Transcript from the tuesday, September 12th edition of "The View from Planet Desmond"
Planet Desmond 19: 9-12-06—A story you probably missed
Hey everyone thanks for joining me again on the Planet, hope you all had a nice day of reflection yesterday, and hopefully you didn’t drown in all that “are we safer?” B-S that’s been all over the networks for the last week. And I pray to GOD you didn’t fall for that ABC dramatization the path to 9-11 which—from what I understand was just a big disgusting blame fest on President Clinton which –really folks is as disingenuous as it comes.
I don’t want to spend too much time on this because it’s not today’s topic, but the facts just don’t support the statement that 9-11 was mostly Clinton’s fault. We had Osama Bin Laden pegged at one of his training camps and Clinton was ready to push the red button and vaporize the SOB, but there was a REALLY strong possibility of serious civilian casualties and foreign diplomats in the area, so the strike was called off.
Another time Clinton authorized a group of commandos to go into Pakistan and find and kill bin laden, but the operation was called off when now president Pervez Musharaf suddenly seized control of the government.
Clinton and military generals also organized a missile strike on a suspected Bin Laden hideout, but republicans in congress became outraged because they saw it as a distraction from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
And just to wrap this up—DO NOT believe partisan hacks like Sean Hannity who claims Sudan was ready to turn Bin Laden over to the U-S but Clinton refused.
That story was purported on fox news by an American business man with Sudanese business interests. For one, Sudan offered only to apprehend Bin Laden and turn him over to the Saudis, which the Saudis refused, and second, how the hell could we trust anything coming from the government of Sudan?
You’re talking about a country that’s been plunged in civil war and genocide and hasn’t had a legitimate government in more than a decade. According to the Washington Post on October 3, 2001, Sudan said it was willing to cooperate in the war on terror if the U-S lifted economic sanctions against the country. But the FBI and CIA stopped caring about Sudan once all the information they gave our government turned out to be false.
Besides, hindsight is 20/20, republicans were too busy playing partisan politics to give Clinton more authority hunt down Bin Laden. And before 9-11 the concept of pre-emption would not have been justified, especially in that political environment. Don’t forget the Clinton administration gave copious reports to the Bush administration during transition that Al-Qaeda was becoming a huge treat and had an active plan to attack America.
So the bottom line here is could Clinton have done more? Of course, but Bush the first could have done more, and we all know our current bumbling president was too busy playing golf and vacationing than actually running this country.
So, just had to get that out there…don’t forget it all happened on Bush’s watch people.
Anyway, I wanted to bring a story to your attention this week that I’m sure evaded you in all the 9-11 commemorative programming. This is a pretty short article from the San Francisco chronicle on Sunday, let me just read to you real quick…
So at first glance you’re probably thinking so what right? These 5 piddily little countries don’t even have like, half the GDP of China, so who cares about some nuclear treaty?
I mean so what if they say they’re committing their uranium to peaceful purposes, cuse China could just come in and buy it all and turn it into nukes if they wanted, or Russia or the U-S or Pakistan or India and what can be done about it?
Well that part is true, and that sucks. But the point is, you have 5 countries, no matter how small—control HUGE amounts of uranium. And they signed this treaty to try and make a point. They’re trying to do what little they can to end this apocalyptic game of nuclear proliferation, and the U-S didn’t even have the courtesy to send someone to the signing ceremony. Neither did the U-K or France.
They object to the provision that allows Russia to transport and deploy nuclear weapons in the region under certain circumstances—whatever that means but c’mon what can they do? It’s Russia! They can’t mess with their former rulers. I mean c’mon those countries have only been independent now for about 15 years and Russia is not exactly a model democracy so if I were any one of these country’s I wouldn’t do ANYTHING to tick them off.
It may sound like hypocrisy, but then just look at what the U-S has done in the past year. We condemn Iran because they want to develop nuclear technology—and make no mistake that is definitely a huge problem, but then Bush goes to India and says “oh sure you can have nuclear power, even though you have nuclear weapons facilities and you won’t let IAEA inspectors in to see what’s going on, sure that’s okay.
This is why western governments are suffering so much around the world. So maybe this treaty thing was more symbolic than anything else, but the U-S, U-K and France all have nukes—the U-S more than anybody else I might add and they all call for an end to nuclear proliferation and then they don’t even have the respect to send representatives to this signing ceremony.
It’s just like the whole Kyoto protocol: the U-S objects because China and India didn’t ratify it…well then how does any progress ever get started? The U-S is the wealthiest, most advanced nation on earth. We’re the ones who’ve contributed more to the greenhouse problem and nuclear proliferation than anybody else, yet we don’t want to take any leadership to resolve the issues. How could we possibly have any credibility left after acting like this?
It’s our responsibility to take action since we’re the nation most capable of doing so. When 3 of the biggest nuclear players in the world don’t attend this kind of event it sends a big F-U to the rest of the world. As if to say “well, you guys aren’t doing enough to contain Russia so screw it, we’re not interested.” Then what are they supposed to say? “Well screw it then we need money and we’ll sell our uranium to Iran.” And then nothing gets accomplished because the west has this holier than thou mentality which is killing our relationships with the developing world.
How does anything ever get accomplished when this kind of immature foreign policy is allowed to go on? We sure as hell can’t wait for China and Russia to take leadership on the nuclear issue. And this kind of behavior is not going to get Pakistan and Iran to back off their nuclear programs. And look I’m not saying we need to dismantle all of our nuclear weapons this very instant, but we need to spur change, no matter how slowly. And this little treaty may sound just symbolic but it’s a start.
I mean what kind of message were we even trying to send by not attending this event? That we don’t trust Russia and we don’t care about you even though you have some of the biggest uranium deposits in the world? Definitely a step backwards in our relations with central Asia. The fact of the matter is that no progress will ever be made on ANY issue if the U-S doesn’t get on board.
Imagine a playground with 10 kids. 5 of those kids stick together and have baseball bats to protect themselves from 2 of the other kids who have really big baseball bats. The other 3 kids just want to do their own thing but still have baseball bats for protection. Now those 5 say “hey, we’re giving up our baseball bats because we shouldn’t need ‘em.” And the group of 3 says “hey that’s a good idea, but I won’t agree unless those two kids with the BIG bats agree too.” So the group of 5 ask the kids with the big bats to give ‘em up and they say “NO, we’re not giving up our bats.” The group asks why? Why won’t you give up your bats and they’d say something like “cuse we don’t want to. We can do whatever we want cuse we have these.” So now the other 8 just say screw that then, and they’re back to square one. Oh and then of course the two kids with the big bats would probably team up and demand the other 8 get rid of theirs. So…
Okay sorry I’m not really good at analogies but I think you know what I’m saying here, we’re in a stalemate with weapons that can destroy this world 10 times over. In fact it would only take the detonation of 20 nuclear weapons in a short period of time to create a nuclear winter so bad it would likely kill most of the plant and animal species on Earth.
And by the way YOUR U-S Government wants to essentially REBUILD our already vast nuclear arsenal because we’re afraid that the perfectly good nukes we have now may become faulty with age.
So let’s review as we wrap this up: The U-S has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. We condemn anyone else who wants to obtain nukes yet we can’t even attend a nice signing ceremony that aims to curb nuclear proliferation. If anything it would have been a very nice diplomatic gesture but no. Then we say its okay for India to have nuclear power despite the fact that they’ve been rather clandestine about it and won’t let IAEA inspectors in. And we urge the rest of the world to get rid of their nukes as we continue to not only retain, but also REBUILD the 10-thousand some odd nukes we have.
Look folks you know from my other podcasts I love this country but if all this doesn’t smack of idiotic foreign policy to you, well then God damn I might just have to move to Canada and be done with all this lunatic government.
Alright then that’s it for this weeks Planet, don’t forget that “Where’s the Outrage?” has moved to Friday’s to give you a good little shot of anger before he weekend, and I think this week I’m just going to go all out and tell you why I KNOW history will reflect the presidency of George W. Bush as one of the worst the nation has ever known. Definitely going to be good times so please join me for that. And until next time, this has been…