Lukashenko and Milosevic: Two Villainous Enemies of Freedom, but Heroic Figures to Others
Two disgusting blog entries on two disgusting tyrants: Mark Brady and Daniel McAdams.
UPDATE: Make that four disgusting essays: 3, 4. The Kooky Kult Krackpots who lead LewRockwell and Antiwar.com rarely miss a chance to jump to the defense of a loathsome dictator if he’s perceived as a foe of the U.S. government. Taking the view that the enemy of their enemy is their friend, they sell out freedom and decency whenever they have a chance to attack their only real enemy: the U.S. government. (I write that as someone who opposed the U.S. intervention in Yugoslavia but had no illusions about the evil character of Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic cleansing against Bosnian Muslims, Croats, and Albanians.)
100 Responses to “Solidarity with Tyrants”
Brahim, I am tired of you calling Tom Palmer a liar. Let’s settle this the old fashioned way.
Where do you live? I will come there and mess you up nine ways to Sunday.
Brahim, I am tired of you calling Tom Palmer a liar. Let’s settle this the old fashioned way. Does the name Hamilton mean anything to you? Pushkin?
Where do you live? I will come there and pay you a visit you richly deserve. Or you come here and visit me. I await your reply, miscreant.
Brahim calls it a lie to link to someone’s blog entries. Follow Palmer’s links to his earlier essays and then follow those links and what do you find? Justin Raimondo smearing Iraqi police volunteers as traitors, his coworker Jereemy Sapienza calling for killing all American troops and cheering their deaths, Lew Rockwell writer Daniel McAdams lavishing praise on Lukashenko, and all the rest. It ought to be common sense for a libertarian that you can oppose going to war and not be a supporter of the foreign tyrant or enemy. The people Palmer has unmasked are those who have made the step from being antiwar to being in favor of the the other side. He has not even called for spending tax money to support the people who are trying to rid their country of Lukashenko; he just doesn’t whitewash tyrants, like Raimondo, Rockwell, & Co. do on a regular basis. He let’s the world know what such people are: at best embarrassements to anyone who supports liberty and at worst active opponents of freedom.
Brahmin, well, actually I DO think that these dictators are being portrayed as heroes for standing up to the “new world order.” I suppose “heroes of libertarians” would be more precise than “libertarian heroes.”
More importantly, it is indeed support for a dictator to “[paint] a more ambivalent picture of life in Belarus.” Brady implies and J.Steele explicitly claims that the charges against Lukashenka in the western press are exagerrations. But it’s clear from the Amnesty International, HRW, and RSF reports that Lukashenka is much worse than the western media makes clear.
As for the anguished hysteria over U.S. support for democracy movements in Europe — what’s wrong with training poll watchers, educating election judges, or even (horrors) telling opponents of a dictator how to organize more effectively?
Answer: nothing — no one’s rights are violated… although I admit there’s an interference with the interests of the dictator.
Yes, yes, I know, we American taxpayers are paying the bill, and taxation is theft. But that’s a different issue…and regardless, far better that our erstwhile dollars are going to this benign activity than, say bombs to be dropped on Jasna.
And as for kooks who think that the Orange revolution is U.S. foreign policy…well, they must have gotten into the drugged oranges themselves.
BTW, for those interested, the latest “Foreign Affairs” has a thoughtful piece by Thomas Carrothers of Carnegie Endowment on the pros & cons of western support for democracy movements.
“Is this your idea of a libertarian hero?”
Once again, the shills for intervention cannot separate opposition to war from alleged “support” for dictators. I have nowhere claimed that Milosevic was any kind of hero.
What I have claimed is that the New World Order invented wild claims of “genocide” to justify the commission of mass murder and the destruction of civilian infrastructure in the Balkans. I suspect the NWO did this in order to get some target practice in the lead up to the real game – Iraq and Iran.
We now have substantial evidence that the vast majority of the pre-war claims prior to the Balkans intervention were either pure speculation, or based on deliberate fabrications. Sounds familiar?
Exposing these lies and distortions has nothing to do with defending a dictator, and everything to do with avoiding a militarised state at home, at perpetual war with the world, which could perceivably become a dictatorship in its own right.
BTW – part of the “pure speculation” in the lead-up to the 1999 Balkans conflagration was the alleged “Operation Horseshoe” (which Justin Raimondo rightly termed “Operation Horseshit”), which was said to be a “secret” Yugoslav government plan to “ethnically cleanse” Kosovo using a military “horseshoe” formation.
We haven’t heard much about “Operation Horseshoe” since, because there wasn’t a scintilla of evidence for its existence. It was a War Party fabrication designed to create fears of an “impending genocide”, thus requiring NATO “intervention”.
He said “War Party.”
Give him a cookie.
“Exposing these lies and distortions has nothing to do with defending a dictator, and everything to do with avoiding a militarised state at home, at perpetual war with the world, which could perceivably become a dictatorship in its own right.”
Exactly Steve. Maybe these genuine libertarians need to reread the Road to Serfdom.
He cut and pasted from Rothbard. Give him a cookie too!
“Exactly Steve. Maybe these genuine libertarians need to reread the Road to Serfdom.”
No, see, that’s not what “responsible” libertarians do. They’d rather deploy childish insults against anyone who sticks their head up to oppose one of the largest government appropriations in human history.
It’s much easier to call someone a “kook”, an “anti-semite” and a “tyrant supporter”, than it is to investigate any facts and to draw sensible conclusions from them.
I guess you’re right Steve. I’m taking my cookies and going home.
All this talk about who is the more authentic libertarian is secondary and obscurantist. If you really want to cut through the fog of theological cover-stories for the British-Yiddish power grab and look at the situation for what it is, viz., geopolitics, you should be open-minded with respect to sources.
Get the truth, not the respectable lie!
Meanwhile, Chip Steele nitpicks over Lukashenko’s Free Speech Zones and other supposed violations of, ahem, universal democratic norms.
The above post completely proves Palmer’s point. Thanks, Georgiy.
No, it simply proves that some guy called “Georgiy” believes that Jews are trying to “colonise” Belorus.
It doesn’t say anything about how the West got drawn into futile conflicts in the Middle East and the Balkans on a pack of lies, and nor does it shed any light on why “libertarians” are smearing those who oppose said conflicts.
There are plenty of decent people who opposed on principle the various interventions to which you’re alluding. However, there are also tons of people who went a step further and ended up sympathizing with and rooting for pure evil. Those people are accurately (and generously) labeled “kooks.” It’s that simple. If you don’t get it at this point, it’s doubtful you ever will.
“Intellectual” Dishonesty, thy name is Ben Lichtman!
If every side the U.S. Military is ordered to oppose is “pure evil” then what argument AGAINST intervention could you somehow, nonetheless, respect? That implicit assumption *blames the victims* of the sole remaining SuperGolem and is the Original Lie needed to excuse, indeed, bless, all of the subsequent violence. Violence, I might add, that is practically riskless for the slanderer, “For who can make war on the Beast?” Was Milosevic half the “crackpot” that Izetbegovic or Tudjman was? Or one percent the murderer Madeleine Albright was?
You are all a bunch of Winston Smiths in drag. You finally made your peace with Might. Sickening!
Of course Georgiy is the caricature that these people would like the ‘Rockwell cult’ to be.
Speaking of Kooky Kult members, what is Leon Hadar, Cato Fellow, doing in the latest issue of The American Conservative, which features none other than James Bovard, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, Taki, Pat Buchanan, and Doug Bandow? Mr. Hadar must be maligning himself by associating with such vile human beings who commit sins of political incorrectness and “anti-Americanism.” Surely, Mr. Hadar has been deceived into aligning himself with the ‘fever swamp.’
Sarcasm aside it is a great issue of the magazine. I particularly like the question, “Do the Troops Support the Troops?”
Sarcasm aside, this is a great issue of the magazine. http://www.amconmag.com/
Outrageous! How can he hang out those reptiles? Sure, they oppose the evisceration of the US Constitution and the creation of a totalitarian monstrosity, but they’re anti-immigrant and that’s worse!!
Where’s the “smear” of people who oppose war? Lots of people opposed those wars, but Palmer has only criticized people who opposed the war AND whitewashed the dictators, rooted for the other side, or otherwise showed that they were wackos. That’s not a smear of people opposing wars, but pointing out that some of those who opposed the wars dishonored and discredited the cause of peace.
Synopsis to date: Some pseudo-libertarians apologize for dictators such as Milosevic and Lukashenka. A real libertarian (Tom Palmer) calls them on it, and next thing you know the pseudos are have fits and condemn Palmer and his supporters as members of a “War Party.”
The only thing I gather from their comments is that by condemning bastards like Milosevic and Lukashenka we’ve somehow endorsed every crime of the Bush administration.
You damn fools, why is it so hard for you to understand that Lukashnka is, and Milosevic was, a dictator, and deserve to be condemned, regardless of U.S. foreign policy?
Charles N. Steele = War Party Neocon
Charles, your “synopsis to date” is outrageously off the mark. Not one of the people attacked by Palmer has ever, even once, “apologized” for Milosevic or Lukashenka. Yes, they have criticized Milosevic’s and Lukashenka’s opponents, and ridiculed US foriegn policy stances against them, but can you please cite me a single instance of PRAISE for these men, apologies for their crimes, or denial that they are dictators? It is Palmer and you who engage in unsubstantiated ad hominems. Palmer titles his post “solidarity with tyrants” — a ridiculous smear. You describe those attacked by Palmer as “pseudo-libertarians” who “apologize for dictators,” not like “real libertarians” such as Palmer (and, presumably, yourself).
You damn fool, why is it so hard for you (and Palmer) to understand that criticism of US foreign policy, of the War Crimes Tribunal, of US troops, etc. does not constitute “solidarity” with Milosevic, Lukashnka, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and on and on ad infinitum?
Speaking of solidarity with tyrants, what about Palmer’s solidarity with the Ayatollah Sistani? Check this out, folks:
Tom Palmer says:
“”I do hope that the Grand Ayatollah Sistani survives for some time, as he is known as an enemy of Khomeini-style (or Iranian style) Islamic-Republicanism and favors secular government that devotes itself to justice, while religion devotes itelf [sic] to morality (roughly put). He is depicted by the ignoramuses at, say, antiwar.com, as simply an Iranian-style theocrat, but he has been for many years a critic of the Khomeini approach. As I recall reading, he has said that while Khomeini favored seizing the state to make men religious and upright, his view (Sistani’s) is that the role of religion is not to seize the state and make it good, but to help to make men moral, and when they are moral and good, they will have a just government.”
Palmer’s favorite Ayatollah has just come out in favor of the death penalty for gays:
Tom Palmer — apologist for a murderous tyrant.
Sistani expresses the theory, and the Badr militia is putting the theory into practice:
While the Americans stand by and laugh …
Why no comment from Tom Palmer?
I checked on that. It turns out that, surprise, surprise, Sistani is as bad as Saddam (who put gays to death when he could catch them) on an important issue. So we should conclude what? Should we want him dead and not promoting (as he did when Tom wrote) restraint among the Shia and resistance to much more radical forces? The comment above is a sick joke. If you think a war is a mess but hope that the worst is avoided — and not realized, like Justin hopes for — then that means that you agree with every awful outcome? I’ll bet he also supports the death penalty for drug dealers, too. As does every other political figure in Iraq. Does that mean that when he called for restraint and opposed revenge killings, he was wrong?
“Why no comment from Tom Palmer?” Maybe because the essay in The New Republic was March 23 and Palmer’s last blog was on March 14 from Tbilisi. Or maybe he went to spread the gospel just to avoid having to comment on his blog about something he has written about before.
Maybe when he’s back to blogging he will comment. In the meantime, it’s interesting that Belarus’s dictator (the subject that started this thread) has rounded up and arrested the last unintimidated dissidents in “his” country. It’s sad when so-called “libertarians” cheer for such a dirt bag.
Photos of democracy, Lukashenka-style.
Photos of democracy, French government-style.
The difference between the two sets of photos from Charles and from Jasna is that in the former, students were quite peacefully holding a vigil to protest a tyrant, while in the latter, some (probably most) were peacefully protesting a change in laws that was adopted by a democratically elected parliament AND some were smashing shop windows, burning cars, throwing bricks at people, torching whatever they could ignite, and generally acting violently. In each case you can find police, tear gas, and pain, but the context makes a difference.
I have just returned from a long trip (away from the internet) and will review the rather large number of comments above to determine whether any responses are appropriate or needed.
Well, what a lot of red herrings have been pulled across the thread above! So, without claiming to be exhaustive, here are some responses.
Al Sistani should be condemned in the strongest terms for his outrageous views about gay people. Duh. In a comment of January of 2005 (one I would make today, as well) I hoped that he “survives for some time” (i.e., that he not be killed) as he was a strong voice for restraint among Shia and had criticized an Iranian style Islamic republic, as well as revenge killings against innocents. Unsurprisingly, he holds disgusting and evil views regarding gay people, which is hardly that unusual in the region (and, as one commentator points out above, was the practice under Saddam, who executed gay people, among many other categories of enemies of the state). And unlike the trash at Antiwar.com, I speak out about such matters (including the rights of gay people) in Iraq and other countries. (I raised the issue, among others, over dinner with opposition members of the Azerbaijani parliament when I was in Baku on Friday and we had a very lively discussion on the topic.)
I don’t “smear opponents of war”; I do point out that SOME opponents have gone from opposing war to endorsing or whitewashing foreign oppressors, whether the “Iraqi resistance” or the dictatorship of Lukashenko, and thereby embarrass other and more serious opponents. Just read the shocking whitewash from McAdams of Lukashenko and from Raimondo of Putin. Actual libertarians — people who support freedom, as opposed to people who simply oppose the U.S. government — don’t do that. In fact, the Raimondos and the Rockwells and the McAdamses implicitly make the case for war whenever a foreign tyrant is really awful, because by waxing lyrical about how innocent or heroic the “resistance” or Lukashenko or Putin are they implicitly accept that the awfulness of a regime is sufficient ground for intervening. I am not fooled by the Lukashenko regime and I feel no desire to write about how delightful his regime is.
Oh, I know that the professional Rockwellites will come out of their holes to demand evidence that Raimondo has ever — ever! — gotten starry-eyed over Putin, so here’s some evidence: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/020997.php
Notice that what matters for Raimondo is not the truth or falsity of the claim that Putin has authoritarian tendencies; it’s that it is “downright pernicious”: “The myth that Russia is sliding back into authoritarian — or even totalitarian — rule is not only ridiculously overstated: it is downright pernicious.” In other words, what matters is the conclusion, to which the facts must then be made to conform. If you’re opposed to the U.S. government, then those it opposes must be your friends, and if they are your friends, then … you should massage (or, as in the case of McAdams, completely falsify) the evidence to portray them positively. It’s a betrayal, not only of libertarianism, but of reason.
I have followed Dr. Palmer’s works and know how important it was to the spread of (classic) liberal ideas in the former Soviet Union and the nations it conquered. We know well what Alexander Lukashenko is and it is embarassing to find people in the West who are defending him. I found this new article (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/mcadams.php?articleid=8763). Reading it is like reading an old Soviet propaganda article, but less clever. He insists that the BBC, the FAZ, and all the other media are liars, but we should believe only him, who is a big supporter of Lukashenko. Even the KGB was smarter than to write like that.
Tom now that you are back, I reiterate this question:
“Concerning the Sapienza comments, the rational person must concede what Palmer is saying at least about Sapienza being a hate filled individual particularly when it comes to American troops. In any case his hate does derive from what he preceives to be unjust and unethical actions taken by the US government in Iraq (something I agree with). To which I ask Palmer and others here, is there ever a scenario where they think that violent resistance (just war) is justified against US troops? Or are US troops always sacrosanct and untouchable?”
Ali Sistani is to be excused for advocating the DEATH PENALTY for homosexual acts, because he is supported by the U.S. government.
Lukashenko is to be condemned — and his country sanctioned — for winning a free election by an overwhelming majority, because the U.S. government has decided it is time for regime change in Belarus.
This is the Palmer Doctrine: echo whatever Washington’s current ‘line’ is, with a “libertarian” gloss. No one is whitewashing the regimes Palmer condemns, but Palmer is whitewashing the U.S. government as it unleashes death squads in Iraq, plots war against Iran, and seeks to encircle Russia and re-start the cold war.
libertas, aka Justin Raimondo, is as dishonest as you can get. Here’s what Palmer wrote:
Al Sistani should be condemned in the strongest terms for his outrageous views about gay people.
That’s some “excuse”. If Justin is going to lie through his teeth, he shouldn’t put the lie right after a statement that demonstrates that it’s a lie.
Death squads! Another cookie for Chomskookery.
The answer to Mr. Khan’s question is easy and obvious: of course.
But I can assure Mr. Khan that he would not want to meet the Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia or Ba’athist fighters who have been carrying out massacres in Iraq, nor the fighters of the Mehti Army or the Badr Brigades, for that matter. Is Mr. Khan suggesting that al Zarkawi is in any way exercising the legitimate right of self defense? When he beheads school teachers? When he beheads Iraqi police officers? When he sends suicide bombers into markets or drops mortar shells on religious pilgrims?
Admitting that there are conditions under which it is legitimate to use force in self-defense against anyone, including soldiers of the United States, is not a step toward legitimating the acts of violence that have been waged and are being being waged against U.S. troops through IEDS or the horrific massacres of Iraqi civilians and of the police and soldiers who are working for the Iraqi government. Would Nazi “Home Defense” brigades have been justified in carrying out IED attacks on U.S. and British forces in post war Germany? What of massacring civilians who were “collaborating” with the occupying forces by voting, going about their business, or volunteering for the police forces? If not, why not? Perhaps because they were seeking to reestablish a National Socialist regime of mass murder, as the people planting IEDs and massacring Iraqi police are seeking to establish Ba’athist or Al Qaeda tyranny (or, as a part of such a strategy, to create maximum mayhem). (I am not equating the situation in Germany with that in Iraq; I am merely pointing out that the line of argument that has been suggested, viz., that if you ever have a right of self-defense, then all acts of “resistance” against an occupying force are legitimate, doesn’t work.)
“Is Mr. Khan suggesting that al Zarkawi is in any way exercising the legitimate right of self defense? When he beheads school teachers? When he beheads Iraqi police officers? When he sends suicide bombers into markets or drops mortar shells on religious pilgrims?”
I would say absolutely not. The Sunni resistance particularly by Wahibi maniacs like Zarquawi, are not acts of legitimate self defense. So yes a just cause can be seriously undermined and even downright unjustified by the actions of those prosecuting the war. I would say the murder and manslaughter of innocent civilians are grave war crimes [US troops have positively done this as well]. As to suicide bombing, I believe it to be a mortal sin even against tyrannical forces [this crime is tough to prosecute in man’s limited jurisdiciton, but is absolutely condemnable].
As to the employment of the IED, I think this sort of ambushing tactic is perfectly neutral in fighting a war as long as it is not used against civilians which many times it has been. We do the same thing with claymore mines, it’s just not ‘improvised.’
“Would Nazi ‘Home Defense’ brigades have been justified in carrying out IED attacks on U.S. and British forces in post war Germany?”
No, but I also don’t think the US was necessarily justified in occupying Germany either. Which leads to the heart of the problem here, particularly with Iraq. In all wars, at least one side necessarily must be unjustified. However, that doesn’t mean that the other side must be justified. Both [multiple] sides can be unjustified in a war. To which we must come to the conclusion that yes, it’s downright wrong to cheer the death and mutilation of US troops. Tom, you are right to condemn anyone of such nonsense [not all the people you accuse have done this, but it is undeniable that some have]. However, it is also downright wrong to continue and even support a US presence in Iraq another minute. This also is foolishness, a foolishness to see reality in the face [lost war, grunts can’t build nations].
So yes many of us Americans are yelling more loudly about what US troops are doing than what Zarquawi is doing. Why? We have much more influence in telling our people to end this particular foolishness than we do of Zarquawi.
Very thoughtful approach, with much of which (but not all) I agree. I will respond later this evening, when I have the time to devote to it.
Look forward to it.
Mr. Khan raises a number of important points. Let me start with a relatively trivial one, just to get the ball rolling.
First, I don’t think that the worst thing about suicide bombing is that they kill themselves. As far as I’m concerned, I’d be quite happy for the whole leadership of al Qaeda to commit suicide. It’s that they convince oddballs to kill themselves in a manner that is remarkably hard to deter or to defend against that’s the problem. That and the fact that generally they take out plenty of bystanders (which is part of the tactic). With regard to the issue of the deaths of the perpetrators, it’s not easily distinguished from going on a “hopeless mission” to achieve an end, whether killing an enemy or rescuing someone. Not only does the categorical ban on suicide run up against some problems when people lay down their lives to save the lives of others (including in military operations), but I find it weak grounds for complaint against suicide bombers in the Middle East.
Secondly, and more importantly, those who are laying IEDs are not trying to eject an oppressive occupier in order to achieve a freer society. Far from it. As far as we can tell, they are motivated by the urgent desire to rid their country of foreigners so that they can embark on mass slaughter of large numbers of other natives of the country. Both the motive and the consequences are evil. I cannot see how such actions are justifiable.
Thirdly, I agree that U.S. troops should be withdrawn. The question is how long that should take. Surely, Mr. Khan does not favor them being removed literally within the next minute. Surely someone with Mr. Khan’s general perspective (from what I can deduce about it) considers the consequences of an action to have some bearing in determining its morality or wisdom. And what would be the consequences of the immediate (and I do mean, as Mr. Khan seems to, immediate) disappearance of foreign forces? Mass murder. Unless Mr. Khan in fact takes a purely agent-relative or deontological approach (do X regardless of *any conceivable* consequences), surely he would have to put that onto the scale. What then, should be the policy? The U.S. should make a credible commitment to withdrawal, which would be more — not less — likely to bring the parties to the table to bargain and to create a tolerable (which is not the same thing as wonderful) regime for the country. Promising an indefinite commitment is likely to make things worse, not better.
And regarding yelling about the bad or criminal actions of American soldiers, I have no problem with that and I have not criticized anyone for it. Nor do I worry that some people aren’t loudly condemning Zarkawi. There are plenty of criminals in the world and there’s no moral obligation to devote one’s resources to denouncing them all. Life is too short for that even to be possible. What I object to is those who actively praise the criminals, who denounce those Iraqis who are fighting against the criminals (recall Justin Raimondo’s characterization of them as traitors and quislings), who toast the deaths of American soldiers, and who even (to return to the origination of this posting) tell us how wonderful Alexander Lukashenko is, as the dictator’s American toady Daniel McAdams wrote:
“Lukashenko on the other hand, simply ran on his economic record. By refusing the economic “shock therapy” that had impoverished Russia and much of the rest of the former USSR, Lukashenko had managed to preserve the social safety net of the old system while at the same time maintaining steady economic growth.” http://www.antiwar.com/orig/mcadams.php?articleid=8763 How wonderful that Lukashenko has retained a creaking form of Soviet totalitarianism, rather than the “shock therapy” that has impoverished, say, Estonia.
That is objectionable. That is anti-libertarian. That is objectively evil.
Palmer: Why did you erase all the comments by “libertas,” who took you to task for supporting the Ayatollah Sistani — a tyrant more (or just as) invidious than Lukashenko?
sorry, my enlgish is not so good. I meant ignore, not “erase.”
Observer’s English seems to have been pretty sophisticated, until it was changed to “enlgish” and made ungrammatical.
In any case, I am now printing out33 pages of comments to be sure that I don’t miss any. When I got back on Sunday (and had to write a response to some serious writers at http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/03/26/tom-g-palmer/im-back/ , which I did on the day I got back), I overlooked the bit of slander that Observer cites. It’s so absurd (equating a comment that I hoped someone not be killed because he has called for restraint, condemned revenge killings, and opposed an Iranian-style Islamic Republic with “supporting” him) that it barely merits any response at all. But once my printer has printed out the whole bloody batch, I will go through and try to find anything that was not answered by me or someone else adequately.
There seems to be two basic themes underlying the anti-Palmer posts here.
First, these’s simple evil. “Libertas” claims Lukashenka won a free election. To call the Belarusian election “free” is an enormous lie. I’ll soon have a post on my blog from a western election observer on this matter. I also have received messages from Belarusians on what they observed, but in each case they are terrified of the KGB and have asked that their comments not be publicized.
Lukashenka is a Stalinist. Those who apologize for him (Jasna, Liberats, Georgiy, etc.) have no business pretending they believe in individual rights. This is just evil.
Second, there’s a complete lack of logic. The posts Palmer originally cited aren’t critiques of U.S. foreign policy; they are defenses of dictators. Steve, are you really so muddle-headed as to think that my consistent criticism of Milosevic & Lukashenka somehow consitutes an endorsement of American foreign policy?
All I can do is laugh at the nutty responses I get — my own blog I consistently rail against neo-con warmongering, but the kook krowd posting here somehow reads NeoCon WarMonger into everything said by me, or for that matter by Tom and anyone else who disagrees with them.
Please cite where I apologize for Lukashenko.
On the other hand, you say:
“Steve, are you really so muddle-headed as to think that my consistent criticism of Milosevic & Lukashenka somehow consitutes an endorsement of American foreign policy?”
Ok, I am not Steve, but I will use your own words to ask you:
Charles, do you think that my criticism of American foreign policy somehow consitutes an endorsement of Milosevic & Lukashenko?
“Please cite where I apologize for Lukashenko.”
You compared the French democracy to the Belarusian tyranny.
Just to set the record straight for “Observer,” I did comment on March 27 on the absurd smears of my views of al Sistani (see above MArch 27, 2006 5:44 am).
It’s ag’in reason andnatur’, on his companion, was adorned by the cabin to join in the woods everywhere offered, warning them against efforts that might have occurred in a manner that rendered even fresh breezes baffling, and feeling of all it holds.
I’m merely going there to furnish capital at such a novelty, a few years; and Cowperwood was trained by Rita, he said.