AIPAC is going to end all civilization as we know it. I don't know why, or understand why we're letting it happen, but there it is.
Posted by Sharkbabe at March 10, 2007 05:01 PMAs Clinton/Edwards/Obama/Clark continue to suck up to Israel and Hawk Ongoing War, I'm starting to regret lending my vote to the dems this last election cycle; this old logger could have as easily wasted it on the Greens, or something.
Israel, is the enemy.
Posted by Thomas Ware at March 10, 2007 05:16 PMIf, IF, all options are on the table, why isn't diplomacy one of those options?
Posted by Richard W. Crews at March 10, 2007 05:30 PMThe fact that McCain and Lieberman have been Obama's main mentors in the Senate always bothered me, so this news is no surprise.
Posted by at March 10, 2007 05:35 PM>>> Sen Barack Obama was in Iowa today spewing his nonsense about Iraq
I happen to agree with the statement by Obama quoted above. Iraqis do need to take responsibility for governance in their own country regardless of whether American troops stay or leave. Iraq needs to be run by Iraqis, not Americans or anyone else - which means that Iraqi leaders need to get their act together. I guess I don't understand what part of Obama's statement is "nonsense".
Posted by eriposte at March 10, 2007 05:41 PM"The U.S. will have to abandon its efforts in Iraq, regardless of the costs, if serious reforms are not made by its government. . . if these changes aren't made, there is not much we can do"
This is coded language for "Let's get our old CIA asset back in charge and stay in Iraq."
News report: BAGHDAD -- Secular former prime minister and U.S. favorite Ayad Allawi is leading a new push to replace the Shiite-led administration of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki with a broad-based government that would focus on restoring order.
Amid deepening concerns among Sunnis and secularists about al-Maliki's performance, Allawi has emerged at the center of an initiative to create a "national salvation front," which his supporters say would be able to secure the backing of Iraqi insurgents, reunite the country and end the sectarian conflict that has prevailed for more than a year.
Though Allawi's aides deny that he wants to replace al-Maliki as prime minister, Allawi is preparing to embark on a tour of the region to win the support of Arab governments for his proposals, just as representatives of Iraq's neighbors are gathering with the U.S. in Baghdad for a regional conference intended to shore up support for the al-Maliki government.
http://www.aina.org/news/2007039153825.htm
obviously on some level it makes sense but its nonsense because 1. its a cheap way of absolving themselves of further responsibility and recognizing their role in creating this mess and 2. Bush has done alot to promote the instability.
Posted by soccerdad at March 10, 2007 05:55 PMI agree that Bush has done a lot to promote instability in Iraq, in fact I think it has been US policy. I believe that the US was complicit in the Samarra mosque bombing 13 months ago which kicked sectarian violence to a whole new level. Bush and Pace have repeatedly referred to Samarra as the reason why we have had to keep a large military force in Iraq. Also the US trained the Iraqi "government" death squads.
The original US intent was to have an authoritarian government in Iraq under US control. This plan got sidetracked by the Shiite call for elections, and now with the ongoing instability the US can get back on track with its original plan. So look for Allawi AND Chalabi to come to the fore.
The US doesn't want to lose responsibility for Iraq, it has every intention of staying in Iraq and staying in control. I take Obama's words, as I inferred above, to mean that he is fully on board the plan to tighten US control of Iraq. His threat of abandonment is just to get the Iraqis to accept our plan.
Posted by Don Bacon at March 10, 2007 06:21 PMWe destroyed their fucking country and turned it into a wasteland. We destroyed their families, jobs, lives, everything. And now have the fucking gall to say, "well, it's up to you. if you swarthy weird inferior people can't get it together, well it's not our fault."
Un the fuck believable.
Posted by Sharkbabe at March 10, 2007 06:24 PMI don't yet know what I think the solution is myself. I'm barely over the quest to expose what Bush and Cheney have done to Iraq, to us, and to the world. Now we have to think of solutions, and I hope we'll keep our minds open. I expect Obama is in the same boat we're all in - knowing we've got to do something very different, but not clear exactly what that something is.
I am, though, sure about a few of things. One of them you put very well:
"The war mongers in the US and Israel who don’t want peace must be relegated to obscurity."
The other thing I'm sure of is that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are ignorants - a noun meaning people whose opinions we ignore.
Posted by Mickey at March 10, 2007 07:23 PMUn the fuck believable.
Yep.
Posted by phidipides at March 10, 2007 07:33 PMA bunch of cats.
Posted by peter at March 10, 2007 08:03 PMA bunch of cats.
From a bunch of republi-con rats.
Posted by phidipides at March 10, 2007 08:21 PMeriposte has somehow become demented.
there is no iraqi government. only a bunch of stooges that we installed, manipulate.
the order of battle continues to pertain. wouldn't you like it to be shared with you?
where do any iraqi forces appear on that chart? they don't.
so, fundamentally, iraq is run by the amerikan freebooters in amerikan military uniforms. who operate[have always operated] independently of the iraqi puppet government.
and then there are the mercenaries that i think we operate. but once again, with no knowledge of the order of battle, who knows who they report to, who directs their activities.
murtha promised marcy kaptur that hearings into the these issues concerning the ex-SAS brit merc organization, formerly known as sandline[now known as aegis]. want to take bets on that inquiry happening?
and then there are the israeli ops. who directs their activities? where do they show up in the order of battle?
and then there are the kurdish gangsters - the peshmurga. who directs their activities? wheredo they show up in the order of battle.
i think many are quite demented when they fail to recognize the goal of this invasion. it is a genocidal goal...the elimation of the inhabitants of iraq. it is a replay of the zionist elimination of palestinians[christian and muslim].
it is being run according to an old script. the script that eliminated the indigenous, non-white, inhabitants of north america in the 19th century.
after all these decades, amerikans still love killing those that are identified as wogs.
when i think of obamalama, i think of the line in LITTLE BIG MAN.
to paraphrase, THE BLACK WHITE MAN.
Posted by albertchampion at March 10, 2007 08:33 PMWhy is Obama's view nonsense? He seems to have consulted with the Center for American Progress and those guy know their stuff.
Posted by ecthompson at March 10, 2007 08:37 PMCan someone explain what Government they prefer to have in Iraq other than an Iraqi government so that I can cure myself of alleged dementia?
Also, it is unclear to me how this is Obama's way of absolving himself from "further responsibility" and his "role in creating this mess" when he, um, did not support the war back in 2002/2003 before Bush invaded Iraq?
P.S. It is certainly fascinating that saying that an Iraqi government should rule their own country is now a sign of dementia. I somehow thought we were against imperialism in these threads.
P.P.S. It is equally fascinating that saying that an Iraqi government should rule their own country is considered equivalent to saying that somehow the Bush regime didn't decimate Iraq and that Iraqis are to blame for the current mess. I'd love to hear how and when Obama or I or anyone else is allowed to make the point that Iraq needs to be ruled by Iraqis, as opposed, to um, Americans. Thanks.
Posted by eriposte at March 10, 2007 09:24 PMhow is it that you keep missing it?
how do you fail to read?
there is no iraqi government.
there are a bunch of stooges that we installed[and think we control].
there is no insurgency. labeling those iraqis opposed to the amerikan invasion/occupation/orchestration as insurgents is the kind of bowdlerization that woodrow wilson would have adored.i call them patriots. why don't you?
you saw the mechanism of the yellowcake deceit so well.
how is it that you miss the big iraqi picture?
how do you miss the fact that no stooge[even non-stooge] iraqi government can control amerikan assets? iraq cannot control the amerikan marauders.
it cannot control the 100,000 - 200,000 mercenaries that we inserted. and still no one answers that question - who runs them?
it cannot control the mossad/shin bet operatives.
and it cannot control the kurdish peshmurga.
do you deny this?
i tell you this, the iraqis are just surfers on the wave of the us-orchestrated violence. the us-orchestrated murder of a country.
and if you dispute that, you really need to move on. you might be a principal of this site, but you know nothing....
Posted by albertchampion at March 10, 2007 09:56 PM". . . the effort to persuade Iran to disarm."--Josh Block, AIPAC
Gotta love that Jewish sense of humor. The US has 140,000 soldiers on Iran's western flank, NATO has 40,000 on her eastern flank, the US has two carrier groups and two marine battle groups floating off to Iran's west and south, the US and Israel are threatening nuclear strikes against Iran, the US is taking actions to foment unrest inside Iran and there is now (who knew?) an "effort to persuade Iran to disarm."
I'd say that's a non-starter. But it is amusing.
Posted by Don Bacon at March 10, 2007 10:39 PM"the Israelis must trust that they have a true Palestinian partner for peace. That is why we must strengthen the hands of Palestinian moderates who seek peace and that is why we must maintain the isolation of Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel's destruction."
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/02/text_of_the_obama_speech_at_aipac_today
Sen. Barack Obama was in Iowa today spewing his nonsense about Iraq.
Time after time the government of post-Saddam Iraq has asked the Americans to leave but the interests of the Bush junta prevents them from doing so.
Oil was the substance that greased this disasterous war from the beginning and it continues to be the foundation of the American occupation of post-Saddam Iraq.
Posted by Christopher at March 11, 2007 05:00 AMThe more I learn about Obama, the less I like him. He should know better and it turns out he does.
How Barack Obama learned to love Israel.
Posted by tgs at March 11, 2007 06:34 AMSad to see that this site has become a lounge for crackpots.
Posted by snark at March 11, 2007 06:42 AMIt's the AIPAC, stupid.
Posted by pete at March 11, 2007 06:56 AMeriposte doesn't have to answer to albert champion, the lead crackpot. The "demented" comment is sheer projection from a crazy-ass conspiracy freak.
I happen to agree with eriposte on this - the Iraqi government has to get its shit together if we're ever going to get our soldiers out.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 11, 2007 07:20 AMStrongman audition results at 11.
The Iraqi government advertised last week for a new strongman. Qualifications included "brutal discipline, a love of fear, an enjoyment in the work, and a mustache that can qualify as a weapon of mass distraction." Candidates may bring their own cadres, but they must meet with a background check and supply their own weapons.
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 11, 2007 08:22 AMI guess I don't understand what part of Obama's statement is "nonsense".
If you think Iraq has an operating government that can effectively control itself then the comment is not nonsense. To me, claiming the Iraqi government can lead anything at this time is silly, especially when the power players in the Iraqi government each have their own militia. And Al-Maliki just got pissed-off at the British stopping a torture operation in Basra. We pay these "members" $120,000.00 a year and often a quorum can't be found. Why? They know it isn't working. Iraq is in chaos and they know there is nothing they can do to stop it. And would any rational government give away 75% of it's oil wealth? No. That at the very minimum indicates that Iraq has no government..unless you count the militias.
To say "Iraqis need to take responsibility" is simplistic. They were willing and able to do that many years ago and we blocked it to control the oil. The truth rather than glittering generalities about Iraqis controlling their own destinies would be most appreciated from any candidate. I still have hope some white knight who speaks the truth will come forward, AIPAC or not.
Posted by phidipides at March 11, 2007 10:21 AMCount me in the group that agrees with Sharkbabe.
The fact that there is even any debate on the question of who bears responsibility for the Iraqi disaster means that U.S. moral standing in the world will never recover.
99.9% of all "leftist" commentary is consumed with the need to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. As if that was the only problem.
Now, there are very valid arguments on both sides of whether withdrawing U.S. troops will be beneficial or disastrous.
But there should be no argument at all that the current chaotic state of Iraqi society and government is the direct result of U.S. invasion, mismanagement and general "freedom is messy" approach to the whole situation. This is morally reprehensible.
What the rest of the world sees is that the U.S. thinks it has the right to go around making a mess of things and then complain that the recipients are insufficiently grateful for the disasters visited upon them. After all, the U.S. has given its "blood and treasure". Just because this worldview is heavily entrenched in U.S. culture doesn't make it right.