in Colorado. Condo opted to specialize in Russia and had to learn the language, the literature, the music and the history of Russia.  She also learned the Check language to satisfy Korbel.

Condo finished her Masters within a year in Notre-Dame (Indiana) and returned to finish her Ph.D in Denver.  She received a grant for a post-doctoral study in Stanford in 1981 and remained there for 20 years.  She became professor, chairman of the humanities and political sciences department, and then provost at Stanford. As provost, she managed to eliminate the university debts within two years but alienated the Afro and Latino activists colleagues in the university.

Condo was chaperoned, prepared and formated by the Republican think tanks:  She spent sabbatical at their main think tank bastions such as the Hoover Institute (Stanford), the Rand Corporation, Carnegie Foundation, JP Morgan and Chase, Chevron (oil multinational).  George Shultz and Brent Scowcroft were her mentors:  She became a member of the Bush family and spent her week-ends in Houston and in Maine.

Bush Sr. introduced Condo to his son Bush Jr. when governor of Texas:  He planned to assigning Condo to give his son private lessons and prepare him for the presidency; she tailor-made her program to conform with Bush’s short-term attention span and frivolity.  Bush Jr. was not excited to becoming President of the USA, but as he was elected against his will, he sent for Condo to support him and further his education at the White House.  By then, Condo had become an expert in missiles and the balance of power between the USA and Russia:  She was appointed in the first term as Bush national security advisor and then Secretary of State in the second term.  Bush Jr. saw Condo first in the morning and the last person before going early to bed.

I would have voted against “No dolcezza” no matter what; I would have campaigned aggressively against this technocrat who was formatted to becoming unethical, immoral, and not exhibiting compassionate behavior.  I vividly recall the way Condo barged in Lebanon, for a swift visit, as Israel has been pounding Lebanon for 30 days, in July 2006.  Israel by now had destroyed all the infrastructures in Lebanon, totally demolished 10 villages to the ground, pulverized a ten-block quarter in Beirut, using freshly US donated implosion bombs.  Israeli aggression killed 1,500 civilians, half of them children and women, injured and handicapped 4,000 civilians, and displaced 800,000 from their homes for 33 days.

Condo moved to shake hands with Lebanon oligarchy leaders, with her peculiar gait, the behind profusely protruding “out”; she assured the oligarchic leaders, who were anxious for the war to resume and getting rid of the Lebanese Resistance that checked the all-out Israeli military machines, that Israel is about, in a few additional days, to resurrect Bush’s public wishes of a newer democratic Greater Middle-East and that liberty will sweep the region with the total and unconditional backing of the USA.

The oligarchic Lebanese leaders were greatly pleased of Condo’s confirmation that Hezbollah is to be on its knees:  the oligarchy leaders were rubbing their hands in joy because soon, the rich Arab oil States will be donating millions for the “reconstruction” of the country and their private bank accounts will swell beyond imagination.  They believed that no political opposition parties would dare challenge their plundering project.

The consequences of the war were contrary to expectations:  Condo realized that she was looking more stupid than Bush and equally as bloody and senile a political figure as Cheney.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

September 2020
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Blog Stats

  • 1,420,110 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 771 other followers

%d bloggers like this: