response to Mike Eisenstadt's critique

[Jon Ford]

Great response, Joe-- Mike buys the pentagon line all the way, plus he has a 
deep hatred of everything Arab-- these tendencies frequently cloud his 
judgment!

Jon


>From: "Joseph H. Rowe" <paramod@club-internet.fr>
>To: Michael Eisenstadt <michaele@ando.pair.com>
>CC: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
>Subject: response to Mike Eisenstadt's critique
>Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:51:25 +0100
>
>
> >
> >I wouldnt take what Joe Rowe forwarded very seriously. The
> >Figaro is not itself a very serious newspaper and the notion
> >that Osama would check in to the American Hospital in Dubai
> >for a procedure last summer beggars belief. At least my belief.
>
> >Mike Eisenstadt
>
>	Mike, I'm not sure what your criteria for a "serious:" newspaper
>are. Le Figaro is one of the top establishment dailies in France, and
>whether or not you agree with its politics (which I generally don't), it is
>at least as "serious" a paper as any big American daily owned by a giant
>media corporation. It has a highly professional staff of international
>correspondents and reporters. Major writers have occasionally written
>articles for it, including Jean Paulhan, André Malraux, and others.
>	Le Figaro can be criticized for many things, but it is absolutely
>not a scandal-sheet or sensationalist tabloid, as you seem to insinuate.
>And if you suppose for one moment that the TOTAL BLACKOUT of this story  in
>the mainstream American press is due to the wise discrimination of
>American editors, who agree with you that Le Figaro is "not serious" (and
>their rags supposedly are!), then either you are incredibly naive --- which
>I know not to be the case --- or else you are  rationalizing your own
>reluctance to admit that you, too, mon cher ami, are capable of  being
>misled and fooled by the American media. I say this because you curiously
>had nothing at all to say about the essay's _other_  important evidence
>that the CIA had ample, serious warnings about an impending suicide
>airliner attack, and did nothing about it. This evidence is thoroughly
>documented, and there is even more of it at the  websites mentioned. This
>would support the thesis that the CIA was uninterested in going after bin
>Laden until the time was "right" ----  whether or not Le Figaro's source
>turns out to be reliable.
>	I personally don't believe in an active conspiracy, but the
>evidence seems to indicate a passive one: "OK, if those damn democrats
>won't give us a proper military budget, we'll let them find out what
>terrorism is really all about!" Nevertheless, such a passive conspiracy
>would be almost as heinous and criminal as an active one, at least in my
>system of ethics. If such a conspiracy of deliberate negligence does exist,
>as the evidence suggests, then it has certainly achieved its objective, in
>spades: a blank check from terrified taxpayers to the military-industrial
>complex,  a devaluing of dissent and civil rights, and a very promising
>replacement for the Cold War.
>	I recommend that you (or any other reader of this) visit the
>website http://www.copvcia.com and inform yourself, before engaing in more
>polemics about a whole area of current events of which you are bound to be
>ignorant, if you depend only on the likes of the New York Times, the
>Washington Post, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, etc, etc..... to find out about
>current events.
>
>
>Joseph
>
>Joseph Rowe
>chez Arcosud
>1, rue Constance, code porte 0118
>75018 Paris, France
>
>tel. (331) 42 55 18 92
>
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx