Part I
Force and fear was used by Saddam, and many others before him, to control all the contending factions in the entire country.
Saddam was doing what Stalin, Hitler, Ghangis Khan and others, including Kings and Czar had done. Their "model" of humanity is that we are driven like sheep, through pain and fear.
posted by MikeSar @ 5:23 PM
22 Comments
22 Comments:
But, for fear to be effective, the use of power must be "open ended." For example, the technique used by Hiilegu, brother of Khubilai (Ganhis, Kubla) Khan. The Abbasid Caliphs of Alamut and Baghdad resisted but after a siege, surrendered, nevertheless mongol troops were allowed to masscre the populations. "The campaign was a resounding success."-from "Khublai Khan" by Morris Rossabi, Pg. 21
Stalin killed millions of Russians but he controlled Russia, like no Czar ever did.
Anything less than unlimited force is seen as weakness and undermines the "Force and Fear", or "Shock and Awe" approach.
There are many reasons to question the suitability of American forces for this kind of tactic.
2. Students of Psychology readily recognize this approach to correspond to the view propounded by Dr. Alfred Adler [Austrian, Christian-Jew; 1870-1937] who defined man a control or power freak; religious followers, Christian, Jewish and Muslim, of the “Fear of God” Theology agree - without question.
Dr. Adler was a disciple of Dr. Sigmund Freud [Austrian-Jew; 1856-1939] who defined man as, basically, a sex predator.
Abu Ghraib prison photos show sex used to control, shame and humiliate, which supports the view of Dr. Adler, not Freud’s.
But, this line of analysis is the Therapeutic Approach that leads to a dead end. The hidden implication is that all crime and evil is due to mental disorders. With an Instant Solution: “Take the miscreants to a ‘shrink’”. Ignoring conflicting treatments and that psychologists have the highest suicide rate, after homosexuals. Neither Eugenics nor Education can forever end crime, or evil.
It is the inherent option for as long as we have a Free Will. If we do not have Free Will, like some religions teach, including Islam, according to some, we cannot commit evil, which in turn makes religion pointless.
Our Generals say Iraq is NOT a military problem. Combat, from Alexander the Great up to WWII, had a clear objective: Total Surrender. Gen Ridgway said we are not there to take or defend hills or terrain, but to kill them. When losses became too high, North Korea accepted Truce Talks.
We dropped more bombs in Vietnam and Cambodia than in WWII and they did not surrender. Iraq lost all battles, but our media war seems useless (wrong message or no credibility?).
We tried reconstruction money and even torture and Iraq deteriorates into chaos. No need to ask Iraqi people “Are you better off now than under Saddam” -after spending $300 Billion.
G. K. Chesterton said “in social matters we must actually find the cure before we find the disease.” Since the Iraq War is a new experience for us, we could reconsider everything anew, including the ideological issues, maybe the assumption they will respond like we expected is false, egocentric and misleading and we should consider their ideology from their perspective.
“Reconciliation” between Islamic factions was impossible for 13 Centuries why will they now?
Yet, “Islam” means “Surrender” to them.
Another possibly more important factor is the inherent sabotage ulnerability of oil fields, can they afford the losses in an internecine war that leaves them depleated and Israel intact?
This war is not over, or lost.
The first thing we must change is the assumption that they view "religion" the same way we view "religion."
1. ALL religions are, beyond doubt, different.
2. "What would you die for?" And
"What would they die for?" leads to two different answers.
The argument "I wouldn't do that!" is misleading and irrelevant. We have to accept the differences before we can plan accordingly.
In short, there WERE two options, either send 2-300,000 troops, like General Eric Shinseki told Congress in his testimony, for which he was promptly sacked.
(You can tell change and progress when Eric is restored in dignity, if not in rank. He is the ONLY hero of Iraq. Gen. Powell knew better but he blinked.
The other option was to avoid the quagmire, and we chose the quagmire. Why are we surprised by the results?
Adding 20-30,000 soldiers to a city of millions, will accomplish more killing, on both sides, at perhaps the same ratio of 10 to 1. You do remember Vietnam? You know, that place where every dead Vietnamese was a Vietcong, "how do you know that?" Ans."Because he is dead."
Now, we have three choices.
1. Send 100,000 MORE soldiers, like the General said.
2. Convene a alliance of the countries that would be affected, if we just left.
Our contribution limited to 2/3 the estimated reconstruction costs or about $50 Billion and no troops.
3. Sign separate treaties with the two sectarian groups and give them $10 Billion each to take over the entire mess.
Sending 20,000 more soldiers will only increase the cost and delay the implimentation of a variation of one of the solutions listed.
Issue: UN reported 34,000 civilians killed last year in Iraq. Each had family members with religious duty to revenge, by killing another ‘apostate’ Muslim, or US soldiers -the biblical 'an eye for an eye', which Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and others reminded us, leads to a nation of blind people.
Background: Vietnam War.
The enemy of So. Vietnam was the Viet Cong, i.e. supporters of Communist North Vietnam. Viet Cong casualties may have been 10 to 1, by counting the dead. Yet, Vietnam quickly embraced Capitalism.
Did the name “Viet Cong” confuse the war issue? “Viet Cong” sounds “evil” to us, did we try to demonize the enemy?
Remember the Irish War?
Not, the “troubles” that led to the Irish potato famine and emigration.
But, killings between “Catholics” and “Protestants”, both Christians that believe the same Bible but it took 20 years of massive British Army intervention in a little island to convert "the Sectarian Insurgency" into a fragile Peace Treaty that Prime Minister Blair is trying to preserve -the Treaty is not fully implemented.
Propaganda?: Reports on Iraq War refer to “Sectarian Wars” yet, all Iraqis are members of a branch of Islam, and agree on the Koran, but have been fighting each other since the death of founder Muhammad, 13 Centuries ago.
Can anyone resolve their schism? Do you know how many more GIs will die trying to shoot their way to a resolution of their religious shism and provide peace?
Goal: We must know where are we going, to know how, and at what cost will we get there, if we get there.
Cost: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said they will greet us as liberators and the war costs will be less than oil revenues. Candidate Kerry seemed foolish for saying the war will cost $200 Billion -approaches $400 Billion.
Pain: Number of soldiers killed or disabled for life far exceeds 9/11 WTC casualties. How many more before we say, not “enough is enough!”, but “help” to nations with more critical self-interest in region stability?
Rumors of war between Iran and Saudi Arabia affect regional stability and oil prices -immediately. Tell no one. Shush!
Sadly, our Federal Government has chosen to ignore the truth and continues to issue "Progress" propaganda.
The people in Iraq and soldiers that have been in Iraq know the truth and our leaders may be in "denial" but also know the truth.
Who is the Propaganda Target?
Incredible as it may seem, the target is: The American People!
As long as they convince most of us that "Evarything is OK and Progress is being made to end the Sectarian War!" there is no reason for us to be bothered by the truth.
Ugly Thought: What if we manage to scare them into submission,
say by using B-52 Carpet Bombing!
And, sending 200,000 more oldiers. No doubt, we will WIN!
We might kill a million of them, would we be at peace after that?
Will a Billion Muslims let us be?
Have we thought about the consequences of what we are doing? Or, are we acting like children? At what price? Like Sen. Boxer asked: Who bears the price?
Will we continue to think of us as a peaceful, Democratic, Christian nation that sacrifices FOR others?
Or, will we lose our soul?
Remember: NO WMDs in Iraq.
Iraq had nothing to do with WTC.
This war, is not a "Sectarian" war but a religious war that started 13 Centuries Ago. And, will probably continue for many centuries more.
The Library of Congress has plenty of books on this subject.
The question is not what would you tell the parents of the last soldier killed in Iraq?
But, will you be able to tell the family of the dead soldier that
"I did ALL I could do to prevent more troops from going, save the soldier's life and save my soul. Believe me!"
They way we are going....
It seems the die is cast,
the troops will go to Iraq,
the soldiers will die,
our nation will further go in debt.
Until: WHAT?
Until we repeat the Vietnam Demonstrations?
Or,
Until we run out of borrowed money?
China and others will be glad to lend us all the money we want.
Perhaps, even Iran too.
Why?
Why is it that interest rates are not going to 6 percent?
After we spend another $400 Billion in Iraq, will we quit then?
Some people said "we will bear any burden", is that true of Iraq?
Remember, in the next election the Republicans will not be elected for any office, not even dog-catcher.
(It's an elected office, isn't?)
In 2008, all the troops will be back.
Hope all your relatives are safe.
The very first step should have been to talk.
To date, our President and Secretary of State refuse to talk to Syria and Iran.
They only want to talk with people that agree with us and insult or irritate the others. Sounds familiar?
Candy said "We. don't need to talk with them, they already know what we want. They only need to do it. If we talk with them, they will want to know what will we give them and we don't want to reward them."
Why is not Sen. Biden International Relations Comm. grilling Secretary Rice for her failure to propose a plan, conference, whatever, to deal with the problem? What are they waiting for? Is she incompetent or "obeying orders"?
Our Generals say the problem is not military and our civilian leaders refuse to use diplomacy.
Is this a "psychological bind" of our own making?
Or, is the plan to get the Democrats to cut funds, force a departure and be blamed for the monumental mess? (Remember China?)
Someone should convince House Speaker Pelosi to back down and PUT Impeachment "back on the table." Not use it, just "put it on the table." An "Attention Getting Step", as they said in Squadron Office School.
To play political games with the lives of 20,000 soldiers ought to be an Impeachable Offense, if not criminal.
What reason will Our Government official representatives give the parents of soldiers killed in Iraq, after the troop surge?
"Their lives were needed to keep Republicans in office?"
Surely, nobody wants that, certainly not Republicans, like me.
Forty-two years ago I graduated from the Air Force Institute of Technology in Wright-Patterson AFB, another graduate was Marine Captain Roger Chaffee. Last Saturday was the 40th Anniversary of his death on 27 January, 1967 with Astronauts Ed White and Virgil Grissom.
In the Memorial, Astronaut John Young, said “I can assure you if we had not had that fire and rebuilt the command module ... we could not have done the Apollo program successfully, So we owe a lot to Gus, and Roger and Ed. They made it possible for the rest of us to do the almost impossible.”
He reminded us of the life-risks others have taken for us.
The key lesson of the Apollo tragedy was to learn from mistakes, especially mistakes that kill people -even one is one too many...
Psychologist warn us against repeating mistakes while expecting different results.
Now, against the advise and the votes of most Americans, our President wants to send 23,000 more troops to Iraq.
Presidential Candidate John Edwards recently said: “Americans are speaking out. And our leaders must do no less. You must stand up now against George Bush’s escalation of the war in Iraq .
George Bush is counting on us not to stand up, not to fight against this escalation with everything we have. George Bush is counting on a Democratic Party that will not press for what we know is right.
SILENCE IS BETRAYAL.
Opposing this escalation with all the vigor and tools we have is a test of our political courage.
And you’d better believe that George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are betting that we don’t have that courage.
They don’t think we have it in us.
They’re counting on their opponents to be weak, and political, and careful.
This is not the time for political calculation.
This is the time for political courage and Stand up.
If we don’t stand up, who will?”
The number of soldiers killed exceeds the number that died at the World Trade Center, the magnitude can no longer be ignored.
We should honor the dead that gave their “last measure of devotion” and showed us the futility of human sacrifices, in this hopeless quagmire.
We should not send soldiers to die, to give political cover to some.
It is dishonorable to ignore a message delivered at such a heavy cost.
Further,
It is a political ploy to imply that if those hunkering down in the “Green Zone”, that would be shot if they tried to leave, will stop the killing that started 13 Centuries ago.
The plan is to blame them for the failure and then, only then, pull our troops out.
Why not do it now and use the funds saved in reconstruction?
We owe them something for the mass destruction and th 140,000 dead.
A Teacher of Government, in the small University I attended in Texas, said that history shows that America is blessed.
He said that somehow the right thing happens to save our nation from a worse fate.
The Saudis may have been the first to suggest an alternative, the sudden change from the worse in Palestine may be the second to suggest a "sea change".
Ignore the fact that the people in the region have a vital interest in their own security. Now, we heard the leader of Syria proposing a way out in a TV interview.
Must the UN bring the principals to New York? Will the US rebuff or participate in a conference for peace?
We could do it privately and quietly by dealing directly with the nations in the region.
WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?
Is there something that makes peace at this time undesirable?
Are we afraid of peace or afraid to talk to "them"?
First, the good news. Our Secretary of State announced that not only are we going to meet with Iran and Syria but also with members of the Arab League... why does this remind me of Gen. Powell?
We are finally in the right track.
Remember, they have more to lose than we do, if we leave.
Also, remember the dead and wounded some of which, evidently, continue to suffer in our hospitals.
A sober thought and a quote.
------------------------------
"Abraham Lincoln went to the battlefield at Gettysburg to give his address. He stood on blood soaked ground. No American that I know spoke at any of the battlefields in Vietnam. Unable to stand at this battlefield I honor the men on both sides of the Khe Sanh siege for their giving of life and limb.
The Battle of Khe Sanh was conducted in northwestern Quang Tri Province, Republic of Vietnam, between 21 January and 8 April 1968. 730 Americans were killed in action, 2,642 wounded, 7 missing. The Vietnamese estimate of dead was over 9000.
It has been forty-seven years since our fathers made war on Viet Nam. Since that time they have involved us in the conflicts of the Bay of Pigs, Grenada, Panama, Persian Gulf, Bosnia, and currently in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
We justify the deaths and casualties of our people and those of the peoples of the foreign lands we have fought in by citing our constitutional belief that all men are created equal.
Standing now before numerous battle fields where so many have given life it is time for us to reexamine if we still believe all are created equal.
Has this distant constitutional message of our forefathers faded beyond our hearing?
Is it time to recalibrate our aggressive behaviors to better match our founding ideals?
Have we lost our ability to truly value human life?
When we as a nation ask our men and women to offer their lives, all reasons for doing so should be hard wired directly to our forefather’s ideals.
If one life is given in vain, we have failed. Abraham Lincoln said,
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
Ask yourself honestly, where as a nation do we stand regarding these words today?
Do we see our men and women soldiers as equals?
Do we see our enemies as human beings equal to us?
Have we honored our war dead and wounded as they should be?
Can we make a privileged place among us for our returning veterans?
Do we pay sincere tribute to their supreme sacrifices?
Today we are here (Khe Sanh) to search our hearts for the echoes of our ancestors who may have known the value of human life better than we do today.
We are here to rekindle the flame of honor for our warriors. We are here to enliven our awareness of human life.
We are here to remember the profound significances of when the life of a loved one is offered to protect us.
We are here to find the courage to put aside our own material needs to consider the spiritual needs of the men and women who have gifted us with trust that we shall guide them into honorable endeavors that equal the value of their lives.
And most of all we are hear to look inward at our own souls and to ask for guidance in answering these questions concerning all human life.
Larry Winters
Author of the
Making and Un-Making of a Marine
published end of March 2007 makingandunmaking.com
Shortly after hostilities started in Afghanistan, the President was asked by Condy Rice "You know, Mr President, the mood isn't very good among the principals and people are concerned about what is going on. I want to know if you are concerned about the fact that things are not moving."
He replied: "Of course, I am concerned about the fact that things are not moving!"
Condy: "Do you want to START looking at alternative strategies?"
Pres.: "What alternative strategies would we be looking at?" he asked, as if the possibility had not crossed his mind. [did he want alternatives before he decids whether he wants altenratives, that's complex!]
Bob Woodwar:"Bush at War" Pg. 257
1. Evidently a few non-military high ranking officers made all the suggestions and the president decided, alone.
2. All alternatives were made by that select group.
3. All evaluations were made without lengthy studies.
Did we just drop into the quagmier without much thought?
Maybe the complexity is the result of lack of a focus on single goal, a goal to avoid "nation building" is not clear enough.
It is like saying "don't go there!" which does not tell which way, and how, to go.
Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" presents another intriguing possibility as to why things in Iraq do not seem to make sense, why the war strategy, and tactics, seem so complex.
0n page 239:
"As one of the first steps against Saddam, the president soon signed a new intelligence order significantly expanding the CIA operation to oust Saddam. He allocated $100 million to $200 million in new covert money
--vastly more than the $70 million the CIA spent in Afghanistan.
He increased support to the Iraq opposition, stepped up intelligence gathering inside Iraq and prepared for possible deplyment of CIA paramilitary teams and US Special Forces similar to those used in Afghanistan."
THAT may be the key sentence:
"SIMILAR TO THOSE USED IN AFGHANISTAN" and how was that war fought? Mostly with money, used to "buy" the loyalty of leaders who told us everything we wanted to hear except how to capture or kill ben Laden.
More to follow.
Bush at War, Bob Woodward Pg 141: Gary's first meeting was with Eng. Muhammad Arif Sawari, who headed the Alliance's intelligence and security service. Arif had argued to his commander Massoud that he not receive the two men who killed him, they had come as journalists with letters of introduction, their TV Camera had a gun inside. Nonetheless, because he had been in charge of security, and because the assassination had taken place in his office, he was under immense pressure to help pull the Alliance together. Arif recognized Gary from previous December... Arif seeme to relax. "You were there, " he said. Gary nodded and placed a bundle of cash on the table $500,000 in 10 one-foot stacks of $100 bills. He believed it would be more impressive than the usual $200,00, the best way to say, "We're here, we're serious, here's money..."
Gary would soon ask CIA Hq for and receive $10 million in cash.
Could it be that they were planning to do the same in Iraq and buy whoever was necessary while, the task of finding ben Laden in Afghanistan seemed increasingly like a quagmire?
One may interpret the fact that they relied on Iraqi defectors for their information on WMD an indication that they believed those that they paid to say what they wanted to hear.
Remember Chalabi? Our man in Iraq intruduced to Congress in the State of the Union Speech. Dr. Ahmad Chalabi is a Shi'a Muslim (backed by Iran) son of wealthy banking family whose grandfather, father and brother held prominent posts in Iraqi governments until Saddam Hussein's Baath Party seized power in 1968.
He organized resistance in the Kurdish north in the mid-1990s. His main political support was from Congress, Pentagon and parts of the CIA, but not from the State Department.
In 1995, he organized an uprising in the Northern Iraq, called off by the CIA at the crucial moment, which led to the deaths of many thousands. Chalabi knew the facts about this US failure in the older Bush Administration to support the uprising.
Oddly, while in Hungary, Pres G.W. Bush compared the War in Iraq to the 1956 Hungarian uprising, also instigated by the US and crushed by Russia when promised support never came. Why? A slip or a way to deal with a "sin of the father"?
Here is some old and very long but well written corroboration that in the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq we kept the same mind set, which seems to be based on doing it the "easy" way we did it in Afghanistan but tried to repeat in Iraq and must have bought, tried to buy or otherwise lured those that told us what we wanted to hear, as detailed below.
(Remember "political Capital"?)
Iraq was, evidently, not seen as a separate and different problem.
To me, the most incredible mistake was the failure to recognize the religious implications.
Were they unaware that ben Laden over and over goes back to his roots, his religious Islamic roots?
They need to "Pay Attention!"
Did they actually plan to transform Iraq into a "secular" nation?
That seems incredibly dumb, unrealistic and illogical (is that the same as "crazy"?).
No wonder the wars seems complex.
How can you logically understand that which they did in secret (without explanations) in a way that was and proved inconsistent, invalid, useless and self-defeating? Complex is a kind word.
As if they had no access to religious views on Islam. Most incredible.
How Ahmed Chalabi conned the neocons
By John Dizard
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/fea
ture/2004/05/04/chalabi/index.html
The hawks who launched the Iraq war believed the deal-making exile when he promised to build a secular democracy with close ties to Israel. Now the Israel deal is dead, he's cozying up to Iran -- and his patrons look like they're on the way out. A Salon exclusive.
May 4, 2004 | When the definitive history of the current Iraq war is finally written, wealthy exile Ahmed Chalabi will be among those judged most responsible for the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. More than a decade ago Chalabi teamed up with American neoconservatives to sell the war as the cornerstone of an energetic new policy to bring democracy to the Middle East -- and after 9/11, as the crucial antidote to global terrorism.
It was Chalabi who provided crucial intelligence on Iraqi weaponry to justify the invasion, almost all of which turned out to be false, and laid out a rosy scenario about the country's readiness for an American strike against Saddam that led the nation's leaders to predict -- and apparently even believe -- that they would be greeted as liberators.
Chalabi also promised his neoconservative patrons that as leader of Iraq he would make peace with Israel, an issue of vital importance to them. A year ago, Chalabi was riding high, after Saddam Hussein fell with even less trouble than expected.
Now his power is slipping away, and some of his old neoconservative allies -- whose own political survival is looking increasingly shaky as the U.S. occupation turns nightmarish -- are beginning to turn on him.
The U.S. reversed its policy of excluding former Baathists from the Iraqi army -- a policy devised by Chalabi -- and Marine commanders even empowered former Republican Guard officers to run the pacification of Fallujah.
Last week United Nations envoy Lakhdar Brahimi delivered a devastating blow to Chalabi's future leadership hopes, recommending that the Iraqi Governing Council, of which he is finance chair, be accorded no governance role after the June 30 transition to sovereignty.
Meanwhile, administration neoconservatives, once united behind Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress he founded, are now split, as new doubts about his long-stated commitment to a secular Iraqi democracy with ties to Israel, and fears that he is cozying up to his Shiite co-religionists in Iran, begin to emerge.
At least one key Pentagon neocon is said to be on his way out, a casualty of the battle over Chalabi and the increasing chaos in Iraq, and others could follow.
"Ahmed Chalabi is a treacherous, spineless turncoat," says L. Marc Zell, a former law partner of Douglas Feith, now the undersecretary of defense for policy, and a former friend and supporter of Chalabi and his aspirations to lead Iraq. "He had one set of friends before he was in power, and now he's got another."
While Zell's disaffection with Chalabi has been a long time in the making, his remarks to Salon represent his first public break with the would-be Iraqi leader, and are likely to ripple throughout Washington in the days to come.
Zell, a Jerusalem attorney, continues to be a partner in the firm that Feith left in 2001 to take the Pentagon job.
He also helped Ahmed Chalabi's nephew Salem set up a new law office in Baghdad in late 2003. Chalabi met with Zell and other neoconservatives many times from the mid-1990s on in London, Turkey, and the U.S. Zell outlines what Chalabi was promising the neocons before the Iraq war:
"He said he would end Iraq's boycott of trade with Israel, and would allow Israeli companies to do business there.
He said [the new Iraqi government] would agree to rebuild the pipeline from Mosul [in the northern Iraqi oil fields] to Haifa [the Israeli port, and the location of a major refinery]."
But Chalabi, Zell says, has delivered on none of them. The bitter ex-Chalabi backer believes his former friend's moves were a deliberate bait and switch designed to win support for his designs to return to Iraq and run the country.
Chalabi's ties to Iran -- Israel's most dangerous enemy -- have also alarmed both his allies and his enemies in the Bush administration. Those ties were highlighted on Monday, when Newsweek reported that "U.S. officials say that electronic intercepts of discussions between Iranian leaders indicate that Chalabi and his entourage told Iranian contacts about American political plans in Iraq."
According to one government source, some of the information he gave Iran "could get people killed." A Chalabi aide denied the allegation.
According to Newsweek, the State Department and the CIA -- Chalabi's longtime enemies -- were behind the leak: "the State Department and the CIA are using the intelligence about his Iran ties to persuade the president to cut him loose once and for all."
But the neocons have bigger problems than Chalabi. As the intellectual architects of an "easy" war gone bad, they stand to pay the price.
The first to go may be Zell's old partner Douglas Feith. Military sources say Feith will resign his Defense Department post by mid-May. His removal was reportedly a precondition imposed by Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte when he agreed to take over from Paul Bremer as the top U.S. official in Iraq. "Feith is on the way out," Iraqi defense minister (and Chalabi nephew) Ali Allawi says confidently, and other sources confirm it.
Feith's boss, Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, may follow. Bush political mastermind Karl Rove is said to be determined that Wolfowitz move on before the November election, even if he comes back in a second Bush term.
Sources say one of the positions being suggested is the director of Central Intelligence.
In part, the White House political crew is reacting to pressure from the uniformed military, which is becoming a quiet but effective enemy of the neocons.
The White House seems to be performing triage to save the political capital of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, Iraq hawks who have close ties to the neocons. "Rumsfeld and Cheney stay," says an Army officer.
"Powell has his guy Negroponte in there. But the neocons are losing power day by day."
-----------------------------------
My Comment.
All the mistakes they made and while doing them they called it "progress".
They must think the American people are gullible and dumb and yet, many say they agree with them.
I think, next year, after the elections, we will not find one person willing to explain their support for "The War in Iraq", like the comment heard amongst the military stationed in Germany, "You know, all the Germans I meet here say they were in the Russian Front."
Of course, they were!
Zbigniew Brzezinski's comments here:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Brzezinksi%20speech%207-20web.htm
Zbigniew Brzezinski's opening remarks notable points were:
1. America's "policy in the Middle East is the basic test of America's capacity to exercise global leadership." This is similar to "what transpired during the Cold War when the ultimate test of America's capacity to act as a defender of the free world was its ability to conduct a meaningful policy in Europe."
If America does not do well in its Middle East challenge, the U.S. will lose its capacity to lead.
2. Neither the United States nor Israel "has the capacity to impose a unilateral solution" to Israel's problems in the Middle East. "There may be people who deceive themselves of that. We call them neo-cons in this country and there are other equivalents in Israel as well."
3. Israel and its neighbors alone "can never resolve their conflict peacefully, no matter how much they try, now matter how sincere they may be." When one party is sincere, the other's intentions are not synchronous.
Reasonable people may yet resolve the quagmire called Iraq.
Well, Speaker Pelosi has replaced Condy Rice as Foreign Minister. Even Iran chose to release the Brits. While Condy, probably on a short leash, is unable to decide if she should resign or collect the payoff that will come her way. We will know who she really wants to be while our Iraq quagmire continues...
But, everyone is now talking, the Israeli are meeting with the Paliestine every two weeks?
First, they want them to give up all arms before they even talk with them and now they meet weekly? What is going to happen next? Peace, you think? Stay tuned. But, clearly, the beginning of the end started with the last election results. Our Democracy seems to be working, after all.
This may be my last blog on this subject. Next: Global Warming!
Leave it to PBS to bring clarity to the most important story since the Vietnam War.
The Bill Moyers Journal, in PBS at
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
Presented the events on how the gullible Liberal Press became a "lap dog" to the Administration, while all the time accusing the British Prime Minister of being one
Go figure...
The program "The Selling of a War" in Bill Moyer's Journal, begins with:
"Four years ago on May 1 Pres Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln wearing a flight suit and delivered a speech in front of a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner.
(Now, here we are, four years later, give a day or two, and the President is about to veto a Congressional Act that requires our troops be pulled out of Iraq.)
He was hailed by media stars as a "breathtaking" example of presidential leadership in toppling Saddam Hussein.
Despite profound questions over the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in the press confirmed the White House's claim that the war was won.
(Now, the President of the Senate says: "The war is lost!")
MSNBC's Chris Matthews declared,
"We're all neo-cons now;"
NPR's Bob Edwards said, "The war in Iraq is essentially over;" and
Fortune magazine's Jeff Birnbaum said, "It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context."
How did the mainstream press get it so wrong?
How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported?"
For the full text and video go to
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
Read, watch and weep for our U. S. of A. and our formerly free press.
Pray we save our souls -before too late.
Like someone in British MI5 said "there is always one more thing."
The Iraq War Budget with a war timeline was vetoed and Congress passed another bill without time limits.
Now, Democrats worry that either their supporters will abandon them now or, if they pass another bill with a time limit the other voters will abandon them because of their "failure to support the soldiers in the frontline."
Either case, they must make a political calculation which will make them seem spineless.
Their new question is which way will the Congressional Democrats be spineless. Sometimes it is hard to be even wishiwashy.
Senator Biden, on the other hand, is on record with the support of the budget to provide real armored vehicles (survivable 70% better than armored humvees) to the soldiers because there is no chance to override a Presidential Veto.
On the other hand, three Republican Senators announced their support for a bill WITH a timetable and there may soon be others unwilling to retire prematurely to support a lame-duck -allegedly said by Sen. Trent Lott... Stay tuned.
Our Quagmire in Iraq Clarified
How can we sleep?
How can we find peace and serenity?
How can we find happiness?
What happens to us if we know relatives, friends and neighbors are dying for what we know is false?
Why are we not trying to rescue them? How can we sleep at night?
We wonder, from time to time, how can he, the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, sleep?
Here is the inscrutable question: Does he believe the lies he preaches or does he know the truth?
Ultimately, it is about “telling the truth” -with words.
Words are the common currency and bond in all we understand.
Words, Maxine Hong Kingsley said, is what we need and use to find sanity, peace and human bond within our community.
If the words are false, bonds break and community and, even, sanity end.
Can we live as a people united in a common bond, if we cannot trust our leaders to tell the truth?
Can the world trust our leader, if we, his people, do not trust him to tell the truth?
The key to understanding our President is the principle followed by all despots, not reason, truth or logic but power.
He trivialized principles by saying “When it’s all said and done... if you ever come down and visit the old, tired me down there in Crawford, I will be able to say I looked in the mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics. And that’s important to me!”
Why didn’t he ever share with us these seemingly unfathomable principles he follows?
Can't he state his Principle in words?
Most of his ideas are stated in single words: Freedom, obivously, liberty, ideology, etc., but what does he mean?
To get even with UBL, we attacked Afghanistan, why did we leave and go to Iraq?
Three books on this period fail to shed light on this; was it principle, gut feeling, Chaney, revenge, oil or what?
Does his principle on Democracy imply blind acceptance of all he does without giving reasons why? Why did he keep his principles secret when he ran for office?
Are we to follow like sheep and ignore contradictions:
Open Democracy for Iraq but a White House with Executive Privilege Secrets?
Secret surveillance of citizens, tax cuts for oil companies and the wealthy tow percent that earn more than 100 million citizens?
What principle justifies building Guantanamo to torture of prisoners and avoid the rule of our Constitution and the Geneva Convention, and more.
Even the “incredible progress in Iraq” was secretly based arming one side without telling Congress or seeking the approval of the Iraq leaders.
What proper principle could possibly justify all these irrational actions -except despotic rule?
Thus, we return to the the first idea in the first line in the first Blog written on Dec 18, 2006
So, now after the "surge" of 35,000 soldiers, Gen. Petreus will report to Congress on the "Progress" if any. I guess it is not enough that the President has been saying, year after year, and sometimes, month after month, "we are making progress". I guess he lost his credibility and the law requires the General to present a report to Congress. However, there is problem, at one time the press reported that the report would be written by the White House. Which, might mean that the White House would tell the general what to say. Is this a charade, or what?
And, why does the Congress that has accepted that they were given false information about WMD, Saddam complicity on 9/11, atomic weapons, chemical and bactereological weapons, etc. All of which were personally reported by the Secretary of State Gen Powell and thus became another casualty of the War on Iraq.
So, why is the Congress eager to hear words they have reasons to mistrust?
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on ME!"- Irish Saying.
So, why is Congress fiddling like Nero while Iraq burns? Have they lost their collective minds?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home