Saturday, May 26, 2007

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Saturday, May 26, 2007:



  1. A professor at the University of Texas at Austin is boycotting the UK in protest over the agreement by the National Union of Journalists at its national conference to boycott Israeli products.  This professor won the Nobel Prize for Irony.

  2. The Kurds don’t like the new Iraqi oil law because it does not encourage production-sharing agreements.  Wait!  Did I just write that?  Whatever happened to all the bullshit we’ve been reading about this draft law?  Of course, the bullshit is part of a bullshit theory, that the attack on Iraq was about American control of oil, a theory made necessary by the ScareJew that Americans might figure out what it was really about.  The facts just don’t match the lite Zionist alternative.

  3. How did Pat Buchanan – who usually isn’t shy about such things – write a whole comment on the shameful Rahm-run Democrat cave-in on Iraq without once mentioning the Jewish Billionaries behind it?  He mentions the Lobby with respect to Iran, but blames the Iraq mess on traditional Democrat spinelessness.  Is Pat afraid to address the issue because he likes the corrupt American system of funding political parties?

  4. Israel had a legal opinion in 1967 that the settlements in the Occupied Territories were illegal.

  5. Before the attack on Iraq, the American government had a CIA report spelling out in detail all the disastrous consequences of the attack which have in fact occurred.  The consequences would include “region-threatening instability in key Arab states”, which, of course, was one of the key neocon goals of the attack.

  6. The Franklin Lamb conspiracy theory over Lebanon fails in the ‘transition game’, i. e., it fails to provide a reasonable explanation for why, after exerting considerable effort at establishing Sunni militias to counter Hezbollah, the Hariri/American/Saudi group decided to turn on the militias.  More problems:  why would anyone think that small Sunni militias would be of any concern to Hezbollah?  And why would the Lebanese army think that firing tank shells into groups of civilians – a very Israeli plan – would eliminate the militias?  And, if Bandar Bush is the Saudi involved (per Hersh, who looks a bit like a lite Zionist here, except that he mentions Abrams), does this represent evidence of dissent within Saudi Arabia itself, where there are strong indications that the Saudis want to calm relations with Iran?

 

0 comments: