Terry Jones has written an explanation of the Bush and Blair administrations' behaviors with respect to foreign policy. You might want to read it.
"Under what grace are your victims innocent and ours dust, and under which doctrine is your blood blood and our blood water."
Regardless of the source, there is wisdom in the above citation.
The NY Times has an opinion piece written by Niall Ferguson that is worth reading. Ferguson, who wrote, amongst other things, one exceedingly good and highly provocative book about the First World War and is now at the Hoover Institution(ugh), makes the point that Iraq now is like Iraq then (i.e. 1920) and that the US would do well to follow the British model of empire that was then utilized to 'calm the rabble.' I have one serious quibble with Ferguson's logic in this area and it is simply put, do we really find the result that the British achieved (i.e. a pacified, occupied and oppressed Iraq that later became quite dictatorial) a worthy goal, or is it just another gaol for the Iraqis?
George W. Bush has, as far as I can tell, a 100% record of supporting policies that I oppose. I suspect that there may be things upon which we both agree (e.g. dogshit often smells bad), but pretty much everything he does annoys me intensely.
With that totally lame disclaimer, I am motivated to briefly mention that the anti-intellectual President of the United States decided to support Ariel Sharon's "facts on the ground" in the Occupied Territories in Palestine. Aside from annoying me personally, I have no idea what motivation might have driven Bush to such a decision.
Some have speculated that his motivation may be millenial; which would not surprise me. Others suggest that he is engaging in Nixon's "I'll make them think I'm so crazy that they'll never try to fuck with me" policy. Unfortunately, this tends to have Mother Night-style* repercussions. In Bush's case, his support of Israeli land confiscation policies, which some part of me thinks is an attempt to support Israel as an ally in the war against terrorism (not to mention domestic political gain), will probably have the effect of immensely exacerbating an already aggravated situation in US/Muslim relations.
The US voting public has consistently supported the Israeli government regardless of how they have dealt with the Palestinians. I would not be surprised if the US government would veto a censure motion against Israel even if the Israeli's were to drop multiple nuclear weapons in Gaza. There is simply very little support for Palestine in the US.
This decision by Bush, will quite possibly be the most significant decision in terms of lives destroyed, that he will ever make. This is not going to be popular in the Muslim world. Expect quiet, determined rage. There may be demonstrations in the streets, but I fear that revenge will be more the order of the days, weeks, months and years that will follow this phenomenally stupid and cruel decision on Bush's part.
The above makes me very angry. What's even more odd, is that somone will probably accuse me of being anti-Semitic for having written the above.
*Mother Night, as you may or may not know, is a book by Kurt Vonnegut where an American agent has insinuated himself into the Nazi propaganda industry. The book ends with one of the Nazis telling the agent that whatever damage he may have caused to the Axis by being an agent of the enemy was more than offset by the moral support he gave to the Nazis through his radio broadcasts.
When officers of the only major ally that the US government still has start criticisizing US military policy, it is probably long past time to reconsider that policy. Read this, please.
I've written before about the possibility of a quid pro quo regarding Blair's cooperating with the Bush administrations' Iraq plans. As my friend Geoffrey would say, "the roux is thickening." The Guardian has published a teaser about an article that is about to come out in Vanity Fair suggesting that Blair made the decision to go along with Bush on Iraq nine days after the attacks on the United States. The consequences for Blair if he is held responsible for the deceptions involved could be devastating.
The New York Times has an article about time shaving: the despicable practice of reducing the hours for which an employee is compensated. I have had a few jobs where they did similar things. All of the companies mentioned in the article claim that they terminate employees who engage in such behavior, as if that were acceptable. What they should do, if they were actually honest about such things instead of the lying scum that they are, is report such employees to the National Labor Relations Board and provide evidence to assist in convicting them. There are laws against this kind of indentured servitude.