Friday :: Nov 25, 2005

That's Gratitude for Ya!

by pessimist

After all that Bu$hCo has done to set up a version of the Topper$ in Iraq while establishing 'democracy' there, one would think that the Topper$ of Iraq would all resemble Ahmad Chalabi. These are the people would - no, SHOULD - be showering Bu$hCo mercenaries with roses for liberating their greed from the restraints of ANY government.

But wouldn't you know it - it ain't playing out that way:

Iraqi Leaders Call for Timetable for Withdrawal of U.S.-Led Forces

Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.
Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance?????

I can't wait to hear Unka Dickie spin THIS into some deliberate Bu$hCo plan!

Our friends at Buzzflash caught this little example of how Bu$hCo is NOT in control in Iraq:

Iraq Bushevik Puppet Leaders Want American Troops Out and "Understand" Why "Insurgents" are Killing Our Soldiers.

Whoa! We are Into Dangerous Psychotic Territory with the Busheviks.
Iraqi leaders are calling for an American troop pull out -- and condoning the insurgent movement against American troops.
[T]hese are the Bushevik hand-picked leaders (forget about that Florida 2000-style election charade in Iraq), so the Bushevik slander squad can't condemn them.
Yet, the Bushevik Iraqi puppets are going beyond what John Murtha said because they are basically saying that they understand why the "insurgents" are killing American soldiers!
[T]he Iraqis can say what John Murtha can't?
Of course they can, because the Busheviks are Chickenhawk traitors who only want to preserve their own power -- lowlife incompetent gutter crawlers. They could care less about our troops, because the ones who are doing the dying are poor and middle class.
Everday Bush is in office, our lives and national security are endangered. It is like giving a pyromaniac a box of matches and 100 gallons of gasoline.
[I]n yet another revelation from Downing Street, Bush wanted to bomb the headquarters of al-Jazeera in Qatar! The man is mad.

Think about this for a moment. Bu$h wanted to bomb the the headquarters af a news agency whihch is located inside a country very friendly to US interests in the region. Is he trying to do In Qatar what was done in Jordan? (I'm not yet convinced that Zarqawi actually had a good reason to attack there. Bu$hCo had the motive of destroying Jordanian support for Zarqawi. So until I see proof from impartial sources, I consider the perpetrators unidentified.)

Pissing off the Qataris can't be wise:

Qatar shock at al-Jazeera bombing report

Qataris, including senior officials, reacted with shock on Wednesday to newspaper reports in Britain suggesting that George W Bush, the US president, had discussed bombing the Doha headquarters of the Arabic satellite TV channel al-Jazeera.

The report, in Tuesday’s edition of the British Daily Mirror, was based on what the newspaper reported were leaked minutes of a conversation between Mr Bush and Tony Blair, Britain’s prime minister, on April 16 2004.

On Tuesday the British government threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed contents of the document, a move that reinforced suspicions in Qatar that the report might be genuine.
“I thought this was just a rumour, but now the UK has used the [threat of the] secrecy act to stop it, it raises more questions. It makes this high profile and we would be really interested to know what is going on,” a senior member of the ruling Al-Thani family said.

That isn't going to prove easy, as Tony the Killer Attack Lap Poodle is clamping down:

Fears that fresh revelations about disputes between Tony Blair and George Bush on the Iraq conflict could damage Downing Street's intimate relationship with the White House prompted this week's unprecedented threat by the attorney general to use the Official Secrets Act against national newspapers.

Senior MPs, Whitehall officials and lawyers were agreed yesterday that Lord Goldsmith had "read the riot act" to the media because of political embarrassment caused by a sensitive leak of face-to-face exchanges between the prime minister and the US president in the White House in April 2004. Downing Street stressed that the decision to take action was "entirely up to the attorney general" and was intended to "draw a line in the sand" on further leaks.

Unlike our Congress, Commons attempted to initiate investigations, but have been shut down through proceedural constraints:

[T]he former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle tabled a Commons motion saying Mr Blair should publish the record of his discussion with Mr Bush.

The process works a bit differently in our Congress. But for all intents and purposes, when a motion is tabled, it's as good as dead.

Thus, Commons now has another reason to reconsider the impeachment of Tony Blair! [More here]

But I digress.

Maybe knowing that they are losing their grip in Southwest Asia - having the Iraqi government 'understanding' the insurgency, Qataris realizing that their sovereignty means nothing to Bu$hCo, etc, it explains why Condi has been given the job of floating the troop pullout trial balloons. But as several commentators on cable have said, including those on CNN (sorry - no links, so if anyone has some, please post them in the comments), until Rumsfeld signs off on this, it is just happy talk intended to ease the negative approval ratings.

This couldn't have helped either (from the last link):

[M]ilitary progress in overcoming an insurgency that is far more tenacious than American war planners had anticipated remains less than clear.

A report issued today by the Oxford Research Group, an independent institute in London, suggests that the war remains in its early stages and that it has provided a significant training ground for extremists.

"There is no serious prospect of the United States withdrawing substantially from Iraq," its author, Paul Rogers, wrote.

They may not be leaving Iraq anytime soon (it just wouldn't do to have angry Muslims controlling a sizeable portion of the remaining petroleum reserves, now would it?), but there are indications that the US is seeking to leave Afghanistan:

Reports emerged in the Pakistani media at the weekend that the US had contacted the Taliban leadership with the aim of establishing a truce in Afghanistan. The reported linkman is a Pakistani, Javed Ibrahim Paracha, but he has denied the story, saying he had never met any US officials, only US businessmen.

As if they have NEVER acted as sub rosa diplomatic couriers! Wouldn't it make sense to send people who know Karzai from his days in the business community to float such a proposal so that Bu$hCo could maintain plausible deniability?

But I digress.

Unlike the American Corporate Public Relations Media, Asia Times Online did some real investigative journalism, and came up with this:

[T]he latest peace initiative was started a few months ago when the US realized, finally, that it simply was not making significant progress in stabilizing Afghanistan, despite the relatively successful conclusion of presidential and parliamentary elections.

The reasons are rooted in Afghan society.

From the very beginning, the Taliban movement was inextricably linked to tribal bonds, especially as the Taliban brand of Islam dovetails with Pakhtoon Wali (Afghan tribal values). Tribes are the ultimate social order in Afghanistan, and nobody will ever wash that away.

Washington never truly came to grips with this. They undertook decisions based on universal wisdom and common sense to isolate the Taliban, but failed to comprehend that this lonely planet called Afghanistan has its own dynamics. As a result, step after step to isolate the Taliban simply complicated the situation. Tribal bonds and allegiances run too deep. This is the reality, as obvious as the sand in the broad light of day in the desert. Anything hinting at a Taliban demise is a mirage.

To date this year, about 90 US troops have been killed in the country, compared with the 186 who have died since the 2001 campaign began. Resistance attacks have become more frequent as well as more sophisticated.
The momentum for finding a strategy that will allow for an honorable exit is becoming irresistible.

As the torture revelations about the US-sponsored Iraqi government revives memories of Saddam's Mukhabarat, and the Taliban reigns resurgent in Afghanistan, and Bu$hCo pisses off Qatarti allies, one can understand why Muslims are asking themselves some interesting questions about the United States' government.

They are coming up with some very interesting answers:

US aversion of jihadis

The US threat perception cannot be taken care of by driving any organisation to the wall. Its roots lie in Washington’s own misguided policies that project it as an aggressive, insensitive superpower misusing its unrivalled military might. It cannot escape the charge that Israel’s brutal policies towards Palestinians are the outcome of its encouragement to successive Israeli governments and Kashmiris’ growing helplessness is an offshoot of its burgeoning ties with New Delhi and disregard of the need for a just solution of their problem. To charge Ms Karen Hughes with winning ‘the hearts and minds’ of Muslims will not help.
What is required is a radical transformation of US policies that should focus on ensuring political, economic and social justice to the people, not patronising ruling cliques.

The backlash from such efforts in Syria make clear the need for Washington - no matter who is in charge - to realize the necessity of this:

[D]emocracy cannot be imported to the Arab world from the US, nor can it be imposed by President George Bush. The only way to democratise is from within the Arab world by the Arabs themselves, they often said. This view is shared by a vast majority of Syrians and Arabs.

Syrian nationalism is soaring and the majority of Syrians feel that it is their duty to stand by the government at this difficult stage because although they might have reservations about the government's actions, they would not want it to be weakened or removed by the US. Those who have second thoughts are asked to look next door and see the chaos prevailing in Iraq to see how un-rewarding it would be to side with the Americans.

So no matter what Bu$hCo attempts to do in Southwest Asia, everything they try to do is based on an imperfect understanding of how Americans react to their methods which is without any foundation in reality anywhere else. Everything I have presented so far in this post only lends gravity to the motivations for the following article:

Time for Arabs to Unite Against Washington

It is becoming obvious that whenever hostile forces led by the U.S. step up their slander campaign, the regional situation gets worse. Moreover, the entire Arab world is falling victim to the expansionist, hegemonic policies of Washington. Contrary to every hope and expectation, the U.S. Administration is working to control Arab countries and seize their natural resources by the use of threats and military action. American policy makers seek to return the entire region to colonial rule ...

Bush: 'Do you think we're causing the world any trouble?'
Sharon: 'No, not at all.'
[Al-Khaleej, U.A.E.]

It is becoming obvious that whenever hostile forces led by the U.S. step up their slander campaign, the regional situation gets worse. But the only superpower left in the world, the United States, continues to insist on a double standard that targets Syria ...

Could that double standard be applied to the idea that the US could conduct an act of war against a non-governmental agency of another nation? Sure it could! Muslims aren't real people like WASP Americans, now are they? Weren't Al Jazeera offices in Kabul and Baghdad were hit by US missiles because George didn't like what they were writing about his War To Steal Iraqi Oil?

Why else whould Washington want to go to war against a nation which is performing some of the torturing of Muslim prisoners for them?

There have been many examples of why Bu$hCo cannot be entrusted safely with power. This is merely the latest. All of the threats which are used to frighten Americans into voting as Bu$hCo desires are being created through the incompentent mismanagement of foreign affairs. All of the dire consequences they predict will come about, as that is the only way America can be brought to bay for the abusive usage of military power. We are extended economically, and our dependence on foreign-owned fossil fuels (when we have the means to completely power our nation from our own resources if the will were exercised and the monies allocated) is a crime.

America needs real leadership (admittedly in short supply in both major parties). Instead, we have the leadership we deserve for being lazy and blind.

We cannot continue to treat the world as our own private Walmart, where lower prices have no consequences. As the comments of the Iraqi 'government', the actions of the Syrian people, the Return of the Taliban, and the outraged Qataris demonstrate, that day is over. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can make new arrangements.

It would help if we had Bu$hCo in the dock when we did.

Copyrighted [©] source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.


This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.

pessimist :: 10:59 AM :: Comments (6) :: TrackBack (0) :: Digg It!