Total Intellectual Incompetence: Oil Spill, Chalabi, Pam3Cys, Brain-Damaged Soldiers...
Mort Zuckerman
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu, saint....@sbcglobal.net
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: Total Intellectual Incompetence: Oil Spill, Chalabi, Pam3Cys,
Brain-Damaged Soldiers...
Date: May 29, 2010 7:49 AM
FUNNY ARTICLE ABOUT THE RUDDERLESS AMERICAN
LEADERSHIP BY STEPHEN WALT, BELOW
=================================
Total Intellectual Incompetence: Oil Spill, Chalabi, Pam3Cys, Brain-
Damaged Soldiers...:
1) Can't figger out how to manage the
econo-energy problem:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/msg/8591b95e0ece47f7?dmode=source
resulting in the trillion$ spent on
the lost oil wars, not to mention
the engineering incompetence re
the BP spill,... not to mention the
millions of Arabs the AmerIsraelis
killed in the process.
2) Chalabi was an Iranian, accounting
for the "no-plans" for what to do
with Iraq once we were in Baghdad.
3) And the applications of the mechanisms
of "Stealth Disablers" going to foreigners:
http://www.actionlyme.org/PAM3CYS_APPLICATIONS.htm
4) the ever-infamous Ralph Peters predicting
the exact opposite of the outcome, re our alleged
Borgs:
http://www.actionlyme.org/ME_ROCKEFELLER_ME_ELITE.htm
(Good thing I saved the article)
"For the world masses, devastated by information they cannot manage or
effectively interpret, life is "nasty, brutish . . . and short-
circuited." The general pace of change is overwhelming, and
information is both the motor and signifier of change. Those humans,
in every country and region, who cannot understand the new world, or
who cannot profit from its uncertainties, or who cannot reconcile
themselves to its dynamics, will become the violent enemies of their
inadequate governments, of their more fortunate neighbors, and
ultimately of the United States. We are entering a new American
century, in which we will become still wealthier, culturally more
lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite hatreds without
precedent."
ROTFLMAO.
We are Supremacical (Su'-prim-ASS'-i-kul)
Transcendators (Tran-send'-a-torz)!!
http://www.actionlyme.org/PNAC.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJh_QHZRlhY&feature=related
- - - -
The reality is that we have no brains, no balls,
no sci-med edge, the WHO and the EU slammed us over
the LYMErix/Tuberculosis non-vaccines, and
lies about what was causing antibiotic
resistance:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&q=%22swine+lagoons%22+kathleen+dickson&btnG=Search&sitesearch=groups.google.com
and the psychiahoes who ain't killing
the injured soldiers with psychotropics
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/1d7048c24959b615?hl=en#
are blaming *THEM* for their PTSD and
exposures to toxins during the first
Gulf War
http://www.actionlyme.org/ROCKET_SCIENCE.htm
We have *NOTHING* to be proud of in
this century and the last half of
the last one. There was not a *damned*
*thing* we did right.
We all need to march backwards wearing
rags and tripping to off-beat tunes like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRpzxKsSEZg
in these weekend parades.
"You have been selfish, but not yourself"
http://www.theatrehistory.com/misc/peer_gynt.html
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
======================================
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/26/sleepwalking_with_iran
Sleepwalking with Iran
Posted By Stephen M. Walt Wednesday, May 26, 2010 - 12:32 PM Share
I can't figure out who is actually directing U.S. policy toward Iran,
but what's striking (and depressing) about it is how utterly
unimaginative it seems to be. Ever since last year's presidential
election, the United States has been stuck with a policy that might be
termed "Bush-lite." We continue to ramp up sanctions that most people
know won't work, and we take steps that are likely to reinforce
Iranian suspicions and strengthen the clerical regime's hold on
power.
To succeed, a foreign-policy initiative needs to have a clear and
achievable objective. The strategy also needs to be internally
consistent, so that certain policy steps don't undermine others. The
latter requirement is especially important when you are trying to
unwind a "spiral" of exaggerated hostility, which is the problem we
face with Iran. Given the deep-seated animosity on both sides, any
sign of inconsistency on our part will be viewed in the worst possible
light by Iran. Indeed, a combination of friendly and threatening
gestures may be worse than the latter alone because tentative acts of
accommodation will be seen as a trick and will reinforce the idea that
the other side is irredeemably deceitful and can never be trusted.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration's approach to Iran is neither
feasible nor consistent. To begin with, our objective -- to persuade
Iran to end all nuclear enrichment -- simply isn't achievable. Both
the current government and the leaders of the opposition Green
Movement are strongly committed to controlling the full nuclear fuel
cycle, and the United States will never get the other major powers to
impose the sort of "crippling sanctions" it has been seeking for years
now. It's not gonna happen folks, or at least not anytime soon.
We might be able to convince Iran not to develop actual nuclear
weapons -- which its leaders claim they don't want to do and have said
would be contrary to Islam. I don't know if they really believe this
or if an agreement along these lines is possible. I do know that we
haven't explored that possibility in any serious way. Instead, the
Obama administration has been chasing an impossible dream.
Furthermore, the U.S. approach to Tehran is deeply inconsistent. Obama
has made a big play of extending an "open hand" to Tehran, and he
reacted in a fairly measured way to the crackdown on the Greens last
summer. But at the same time, the administration has been ratcheting
up sanctions and engaging in very public attempt to strengthen
security ties in the Gulf region. And earlier this week, we learned
that Centcom commander General David Petraeus has authorized more
extensive special operations in a number of countries in the region,
almost certainly including covert activities in Iran.
Just imagine how this looks to the Iranian government. They may be
paranoid, but sometimes paranoids have real (and powerful) enemies,
and we are doing our best to look like one. How would we feel if some
other country announced that it was infiltrating special operations
forces into the United States, in order to gather intelligence,
collect targeting information, or maybe even build networks of
disgruntled Americans who wanted to overthrow our government or maybe
just sabotage a few government installations? We'd definitely view it
as a threat or even an act of war, and we'd certainly react harshly
against whomever we thought was responsible. So when you wonder why
oil- and gas-rich Iran might be interested in some sort of nuclear
deterrent (even if only a latent capability), think about what you'd
do if you were in their shoes.
Third, when Turkey and Brazil launched an independent effort to
resurrect the earlier deal for a swap for some of Iran's stockpile of
low-enriched uranium, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rushed to
condemn it and hastily announced a watered-down set of new sanctions.
As I said last week, the Turkey-Brazil deal had real limitations and
was at best a small first step toward restarting more serious talks.
But trashing it as we did merely conveys that we aren't interested in
genuine negotiations, and probably ticked off Turkey and Brazil to no
good purpose. The smarter play would have been to welcome the deal
cautiously but highlight its limitations, and let the onus for any
subsequent failure fall on Iran instead of us.
Why is U.S. policy stuck in this particular rut? In part because this
is a hard problem; one doesn't unwind three decades of mutual
suspicion by making a speech or two or sending a friendly holiday
greeting, and sometimes success requires a lot of perseverance. But I
think there are two other problems at work.
The first is the mindset that seems to have taken hold in the Obama
administration. As near as I can tell, they believe Iran is dead set
on acquiring nuclear weapons and that Iran will lie and cheat and
prevaricate long enough to get across the nuclear threshold. Given
that assumption, there isn't much point in trying to negotiate any
sort of "grand bargain" between Iran and the West, and especially not
one that left them with an enrichment capability (even one under
strict IAEA safeguards). This view may be correct, but if it is, then
our effort to ratchet up sanctions is futile and just makes it more
likely that other Iranians will blame us for their sufferings. Here I
am in rare (if only partial) agreement with Tom Friedman: Maybe our
focus ought to shift from our current obsession with Iran's nuclear
program and focus on human rights issues instead (though it is harder
for Washington to do that without looking pretty darn hypocritical).
A second explanation is some combination of inside-the-Beltway
groupthink and ordinary bureaucratic conservatism. For anyone
currently working in Washington, a hard line on Iran and defending our
longstanding policy of confrontation is a very safe position to
support. No one will accuse you of being a naive appeaser; you'll have
plenty of bureaucratic allies, and you'll retain your reputation as a
tough and reliable defender of U.S. interests.
By contrast, any government official who proposed taking the threat of
force off the table, who publicly admitted that sanctions wouldn't
work, who acknowledged that we probably can't stop Iran from getting
the bomb if it really wants to, or who recommended a much more far-
reaching effort at finding common ground would be taking a significant
career risk. And you'd be virtually certain to get smeared by
unrepentent neocons and other hawks who favor the use of military
force. So there's little incentive for insiders to contemplate -- let
alone propose -- a different approach to this issue, even though our
current policy is looking more and more like the failed policies of
the previous administration.
Although I obviously can't be certain, I don't think there will be an
open war with Iran. I think that enough influential people realize
just how much trouble this would cause us and that they will continue
to resist calls for "kinetic action." (Of course, I also thought that
about Iraq back in 2001, and look what happened there.) But U.S.-
Iranian relations aren't going to improve much either, and we'll end
up devoting more time and effort to this problem than it deserves. But
who cares? It's not as if the United States has any other problems on
its foreign-policy agenda, right?
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci