Today, the editorial page of The Moncton Times and Transcript featured a commentary by Alan Dowd, Sernior Fellow, no less, of The Fraser Insitute. (In fact, Mr. Dowd has a long history of being a fellow or director or writer for all sorts of these coporation-financed, propaganda-spouting outfits. He also is a frequent contributor of wisdom for magazines on the very far right, commenting on everything from health care to foreign affairs and how to fight wars. And what training does he have for this?
Well, he has a BA in politics from Butler University. (clap. clap.) And he has an MA in Philanthropic Studies (whatever that might be.)
Butler U. offers a list on the web of its distinguished graduates - two Indianapolis race drivers, a baseball pithcher, Jim Jones (the preacher who kiled his followers with poison), and lots of other people I've never heard of. The don't mention Alan Dowd.
I don't blame them.
Today's gem deals with the NATO war in Libya. Dowd's writing style is almost incoherent. But enough can be abstacted to figure our he is saying that the war in Libya is protect civilians, and that the US must contribute more military power. In short, there is enough coherent text for any person with common sense (even if without a master's degree in Philanthropic studies) to realize that Dowd is either a fool or a liar.
NATO is not intervening in Libya as a humanitarian effort of any sort. If it ever wanted to do such a thing, it would have pressed for a no fly zone over Iraq when the US and Britain invaded to kill over a million civilians. (Isn't that enough to count as a massacre?)
It would now be ordering no-fly zones over Bahrain where that country's troops, backed up by Saudi Arabian troops, are now mudering protestors - not rebels, protestors. In Saudi Arabia, itself, the army is tortutring, and killing protestors. NATO could surely enforce a no fly zone over Gaza where Israeli jets and helicopters routinely attack defenceless civilians. Or they could have a no fly zone in Pakistan where US drones are routinely killing Pakistani civilians. But not a word on any of those from our hypocrite leaders.
Dowd would have to be unspeakably dense not to have figured that out. So I call him a liar to be polite. After all, It's rude to make fun of a person for being unspeakably stupid.
There is plenty of evidence that American, British and French agents fomented the uprising in Libya. There's plenty of evidence the rebels do not have majority support. There's plenty of evidence the object of the intervention is to replace Ghadaffi with a more agreeable leader.
Oh, I know. Ghadaffi is a bad man. So what? The leaders of NATO have never had trouble supporting bad men, from generations of torturing, murdering dictators in Central America, to a torturing, murdering Shah in Iran, to the King of Saudi Arabia, probably the severest and most fanatical leader in the in the middle east. So why pick on Ghadaffi?
In fact, Ghadaffi has been a close ally to Britain, France and the US for at least a dozen years. Why the sudden, bad feelings?
Ghadaffi has been a bad boy. He has allowed the Chinese a share of Libya's oil fields. And it gets worse.
The US, followed by Britain and France has been pushing for a union of South Africa. It would, of course, be managed by NATO puppets under US leadership - and it would keep all of Africa's resources, markets, and cheap labour for the NATO powers - mostly the US.
Oh, Mr. Dowd's use of terms like "time-limited" means it should go on as long as necessary; and "scope-limited" means we should send in ground troops. Yeah. That'll save a lot of civilian lives. In short, he wants another Iraq or Afghanistan becasue Ghadaffi has to be replaced by a stooge. But the only ones who will get humanitarian aid our of that are corporations based in NATO countries.
Anyway, the troops on the ground are already there. They're called advisers, consultants, technical support - just like they were when Kennedy sent them to Vietnam. In fact, there were almost certainly small groups of NATO special forces in Libya before there was a rebellion. It's almost certainly that they are the ones who started it. Did The Moncton Times and Transcript carry the story about a leading rebel figure who was a general in the Iranian army, but who defected to the US years ago to become a CIA asset?
Guess the name of a major New Brunswick corporation that provides support for propaganda hacks like Alan Dowd. I would guess that Dowd makes big money for what he does. So forget med school or law. Get a BA in politics with an MA in philoanthropy. The kiss the right asses.