Cyrill Vatomsky, Where All Politics Are Global: Litvinenko, Colin Powell, Hugo Chaves and Baker-Hamilton

Litvinenko, Colin Powell, Hugo Chaves and Baker-Hamilton

Posted At : December 4, 2006 11:08 PM | Posted By : Cyrill Vatomsky
Related Categories: KSCO Radio Shows,Energy,Russia,Podcasts,LIberation of Iraq,Religion

December 03, 2006 Embassy of the New World Order

This show ended up more about perceived aspects of foreign politics then specific e vents. But this is fine, since perceived causes of events make policy in the long run.

First, Colin Power opened his mouth again in UAE and sounded like he was not a part of the current Administration for 4 years. He really irritates me with his holier then thou attitude and the grand toga of infallibility.

Then there was some reporter on CNN’s Week in War hoping for the new Secretary of Defense to be Robert Gates to be independent from Bush.

Then there was Tim Russet with Meet the Press who called for the Bush Administration to publicly confess, admit mistakes, as if this is more important then winning.

And of course, there is that Newsweek cover and headline – “Will Bush Listen?” – that reminded me of a riot we had at USCS some months ago, where the biggest complain students had that “they are not listened to.”

Kindergarten, really! Somehow, for the Newsweek editors, Tim Russets, UCSC students, Carl Levins and myriads of others, the word listen now mean agree, accept and change accordingly. Yes, students, the Regents have listened to you, yes, Carl Levin the President has listened to you, yes, Newsweek, President will listen to Baker. You do not even know full well what they are going to say, but just because it is supposedly bipartisan, it must be final truth and Bush must agree, accept and change.

What else is perceived? Hugo Chavez is a populist authoritarian posed to be reelected as President of Venezuela. Has his rule been good for his country? Not really.

100,000 fewer houses for the poor were built during his 8 years then in 5 under the previous administration.
Venezuela has, on the whole, slipped on the Human Poverty Index because of its failure to improve access to basic needs
Inflation is on the rise and price controls have led to shortages of Venezuelan staples like coffee and beef.
Venezuela’s homicide rate has doubled to become the highest in the world, with 10,000 people murdered annually out of an overall population smaller than that of Canada.

I am sure Cindy Sheehan and Ruth Hunter would love this, since they seem to love dictators and do not care for the poor.

I was at an early Christmas party this past weekend. If felt like everybody there came up to me and aske – what do you think, did Putin do it? No, I don’t think Putin did it. And I do not think Putin ordered it. There The more I think of this the more I remember Litvinenko’s name from conspiracy theory radio shows… Something is too fishy, something smells here like Foucault’s Pendulum. But overall, jokes aside, I do think it has something to do with the internal struggle of Putin’s minions for the future of Russia Inc, or rather, who will be the CEO.

Tony Blair really baffles me. Of all countries, UK needs to apologize the least or be sorry the least for slavery. Whatever.

Lugar’s speech in Riga got analyses from Vladimir Socor. So here I addressed a bit what was laid down in this entry here.

Back to Litvinenko story. It is most curious to see Russia and its apologetics squirming trying to spin and reflect the high beams Russia got caught in like the stunned deer. It is not really relevant whether Putin did it or not, as I said, I do not know which frightens me most – if he did order the killing or if he did not. For one reason or another, world media and it appears many people in the Free West do not trust Putin and think him capable of quite a level of nastiness. Oh, but of course, it is all Russo phobia, and no previous actions by either USSR, Russia or Putin justify this level of distrust. No way!

I however thoroughly enjoy the some want to put out. There used to be an official English Language Daily in the USSR called Moscow News. It served obvious propaganda purposes and apparently still does. A person named Robert Bridge, most likely and expat – so it seems to be an fair exchange: the West got me, and Russia got itself a Robert Bridge – complains comically:

Following the reaction in the western media to the PR-managed death of Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB agent who defected to London six years ago, it seems safe to say that the juridical dictum 'innocent until proven guilty' does not apply to Russia. The Miranda rights for the Motherland reads something like, 'you are guilty until proven insane, and don't even think about calling a lawyer.' Or to quote the warped logic of an editorial in the Times, the Russian president "must prove by deeds he is not linked to Litvinenko's murder." Would the same sanctimonious paper demand that U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair 'prove by deeds that he is not linked to the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians?'

In so many words, the Times and other UK newspapers actually did, but this is not the issue. This guy, Robert Bridge, probably lived in the totalitarian state for just a tad too long, and thinks that press has something to do with following or issuing juridical dictums. I understand the confusion: when the press is controlled by the State either directly or through stooge-owners, and the State is the judge, the jury and God Almighty, then whatever press says is juridical…

Mr. Robert Bridge strangely and conveniently forgets that Scotland Yard does not even treat the death of Mr. Litvinenko as murder yet. There are no Miranda rights that apply to freedom of speech, Mr. Bridge. How quickly some Westerners seem to forget the basics! Or maybe that they never knew them and that’s why they work for propaganda outlets carrying someone else’s water?

Waiting for Godot.

I about had it with the Baker-Hamilton study group and all the brouhaha surrounding its awaited reports. Two more points to make:

The media is more concerned with headlines, that’s why they are all badgering Rice and Hadley and others in the Administration – WILL BUSH ADMIT, WILL BUSH CONFESS?!
The same exact people that has for decades been complaining about the realpolitik – inspired foreign policy when US cozied up to dictators here and there to offset Soviet dictators there and here. Now, the same exact people are lauding the return of the realist Mr. Baker.

Then came callers. A lot of the discussion revolved around morality, religion, theocracy, fascism. My atheist world view makes some people very upset I am sure. Subjects included Darfur, Jajaweed, Jacques Calvin, Zwingli, Karzai, Afghanistan, Russia, Mussolini, Bible, Jesus, you name it.

Finally, one of my favorite international blogs is back. The Brussels’ Journal compares Pat Buchanan to the lefty socialist leader in the Netherlands. Boy this brings memories. I remember how I upset my first board-op almost 10 years ago when I called Pat Buchanan a socialist. I am not alone!