Friday, July 22, 2005



These books I consider to be hugely worth reading. Recommended:

1. Why We Fight -- William Bennett

2. What Went Wrong -- Bernard Lewis

3. Imperial Hubris -- Anonymous

4. Alpha and Omega -- Charles Seife

5. Unholy Alliance -- David Horowitz

6. The Politics of Bad Faith -- David Horowitz

7. Inventing Reality -- Michael Parenti

8. Useful Idiots -- Mona Charen

9. Shut Up and Sing - Laura Ingraham

10. Constitutional Chaos -- Andrew Napolitano

11. The Art of War -- Sun-tzu

12. The Conservative Mind -- Russell Kirk

13. The Pentagon's New Map -- Thomas P.M. Barnett

14. How Now Shall We Live -- Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey

15. Neoconservatism -- Irving Kristol

16. Persecution -- David Limbaugh

17. The Lexus and the Olive Tree -- Thomas L. Friedman

After what happened in Iraq, the neocons should review their doctrine: Iraqis are not free.
How does their current condition compare to their former condition under SH, if you know the answer accurately enouigh?
Because we have people at the Pentagon who think in terms of stability while human rights took a serious hit in many of these stabilized cities where killings happen everyday, most particularly in Basrah. It's not freedom, it's oppression.
Here is an example:

The bodies of young women began to appear in Basra six weeks ago.

First there was a group of three, then two, and last week the corpses of six were found, each victim riddled by gunshots and left on the street to die in pools of blood.

The Iraqi police say they have no strong leads. But it is an open secret in the port city why they died.

They worked as prostitutes and their killers are widely believed to be one of the city's armed militias. In recent months they have become increasingly violent in their campaign to enforce a strict interpretation of the social code of Islam.

The district where the latest victims were discovered is one of the city's poorest. Sewage runs beside the pavement and through the holes in the walls of buildings can be seen thin mattresses and battered pots and pans.

No one wanted to talk about the details of the murders. "I do not want to be killed," one man said.
On July 22, 2005 you responded to a comment on your "rules for commenting" post with the following statement.

"Why don't you post with your name?
Afraid to? Hmmmm, never thought of that aspect. I frown on that practice, but I will not delete a comment on that basis. So cloak yourself in your anonymity."

And yet here on your booklist you post the following:

"3. Imperial Hubris -- Anonymous"

So, do you frown only on people who practice anonymity when they say things you disagree with? What I've seen here seems pretty contradictory but, you may have a valid and cogent reason. I'd just like to hear it.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?