Next week, fast forward:
One thing I want to bring out right now - the deviousness of Carl Rove. What an opportunity, Bush is on a "Compassionate Conservate" trip (sic), it is being overshadowed by this evil liberal revisionist history of the great Bush crusade (Iraq) by their slanderous talk that commands the airwaves -
The unPres annouces (don't forget, next week) the discovery of the mother of all WofMD that have been found (actually last week but information withheld) some small little something.
Therefore, completing the Coupe de Grace, getting the ugly truth out and covering the trail with ****!!!!!!!!!
Anyone else follow
http://www.aljazeerah.info/ ?
This is today's opinion column -
Quote:More, much more, is needed from America for Iraq
Ahmad Y. Majdoubeh
Jordan Times
Friday, July 11, 2003
REGARDLESS OF where one stands in relation to America's war on Iraq, the fact remains that America (and its small coalition) has waged the war and has won it, with flying colours. Furthermore, regardless of what America's “real” intentions and aims were when it waged the said war, the fact remains that America did stress (and still does) the fact that it did what it did, among other things, for the sake of the poor Iraqi people. The idea was, and still is, to free the Iraqi people, better their lives and help them build a democracy that will be an example to others. Until now, we have not seen much of these noble ends. It is true, of course, that the task of reorganising, restructuring and rebuilding the entire political and economic (and, in many way, social) system is not easy. Iraq, we must remember, sustained heavy damages at all levels, not only as a result of America's two wars against it, but also as a result of the wars that Iraq waged against itself and its neighbours, as a result of UN sanctions which were imposed on it for a long time, and as a result of years of neglect by Iraq itself of its own development.
America's task (tasks, rather) is not easy.
Having said this, however, we must remind that just as time is important for America (assuming, of course, that America is sincere about what it says it will do), it is even more important for the Iraqi people themselves. Until now, and despite the sporadic or increasing acts of violence (depending on how one looks at it), the Iraqi people have been most cooperative and most patient. However, people have needs, and such needs have to be met on a daily basis. Additionally, people need to see either strong signals of what is to come or see some of it already happening. Promises are nice, but results need to start to materialise without delay.
What has materialised so far is far below what is expected. Those who are in charge of the situation need to know (and I am sure they do) that there are immediate, short-term, medium-term and long-term needs for Iraq. They must be provided for accordingly.
More importantly, it is obvious now that America did a lot of thinking and preparation for the war, but almost no thinking and no preparation for the aftermath of war. There was a plan (plans, in fact) for the war. Where is the plan for peace? This is a serious oversight which needs to be rectified without any delay.
What needs to be done now is for America to involve others in the task of restructuring and rebuilding Iraq: the Europeans, the UN, the Arab neighbours and representatives of the Iraqi people themselves. All these parties should sit down, as soon as possible, to draw up plans and maps and to start delivering. Otherwise, the situation will continue to deteriorate. Just as America has given the war against Iraq its full, undivided attention, it needs now to give law, order and peace in Iraq its full, undivided attention.
Full, undivided attention to law, order and peace? I can't even imagine that.
This, from a Washington Post Editorial by E.J. Dionne:
"
The commission investigating 9/11 criticized the administration for failing to respond expeditiously to its requests for documents and testimony. Tom Kean, the Republican chairman of the commission, also charged that the administration's refusal to allow witnesses to be interviewed without "minders" amounted to intimidation. Kean and his Democratic co-chairman, former representative Lee Hamilton, are among the most respected and least partisan figures in American public life. If they are complaining, something is definitely wrong."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40913-2003Jul10.html
Wha'dya say, McGentrix; Scrat? Anything seem wrong there to you?
Sound like another example of Carl Roving around the facts again.
snood wrote:This, from a Washington Post Editorial by E.J. Dionne:
"
The commission investigating 9/11 criticized the administration for failing to respond expeditiously to its requests for documents and testimony. Tom Kean, the Republican chairman of the commission, also charged that the administration's refusal to allow witnesses to be interviewed without "minders" amounted to intimidation. Kean and his Democratic co-chairman, former representative Lee Hamilton, are among the most respected and least partisan figures in American public life. If they are complaining, something is definitely wrong."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40913-2003Jul10.html
Wha'dya say, McGentrix; Scrat? Anything seem wrong there to you?
Still going around trying to put words in peoples' mouths, Snood? When was the last time I even wrote in this subject (?), yet here you are suggesting my support for something on which I've offered no opinion whatsoever.
I guess it's easier to win debates when the other side isn't actually there.
Scrat: he's asking for your opinion. If you have none on the subject, say so.
Scrat - you have no opinion on whether or not your president is obstructing the investigation into 9/11? Surely you jest.
snood wrote:Scrat - you have no opinion on whether or not your president is obstructing the investigation into 9/11? Surely you jest.
Sorry if my answer to Joe regarding my answer to you wasn't clear enough for you. (God help me if this answer to you about that answer to him about the other answer to you isn't clear to him.
)
What I intended to relate to Joe was that--given the loaded way you attempted to drag me into a conversation in which I was playing no part--I have no opinion that I care to share with you about the citation you offered regarding allegations being made about
your President's actions or inaction as pertains to the investigation into 9/11.
(I'm pretty sure this is the point in our discussion where you insult me out of hand.) :wink:
would that face lie?
"The president did not knowingly say anything that we knew to be false. ... We wouldn't put anything ... knowingly in the speech that was false."
-- Condoleezza Rice, U.S. National Security adviser
Scrat wrote:(I'm pretty sure this is the point in our discussion where you insult me out of hand.) :wink:
How insultingly suppositious of you . . . Snood is better behaved in these fora than most of us . . . and you certainly have no right to cast stones on that account, oh thou resident of a glass abode . . .
Set, "Glass adobe." Love it! LOL c.i.
Scrat - maybe since you, McG, sofia, Max and only a couple others are the only ones who I perceive as somewhat sympathetic to the conservative side of things, I thought I'd ask you if you see anything suspicious, since to ask those whom I agree with would be a little boring to me.
I suppose I didn't frame the question in a way that was palatable to you, and maybe that seemed like it was laying a trap, or something.
If you can get over my loathesome boorishness, do you think you might bring yourself to addressing the issue I asked about? Maybe if you just pretend you're talking to someone who addresses you with the degree of respect which you require, instead of me, you can overcome my appalling faux pas.
Hmmm... either this guy doesn't want to address the question, or just doesn't want to address it if its me asking...
Ah well - what're ya gonna do?
Kant do anything snood. Mebbi some pashance w'll work.
snood
It is the loathsome boorishness. I mean, I can't get over it and I like you. What bloody chance does he have?
a
This makes a lot of sense, hence, the full post.
Opinion
Neocons, once again past their prime
If you ask most Americans what they think of the neocons, you are liable to get a blank stare and questions like, "Is that a rock group on MTV?" or "Is that the new herbal diet pill?" Most Americans have no clue about neocons and are unaware of the impact of neoconservative thinking on US foreign policy. However, in Washington and among politically attuned observers, the neocons have re-emerged from their Cold War cocoon as the "talk of the town.
Originally a construct of a bipolar worldview that the US should overthrow any regime not inherently democratic, the neocons espoused purging communism from the planet. This "holy" endeavor would justify any means or tactic no matter how sordid or bizarre. In a not so subtle way, the neocon philosophy was (and remains) akin to a latter day form of Manifest Destiny, the late 19th century mantra extolling that Americans (white ones of European origin) were destined to occupy and rule their continent from "sea to shining sea." If a few unruly Native Americans got in the way, they were a nuisance to be expunged with no regard for culture, tribal organization, human rights or naturalistic spirituality. The 1950s, 1960s and 1970s neocon version simply substituted "the world" for "the American continent." The great archenemy was communism.
When communism folded in the late 1980s there was very little for the neocons to fuss about until, on Sept. 11, 2001, a new imprimatur literally fell into their laps. The new "ism" is terrorism. The original neocon "big fear" of Cold War nuclear holocaust has metamorphosed into "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD), and the new arena is the Middle East. The neocons' fundamental motivation has not changed everyone should adopt democratic forms of government, eliminate WMDs and behave himself. If they don't, they will suffer the consequences.
This "or else" view of foreign policy would be almost laughable if the neocons were confined to a few coffeehouses in Soho. The fact is that neocons dominate the leadership of the US Department of Defense (DOD) including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and, by implication, Paul Bremer. Maybe Americans should pay more attention to this neocon thing if its adherents are in charge of the most capable and dominant military ever assembled. These leaders believe the US military is the sword held over the head of regional leaders that will force them to behave "or else." The upshot is that the world has begun to view the US as a bully that takes duplicitous and inconsistent positions based purely on self-interest.
Colin Powell's State Department is, on the other hand, the foil and counterpart to this view within President George W. Bush's administration. Fortunately for the US and the Middle East, Powell is as adept at interdepartmental diplomacy on Capitol Hill as he is on the world stage. During the balance of the Bush administration the posture of US foreign policy will hinge on the dynamic tension between the State Department and the DOD.
The neocon core commitment to combating terrorism and eliminating WMDs lies at the heart of the Bush administration's public relations dilemma regarding the elusive Iraqi weapons program. It is common knowledge that when pre-war CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency reports on Iraqi WMDs did not provide sufficient "hard data," Rumsfeld established a special intelligence unit within the DOD to provide "better" intelligence. Those who remember the Cold War shenanigans of the US intelligence establishment are reminded of the vast CIA that attempted to manipulate world media in support of pro-democracy themes. It would appear that the neocons are reading their old CIA operations manuals without regard to building trust in a world already suspicious of US motivations and duplicity.
Three monumental challenges face the Bush administration's Middle East policy. The first is to ensure that the Israelis and Palestinians are firmly on the road to peace. Second, Iraq's social and economic viability must be quickly restored. And third, a detente must be established with Iran as a fundamental component of a stable geopolitical region. All three endeavors require a platform of trust.
It would seem, therefore, that US regional policy would evolve better along a path of thoughtful diplomacy rather than the "or else" approach espoused by DOD neocons. The Bush administration is rapidly learning that it may have bitten off more than it can chew in shaping Iraq's future. Politically and economically, it cannot afford another such adventure. Now is the time for the US to put the neocon sword back in its scabbard and begin building a balanced and trustworthy place for itself throughout the world.
Landon K. Thorne is a US businessman and recently retired colonel of the US Marine Corps Reserve with extensive commercial and military experience in the Middle East, Southwest Asia and Africa
Gelis -- We always fear and hate what we're most guilty of ourselves, as far as I can see. The neocons are no exception. They (and many of their followers here) believe firmly in "or else," or "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile," precisely because they themselves take miles and miles and miles (after the faintest of "elections") and then waggle their fingers in your face saying, "Like it, or leave it, or else."
so, after listening to the news all week I am in a quandry, with Iraq do we have an occupation? is it nation building? is it peace keeping? is it resource development? killing fields? or, perchance just the latest version of the crusades?
