Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein trav­els across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea, the United States, Britain, Greece, and Australia to witness the reality of disaster capitalism. He discovers how companies such as G4S, Serco, and Halliburton cash in on or­ganized misery in a hidden world of privatized detention centers, militarized private security, aid profiteering, and destructive mining.

Disaster has become big business. Talking to immigrants stuck in limbo in Britain or visiting immigration centers in America, Loewenstein maps the secret networks formed to help cor­porations bleed what profits they can from economic crisis. He debates with Western contractors in Afghanistan, meets the locals in post-earthquake Haiti, and in Greece finds a country at the mercy of vulture profiteers. In Papua New Guinea, he sees a local commu­nity forced to rebel against predatory resource companies and NGOs.

What emerges through Loewenstein’s re­porting is a dark history of multinational corpo­rations that, with the aid of media and political elites, have grown more powerful than national governments. In the twenty-first century, the vulnerable have become the world’s most valu­able commodity. Disaster Capitalism is published by Verso in 2015 and in paperback in January 2017.

Profits_of_doom_cover_350Vulture capitalism has seen the corporation become more powerful than the state, and yet its work is often done by stealth, supported by political and media elites. The result is privatised wars and outsourced detention centres, mining companies pillaging precious land in developing countries and struggling nations invaded by NGOs and the corporate dollar. Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein travels to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea and across Australia to witness the reality of this largely hidden world of privatised detention centres, outsourced aid, destructive resource wars and militarized private security. Who is involved and why? Can it be stopped? What are the alternatives in a globalised world? Profits of Doom, published in 2013 and released in an updated edition in 2014, challenges the fundamentals of our unsustainable way of life and the money-making imperatives driving it. It is released in an updated edition in 2014.
forgodssakecover Four Australian thinkers come together to ask and answer the big questions, such as: What is the nature of the universe? Doesn't religion cause most of the conflict in the world? And Where do we find hope?   We are introduced to different belief systems – Judaism, Christianity, Islam – and to the argument that atheism, like organised religion, has its own compelling logic. And we gain insight into the life events that led each author to their current position.   Jane Caro flirted briefly with spiritual belief, inspired by 19th century literary heroines such as Elizabeth Gaskell and the Bronte sisters. Antony Loewenstein is proudly culturally, yet unconventionally, Jewish. Simon Smart is firmly and resolutely a Christian, but one who has had some of his most profound spiritual moments while surfing. Rachel Woodlock grew up in the alternative embrace of Baha'i belief but became entranced by its older parent religion, Islam.   Provocative, informative and passionately argued, For God's Sakepublished in 2013, encourages us to accept religious differences, but to also challenge more vigorously the beliefs that create discord.  
After Zionism, published in 2012 and 2013 with co-editor Ahmed Moor, brings together some of the world s leading thinkers on the Middle East question to dissect the century-long conflict between Zionism and the Palestinians, and to explore possible forms of a one-state solution. Time has run out for the two-state solution because of the unending and permanent Jewish colonization of Palestinian land. Although deep mistrust exists on both sides of the conflict, growing numbers of Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Arabs are working together to forge a different, unified future. Progressive and realist ideas are at last gaining a foothold in the discourse, while those influenced by the colonial era have been discredited or abandoned. Whatever the political solution may be, Palestinian and Israeli lives are intertwined, enmeshed, irrevocably. This daring and timely collection includes essays by Omar Barghouti, Jonathan Cook, Joseph Dana, Jeremiah Haber, Jeff Halper, Ghada Karmi, Antony Loewenstein, Saree Makdisi, John Mearsheimer, Ahmed Moor, Ilan Pappe, Sara Roy and Phil Weiss.
The 2008 financial crisis opened the door for a bold, progressive social movement. But despite widespread revulsion at economic inequity and political opportunism, after the crash very little has changed. Has the Left failed? What agenda should progressives pursue? And what alternatives do they dare to imagine? Left Turn, published by Melbourne University Press in 2012 and co-edited with Jeff Sparrow, is aimed at the many Australians disillusioned with the political process. It includes passionate and challenging contributions by a diverse range of writers, thinkers and politicians, from Larissa Berendht and Christos Tsiolkas to Guy Rundle and Lee Rhiannon. These essays offer perspectives largely excluded from the mainstream. They offer possibilities for resistance and for a renewed struggle for change.
The Blogging Revolution, released by Melbourne University Press in 2008, is a colourful and revelatory account of bloggers around the globe why live and write under repressive regimes - many of them risking their lives in doing so. Antony Loewenstein's travels take him to private parties in Iran and Egypt, internet cafes in Saudi Arabia and Damascus, to the homes of Cuban dissidents and into newspaper offices in Beijing, where he discovers the ways in which the internet is threatening the ruld of governments. Through first-hand investigations, he reveals the complicity of Western multinationals in assisting the restriction of information in these countries and how bloggers are leading the charge for change. The blogging revolution is a superb examination about the nature of repression in the twenty-first century and the power of brave individuals to overcome it. It was released in an updated edition in 2011, post the Arab revolutions, and an updated Indian print version in 2011.
The best-selling book on the Israel/Palestine conflict, My Israel Question - on Jewish identity, the Zionist lobby, reporting from Palestine and future Middle East directions - was released by Melbourne University Press in 2006. A new, updated edition was released in 2007 (and reprinted again in 2008). The book was short-listed for the 2007 NSW Premier's Literary Award. Another fully updated, third edition was published in 2009. It was released in all e-book formats in 2011. An updated and translated edition was published in Arabic in 2012.

What will it take?

A very good question.

Boy howdy, the Bush administration is harder to kill than roaches. It seems like every week, sometimes every day, there’s a new revelation that should make the Bushies radioactive even to their own party, that should make the American people clamor for impeachment (at the least), and yet it never… quite… happens. It’s like all those happy turning points in Iraq that never quite lead to a secular democracy.

Not only is the sheer volume of outrages impressive; consider the diversity. You’ve got corruption, contempt, coverups, catastrophic negligence, endless war, torture, illegal domestic spying, leaks, perjury, all-out war on science and the Constitution, rampant politicization of government, people getting shot in the face, and… gay hookers. Hell, I’m already in double digits, and that’s only a partial list of broad categories.

There have been so many times I thought that maybe, just maybe, this will be the one to finally reveal BushCo. and the GOP as a thuggish criminal enterprise fronted by a craven, smirking moron, but their image never quite seems to take a direct hit. I think Katrina being the sole exception – the Bushies couldn’t spin a hurricane.

It’s true, Dubya’s approval and disapproval ratings are inexorably ratcheting down into Nixonland, but I think the national mood is more “This sucks and I can’t wait for it to be over” than “This is intolerable and must end NOW!” The demand for getting us out of the disastrous quagmire of the Bush administration is nowhere near the demand for getting us out of the disastrous quagmire of Iraq.

Quite frankly, I’m not entirely sure why this is. Is it because Clinton’s impeachment was such a farce that it discredited the whole process? Does the improbability of conviction make it look like a waste of time? Does the idea lack legitimacy because Congressional Democrats never talk about it? Or is it possible that Americans still think BushCo. is merely incompetent rather than criminal?

The corollary to the question of Why is the question of What: What would it take for the idea of impeachment to catch fire? What would it take for its necessity to become so obvious that even Senate Republicans and the media admit it? Is there some Grand Colossal Fuckup Threshold that Team Bush has to exceed on their own, or is there something that Congressional Democrats and/or the netroots can do to help them along? Will investigations and subpoena battles be enough? Will talking about impeachment make it seem more realistic?

one comment ↪

Bush logic in the Middle East

The complexities surrounding the affairs in the Middle East can be daunting at the best of times. No wonder Bush and co have such a hard time making sense of it.

For example, the US supported puppet president of Iraq, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, also happens to be supported by the regime in Tehran. Understandably, this is never mentioned by the Bush administration.

During a high-level meeting in Riyadh in January, Saudi officials confronted a top American envoy with documents that seemed to suggest that Iraq’s prime minister could not be trusted.

One purported to be an early alert from the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr warning him to lie low during the coming American troop increase, which was aimed in part at Mr. Sadr’s militia. Another document purported to offer proof that Mr. Maliki was an agent of Iran.

To make matters worse for Washington, a recent report revealed that the most active foreign protagonists in Iraq have been from Saudi Arabia, another detail Tony Snow will never bother to mention during his press briefings.

Now, Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia’s counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.

Of course, contrary to punishing Saudi Arabia or threatening them with sanctions and possible air strikes, the response from Washington will be to send more arms Saudi Arabia. That’ll show ’em.

The Bush administration has decided to supply billions of dollars in advanced new weapons to Saudi Arabia, other Arab allies of the United States and to Israel, senior State Department officials and congressional aides said Friday.

And for the sake of consistency, more arms are making their way to Israel, though unlike the Saudi’s, the bill will be picked up by the US tax payer.

The US government is proposing a $30m deal selling up to 100 laser-guided bunker-busting bombs to Israel.

We can all sleep easier knowing that these goodies will be making the region a whole lot safer.


Neoconservatism is dead

If only this were true. Budoswky’s description of neoconservatives is right on the money, and while neoconservatism has been exposed as a failure, it would be a mistake to believe that these people no longer wield considerable influence in Washington.

Charles Krauthammer, not content with having been proven deadly wrong in his world view of many years, learning nothing from the bloody disasters of the policies he so aggressively promoted, now attacks Barack Obama for suggesting America should talk with enemies as well as friends.

Our first and last neoconservative President, George W. Bush, is the lead witness for the prosecution in the case whose verdict is the death of neoconservatism.

Never has any philosophy been proven so wrong, so fatal, so disastrous for our country and so deadly for our troops as the views expounded by neoconservative theoreticians.

Their ascent to power meant tragedy, failure and death. Their arrogance and their imperial grandeur has alienated what Jefferson called the decent opinion of mankind. Their tactics have been pursued with contempt for alternate views, corruption of our democratic system, and condescension towards those who know far more about military affairs than they do.

In fact, one of the great specialties of the neoconservative movement is that so many who so ostentatiously failed to serve in the military, when their time came, so sneeringly question the patriotism of others, including those awarded medals for valor in combat.

When Ronald Reagan was changing the world with Mikhail Gorbachev, there were the neoconservatives, uttering their sneering contempt for Reagan, comparing his talks with Gorbachev to Pearl Harbor, comparing his diplomacy to Neville Chamberlain.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their fellow neoconservatives know better than Reagan about negotiating with enemies. They know better than Eisenhower about military industrial complexes. They know better than Ford about seeking diplomatic agreements to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction. They know better than Nixon about achieving breakthroughs with our major adversaries.

They are very good about hurling insults to attack their domestic enemies and very bad about supporting wounded troops, disabled veterans and homeless heroes.

Neoconservatives are very special people, in their own eyes. When things go wrong they become the party of perjury and pardons, the party of abuse of power and abuse of executive privilege to cover up their failures and crimes.

Neoconservatives champion the politics of fear, desperately seeking to frighten the people to justify their attacks on freedoms guaranteed by statute and constitution.

Neoconservatives embody the politics of profiteering, masterminding and organizing the most corrupt occupation in world history, staffed by ideological partisans, rewarding their campaign contributors, mismanaging tens of billions of lost and stolen dollars, under the imperial arrogance of a proconsul awarded the Presidential Medal Of Freedom.

Neoconservatives know better than generals, with their contempt for the Geneva Convention and their actions that civilized people call torture.

Our neoconservative theoreticians believe that George Washington was wrong and George Bush is right. Even torture is done with the big lie that they are promoting freedom and democracy with their corrupt occupation, their war against the Geneva Convention, and their shadow CIA created in the bowels of Rumsfeld’s neoconservative Department of Defense.

And then they try to keep their secrets.

And then they lie about what they do.

And then they bear false witness to Congress.

And then they claim that criminal acts are protected by privilege.

And then they complain when confronted by the law.

And then they whine when juries convict their leaders of perjury and demand the first of many presidential pardons.

And then they escalate their catastrophic war over the objection of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

And now they want to continue this war in perpetuity and dump this disaster on the desk of the successor, to the man who calls himself the decider.

And there they are, again, today, on the oped pages of the newspapers, in their discredited think tanks, on their hate ridden right wing radio, before the smirking courtiers of the cable networks, still claiming they are right and their deadly blunders must be escalated again, and again.

Neoconservatism is dumb, discredited, and dead.

While they cover up their dirty laundry, and plan their next wars, and hire their criminal attorneys, and lobby for their pardons, the clock is ticking, the day is coming, when a a grateful nation will celebrate their removal from the high councils of government, once and for all.

Neoconservatism is dead.

One can only pray that he’s right.


Stats from Iraq

Some conclusions from the coalition’s data that you won’t hear from the main stream media.

  • The rate of attacks is at an all time high
  • weapons cache finds are at an all time high
  • Attacks are still directed overwhelmingly at occupying forces, but as the Iraqi police and army are trained and put into combat situations, they are taking a bigger brunt of the violence.
  • Attacks on civilians remains the smallest wedge of all attacks.
  • Resistance attacks are still concentrated in four provinces where the occupiers are most active, of course, and least present where the occupiers have given authority to regional parties.
  • The areas under almost complete insurgent control are the areas most likely to have working electricity, which is telling.
  • Support for a divided Iraq remains extremely low, predictably highest among the Kurds.
  • One welcome new trend is a dramatic decrease in sectarian incidents reported. Sadly it continues to be the case that those attacks on civilians, whether sectarian or insurgent in nature, are those with the highest death yield, and civilians continue to bear the brunt of attacks.
  • The report attributes the high profile attacks (suicide attacks and car bombings) that take large civilian casualties to “AQ”, but this fits too easily into the occupation narrative: the truth is that there are a number of groups – still a minority of resistance fighters – who are using these tactics.

Most telling of all is that most of these results contradicts the mainstream narrative that if the occupation forces were to leave, Iraq would degenerate into a bloodbath and that Al Qaeda would take control.

One surprising claim is that huge areas of Iraq are either completely or partially read for transfer: that is, areas under complete or partial insurgent control are being designated as fit for a withdrawal of US troops. Diyala, Salah ud-Din, Baghdad, and Ninewah are all considered on the road to transfer. I doubt that this amounts to an admission that control has already effectively been handed over to the resistance in many cases, but clearly there is a rollback of operations being prepared, sure to be seen (correctly) as an ignominious defeat, even if the occupiers only withdraw as far as the Green Zone – which is itself under increasingly effective attack (and guess who the American government blames for that).

Speaking of electricity:

Electricity in Baghdad has been one of the more chronic infrastructure problems plaguing the Iraqi city. Indeed, over the last year or so, the number of hours Baghdad residents could expect electricity has actually dropped.

Don’t worry, the Bush administration has a plan to deal with all of this. Take steps to improve the power supply? Don’t be silly; the administration has decided to stop reporting on Baghdad’s electrical problems.

As the Bush administration struggles to convince lawmakers that its Iraq war strategy is working, it has stopped reporting to Congress a key quality-of-life indicator in Baghdad: how long the power stays on.

[T]he State Department, which prepares a weekly “status report” for Congress on conditions in Iraq, stopped estimating in May how many hours of electricity Baghdad residents typically receive each day.

It’s the quintessential Bush move — when struggling with discouraging news, it’s easier to hide it than fix it.

no comments – be the first ↪

Poor little Rupie

Rupert Murdoch seems so close to finally owning the Wall Street Journal.

And yet

Whatever the real reasons behind the hesitation, Murdoch’s purchase of the paper would only create one thing: further consolidation of an already shamelessly small media market.

no comments – be the first ↪

The peace option

Nicolas Pelman, Middle East Report Online, July 26:

Since their government has not, Shoshi Anbal and a posse of her fellow Tel Aviv housewives are preparing to engage in diplomacy with Syria. On May 18, they assembled along the Israeli-Syrian frontier to applaud what at the time was Syrian President Bashar al-Asad’s latest iteration of his call for negotiations to end the 40-year standoff over the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel in 1967, and indeed the legal state of war prevailing between the two states since 1948. “Asad! Israel wants to talk,” the women chanted. And, less reverently, “Let’s visit Damascus — by car, not by tank.” 

Motivating the Israelis who took to the Golan in the name of the Israel-Syria Peace Society is not wanderlust, but fear for their sons, who fought a war on Israel’s northern front in the summer of 2006 that has been fiercely criticized by an Israeli commission of inquiry and the Israeli public at large. In preliminary findings released in early May, the Winograd commission charged Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert with having “made up his mind hastily” to wage war in Lebanon and with dithering in “energetically pursuing paths to stable and long-term agreements” with Israel’s foes. The red-haired Anbal, who helped spearhead the Golan rally, demands that the priorities be rapidly reversed, before her sons find themselves back on the battlefield. 

Among the other Israeli campaigners are Sami Michael, an Iraqi-born writer still hoping for Syria to return the remains of his brother-in-law, the spy Eli Cohen, who was executed in Damascus, and the prominent novelist David Grossman, whose son was killed in the 2006 Lebanon war. “If President Asad says that Syria wants peace…don’t wait a single day longer,” Grossman advised Olmert at another Israeli protest against the Lebanon war. “When you set out on the last [Lebanon] war, you didn’t wait for even an hour. You charged in with all our might, with all our power to destroy. Why, when there is some sort of flicker of peace, do you immediately reject it?” 

no comments – be the first ↪

Whatever happens, blame Iran

This is getting beyond ridiculous. What next, blame Iran for the next freak duststorm?

The U.S. military has noted a “significant improvement” in the aim of attackers firing rockets and mortars into the heavily fortified Green Zone in the past three months that it has linked to training in Iran, a top commander said today.

If the Green Zone has been under attack for at least three months, would it not be expected that the aim of those firing the mortars would improve? Insurgents have intelligence sources too don’t they, or are those Ayrabs just too backward and primitive to consider this possibility?

Here is another pearl.

“We’ve started to see a slow but gradual reduction in casualties and it continues in July,” he said at a joint news conference with Iraqi military commander Maj. Gen. Abboud Qanbar. “It’s an initial positive sign, but I would argue we need a bit more time to make an assessment whether it’s a true trend.”

So when deaths are up, it means the US needs more time to get the death toll down, and when the deaths are down, they need more time to confirm the trend and make an assessment. That’s Bush speak for tails I win, heads you lose.

no comments – be the first ↪

Was Tillman Murdered?

A macabre new twist to the Pat Tillman saga.

“This war is so fucking illegal.” (Patrick Tillman)

Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman’s forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player’s death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

“The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors – whose names were blacked out – said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

In other words, Pat Tillman was most likely murdered in the field. In cold blood. By other US soldiers.

This must be what the Bush Administration was trying so desperately to hide behind their all purpose “Executive Privilege” shield.

Also from the AP article:

Among other information contained in the documents:

_ In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop “sniveling.”

_ Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

_ The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman’s death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn’t recall details of his actions.

_ No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene – no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.

The Pentagon and the Bush administration have been criticized in recent months for lying about the circumstances of Tillman’s death. The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers.

I wonder how long it will take the John Derbyshires and Michelle Malkins of the Rabid Right to insist that Tillman was to blame for his own murder. Start the countdown. Let’s synchronize our watches…

Because remember, kids, nobody supports the troops like the Republicans. Until they do something that’s bad for PR like get hurt or killed or dare to actually tell the truth about the GOP’s Great War on Civilians. Then it’s off to the trash heap of history with them.

Tillman’s mother, Mary Tillman, who has long suggested that her son was deliberately killed by his comrades, said she is still looking for answers and looks forward to the congressional hearings next week.

“Nothing is going to bring Pat back. It’s about justice for Pat and justice for other soldiers. The nation has been deceived,” she said.

Of all the disgraceful, sickening things our country has done in the name of “spreading liberty” in the Great War on Terrah, this one is a real prize-winner. I only hope that his family can find some kind of peace in the days ahead. In the wake of such a devastating loss followed by a breathtaking series of insults and brush-offs from the US government and the leadership of the armed forces, if I were in their shoes, I think I would simply have lost my mind by now.


Useful tool

America and Israel must be so pleased; yet another pliant Palestinian leader:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Thursday he would decree a change in Palestinian electoral rules that might make it harder for Hamas Islamists to maintain the parliamentary majority they won last year.

Such moves will only increase the popularity of Hamas and confirm the justified suspicions that Abbas is simply helping the Israelis do their dirty work.

no comments – be the first ↪

Orwell would be envious

You know that something is terribly wrong with the Beltway psyche when Joe Lieberman’s ideology is considered serious, while Mike Gravel and Ron Paul, the ones opposed to the war in Iraq and to American military domination around the world, are regarded as insane lunatics, total losers, not fit even to be heard in public discourse among the “Serious”.

This is the same Joe Lieberman who is itching to bomb Iran for no good reason and who recently made a guest appearance at evangelical Minister John Hagee’s “bring on Armageddon” convention. Lieberman’s deranged and sycophantic speech was one you would expect to hear from a hobo on a street corner, rather than a US senator.

I would describe Pastor Hagee with the words the Torah uses to describe Moses, he is an “Eesh Elo Kim,” a man of God because those words fit him; and, like Moses he has become the leader of a mighty multitude in pursuit of and defense of Israel . . . .

What is most revealing about the Beltway media clique is how out of touch they are with the public. At a time that Bush enjoys record dissaproval rating, the conventional wisdom of firebrands like Lieberman are still regarded as moderate while anyone suggesting a change in a foreign policy that has spelled disaster for the US and world is portrayed as residing on the fringe.

Is there any wonder why the MSM is becoming increasingly irrelevant?

one comment ↪

Right wing hysterics over Scott Thomas

For those not familiar with the Scott Thomas saga, he’s a soldier in Iraq who wrote a couple of columns (using a pseudonym) for The New Republic (TNR), describing the ways in which war robs us of our humanity. He cited examples of one soldier who dug up a skull and wore it on his head. Another one amused himself by running over dogs in his Bradley. Thomas himself mocked a woman who had been disfigured by an IED.

Predictably, wingnut sites went crazy. Thomas didn’t really exist. His stories were made up. The left hates the troops. Etc. etc.

Glenn Reynolds led the charge:

“It’s all made up–there is no Scott Thomas! He’s obviously not a soldier! He’s obviously never been to Iraq! Bradleys don’t do that! There’s no hair on skulls! Stephen Glass!!11!!!1!” to,

“Well, he’s probably a liar since he’s a Democrat.”

Yes, it’s all so obvious, though Reynolds doesn’t bother to explain how Bradleys decide on behalf of their drivers what they will and will not run over. Anyway, following the revelation, Reynolds was still holding out for possible doubts by his fingernails :

“SCOTT THOMAS” REVEALED, and the spin is as predicted. Plus, as Bruce Carroll notes: “The New Republic has still not corroborated anything Private Beauchamp wrote.”

They’re hoping you won’t notice that.

Pathetic isn’t it?

As luck woud have it, Thomas does exist (he went public on TNR’s blog) and so far nobody has any evidence that he’s made anything up. What’s more, his point is almost banal by today’s standards that it begs the questions, why the hysteria? Andrew Sullivan has a theory:

Mainly, it seems to me, the conservative blogosphere has taken such an almighty empirical beating this last year that they have an overwhelming psychic need to lash out at those still clinging to sanity on the war. This Scott Thomas story is a godsend for these people, a beautiful distraction from the reality they refuse to face.

It combines all the usual Weimar themes out there: treasonous MSM journalists, treasonous soldiers, stories of atrocities that undermine morale (regardless of whether they’re true or not), and blanket ideological denial. We have to understand that some people still do not believe that the U.S. is torturing or has tortured detainees, still do not believe that torture or murder or rape occurred at Abu Ghraib, still believe that everyone at Gitmo is a dangerous terrorist captured by US forces, and still believe we’re winning in Iraq.

It doesn’t take a genius to predict where this is going.

Once again, as I’ve said all along, you can’t “support the troops” while publishing agitprop that suggests the troops are a bunch of sociopaths.

Supporting the troops only applies to those who stick to the rules (ie. shut up and do as they’re told).

Not only Thomas’s character will be dragged through the mud (Michelle Malkin is putting in the tough yards over at her site), but eventually some small part of Thomas’s account will turn out to be slightly exaggerated and the peanut gallery will declare they were right all along! Thomas did make up his stories! The left does hate the troops! The war is going swimmingly! At least, it would be if the MSM weren’t undermining it, and the troops, at every turn.



Nutters for Israel

Christians United for Israel’s annual Washington-Israel Summit was held in mid-July.

Be afraid.

If Zionists truly think that such people are their friends, then Israel is in more trouble than even I believe.