“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
The plan to spirit the surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden to sanctuary in Latin America appeared to be unravelling on Friday, amid tension between Ecuador's government and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.ReplyDelete
President Rafael Correa halted an effort to help Snowden leave Russia amid concern Assange was usurping the role of the Ecuadoran government, according to leaked diplomatic correspondence published on Friday.
Amid signs Quito was cooling with Snowden and irritated with Assange, Correa declared invalid a temporary travel document which could have helped extract Snowden from his reported location in Moscow.
Correa declared that the safe conduct pass issued by Ecuador's London consul – in collaboration with Assange – was unauthorised, after other Ecuadorean diplomats privately said the WikiLeaks founder could be perceived as "running the show".
According to the correspondence, which was obtained by the Spanish-language broadcaster Univision and shared with the Wall Street Journal, divisions over Assange have roiled Ecuador's government.
Ecuador's ambassador to the US, Nathalie Cely, told presidential spokesman Fernando Alvarado that Quito's role in the drama was being overshadowed by the WikiLeaks founder, who has sheltered in Ecuador's London embassy for the past year to avoid extradition.
"I suggest talking to Assange to better control the communications. From outside, [Assange] appears to be running the show."
Earlier this week a senior foreign diplomat in Quito told the Guardian that some – though not all – factions in the government were annoyed with what they saw as Assange grandstanding.
Triple Crown MisogynistReplyDelete
Amazing the Woman wasn't killed.
Perp should be de-balled and left to bleed out.
That was a lot less than what my nice went rough. Three times.ReplyDelete
We've got him though, at least in US of A. This asshole, if he ever steps into US of A is immediately in jail and trial and looking at forty years.
I'd rather listen to Pam Geller than Pam Olson.
With a Nordic name like Olson you'd think there would be some Christian influence. But Bethlehem, so she can't live there, has been all but cleansed of Christians.
Duece, wake up!
What war has Israel gotten the US of A into? Iraq? Twice? Libya? Syria?
I am waiting for an answer.
niece went through three timesDelete
she had blood transfusions at the end
What war has Israel gotten the US of A into? Iraq? Twice? Libya? Syria?Delete
I am waiting for an answer.
Watch the Wesley Clark video again.
Probably the most controversial claim in my work with John Mearsheimer on the Israel lobby is our argument that it played a key role in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Even some readers who were generally sympathetic to our overall position found that claim hard to accept, and some left-wing critics accused us of letting Bush and Cheney off the hook or of ignoring the importance of other interests, especially oil. Of course, Israel's defenders in the lobby took issue even more strenuously, usually by mischaracterizing our arguments and ignoring most (if not all) of the evidence we presented.Delete
So I hope readers will forgive me if I indulge today in a bit of self-promotion, or more precisely, self-defense. This week, yet another piece of evidence surfaced that suggests we were right all along (HT to Mehdi Hasan at the New Statesman and J. Glatzer at Mondoweiss). In his testimony to the Iraq war commission in the U.K., former Prime Minister Tony Blair offered the following account of his discussions with Bush in Crawford, Texas in April 2002. Blair reveals that concerns about Israel were part of the equation and that Israel officials were involved in those discussions.
Take it away, Tony:
As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this."
Notice that Blair is not saying that Israel dreamed up the idea of attacking Iraq or that Bush was bent on war solely to benefit Israel or even to appease the Israel lobby here at home. But Blair is acknowledging that concerns about Israel were part of the equation, and that the Israeli government was being actively consulted in the planning for the war.
Why has she fled Oklahoma?Delete
She can live peacefully there with Mustafa.
I have been through there many times. Nice place. Maybe fit for Rufus at his best.
She looks a little less than pure blood Swedish to me, but without genetic tests it is hard to be sure.
Pam Geller looks to me the much more credible.
But people like Geller get no air time here.
The war against Iraq and the neocon dream of taking on each of the predicted Arab countries, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran was on the hands of Bush and Blair. However:Delete
…As the Bush administration came into office in January 2001, press reports in Israel quoted government officials and politicians speaking openly of mass expulsion of the Palestinians. The new Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (elected to office in February 2001), noted for his ruthlessness, had said in the past that Jordan should become the Palestinian state where Palestinians removed from Israeli territory would be relocated. There was increased public concern about demographic changes that threatened the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. Haifa University professor Arnon Sofer released the study, 'Demography of Eretz Israel,' which predicted that by 2020 non-Jews would be a majority of 58 percent in Israel and the occupied territories. Moreover, it was recognized that the overall increase in population was going beyond that which the land, with its limited supply of water, can maintain.
It appeared to some that Sharon intended to achieve expulsion through militant means. As one left-wing analyst put it at the time: 'One big war with transfer at its end - this is the plan of the hawks who indeed almost reached the moment of its implementation.' In summer 2001, the authoritative Jane's Information Group reported that Israel had completed planning for a massive and bloody invasion of the Occupied Territories, involving 'air strikes by F-15 and F-16 fighter bombers, a heavy artillery bombardment, and then an attack by a combined force of 30,000 men ... tank brigades and infantry.' It would seem that such bold strikes signified far more than simply removing Arafat and the PLO leadership. But the U.S. vetoed the plan and Europe made equally plain its opposition to Sharon's plans. As one close observer of the Israeli-Palestinian scene presciently noted in August 2001, 'it is only in the current political climate that such expulsion plans cannot be put into operation. As hot as the political climate is at the moment, clearly the time is not yet ripe for drastic action. However, if the temperature were raised even higher, actions inconceivable at present might be possible.' Once again, 'revolutionary times' were necessary for Israel to achieve its policy goals. And then came the September 11 attacks.
I posted it on the next thread.ReplyDelete
OK give me until tomorrow.Delete