Post #132
Subject: Target: Santa Claus
Fact #1: Santa Claus visited in December of 2000.
Fact #2: Mohammed Atta entered United States in January of 2001.
Fact #3: The terrorist attacks of 9/11 occurred in September of 2001.
There you have three undeniable and indisputable true facts. Connect the dots
Obviously, neo-cons need a new boogeyman, somebody they can claim is a terrorist mastermind. Indeed, the only good thing to come from the Iraq War has been a complete repudiation of the Nutty neo-con idea that Saddam Hussein was a mastermind, continuing the Gulf War by directing terrorist attacks from Baghdad – an idea espoused by Laurie MyLroie and swallowed by, uh, Nuts!
Laurie MyLroie – http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html . Who is the real terrorist!?! :p Whose ideas led us into a costly war for no strategic gain?
My Post #104 – “Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq.” If only we had of known exactly the kind of Nuts we were getting in 2000, maybe Antonin Scalia would not have installed George W. Bush.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Post #131
Subject: Why some right-wing nuts are really right-wing Nuts! :p
Ann Coulter defended the display of the confederate flag by southern states by saying, “The majority of military bases in this country are named after confederate officers, Eisenhower, Nimitz, um, the list of southerners in our military is legion.”
Uh, wow….
Eisenhower and Nimitz were NOT confederate officers – 80 years off there, Ann And there are no bases named for either of them anyway. And, tho, there are bases named for Generals Beauregard and Bragg and Hill and Hood and Lee from the confederacy, that is five – a long way from a majority of the hundreds of military bases in this country.
Coming soon to Game Shows network: “Are you smarter than a right-wing Nut? :p”
Subject: Why some right-wing nuts are really right-wing Nuts! :p
Ann Coulter defended the display of the confederate flag by southern states by saying, “The majority of military bases in this country are named after confederate officers, Eisenhower, Nimitz, um, the list of southerners in our military is legion.”
Uh, wow….
Eisenhower and Nimitz were NOT confederate officers – 80 years off there, Ann And there are no bases named for either of them anyway. And, tho, there are bases named for Generals Beauregard and Bragg and Hill and Hood and Lee from the confederacy, that is five – a long way from a majority of the hundreds of military bases in this country.
Coming soon to Game Shows network: “Are you smarter than a right-wing Nut? :p”
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Post #130
Subject: Satire... from National Lampoon
http://blimptv.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-bush-coins.html
George W. Bush refuses to leave office, bans private ownership of alloys, invalidates all currency and then turns the entire oil business over to Dick Cheney’s buds….
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Now that President Bush declared marshal law, it will be illegal to be in possession of precious metals after the first of the year. That’s why all citizens are urged to redeem their coins at any of the over 48,000 Halliburton service stations throughout the United States. We call it operation change for the better and for good reason. First, the new money is based on a petroleum standard so the coins will appear in gallon denominations instead of dollars, which makes sense since that’s where most of your income goes anyway.
Let’s familiarize ourselves with the new coins starting with the ten gallon denomination which features the president’s mother, Barbara Bush, who will forever be remembered for single-handedly changing the world’s perspective by noting that the refugees of hurricane Katrina were better off after the disaster than before. This happy fact is memorialized on the reverse with the adorable image of two lost children paddling past the superdome.
The five gallon coin celebrates our comatose press and the fifth anniversary of Larry King’s momentous interview with Elizabeth Taylor on the eve of the Iraq war. This coin is also known as the buffaloed press nickel because of the American bison on the reverse, butting heads with the liberal media.
The one gallon coin or the Condi, honors Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice whose solution to Middle East conflict is summarized on the reverse, piping Persia for peace. The half gallon coin or Scalia depicts the Supreme Court justice against a backdrop of uncounted Florida ballots. While on the reverse, presidential advisor Karl Rove celebrates the modern miracle of electronic voting.
Finally, there’s the one cup coin or the bracero, honoring the millions of aliens the president welcomed into the American labor pool. It features the unknown bracero on the front. While on the back more illegals jump the border in Roger Clark Wilson’s gateway to servitude. Yes, a fitting tribute to big business’ final triumph over organized labor. The larger denomination begin with the 25 gallon royal Limbaugh. Celebrating uniformity of speech, it features a Greco-Roman interpretation of commentators Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter, under the banner, one media, one voice.
The 50 gallon coin pays homage to Donald Rumsfeld and the concept of democracy at gunpoint. The 75 gallon coin features Vice President Cheney and the creed for which he’s dedicated the bulk of his public life, “in greed we trust.” On the reverse, an American eagle and the price of gas engaged in a symbolic race for the moon.
Finally there’s the 100 gallon coin or the Bush doubloon, the presidential credo “fighting terrorism by creating it” is featured. On the reverse the events of 9/11 are recalled under the motto, “lest they forget, we’ll remind.” Here a new World Trade Center rises from the ashes of the Pentagon, crusted by the men of Iwo Jima. On the right, Vice President Cheney is seen canceling North American fighter cover, while on the left, the president reads “My Pet Goat” to Florida kindergartners. Yes, it’s a vivid snapshot of that fateful day, captured for all time in 100 percent depleted uranium. Be among the first to redeem coins worth 100 gallons or more and receive this limited edition doubloon, featuring President Bush along with Presidents Hoover and Harding, kindred leaders who also labored under a plundered economy. Yes, it’s out with the old, in with the new, operation change for the better from the United States government and Halliburton, working together to round up every cent you have. A percentage of every Halliburton purchase is donated to the New Orleans wetlands reserve.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Subject: Satire... from National Lampoon
http://blimptv.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-bush-coins.html
George W. Bush refuses to leave office, bans private ownership of alloys, invalidates all currency and then turns the entire oil business over to Dick Cheney’s buds….
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Now that President Bush declared marshal law, it will be illegal to be in possession of precious metals after the first of the year. That’s why all citizens are urged to redeem their coins at any of the over 48,000 Halliburton service stations throughout the United States. We call it operation change for the better and for good reason. First, the new money is based on a petroleum standard so the coins will appear in gallon denominations instead of dollars, which makes sense since that’s where most of your income goes anyway.
Let’s familiarize ourselves with the new coins starting with the ten gallon denomination which features the president’s mother, Barbara Bush, who will forever be remembered for single-handedly changing the world’s perspective by noting that the refugees of hurricane Katrina were better off after the disaster than before. This happy fact is memorialized on the reverse with the adorable image of two lost children paddling past the superdome.
The five gallon coin celebrates our comatose press and the fifth anniversary of Larry King’s momentous interview with Elizabeth Taylor on the eve of the Iraq war. This coin is also known as the buffaloed press nickel because of the American bison on the reverse, butting heads with the liberal media.
The one gallon coin or the Condi, honors Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice whose solution to Middle East conflict is summarized on the reverse, piping Persia for peace. The half gallon coin or Scalia depicts the Supreme Court justice against a backdrop of uncounted Florida ballots. While on the reverse, presidential advisor Karl Rove celebrates the modern miracle of electronic voting.
Finally, there’s the one cup coin or the bracero, honoring the millions of aliens the president welcomed into the American labor pool. It features the unknown bracero on the front. While on the back more illegals jump the border in Roger Clark Wilson’s gateway to servitude. Yes, a fitting tribute to big business’ final triumph over organized labor. The larger denomination begin with the 25 gallon royal Limbaugh. Celebrating uniformity of speech, it features a Greco-Roman interpretation of commentators Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter, under the banner, one media, one voice.
The 50 gallon coin pays homage to Donald Rumsfeld and the concept of democracy at gunpoint. The 75 gallon coin features Vice President Cheney and the creed for which he’s dedicated the bulk of his public life, “in greed we trust.” On the reverse, an American eagle and the price of gas engaged in a symbolic race for the moon.
Finally there’s the 100 gallon coin or the Bush doubloon, the presidential credo “fighting terrorism by creating it” is featured. On the reverse the events of 9/11 are recalled under the motto, “lest they forget, we’ll remind.” Here a new World Trade Center rises from the ashes of the Pentagon, crusted by the men of Iwo Jima. On the right, Vice President Cheney is seen canceling North American fighter cover, while on the left, the president reads “My Pet Goat” to Florida kindergartners. Yes, it’s a vivid snapshot of that fateful day, captured for all time in 100 percent depleted uranium. Be among the first to redeem coins worth 100 gallons or more and receive this limited edition doubloon, featuring President Bush along with Presidents Hoover and Harding, kindred leaders who also labored under a plundered economy. Yes, it’s out with the old, in with the new, operation change for the better from the United States government and Halliburton, working together to round up every cent you have. A percentage of every Halliburton purchase is donated to the New Orleans wetlands reserve.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Friday, January 18, 2008
Post #129
Subject: Iraq, Real Reality, Pt. IV
... from http://www.motherjones.com/ -- smart, fearless journalism, an interview with General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), from October 2007. He was the CENTCOM commander who oversaw American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
MotherJones: So you think they need to duke it out internally?
AZ: I think they're gonna have to do it. You know, if you look at the history of this world, they get to the point where they've exhausted themselves in bloodshed and they finally come around and figure out a way to work together. And as long as we're involved in this thing we add to the problem. The short-term security benefits that we create are not long lasting, because you can't be there forever.
[But,...but,...the surge is working, the surge is working.... :p]
We are doing things that practically are losers. If you've ever had experience teaching tactics, you can watch and see war games, you can see how military commanders get sort of sucked into marginal success that in the long run will be failures. Where you're killing the enemy, you're draining the enemy, but you're paying a hell of a price for it. And if you project it out into the long run you see that this is a Pyrrhic victory at best, but you're being sucked in because you are moving forward in some ways. And you lose sight, you become myopic in looking at this, you lose sight that this is a loser tactic and you need to do it with a new approach. I heard that some of the nocons were saying that if we were willing to suffer these kinds of casualty rates for about 10 years we could prevail. Well, give me a break. That just is not sustainable. And it's not victory in the end.
[And how many of those casualties neo-cons propose will be named Bush? That’s why I’ve never believed in Bush’s war – he can’t even recruit at his own dinner table! :p Seriously, there are many reasons. to oppose the Weasel’s War, but his own family’s lack of support has always struck me.]
We are fighting tactically. We interpret victory by body count, by how many cells break down, how much leadership you kill. Meanwhile, the Osama bin Ladens of the world have this endless flow of angry young men pouring into Iraq, willing to blow themselves up. You're going to make no strategic difference, and you're back to the Vietnam mentality that maybe you can win this war from the bottom up if you can kill enough of them.
[We killed over a million North Vietnamese but lost that war. It is really disappointing to hear a Vietnam veteran say “the surge is working, the surge is working.” Yes, I’m talking to you, John McCain. I thought you’d know better.]
MJ: You say we've got a five-to-seven-year effort ahead of us.
AZ: I don't mean five to seven years in terms of our commitment. This is five to seven years for the Iraqis to come to grips with their own internal civil strife. Nobody's going to march on Baghdad and plant a flag and say, "I've won; I rule Iraq." That's not gonna happen. The Shiites aren't going to dominate the Sunnis; the Sunnis are no longer going to dominate the Shiites. And the Kurds certainly aren't going to collapse; we wouldn't let that happen, and I don't think the Turks would let that happen either. So the end state in this thing is that there is no positive end state. It's going to be, from here on out, three entities that'll form at best some sort of federal system with at least initially a lot of autonomy at the local level.
[In other words, the Biden plan. :p]
It's going to take courage to say, "I'm not leaving Iraq; I will restructure the strategy but I'm not leaving." If you're a Republican, you're admitting the failure of this administration, and if you're a Democrat, you're not playing into the popular mood of withdrawal.
[Except for Ron Paul, the Republican line is “let’s kick in a few more Baghdad doors.” That attitude lost us Vietnam. Why do Republicans seem Hell-bent on losing Iraq? Democratic candidates for President – for the most part – embrace Clintonian containment! :p]
MJ: Do you think it's going to take a new administration to solve the situation?
AZ: The new administration will have an opportunity regardless if it's Democrat or Republican because what I sense out there, all over the world, is they're so hungry to reestablish positive relationships with the United States; they're so hungry for us to take a different kind of leadership role. But you can't continue to suffer the casualties in this sort of sinkhole that goes nowhere. It's important to reestablish the regional security arrangement, the old Gulf coalition that we've broken by going into Iraq. They like the idea of American support and security assurances as long as they don't come with a heavy military presence or preemptive actions that become more destabilizing.
Subject: Iraq, Real Reality, Pt. IV
... from http://www.motherjones.com/ -- smart, fearless journalism, an interview with General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), from October 2007. He was the CENTCOM commander who oversaw American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
MotherJones: So you think they need to duke it out internally?
AZ: I think they're gonna have to do it. You know, if you look at the history of this world, they get to the point where they've exhausted themselves in bloodshed and they finally come around and figure out a way to work together. And as long as we're involved in this thing we add to the problem. The short-term security benefits that we create are not long lasting, because you can't be there forever.
[But,...but,...the surge is working, the surge is working.... :p]
We are doing things that practically are losers. If you've ever had experience teaching tactics, you can watch and see war games, you can see how military commanders get sort of sucked into marginal success that in the long run will be failures. Where you're killing the enemy, you're draining the enemy, but you're paying a hell of a price for it. And if you project it out into the long run you see that this is a Pyrrhic victory at best, but you're being sucked in because you are moving forward in some ways. And you lose sight, you become myopic in looking at this, you lose sight that this is a loser tactic and you need to do it with a new approach. I heard that some of the nocons were saying that if we were willing to suffer these kinds of casualty rates for about 10 years we could prevail. Well, give me a break. That just is not sustainable. And it's not victory in the end.
[And how many of those casualties neo-cons propose will be named Bush? That’s why I’ve never believed in Bush’s war – he can’t even recruit at his own dinner table! :p Seriously, there are many reasons. to oppose the Weasel’s War, but his own family’s lack of support has always struck me.]
We are fighting tactically. We interpret victory by body count, by how many cells break down, how much leadership you kill. Meanwhile, the Osama bin Ladens of the world have this endless flow of angry young men pouring into Iraq, willing to blow themselves up. You're going to make no strategic difference, and you're back to the Vietnam mentality that maybe you can win this war from the bottom up if you can kill enough of them.
[We killed over a million North Vietnamese but lost that war. It is really disappointing to hear a Vietnam veteran say “the surge is working, the surge is working.” Yes, I’m talking to you, John McCain. I thought you’d know better.]
MJ: You say we've got a five-to-seven-year effort ahead of us.
AZ: I don't mean five to seven years in terms of our commitment. This is five to seven years for the Iraqis to come to grips with their own internal civil strife. Nobody's going to march on Baghdad and plant a flag and say, "I've won; I rule Iraq." That's not gonna happen. The Shiites aren't going to dominate the Sunnis; the Sunnis are no longer going to dominate the Shiites. And the Kurds certainly aren't going to collapse; we wouldn't let that happen, and I don't think the Turks would let that happen either. So the end state in this thing is that there is no positive end state. It's going to be, from here on out, three entities that'll form at best some sort of federal system with at least initially a lot of autonomy at the local level.
[In other words, the Biden plan. :p]
It's going to take courage to say, "I'm not leaving Iraq; I will restructure the strategy but I'm not leaving." If you're a Republican, you're admitting the failure of this administration, and if you're a Democrat, you're not playing into the popular mood of withdrawal.
[Except for Ron Paul, the Republican line is “let’s kick in a few more Baghdad doors.” That attitude lost us Vietnam. Why do Republicans seem Hell-bent on losing Iraq? Democratic candidates for President – for the most part – embrace Clintonian containment! :p]
MJ: Do you think it's going to take a new administration to solve the situation?
AZ: The new administration will have an opportunity regardless if it's Democrat or Republican because what I sense out there, all over the world, is they're so hungry to reestablish positive relationships with the United States; they're so hungry for us to take a different kind of leadership role. But you can't continue to suffer the casualties in this sort of sinkhole that goes nowhere. It's important to reestablish the regional security arrangement, the old Gulf coalition that we've broken by going into Iraq. They like the idea of American support and security assurances as long as they don't come with a heavy military presence or preemptive actions that become more destabilizing.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Post #128
Subject: Iraq, Real Reality, Pt. III
... from http://www.motherjones.com – smart, fearless journalism, an interview with General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), from October 2007. He was the CENTCOM commander who oversaw American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
MotherJones: You hear the Democratic candidates talking about withdrawal, but they don't give timetables.
AZ: Yeah, but that's politics. Either it's based on political appeal or it's based on naiveté. We're not going to withdraw from the region. To pull out of Iraq would say we are inviting you to set up a sanctuary and a base of operations. The first time Al Qaeda in Iraq blows up our embassy in Amman, Jordan, guess what? We're back in. The first time the Iranian influence becomes so great that they begin to incite and meddle with the Shiites and start causing problems, guess what? We're gonna be back in.
[As well we should. “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” – the only good policy to come out of Washington in the past seven years. But yet George W. Bush ignores that. Why aren’t we in Pakistan? But the reason for MY opposition to the occupation is practical. Let’s bring our troops home and rest ‘em – get ‘em ready for other battles in the War on Terror.]
We have to take a stand, and we have to ensure our interests are protected; they're too important and they reverberate around the globe. Responsible political leaders back here understand that you can't extract yourself totally from the region. You know, we haven't left anywhere and come home since the beginning of World War II. We don't come home anymore. We're still in South Korea. We're still in Germany. We're still in Japan. We're still all over the world.
[Well, why are we still in Germany and Japan? Who are we fighting there? Al-Qaeda of the Axis!?! :p And what are our interests in South Korea? If North Korea overruns South Korea, so? Let’s have a debate about that. And, uh, Vietnam – we left there. The soft bombs of capitalism have produced a thriving economy, and Vietnam is no threat to us]
MJ: Do you see a significant drawdown in the situation you're describing?
AZ: Yes. I discourage giving a number because I think when you sort out the missions and the locations, you ought to let the Pentagon, the military, not the guys in suits but the guys in uniforms, make these decisions so we won't repeat the mistakes of the past. We contained Iraq and Iran with fewer troops than report to the Pentagon every day for work. The president said containment didn't work. I don't know what the hell he was seeing. But for a decade, unless something flared up, we had on average 23,000 troops in all of CENTCOM in the most volatile region in the world.
We also had our allies contribute to our presence out there. There was $300 to $500 million a year the Saudis and Kuwaitis paid us in in-kind assistance, fuel, food, water. The Saudis built a $450 billion complex to house our troops. We had a nice arrangement out there. Containment worked. And the proof is in the pudding that the president was wrong when he said containment didn't work: Saddam was no threat to his neighbors. He didn't have WMDs. He was contained by every definition of containment.
[Ha Ha – that’s Clintonian containment! :p]
Subject: Iraq, Real Reality, Pt. III
... from http://www.motherjones.com – smart, fearless journalism, an interview with General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), from October 2007. He was the CENTCOM commander who oversaw American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
MotherJones: You hear the Democratic candidates talking about withdrawal, but they don't give timetables.
AZ: Yeah, but that's politics. Either it's based on political appeal or it's based on naiveté. We're not going to withdraw from the region. To pull out of Iraq would say we are inviting you to set up a sanctuary and a base of operations. The first time Al Qaeda in Iraq blows up our embassy in Amman, Jordan, guess what? We're back in. The first time the Iranian influence becomes so great that they begin to incite and meddle with the Shiites and start causing problems, guess what? We're gonna be back in.
[As well we should. “We will make no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them.” – the only good policy to come out of Washington in the past seven years. But yet George W. Bush ignores that. Why aren’t we in Pakistan? But the reason for MY opposition to the occupation is practical. Let’s bring our troops home and rest ‘em – get ‘em ready for other battles in the War on Terror.]
We have to take a stand, and we have to ensure our interests are protected; they're too important and they reverberate around the globe. Responsible political leaders back here understand that you can't extract yourself totally from the region. You know, we haven't left anywhere and come home since the beginning of World War II. We don't come home anymore. We're still in South Korea. We're still in Germany. We're still in Japan. We're still all over the world.
[Well, why are we still in Germany and Japan? Who are we fighting there? Al-Qaeda of the Axis!?! :p And what are our interests in South Korea? If North Korea overruns South Korea, so? Let’s have a debate about that. And, uh, Vietnam – we left there. The soft bombs of capitalism have produced a thriving economy, and Vietnam is no threat to us]
MJ: Do you see a significant drawdown in the situation you're describing?
AZ: Yes. I discourage giving a number because I think when you sort out the missions and the locations, you ought to let the Pentagon, the military, not the guys in suits but the guys in uniforms, make these decisions so we won't repeat the mistakes of the past. We contained Iraq and Iran with fewer troops than report to the Pentagon every day for work. The president said containment didn't work. I don't know what the hell he was seeing. But for a decade, unless something flared up, we had on average 23,000 troops in all of CENTCOM in the most volatile region in the world.
We also had our allies contribute to our presence out there. There was $300 to $500 million a year the Saudis and Kuwaitis paid us in in-kind assistance, fuel, food, water. The Saudis built a $450 billion complex to house our troops. We had a nice arrangement out there. Containment worked. And the proof is in the pudding that the president was wrong when he said containment didn't work: Saddam was no threat to his neighbors. He didn't have WMDs. He was contained by every definition of containment.
[Ha Ha – that’s Clintonian containment! :p]
Friday, January 11, 2008
Post #127
Subject: Iraq, Real Reality, Pt. II
General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), had it right in 2002. He was the CENTCOM commander who oversaw American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000 and the subject of my Post #126 – an interview from October 2007. Below is a speech he gave before the Florida Economic Club, August 23, 2002. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. I think the debate right now that's going on is very healthy. If you ask me my opinion, Gen. Scowcroft, Gen. Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf, Gen. Zinni, maybe all see this the same way.
It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history. (Crowd laughter.)
But let me tell you what the problem is now as I see it. You need to weigh this: what are your priorities in the region? That's the first issue in my mind.
The Middle East peace process, in my mind, has to be a higher priority. Winning the war on terrorism has to be a higher priority. More directly, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Central Asia need to be resolved, making sure Al Qaeda can't rise again from the ashes that are destroyed. Taliban cannot come back. That the warlords can't regain power over Kabul and Karzai, and destroy everything that has happened so far.
Our relationships in the region are in major disrepair, not to the point where we can't fix them, but we need to quit making enemies we don't need to make enemies out of. And we need to fix those relationships. There's a deep chasm growing between that part of the world and our part of the world. And it's strange, about a month after 9/11, they were sympathetic and compassionate toward us. How did it happen over the last year? And we need to look at that -- that is a higher priority.
The country that started this, Iran, is about to turn around, 180 degrees. We ought to be focused on that. The father of extremism, the home of the ayatollah -- the young people are ready to throw out the mullahs and turn around, become a secular society and throw off these ideas of extremism. That is more important and critical. They're the ones that funded Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. That ought to be a focus. And I can give you many, many more before you get down to Saddam and Iraq.
Our friends in the region who, a couple years ago, every time we wanted to throw a bomb at Saddam, kept saying, "Why don't you get serious? We'll support you if you take him out. But if you're only going to piss him off and let him rise from the ashes, we don't want to do it."
Now that we want to do it, it's the wrong time. He'll drag Israel into the war. The mood on the street is very hostile at this moment. It is the wrong time. You could create a backlash to regimes that are friendly to us. You could create a sense of anti-Arab, anti-Islamic feelings from the West (among people who) misinterpret the attack.
We could end up with collateral damage.
You could inherit the country of Iraq, if you're willing to do it -- if our economy is so great that you're willing to put billions of dollars into reforming Iraq. If you want to put soldiers that are already stretched so thin all around the world and add them into a security force there forever, like we see in places like the Sinai. If you want to fight with other countries in the region to try to keep Iraq together as Kurds and Shiites try and split off, you're going to have to make a good case for that. And that's what I think has to be done, that's my honest opinion
[Let’s see – the war will be expensive; the war will stretch our military; the war will fracture our alliance in the War on Terror; the war will require our troops to be there “forever.” Good call. :p]
You're going to have to tell me the threat is there, right now. That immediate, that it takes the priority over all those things I've just mentioned.... I've just hit the tops of the waves.
(Person in audience speaks. Laughter.)
In fairness to President Bush, because I work for him -- I don't get paid, though -- in fairness to President Bush, President Bush has invited the debate and he allows anyone who has a view to speak to the debate. I mean, within his own administration you hear different views.
[Zinni was Special Envoy to the Middle East in 2002. The debate was a fraud. George W. Bush had already decided and just needed to scare peeps – “fear the mushroom cloud,” ya know.]
So I'm encouraged by the fact the debate takes place. It ought to be, and it ought to be public and open. And although it's messy and we're trying to figure out which way to come down on it, I think it's good that it's happening, that Congress is looking into it. That it isn't a party issue. I mean, you have Sen. Hagel and Dick Armey and others, that have taken a position, and other -- Sen. Inohofe and others who have taken another -- even within the parties, you have people on both sides. That's what great about the U.S.
So I don't mind the debate. It should be confusing because it's a confusing issue, but in the end the people are going to have to decide, if this -- if the threat is there, and the case is going to have to be made to them.
Subject: Iraq, Real Reality, Pt. II
General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), had it right in 2002. He was the CENTCOM commander who oversaw American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000 and the subject of my Post #126 – an interview from October 2007. Below is a speech he gave before the Florida Economic Club, August 23, 2002. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. I think the debate right now that's going on is very healthy. If you ask me my opinion, Gen. Scowcroft, Gen. Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf, Gen. Zinni, maybe all see this the same way.
It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history. (Crowd laughter.)
But let me tell you what the problem is now as I see it. You need to weigh this: what are your priorities in the region? That's the first issue in my mind.
The Middle East peace process, in my mind, has to be a higher priority. Winning the war on terrorism has to be a higher priority. More directly, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Central Asia need to be resolved, making sure Al Qaeda can't rise again from the ashes that are destroyed. Taliban cannot come back. That the warlords can't regain power over Kabul and Karzai, and destroy everything that has happened so far.
Our relationships in the region are in major disrepair, not to the point where we can't fix them, but we need to quit making enemies we don't need to make enemies out of. And we need to fix those relationships. There's a deep chasm growing between that part of the world and our part of the world. And it's strange, about a month after 9/11, they were sympathetic and compassionate toward us. How did it happen over the last year? And we need to look at that -- that is a higher priority.
The country that started this, Iran, is about to turn around, 180 degrees. We ought to be focused on that. The father of extremism, the home of the ayatollah -- the young people are ready to throw out the mullahs and turn around, become a secular society and throw off these ideas of extremism. That is more important and critical. They're the ones that funded Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. That ought to be a focus. And I can give you many, many more before you get down to Saddam and Iraq.
Our friends in the region who, a couple years ago, every time we wanted to throw a bomb at Saddam, kept saying, "Why don't you get serious? We'll support you if you take him out. But if you're only going to piss him off and let him rise from the ashes, we don't want to do it."
Now that we want to do it, it's the wrong time. He'll drag Israel into the war. The mood on the street is very hostile at this moment. It is the wrong time. You could create a backlash to regimes that are friendly to us. You could create a sense of anti-Arab, anti-Islamic feelings from the West (among people who) misinterpret the attack.
We could end up with collateral damage.
You could inherit the country of Iraq, if you're willing to do it -- if our economy is so great that you're willing to put billions of dollars into reforming Iraq. If you want to put soldiers that are already stretched so thin all around the world and add them into a security force there forever, like we see in places like the Sinai. If you want to fight with other countries in the region to try to keep Iraq together as Kurds and Shiites try and split off, you're going to have to make a good case for that. And that's what I think has to be done, that's my honest opinion
[Let’s see – the war will be expensive; the war will stretch our military; the war will fracture our alliance in the War on Terror; the war will require our troops to be there “forever.” Good call. :p]
You're going to have to tell me the threat is there, right now. That immediate, that it takes the priority over all those things I've just mentioned.... I've just hit the tops of the waves.
(Person in audience speaks. Laughter.)
In fairness to President Bush, because I work for him -- I don't get paid, though -- in fairness to President Bush, President Bush has invited the debate and he allows anyone who has a view to speak to the debate. I mean, within his own administration you hear different views.
[Zinni was Special Envoy to the Middle East in 2002. The debate was a fraud. George W. Bush had already decided and just needed to scare peeps – “fear the mushroom cloud,” ya know.]
So I'm encouraged by the fact the debate takes place. It ought to be, and it ought to be public and open. And although it's messy and we're trying to figure out which way to come down on it, I think it's good that it's happening, that Congress is looking into it. That it isn't a party issue. I mean, you have Sen. Hagel and Dick Armey and others, that have taken a position, and other -- Sen. Inohofe and others who have taken another -- even within the parties, you have people on both sides. That's what great about the U.S.
So I don't mind the debate. It should be confusing because it's a confusing issue, but in the end the people are going to have to decide, if this -- if the threat is there, and the case is going to have to be made to them.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Post #126
Subject: Iraq, Real Reality
... from http://www.motherjones.com – "smart, fearless journalism," an interview with General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), from October 2007. He was the CENTCOM commander who oversaw American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
Mother Jones: What do you think would be a realistic withdrawal time frame?
General Anthony Zinni: I don't think we'll end up withdrawing in the sense that everybody's coming home, because we can't leave a festering threat in the middle of this region. And obviously, the political will isn't there to continue the way we're going. No matter who the presidential candidate is and however Congress comes down, we're going to find ourselves devolving into what I would call a containment, support, or reinforcing role. And it might look something like this: U.S. forces retain bases in the Kurdish areas and Al Anbar province. And their rules of engagement, if you will, would be to go after Al Qaeda targets, gain intelligence, help secure the border, and prevent spillover. I think we would retain and maybe establish a more robust security-systems program for the Iraqis. I think what we would stop doing is getting between the militias and extract ourselves from the sectarian violence. Quit this sort of street patrolling. I think it would become sink or swim for the Iraqi forces.
[Unfortunately, this is the best we can do, a return to containment. The political rhetoric here needs to catch up to this reality. Democrats can point to Clinton’s success against Saddam – for eight years, Saddam was boxed in; he was not a threat to his neighbors or us. Of course, Republicans can point to Daddy Bush. McCain needs to drop his “we’ll be there 100 years” talk.]
If you look at the casualty-generating operations that we have, being in the streets, being on the roads where we're subject to IEDs, where we get ourselves between Sunni and Shiite militias; I think those are the things you're gonna find there's no stomach for and people are going to be looking, the political leadership is going to be looking for alternatives to not let the problem of Iraq spill over and affect our interest in the region.
[If it wasn’t for oil – “our interest in the region,” we’d leave tomorrow; of course, if it wasn’t for oil, we wouldn’t be there in the first place.]
But how do you contain it? Minimize the casualties, force the Iraqis to step up, and I think that you have to have the stomach for the fact that it's a five-to-seven-year effort and the Iraqis are probably going to get bloodied in this, but it's their civil war. It may look something like Lebanon in the mid-'80s in certain areas.
[Ha Ha – the Weasel’s War. :p That – “Lebanon in the mid-'80s” – is a long way from a blooming democracy. It is certainly not “a major strategic achievement,” as Charles Krauthammer said in his “Success Against the Axis” column, Friday, December 21, 2007 – my Post #125. In the ultimate “do over,” we WILL return to a Clintonian containment – and forget the stupidity of George W. Bush!]
Subject: Iraq, Real Reality
... from http://www.motherjones.com – "smart, fearless journalism," an interview with General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), from October 2007. He was the CENTCOM commander who oversaw American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
Mother Jones: What do you think would be a realistic withdrawal time frame?
General Anthony Zinni: I don't think we'll end up withdrawing in the sense that everybody's coming home, because we can't leave a festering threat in the middle of this region. And obviously, the political will isn't there to continue the way we're going. No matter who the presidential candidate is and however Congress comes down, we're going to find ourselves devolving into what I would call a containment, support, or reinforcing role. And it might look something like this: U.S. forces retain bases in the Kurdish areas and Al Anbar province. And their rules of engagement, if you will, would be to go after Al Qaeda targets, gain intelligence, help secure the border, and prevent spillover. I think we would retain and maybe establish a more robust security-systems program for the Iraqis. I think what we would stop doing is getting between the militias and extract ourselves from the sectarian violence. Quit this sort of street patrolling. I think it would become sink or swim for the Iraqi forces.
[Unfortunately, this is the best we can do, a return to containment. The political rhetoric here needs to catch up to this reality. Democrats can point to Clinton’s success against Saddam – for eight years, Saddam was boxed in; he was not a threat to his neighbors or us. Of course, Republicans can point to Daddy Bush. McCain needs to drop his “we’ll be there 100 years” talk.]
If you look at the casualty-generating operations that we have, being in the streets, being on the roads where we're subject to IEDs, where we get ourselves between Sunni and Shiite militias; I think those are the things you're gonna find there's no stomach for and people are going to be looking, the political leadership is going to be looking for alternatives to not let the problem of Iraq spill over and affect our interest in the region.
[If it wasn’t for oil – “our interest in the region,” we’d leave tomorrow; of course, if it wasn’t for oil, we wouldn’t be there in the first place.]
But how do you contain it? Minimize the casualties, force the Iraqis to step up, and I think that you have to have the stomach for the fact that it's a five-to-seven-year effort and the Iraqis are probably going to get bloodied in this, but it's their civil war. It may look something like Lebanon in the mid-'80s in certain areas.
[Ha Ha – the Weasel’s War. :p That – “Lebanon in the mid-'80s” – is a long way from a blooming democracy. It is certainly not “a major strategic achievement,” as Charles Krauthammer said in his “Success Against the Axis” column, Friday, December 21, 2007 – my Post #125. In the ultimate “do over,” we WILL return to a Clintonian containment – and forget the stupidity of George W. Bush!]
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Post #125
Subject: It's 2008 -- thangs are going great! [rolleyes]
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/12/21/success_against_the_axis
Charles Krauthammer, in his “Success Against the Axis” column, Friday, December 21, 2007, said, “Just four months after 9/11, George Bush identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil" and declared that defanging these rogue regimes was America's most urgent national security task. Bush will be judged on whether he succeeded.”
No, Bush will be judged on the War on Terror. His “axis of evil” speech will be seen as a misguided framing of what our most urgent national security task is.
Bill Richardson has it right:
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/iraq
“Our military presence in Iraq is prolonging the violence, costing us more than $10 billion a month, and distracting us from the war against Al Qaeda. George Bush's "surge" has suppressed some of the violence, at least temporarily, but it has failed to bring about political reconciliation. Our troops have done everything we've asked them to do -- but they cannot win someone else's civil war. Now it is up to the Iraqis. We need to get our troops out so that a new political process can begin. … The longer we stay, the more people die, the further the situation deteriorates, and the more damage we do both to our military and to our reputation. Only when we are out of this quagmire can we refocus on the real war against Al Qaeda -- the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11, and who are still headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.”
And….
"Overwhelming majorities of Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni, oppose the presence of US troops in Iraq and believe that US troops are more a cause of violence than a solution to it. Our presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency, strengthens Al Qaeda, and distracts us from the urgent task of defeating the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. It's time for a phased and coordinated, but rapid, withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, and Governor Richardson has a realistic plan to do it." – Lieutenant General Robert G. Grad, Jr. (USA, Ret.)
But Charles Krauthammer, in his “Success Against the Axis” column, Friday, December 21, 2007, is completely wrong when he says that a “United States permanent military presence in the region and a close cooperative relationship with the most important country in the Middle East heartland [is] a major strategic achievement.”
Huh? Why do they – the terrorists, the jihadists, the Islamic extremists, Al-Qaeda of Osama Bin Laden – hate us?
Because WE are over THERE. As Pat Buchanan said, in his September 1, 2006, column “Islamo-fascism?:” “Al-Qaida appears to exist for one purpose: Plot and perpetrate mass murder to terrorize Americans and Europeans into getting out of the Islamic world.”
How is a permanent military presence a major strategic achievement? Does anybody really believe that a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq will calm Osama?
The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. So, a “win” in Iraq does not translate into a “win” in the War on Terror.
Now, we will maintain a footprint in the Middle East until they run out of oil – or we shake our addiction. But that is not – and should not be – a military footprint. Why do neo-cons continue to push a theory that our own military deems “counterproductive?”
Charles Krauthammer, in his “Success Against the Axis” column, said, “On North Korea and Iran, with no real options at hand, the Bush administration heads to the finish line doing what Senator George Aiken once suggested for Vietnam: Declare victory and go home. With no good options available, those decisions are entirely understandable. But if Bush or his successor does an Aiken on Iraq, where success is a real option, history will judge him severely.”
History WILL judge George W. Bush severely – he took his eye off the ball. There is an atomic bomb with the name “George W. Bush” being built out there – but NOT in Baghdad.
Subject: It's 2008 -- thangs are going great! [rolleyes]
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/12/21/success_against_the_axis
Charles Krauthammer, in his “Success Against the Axis” column, Friday, December 21, 2007, said, “Just four months after 9/11, George Bush identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil" and declared that defanging these rogue regimes was America's most urgent national security task. Bush will be judged on whether he succeeded.”
No, Bush will be judged on the War on Terror. His “axis of evil” speech will be seen as a misguided framing of what our most urgent national security task is.
Bill Richardson has it right:
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/iraq
“Our military presence in Iraq is prolonging the violence, costing us more than $10 billion a month, and distracting us from the war against Al Qaeda. George Bush's "surge" has suppressed some of the violence, at least temporarily, but it has failed to bring about political reconciliation. Our troops have done everything we've asked them to do -- but they cannot win someone else's civil war. Now it is up to the Iraqis. We need to get our troops out so that a new political process can begin. … The longer we stay, the more people die, the further the situation deteriorates, and the more damage we do both to our military and to our reputation. Only when we are out of this quagmire can we refocus on the real war against Al Qaeda -- the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11, and who are still headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.”
And….
"Overwhelming majorities of Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni, oppose the presence of US troops in Iraq and believe that US troops are more a cause of violence than a solution to it. Our presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency, strengthens Al Qaeda, and distracts us from the urgent task of defeating the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. It's time for a phased and coordinated, but rapid, withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, and Governor Richardson has a realistic plan to do it." – Lieutenant General Robert G. Grad, Jr. (USA, Ret.)
But Charles Krauthammer, in his “Success Against the Axis” column, Friday, December 21, 2007, is completely wrong when he says that a “United States permanent military presence in the region and a close cooperative relationship with the most important country in the Middle East heartland [is] a major strategic achievement.”
Huh? Why do they – the terrorists, the jihadists, the Islamic extremists, Al-Qaeda of Osama Bin Laden – hate us?
Because WE are over THERE. As Pat Buchanan said, in his September 1, 2006, column “Islamo-fascism?:” “Al-Qaida appears to exist for one purpose: Plot and perpetrate mass murder to terrorize Americans and Europeans into getting out of the Islamic world.”
How is a permanent military presence a major strategic achievement? Does anybody really believe that a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq will calm Osama?
The War on Terror is a race against time – we need to convince those who want to do us harm that there is a better way BEFORE they do us harm. So, a “win” in Iraq does not translate into a “win” in the War on Terror.
Now, we will maintain a footprint in the Middle East until they run out of oil – or we shake our addiction. But that is not – and should not be – a military footprint. Why do neo-cons continue to push a theory that our own military deems “counterproductive?”
Charles Krauthammer, in his “Success Against the Axis” column, said, “On North Korea and Iran, with no real options at hand, the Bush administration heads to the finish line doing what Senator George Aiken once suggested for Vietnam: Declare victory and go home. With no good options available, those decisions are entirely understandable. But if Bush or his successor does an Aiken on Iraq, where success is a real option, history will judge him severely.”
History WILL judge George W. Bush severely – he took his eye off the ball. There is an atomic bomb with the name “George W. Bush” being built out there – but NOT in Baghdad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)