I can just hear Saudi Crown Prince MBS wondering aloud in one
of the 150,000 rooms in his palace, “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome
journalist?” The Saudi super-secret Impossible
Mission Force commander MoEathan bin Huntallooakbar takes the Crown Prince’s
lament for action.
MoEathan assembles his Saudi IM Force. He gives his briefing:
This is the target – Jamal Khashoggi. Our mission, should we choose to accept it,
is to snatch Khashoggi, kill him, dismember his body, return it to Saudi Arabia
and spread it to the winds. As always,
if any of our IM Force is killed or captured, the Crown will disavow any
knowledge of our activities.
Question: Will we need
any high tech devices, disguises, aliases, drugs, green screen TV devises to
make the target think he’s somewhere he’s not, an elaborate map of the city
sewer system, ability to hack city traffic lights for a quick escape or fake
diamonds, bonds or gold – you know the usual stuff these IMF missions use?
Answer: No, but we
will need a couple of good bone saws.
The plan is remarkably simple. We fly into Turkey in full
view of the world. We invite Khashoggi to our consulate in full view of the
world. When he arrives, we kill him,
dismember the body, load it into our luggage and fly home.
Question: This looks
like an ordinary run of the mill demonstration of the typical barbarity that
occurs in the Middle East hundreds of times every day, why is this an IMF
mission?
Answer: Because we –
the Saudi IMF - are the ones doing it this time.
Question: Are we
worried about blowback for murdering a well know journalist?
Answer: No. We killed Danny Pearl with nary a word. We killed four Americans including an
ambassador with nary a word. We do this sh*t
all of the time. Why would this be any
different?
Question: Won’t the
rabid American media try to hang the murder on PDJT?
Answer: That, of
course, would be totally hypocritical.
If they didn’t blame Shrillda the Hutt for Benghazi, how the hell can
they blame PDJT for what we do to Khashoggi?
Look, as a guy who once advocated for nuking Mecca (kiddingly
[I think]), no one has less regard for the sh*thole that is the Middle East in
general and Saudi Arabia in particular than Lex. We should not do one thing in
the Middle East that is inconsistent with our own national security and
economic well-being.
Khashoggi’s dead. We should
feign as much indignation as necessary to get on the other side of his
murder. We should sanction Saudi Arabia
to the extent that it does not threaten our economy or national security.
Individual Americans can afford to be outraged by Khashoggi’s
death. The American government cannot.
$5 a gallon gasoline and/or canceling 110 billion dollar military equipment
deal that will push Saudi toward the Russians or Chinese serves no purpose –
zero.
The exact same people who believed that The Empty Suit was
too stupid or incompetent to know what was going on his administration with
regard to Lois Learner, Shrillda the Hutt, The Wad Holder et al’s criminal
activities are now saying that Saudis know everything that everyone in their satrap
is up to.
My guess is that TES and the Saudis both knew.
Too funny
Orin Hatch took a DNA test. The results are hilarious.
Orin Hatch took a DNA test. The results are hilarious.
Today’s JG
rant
I had to check. Yup,
it’s the same guy. The same Bill Bruening
that used John Cardinal Newman’s notion of “converging probabilities” to divine
that Sarah Sanders is likely a liar (JG letter of Jun 16th) has
dumped that notion to conclude that Dr. Blasey Ford’s oft changing, unsubstantiated,
fantastical tale of sexual assault at the hands of (stew in this Bill) Supreme
Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh qualifies her for heroine status (JG
letter of Oct 18th).
Bruening cannot be serious.
Dr. Ford’s story has more holes in it than the star ball at the Chicago Planetarium. Dr. Ford’s story is not just uncorroborated. It’s
flat out contradicted by the four people Dr. Ford herself places at the
event. This is not a he said – she said
event. It’s a she said – they said event.
Dr. Ford flat out lied about at least a couple aspects of her
story. She claimed she developed a fear
of flying as a result of the “attack”, but she has been proven to be frequent
long-haul flier for vacations and annual family visits. She said she needed additional front door in
her home to ensure multiple escape routes.
Turns out the additional door was to create a separate entrance to a
self-contained unit within the home for a renter.
Dr. Ford can’t remember the key facts of the event such as
where it took place, when it took place, how she got to or from the event, but
she absolutely certain she only had one beer.
That’s very convenient.
Bruening should fairly apply Cardinal Newman’s notion of “converging
probabilities” to Dr. Ford’s ridiculous story then we can all marvel as he twists
himself like a bag of Twizzlers to conclude that she’s anything other than a
run of the mill liar or a psychopath in need of serious treatment.
Moral distinction
between lies,false statements
Sarah Sanders has
taken much criticism for deliberately making false statements during
her news conferences. I will not address her veracity but will focus on a
moral distinction that might make the controversy more focused.
Any one of us can make
a statement that is false. I might say that the answer to a math problem
is x, but it turns out I was mistaken because the answer was y. So, making a
statement that is not true is probably something we all have done at some
point. That fact is not politically controversial.
Making a claim that is
false and knowing the claim is false is lying. We can debate whether it is
always wrong to make a claim that you know is not true.
Sanders' statements
might be false, but they might also be lies. How can we tell the difference? I
do not have enough knowledge to say that her making a false statement is a
lie – that she knew the claim was false and made it anyway. I can say it
is possible her statement is false, but she might not know that it is false and
thus she did not lie. But the issue is more complex. Is her ignorance culpable
or nonculpable? Is the ignorance something she should have known and failed to
find out? Or is her ignorance something we have no right to expect her to know?
If you watch
Sanders' news conferences, you know she does not always give an answer to
a reporter's question. She often says that the question needs to be referred to
“outside counsel.” Is that a good answer or is it a transparent attempt to
avoid a tough question? Your answer might depend on your own political views.
The political
discussion about her statements is another issue. But we can all admit that
Sanders knows whether she is lying or just making a statement that is not
true. Others might also know she is lying. We need to distinguish between the
moral issue involved with lying from the political issues about Sanders' lying.
My own view is that
there is significant (but not totally compelling, at least at this time)
evidence that she knows she is lying and has culpable ignorance. I base that
view on my understanding of the notion of “converging probabilities,” a notion
borrowed from John Cardinal Newman.
Bill Bruening
Fort Wayne
Heroines, but no
heroes, in Kavanaugh process
The past few weeks
have been one catastrophe after another in the Senate's attempt to confirm
Brett Kavanaugh. Both parties should be ashamed at their “circus” performance.
We have plenty of
white men to blame – especially those who get angry and shake fingers at
those who disagree. It was not a high point for those of us who put country
above party. It was not a high point for those of us who believe that the truth
does not depend on red and blue.
I am disgusted by the
performance of the senators who looked ridiculous and petty. There are several
people who were not reduced to narrow partisanship, screaming and shouting. The
funny thing is that they are all women. I suggest there were no
heroes during the confirmation, but there were several heroines who
conducted themselves with honor and dignity.
Of
course, Christine Blasey Ford is a heroine – even if you
do not think Kavanaugh is guilty of anything. She conducted
herself with dignity and principle. She was not well treated by the committee
and others involved in the hearing.
The second heroine is
Brett Kavanaugh's wife, Ashley. She sat behind him during what had to be an
excruciating hearing concerning her husband's behavior. She sat stoically
and obviously defended her husband both by her presence and her silence.
The third heroine is
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp. Her impassioned speech about why she could not vote for
confirmation is exactly the courage that elected officials need to emulate. You
do not have to agree with her position, but you need to admire her courage.
There are no heroes in
this catastrophe. The screaming and shouting was from men. After the hearings
were over, I felt the need to tell the women in my life that not all men are
like the officials who embarrassed themselves on national television. I felt
like watching Looney Tunes because the performance is at least funny and does
not make me want to vomit.
Bill Bruening
Fort Wayne
No comments:
Post a Comment