“In 1988, the Wyoming Senate candidate said economic engagement would end apartheid faster than boycotts. Conservatives used the same argument with Jim Crow—and they still don’t get it. Liz Cheney doesn’t just share her father’s neoconservative politics. As a young woman, she also shared his support for the apartheid regime in South Africa. In a 1988 editorial for her college newspaper, Cheney—now running a losing primary bid against Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY)—condemned anti-apartheid activists at Colorado College. “The real problem with divestment,” wrote Cheney, attacking a prominent strategy of apartheid opponents, “is that it won’t work. Like most moral statements, it accomplishes nothing tangible.”……………..”
The Cheneys have had an unusual mixed almost bi-polar relationship with the Al Saud princes. They loved the princes and their money even as they waged a media war on their religion. Liz Cheney particularly has a website (Keep America Safe) that for years focused on being Islamophobic even as the Cheneys remained close to the Saudis. That silly fear-mongering website, which also encouraged banning mosques, is now reportedly closed.
Of course there was and still is much hypocrisy in the right-wing position regarding apartheid South Africa. While they extolled the benefits of “engagement” in reducing Apartheid (not that they cared about it), they have also extolled the virtues of keeping the blockade against Cuba, and tightening the blockade against Iran. Apparently ‘engagement’ works with China and apartheid South Africa but not with Cuba, Iran and a few other places. Of course many Democrats are at the forefront of keeping the blockade on Cuba and tightening the blockade on Iran rather than “engaging” these countries. It all depends on upcoming elections, the Cuban exile lobby, and the potent Israeli lobby (including the Christian Zionists).
“The Senate and House Armed Services committees have reached a deal that would, for the first time, loosen restrictions that impede the Pentagon’s ability to transfer Guantanamo detainees to foreign countries, making it slightly easier for the Obama administration to pursue the president’s longstanding goal of closing the detention facilities. The compromise version of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 would expand the executive branch’s ability to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to other countries, while maintaining the ban on bringing them to the United States. The proposed NDAA would allow detainees to be sent to Yemen, but would require the administration to report on the Yemen government’s ability to detain, rehabilitate or prosecute them…………………”
The Saudis try to rehabilitate the al-Qaeda veterans by transforming them from violent Wahhabis into peaceful Wahhabis, and sometimes by getting each one a wife or two (preferably). It all depends on the clout of their tribes: those of the larger tribes are usually given preferential treatment and the tribes are enlisted to help “turn” them. Some of them regress and are sent to Yemen or Iraq and Syria to do their God’s work of blowing up civilians (that is the Wahhabi God’s work). As for those sent from Gitmo to Yemen: they’ll be held in the most secure prison in that splintered country for a few weeks, after which they’ll be busted out by their Al-Qaeda pals or their tribal folks. Then they’ll rejoin the Brotherhood of Cutthroats and they’ll make new targets for American drones.
FYI: There are no Shi’a members of Al-Qaeda, just like there were no Jews in the Nazi Party and for similar reasons. Hence there are no Shi’as in Guantanamo. If there were any, their rehabilitation method would be swift: they would be quickly beheaded in Saudi Arabia upon rendition. Cheers
mhg
“Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad…………..”
The story of Sarin use in at least two cases this year was broken through the semi-official Saudi Alarabiya network (a network that is owned and operated in Dubai by an in-law of the late King Fahd). These stories always came out at critical times for the Syrian opposition groups, usually after big defeats on the battlefield: for example one story broke out just after the regime victory as Qusayr. Saudi Alarabiya as usual broke the story through an interview with “activists” who supplied a video. Western media adopted the story with gusto: CNN practically declared its own war. The governments of the USA, Britain, and France jumped on the story, again. The French, always good at cooking food and occasionally cooking up evidence, quickly confirmed the use of Sarin. The French and British governments immediately implicated the Assad regime. The Obama administration seemed more doubtful and was relatively more honest: it often avoided pointing the finger at any one side, merely saying that “Sarin was used in Syria”.
“Iran’s potential participation in the Geneva 2 discussions would be an additional indignity to those in the Syrian opposition who still seek cooperation with the United States and the West. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers told The Daily Beast that he doesn’t think Iran should be included. “I don’t believe Iran is an honest broker in Syria to any degree. They are operating Hezbollah, supporting them, giving them weapons, giving them intelligence,” he said. “That would not be a great outcome. You cannot continue to alienate our allies in the region, just to get a deal.”……………”
That is true, what Congressman Rogers said: Iran is not an honest broker in Syria because it supports one side of the civil war. Any party that supports one side can’t be an honest broker. So, can you tell me who can be an honest broker in Syria now? That means: can you tell me of a country that doesn’t support any one of the many sides of the civil war? Maybe Belize? Or perhaps Vanuatu or Fiji?
It is tempting togo to a ridiculous extreme and suggest Israel as ‘honest’ broker since they dislike all sides of the Syrian war and all sides hate them, and they probably have something to lose no matter what the outcome. It all depends on their assessment of which side is ‘preferable’ as the lesser evil in the long term. I bet some of the impotent Arab potentates would love this last suggestion even as they scowl at it with feigned indignation.
I read last week that Saudi royal celebrity Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal is delaying the start of his new Arabic television news network (Al-Arab). It was supposed to start broadcasting this year, but has been postponed at least until sometime in 2014. Like that other Saudi semi-official network, Alarabiya, it will be stationed outside the kingdom. Only state television and radio can operate inside Saudi Arabia. Al-Waleed has picked Bahrain to house his new network: news and tear gas go together these days. But don’t expect his network to cover the nearly three years old Bahrain popular uprising that continues just outside its future studios. Al-Waleed also famously owns part of News Corp, which makes him part owner of Fox News and Sarah Palin and the Cheneys. Fox is also the most Islamophobic U.S. network; perhaps Islamo-phobic but apparently not so Wahhabi-phobic. Saudi princes and their kin and retainers control all the “Saudi” media inside and outside the kingdom. They have also bought and control much of the media in the eastern part of the Arab world, including Lebanon and the Gulf, as well as almost all Arab media that operate from Europe. The controlled media is now like petro-money, their main tool of regional and even international policy. Saudi daily newspaper Asharq Alawsat, different editions of which are published in Riyadh and London, is often described by Western media and pundits as “pan-Arab” or ‘independent” or “independent pan-Arab”. It is none of the above: it is owned by Saudi Crown Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, hardly independent or pan-Arab. Saudi daily Al-Hayat, different editions of which are published in Riyadh and London, is also often described in the West as “independent” or “pan-Arab” or both. It also is none of the above: it is owned by former deputy defense minister Prince Khaled Bin Sultan al-Saud, hardly independent or pan-Arab. Alarabiya network is owned and operated (from Dubai) by an in-law of the Saudi royal family. Ever wonder why you never read about a Saudi journalist being arrested in the kingdom? Unlike most Middle East countries, unlike Egypt and Iran and Iraq and Tunisia where journalists often spend time in prison? That is because of the system of pre-emptive censorship (they call it self-censorship): all media publications are approved before publication. Anything that is not considered kosher or halal by the regime is never printed: that way nobody goes to prison. Not that it is likely that anything controversial will ever be published anyway by the cowed writers and journalists. All local media are owned by the princes, their in-laws, or their retainers and partners among the business elites. They are all basically state-owned and state-controlled media. That explains why Saudi Arabia often gets better ratings from NGOs like Reporters Without Borders, RSF, than other Middle East countries. You see: nobody is “allowed” to go to prison for what they publish because nobody is allowed to publish anything that might land them in prison. Who said conformity is not always good?
“Israel’s president Shimon Peres secretly addressed 29 foreign ministers from Arab and Muslim countries during a Gulf security summit in Abu Dhabi two weeks ago, drawing a round of applause from the audience, an Israeli daily revealed Monday. Peres, reportedly speaking via video link from an office in Jerusalem with an Israeli flag behind him, discussed issues related to Iran, radical Islam and “his vision for world peace,” according to Yedioth Ahronoth. The paper said New York Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman attended the meeting and was behind the leak …………..”
Thomas Friedman devised the old so-called Arab Peace Plan that the Saudis stole and claimed their distracted king had devised. For some time after that Friedman seemed alienated from the Al Saud, confining his Arab contacts to airport taxi drivers named Abed or Abdu or Abboodi, depending on the particular Arab country he was visiting. Now he seems to be back in from the cold in the Persian Gulf region. Maybe they want him to devise a new plan for the Gulf region. The potentates must need his help in the next Lebanese elections, wtf that is, and the coming Iraqi elections. The good news is that both Saudi surrogates Ayad Allawi (Iraq) and Sa’ad Hariri (Lebanon and Saudi Arabia) have about as much chance of leading their countries as I do of leading Israel or Bosnia. Cheers
mhg
“A Syrian Islamist rebel group wants to trade 12 kidnapped nuns for 1,000 women prisoners held by the government, a pan-Arab newspaper has reported. A spokesman for the “Free Qalamoun” group told Asharq al-Awsat newspaper that the nuns were safe. He said they would not be freed until several demands were met. These include the release of 1,000 Syrian women held in regime prisons according to the spokesman. The reports have not yet been independently confirmed. An official at the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Damascus said the nuns were safe but would not comment on which group had taken them. Islamist fighters who captured the Christian village of Maaloula north of Damascus moved the nuns from the Greek Orthodox monastery of Mar Thecla.………….”
My initial thoughts were: If this is true, it will mean that the flow of foreign females for Jihad sex from Tunisia and other venues has dried up. The Salafis now have to resort to grabbing nuns (probably considered old and not very sensuous) and trading them for younger females. There have been reports of chicks from other places, Chechnya and Bosnia (and let’s not forget Ingushetia) going to Syria to entertain the cutthroats and indirectly help liberate Syria. As a result, they can also contribute to the future Islamic State of Syria by populating the place with many new little Wahhabis. I still don’t understand why the Wahhabi folks on the Persian Gulf who supply money and weapons and some of the volunteers can’t also supply the women. They can always impose some of their Salafi values by insisting that there be no cross-tribal or even cross-national fraternization or conjugation (or that other kind of “ation”). PS: Initially they responded by saying they had the nuns in ‘protective custody’. Now apparently the kidnappers-liberators have changed their minds: they are now asking to exchange the captive nuns with some of the female prisoners. Otherwise…….. what?
“Egyptian army chief Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has pulled ahead of pop star Miley Cyrus to claim the top spot in Time magazine’s annual reader poll for person of the year, in a vote that saw accusations of hacking for the second year in a row. Time announced the results on Friday, revealing that Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan came in second with 20.8% of the votes. He came in just above Cyrus, who had 16.3% of the vote. The vote comes ahead of the magazine editors’ person of the year announcement next week. To reach the top spot, Sisi collected 26.2% of the votes……… “Sisi’s numbers were driven by massive support from his native Egypt: the country accounted for the largest number of votes on the Time.com poll,” said the publication in a statement. “India and the United States provided the second and third highest number of responses, respectively.” Cyrus’ presence alongside two political leaders is a combination of the poll’s criteria – selecting a person based on influence rather than merit – and the susceptibility of online polls to computer-assisted trickery. Brutal dictators have also succeeded in past years’ votes. Kim Jong-un won the 2012 online reader poll. That win was pinned on the motley group of internet pranksters………………..”
They are celebrating in some Arab media this first victory by General Sisi. All this is almost meaningless: it doesn’t mean any of these celebrities and coup-makers will be on the cover of Time.
Some Gulf and Egyptian media made it sound like he will be on the cover of Time. It says here Kim Jong-Un won the 2012 person of the year ‘readers poll’, mostly through votes of pranksters in Seoul and California. None of them will be Person of the Year: even Time is not that dumbed down, not yet. Maybe the cover of Mad Magazine. I also suspect mostly Egyptians and Saudi royals voted for Sisi. They did it probably because they have a lot of time on their hands. Most other people around the world wouldn’t know Sisi from a Nono.
(The Guardian also claims Sisi “was elected deputy prime minister after the coup“. Nobody elected him: he appointed himself). Cheers
mhg
“Nelson Mandela helped popularize use of sanctions. His greatest impact was as a moral leader, but Nelson Mandela also left a legacy in diplomacy by helping popularize the use of international sanctions to pressure a government to change its policies. Since sanctions were imposed in an effort to end apartheid and bring down South Africa’s white-minority government, they have been used hundreds of times, especially by Western countries. President Clinton, who ordered sanctions against Cuba, Libya, Iran and Pakistan, mused near the end of his second term that the United States had become “sanctions-happy.”…………..”
Cute but poisonous distortion of history in the L.A. Times. It says: “Nelson Mandela helped popularize use of sanctions”, and I haven’t read a pile of dung (caca, if you prefer) that smelled worse than this one today. Mandela inspired starving out the peoples of Cuba and Iran? This piece somehow ties American and Western sanctions against Third World peoples to Mandela. The cruel Western blockades of Cuba and Iran were apparently inspired by Nelson Mandela, according to this twisted logic.
Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher, applied sanctions exclusively to several third world countries, but refused to apply sanctions against the worst offender of the time, the apartheid White supremacist regime of what was called (with a straight face) the “Republic of South Africa”. AS did much of the U.S. Congress. After all, it ain’t kosher (nor halal) to blockade white folks, even in Africa.
“An enthusiastic crowd all but crushed chief negotiator Mohammad Zarif upon his return to Tehran, after a deal had been reached with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. The foreign minister deserved a gold medal for his diplomatic skills, the Iranian newspaper Arman Daily wrote enthusiastically, noting that the world had come a step closer to global peace “without Iran having to abandon its principles.” The deal evoked a completely different reaction in Saudi Arabia and Israel. Abdullah al-Askar, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the influential Shura Council, spoke darkly of what he called Iran’s “evil agenda.”………………”
Chairman of the ‘Foreign affairs Committee’ indeed! I’d say this was a joke, if Wahhabis had a sense of humor. Der Spiegel calls it “influential”. Nobody would seriously say this appointed advisory council, the Shura, is influential. It was appointed to rubber stamp some limited bureaucratic decisions of the princes. Der Spiegel would never call such an appointed impotent group influential if it were in another country. Influential? In Arabic they say it is a “صفر على الشمال: a zero on the left side of a number”, meaning it is meaningless, null and void.
