If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read the transcript of an appearance by King Abdullah of Jordon on ABC's This Week on November 26, 2006. During that appearance he predicted three civil wars in the Middle East in 2007. One in Iraq, one in Lebanon and one in the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Now, with 2007 not yet halfway over, we have seen two of the three civil wars take place, or rather, the continuing civil war in Iraq has been joined by the civil war between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestinian Authority. Only Lebanon has not yet seen an outbreak of civil war.
Yet, despite this record of devastation across a crucial area of the world, Tony Snow today, June 18, 2007, said it was "hard to say" whether the Iraq War has helped the peace process in the Middle East or whether the removal of Hussein has helped stabliize the Middle East, a claim made by the Bubble-Boy before the War.
Well, here is a hint, Tony, Iraq is now in the middle of a civil war, which wasn't happening before we invaded and took down its government. The Palestinian Authority is no longer functioning as any kind of government, and Hamas, a terrorist supporting political party, controls the Gaza Strip. Lebanon saw a war last year between Hamas and Israel and could see a civil war this year between Hamas and Christian factions. So, clearly Tony, this War hasn't done a thing to encourage the peace process in the Middle East or helped stabilize the Middle East.
The truth is that we are going to be dealing with the blowback from Bush's insanity for the next 50 years. Think how many terrorists we are creating in Iraq. How many Islamic terrorists are being generated by our involvement in Iraq. How many Iraqis are going end up hating the United States because our military has killed their husbands, fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, and other relatives.
Clearly not all of the violence can be traced back to the Iraq War, but it is just as clear that the Iraq War is contributing to great instability in the region. Since 2003 there has been violence in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran has gained influence with organizations such as Hamas. Meanwhile, there is continued violence in Afghanistan and a resurgence of the Taliban in that country, you know, the people that bin Laden to use their country as a terrorist training camp. And because of Bubble-Boy Bush and Cheney the Duck Hunter, America is right smack dab in the middle of it all.
Showing posts with label Tony Snow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tony Snow. Show all posts
Monday, June 18, 2007
Saturday, June 16, 2007
AlterNet Article on How Iraqis React to Iraq-Korea Comparison
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read a fascinating article on how the American press didn't bother to call up Iraqis and ask them how they felt about Tony Snow's Iraq-Korea comparison. You may remember that Tony Snow revealed that President Bubble-Boy analogizes American military involvement in Iraq to American military involvement in Korea. This apparently means that he sees American troops in Iraq for at least the next 50 years.
AlterNet decided to do what the American media wouldn't do and that was contact Iraqis to see what they thought about this idea. Their reaction was unequivocal: this idea sucks. Here is a quote from the article about the reaction of a pro-American member of the Iraqi government:
Sanger might have called Dr. Alaa Makki, a senior official in the reliably pro-occupation Iraqi Islamic Party, for his reaction. We reached him in Baghdad, and he was taken aback to hear of the talk coming out of the White House and the Pentagon. "I haven't heard about this," he said, "and I'm very surprised they'd make such statements without consulting with the Iraqi side." After asking us to send him copies of the statements made by the White House and the Pentagon, he told us that his party is "against leaving any permanent bases in Iraq; in fact, we are for setting a timetable for a complete withdrawal of the MNF from Iraq." That was, again, a representative of the pro-occupation Iraqi Islamic Party.
What this article points out is that the American news media sees the question of how long American troops should be in Iraq only from the perspective of Washington, never from the perspective of Iraqis. The article's authors have a theory about why this is so. Here is a quote from the article:
But they didn't make those calls, and that's an important part of how consent for throwing thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars into an occupation of a distant land is manufactured here at home: It starts with the assumption that the story of the U.S. "intervention" in Iraq can be told by talking to military analysts and "senior administration officials" in D.C., but without ever hearing from the people living on the fringes of the American Empire. It not always intentional; it's a facet of our media culture: You talk to "serious" analysts in Washington if you want to be seen as serious yourself.
The media culture in America is partly responsible for the tough questions not being asked of Bush before he started this war. Now that same media culture is partly responsible for the tough questions not being asked of the Bush Administration as it continues that war. At least one American reporter should have asked Tony Snow this question: "What makes you think that the Iraqis want us to stay in Iraq for the next 50 years?"
AlterNet decided to do what the American media wouldn't do and that was contact Iraqis to see what they thought about this idea. Their reaction was unequivocal: this idea sucks. Here is a quote from the article about the reaction of a pro-American member of the Iraqi government:
Sanger might have called Dr. Alaa Makki, a senior official in the reliably pro-occupation Iraqi Islamic Party, for his reaction. We reached him in Baghdad, and he was taken aback to hear of the talk coming out of the White House and the Pentagon. "I haven't heard about this," he said, "and I'm very surprised they'd make such statements without consulting with the Iraqi side." After asking us to send him copies of the statements made by the White House and the Pentagon, he told us that his party is "against leaving any permanent bases in Iraq; in fact, we are for setting a timetable for a complete withdrawal of the MNF from Iraq." That was, again, a representative of the pro-occupation Iraqi Islamic Party.
What this article points out is that the American news media sees the question of how long American troops should be in Iraq only from the perspective of Washington, never from the perspective of Iraqis. The article's authors have a theory about why this is so. Here is a quote from the article:
But they didn't make those calls, and that's an important part of how consent for throwing thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars into an occupation of a distant land is manufactured here at home: It starts with the assumption that the story of the U.S. "intervention" in Iraq can be told by talking to military analysts and "senior administration officials" in D.C., but without ever hearing from the people living on the fringes of the American Empire. It not always intentional; it's a facet of our media culture: You talk to "serious" analysts in Washington if you want to be seen as serious yourself.
The media culture in America is partly responsible for the tough questions not being asked of Bush before he started this war. Now that same media culture is partly responsible for the tough questions not being asked of the Bush Administration as it continues that war. At least one American reporter should have asked Tony Snow this question: "What makes you think that the Iraqis want us to stay in Iraq for the next 50 years?"
Thursday, May 31, 2007
News Media Not Picking Up on Snow's Iraq-South Korea Comparison
Yesterday we posted an entry about Tony Snow's comments at a press briefing comparing Iraq to South Korea and stating that Bubble-Boy sees American troops in Iraq much as they are in South Korea. That is a very significant comparison. We have been in South Korea for over 50 years and we have a mutual defense pact with the South Koreans. If you take the South Korean model to its logical extreme, we end up with thousands of American troops stationed in Iraq and we have a mutual defense pact to protect Iraq from attack by its neighbors, presumably Iran.
All this, of course, without any debate so far in America as to whether the American people want this kind of commitment. The Bush Administration has never told the American people until yesterday, over four years after the overthrow of Hussein, that it sees our role in Iraq as being similar to our role in South Korea. If Bush had told the American people in 2003 that the overthrow of Hussein would cost this country over 3000 American military lives, over 500 billion dollars, and then would be followed by a potential 50 year commitment to Iraq, the American people would have demanded that the war not take place.
One reason why the American people were tricked into supporting this war is because the true nature of the threat was kept from them. One reason why it was kept from them was because the American news media didn't do its job and didn't ask the tough questions of Bush and his administration.
Today, May 31, 2007, a Google search of news media showed only 117 entries for the terms "Tony Snow Iraq South Korea". Now, we realize that these remarks were made less than 24 hours ago. but the fact that there is relatively few media outlets picking up on them is disconcerting. We simply cannot allow this administration to take the United States into such an open-ended commitment without pubic debate.
For an interesting take on the background for Snow's remarks and what it could mean for the future, click on the link in this entry's title.
All this, of course, without any debate so far in America as to whether the American people want this kind of commitment. The Bush Administration has never told the American people until yesterday, over four years after the overthrow of Hussein, that it sees our role in Iraq as being similar to our role in South Korea. If Bush had told the American people in 2003 that the overthrow of Hussein would cost this country over 3000 American military lives, over 500 billion dollars, and then would be followed by a potential 50 year commitment to Iraq, the American people would have demanded that the war not take place.
One reason why the American people were tricked into supporting this war is because the true nature of the threat was kept from them. One reason why it was kept from them was because the American news media didn't do its job and didn't ask the tough questions of Bush and his administration.
Today, May 31, 2007, a Google search of news media showed only 117 entries for the terms "Tony Snow Iraq South Korea". Now, we realize that these remarks were made less than 24 hours ago. but the fact that there is relatively few media outlets picking up on them is disconcerting. We simply cannot allow this administration to take the United States into such an open-ended commitment without pubic debate.
For an interesting take on the background for Snow's remarks and what it could mean for the future, click on the link in this entry's title.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Bush Sees U.S. in Iraq for Next 50 Years.
One of the charges lodged against Bush and Cheney is that they invaded Iraq as a way to secure American domination of the Iraqi oil fields. The dwindling supporters of Bubble-Boy's folly react to this charge with rightous indignation. "No,no," they cry, "America is not interested in oil, America is interested in finding weapons of mass destruction/overthrowing a bloody dictator/establishing democracy in the Middle East/whatever reason you like, but we are not interested in Iraq's oil." Then you get stories like the following.
Tony Snow today said that Bush saw Iraq being like South Korea, where American troops are there to guarantee Iraq's security, but not necessarily at the front. Well, here is the problem, the United States has been in South Korea for over 50 years, that's right, over 50 years. This means that Bush sees American involvement in Iraq for the better part of this century, or long after he, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are dead and gone.
What earthly reason could there be for American troops to be in Iraq for 50 years unless it is to make sure that America controls the oil fields of the Middle East? Having American troops in Iraq means that we have influence over the Saudis, the Iraqis, and the Iranians. All countries that have vast oil fields.
Of course, it also means that America will be the target of terrorist attacks for the foreseeable future. Contrary to what Bush likes to say, terrorist attacks have their own form of twisted logic. That logic is that terrorist attacks are almost always over the occupation of land by a power that the terrorists see as ill legitimate. What the terrorists want is that occupation to end and acts of terror is how they plan to accomplish that ending.
American troops in Iraq will be seen by many as an occupation and will become a magnet for terrorism. Groups like Al Qaeda will use their presence to rev up their followers and to justify new attacks on America. It will not necessarily be a situation like South Korea where the populace accepts American troops as necessary to protect it from invasion by the North Koreans.*
If the Bush Administration truly sees American troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future then obviously the idea that September will be some magic moment when Bush realizes that he needs to start getting America out of Iraq is just a ruse. A ruse with tragic consequences for American soldiers.
*South Korean acceptance of American troops seems to be increasingly a reluctant acceptance and this from a population which still remembers the invasion from the North in 1950. You can read the whole article about Snow's comments by clicking on the link in this entry's title.
Tony Snow today said that Bush saw Iraq being like South Korea, where American troops are there to guarantee Iraq's security, but not necessarily at the front. Well, here is the problem, the United States has been in South Korea for over 50 years, that's right, over 50 years. This means that Bush sees American involvement in Iraq for the better part of this century, or long after he, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are dead and gone.
What earthly reason could there be for American troops to be in Iraq for 50 years unless it is to make sure that America controls the oil fields of the Middle East? Having American troops in Iraq means that we have influence over the Saudis, the Iraqis, and the Iranians. All countries that have vast oil fields.
Of course, it also means that America will be the target of terrorist attacks for the foreseeable future. Contrary to what Bush likes to say, terrorist attacks have their own form of twisted logic. That logic is that terrorist attacks are almost always over the occupation of land by a power that the terrorists see as ill legitimate. What the terrorists want is that occupation to end and acts of terror is how they plan to accomplish that ending.
American troops in Iraq will be seen by many as an occupation and will become a magnet for terrorism. Groups like Al Qaeda will use their presence to rev up their followers and to justify new attacks on America. It will not necessarily be a situation like South Korea where the populace accepts American troops as necessary to protect it from invasion by the North Koreans.*
If the Bush Administration truly sees American troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future then obviously the idea that September will be some magic moment when Bush realizes that he needs to start getting America out of Iraq is just a ruse. A ruse with tragic consequences for American soldiers.
*South Korean acceptance of American troops seems to be increasingly a reluctant acceptance and this from a population which still remembers the invasion from the North in 1950. You can read the whole article about Snow's comments by clicking on the link in this entry's title.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Bogus GOP Outrage over Boxer's Comments to Rice
Okay, so the Republicans thought about it overnight and realized that Sen. Barbara Boxer handed Secretary of State Rice her lunch on Thursday in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This happened when Boxer pointed out to Rice that neither she nor Boxer had family members in harm's way in Iraq. Boxer doesn't because her children are too old and her grandchildren too young. Rice doesn't because no one from her immediate family serves in the U.S. Armed Forces. Boxer's point was that Rice like most of the Bushies don't have any family members who are sacrificing by being in Iraq.
Now, the Bushies understand this point. Even they aren't that stupid. They don't want people dwelling on this because people might begin to wonder why the Bush twins aren't over in Iraq helping to advance Daddy's noble crusade. So, they did what they normally do, they attacked Boxer for supposedly being against single women, being anti-feminist, (that came courtesy of Tony Snow and the New York Post) and being anti-black (That last one was courtesy of Rush Limbaugh.)
Now, we all know this is a crock. Tony Snow and the rest of the Kool-Aid drinkers who are still loyal to Bubble-Boy could care less about feminists. Rush could care less about black people. This is just some bs to try and distract attention from the point Boxer was making. For the Bushies sacrifice is for the other guy.
Now, the Bushies understand this point. Even they aren't that stupid. They don't want people dwelling on this because people might begin to wonder why the Bush twins aren't over in Iraq helping to advance Daddy's noble crusade. So, they did what they normally do, they attacked Boxer for supposedly being against single women, being anti-feminist, (that came courtesy of Tony Snow and the New York Post) and being anti-black (That last one was courtesy of Rush Limbaugh.)
Now, we all know this is a crock. Tony Snow and the rest of the Kool-Aid drinkers who are still loyal to Bubble-Boy could care less about feminists. Rush could care less about black people. This is just some bs to try and distract attention from the point Boxer was making. For the Bushies sacrifice is for the other guy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)