I don’t think the issue here is whether there is Liberian blood on Pat Robertson’s hands, but whether or not Robertson’s being a hypocrite. He denounces a significat portion of the American population as the cause of the September 11 attacks, yet his investments go to a corrupt politician who also receives payments and offers safe haven to the organization behind those attacks.
Does that directly connect Robertson to al-Qaeda? Not really. But even those indirect links are stronger and more provable than the “links” between Iraq and al-Qaeda that the Bush administration (supported politcally and financially by Robertson) are touting. If Robertson were actually more worried about fighting al-Qaeda than his investment in a gold mine, he’d have divested by now. If the Bush administration were actually sincere about this whole mess they would have put this issue into the spotlight and pressured Robertson to withdraw.
Tom Tomorrow isn’t calling Robertson al-Qaeda. He’s muckraking. Something that this administration sorely deserves.
Liberia was bad before, but it was nothing compared to what it’s been under Taylor. I lived in Liberia for two years under the previous (Doe) regime. Liberians were poor and Doe was a paranoid asshole but it was still a fairly tolerable country (as third world countries go). People were not subjected to the widespread brutality that they have been under Taylor.
I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not, but let me reassure you, “elections” under Taylor (and Doe before him) are every bit the farce that they are in Iraq.
I guess what you are saying is that “liberal hawk” is a misnomer. Wake up and smell the coffee: Bosnia changed a lot of things - we liberal hawks are numerous and influential. Why do you think that the anti-Iraq war movement isn’t gaining traction? Because a good percentage of the American left has moved away from the knee-jerk “US military is bad” attitude.
Nope, I’m not Condoleeza Rice.