PDiddie, may I point out that the Pentagon military was against this from the beginning - did "they" take heed - nada. When military receive a command, they must obey!
"...startling leap of explanatory logic..."
This is an infectious mental disease which I think Blair picked up in Washington, Blatham. Rumsfeld, Bush -- they've got it bad. I hope it doesn't spread as fast as SARS, but it is on the move... How's Canada holding out? Closing borders yet? Soon isn't soon enough, in my view!
I think I'll paste here, re deceit, Cicerone, a piece I just posted in another thread:
Incompetence or conspiracy? Here's Paul Krugman's 3/28 op-ed piece describing the screw-ups (and bald-faced lies!?) of the administration in its response to the California energy "crisis." Perhaps the same
modus operandihttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/28/opinion/28KRUG.html
Hmmm...
Perhaps we'll content ourselves to bitch from the sidelines...
Tartarin, you give much deserved praise to the Canadians - but, what about Mexico. Under stiff pressure, and much needed aid they stand resolute - bravo in the name of truth!!!!!!
Well, because Blatham isn't from Mexico. However, I am, more or less, but I try to hide my bias!!
I knew that Tartarin, I was only attempting to extend it to our south and your brethren. I was being rethorical, sorry for being ambiguously so- I appreciate all you write! We are all brothers under the need for Peace!
Yeah, snood ... "What if .... "
The MFWICs ("-insert appropriate 12-letter vulgar personification here-What's In Charge") are pretty slick characters. Their grip on power, and domestic public sentiment, likely is sturdier than many realize.
Bill and Tartarin
I suppose it had to come out sooner or later. In 1992, a group of like-minded Canadians produced a strategic document titled "Bluepriint for a New Continent - North Canmexica". This plan represents a bold and revolutionary approach to world peace and stability.
It has all begun to go horribly wrong for Donald Rumsfeld. The White House's No. 1 hawk dreamed of a swift, hi-tech precision war. Smart bombs and Special Forces would triumphantly sweep all before them.
Basra would revolt, Baghdad would follow. Saddam would be his. But, nine days in, it hasn't quite turned out like that.
And yesterday, as Rumsfeld's grand design for a quick victory lay in tatters, the coalition's top brass were frantically redrawing battle plans. The rethink came as the US army's most senior ground commander admitted they had underestimated Iraqi tactics and the fierce levels of resistance.
The Mirror
Not intending to be contentious, but it seems to me judging from my reading of what most of you have to say here that the very real possibility that Bush may emerge triumphant from this mess either doesn't cross your minds, or is simply too horrible to contemplate aloud.
snood, SOME folks haven't considered that possibility. Others see no other possibility. The latter group includes among its adherents the denizens of The Current Administration.
timber and snood
Slick hits real. These MFWIC (great acronym, never heard it before) are bold. Of course, so was Ghengis Khan. Not a lot of value in the word. Their boldness has brought the world's opinion of the US to a level of anger and mistrust which is without precedent. They've engendered, within their own country, the nearly impossible...millions of kids turning from Kazaa and Nike purchases at the mall to go out and march against them. The economy is going crapola, and it ain't going to get better soon.
God, would I love to hear Carl Rove's conversations with Donald Rumsfeld in a month or two.
snood, Good point. The war is after all only eleven days old. What do people want? A miracle? Ain't gonna get it. However, having said that, I think this war is gonna see some real bad combats the closer our troops gets to Baghdad. Viet Nam all over again - me thinks. c.i.
Let me address that, snood.
President Bush is frustrated with the press corps, both in Washington and Iraq, for their coverage of his war. He was expecting more rah-rah.
Think about this: "Embedding" journalists with the troops was a good idea, which means we should examine it for ulterior motives. This administration is, I believe, the most secretive in American history.
Dubya's got Nixon beat by miles.
So why is the administration allowing journalists access to raw news?
I'm guessing that the "embedding" idea did not come from the professional soldiers at the Pentagon. The top brass began their careers during the Vietnam (or immediately post-Vietnam) era. They may say they approve, and they may even be warming up to the idea.
You know this "embedding" idea came from the Top.
Yes, from Karl Rove himself.
The question is, why?
Bob Novak wrote a column awhile back that explains a lot:
A senior Bush official privately admits what his administration cannot declare publicly. The stagnant economy, a dagger aimed at the heart of George W. Bush's second term, will not immediately respond to the president's economic growth program. The economic engine will not be revived until the war against Saddam Hussein is launched and won.
Military victory is anticipated inside the Bush administration as the tonic that will prompt corporation officers and private investors to unleash the American economy's dormant power. Although it is impolitic to say so, the fact that the United States will be sitting on a new major oil supply will stimulate the domestic economy. That puts a high premium on quickly gaining control of Iraq's oil wells before they can be torched--a major uncertainty in an otherwise strictly scripted scenario.
''This is Texas poker, with the president putting everything on Iraq,'' a Republican senator (who thoroughly approves of this policy) told me. The extraordinary gamble by Bush leads to deepening apprehension by Republican politicians as they wait for the inevitable war. They consider the Democratic Party divided, drifting to the left and devoid of new ideas. Yet, Bush's re-election next year is threatened by two issues: the economy and the war on terrorism. Success on both is tied to war with Iraq. [Novak, "Playing Texas Poker, Bush Bets All on Iraq," The Chicago Sun-Times, March 6, 2003]
The Cakewalk War was supposed to be the magic bullet that would solve all of Dubya's problems. First, the war would stimulate the economy. Second, all that news coverage of joyous Iraqis dancing in the streets and thanking their American liberators would put Dubya's approval numbers right up to where they were after September 11!
Win-win!
The Dim Son is irritated that the Iraqis are not following the script and the media (some of 'em, anyway) are not covering his ass.
This past week an Iraqi taxi driver/suicide bomber killed five U.S. soldiers. The Iraqi lured the soldiers up to his cab and then blew it up.
Is anyone going to tell the parents, spouses, children of those soldiers that they died to help Bush win re-election in 2004?
OK, so the consensus seems to be that the US/British "top brass" is rapidly redrafting strategies, now that the first, Rumsfeld-dictated, campaign tactics have not quite worked according to plan.
Sorry to be a bit short here - but we can continue to cheer over his apparent defeat, and point out a few times more how "we coulda told him so" and "the critics were always right"; but what does this mean, for the war and its costs?
Remember, nobody inside the loop is suggesting the US/UK troops should withdraw or anything. The bone of contention is on how the war is to be fought. Rumsfeld dictated a very bold, aggressive sets of tactics, using relatively few men and a great reliance on hi-tech weapons to try to decapitate (or otherwise amputate) the Iraqi regime. This hasnt quite worked. What tactics will take the place of his? Will they really be any "better", in the perspective of those here whe were against the war in the first place?
The "Powell Doctrine" that Rumsfeld's replaced involved a blanket bombing campaign lasting for weeks. It would surely have killed many more, in that case relatively defenceless, Iraqi soldiers, and probably a lot more civilians too. Before we cheer Rumsfeld's loss of face too much, we should perhaps consider what will be awaiting the Iraqis if strategies are indeed drastically changed.
snood, on your last post - I detest the thought of a total loss. Never considered it, wouldn't admit it. Main reason, it would take a large toll of American and English dead, of which I am not willing to confront. And, possibly the total carpet bombing of Baghdad.
snood, this issue was discussed earlier in the thread. The scenario you put forth in your earlier post above has been predicted by others. It seems to me a likely thing to happen, unless the war turns into such a tragic debacle (an almost undiscussed but increasingly possible outcome) that the dissenters in the administration come out of hiding; and such consistent and continuing "peaceful-solution" folks such as myself become a non-invisible and no-longer ignored element of our country.
Michele McQueen, one of the four journalists "around the table" on This Week with George Stephanopolis, said something that really struck me as apt (she seems to always say things that make me glad she's there, across the table from George my-country-love-it-or-leave-it Will):
She said that the aspect of this war that the warhawks don't seem to acknowledge is the "Amadou Diallo" factor. That is (and at this point George Will began to squint incredulously at her), in New York City, there are neighborhoods where Amadou Diallo's name gets mentioned alot. He was the black individual that was gunned down in a doorway, while reaching for his wallet. There was a hail of bullets from multiple police officers. They found multiple bullet wounds in the soles of his feet - obviously fired after he's fallen. Well, it seems that a lot of residents are nervous when they see police approach in numbers. Even if they are there to raid a crackhouse that the residents want eradicated. Even if every corner is infested with crime and degradation. They still want to know what those police are up to; what they will do when they think no one's watching.
This, Ms McQueen said, is the state of mind that many Iraqis in those towns near Bagdhad, and in Bagdhad itself will have toward our troops. They are wondering, like the Big Apple dwellers, why they are there, and what they are going to do. And they certainly aren't standing around cheering them on.
Let me add, short of declaring "Victory Now" and bringing everyone home to let the UN go in and uphold the "Peace", I don't see this war being stopped soon.
Interesting scenario Snood, and so apt!
