Three countries are the major powers in this sham "War on Terror": U.S., Britain, and Israel.
Isn't it interesting that two of these countries' leaders are at all-time lows in the polls? Blair hit the lowest point in history for his party and Ohlmert is around 2 to 3 percent (!) - not even within the margin of error. Bush is now under 30 and not likely to go up with his current fist-shaking, bring-it-on battle with Congress. Remember, Clinton never dropped below 58 percent.
Is this an example of courageous statesmanship for these three leaders or is it proof that the electorate feels they were misled and had a war rammed down their throats?
I'm sure Republicans would say the former is true, but it certainly serves as a dire warning to any nation that may consider joining Bush's delusional efforts. Take the case of Japan's Abe, who visited recently and made supportive noises involving Bush's policies in the Middle East. His numbers are also low, around 40 percent. Still, Japan feels it must support Bush, much like Australia and South Korea. We are, after all, their main defence. Sadly, they don't see that Bush is on the way out and whoever takes over is not likely to see support for the insane war as a sign of a good ally, but rather a craven toady.
Bush will go down as the worst President in living memory (perhaps longer). Anyone with service in his adminstration on their resume will be marked as incompetent.
What is the Republican strategy for victory in '08? With 70% opposed to Bush and nobody in the Party talking him down much, I guess it will be to denounce the vast majority of Americans as weak cowards and traitors and condemn them to Hell as bad Christians. That'll bring 'em around. Endless War for Jesus.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
neocon's flip-flop and look for a new Iraqi dictator
I just had to mention that I've been reading several neocon blogs lately, and I am surprised to see the new sinuous twist in the "reasoning". Apparently "everyone knows" that there is a civil war in Iraq, according to the neocon blogs. Wow. Bush hasn't permitted anyone in his pay to use the words 'civil war' in reference to Iraq. Petraeus hasn't said we are involved in a civil war. But somehow this is "obvious" and we should just stop talking about it because it doesn't have any bearing in the "war" against Al-Qaeda. They are in effect saying that even these neocons no longer believe what Bush says, yet we should pretend it's true so Bush won't get his feelings hurt.
Sectarian militias, or more properly, the politicians who command the sectarian militias, make up the Iraqi government. Remember, this is the government that is going to "stand up" so that we can "stand down". Al-Maliki would be removed from power (no confidence vote) if he were to effectively shut down the sectarian militias. The U.S. designed the government to be this screwed up in order to prevent another authoritarian leader from emerging. Yet Bush requires that any of his cronies who face the public continue the untenable illusion that we are merely waiting for the Iraqi government to tweak a few things, crack down and make the civil war go away. It would be more believable if there were ruby slippers and a witch involved in this fairy tale.
Also notice that there is very little bragging about the democracy we brought to Iraq lately among neocons. This is because they are beginning to realise that the solution to the Iraqi civil war is to let the constitutional government we installed go by the wayside and install a new Saddam. This 'new Saddam', however, will be completely in our pocket and will probably be used to wage a proxy war against Iran. Just what a shattered nation needs; a new war. Neocons will defend the 'new Saddam' vigourously against those who point out the brutal methods and non-democratic tactics this leader will use by saying that the alternative is going back to the "surge" and Bush's endless quagmire. Which they will, at that point, admit was a stupid mistake, but do so in a way that doesn't hurt Bush's feelings.
Neocons have pretty much degenerated into either those who just simply hate Islam or those who are making money from the war...or possibly both. They can no no longer be taken seriously as a relevant political force. Neocons shrill that if we withdraw from Iraq that Al-Qaeda will attack us, and they do this as if it were the most obvious thing in the world. Much like their "certainty" about the success of the invasion or the presence of WMDs in Iraq, we are somehow required to believe it because Bush says so and he is the President and if you don't believe everything he says then you are un-American. These pathetic stooges have still not realised that this weak reasoning does not impress the vast majority of Americans who did not drink the neocon Kool-Aid. Accusations of treason from dishonest, craven toadies inspires more of a chuckle of derision than serious consideration. The neocon wet dream, of course, is to line up these "traitors" and shoot them in the name of freedom, democracy, and America.
I'm beginning to wonder if Bushco will really step down when 1/09 comes around, or if he will manufacture a "crisis" that requires he declare martial law and hand over power to Cheney. Can't you just hear him already? He's sad that it's come to this, but he will not let America's enemies win, and stories of mass arrests and disappearances are just lies spread by those aforementioned enemies, but if we keep our mouths shut and do what he tells us to we'll all be just fine....
Sectarian militias, or more properly, the politicians who command the sectarian militias, make up the Iraqi government. Remember, this is the government that is going to "stand up" so that we can "stand down". Al-Maliki would be removed from power (no confidence vote) if he were to effectively shut down the sectarian militias. The U.S. designed the government to be this screwed up in order to prevent another authoritarian leader from emerging. Yet Bush requires that any of his cronies who face the public continue the untenable illusion that we are merely waiting for the Iraqi government to tweak a few things, crack down and make the civil war go away. It would be more believable if there were ruby slippers and a witch involved in this fairy tale.
Also notice that there is very little bragging about the democracy we brought to Iraq lately among neocons. This is because they are beginning to realise that the solution to the Iraqi civil war is to let the constitutional government we installed go by the wayside and install a new Saddam. This 'new Saddam', however, will be completely in our pocket and will probably be used to wage a proxy war against Iran. Just what a shattered nation needs; a new war. Neocons will defend the 'new Saddam' vigourously against those who point out the brutal methods and non-democratic tactics this leader will use by saying that the alternative is going back to the "surge" and Bush's endless quagmire. Which they will, at that point, admit was a stupid mistake, but do so in a way that doesn't hurt Bush's feelings.
Neocons have pretty much degenerated into either those who just simply hate Islam or those who are making money from the war...or possibly both. They can no no longer be taken seriously as a relevant political force. Neocons shrill that if we withdraw from Iraq that Al-Qaeda will attack us, and they do this as if it were the most obvious thing in the world. Much like their "certainty" about the success of the invasion or the presence of WMDs in Iraq, we are somehow required to believe it because Bush says so and he is the President and if you don't believe everything he says then you are un-American. These pathetic stooges have still not realised that this weak reasoning does not impress the vast majority of Americans who did not drink the neocon Kool-Aid. Accusations of treason from dishonest, craven toadies inspires more of a chuckle of derision than serious consideration. The neocon wet dream, of course, is to line up these "traitors" and shoot them in the name of freedom, democracy, and America.
I'm beginning to wonder if Bushco will really step down when 1/09 comes around, or if he will manufacture a "crisis" that requires he declare martial law and hand over power to Cheney. Can't you just hear him already? He's sad that it's come to this, but he will not let America's enemies win, and stories of mass arrests and disappearances are just lies spread by those aforementioned enemies, but if we keep our mouths shut and do what he tells us to we'll all be just fine....
Saturday, April 28, 2007
This doesn't count
Per recent news reports about how the casualties are counted. The bombing in Karbala today doesn't count as "violence". If this counted as violence, the "terrorists'" would win a "big victory".
I guess it's becoming clearer that, in Bush's mind, the "surge" hasn't actually started yet. However, Bush is taking credit for "progress" made by the "surge". Neocons are claiming that the "surge " is working. Bush has publically asked for time for the "surge" to work before giving up. If it hasn't started yet, then why not?
Regardless of whether or not these people were killed by "sectarian forces" or not, this type of thing does more to dispel confidence in the sham "government" than anything the "sectarian forces" could do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6603905.stm
excerpt:
I guess it's becoming clearer that, in Bush's mind, the "surge" hasn't actually started yet. However, Bush is taking credit for "progress" made by the "surge". Neocons are claiming that the "surge " is working. Bush has publically asked for time for the "surge" to work before giving up. If it hasn't started yet, then why not?
Regardless of whether or not these people were killed by "sectarian forces" or not, this type of thing does more to dispel confidence in the sham "government" than anything the "sectarian forces" could do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6603905.stm
excerpt:
Iraqi television images from Karbala showed a man running down a smoke-filled street holding a lifeless baby above his head.
Ambulances had rushed to the scene, in a crowded area full of shops and restaurants in the city, 100km (70 miles) south-west of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
Angry people gathered at the blast site, many of them searching frantically for missing relatives, The Associated Press reports.
Some began to throw stones at the police, accusing them of failing to protect the people.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Neocons keep squealing to us to 'listen to the boots on the ground'.
It seems to me that that is the least objective source, since the troops are, for all practical purposes, required to believe that victory can be acheived. They also are subject to swift retribution for failing to "toe the line".
That's why we've seen mostly retired officers criticise the Iraq war up until now.
Here is the view of an officer who served two tours in Iraq:
US officer condemns Iraq strategy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6600893.stm
You see, this is what happens when you manage a war politically. Neocons describe the recent appropriations bill as "micromanaging" the war. Well, this is exactly what Bush did. He chose generals who mouthed the words they were told to, and these generals knew that they could not conduct any policy of their own that was contrary to the "Bush Lie". For instance, that the Iraqi people would welcome us and we would not need to plan for an occupation, or only 3/5 of the troops the military required would be sent. Or that the cost would not exceed $100 billion. And so forth and so on. Now we have Petraeus, who remains in his position because he knows he has to say things that the White House wants to hear. Petraeus is, to my knowledge, a fine officer, but if he fails to "toe the line" he knows he will be replaced by another toady who will serve as merely a yes-man rather than the effective leader that his troops need.
If Bush had let the military handle the Iraq war the way the military saw fit, rather than as the White House's ridiculously optimistic agenda called for, then the troops would be home by now and Bush would probably be looking like a hero. But instead he had to micro-manage. That's how we got such a feeble Iraqi government, such a horribly slow 'reconstruction', and such a staggering bill for the whole mess.
And this is how we got into the war in the first place. Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al, went to the Pentagon and intelligence services and told them what evidence they wanted. Any evidence that contradicted their agenda was to be ignored or discarded. Iraqi exiles, many of whom hadn't been in Iraq for over a decade, were tapped as "expert sources". They were told what crazy allegation needed "confidential source testimony", and then given time to concoct "evidence" from 'experts' which was then presented as proof that what the White House claimed was, in fact, true. Intelligence reports which had been completely discredited were resurrected as authoritative, and when analysts questioned if the Administration's allegations were based on these discredited reports, the answer was always that this was NEW information.
And then they presented this "evidence" to Congress and the American people. When it turned out to be false, Congress and the American people were then, in effect, blamed for "falling for it". Notice how it's always someone else's fault? Notice how Bush takes "responsibility" for disasters, but never takes the blame?
It seems to me that that is the least objective source, since the troops are, for all practical purposes, required to believe that victory can be acheived. They also are subject to swift retribution for failing to "toe the line".
That's why we've seen mostly retired officers criticise the Iraq war up until now.
Here is the view of an officer who served two tours in Iraq:
US officer condemns Iraq strategy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6600893.stm
You see, this is what happens when you manage a war politically. Neocons describe the recent appropriations bill as "micromanaging" the war. Well, this is exactly what Bush did. He chose generals who mouthed the words they were told to, and these generals knew that they could not conduct any policy of their own that was contrary to the "Bush Lie". For instance, that the Iraqi people would welcome us and we would not need to plan for an occupation, or only 3/5 of the troops the military required would be sent. Or that the cost would not exceed $100 billion. And so forth and so on. Now we have Petraeus, who remains in his position because he knows he has to say things that the White House wants to hear. Petraeus is, to my knowledge, a fine officer, but if he fails to "toe the line" he knows he will be replaced by another toady who will serve as merely a yes-man rather than the effective leader that his troops need.
If Bush had let the military handle the Iraq war the way the military saw fit, rather than as the White House's ridiculously optimistic agenda called for, then the troops would be home by now and Bush would probably be looking like a hero. But instead he had to micro-manage. That's how we got such a feeble Iraqi government, such a horribly slow 'reconstruction', and such a staggering bill for the whole mess.
And this is how we got into the war in the first place. Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al, went to the Pentagon and intelligence services and told them what evidence they wanted. Any evidence that contradicted their agenda was to be ignored or discarded. Iraqi exiles, many of whom hadn't been in Iraq for over a decade, were tapped as "expert sources". They were told what crazy allegation needed "confidential source testimony", and then given time to concoct "evidence" from 'experts' which was then presented as proof that what the White House claimed was, in fact, true. Intelligence reports which had been completely discredited were resurrected as authoritative, and when analysts questioned if the Administration's allegations were based on these discredited reports, the answer was always that this was NEW information.
And then they presented this "evidence" to Congress and the American people. When it turned out to be false, Congress and the American people were then, in effect, blamed for "falling for it". Notice how it's always someone else's fault? Notice how Bush takes "responsibility" for disasters, but never takes the blame?
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The upside-down 'success' of the surge
I just came across this blog:
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/04/26/bushs-last-stand/
It seems like the "success" of the surge has come from sleight-of-hand in counting rather than any improvement on the ground in Iraq. It's "no fair" counting victims of car bombings or roadside bombs now that the surge has started -- only "death-squad" type killings are now being counted as casualties.
Apparently, according to the White House, counting victims of bombings is "handing a huge victory to the terrorists". Sheesh. Yes, let's not count anyone killed by, say, bullets, either. We don't want to encourage terrorists to use bullets, do we? And let's not count any of our troops killed while we're at it, because that would only hand the terrorists a victory.
So, except for the bad things, everything is great in Iraq.
Yes, this is what it's come to.
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/04/26/bushs-last-stand/
It seems like the "success" of the surge has come from sleight-of-hand in counting rather than any improvement on the ground in Iraq. It's "no fair" counting victims of car bombings or roadside bombs now that the surge has started -- only "death-squad" type killings are now being counted as casualties.
Apparently, according to the White House, counting victims of bombings is "handing a huge victory to the terrorists". Sheesh. Yes, let's not count anyone killed by, say, bullets, either. We don't want to encourage terrorists to use bullets, do we? And let's not count any of our troops killed while we're at it, because that would only hand the terrorists a victory.
So, except for the bad things, everything is great in Iraq.
Yes, this is what it's come to.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Another Day, Another Bush Threat
Yet again, as pretty much every day, Bush issued another threat to veto the appropriations bill. I guess this is supposed to scare somebody, because it sure doesn't make him look any more relevant or powerful. Of course, shrill Republicans remind us that the President has the right to veto any bill. Yeah, that's absolutely true. I had thought Republicans were all about the President ignoring the Constitution, however. That was one of the things Congress allegedly "meant" when they authorised the invasion of Iraq, wasn't it? You know, along with warrantless surveillance, secret prisons, torture, etc....and also eliminating audits as to where all this money was going in Iraq (secret!). Pretty much everything is secret now, including what Bush had for lunch.
Yep, he's a-gonna veto it. Of course, that's the bill that finances his ill-considered, fictionally-premised and hugely unpopular war. So if he vetoes it, the bill goes back to Congress, which isn't exactly fast or inclined to give him what he wants. He's just as likely to get another bill that he doesn't like as he is to get what he wants. And the longer he "hangs tough" the longer the troops go without the money. Who's playing politics here?
Polls show that the majority in the U.S. no longer believe that Iraq is the "central front in the War on Terror". Maybe if Bush says that it is a dozen more times, then people will change their minds. Nah, not bloody likely. So is the war in Iraq a war? We declared the war over in 2003, and Bush has been very clear that what is going on now is just us fighting "terrorists", not a civil war. So all of those reports about Shia and Sunni militias fighting for control are just a distraction from the REAL battle with the thousand or so Al-Qaeda (by the Pentagon's estimate) in Iraq. Now nobody seriously believes that Al-Qaeda is responsible for the death squads killing groups of Shia and Sunni, but Bush has taken the credit for the decline in death squad activity as part of the "surge". So are we fighting Al-Qaeda or refereeing a civil war?
Because if we really are just referees in a civil war, then how can we "lose" by withdrawing any more than an umpire "loses" a baseball game? How does a referee "surrender", anyway?
Of course, Bush constantly warns of dire consequences if we "lose" in Iraq:
The "terrorists" will bring the fight here. Okay, I fail to see how Shia and Sunni fighting for control of their own country are at all interested in coming over here and fighting us, so I guess we are back to those thousand or so Al-Qaeda that we are ostensibly 'fighting'. What is preventing these thousand or so Al-Qaeda from coming over here now? Somehow, these terrorists prefer to "fight" heavily-armed soldiers in a country that stopped functioning a long time ago than to attack soft civilian targets of unarmed people in the U.S. Has anyone told Al-Qaeda about this strange rule that it's no fair to attack the U.S. while it has troops in Iraq? What is preventing those thousand or so Al-Qaeda from coming over here after Iraq is "stabilised", assuming it ever is? Is Iraqi "stabilisation" somehow going to kill off Al-Qaeda like a vampire in sunlight? Or will they just be too ashamed to attack us at home after having "lost" in Iraq?
This fairy tale of fighting terror "over there" instead of "over here" polls well with Republicans who have a limited ability to think critically. By the way, when did the Iraqis agree to host a war against Al-Qaeda in their country?
And lastly, how do you "fight" a roadside bomb? Shoot the rubble?
When Bush warns of dire consequences should we withdraw from Iraq, he really means dire consequences for the Republican Party, not the U.S.
Yep, he's a-gonna veto it. Of course, that's the bill that finances his ill-considered, fictionally-premised and hugely unpopular war. So if he vetoes it, the bill goes back to Congress, which isn't exactly fast or inclined to give him what he wants. He's just as likely to get another bill that he doesn't like as he is to get what he wants. And the longer he "hangs tough" the longer the troops go without the money. Who's playing politics here?
Polls show that the majority in the U.S. no longer believe that Iraq is the "central front in the War on Terror". Maybe if Bush says that it is a dozen more times, then people will change their minds. Nah, not bloody likely. So is the war in Iraq a war? We declared the war over in 2003, and Bush has been very clear that what is going on now is just us fighting "terrorists", not a civil war. So all of those reports about Shia and Sunni militias fighting for control are just a distraction from the REAL battle with the thousand or so Al-Qaeda (by the Pentagon's estimate) in Iraq. Now nobody seriously believes that Al-Qaeda is responsible for the death squads killing groups of Shia and Sunni, but Bush has taken the credit for the decline in death squad activity as part of the "surge". So are we fighting Al-Qaeda or refereeing a civil war?
Because if we really are just referees in a civil war, then how can we "lose" by withdrawing any more than an umpire "loses" a baseball game? How does a referee "surrender", anyway?
Of course, Bush constantly warns of dire consequences if we "lose" in Iraq:
The "terrorists" will bring the fight here. Okay, I fail to see how Shia and Sunni fighting for control of their own country are at all interested in coming over here and fighting us, so I guess we are back to those thousand or so Al-Qaeda that we are ostensibly 'fighting'. What is preventing these thousand or so Al-Qaeda from coming over here now? Somehow, these terrorists prefer to "fight" heavily-armed soldiers in a country that stopped functioning a long time ago than to attack soft civilian targets of unarmed people in the U.S. Has anyone told Al-Qaeda about this strange rule that it's no fair to attack the U.S. while it has troops in Iraq? What is preventing those thousand or so Al-Qaeda from coming over here after Iraq is "stabilised", assuming it ever is? Is Iraqi "stabilisation" somehow going to kill off Al-Qaeda like a vampire in sunlight? Or will they just be too ashamed to attack us at home after having "lost" in Iraq?
This fairy tale of fighting terror "over there" instead of "over here" polls well with Republicans who have a limited ability to think critically. By the way, when did the Iraqis agree to host a war against Al-Qaeda in their country?
And lastly, how do you "fight" a roadside bomb? Shoot the rubble?
When Bush warns of dire consequences should we withdraw from Iraq, he really means dire consequences for the Republican Party, not the U.S.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
At least "we" get the oil
The new Iraqi Oil Law is quintessential Bush. Two-thirds of the reserves in Iraq with go to multinational oil companies, which is a feat that the oil companies could never have pulled off themselves without asking US taxpayers to fund a war. In fact, no other Middle Eastern government would ever go for such preposterous deal unless a gun was held to their heads. The oil companies "generously" give Iraq 20% of the profits back, however the oil companies get to keep the books. So they take a billion in oil out and tell the Iraqi government they only took a million and give Iraq a cut of that "million". I wouldn't be at all surprised if they take "development expenses" for pipelines, refineries, ports, etc. out of that 20% cut .
The remaining one-third of the oil is open to regional governments to sell off to the oil companies, but not on the open market. So they can let the multinational oil companies have it for free and take 20% of the action, or let it sit in the ground. See, this is what makes it "their" oil. They have a choice, after all.
Somehow, giving multinational oil companies a whole lot of oil for free helps the U.S. in some vague way. Oh yeah, they get to sell it back to the U.S. at huge profits, so I guess we all do win, after all. That makes the $400 billion (and counting) the U.S. spent on this war worth it. Or maybe it's the creation of another unstable Shiite state that we were supposed to be grateful for. I lose track of the imaginary reasons sometimes.
Another new twist on the "surge": Only half of the troops are there, so that's why we haven't seen any progress. So why aren't all of the troops there? Is it because we can't spare that many without our military collapsing or is it because the Bush Administration is playing sleight-of-hand with the numbers and those troops don't really exist? How many months are we supposed to wait for these 11, 000 combat troops to arrive before it's okay to start that "six-month clock"? If this is such a great idea that all of the generals support and which will allow us to withdraw, then where are the rest of the troops?
The remaining one-third of the oil is open to regional governments to sell off to the oil companies, but not on the open market. So they can let the multinational oil companies have it for free and take 20% of the action, or let it sit in the ground. See, this is what makes it "their" oil. They have a choice, after all.
Somehow, giving multinational oil companies a whole lot of oil for free helps the U.S. in some vague way. Oh yeah, they get to sell it back to the U.S. at huge profits, so I guess we all do win, after all. That makes the $400 billion (and counting) the U.S. spent on this war worth it. Or maybe it's the creation of another unstable Shiite state that we were supposed to be grateful for. I lose track of the imaginary reasons sometimes.
Another new twist on the "surge": Only half of the troops are there, so that's why we haven't seen any progress. So why aren't all of the troops there? Is it because we can't spare that many without our military collapsing or is it because the Bush Administration is playing sleight-of-hand with the numbers and those troops don't really exist? How many months are we supposed to wait for these 11, 000 combat troops to arrive before it's okay to start that "six-month clock"? If this is such a great idea that all of the generals support and which will allow us to withdraw, then where are the rest of the troops?
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Bush surges into irrelevance
This week Bush admitted that the war was not going well. In early November we were still hearing wildly upbeat expectations mixed with scowling "you'll see" imprecations. Six months down the line, Bush has done a 180, though conditions are virtually the same as when he was confident that we were 'turning the corner".
All hopes have been pinned on this ill-defined "surge", which was initially supposed to be 21,000 troops. Then it became 21,000 combat troops with an equal number of support troops. It was supposed to six weeks, then six months. I think now we are hearing that the surge will basically last for the remainder of Bush's term in office. So, after strenuously denying for years that more troops were needed and watching as Iraq collapsed, now Republicans are equally strenuous in claiming that all Iraq needs is more troops (and the remainder of Bush's term) in order for "victory" to be achieved over the "terrorists".
The electricity is still only on for six hours a day in Baghdad. Virtually everyone with skills or money has fled the country to become a burden on the "terrorist" state of Syria. The hospitals are in the hands of a Shiite militia, who has no problem with denying care to Sunni patients. The central government, designed by Republican "visionaries" to be weak to prevent another Saddam from emerging, can barely hold a coalition together to give Al-Maliki enough authority to tie his own shoes without permission. The flood of 1000 people a day fleeing Iraq has slowed significantly, but this is because anyone who can leave already has, and this is virtually the only 'positive' development in the past six months.
Eight British soldiers killed this week, at a time when Britain was withdrawing because their strategy of hiding in bunkers had led to a "stabilisation". Britain really needs to get it's troops out so that they can move them to another Bush mess, Afghanistan. After the Taliban were routed, Bush put on his rose-tinted glasses and, not surprisingly, saw a bright future of democracy, human rights, and economic development. He then went to NATO and asked for troops to shepherd this fledgling democracy for a few years. NATO provided sufficient troops for that job, but the situation was not as Bush had sold it. The simple act of participating in an election had not magically transformed Afghanis into peaceful, saintly people eager to make Bush look good. In short, NATO was handed a steaming bag of crap and told that Afghanistan was their baby now.
So now Britain is stuck in horrendous quagmires in two countries in which their vital interests are not at stake. This came about because Tony Blair more or less handed over command of the entire British military to Bush. And Republicans are convinced that whatever allies we have left won't take this as an object lesson in what happens when you let the U.S. make you its bitch.
So as we stumble into a world that Bush warns is fraught with more danger than ever, we have virtually no allies, we pour our foreign aid into three countries (Israel, Egypt, and Colombia) that do absolutely nothing to enhance our security, and hyper-extend our exhausted military into pointless wars with the populace. And if we stop doing this, we'll "look bad".
Meanwhile, this week O'Reilly made a statement that essentially said that we must give Bush the rest of his term to make Iraq right (why? who knows) but that if he fails, he will go down as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history. It looks like the GOP are already planning on throwing Bush to the wolves, since they're done with him. What will this make of the loyal "Brownies" or the foreign politicians who supported him (Blair)?
So what will transpire is that, should Republicans hold on to the White House, they will blame the war on Bush, and then continue fighting it 'the right way' until the same thing happens to the next stooge they line up. The important thing is to keep the flow of money to the military contractors.
In short, everyone is now looking at Bush as a temporary obstacle or annoyance rather than as a factor in the resolution of these conflicts.
All hopes have been pinned on this ill-defined "surge", which was initially supposed to be 21,000 troops. Then it became 21,000 combat troops with an equal number of support troops. It was supposed to six weeks, then six months. I think now we are hearing that the surge will basically last for the remainder of Bush's term in office. So, after strenuously denying for years that more troops were needed and watching as Iraq collapsed, now Republicans are equally strenuous in claiming that all Iraq needs is more troops (and the remainder of Bush's term) in order for "victory" to be achieved over the "terrorists".
The electricity is still only on for six hours a day in Baghdad. Virtually everyone with skills or money has fled the country to become a burden on the "terrorist" state of Syria. The hospitals are in the hands of a Shiite militia, who has no problem with denying care to Sunni patients. The central government, designed by Republican "visionaries" to be weak to prevent another Saddam from emerging, can barely hold a coalition together to give Al-Maliki enough authority to tie his own shoes without permission. The flood of 1000 people a day fleeing Iraq has slowed significantly, but this is because anyone who can leave already has, and this is virtually the only 'positive' development in the past six months.
Eight British soldiers killed this week, at a time when Britain was withdrawing because their strategy of hiding in bunkers had led to a "stabilisation". Britain really needs to get it's troops out so that they can move them to another Bush mess, Afghanistan. After the Taliban were routed, Bush put on his rose-tinted glasses and, not surprisingly, saw a bright future of democracy, human rights, and economic development. He then went to NATO and asked for troops to shepherd this fledgling democracy for a few years. NATO provided sufficient troops for that job, but the situation was not as Bush had sold it. The simple act of participating in an election had not magically transformed Afghanis into peaceful, saintly people eager to make Bush look good. In short, NATO was handed a steaming bag of crap and told that Afghanistan was their baby now.
So now Britain is stuck in horrendous quagmires in two countries in which their vital interests are not at stake. This came about because Tony Blair more or less handed over command of the entire British military to Bush. And Republicans are convinced that whatever allies we have left won't take this as an object lesson in what happens when you let the U.S. make you its bitch.
So as we stumble into a world that Bush warns is fraught with more danger than ever, we have virtually no allies, we pour our foreign aid into three countries (Israel, Egypt, and Colombia) that do absolutely nothing to enhance our security, and hyper-extend our exhausted military into pointless wars with the populace. And if we stop doing this, we'll "look bad".
Meanwhile, this week O'Reilly made a statement that essentially said that we must give Bush the rest of his term to make Iraq right (why? who knows) but that if he fails, he will go down as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history. It looks like the GOP are already planning on throwing Bush to the wolves, since they're done with him. What will this make of the loyal "Brownies" or the foreign politicians who supported him (Blair)?
So what will transpire is that, should Republicans hold on to the White House, they will blame the war on Bush, and then continue fighting it 'the right way' until the same thing happens to the next stooge they line up. The important thing is to keep the flow of money to the military contractors.
In short, everyone is now looking at Bush as a temporary obstacle or annoyance rather than as a factor in the resolution of these conflicts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)