This might be, as Finny said to Gene, a little "on the short side.”
Apologies in advance for those of you looking for Ulysses on a Saturday morning. Instead we'll be going for the brevity of a very simple equation.
A math problem. Indeed, a problem, for all of us. Especially for the freedom and democracy-thirsty Arab revolutionaries who are fighting, bleeding and dying as we sit in the comfort of our own homes and opinions.
Well, how about a little less comfort?
A few less opinions.
FACT: The Obama administration is now firmly on the side of the Arab dictators contra the wishes and hopes and aspirations and very legitimate demands of the Arab people.
Our math problem has two components; 1 and 1.
We'll add them together to make 2.
Here's the first component, a link, care of the WSJ:
U.S. Wavers on 'Regime Change'
WASHINGTON—After weeks of internal debate on how to respond to uprisings in the Arab world, the Obama administration is settling on a Middle East strategy: help keep longtime allies who are willing to reform in power, even if that means the full democratic demands of their newly emboldened citizens might have to wait.
Hmm. Couldn't be true. Could it? I mean, he (quite slowly) cut Mubarak and Gaddafi loose, right?! Well, yeah, but those examples have proven quite instructive...
One more grab from the WSJ article, then go read the whole thing yourself:
The approach has emerged amid furious lobbying of the administration by Arab governments, who were alarmed that President Barack Obama had abandoned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and worried that, if the U.S. did the same to the beleaguered king of Bahrain, a chain of revolts could sweep them from power, too, and further upend the region's stability.
The strategy also comes in the face of domestic U.S. criticism that the administration sent mixed messages at first in Egypt, tentatively backing Mr. Mubarak before deciding to throw its full support behind the protesters demanding his ouster. Likewise in Bahrain, the U.S. decision to throw a lifeline to the ruling family came after sharp criticism of its handling of protests there.
So, no more mixed messages, guys.
This time we're on the side of the guys in white. The kings. The scoundrels. The dictators.
Remember, Sometimes Good Guys Don't Wear White
Especially not now.
And how can we justify this about-face?
An about-face not only in contrast to rhetoric regarding Egypt and Libya?
An about-face not only in stark contravention to our founding principles of liberty and democracy and the requisite unalienable rights we're always willing to ignore when the cascade of freedom hits nations with a slightly darker hue than our own?
But an about-face ultimately against the very notion of unchained humanity itself--though what use is humanity chained?--and ultimately a threat to the freedom and peace of all of us. And here, I must dust off the Diderot:
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
(And, for all the religious or spiritual folks here, please see in Diderot's words an affront to arbitrary authority and concentrations of power, however they may manifest themselves, not to belief itself. Belief is sacred and profound and honest. And no offense herein is meant. Remember, Diderot grew up in the time when all such power was concentrated in the hands of priests, kings, clerics...elites.)
How do we explain this? (Not in actuality, but in public, in actuality there are a great and grand confluence of factors that serious people like those at the helm of our freedom-despising government must take into account.)
Well, we'll need our second component. The other "1".
(We are solving a math problem here, if you recall.)
Hey, Hillary Clinton's gotta be good for something in her current iteration (other than issuing orders to spy on foreign diplomats):
U.S. for first time cites Iran role as leading factor in Mideast unrest
This is, a claim, which, as Jeremy Scahill (The Nation) recently said, is "as credible as Gaddafi's of protesters on hallucinogenics".
Of course he was talking about Yemen in particular... but let's not shit ourselves. (Appreciate the French.)
1 + 1 = 2.
With "2" expressing the same old story and status quo: the US vs. the voices of the people.
Here's how we're justifying the about-face:
In the name of stability! And personal friendships! And business interests!
Scary Iran. And even scarier Hezbullah. And scariest evz Hamas.
They're the ones behind the unrest. Not the Arab people who have been systematically oppressed, exploited, brutalized, victimized, beaten, murdered and more for decades with the winking eye and ever-knowing nod of America.
It's not really these people fighting back anymore. And, if it is, they're being played for fools by these marginal and regional resistance movements that are really only popular in their own respective countries. Umm. I mean. ISLAMISTS. IRAN!!!!!
Egad. The horror.
Scared yet? Because you're supposed to be.
But, hey, Hillary, Barack, et, al.
Take that weak bullshit out of here.