Foreign Service Worth Its Expense

September 4, 2011
Harry S Truman Building

In more than 25 years as a U.S. diplomat, I spent about half of my career serving abroad from Japan to Panama and Germany to Cote d'Ivoire, and I have been fortunate to witness the great things our country can do around the world.

Our diplomats work to enhance our national and economic security interests by promoting political stability and economic prosperity abroad. We do this at a cost of slightly more than one percent of the entire federal budget -- in fact, my colleagues in the Foreign Service and I barely could staff one aircraft carrier.

I know that we face a difficult budgetary climate, but American taxpayers get an excellent rate of return on their investment in diplomacy. Let me reflect on my career to show how drastically reducing State's budget is short-sighted.

In the 1990s, I served in Cote d'Ivoire when its neighbor, Liberia, slipped into a brutal civil war. U.S. citizens in Liberia suddenly found themselves surrounded by flying bullets, exploding mortars, and human atrocities.

From our embassies in Monrovia, Liberia's capital, and Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire's capital, my colleagues and I -- working with our military -- carried out a massive evacuation.

I watched as my fellow citizens walked off airplanes and literally kissed the ground.

In 2010, American travelers faced a crisis created by nature when an Icelandic volcano erupted and brought air traffic in Europe to a halt. Flights were shut down for more than a week because the ash would have caused serious damage to airplanes. As a result, nearly 30,000 U.S. citizens were stranded in Europe.

Some were elderly -- including a few World War II veterans -- and some needed medicine.

Others ran out of money and risked being kicked out of their hotels. From our embassy in Berlin, I led a task force to coordinate assistance to those who needed medicine or lodging until the crisis passed.

I spent another part of my career making sure that taxpayers were getting their money's worth in other ways.

In the late 1990s, drug lords and rebels operated with impunity in Colombia. They terrorized the country and made billions from selling drugs in the United States.

The Clinton and Bush administrations, with full congressional support, put into effect a multibillion-dollar effort to reverse this trend.

Our efforts made a difference by significantly reducing the flow of cocaine into the United States and ending the rebel insurgency that had destabilized the Colombian government.

These programs strengthened Colombia's law enforcement agencies, legal system, and local governments to bring drug lords to justice. That success let us improve our security and economic relationship with Colombia.

Looking back, I have had a rewarding career. I knew that when U.S. citizens needed their government in a crisis, my colleagues and I could help.

When presidents and Congress wanted to change policy in Colombia, we made sure our programs were effective and enhanced our national security.

But without an adequately funded State Department budget, our embassies and missions could struggle to perform the central and elementary tasks: protecting Americans, implementing programs that eradicate illness, hunger and economic deprivation, and opening new markets to American businesses.

Deep and draconian cuts would be penny wise and a ton foolish.

Editor's Note: This entry first appeared in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Comments

Comments

Zharkov
|
United States
September 5, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

When Gibson guitar is put out of business over some stupid technicality about who gets to shape the wood they use on guitars, its the government's fault that Gibson won't be remitting taxes.

Congress and the Executive have forced our industrial sector offshore, so everyone has to conserve including the State Department. The royal perogative of "Let them eat cake" doesn't apply when all the bakeries relocated to China.

Do we really need to hand out suitcases full of money to political opposition in foreign countries? Couldn't we support them with a handshake and a pat on the back?

Perhaps one less trip to Japan to express our regret for selling them the Fukushima reactors?

How about using the telephone instead of military aircraft?

Let's sign treaties with pencils so we can quickly erase agreements we shouldn't be making?

It's obvious the State Department could function on less money.

Any government agency can cut expenses much like any business can cut expenses, without cutting essential services.

number22
September 5, 2011

W.W. writes:

budget is never enough for gov sites but above all for ngo and foundations in a time of deep crisis who pays? Mexican and haitians

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
September 5, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Terrence Williamson,

Some folks complain about the unnaceptably high cost of war, and then claim war is a product of the failure of diplomacy.

Then they complain about the cost of keeping the US dept of State up and running to engage world-wide in diplomacy.

Me, I just complain about the absurdity of political stupidity and the low spark of such ethical infant's hypocracy.

For there's always an idiot out to inspire me.

(chuckle)

Keep up the good work Terrance, don't be discoraged by the naysayers and fools on the hill.

Best,

EJ

Zharkov
|
United States
September 7, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

@ Eric in NM:

It's not cost alone but the outcomes of our world diplomacy that are so disturbing.

The Telegraph (London) reports that jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are now on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

The Intel Hub.com reports that "This so called liberation of Libya is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the corporate media is actually reporting. NATO and the Libyan rebels have killed thousands of civilians while at the same time...pretend we are fighting for human rights. The coverage that is currently taking place in Libya is nothing less than pure propaganda ordered up by the CIA and NATO as support for this illegal war hits news lows."

ABC News reports that in 2007, the Department of Defense looked at more than 600 records of Al Qaeda's foreign fighters in Iraq and discovered about 20% of them were from Libya; and almost all of the Libyan Al Qaeda fighters hailed from the east -- cities like Benghazi, effectively the current opposition headquarters.

Recently, there are media reports that the rebels intend to govern Libya under Sharia Law, a system that is absolutely incompatible with democracy and human rights.

So the question is, can anyone in the State Department see this Libyan adventure ending in disaster for Libya?

Why should American taxpayers pay to spread Sharia Law across the Middle East?

Where are your "ethics" in telling the world that NATO bombed Libya to protect human rights?

What American national interest is involved in forcing Sharia Law into countries that never had it?

Should the State Department budget be rewarded for destabilizing the Middle East?

John P.
|
Greece
September 7, 2011

John P. in Greece writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico

You know these guys Sir, you know them… (I mean u understand their “minus thinking ability”).

From time to time they “come out of their closet” (LOL)

And then, back to their dark sided environment, full of mosquitos, ready to drink each other’s blood. Fortunately their blood.

Not ours, till now! (CHUCKLE)

You are absolutely right again, according to my poor opinion:

QUOTE: Some folks complain about the unnaceptably high cost of war, and then claim war is a product of the failure of diplomacy. END OF QUOTE.

@ Mr. Williamson

Thank you very much for your post Sir. You give us the power to keep on “believing”…

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
September 8, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ John in Greece,

A few points of logic;

One claiming to have a "poor" opinion is in fact having a humble one of his own, wheras a "poor" opinion is actually one that exemplifies the actions of a mosquito (IE; one that sucks),not to mention has an inherantly noxious attitude similar to oderous cardboard socks.

Yeah, I guess I do know these guys pretty well, but not nearly as well as they know themselves (in the biblical sense).

After all, it was your humble opinion I should write a book and also helped co-conspire the title; "The cure for Political Stupidity and/or How Not to go to War with America" (the idiot's guide)

One might consider the effort in the writing to be a twisted foreign service, as something any idiot can take home to mom, if she lets them in the door.

Besides, I've gone through an interesting mutation in the process of the writing, as my skin seems to be made of kevlar and pretty well mosquito proof.

I see you grocked the subtleties beyond the reading of my words you put in QUOTE's my friend, I just hope Congress figures it out.

Wonders never cease to be, how the talkin' monkey can confuse himself with questions posed as indescriminate commentary. Must be out to inspire me too I guess, but it takes more than trash talkin' to do that and get a rise out of me.

It's probably because some just can't handle the truth when it's in their face without trying to deny it or change the subject, so predictably it rivals the atomic clock for its rate of "intellectual" molecular decay.

(CNN excerpts Sept 6)

"Peaceful protesters are not 'terrorists,' " Ford wrote, "and after all the evidence accumulated over the past six months, no one except the Syrian government and its supporters believes that the peaceful protesters here are."

...

Ford concluded his note Tuesday with this: "This isn't about Western military intervention. This isn't about oil (many governments have banned its import). This isn't about Israel or the West wanting to dominate the Arab world (an old, discredited government line). This is about basic political freedoms from the United Nations' Human Rights Charter -- signed by Syria, don't forget -- which calls for freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly. And the United States wholly supports Syrians' rights to exercise those freedoms."

---end excerpts---

It's always nice to have a real diplomat help to put what I'm trying to get at in perspective..., by telling it like it is.

I mean to say John, I could really have some fun with verbal analogies and the merits of ethical infants, but this is barely publishable in such polite diplomatic company, and I'm probably pushing the envelope as it is on sensibilities.

Not that I'm directing this to anyone that is, or has any...(chuckle).

'bout time we got on with some "R" rated diplomacy round here..."Rude" that is...a bubblin' crude.

This PG13 stuff is rather self limiting in certain disrespect...when swatting mosquitos is in order.

EJ

John D.
|
United States
September 8, 2011

John D. in the U.S.A. writes:

And how did that $1.3 billion appropriation called "Plan Colombia" work out for U.S. tax payers? They sure got their monies worth out of that one!

Zharkov
|
United States
September 8, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

@ John in Greece:

Have you no questions about US policies and their outcomes? (Chuckle)

Any thoughts of your own about anything? (Giggle.)

What benefits Greece from Sharia Law in Libya? (Snicker)

John P.
|
Greece
September 8, 2011

John P. in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov in the U.S.A.

If you got any problem with me when I (regularly) agree with Eric, I’d advise you to see a doctor, or advance your argumentation. (Chuckle)

Become better and I’ll love you too…

You ask me if I have questions about US policies and their outcomes.

Yes! That’s why I’m here discussing things with you.

You ask me if I have thoughts of my own.

Yes! But I also appreciate other opinions that make me think better than I could have done it my own. In order to think, you must always “use” thinking tools you are provided with.

You ask me what benefits Greece from Sharia Law in Libya.

I don’t know what Sharia Law is and I don’t care what benefits Greece, France, or Italy. I could have been John P. in Japan, or Brazil posting exactly the same things. Then you would not have the chance to ask me this due to geo and other irrelevance.

And now, I got two questions for you:

1. Why are you supporting Ghaddafi and his expired regime? It’s more than obvious; the guy is crazy. Just watch TV… when they find him (soon).

2. Why do you blame CIA again for anything happening in the world?

You remind me of what the left wingers say in Greece:

Blame it on love, or CIA. (Z always blames the second one)

Z, I may not have plenty of thoughts of my own, but I’m damn good detector of propaganda (especially when it comes to anti-american propaganda like yours).

Call me a scouter! (Chuckle)

Zharkov
|
United States
September 8, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

@ John in Greece:

Gadaffi's government wasn't the worst in the ME but it was not so bad to require NATO bombing to remove it. Here is a partial list of what Libyans say they had before NATO and the US intervened:

Life in Libya with Gadaffi:

1. Electricity for household use was free;
2. Interest-free loans;
3. During study, government gave to every student $2,300 dollars/month;
4. Graduates received the average salary for this profession if they could not find a job after graduation;
5. Free medical care - the state paid for work in the medical profession; if foreign medical care was necessary, the state paid for it also;
6. Every unemployed person received social assistance 15,000 $/year;
7. For marriage state pays first apartment or house (150m2) plus a gift of $50,000 dollars;
8. Libyans could buy cars at factory prices;
9. Libya did not owe anyone a cent;
10. Free higher education abroad;
11. 25% of population were University educated;
12. 40 loaves of bread costs $ 0.15;
13. Water in the middle of the desert, drinking water, freely available;
14. 8 dinars per liter of oil (0.08 EUR);
15. Only 6% were poor people;
16. For each infant, the couple received $5,000 for their needs.

So Libya had pretty much everything our State Department would want to give any third world country and more.

Now they've got a big bag of unknown unknowns, to quote a former SecDef.

Zharkov
|
United States
September 8, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

@ John in Greece:

Regarding the argumentation you wish to see advanced:

Please read the following January 4, 2011 report of the 16th Session of the United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review:

"http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-1...""10. The delegation noted that all rights and freedoms were contained in a coherent,
consolidated legal framework. The legal guarantees formed the basis for protection of the basic rights of the people.

Further, abuses that might occur were dealt with by the judiciary, and the perpetrators were brought before justice. The judiciary safeguarded the rights of individuals and was assisted by other entities, most importantly the Office of the Public Prosecutor. A National Human Rights Commission, with a mandate based on the Paris Principles, had also been established, in 2007. The aforementioned entities were
complemented by newly established mechanisms, such as civil society organizations
established under Law No. 19 of 2001.

11. Protection of human rights was guaranteed..."

So, before NATO and the U.S. started bombing Libya, the United Nations was preparing to bestow an award on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and the Libyan Jamahiriya, for its achievements in the area of human rights.

That's right--the same man, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, that NATO and the United States have been telling us for months is a "brutal dictator," was set to be given an award for his human rights record in Libya.

It is noteworthy to read the following couple of sentences from the General Assembly's report:

"Several delegations also noted with appreciation the country's commitment to upholding human rights on the ground. In a footnote of that report, there is a list of countries that praised Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan Jamahiriya (state of the masses), in support of the General Assembly Human Rights Council's decision to bestow this award upon Colonel Gaddafi.

The reader can look at the list and make his or her own judgement regarding the credibility level, or perceived credibility level, of any of the particular countries listed:

Denmark, China, Italy, The Netherlands, Mauritania, Slovenia, Nicaragua, The Russian Federation, Spain, Indonesia, Sweden, Norway, Ecuador, Hungary, South Africa, The Phillippines, Maldives, Chile, Singapore, Germany, Australia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Angola, Nigeria, Congo, Burundi, Zambia, Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Zimbabwe.

Propaganda? No. Just the facts.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
September 8, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

I think he's a little "bugged", John.

What do you think?

DonaldM
|
Virginia, USA
September 8, 2011

Donald M. in Virginia writes:

I think when you add up all the losses of human life that Ghadafi caused, terrorist acts, Pam Am flight over Scotland, two french airliners, a police officer in the United Kingdom was killed by two Lybian nationals. They held up an entire british plane until the release of those two that shot a British Police officer female, she was like 22 years old. I don't think nicely of Ghadafi because he has terrorized alot people, destroyed alot lives, and even protestors in the streets lead to bloodshed. In the end Ghadafi was a terrorist. He should be accounted for all those acts and violence in the past 42 years. Regardless of what policies they held in Lybia. The point is you don't destroy your own people because they express a freedom to speak out!

reading79
September 9, 2011

W.W. writes:

@ donald virginia

driving Under the influence has caused more death then Quaddafi

John
|
Canada
September 8, 2011

John in Canada writes:

@ Donald M in Virginia -- Completely agree. And to add to that a cage no matter how well adorned is still a cage. It couldn't have been all that good if as many people rebelled, as they did. Perhaps all the perks Z mentioned were for his loyal supporters or those that just shut up, the rest ate cake. It matters little though, for better or worse Libya is changing.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
September 9, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ John in Canada,

A sudden memory flashed into mind, I haven't at this moment figured out how to articulate the corollary, but I'll leave that to the readers mind's eye for the appreciation;

Long ago in high school a general challenge was issued...invent a Rube Golberg contraption to pop a balloon...and so a friend and I set about to build one from scratch.

Loosely based on "mousetrap"- the game; if this helps visualize the concept involved.

I don't know which of us came up with the idea of using a large ball bearing and gravity to drive a needle home to pop it, but we built this rail guide out of welding rods brazed together to hold the ball bering in its travel down into the plunger with a flat platform at the top and we were wondering what to use to set the ball in motion when I got the bright idea of using an Estes model rocket solid propellant engine fixed to the platform so that when lit would direct the thrust into the ball bearing to drive it forward and let gravity do the rest.

Naturally being into the big bang theory of pyrotectnics, we used the largest engine they made at the time with the explosive cap for parachute deployment epoxied over at the aft end of the engine, figuring that at the very end of the thrust cycle that the charge would be directed back through the exhaust chamber as insurance that that ball bearing got enough kick to do its thing if constant thrust against it weren't sufficiant.

On the day of the mass presentation of entries, I was home sick as a dog with the flue and my buddy has to do the presentation all by himself, lit the fuse and stepped back.

Engine lit, huge billiowing clouds of exhaust filled the entire stage obscuring the contraption, rising slowly to the ceiling of the auditorium and revealing the ball still sitting motionless...Bang! went the parachute charge and still nothing for about a second and a half when ever so slowly the ball bearing started moving and rolled down the "gravity chute" to everyone's amazement and nailed the balloon.

I heard about all this from my partner on the phone later as he told me we'd just won by bringing the school to a standing ovation with the most anti-climactic presentation anyone could remember from all the years they held this little school contest.

I just had this gut feeling that this may be analoge in prelude to Ghaddafi's capture, a heck of a lot of smoke and mirrors and a certain inevitability of functional success in the midst of total uncertainty.

Anyway, we got away with it without burning the school down and they didn't have to evac , though a few staff freeked and rushed the stage with fire extinguishers after the fact and obscured the the whole set up with a closing curtain of white fog, and everyone who didn't know better thought we'd plannned all this staged managed genuius from start to finish in perfect syncronicity, when my poor buddy Alex was having a heart attack the whole time thinking we'd really screwede to pooch on this one and would never hear the end of it...and maybe get expelled (he was so pissed I hadn't been there to share blame if it went badly)...I just thanked pure dumb luck for happy accidents and anticipated probabilities occuring despite all the chaos rendered in the perfection of the doing.

I figure a lot of Lybians feel somethink akin to this right about now...or soon will have their ultimate reason to with Ghaddafi's demise. Been a long time coming for his balloon to be busted.

EJ

John P.
|
Greece
September 9, 2011

John P. in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov in the U.S.A.

I think that Donald M. in VA and John in Canada gave you a GREAT “post" answer.

Concerning your lists, I only have to say that if you think that in Libya, “only 6% were poor people” you absolutely justify my fears that you still believe in the utopia, PR strategy and lies of the ex-Soviets. They also used to say such “bull$$$$”, but the history revealed that our lists were more accurate than theirs… As Joe in TN had written in the past, we did not do anything special, we just read better than them, reaching the point to have a more clear view than their party pigs living there!

In Libya, 95% of the People were starving to death! When I say starving I’m not only referring to food and water, because starvation has also to do with freedom and Democracy. And the truth is that life was OK only for party people who supported this killer. During the regime days, the whole country was a mess. A real nightmare.

Actually, Ghaddafi never hide his love for communists, Russia and China. Venezuela loves him too. He may be there now, in a “closet”. When lunatics like Ghaddafi and Chaves “communicate”, local telephone rates apply. But the voice is not international… (Chuckle)

Between idiots you always use discount rates. (let me clarify, I mean these leaders, not you personally –I respect your posts, although we disagree in some from time to time)

So, knowing that you admire the Soviets, I understand your love and understanding for the "poor" Ghaddafi environment… I can't sleep at nights knowing that this great political terrorist is on the run... (LOL)

As you probably remember, the United States, G.W. Bush Administration and the SD made their best to help him change things and drive Libya to the new millennium. Obama Administration spent thousands hours of analysis and ways to help, but this guy remained what Eric says: A political idiot!

You see, some things are DNA.

Zharkov
|
United States
September 9, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

@ Donald in VA:

The lies we tell are what bug most Americans the most and I am no different.

Yes, if Gadaffi had murdered masses of demonstrators, he would be a murderer, but that has yet to be proven and his followers deny it happened. Certainly he is responsible for foreign attacks but the time to seek revenge is long past. His most recent track record was one of trying to cooperate and liberalize as the UN award to him suggests.

As so often happens to justify war, there always is a pretext that is usually false - the sinking of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin "incident", the IAF attack on the USS Liberty which failed because the ship and crew survived, the phony story about Iraqi soldiers murdering Kuwaiti infants in a hospital, and Gadaffi shooting hundreds of protestors. Have any mass graves been found in Libya? No.

The point is, Gadaffi was not the worst of the lot. Revolts in Libya is NOT the business of NATO or the US. There is an Arab League and other organizations which could discipline its membership if they saw fit to do so.

The new doctrine established to the effect that no government may use lethal force to prevent its overthrow is made up out of whole cloth. It is a fabrication to cover the situation.

As a fabrication, it is a clever one that would be quickly discarded by our own government at the earliest opportunity.

This doctrine, one might call the Soros Doctrine, is merely a pretext for war, nothing humane about it and certainly nobody doubts that other governments will ignore it if they have trouble of their own.

If the doctrine was valid, we could see NATO intervening in Tibet, the Congo, perhaps even in Wisconsin. That won't happen because this fabricated doctrine is just another bogus pretext.

Finally, your comment overlooks that what started in Libya also started in Jordan and Egypt, among other nations. They can't all be "brutal dictators" and in the case of Jordan, there was no reason for revolt other than foreign agitation, likely from our side.

So Libya will change, but for the better or worse? Libya's government was improving until the revolt. Now it is not.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
September 10, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

While I don't believe a dictator should be awarded anything for reforming ( other than his continued existance) it is stupid to think that Ghaddafi didn't attack his own people as the protested in the streets and should have had the full weight of NATO's armed commitment to put a halt to his Crimes against Humanity applied to UN resolution 1973.

Anyone who would try and question such a resolution would be unwittingly or not in objection to such action is in effect condoning the intended mass murder of civiliasns that Ghaddafi (on video tape) called for in several statements over these past months.

Wake up Z....nappy time's over in the global ethical infant's romper room...

EJ

Zharkov
|
United States
September 12, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

@ Eric in NM:

If you stick to the issues rather than the name-calling, you might say something worth reading. Have you read Gadaffi's Green Book? If not, you are missing some critical information about Libya.

Any government, including a dictator's, will try to put down a rebellion. We do the same.

The Ohio National Guard opened fire on student protestors at Kent State University, probably while you were still in diapers, and killed some.

The California National Guard opened fire with a 50 cal. machine gun on a black motorist who refused to stop at a road block in the Watts area of Los Angeles in the mid 1960's. Blacks highly resented martial law imposed on their neighborhoods merely because a small percentage of them rioted.

In Texas, the military opened fire on a religious congregation at Waco, when Mr. Clinton was president, and Mr. Bush was the governor. Political parties don't matter when the government feels threatened.

Gadaffi, Assad, Mubarak, Hussein of Jordan, were they all "brutal dictators"?

Some might think so but I think not. They did resist the violent overthrow of their government, in much the same manner as our own government would do today if it happened.

If we are to adhere to the Soros Doctrine, that no government shall use lethal force to prevent its violent overthrow, fine, but let's write that down and make in international law and enforce it uniformly.

If there is some global obligation to step in to prevent genocide by a government, then there must be a corresponding responsibility upon government not to kill its rebels.

To put it another way, it would be ridiculous to say police have a legal duty to arrest a murderer if there was no legal obligation not to commit murder.

So if we are the world's policeman obligated to stop a genocide, then all governments are obligated not to kill their citizens for any reason. You can kiss the death penalty goodbye. You can stand and watch helplessly while citizens of Zharkovia take over your capitol. Actually, that doctrine is starting to look attractive.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
September 19, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Z,

Callin' the kettle black now eh? whatever...

I don't suppose you've figured out yet that Amarica has moved beyond its past.

There, that should be issue specific enough for you. I'm always pleased to enlighten you despite yourself...anytime you stop whining when I do,

EJ

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
September 22, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ (P.S.) Z,

If you are going to post BS, and Dipnote will publish it, but folks @ State can't be bothered to correct your misunderstanding, well then what are friends for anyway?

Dig it...;

"As so often happens to justify war, there always is a pretext that is usually false - the sinking of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin "incident", the IAF attack on the USS Liberty which failed because the ship and crew survived, the phony story about Iraqi soldiers murdering Kuwaiti infants in a hospital, and Gadaffi shooting hundreds of protestors. Have any mass graves been found in Libya? No."

Better brush up on some current news Z, and quit fishing for a brand new toy conspiracy shining brightly, dangling in your somewhat curious political mindset's...desire to fill its void with fantasy instead of dealing with the hard realities you struggle so hard to avoid.

Just sayin'....

"Mass graves in Libya" (on a quick google search)

"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/14/libya-mass-grave_n_962395.html"

You know , come to think of it; if I were into fantasy as much as you apparently are Zharkov, I'd be fantasizing a 5'11' strawberry blond-graceful vision of feminine loveliness smilin' at me and even though she's no longer of this world; remembering the dead is a lot less morbid than you pretending- claiming for a fact that these folks didn't exist among the living once upon a time in Ghaddifi's hell-hole torture chamber somewhere.

Anyway, I thought you might be losing your edge on the one-man propoganda machine you're pounding away on so furiously for all this time, so I thought I'd just do a little error correction and see if you were still functioning on all 4 cilinders..., any good conspiracy bro...isn't so easy to just hack off a google search and (poof)...there goes the daydreams...., want to try that one again?

I mean if you're goin' for a spot on Comedy Central, at least make your conspiracies entertaining...

Here, like this;

Fellow here in New Mexico swears up and down that he saw Ghaddafi at the OK Casino flashing a wad of cash, and losing big time on unfriendly machines, just sat there for hours watching the drums spin as he jammed in at least a thousand dollars worth of quarters, not one back....then this fellow told me that he made 50 bucks playing the machine next to him and Ghaddafi went into a rage claiming that NATO was everywhere, out to get him, cursed forever more by "those rats" who have now sabotaged his projected winnings for the night...and went on and on about the time when he stayed in one of the Donald's Casinos, and that this was worse than getting a case of bedbugs staying there...and on and on and on like that ...ad nauseum ....and the poor guy can't get anyone to buy his story...called the feds and anyone who'd listen....that he's left Libya and "Everythings cool man,....right?"

Can't turn himself in, might as well get drunk and try to get lucky is the way this fellow read the man's intent, as it were.

Anyway that's the story, and I'm stickin' to it.

The end....until the sequal.

See Z, now that will get front page tommorrow on the National Enquirer, I think you've been setting your sights a little low, if you ask me.

Cheers,

EJ

.

Latest Stories

Pages