||buy office outlook 2003
purchase 2007 word
windows 7 professional price comparison
microsoft office price walmart
buy coreldraw graphics suite x7 commercial
cheap reason 4
purchase wordperfect program
purchase ms office 2003 product key
cost of adobe flash professional cc 2014
cheap lightroom beta
ableton suite buy
buy microsoft office visio standard 2003
buy windows server 2008 r2 datacenter
buy iwork 2009
purchase 2003 server license best price bento 3
buy photoshop cs5 student
price of adobe flash com server
buy parallels desktop 5 for mac
buy sony vegas 7
purchase windows 7 family pack
buy adobe premiere cs5
buy adobe creative suite 3 design premium
purchase winfax pro 10.02
buy nuance paperport professional 12
best price filemaker pro server
cheap microsoft office 2013 home and business
cheapest office 2010 professional
best price microsoft mappoint 2009
cheapest photoshop elements 7 upgrade
Updated 10:53 6.19.2014
Further updated 7:14 6.20.2014
Every now and then, WTF just doesn’t do it, and you have to holler out, WHAT THE FUCK??????
Over the past two days the American ambassador, Robert S. Beecroft, along with Brett McGurk, the senior State Department official on Iraq and Iran, have met with Usama Nujaifi, the leader of the largest Sunni contingent, United For Reform, and with Ahmad Chalabi, one of the several potential Shiite candidates for prime minister, according to people close to each of those factions, as well as other political figures.
That’s right: the Obama administration, according to the New York Times and other sources, are apparently considering a renewal of US support for Ahmad Chalabi, the prepackaged Bush administration choice to parachute in and make Iraq safe for looting by US oil and arms trade interests, who coincidentally provided much of the fabricated “evidence” used by the Bushies to justify the invasion.
Continue reading The past is prologue, those who don’t learn are doomed, blah blah blah: but Ahmad Fucking Chalabi?
I was browsing through my news feed yesterday morning when I ran across a story about the US bombing a wedding in Afghanistan. I thought something like “Jeez, again?”* and didn’t click through for the full story because it was so familiar. Now I can’t find it, but I think it said 30 dead. . . . → Read More: Routine carnage in Boston
The invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of Libya’s Qaddafi are supposed by liberal interventionists to have been good wars. Most of them have by now had their fill of Afghanistan and want out, but getting out is likely to be a nightmare. The Libyan adventure is still quite popular, when it is remembered, but is well on the way to becoming a classic case study in blowback. A recent story in Foreign Affairs magazine, the house organ of the Council on Foreign Relations, named some of the harsh consequences of the war for nearby countries and Libya herself.
First, there are the weapons: The neighborhood, especially Algeria, Mauritania, and Niger, was always uneasy about Libya’s civil war. Many feared that it would pry the lid off Tripoli’s sizeable weapons cache and lead to the dispersal of arms across the region. It turns out that they were right to be worried. Then, there is the money: Locating Libya’s financial assets after the war has been another complicated matter. Members of Qaddafi’s inner circle who know where the money is stashed are missing or unidentifiable. Basically, billions of dollars might wind up in the hands of individuals who could use the cash to sponsor terrorism or otherwise destabilize Libya. And finally, there are the refugees: Tens of thousands of Africans, no longer welcome in Libya, returned home this year. Besides the fact that many of them are ripe for jihadi infiltration, they will further strain the region’s weak economies. Already, food security is becoming a major issue and famine looms.
Continue reading The good wars: Libya metastasizes and Afghanistan has a cobra snake for a necktie
It’s like an epidemic. First there was David Atkins, representing from the mean streets of Santa Barbara for the liberal fans of violent empire, and now Max Boot, Dean of the Kipling School for Foreign Policy in the 21st Century, has popped his head up to chitter angrily at opponents of US military intervention in Syria.
Max Boot … I love Max Boot. He’s got the perfect imperialist name and, unlike Atkins, has both self-awareness and balls enough to proudly quote from “The White Man’s Burden” in one of his essays—America’s Destiny Is to Police the World, published in the Financial Times a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq. But more than that, he penned the single best line ever written in support of American imperialism in a piece, The Case for American Empire, that appeared in the Weekly Standard a few weeks post-911. Stand back and let it shine, o my brothers …
Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.
You could make a career out of deconstructing that. It’s glorious.
Continue reading “The Kipling is strong with this one …”
I have been lazy about referring the two of you to other blogs. I keep forgetting that it’s perfectly legitimate in this business to just quote stuff and then say I wrote something, which makes me feel better about not having written anything. Here are some things that people I like have found other people to be fantastically wrong about.
Jack Crow on the threat to traditional marriage:
If you’re looking for what degrades or corrupts the, heh, marriage bond, you ain’t ever going to find it the affections and affectations of homosexuals. But, you will find a whole lot of sundered wedded union in the wake of deployment, military industrial centralization and the austerity which follows war upon war. That shit is disruptive. The gays, not so much.
Continue reading Blogs on Parade: “They’re Wrong About Everything” edition
The latest scam spam in my inbox is a letter from a high-ranking official of the International Monetary Fund telling me to deal only with him in recovering my money from Nigeria. What is it with Nigeria?
Okay, so the war in Iraq is over, according to Obama. This is because the Iraqis rejected his energetic pleas to let him keep some troops in the country—”Okay, not 30,000. How about 10,000? 5? 3500? Okay, fine, we’re leaving, but don’t blame me if we have to come back in with guns a-blazing …”—rather than observing the exit plan humorously agreed upon by the Bush administration.
But even with that we’re not leaving, not if you count the 16,000-strong crowd manning the murder holes in the State Department’s gigantic downtown Baghdad bunker. By way of comparison, that’s almost as many people as staff every other US embassy in the world combined, minus Afghanistan.
Continue reading The IMF wants me, plus, Iraq Who?
If you were to set out building a fantasy Bad Foreign Policy team, one that could reliably saddle you with the most foul, murderous foreign policy disasters imaginable, the place you would want to start is here, at the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). That’s what the Bush administration did, staffing their foreign policy and national security establishments with signatories to the now-dormant organization’s statement of principles.
Continue reading The case for invading Iraq: Mitt Romney’s foreign policy team is on it
The New York Times editorial board chooses the not-quite-successful-yet six-month effort to kill Muammar Gaddafi or chase him out of Libya as an occasion to scold our NATO friends; Barack Obama runs recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan through the scrubber; David Ignatius gives Tom Friedman a run for the money.
In an editorial entitled “NATO’s Teachable Moment“, the Times editors decry the degree to which the UK and France had to rely on the US to fill gaps in the NATO supply of munitions and accessories such as AWACs (Airborne Warning And Control System) aircraft during the six-month campaign against Libya. It is evidence, they say, that those countries are overly and unfairly reliant on the US war machine.
They also resurrect former US secretary of war Bob Gates’s hilarious warning that NATO countries “risked becoming militarily irrelevant unless they stepped up investment in their forces and equipment.”
To Gates and the editorial board, that’s a shameful future. But I ask you: could there possibly be any more cheerful fate in this day and age than to become militarily irrelevant?
Continue reading Today, we are all cheese-eating surrender monkeys
Yesterday I wrote this somewhat carefully considered thing about how Obama’s reelection prospects aren’t as bad as a lot of people think because he’ll have many boatloads of money and the only official GOP candidates who aren’t too obviously insane to win in the general election are saddled with a Mormon problem that will probably doom them in the primaries. That could change, but so far none of the Republicans who don’t have those problems seem to think they can win, so they’re not running.
What never occurred to me is that Obama might run on his record; I just assumed he would run a two-pronged effort to paint Republicans as the slavering sociopaths they are while he proposes popular legislation that he can’t and probably doesn’t want to get passed. I forget that some people still take him seriously, and that presumably he and his staff do as well.
Continue reading So, well, okay: Maybe Obama really is toast.
I wish only to point out that among the nearly 200 movers and shakers on the “progressive” email list in which I occasionally participate, not a single one thinks beating swords into ploughshares is a goal worth investing in.
Mostly that’s because nobody thinks taking down the business end of the empire is . . . → Read More: The myth of elephants; “I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.”