Todays' AB Journal opinion page has my ol' buddy David Ignatius, AGAIN, spouting the White House's message. I won't waste time on too much of the "let's start that war with Iran" bullpucky, but this one sentence paragraph is a doozy....
"Israel's concerns about Syria deepened with reports that on Sept. 6, the Israelis had bombed targets in northeastern Syria, possibly because they suspected the Syrians were importing nuclear materials from North Korea." Link
I'll go slowly to allow Ignatius' very deep and serious thoughts to penetrate my tiny, feeble and silly mind. Let's see...."Israels' concerns about Syria..."....I take that to mean Israel is worried that Syria will, in some way, attack Israel. "...deepened..." That would mean that the concerns about Syria, that Israel has about Syria, like, Syria attacking Israel, are now more pronounced. Pray tell us oh, wise David Ignatius, why would those concerns be "deepened"?
"...the Israelis had bombed targets in northeastern Syria ..on Sept 6th..." That's the reason Ignatius lays down for why ISRAEL'S concerns about Syria have "deepened".
The Reverend suggests here that when Ignatius only looks down the telescope from the, you know, big end......he'll only be able to see Israel and it's concerns. But to say that Israel has "deepened" concerns because Israel had just finished bombing Syrian targets is not only Knee Padding for Israel but unintelligibly stupid at the same time.
Enough with ol' David Ignatius. Let's move to Jim Hoagland's piece entitled, "Dream free; nightmares cost". Seeking to 'explain' how it is that now the U.S. military will have to stay in Iraq for, like, ever...Hoagland includes this quote from a "senior official"....
''We have to hold together a core of responsible Democrats and Republicans in Congress who will support a sustainable U.S. force in Iraq for the rest of this president's term and into the next administration,'' a senior official told me not long after the ''surge'' of 30,000 U.S. troops was announced last winter. Link
The Reverend reminds everyone that "leaving is losing" when the name Iraq pops up....and this has been the plan from BEFORE George W. Bush took office in 2001. All these neo-conservatives needed was an excuse and they got one on 9-11.
The last for this post is a paragraph from a truthteller, Paul Krugman, today's title being "Bush ally bets against Iraq". Krugman refers to the Hunt Oil deal I spoke of earlier in the week and includes this.....
"...if the administration had any real intention of turning public opinion around, as opposed to merely shoring up the base enough to keep Republican members of Congress on board, it would have sent Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, to as many news media outlets as possible not granted an exclusive appearance to Fox News on Monday night.
All in all, Bush's actions have not been those of a leader seriously trying to win a war. They have, however, been what you'd expect from a man whose plan is to keep up appearances for the next 16 months, never mind the cost in lives and money, then shift the blame for failure onto his successor." Link
Really couldn't be any clearer, could it?
Now The Reverend's opinion.
Neo-cons wanted to invade and occupy Iraq since the first Gulf War. Neos envisioned a permanent military force in the heart of the middle east. Strategic maps of Iraq, complete with all the oil fields, were the front and center focus of a February 2001 Bush high level cabinet meeting. A meeting that Richard Clarke, counterterrorism expert, was not allowed to attend despite the fact that the Clinton administration attempted to impress the Bush people of the imminent danger of Osama's band of crazies.
After 9-11, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush himself, wanted to attack Iraq first. That was too radical of a step because Congress
would not likely have bought what they were selling. They all eventually agreed on Afghanistan.
The Afghan attack was short lived, Osama and many of the main al-Qaeda guys got away. Bush ordered Franks to begin moving assets to the Gulf for an invasion of Iraq, even though Congress had not given approval.
A one year propaganda campaign began to brainwash Americans and Congress into going along with a bold act of aggression against Iraq. Cherry picking, WMD, mushroom clouds...you know all this stuff already.
In short order Baghdad was captured, Hussein caught, and Iraqi fingers dipped into purple ink. Then the long slow deteriorization of Iraq, the fleeing of now 4 million Iraqis and what can only be described as the utter destruction of the country.
Huge U.S. bases constructed to house our permanent forces. Biggest U.S. embassy in the world still being finished and then finally....the president himself acknowledges for the first time that U.S. military forces are never leaving Iraq. They're staying because Bush wants a permanent strategic coalition with Iraq (like the kid in the movie Sandlot) F..O..R..E..V..E..R
The original goal of the Neo-conservatives is now accomplished even though 2/3rds of the nation objects....to no avail. In what can only be regarded as a "do over" of the Vietnam disgrace, these Nixon administration rejects have committed all Americans to a permanent disgrace.
Not just like Vietnam....Vietnam forever.
It is yet another signpost on the road of American decline.
About This Blog