The Big Disconnect
Thursday, August 30, 2007
War is good for business. Everything else be damned. In that same context people always want to give Bush a good deal on a Brooklyn Bridge or an ocean front property in Kansas (or yellow cake or wmd's, etc) and without reservation he goes for his wallet like a father handing out cash to his kids.
Washington's Wars and Occupations
Month in Review #28
August 30, 2007
By Max Elbaum, War Times/Tiempo de Guerras
THE BIG DISCONNECT
The promised September assessment of where things stand in Iraq is around the corner.
So right on cue George Bush declared (Aug. 22) that "a free Iraq" is within reach.
The same day Iraq's Electricity Minister told reporters that "armed groups" - not the Iraqi government - control the switching stations that channel power throughout Iraq's energy grid. A new report from Bush's own Intelligence apparatus declared that prospects for the Iraqi government to unite the country were somewhere between bleak and gloomy.
Bush's dreamland "free Iraq" is part of the President's "support for freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East."
Most Arabs and Muslims, though, see that kind of support as "the kiss of death," according to Turki al-Rasheed, a prominent (and largely pro-U.S.) Saudi reformer. "The minute you are counted on or backed by the Americans, kiss it goodbye, you will never win," al-Rasheed told the New York Times (Aug. 10). The Times went on to report that "The paradox of American policy in the Middle East - promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the West - is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose."
It's Alice-in-Wonderland come to life. Bush's imaginings (and the imperial interests they are conjured up to defend) vs. the real world and most of the people in it.
And if it isn't hard enough to parse through the bullshit, we have to read between the lines when the Dems say "end the war."
"Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the U.S. engaged in Iraq for years. John Edwards would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Hillary Clinton would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Barack Obama would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis."
Bush says we're making progress in Iraq and anyone who differs is "undermining the troops."
I just can't. I'm done. (as Father Luke says)
(italics are mine; the rest is via an email newsletter from war-times.org; not yet published to the website)
Washington's Wars and Occupations
Month in Review #28
August 30, 2007
By Max Elbaum, War Times/Tiempo de Guerras
THE BIG DISCONNECT
The promised September assessment of where things stand in Iraq is around the corner.
So right on cue George Bush declared (Aug. 22) that "a free Iraq" is within reach.
The same day Iraq's Electricity Minister told reporters that "armed groups" - not the Iraqi government - control the switching stations that channel power throughout Iraq's energy grid. A new report from Bush's own Intelligence apparatus declared that prospects for the Iraqi government to unite the country were somewhere between bleak and gloomy.
Bush's dreamland "free Iraq" is part of the President's "support for freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East."
Most Arabs and Muslims, though, see that kind of support as "the kiss of death," according to Turki al-Rasheed, a prominent (and largely pro-U.S.) Saudi reformer. "The minute you are counted on or backed by the Americans, kiss it goodbye, you will never win," al-Rasheed told the New York Times (Aug. 10). The Times went on to report that "The paradox of American policy in the Middle East - promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the West - is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose."
It's Alice-in-Wonderland come to life. Bush's imaginings (and the imperial interests they are conjured up to defend) vs. the real world and most of the people in it.
And if it isn't hard enough to parse through the bullshit, we have to read between the lines when the Dems say "end the war."
"Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the U.S. engaged in Iraq for years. John Edwards would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Hillary Clinton would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Barack Obama would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis."
Bush says we're making progress in Iraq and anyone who differs is "undermining the troops."
I just can't. I'm done. (as Father Luke says)
(italics are mine; the rest is via an email newsletter from war-times.org; not yet published to the website)
0 comments:
Post a Comment