Breathtaking ignorance, arrogance, and skull crushing stupidity.
The hallmark of the PNAC fools.
Posted by Vinnie at December 3, 2005 04:46 PMThey thought they could jam their own personal thug in there, have a victory parade, then retire to the pemanent Haliburton built luxery bases and watch that sweet sweet crude get pumped to market.
Didn't quite work out that way. Cowboys getting played by the mullahs. Who'd a thunk it?
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 3, 2005 05:01 PMwhen if the iraqis sit up, we can sit down.
Posted by dubya at December 3, 2005 05:15 PMnot "when if"
jesus, i'm thick.
Most certainly a roll of the dice that went awry. There was never a plan, other than war profiteering and political capital. I think that Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to profiteer and they manipulated W's crazy born-again fundamentalism. I think that W somehow ties this whole Iraq thing into the Jews having a homeland in Israel and the rapture coming. I think that W thought that he could gain control over the whole Middle East and then turn over Israel to the Jews - after all, he does believe that he is 'on a mission from God' (Elwood Blues he is not.)
So, now what?
I watched a special on CBC the other night about reporters being the target in Iraq. It took me about 15 minutes of footage and interviews to see that Murtha is correct and that we do need immediate pull-out. The soldiers do not know who the enemy is and as a result kill many innocent people. The Iraquis who are victims of this killing, all of the many funerals that they attend, all of their grief - it is of course turned against Americans.
It is a disaster and someone needs to take charge. Rumsfeld needs to be fired immediately - did you all see the press conference when he did not even know how many miles away Iraq is and that soldiers must stop abuse of prisoners when they see it???
Grrr.
Posted by Anjha at December 3, 2005 05:27 PMCole's article is the best I have read on a complex subject (to say the least). Sorry I missed the CBC special, but I sent Cole's work to all my Canadian friends and relatives.
Posted by monzie at December 3, 2005 05:41 PMAnd no matter how much evidence one lays in front of the wrong-wingers in this nation, willful ignorance prevents them from seeing that Bu$hCo is evil and wrong for America.
Posted by pessimist at December 3, 2005 06:02 PMChecked CBC programming - it was supposed to be replayed today at 8 pm ET. It is not on - hockey. Perhaps hockey goes into OT and it will be on after. Program is "The Passionate Eye" a newszine, the title of the program is "Reporters: Targets in Iraq"
Posted by Anjha at December 3, 2005 06:04 PM"Turning Iraq into an extension of an Iranian-led Shiite crescent in the Middle East is probably one of the greatest foreign policy blunders ever"
It may turn out to be the best thing, since a Sunni-Shia war will ensure the rest of the world some peace...
Posted by whenwego at December 3, 2005 06:32 PMTurning Iraq into an extension of an Iranian-led Shiite crescent in the Middle East is probably one of the greatest foreign policy blunders ever.
I dunno; I'll bet Chalabi feels like it was a huge success.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 3, 2005 06:37 PMWhch d y prfr, th Shts whch y mply r scm, r Sddm's lftwng Bthsts?
[Editor: ignore=off]As always Bendito shows ignorance, Baathism is basically right wing moslem fascism.
This is monumental, thanks to Bush II, Iran will effectivily control a similar amout of oil to what Bush I fought the first Gulf war to prevent Saadam from acheving. Historians will record the second Gulf war as a monsterously large mistake.
Cole:
Indeed, by chasing after imaginary weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he may have lost any real opportunity to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon should it decide to do so.
Non sequitur.
Another way of saying that Bush the Younger lied about Iraq having WMD is that he knew, as a matter of fact, that they did not have any. Which means that he purposely chose to invade a country next door to another country that even the IAEA acknowledges does have a nuclear weapons program. That's far wiser strategery than any of you can admit. Thus, the greatest military machine on Earth now sits on the east and west flanks of Iran. It is a machine that has demonstrated to all the world that it does and will act against Islamist terrorism and Arab dictatorships with enormous destructive power.
How does this fait accompli ---along with whatever political, economic, cultural, and intelligence tools we will eventually bring to bear on Iran--- hinder us from neutralizing their threat?
Cole's analysis is crap.
Posted by Toby Petzold at December 3, 2005 08:26 PMI haven't read the article yet, but will print it to take on my annual shopping trip to New York tomorrow. As I read this post, I was thinking of my friend whom I'll be sharing a suite with on the trip. She's a Southern Baptist Republican. Though we couldn't be more different in our political views, I respect that at least she is somewhat informed and truly conservative. Most of our other Republican friends simply vote that way because their husbands and families do. They don't know or care ANYTHING about politics.
Anyway, the point of my comment is to say that even if my friend read Juan Cole and all the other brilliant commentary that points out the horrible errors of the Bush administration, it wouldn't matter. She would point out to me that this is Biblical prophecy and there is nothing we can do about it. And how do I argue with that? My usual approach is to tell her that we should be following the words of Jesus and there is no way he would have supported what we are doing in Iraq.
Lord help me. I'm going with ten women and only three of us are Democrats!
Posted by Susan S at December 3, 2005 08:29 PM
"It's Biblical prophecy"
eeegads.
What the hell does that mean and what kind of crap is being shoved down people's throats in church these days?
Seriously, do elaborate.
Posted by Anjha at December 3, 2005 08:41 PMAnjha,
She says that everything that is happening in the Middle East is foretold in the Bible and there's nothing we can do about it. According to her, the firestorm that Bush ignited was destined to happen because the end is near. That's why the right-wing fundies will never see through Bush. They truly believe that the mess he has created is destiny.
Anjha, bibical scholars agree that Armmagedon will take place in the middle east. This prophecy comes from the Book of Revelations. Therefore, some fundamentalist and mainstream religious people believe that we are in the end times and the prophecy in the Book of Revelations is about to be fulfilled. It is to be the war of good against evil.
Posted by Judith at December 3, 2005 09:38 PMWhich do you prefer, the Shiites which you imply are scum, or Saddam's leftwing Baathists? Posted by BenditoThe result of Bush's war: The overthrow of Saddam and the installation Zarqawi while dividing Iraq along religious and ethnic groups. Since the majority are Shi'ia, that makes Iran the winner. Bush did this at a cost of over $200,000,000,000 and 17,000 American causalities not to mention a minimum of 35,000 Iraq deaths. Most people would call this really stupid, except really stupid people.
he greatest military machine on Earth now sits on the east and west flanks of Iran. It is a machine that has demonstrated to all the world that it does and will act against Islamist terrorism and Arab dictatorships with enormous destructive power.Posted by Toby PetzoldIt is a machine that is being defeated and slowly decimated by a third-world insurgency. It is a military that is stuck in a quagmire. It is a military that has been shown to be a paper tiger. Toby Petzold's analysis is crap.
Lord help me. I'm going with ten women and only three of us are Democrats! Posted by Susan SYou have my sympathy. If the end is near, why go shopping? Shouldn't one's last days be spent in prayer and repentance? Posted by Mike at December 3, 2005 09:40 PM
Mike,
I'll be sure to say that to her!
Y'll shld ttnd gd Bbl blvng chrch nd fnd t fr yrslvs.
[Editor: ignore=off]Reading you reminds me of why I, a former sunday school teacher in a southern Baptist church, left your kind of church for a real church.
Posted by rlp at December 3, 2005 10:40 PMSo, if Condy, Rummy, Cheney and Dubya are the four horseman and the end is nigh - then we must be the good that shall triumph!
Posted by Anjha at December 3, 2005 11:25 PMDoes Toby Petzold believe that bush is going to secretly pump up the troop levels on both sides, get overlapping carrier task forces in position, and then actually attack Iran? Is that what strategery is?
There isn't a chance in the world that, world-wide - anyone but about 30% of American voters would stand for that. Our streets would overflow with almost rebellion. The embassies would be beseiged. There would be attacks from terrorists and individuals everywhere. And, it would fail without nuclear weapons. We can wreak incredible damage, but on what? Anti-aircraft stuff, some of the 350+ nuclear sites, some Army/Air Force stuff of theirs, establish some deep intrusions, then, ... what? Some more strategery, please.
Now I do believe "shock'n'awe" was about being impressive, but the mirror fooled them, and that's why they ( they means our own run amuk Americans) continue to torture, to lie, to be so damn stupid and corrupt - they been awed by their own stupid mirror.
Bush, who doesn’t run his administration, has institutionalizes terrorism as some boogeyman that has released us from our civility. He has bet it all on the notion that people won’t notice that we sink as low as expediency might seem to need. Or maybe bush figures that if we win so fast and hard, everyone will just back off. Hail America! Bush has created the opposite: a display of limits, a targeted military, a sad case of moral and ethical decay, and a lying president. Hail America.
Toby
I'm really unsure how the successive IAEA statements that they can find no trace of an atomic weapons programme in Iran translates into an acknowledgement that it has an atomic weapons programme. It would also be worth noting that the small US forces situated in Eastern Afghanistan, over 500 miles from the Iranian border, are currently fully deployed fighting a guerilla war in the region which will tie them up for years. The area around Herat - Afghanistan's Shia heartland - is of course a highly permissive area for Iran to extend its soft power influence in the regions that count for their forward defence-in-depth strategies. I'm certain that there are more Iranian agents on the ground in Afghanistan than US forces.
Likewise in Iraq, where the US military is fighting Iranian enemies whilst protecting a religious Shia government that is rapidly developing their new entente cordiale with Teheran. You should also note that US lines of supply and retreat require that the US not cross red lines with regards to Iran, or there are going to be a lot of dead Americans who never get a good Christian burial. Losing an army is usually a political killer that usually puts the fools in charge behind bars or at the end of a rope.
This is why Khalilzad is desperately seeking audience with the Iranian government these days - he knows that they have a massive soft power advantage, that this will continue after the elections, and that if the US is to withdraw its forces from Iraq in safety and with some dignity, then they will require the assistance of the Iranians as guarantors of last resort. This is not going to be cheap.
The Iranians are proving to be strategic geniuses compared to the Washington dunces
Posted by dan at December 4, 2005 05:32 AMIn addition, Iran has our good friends Russia, China, France, Germany, and Britian assisting it with many military and atomic issues in trade for energy resources. Care to bet which nation they will support if it comes down to Bu$h v Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Posted by pessimist at December 4, 2005 06:22 AMDan:
I'm really unsure how the successive IAEA statements that they can find no trace of an atomic weapons programme in Iran translates into an acknowledgement that it has an atomic weapons programme.
Yes, you must be.
Posted by Toby Petzold at December 4, 2005 08:55 AMPessimist, you're actually saying that our strong ally Great Britain and our number one trading partner China are going to side with the psychotic president of Iran against the greatest superpower on Earth? Hmmm. That's quite an [analysis].
Posted by Toby Petzold at December 4, 2005 08:59 AMWell, the brits may have had enough with blair's Iraq adventure. To continue the madness into Iran may be too much for the brits to take.
China - well, ww may be their number one trading partner but who owes who what? Perhaps we'll dance to China's tune rather than they dancing to ours. There's a race for oil in the world today - China's use is growing. Maybe they'll like a bit of confrontation to test the waters, so to speak.
Posted by Thor Likes Pizza at December 4, 2005 09:20 AMBack to the "Biblical prophecy" question. You were really sweet to respond. Yes, I know about Biblical Armeggedon, what I was questioning is do these far Christian Rights, who believe that this is prophecy, also believe the W himself has been prophecied? How does he directly play into this?
Posted by Anjha at December 4, 2005 09:28 AM“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003
I don't think there is any reason on earth that would persuade anyone to back another conflict, including nuclear weapons. Wolfowitz spent is whole capital on this War.
Indeed, by chasing after imaginary weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he may have lost any real opportunity to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon should it decide to do so.
Non sequitur.
Okay, I'll dumb it down for you:
if we hadn't invaded iraq for the ostensible reason of WMD which, shockingly, have not been found, we might have a little more credibility and a few more allies when we try to scare the shit out of people about iran.