The psychos in the Bush Administration have moved into the next phase of their drive for an attack on Iran. Blame Iran for the mayhem in Iraq and if possible, the deaths of American soldiers. Recently, the President authorized American servicemen to kill Iranians in Iraq. Heck, I guess we've killed so many Iraqis that we are running out of warm bodies to shoot. Now I guess if we find a foreigner that looks fairly healthy, we shoot him too.
The Presidents plan to kill Iranians in Iraq may have been dealt a serious blow when the Iranians, in a brilliant strategical move, offered to train and equip the Iraqi military. It will be difficult to launch an attack on Iran when their military personnel are running all over southern Iraq teaching the Shiite Army how to fight and giving them weapons. In the event that we attacked Iran the Iranians would already be within easy striking distance of all of the American bases and you best believe that the Shiite soldiers they are training and equipping would use those weapons against the United States military.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Logic, Rhetoric, and Impeachment.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had officially joined the psychotic liar brigade with his latest statement about the non-binding Congressional resolution on the Iraq surge plan. His recent statement that Congress is helping the enemy by passing a resolution opposing the plan is as logic free as any patriotism inducing statement President Bush has ever made. His exact words were that it "emboldens the enemy". The "enemy" that he so simplistically references is made up of a number of groups with various objectives. Their makeup and objectives vary to such a degree that they often fight each other. Wikipedia describes the Iraqi insurgency thusly:
"The Iraqi insurgency is composed of at least a dozen major guerrilla organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups. These groups are subdivided into countless smaller cells. Due to its clandestine nature, the exact composition of the Iraqi insurgency is difficult to determine. Because most of these insurgents are civilians fighting against an organized domestic army and a foreign occupying army, many consider them to be guerrillas."
So, according to the Secretary of Defense, even though we aren't ccompletely sure who they are, we are sure that they are happy to see Congress oppose the Administration's new plan? We know for sure that the Neocons, the Administration, and Al Qaida favor of the plan. We also know that every previous plan has failed miserably. It is now pretty obvious why Secretary Gates was the President's selection for this position. He rejects logic and critical thinking and uses unsupported patriotic sounding rhetoric to inflame the passion of the weak minded.
It appears that the chickens are finally coming home to roost The President is left with only the richest 10% and the stupidest 20% in his corner. The big question we are left with is this, will the American people allow this catastrophe to continue until January 2008 or will the demand for impeachment push Congress to do their job sooner.
"The Iraqi insurgency is composed of at least a dozen major guerrilla organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups. These groups are subdivided into countless smaller cells. Due to its clandestine nature, the exact composition of the Iraqi insurgency is difficult to determine. Because most of these insurgents are civilians fighting against an organized domestic army and a foreign occupying army, many consider them to be guerrillas."
So, according to the Secretary of Defense, even though we aren't ccompletely sure who they are, we are sure that they are happy to see Congress oppose the Administration's new plan? We know for sure that the Neocons, the Administration, and Al Qaida favor of the plan. We also know that every previous plan has failed miserably. It is now pretty obvious why Secretary Gates was the President's selection for this position. He rejects logic and critical thinking and uses unsupported patriotic sounding rhetoric to inflame the passion of the weak minded.
It appears that the chickens are finally coming home to roost The President is left with only the richest 10% and the stupidest 20% in his corner. The big question we are left with is this, will the American people allow this catastrophe to continue until January 2008 or will the demand for impeachment push Congress to do their job sooner.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Links to Ponder
Iran Interferes in Iraq - US interferes in Afghanistan
The US Loves Saddam Hussein - US hates Saddam Hussein
Bush tries to avoid war with Iraq - "And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force" - G.W. Bush March 8, 2003
Bush reveals himself as an unrepentant liar - President Bush declared Monday that "knowing what I know today, we still would have gone on into Iraq." - G.W. Bush August 3, 2004
-
Bush is for Freedom Everywhere - Except the United States
The US Loves Saddam Hussein - US hates Saddam Hussein
Bush tries to avoid war with Iraq - "And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force" - G.W. Bush March 8, 2003
Bush reveals himself as an unrepentant liar - President Bush declared Monday that "knowing what I know today, we still would have gone on into Iraq." - G.W. Bush August 3, 2004
-
Bush is for Freedom Everywhere - Except the United States
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Congress Versus George Bush
It's getting very obvious now that the both parties in Congress are parting ways with the President once and for all. The Democrats, riding a wave of victories in the midterm elections, have been emboldened to take him on at every corner. The Republicans, afraid of a second act in the 2008 elections which includes surrendering the White House, are in an open revolt against their party leader. So now it appears that both parties have joined the American people in what amounts to a struggle against a power crazed dictator.
It gives me little pleasure to repeat what I said on my radio show two years ago, but I shall. The Republicans will learn what the Democrats already know. President Bush answers to no one and will not respond to any influences outside of his neocon inner circle. While we wrench our hands and gnarl our teeth over Iraq, President Bush is racing to his next ill conceived military Blunder. Will most of Congress stay silent again or will others follow the lead of Dennis Kucinich by exposing and denouncing the reckless march to war with Iran? Chuck Hagel is in the forefront of Republicans revolting against the President's latest Iraq plan but many more are realizing the political danger that comes along with supporting it.
At any rate, it is getting obvious that anything short of impeachment will do little to influence our dictatorial leader's foreign policy. A grassroots movement is beginning to take shape and I believe that soon the American people will not only support, but demand it.
It gives me little pleasure to repeat what I said on my radio show two years ago, but I shall. The Republicans will learn what the Democrats already know. President Bush answers to no one and will not respond to any influences outside of his neocon inner circle. While we wrench our hands and gnarl our teeth over Iraq, President Bush is racing to his next ill conceived military Blunder. Will most of Congress stay silent again or will others follow the lead of Dennis Kucinich by exposing and denouncing the reckless march to war with Iran? Chuck Hagel is in the forefront of Republicans revolting against the President's latest Iraq plan but many more are realizing the political danger that comes along with supporting it.
At any rate, it is getting obvious that anything short of impeachment will do little to influence our dictatorial leader's foreign policy. A grassroots movement is beginning to take shape and I believe that soon the American people will not only support, but demand it.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
SOME PEOPLE APPROVE OF BUSH'S JOB?
The poll numbers for President Bush have sunk to near historic lows. The last President who sank to these lows, Richard Nixon, was run out of office under threat of prosecution. Examining these numbers raises the question, who is this 30 or some odd percentage of people who still support his policies? Clearly Al Queda is quite happy about his latest Iraq strategy to send additional targets to the meat grinder that Iraq has become but I don't think any of their representatives were included in the poll. A recent Newsweek poll shows that 68% of Americans oppose the Surge and only 12% strongly favor it. Who are the 12%, Defense contractors and their stockholders? Other than an Al Queda leader, who could look at the repeated failed strategies of the Bush Administration and interpret their latest move as a positive action. I always wonder when I look at polls about the people in the small minority who favor or oppose some absurd idea. Who are these social misfits so out of line with mainstream society, and in this case civilized Americans, that they support a hapless bungler to the bitter end.
Abraham Lincoln's quote about fooling people is proving to be quite accurate regarding the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation. In light of an election day thumping, the Republican Congressman are seeing the light and the military leaders are making it clear that they oppose the surge strategy. The 12% left supporting Bush are not going to be much help during the 2008 elections and I suspect that The Democrats are going to make further gains in Congress and take the White House. Unfortunately for them, they will likely have a much worse mess in Iraq than we have today.
Abraham Lincoln's quote about fooling people is proving to be quite accurate regarding the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation. In light of an election day thumping, the Republican Congressman are seeing the light and the military leaders are making it clear that they oppose the surge strategy. The 12% left supporting Bush are not going to be much help during the 2008 elections and I suspect that The Democrats are going to make further gains in Congress and take the White House. Unfortunately for them, they will likely have a much worse mess in Iraq than we have today.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
STATE OF THE UNION, SCREWED!
It's time for President Bush to deliver another State of the Union address. Lets face it, no matter what the window dressing is, the only thing that matters is the part where he outlines his latest recipe for failure in Iraq. It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that he will attempt to cast the same old tired strategy in a different light with patriotic allusions and a full helping of the rah rah victory rhetoric that has failed him since 2003.
This should be called the State of Iraq speech. The American people want out now so no one will pay attention to anything but the part about how we get out. The bad news is that it won't be coming. President Bush has made it clear that he has no plans to leave Iraq during his Presidency and it should be obvious to everyone by now that he does not answer to Congress or the American people. He answers to a higher authority, the only one he has ever consulted for his Iraq policy, the American Enterprise Institute. This flock of highly educated idiots cooked up the plan for the Iraq war and have led us down the path of misery from day one of the Bush Presidency.
Republicans in Congress are now learning what the Democrats already know, President Bush is a deluded dictator being led by a group of fascist warmongers. Republican Lawmakers are just as irrelevant to his decisions as the Democrats and the American people. It's time for the Republicans in Congress to join the Democrats and stop this madman before it's too late.
This should be called the State of Iraq speech. The American people want out now so no one will pay attention to anything but the part about how we get out. The bad news is that it won't be coming. President Bush has made it clear that he has no plans to leave Iraq during his Presidency and it should be obvious to everyone by now that he does not answer to Congress or the American people. He answers to a higher authority, the only one he has ever consulted for his Iraq policy, the American Enterprise Institute. This flock of highly educated idiots cooked up the plan for the Iraq war and have led us down the path of misery from day one of the Bush Presidency.
Republicans in Congress are now learning what the Democrats already know, President Bush is a deluded dictator being led by a group of fascist warmongers. Republican Lawmakers are just as irrelevant to his decisions as the Democrats and the American people. It's time for the Republicans in Congress to join the Democrats and stop this madman before it's too late.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Hillary Announces......
It's official, Hillary has entered the 2008 Presidential race. The field is crowded with serious contenders including John Edwards, Barak Obama, and of course Mrs. Clinton, but this time around, race itself is going to have a unique effect on the democratic primary. Unlike Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton, Barak Obama is going to dramatically change the dynamics of the primaries. Senator Obama is going to take nearly every African American vote in the democratic party, anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling them self. The other candidates will be put in the position of completing for the white democratic votes. In my opinion this dynamic is huge. Certainly the candidates must realize this, and if they don't, they soon will after the first few states make it clear.
New Hampshire Poll
Barack Obama - 23%
Hillary Clinton - 19%
John Edwards - 19%
John Kerry - 5%
Wesley Clark - 3%
Joe Biden - 3%
Dennis Kucinich - 1%
Bill Richardson - 1%
Tom Vilsack - 1%
Not Sure - 22%
The biggest problem Hillary Clinton has is her politics. She has proven to be much more of a center right wing candidate than anyone would have ever imagined when Bill was in the White House. Clearly much further to the right than her husband. The first real evidence of this was her position on flag burning, since then her positions on Iraq and Iran have demonstrated that her foreign policy is likely too far right and too hawkish for most democratic voters. Though she has the greatest politician of our era by her side, sooner or later she is going to have to explain her hawkish ways and that may be her downfall. Iraq is a bloody hellhole and it certainly won't get any better as presidential campaign plays out. I'm not saying Hillary won't win, but it would surprise me if she does.
Oh, did I mention warhawk John McCain facing the same fate?
New Hampshire Poll
Barack Obama - 23%
Hillary Clinton - 19%
John Edwards - 19%
John Kerry - 5%
Wesley Clark - 3%
Joe Biden - 3%
Dennis Kucinich - 1%
Bill Richardson - 1%
Tom Vilsack - 1%
Not Sure - 22%
The biggest problem Hillary Clinton has is her politics. She has proven to be much more of a center right wing candidate than anyone would have ever imagined when Bill was in the White House. Clearly much further to the right than her husband. The first real evidence of this was her position on flag burning, since then her positions on Iraq and Iran have demonstrated that her foreign policy is likely too far right and too hawkish for most democratic voters. Though she has the greatest politician of our era by her side, sooner or later she is going to have to explain her hawkish ways and that may be her downfall. Iraq is a bloody hellhole and it certainly won't get any better as presidential campaign plays out. I'm not saying Hillary won't win, but it would surprise me if she does.
Oh, did I mention warhawk John McCain facing the same fate?
Friday, January 19, 2007
The Invasion of Iraq, DOOMED!!! from the start
The popular thing for both pundits and politicians to do is blame the present state of affairs in Iraq on the prosecution of the occupation, rather than the acknowledge that the invasion was the mistake. The truth is that regardless of the course of action we chose after the invasion, we would have ultimately ended up with a sectarian conflict. The most popular argument is that when Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi Army, he set in motion the dynamics which created the Sunni insurgency. I would argue that had he not, a sectarian conflict would have began even faster than it eventually did. Saddam's Army was directed almost entirely be Sunnis who were loyal to his regime. Had we kept that group together they most surely would have inflicted the exact same terror tactics against the Shia that the Shiite run Iraqi Police Force currently inflicts on the Sunni population.
The truth is that we plunged an entire nation into Anarchy betting that the default state of political existence would automatically be democracy. How foolish we were. The default state of politics in an anarchic environment is anarchy. The destruction of the rule of law, no matter how flawed, was guaranteed to create an environment where people resorted to methods of basic survival. In those circumstances human beings are capable of horrors they would never even consider in an environment where some modicum of order existed. The instant we marched across the border this things was over, just as was predicted by many Arab leaders. Now, everyone but the Bush Administration realizes that the game is over. Those who supported this misadventure can't possibly face the reality that the problem was the invasion and not the aftermath, because they would certainly have to shoulder a lot more responsibility.
How hard was this to predict? The Russians experienced it, the Brits experienced it, and the French found out yet we still marched directly into the Gates of Hell. A fool learns from his own mistakes, a wise man learns from the mistakes of those before him.
The truth is that we plunged an entire nation into Anarchy betting that the default state of political existence would automatically be democracy. How foolish we were. The default state of politics in an anarchic environment is anarchy. The destruction of the rule of law, no matter how flawed, was guaranteed to create an environment where people resorted to methods of basic survival. In those circumstances human beings are capable of horrors they would never even consider in an environment where some modicum of order existed. The instant we marched across the border this things was over, just as was predicted by many Arab leaders. Now, everyone but the Bush Administration realizes that the game is over. Those who supported this misadventure can't possibly face the reality that the problem was the invasion and not the aftermath, because they would certainly have to shoulder a lot more responsibility.
How hard was this to predict? The Russians experienced it, the Brits experienced it, and the French found out yet we still marched directly into the Gates of Hell. A fool learns from his own mistakes, a wise man learns from the mistakes of those before him.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
A HORROR OF EPIC PROPORTIONS IS BREWING
Thats the only way I can describe the Bush Administration's apparent plans to attack Iran sometime between now and April. Now may be the time to go out and travel, spend your life savings, buy some friends gifts, and while you're at it convert every dime you have into Euros. In the unfortunate event that the this threat is carried out, the standard of living we are all accustomed to will be changed immediately and drastically. Your money may be worth much less than it is today. Joseph Palermo over at Huffingtonpost.com brings up a very real and scary economic possibility:
"China might become so angered by the American actions that it cashes in some of its $1 trillion in U.S. treasury bonds and exchanges them for Euros. The dollar would then be suddenly devalued. The life savings of millions of Americans could be threatened as the dollar tanks, and interest rates will shoot up when the central banks try to entice foreigners' to hang on to their dollars to stop the hemorrhaging. And this devaluing of the dollar will occur in an environment of hyperinflation because the high price of oil will drive up the costs of everything"
President Bush has a long record of failure as a businessman, and we all know the catastrophic results of his middle east policy to date, but the final act in this tragic play could be the one that lays waste to the way of life we have grown to expect in America. This may seem like a grim prediction unless you critically weigh the possible outcomes and the likelihood of a worst case scenario. Certainly the Iranian leadership will recognize that the ultimate goal is to unseat them from power. This means that they have no choice but to use all means necessary to retaliate. Make no mistake that Iran does have the ability to defend themselves against the US with the latest technology. Check out the latest Russian missiles they have been buying. Astronomical oil prices would cause worldwide anger towards the US. We may actually see official or unofficial sanctions against the United States for the first time. The retaliation against our sitting duck military personnel in Iraq and other US interests in the Middle East would be so widespread and deadly that it would take a draft to increase the size of the military sufficiently to protect our interests. However, the public reaction would be so negative that a draft would be politically impossible. What an inconceivable mess, Iran inflicting military damage to US interests, the American people enraged over the numbers of US troops being killed, Iraq turned into a boiling cauldron of death for any and everything American, worldwide condemnation including possible sanctions and boycotts of US goods, and economic catastrophe due to sky high oil prices.
I hate to keep beating the drum on this Iran issue, but the results will be so dramatic that I would be remiss in not pointing this out. Call your congressman, local call in radio show, write an op-ed article, or anything else you can do to stop this aggression. If it goes down, we will all go down with it. An evil wind this way blows!
"China might become so angered by the American actions that it cashes in some of its $1 trillion in U.S. treasury bonds and exchanges them for Euros. The dollar would then be suddenly devalued. The life savings of millions of Americans could be threatened as the dollar tanks, and interest rates will shoot up when the central banks try to entice foreigners' to hang on to their dollars to stop the hemorrhaging. And this devaluing of the dollar will occur in an environment of hyperinflation because the high price of oil will drive up the costs of everything"
President Bush has a long record of failure as a businessman, and we all know the catastrophic results of his middle east policy to date, but the final act in this tragic play could be the one that lays waste to the way of life we have grown to expect in America. This may seem like a grim prediction unless you critically weigh the possible outcomes and the likelihood of a worst case scenario. Certainly the Iranian leadership will recognize that the ultimate goal is to unseat them from power. This means that they have no choice but to use all means necessary to retaliate. Make no mistake that Iran does have the ability to defend themselves against the US with the latest technology. Check out the latest Russian missiles they have been buying. Astronomical oil prices would cause worldwide anger towards the US. We may actually see official or unofficial sanctions against the United States for the first time. The retaliation against our sitting duck military personnel in Iraq and other US interests in the Middle East would be so widespread and deadly that it would take a draft to increase the size of the military sufficiently to protect our interests. However, the public reaction would be so negative that a draft would be politically impossible. What an inconceivable mess, Iran inflicting military damage to US interests, the American people enraged over the numbers of US troops being killed, Iraq turned into a boiling cauldron of death for any and everything American, worldwide condemnation including possible sanctions and boycotts of US goods, and economic catastrophe due to sky high oil prices.
I hate to keep beating the drum on this Iran issue, but the results will be so dramatic that I would be remiss in not pointing this out. Call your congressman, local call in radio show, write an op-ed article, or anything else you can do to stop this aggression. If it goes down, we will all go down with it. An evil wind this way blows!
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
BAD NEWS AMERICA
There are some facts that we, as humans, refuse to believe or accept no matter how obvious they may be. We look for any explanation other than the one that's staring us in the face. Why, because the pain of reality is too great. Unfortunately, the diplomatic and military failure in Iraq has become a perfect example of this phenomenon.
Clearly the occupation of Iraq, that is fraudulently referred to as a war, has been lost. If it is possible to lose an occupation. In order to win a military conflict the victor needs to be able to demonstrate that they have achieved either all, or at minimum a significant number of their principle objectives. The US stated their objectives as capturing Saddam's WMD's and/or bringing a stable western style democracy to Iraq. Though these objectives were presented in a disjointed amorphous manner, they were about as close as we ever heard to clear objectives. It is obvious that the WMD objective cannot be achieved for obvious reasons. That only leaves the second objective, which is a stable democracy. Instead of moving towards democracy, Iraq is moving towards complete anarchy. Meanwhile, the American public has grown weary of the carnage and will not stand for this mess to go on much longer. If we define a victory as having achieved our objectives, then wouldn't we define defeat as not having achieved them. In this case, we haven't even come close to achieving any and the hopes are dimming rather than getting brighter.
The question is not whether we have lost in Iraq (again, if its possible to lose an occupation), the question is now when do we admit it and transform our strategy into managing defeat and disaster. Currently the Bush administration is applying the perfect recipe for failure" if something isn't working, do more of it" After adding thousands of additional troops to Baghdad in July of 2006 failed to improve security the Administration is now on course to take their doomed strategy to the next level. By adding troops throughout the entire nation they expect that what hasn't worked in four years will now start working.
America, the answer is right in front of our faces. We must face the grim reality that thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died for nothing. Or worse, they have died to make a bad situation exponentially worse. That's a bitter pill for the American people to swallow. The military has long known this and has reported it to the Administration. The longer we avoid this tragic truth, the longer we go before we adjust to a strategy which accepts reality and looks for the international help that is our only hope for an exit.
Henry Kissinger recently admitted that "A U.S. victory in Iraq is no longer possible under the conditions the Bush administration hopes to achieve, but a quick withdrawal of American troops would have "disastrous consequences," Ask yourself this question, if you attack a country and you don't win, isn't the only other option losing. Didn't Mr Kissinger tell us all we needed to know in that statement? This game is clearly over, its time to go to a strategy of managing a military and political catastrophe. The Bush administration has dug us into a deep hole, its time to put away the shovel!
Clearly the occupation of Iraq, that is fraudulently referred to as a war, has been lost. If it is possible to lose an occupation. In order to win a military conflict the victor needs to be able to demonstrate that they have achieved either all, or at minimum a significant number of their principle objectives. The US stated their objectives as capturing Saddam's WMD's and/or bringing a stable western style democracy to Iraq. Though these objectives were presented in a disjointed amorphous manner, they were about as close as we ever heard to clear objectives. It is obvious that the WMD objective cannot be achieved for obvious reasons. That only leaves the second objective, which is a stable democracy. Instead of moving towards democracy, Iraq is moving towards complete anarchy. Meanwhile, the American public has grown weary of the carnage and will not stand for this mess to go on much longer. If we define a victory as having achieved our objectives, then wouldn't we define defeat as not having achieved them. In this case, we haven't even come close to achieving any and the hopes are dimming rather than getting brighter.
The question is not whether we have lost in Iraq (again, if its possible to lose an occupation), the question is now when do we admit it and transform our strategy into managing defeat and disaster. Currently the Bush administration is applying the perfect recipe for failure" if something isn't working, do more of it" After adding thousands of additional troops to Baghdad in July of 2006 failed to improve security the Administration is now on course to take their doomed strategy to the next level. By adding troops throughout the entire nation they expect that what hasn't worked in four years will now start working.
America, the answer is right in front of our faces. We must face the grim reality that thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died for nothing. Or worse, they have died to make a bad situation exponentially worse. That's a bitter pill for the American people to swallow. The military has long known this and has reported it to the Administration. The longer we avoid this tragic truth, the longer we go before we adjust to a strategy which accepts reality and looks for the international help that is our only hope for an exit.
Henry Kissinger recently admitted that "A U.S. victory in Iraq is no longer possible under the conditions the Bush administration hopes to achieve, but a quick withdrawal of American troops would have "disastrous consequences," Ask yourself this question, if you attack a country and you don't win, isn't the only other option losing. Didn't Mr Kissinger tell us all we needed to know in that statement? This game is clearly over, its time to go to a strategy of managing a military and political catastrophe. The Bush administration has dug us into a deep hole, its time to put away the shovel!
HOLD TIGHT BLOG READERS
Due to big Political goings on in Maryland today the Furious Blogger will be temporarily indisposed. Therefore the article for the day will not be posted until this evening at approximately 6 PM. I'll be riding the blue wave!!
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Attacking Iran to fix Iraq
Just when you thought the Bush Administration had botched things up as bad as humanly possible, they find new and creative paths to catastrophe. The latest in a long run of amazingly counterproductive moves involves an unprovoked attack on Iran. The neocons have somehow arrived at the absurd conclusion that attacking Iran will help the situation in Iraq despite over whelming evidence to the contrary.
Recently, US troops raided the Iranian Consulate in the Kurdish area in Northern Iraq. What is significant is the immediate reaction from both Kurdish and Iraqi Government Officials condemning the raid and calling for the release of the detained Iranians. It is obvious that the Iranians currently have tremendous influence at the very highest levels of the Iraqi Government. The "United Iraqi Alliance, a group of pro Iranian political parties curently hold 140 of the 275 assembly seats in the Iraqi Assembly. One of the most powerful militias, the Badre brigade, currently operating in Iraq was trained and armed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Iran has even signed a military cooperation agreement with Iraq. It should be fairly clear the any aggression against Iran would bring immediate reactions in Iraq. The Iraqi militias trained by the Iranians are no doubt prepared to carry out attacks against American troops, and we should keep in mind that the President is sending an additional 20,000 targets for them to attack.
One common phrase used regarding the Iranian influnce in Iraq is "while the US controls the air in Iraq, Iran controls the ground." Attacking Iran would bring immediate disastrous consequences for our troops should the Iranians decide to flex their muscle in Iraq. The Iranians could easily smuggle heavy arms and even troops across the border for major attacks against US interests. Ayatollah Sistani, the senior Shiite Cleric in Iraq may very well declare a holy Jihad against the US and we would face the wrath of 15 million Iraqi Shiites. Sistani holds so much influence over the Iraqi Assembly that he is generally advised before any major actions are taken.
It is quite clear to most people who have followed political events in the Middle East for the last several years that an attack on Iran would bring immediate disastrous consequences in the Region. The worldwide economic consequences, should the Iranians decide to retaliate by disrupting oil production, are nearly incalculable. These factors should be enough to deter even the most hardened war hawk from even contemplating such a move. However ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about the Bush administration. Therfore, it is almost guaranteed that this military action is coming. It looks like this administration is bent on hitting the trifecta, losing three wars at once, and I fear that we will wake up to the danger of these very sick men only after its too late.
Recently, US troops raided the Iranian Consulate in the Kurdish area in Northern Iraq. What is significant is the immediate reaction from both Kurdish and Iraqi Government Officials condemning the raid and calling for the release of the detained Iranians. It is obvious that the Iranians currently have tremendous influence at the very highest levels of the Iraqi Government. The "United Iraqi Alliance, a group of pro Iranian political parties curently hold 140 of the 275 assembly seats in the Iraqi Assembly. One of the most powerful militias, the Badre brigade, currently operating in Iraq was trained and armed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Iran has even signed a military cooperation agreement with Iraq. It should be fairly clear the any aggression against Iran would bring immediate reactions in Iraq. The Iraqi militias trained by the Iranians are no doubt prepared to carry out attacks against American troops, and we should keep in mind that the President is sending an additional 20,000 targets for them to attack.
One common phrase used regarding the Iranian influnce in Iraq is "while the US controls the air in Iraq, Iran controls the ground." Attacking Iran would bring immediate disastrous consequences for our troops should the Iranians decide to flex their muscle in Iraq. The Iranians could easily smuggle heavy arms and even troops across the border for major attacks against US interests. Ayatollah Sistani, the senior Shiite Cleric in Iraq may very well declare a holy Jihad against the US and we would face the wrath of 15 million Iraqi Shiites. Sistani holds so much influence over the Iraqi Assembly that he is generally advised before any major actions are taken.
It is quite clear to most people who have followed political events in the Middle East for the last several years that an attack on Iran would bring immediate disastrous consequences in the Region. The worldwide economic consequences, should the Iranians decide to retaliate by disrupting oil production, are nearly incalculable. These factors should be enough to deter even the most hardened war hawk from even contemplating such a move. However ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about the Bush administration. Therfore, it is almost guaranteed that this military action is coming. It looks like this administration is bent on hitting the trifecta, losing three wars at once, and I fear that we will wake up to the danger of these very sick men only after its too late.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Bill Kristol - Educated Fool
Bill Kristol has a rather impressive resume. He earned a B.A. from Harvard College graduating in three years magna cum laude, he received a PH. D. in government also from Harvard. He founded the neo-conservative birdcage liner known as the Weekly Standard. He also founded the infamous Project for a New American Century. Rather impressive by any normal standards of accomplishment wouldn't you say? But over the last six years of the far right wing revolution in America I have listened to this successful right wing activist/pundit and come to one rather obvious conclusion. Bill Kristol is a blithering idiot. Yes, you heard me right. After all those years of education and political experience, poor Bill is about as bright as a wet match in a dark cave.
Lets read Bill at his best:
2003 - "There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
2004 - "the difficult negotiations leading up to the signing, and the continuing debates over the terms of a final constitution, have in fact demonstrated something remarkable in Iraq: a willingness on the part of the diverse ethnic and religious groups to disagree--peacefully--and then to compromise."
2006 - "What was striking, following the mosque bombing, was the evidence of Iraq's underlying stability in the face of attempts to undermine it. The country's vital institutions seem to have grown strong enough to withstand even the provocation of the bombing of the golden mosque."
Now don't get me wrong, from just the standpoint of literary content, these statements sound wonderful. If they weren't so frighteningly far removed from reality they would be the works of a brilliant prognosticator. The problem is that a man with much less education and virtually none of the political accomplishments, namely me, can see so clearly that every last word he uttered was sheer nonsense. I have no PH. D. from Harvard and from what I've seen of Bill Kristol I might just be better off. For all of his education, Mr. Kristol either has no ability to understand the geo-political issues in the middle east or he is a pathological liar. Quite possibly some combination of both.
When the Bush Administration rammed this invasion down our throats many ordinary Americans marched in the streets and predicted almost exactly what the outcome would be. While we were called traitors and being ridiculed, there was Bill and his academic elite right wing cohorts in La-La land telling us how the Iraqis would be kissing our feet for the next ten generations. Clearly he didn't understand an important factor that makes the middle east so incredibly different from western societies. The middle East is not a region of countries, it is a region of tribes and clans. If you ignore the national borders that were arbitrarily constructed by colonial powers, and instead look at a map which divides the Region by the various tribes and religious sects you start to understand how the people who live there see their environment. Americans see Iraq and Iran. Iraqis see Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmen, and Christians. The Bush administration concerns themselves with uniting Iraq while the Turks concern themselves with the problem that a significant portion of their population are Kurds and that the Kurdish Tribal land stretches across Turkey into Northern Iraq. If the Iraqi Kurds get independence, then the Turkish Kurds will likely want to reunite with them and form their own tribal homeland, causing serious political problems for the Turkish Government. The people who live there understand those complicated historic tribal issues. However, Bill Kristol and his neo-conservative buddies have determined that thousands of years of religious and tribal differences will have no effect on their grand scheme for the new democratic middle east.
I would truly like to believe that these kinds of issues would be forefront in the mind of a man with a PH.D. in Government, but of course in the case of Bill Kristol I would be wrong. I would like to believe that Bill Kristol would have foresaw that the inevitable Shiite Government in Iraq would be almost entirely controlled by the Iranians, but again I would be wrong. I may especially want to hope Bill Kristol would recognize that this occupation, or war, or whatever the heck we call it, is lost, but again I would be wrong.
Every Sunday when I see Mr. Kristol on one news program after another I just have to wonder, am I the only one noticing? How does a person who is consistently wrong keep getting back on the air? Could a sports pundit miss every prediction for the entire NFL season and be back the next year treated as though he were a genius? Who are these producers that think Bill Kristol, of all misguided idiots, can add anything of value to their show? These are the questions we should be asking the media. After helping drag us into a military disaster nearly four years ago, it is nearly criminal that the press unapologetically presents the same liars and fools every week to tell us how to get out of it. I guess thats why I'm not on Meet the Press or Fox Sunday News. I wouldn't be able to talk about the subject of the week if I saw Paul Wolfowitz on one side of me and Bill Kristol on the other. I would have no choice but to ask the question, when is the last time one of these Bozos have been right about anything, and what rocket scientist picked them to interpret political issues for the viewers?
Lets read Bill at his best:
2003 - "There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."
2004 - "the difficult negotiations leading up to the signing, and the continuing debates over the terms of a final constitution, have in fact demonstrated something remarkable in Iraq: a willingness on the part of the diverse ethnic and religious groups to disagree--peacefully--and then to compromise."
2006 - "What was striking, following the mosque bombing, was the evidence of Iraq's underlying stability in the face of attempts to undermine it. The country's vital institutions seem to have grown strong enough to withstand even the provocation of the bombing of the golden mosque."
Now don't get me wrong, from just the standpoint of literary content, these statements sound wonderful. If they weren't so frighteningly far removed from reality they would be the works of a brilliant prognosticator. The problem is that a man with much less education and virtually none of the political accomplishments, namely me, can see so clearly that every last word he uttered was sheer nonsense. I have no PH. D. from Harvard and from what I've seen of Bill Kristol I might just be better off. For all of his education, Mr. Kristol either has no ability to understand the geo-political issues in the middle east or he is a pathological liar. Quite possibly some combination of both.
When the Bush Administration rammed this invasion down our throats many ordinary Americans marched in the streets and predicted almost exactly what the outcome would be. While we were called traitors and being ridiculed, there was Bill and his academic elite right wing cohorts in La-La land telling us how the Iraqis would be kissing our feet for the next ten generations. Clearly he didn't understand an important factor that makes the middle east so incredibly different from western societies. The middle East is not a region of countries, it is a region of tribes and clans. If you ignore the national borders that were arbitrarily constructed by colonial powers, and instead look at a map which divides the Region by the various tribes and religious sects you start to understand how the people who live there see their environment. Americans see Iraq and Iran. Iraqis see Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmen, and Christians. The Bush administration concerns themselves with uniting Iraq while the Turks concern themselves with the problem that a significant portion of their population are Kurds and that the Kurdish Tribal land stretches across Turkey into Northern Iraq. If the Iraqi Kurds get independence, then the Turkish Kurds will likely want to reunite with them and form their own tribal homeland, causing serious political problems for the Turkish Government. The people who live there understand those complicated historic tribal issues. However, Bill Kristol and his neo-conservative buddies have determined that thousands of years of religious and tribal differences will have no effect on their grand scheme for the new democratic middle east.
I would truly like to believe that these kinds of issues would be forefront in the mind of a man with a PH.D. in Government, but of course in the case of Bill Kristol I would be wrong. I would like to believe that Bill Kristol would have foresaw that the inevitable Shiite Government in Iraq would be almost entirely controlled by the Iranians, but again I would be wrong. I may especially want to hope Bill Kristol would recognize that this occupation, or war, or whatever the heck we call it, is lost, but again I would be wrong.
Every Sunday when I see Mr. Kristol on one news program after another I just have to wonder, am I the only one noticing? How does a person who is consistently wrong keep getting back on the air? Could a sports pundit miss every prediction for the entire NFL season and be back the next year treated as though he were a genius? Who are these producers that think Bill Kristol, of all misguided idiots, can add anything of value to their show? These are the questions we should be asking the media. After helping drag us into a military disaster nearly four years ago, it is nearly criminal that the press unapologetically presents the same liars and fools every week to tell us how to get out of it. I guess thats why I'm not on Meet the Press or Fox Sunday News. I wouldn't be able to talk about the subject of the week if I saw Paul Wolfowitz on one side of me and Bill Kristol on the other. I would have no choice but to ask the question, when is the last time one of these Bozos have been right about anything, and what rocket scientist picked them to interpret political issues for the viewers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
