Lies as Policy
Such a short time ago, that the Cretin in Chief was proclaiming that America must 'stay the course' in Iraq. Subsequently, of course, the C-I-C declared that he had never said any such thing.
Ah, remember those halcyon days of the campaign when the C-I-C proclaimed Rumsfield would be with him until the end of the administration, and that his Secretary of Defense was ever so dependably right. Buh, bye, Rheumy.
Shall we count the ways that the C-I-C proclaimed we must make war on Iraq: WMD, right? (no) well, then bringing democracy, okay that's out, try stabilization. Of course, we're skipping a few stages along the way.
Can any reader presently say that when the C-I-C speaks out on any issue that the tendency is to believe what he says? Unless you're a member of the new Harris poll's 31% that actually claim they see the C-I-C as doing a good job, election results indicate that the majority in this country are onto this C-I-C.
It would seem that since the rest of the world started out with a jaundiced view of w, that fewer even abroad would be inclined to take him at his word.
When the C-I-C proclaimed yesterday in Rika that NATO soldiers need to be committed to more hazardous, read that as deadly, missions, that the thinking men and women representing their populations of other nationalities recognized that the C-I-C's commitment is only there for the purpose of getting his way, and reality is not the core of this administration's policies.
From the International Herald Tribune [for one]; Support for joint military operations with the United States no longer seems unconditional in Central and Eastern European countries. Slovakia, for example, deployed more than 100 non-combat troops in Iraq with an open mandate under a reformist, pro-U.S. government in 2003, only for the current populist Prime Minister Robert Fico to announce a pullout last summer, saying "we don't belong there." Hungary pulled out its 300 non-combat troops from Iraq in 2004, and Bulgaria withdrew a 450-member infantry battalion from the Mideast country in 2005, though it redeployed 120 non-combat soldiers in March.
Moreover, there is no question that the countries of 'old Europe' remain the continent's great powers. While the commitment of the new members is appreciated by the United States, what counts most in serious military conflicts such as the one in Afghanistan is the experience of NATO's established members. "Willingness to help is one thing, and ability is another."
Now we see that this morning NATO has committed its troops to more heated battle, the C-I-C has prevailed ... sorta.
Many of NATO's 26 member nations on Tuesday expressed hope the most dangerous ground mission in the military alliance's 57-year history could yet succeed but several major nations pledged additional help only in cases of emergency. (NATO allies disagree)
A NATO spokesman said three countries had committed more troops and that a majority had agreed to ease restrictions on where and how their forces could fight in Afghanistan.
He declined to name the three countries, but said they were in addition to Canada, Denmark and the Czech Republic, which have already made public pledges to increase troop levels.
France, Germany, Italy and Spain, who sparked a row by refusing calls in September to send troops to the Taliban's southern Afghan heartland, promised to send help to trouble zones outside their areas but only in emergencies.
Okay, does anyone else think that the great persuasive powers of our C-I-C have won the day and now American and British soldiers are going to be relieved of the mounting casualties in Afghanistan and elsewhere by an increased number of cavalier soldiers from other nations? I admit my complete cynicism. What we're viewing is another staged event - the American and British soldiers will still be bearing the major burden next week. NATO leaders who did not accept our 'findings' of WMDs will not find the C-I-C's word when he announces any 'emergency' as more believable than his word has been to date.
Oh, yes, and the violence and bloodshed in Iraq will still be al Quaeda's doing, in the C-I-C's official announcement. While the Saudis and Iran send in help for their friends, Shi'ite and Sunni, who are battling out the supremacy issue in the streets and on the roads of Iraq, our C-I-C makes pronouncements that no one bothers to act on, because they are absurd.
From one advisor, Nawaf Obaid, to the government of Saudi Arabia comes this pronouncement; the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance -- funding, arms and logistical support -- that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.
Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran...
And in general reporting Many leading US media organisations have started calling the Iraq strife a 'civil war' but President George Bush refuses to agree. On Tuesday, he parried suggestions that Iraq had sunk into a civil war, calling the violence there part of an Al Qaida plot to spark divisions between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
We have an elected official representing this country who has proved that his word is worthless. It's not possible for this administration to negotiate with foreign powers, as they are as aware as anyone that tomorrow that word will be meaningless.
The administration of 'regime change' is becoming increasingly persuasive that it is time for that measure here. Hopefully, this Democratic congress will not back down from confronting the Big Lie techniques that the failed regime uses to conduct its affairs of 'state'.
Ah, remember those halcyon days of the campaign when the C-I-C proclaimed Rumsfield would be with him until the end of the administration, and that his Secretary of Defense was ever so dependably right. Buh, bye, Rheumy.
Shall we count the ways that the C-I-C proclaimed we must make war on Iraq: WMD, right? (no) well, then bringing democracy, okay that's out, try stabilization. Of course, we're skipping a few stages along the way.
Can any reader presently say that when the C-I-C speaks out on any issue that the tendency is to believe what he says? Unless you're a member of the new Harris poll's 31% that actually claim they see the C-I-C as doing a good job, election results indicate that the majority in this country are onto this C-I-C.
It would seem that since the rest of the world started out with a jaundiced view of w, that fewer even abroad would be inclined to take him at his word.
When the C-I-C proclaimed yesterday in Rika that NATO soldiers need to be committed to more hazardous, read that as deadly, missions, that the thinking men and women representing their populations of other nationalities recognized that the C-I-C's commitment is only there for the purpose of getting his way, and reality is not the core of this administration's policies.
From the International Herald Tribune [for one]; Support for joint military operations with the United States no longer seems unconditional in Central and Eastern European countries. Slovakia, for example, deployed more than 100 non-combat troops in Iraq with an open mandate under a reformist, pro-U.S. government in 2003, only for the current populist Prime Minister Robert Fico to announce a pullout last summer, saying "we don't belong there." Hungary pulled out its 300 non-combat troops from Iraq in 2004, and Bulgaria withdrew a 450-member infantry battalion from the Mideast country in 2005, though it redeployed 120 non-combat soldiers in March.
Moreover, there is no question that the countries of 'old Europe' remain the continent's great powers. While the commitment of the new members is appreciated by the United States, what counts most in serious military conflicts such as the one in Afghanistan is the experience of NATO's established members. "Willingness to help is one thing, and ability is another."
Now we see that this morning NATO has committed its troops to more heated battle, the C-I-C has prevailed ... sorta.
Many of NATO's 26 member nations on Tuesday expressed hope the most dangerous ground mission in the military alliance's 57-year history could yet succeed but several major nations pledged additional help only in cases of emergency. (NATO allies disagree)
A NATO spokesman said three countries had committed more troops and that a majority had agreed to ease restrictions on where and how their forces could fight in Afghanistan.
He declined to name the three countries, but said they were in addition to Canada, Denmark and the Czech Republic, which have already made public pledges to increase troop levels.
France, Germany, Italy and Spain, who sparked a row by refusing calls in September to send troops to the Taliban's southern Afghan heartland, promised to send help to trouble zones outside their areas but only in emergencies.
Okay, does anyone else think that the great persuasive powers of our C-I-C have won the day and now American and British soldiers are going to be relieved of the mounting casualties in Afghanistan and elsewhere by an increased number of cavalier soldiers from other nations? I admit my complete cynicism. What we're viewing is another staged event - the American and British soldiers will still be bearing the major burden next week. NATO leaders who did not accept our 'findings' of WMDs will not find the C-I-C's word when he announces any 'emergency' as more believable than his word has been to date.
Oh, yes, and the violence and bloodshed in Iraq will still be al Quaeda's doing, in the C-I-C's official announcement. While the Saudis and Iran send in help for their friends, Shi'ite and Sunni, who are battling out the supremacy issue in the streets and on the roads of Iraq, our C-I-C makes pronouncements that no one bothers to act on, because they are absurd.
From one advisor, Nawaf Obaid, to the government of Saudi Arabia comes this pronouncement; the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance -- funding, arms and logistical support -- that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.
Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran...
And in general reporting Many leading US media organisations have started calling the Iraq strife a 'civil war' but President George Bush refuses to agree. On Tuesday, he parried suggestions that Iraq had sunk into a civil war, calling the violence there part of an Al Qaida plot to spark divisions between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
We have an elected official representing this country who has proved that his word is worthless. It's not possible for this administration to negotiate with foreign powers, as they are as aware as anyone that tomorrow that word will be meaningless.
The administration of 'regime change' is becoming increasingly persuasive that it is time for that measure here. Hopefully, this Democratic congress will not back down from confronting the Big Lie techniques that the failed regime uses to conduct its affairs of 'state'.
posted by Ruth at 2:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home