Democrats Tarred As Spinach Lovers

After months of finessing the English language and
posing somberly in front of news cameras, the
Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill was allowed
a brief moment in which to savor the sweet taste
of victory. A ‘triumph’ for the American people was
announced yesterday by the legislative majority
after the Senate squeaked through a $124 billion
war spending bill that has provided fuel for an
ideological debate concerning the way forward in
the increasingly chaotic land of Iraq.

The slim margin of victory (the actual vote was 51-46)
guarantees that President Bush’s threatened veto
will not be overcome. The Bush administration and
other proponents of the relatively new “Surge” battle
plan are incensed that the language in this bill calls
for a departure date for American troops if the Iraqi
government does not reach certain benchmarks that
focus on creating a truly unified government.

The Democrats believe that the “Surge” is nothing
more than an escalation of U.S. troop involvement
in and around Baghdad, and that it is just another
example of the President’s failure to grasp the dire
situation in Iraq. They consider his opposition to
taking a truly new approach that would put real
pressure on the squabbling band of inept Iraqi
politicians sheltered in the Green Zone to be the
real problem, and have tied this to his disastrous
decision to start this war in the first place.

Mr. Bush asserts that ‘arbitrary’ deadlines will
embolden our long list of enemies in Iraq, and
that the Democrats are withholding vital funds
from our troops by inserting such incendiary
language into this spending bill. He is also
claiming that it is loaded with ‘pork’ spending
for irrelevant projects, and has cited the $25
million earmarked for spinach growers in California
to disparage the opposition.

But, after peeling away the rhetoric and examining
the facts, the ‘pork’ that the president speaks of
could barely fill the stomach of one of the millions
of starving American children who are continuously
ignored by his administration. The bill actually calls
for $5 billion to be spent on health care for veterans
and active duty military personnel, and $1.3 billion
to fix the levees damaged by hurricane Katrina.
Mr. Bush is correct when he says that there is a
sizable component of the spending unrelated to the
war, but he is way off the mark when he labels it as
pork.

As for lighting the fires of motivation under America’s
enemies, he has no one but himself to blame. This
war was ultimately one of choice, and has been
handicapped by inept planning and execution from
the start. In order to win what is basically a counter-
insurgency campaign, the focus must shift to fostering
political and economic development. The longer
Mr. Bush continues to cling to the iron fist approach,
the closer Iraq will come to complete destruction.

The significance of this spending bill lies in the fact
that the real debate about how to salvage the
disaster that is Iraq has begun. The troops will
receive the resources that they need, contrary to
the President’s dire, yet unfounded assertions.
Iraq’s corrupt and coddled politicians will finally
feel a little heat on their ample bottoms, forcing
them to contemplate their fate if American troops
leave the Green Zone. It is time for all parties
involved to put the rhetoric and political posturing
aside and produce a real solution to a mess that
is threatening to destabilize the entire Middle East.

© Greg Strid 2007

The last news reporting class at NYU’s School of Continuing Education was marked by spirited discussion and a thirst for the rewards on offer by the “Group Therapy” session that was sure to follow. Our esteemed professor, Stephen Sheppard (of 60 Minutes fame), joined the last gathering of eager news reporters before they set out to conquer the world of journalism. Hopefully, the class will keep in contact with each other, and with Mr. Sheppard. There is a lot of work to do, and this band of intrepid correspondents is ready, willing and able to rise to the occasion. Cheers, and good luck!

Greg Strid

Another Macabre Spectacle

CNN has developed an effective formula to portray images
of profound sorrow. The original 24 hour news network is
a master at creating a visual and audio feast that allows us
to savor tragedy. In the background, an image of thousands
of mourners, candles in hand, lights up the night sky- the
cameras catch the reflections of flames as they bounce off the
tear-covered cheeks of mourners, adding an air of authenticity
for the viewers at home.

The bodies of those slain are just reaching room temperature,
and CNN already has their photos and names popping up
on screen- one by one. The correspondents are settled in for
a marathon session of stupid and insensitive questions. And
the mourners line up for their moment in front of the cameras,
and the satellite dishes stand ready to transmit the sadness to
TVs around the world.

This scene was most recently played out on the campus of
Virginia Tech after a student shot and killed thirty-two
classmates before ending his own life. This, CNN kept reminding
us, was the largest number of people to fall at the hands of a
single gunman in US history.

One of their intrepid anchors interviewed two of the murderer’s
(former) roommates. The offensive questioning probably lasted
all of ten minutes, but was squeezed for all that it was worth
over the course of the evening- just like the incident itself.

Larry King would sometimes flitter in with an irrelevant
observation to prove that he was indeed still alive- and,
judging by his stellar suit and tie combinations, still paid
quite handsomely.

It seems that we Americans are born to suck energy and life
out of dead things. We derive power from species that expired
hundreds of millions of years ago. We obtain most of our food,
and the majority of our girth from animals that we slaughter.
As a society, we siphon resources away from the young in order
to keep those closest to death breathing for a few additional
years.

In order to create, we gleefully destroy, whether it is old
neighborhoods and landmark buildings, or entire nations and
the cultures that they have created over the course of countless
centuries.

We have developed an efficient society. No other country can
derive as much benefit from so much violence, death and
destruction. Americans seem to have basically caved in and
accepted it. Nothing meaningful will come of this most recent
calamity. Stricter gun laws will not see the light of day, and
Americans will continue to shun and alienate those who are
different.

American mass culture slowly destroys those who are different.
As a society, we do not encourage original thought or foster
creativity. This is not a defense of the actions of a murderer.
But no one wakes up one morning and decides to embark on
a killing spree. As with the kids who killed their classmates in
Colorado several years ago, the signs were there for all to see.
They were on the outside looking in, jealously, and then angrily
at those who filled their lives with ridicule and humiliation.

The lid inevitably blows off from time to time, and from place
to place, but it is merely welded back on by the same old bad
habits. Dr. Phil will sit fireside and help those who do not know
a soul involved sleep a little more easily tonight.

Grieving has become a reflexive response. This is so because
one learns how to deal with their environment in order to
survive. Deep down, I don’t believe that anyone is really
surprised, or “shocked”. How can any rational human being
be stunned when the lid blows off every now and then? The
welds are made a little tighter in the aftermath of such
tragedies; security on campuses around the nation will be
tightened- temporarily. And a narrower, even more suspicious
eye will be cast on those already existing on the fringes of
acceptable society.

The pressure is actually increased as a result of our mindless,
automatic reaction to mass murder. Any meaningful solution
to the madness would require a long gaze in front of the mirror-
and who wants to do that when it is so much easier to grab a
candle and head for the stadium?

Unfortunately, it seems evident that the stew of intolerance
and bigotry, seasoned with fear and insecurity, will continue
to provide sustenance for us all. And, the unlimited access to
guns will not suffer. After all, it is our constitutional right to
defend against the swelling ranks of well-armed psychos
out there.

© Greg Strid 2007

War Politics: Why the Democratic Party Leadership
is Right to Play Politics with the War in Iraq
By Matthew Lahm

Before even beginning, you must know that I braved
New York on that freezing cold day in February, 2003
to protest this war before it even started. I went to join
the tens of millions of people around the world who knew,
that invading Iraq was a really stupid idea. Like many of
you, I want this war ended as quickly as possible and I
understand the magnitude of irreparable damage that our
country and the world endure every day that it continues.
With that being said, I would like to make the argument
for why the Democratic Party leaders cannot and should
not make any rash attempts to end this war now. If you
are a progressive like me, and you just groaned in disgust
because of what you just read, I ask you to not dismiss
my ideas prematurely. I assure you that if you would
indulge me with your attention, I will present a compelling
argument and logical that supports the conclusion that
playing politics with the Iraq war is the best thing we could
be doing under the present circumstances. If you really
want a solution in the Middle East that will lead  to a lasting
peace, I believe that our current positions have the greatest
chance of achieving our goal: ending the war.

Before criticizing, it is noteworthy that the radical anti-war
wing of the Democratic Party was a powerful force behind
the election victories in 2006.  And, I oppose the war as
well. Their passion and commitment spearheaded the
issue of the war in the elections and made great
contributions to the political narrative. However, this
group’s influence has been a mixed blessing since the
elections. Their presence has not been without dis-
advantages, and in some cases; they have been
more of a liability to the party than a benefit.

There has been a trend of confrontational between anti-
war radicals and Democratic representatives since the
2006 elections. Congressman Rham Emanuel had a
press conference that was crashed by Cindy Sheehan
and other anti-war activists even before the 110th Congress
was sworn in. This short-sighted aim to end the war
quickly not only works against their interests, but it also
harms the interests of the party and the country. Not only
do I believe that this wing of the party risks everything by
demanding immediate results, I also believe that their
belligerence on this matter marginalizes them. It isn’t any
wonder that the party leadership keeps them at arms
length considering that they were faithlessly criticizing
them even before they took office?

Such behavior is not in any way a gesture of loyalty
towards somebody who you want to listen to you. If you
were an elected official, you would not take too kindly to
people who complained about you before you even started
your job. I contend that the members of this group are not
looking at the big picture and that they are demonstrating
a limited knowledge of American politics.

If people really want to end the war, they would
understand that the war and the 2008 election are intrinsically
connected. If we lose the election, we will also lose the war.
The fighting in Iraq is only half of the war. The other half is
in Washington D.C. and it is a political war. What will happen
in Iraq is directly connected to what happens in Washington,
and if we lose in Washington, we will lose in Iraq as well.
This is why I believe it is important that we are not too quick
to criticize or condemn the leadership of the Democratic
Party for playing politics with this war.

Everything about this war is political and the most critical
battle in this war will be fought in voting booths in November,
2008. In this battle, the enemy is the Republican Party and
their alliances with big oil and the military industrial complex.
Only by defeating them can we go on and defeat al Qaeda
and broker a political deal to stabilize Iraq. Only by winning
the White House and a larger majority in Congress can we
have the leadership that is necessary to end this war correctly.
Until we understand that the outcome of this war is completely
dependent on the outcome of the 2008 elections, we cannot
understand the scope of this war and the nature of the
enemy we face.

This brings to light the ramifications of the 2006
elections and the new balance of power in Washington.
2006 was the warm-up for 2008, and understanding 2006
is the first sobriety test of our current situation. We are not
in power as a result of the 2006 elections. “In power” is a
popular phrase we hear on cable news shows but it simply
isn’t accurate when describing the Democratic Majority.
What those elections really meant is that we now have
some power and the Republicans have less power. For
all intents and purposes, the government went from one
party rule to being evenly balanced. We have Congress,
they have the White House and the Supreme Court is
split down the middle.

Shortly after being sworn in, the reality set in that
things would not run as smoothly as some people thought.
We saw quickly that Senator McConnell and the Republican
Minority in the Senate could easily block bills from being
voted on by use of the filibuster. It took weeks to even
have a debate on Iraq in the Senate because we only
have a one seat majority and that one seat happens to
be Senator Johnson who is still recovering from a brain
aneurysm. So as of right now, we technically don’t even
have a majority which means that President Bush can
laugh from on high knowing that he can veto whatever
he wants and that the Democrats will never get the 2/3
majority needed to override it. This is quite a difficult
position especially when as the majority party in congress,
we don’t even have a majority in one of the houses and
yet the expectations for results have fallen conveniently
on the Democratic Party’s shoulders anyway.

This dynamic has the Democrats in a very precarious
game of cat and mouse leading up to the 2008 elections.
If the game is lost, forget about any chance of this war
ending. In fact, count on it expanding in ways that defy
even our worst nightmares. This, in essence, explains
why we cannot take the bait that the Republicans are
dangling in front of our faces. Considering public opinion
and the current state of things, they would love any
opportunity they can have to share the responsibility of
Iraq’s failure with us. We cannot, under any circumstances,
let them make this our war. We cannot risk any exploitable,
negative major development in Iraq to be blamed on us.
This is why cutting funding is not an option. Cutting funding
with this President in office could lead to a blood bath for
our troops because even if we cut off the funds, we cannot
count on his responsibility to act accordingly. Furthermore,
there is too high of a likelihood that his administration
would spin this effectively against us. As long as Bush is
President, this must stay his war and the Democratic
leadership is very shrewd in not trusting the 68% anti-war
majority numbers showing up in the polls.

There are some who hate the war because it’s immoral,
and then there are others who hate it because we are
losing. We should place no faith whatsoever in the latter
group because they will simply hate the party more
responsible for our failure. In the end, if that party happens
to be us, we may as well just hand the Republicans
a victory in 2008, thereby guaranteeing them a return
to the White House with the risk of once again, of losing
our majorities in Congress. That will assure us a bigger
war with no end in sight because, under those
circumstances, they will see their return to domination
as a mandate to go even further with their objectives in
the Middle East.

The experts are saying that Iraq will really disintegrate
into chaos (worse than now) the day we leave, whether
that is in a week or a year or five years. We are simply
keeping a lid on a boiling pot, and it doesn’t matter how
long we hold that lid down. It will boil over the minute we
leave and if this happens while George Bush is President,
we risk an onslaught of propaganda that could potentially
decapitate the party if the pull-out was against his will.
Do any of us really believe that the Republican scheme
machine is dead just because they lost an election in
2006?

The animal is not dead, it’s just wounded and it can
still strike if we turn our backs on it. An excellent example
of what the Republican political machine can still do is
the story of Al Gore’s electric bill that broke right after
the won the Oscar. That story was ready like a horse in
a starting gate with a red hot poker inches from its ass.
The minute they announced his name for the award, that
horse was off and running like a bat out of hell. I did a
Google search the next day and the topic listed in 432
news articles nationwide within 36 hours. If only Al had
just said “looks like somebody is afraid I am going to run
for President” and walked away with a grin and a nod, it
would have put this whole thing into perspective. Obviously,
that whole story was planned as a smear campaign. It
didn’t matter that his high bill is explained by the fact that
he pays a lot more because some of it comes from wind
power or that its illegal in his town to install solar panels.
None of that matters because in the end, having a
negative thought about Al Gore was the end goal to
try to squelch his growing popularity.

This story demonstrates how easily the right-wing media
can shift into high gear and spin any story effectively if
we give them the chance. Let’s face it, it worked with
Al Gore. I am writing about it now which means people
still remember it. I’ll bet you remember it. In fact, I know
progressive people who turned away from him because
of that story. They wanted to make sure that the public
didn’t have long to dwell on Gore’s Oscar and they
succeeded. If they can do that with Al Gore’s electric bill,
imagine what they could do with an even bigger story like
a battle in Baghdad that results in the death of 2000 people
in a weekend. What if the Republican leadership tied it to
us because we ended the war by cutting off funding and
as a result of the heightened conflict, petroleum markets
spiked and gas went up to $5 a gallon for regular?

Imagine the new political trend that would celebrate
George W. Bush’s resolve to keep going with an
unpopular policy even as members of his own party
started deserting him because he knew that staying the
course was the right idea. Are you nauseous yet? Well,
you should be.

Ending the war depends on the outcome of the 2008
elections. I really hate the idea that more American
soldiers will die because of how we have to play this
political game with this war however, it is the lesser of
two evils in the end. We have to try to minimize the
deaths of more soldiers and make sure that there is
no question in the minds of the American public when
we walk into voting booths in November, 2008 that
this is the Republican’s and George W. Bush’s war.
He has demonstrated such irresponsibility and
incompetence in his management of the war and used
such venomous rhetoric against his political opponents
that cutting off funding while he is in office is a terrible
risk we cannot afford to take. The Republican Party in
their one-party rule has had a lot of time to create
alliances that can still be used to their advantage.

There are many  White House Press Corp members
who would be happy to help politicize this in exchange
for some high-level access. We should trust the prudence
and wisdom of our party leaders and accept that they
know infinitely more than we do about the inner workings
of the politics of this war. We need to be patient and,
most of all, we need to understand that playing politics
with this war is exactly what we need to be doing as
long as things stay as they are. Of course major
changes could be over the horizon, and when that
happens, we can obviously rethink our points of view.
However, until that happens and this dynamic remains
unchanged, we must stick to our guns and keep our
eyes on the target: winning in 2008 and ending the war
for good.  If we don’t, many more will die in the end, and
the Iraq war will push America further towards oblivion.

© Matthew Lahm 2007

China is the Culprit for American Woes
By Greg Strid

A brief introduction:

The days of plenty may be coming to an end. There
is a palpable sense of unease that stretches from coast to
coast. People cannot put their finger on it, but they know
that something is amiss. Politicians and business leaders
can feel the tension in the air, but they know that
a good deal of what is going on is their fault- stagnant
wages, the outrageous cost of health care, and the growing
divide between the super-rich and everyone else. Just
over a week ago, the Commerce Department enacted
what will likely be the first of many tariffs aimed at Chinese
manufacturers. China is fast becoming a scapegoat for
all that ails the American middle class. Elected officials,
with the encouragement of business leaders, are all
too eager to point their fingers east in an effort to shield
themselves from responsibility. China is no saint, but it
is not the devil incarnate either. Attacking China with the
venom that should be reserved for the true culprits will
only cause further, and quite possibly, irreparable damage
to both economies.

The complete article:

A little over a week ago, the Commerce Department
announced that it would impose tariffs on two Chinese
companies that sell glossy paper products in the U.S.
market. Carlos Gutierrez, Commerce Secretary under
president Bush, announced that the new duties, of 10.9
and 20.4 percent will be applied to the products of two
companies, and are to take effect immediately.

The new duties are being imposed because the Bush
administration is accusing the Chinese government of
illegally subsidizing these two companies at the expense
of American manufacturers of high-gloss paper products.
Currently, imports account for only 5 percent of the
domestic market, but many in the industry fear that they
will be forced out of business if Chinese manufacturers
are allowed to compete with unfair cost advantages.

There is an important distinction to be made between
subsidies, which can lead to the imposition of large
duties, as in this case, and antidumping, which occur
when imports are sold in the US at below what it costs
the manufacturer to produce the product- these
infractions usually result in smaller penaltes.

This is a watershed moment in US protectionism,
because for at least the last 20 years, China was
considered to have a state-run economy, and therefore,
the state-owned businesses in it were not acting
independently, and could not be accused of making
decisions that would be considered market-based.
China is now an exporting giant, and is considered to
be deploying sophisticated marketing strategies in
order to improve the bottom line of its industrial
concerns.

The administration’s new course of action was permitted
by a Federal court ruling supporting the claim that
Chinese actions taken to aid certain businesses can be
defined as subsidies. This means that China is no longer
seen as a communist nation, even though it is a one party
state. Its growing economic clout has caused the U.S. to
redefine China’s competitive status.

America’s trade deficit with China equaled $232.5 billion
last year, and is equivalent to almost a third of the overall
figure. As the U.S. manufacturing base continues its
decline, China is increasingly seen as the culprit; a giant,
low-cost factory floor that is siphoning high-paying jobs
away from the US economy.

The imposition of such stiff tariffs on a relatively small
amount of goods is considered by many in government and
industry to be a trial run, with more wide-ranging actions to
follow. The Commerce Department acted in response to a
complaint by the NewPage Corporation, the biggest
producer of high-quality paper in the US. The complaint
was backed by several large US industry Groups, including
steel manufacturers, whose grumblings led to the imposition
of tariffs in 2002. The Commerce Department’s decision to
penalize two Chinese paper companies was cheered by
labor unions and environmental groups- neither one has
been fans of the Bush Administration.

The Democrats are even more critical of Chinese trade tactics,
which include maintaining a weak currency in order to aid
exporters, and providing cheap loans to important industry
groups. They claim that the Bush administration has allowed
China to run roughshod over American manufacturers, and this
criticism may be what is causing the Commerce Department
to act.

“The Chinese economy is replete with subsidies,” according
to Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade
Franklin L. Levin, who was interviewed by the Washington
Post earlier this week. As American steel, textile and plastics
makers wait in the wings to launch actions of their own, trade
relations between the two economic superpowers is likely
to come under further strain.

But, many note that targeting state-subsidized businesses
misses the larger issues concerning trade with China, such
as protection of intellectual property, counterfeiting, and the
reduction of barriers to selling foreign goods in China. And,
many American firms benefit from the lower cost of Chinese
products, allowing them to pass the savings on to American
consumers- the Wal-Mart defense.

In reaction to Washington’s decision to impose tariffs on two
of its paper goods companies, China has voiced its outrage
by calling the move ‘absurd’. They do have a point, given the
fact that just a few years ago, the WTO declared the US guilty
of illegally subsidizing Microsoft and Boeing through the use of
tax rebates.

Chinese officials also argue that the US does not understand
the difficult road to free market capitalism faced by state-run
companies, and that these subsidies are temporary in nature-
designed to ease the transition to a competitive global
economy.

China can fight this decision in US courts, and it can raise
the issue with the WTO. But, that will take months, and the
sanctions authorized by the Commerce Department go into
effect immediately.

The most important aspect of this case is that China is now
legally classified as a market economy by the U.S. government,
and the actions of its government in support of industry can be
viewed as intentionally conferring a competitive advantage in
the global marketplace.

At a time when the U.S. and China must cooperate on issues
ranging from North Korea to global climate change, the
floodgates may open for U.S. industry to spur short-sighted,
vote-seeking politicians to do their bidding by slapping onerous
tariffs on Chinese competitors.

China is increasingly seen as the main reason for the declining
fortunes of America’s middle class. In such an environment, it
is easy for politicians and business leaders to point at a high-
profile scapegoat in order to assign blame, and pass punitive
tariffs designed to punish the Chinese for stripping American’s
of their livelihoods.

The real causes of the demise of American living standards
stems from the lack of affordable health care, the strip mining
of consumer assets by an all-powerful, yet unaccountable
financial services industry, and the continuing concentration
of wealth in the hands of the few. All of this has occurred with
the cooperation of elected officials. Singling China out as the
culprit for America’s economic woes lets the real perpetrators
off the hook, and will damage the relations between two
nations that need to cooperate in order to remedy many
of the world’s most pressing concerns.

© Greg Strid 2007

Old School Rules Are The Web’s Best Hope
By Greg Strid

Simon Surowicz, producer of the ABC News investigative
web site ‘The Blotter”, paid a visit to a class full of eager,
yet mature NYU journalism students last Thursday evening.
Mr. Surowicz, a native of Belgium, got his start in the business
of news reporting when two inch video tapes were the
standard, and the Internet was in the realm of science
fiction.

Simon started the ABC site 11 months ago, and in that
time his efforts have resulted in four major on-line
journalism awards, including the coveted Peabody, for
breaking the Foley sex scandal-which disclosed congress-
man Mark Foley’s inappropriate advances to underage pages-
and for revealing the devastating effects that HIV/AIDS is
having on the African American community.

The ABC Investigative web site receives between 2 and
3 million hits (visits) a month- the Foley story generated
9 million hits in two days. Many of the stories featured
on the site have between two and three hundred comments
apiece- and that is the unmistakable sign of a successful
site.

The stories that Mr. Surowicz uncovers actually create content
for ABC News shows such as 20/20. This occurred recently
when his site uncovered prescription drug errors made
at a Walgreen’s pharmacy. The story generated a lot of
comments and additional instances of customers receiving
improper dosages when they had their prescriptions filled at
other Walgreen locations. The new stories were backed up
with documentation, and refuted the drug chain’s claim that it
was an isolated incident. The end result was a more in-depth
story that aired on 20/20.

The ABC News site is cultivating a new, tech-savvy and
younger consumer of information. These people are on-line
several hours a day, and they receive a growing amount of
media content in digital form: music through itunes, audio
and video from pod and webcasts, and documents in pdf
formats.

Although the major networks garner the lion’s share of the
television news market, a shift is occurring that is changing
the way people receive, and react to what is being reported
by journalists.

Mr. Surowicz recognizes the change in the way news is being
delivered, but he also understands that high journalistic
standards must be maintained on-line, as well as off. The
validity of sources and documents must be checked, and
stories must be approached with fairness in mind.

As the population of bloggers explodes, and with it the spread
of unsubstantiated stories that turn rumor into accepted wisdom,
it is the work of responsible journalists, such as Mr. Surowicz,
that will establish the Internet as a reliable source of news and
information.

© Greg Strid 2007

by Greg Strid

A summary of the ABC News Investigative Report:
“The Secret War against Iran”

According to this article, a Bauchi tribal group called
Jundullah, has been conducting deadly attacks on
military targets inside Iran. According to U.S. and
Pakistani intelligence sources, this activity has had
the clandestine support and guidance of U.S.
officials since 2005.

This organization is based in the province of
Baluchistan, which is located in western Pakistan,
along the border with Iran.

U.S. officials have told ABC News that American
money is directed to its leader, Abdel el Malik Regi,
through Iranian exiles in Europe and the Middle East.

Mr. Regi is a mult-talented thug whose specialties
include drug smuggling, and the production of quality
video footage of his attacks on Iranian targets- and he
has claimed to have executed Iranians with his own
hands. His resume is capped off by a stellar reference
from the Taliban- he used to fight with them, probably
against the U.S.

To read the ABC News story about America’s latest embrace
of Sunni extremists, click:

“The Secret War Against Iran”

My Response:

The war against Iran has already started. It seems
that the Bush administration hopes to compensate for its
disastrous adventure in Iraq by preventing Iran from
becoming a nuclear power. Pakistan is our supposed
ally in the “war on terror”, yet it provides a home to the
Taliban, and other Sunni extremist groups, such as
Jundullah. This report reveals the US government’s
failure to confront Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf,
about his support of extremists who have been provided a
state-sanctioned haven in his nation’s lawless western
frontier. Using one small group of terrorists to start a war
with Iran by proxy, while ignoring Musharraf’s tacit approval
of the Taliban’s efforts to destabilize Afghanistan speaks
volumes about President Bush’s morally bankrupt approach to
spreading democracy around the globe.