Laying the Foundation for Withdrawal
So you're a war supporter, and Iraq is going to hell. You want to pull the troops out, but doing so might require admitting defeat. And admitting defeat would mean that the bloodbath in Iraq was all for naught.
What to do? Easy.
Blame Iraqis. Talk about how the US came in, altruistic at heart, hoping to spread "freedom" to the Iraqi people. And then, pointing to the current broad-based rebellion, screech about how "ungrateful" the Iraqis are to the US for bringing said "freedom" to the country.
And then cut tail and run.
Watch the Right. It's gonna happen.
-------
TheDailyKos wrote this today and I happen to agree with it. In fact, I had this very thought last week. When reading about all the horrible events in Iraqk, the spin coming out of the white house and the DOD, I remember thinking, "I'll bet the neocons in this administration start laying the groundwork for the "blame Iraqi's" marketing campaign. And then I read Kos' post this morning and realized this might actually happen.
Bill O'Reilly is already planting the seeds for this spin. In his recent conversation with Dick Morris on last nights show Morris was lead by O'Reilly into "those ungrateful Iraqis". He's been hitting on this theme a lot.
$200 Billion down the hole!
What to do? Easy.
Blame Iraqis. Talk about how the US came in, altruistic at heart, hoping to spread "freedom" to the Iraqi people. And then, pointing to the current broad-based rebellion, screech about how "ungrateful" the Iraqis are to the US for bringing said "freedom" to the country.
And then cut tail and run.
Watch the Right. It's gonna happen.
-------
TheDailyKos wrote this today and I happen to agree with it. In fact, I had this very thought last week. When reading about all the horrible events in Iraqk, the spin coming out of the white house and the DOD, I remember thinking, "I'll bet the neocons in this administration start laying the groundwork for the "blame Iraqi's" marketing campaign. And then I read Kos' post this morning and realized this might actually happen.
Bill O'Reilly is already planting the seeds for this spin. In his recent conversation with Dick Morris on last nights show Morris was lead by O'Reilly into "those ungrateful Iraqis". He's been hitting on this theme a lot.
$200 Billion down the hole!
Comments
Later on in the day President Bush will predictably utter, "we will stay the course because evil doers don't frighten us...". Or something like that. Ugh.
Even if Kerry takes the White House, there is no easy exit from this mess. We can not cut and run. Iraq then WOULD become the new Afghanistan. Hell, we still have unfinished business in Afghanistan!
I just came back from a business trip through the "heartland" and I will admit to you guys how flabbergasted I am at how many Americans still think this administration have made us "safer"... Absolutely unbelievable.
the party that says 'responsibility' has become one of passing the blame on every thing that even smells remotely bad
I would just add: 'personal responsibility' is a fine concept for this administration as long as it is someone else that is responsible
Originally posted by Northgate
So you're a war supporter, and Iraq is going to hell. You want to pull the troops out, but doing so might require admitting defeat. And admitting defeat would mean that the bloodbath in Iraq was all for naught.
What to do? Easy.
Blame Iraqis. Talk about how the US came in, altruistic at heart, hoping to spread "freedom" to the Iraqi people. And then, pointing to the current broad-based rebellion, screech about how "ungrateful" the Iraqis are to the US for bringing said "freedom" to the country.
And then cut tail and run.
Watch the Right. It's gonna happen.
They will have to gamble on Americans having short attention spans....or short memories. The war was never planned to give Iraqis freedom and democracy. If anyone recalls Bush on the day the fighting started...."the coalition has begun the campaign to disarm Iraq of it's weapons of mass destruction". How many hundreds of times did we see Rice intone the mantra "......disarm Iraq?..or Tony Blair?... or any senior member of the Bush administration and high ranking military officials, with the media being led obediently along like blind sheep?
If it wasn't WMD, then it was regime change?.
Or perhaps Iraq was an "imminent threat? (!!!)
Or perhaps it was to protect Israel's interests according to Lebikow last week.
If it wasn't any of those, then it was a central part of the war on terror....but we know that Iraq's involvement in terrorism was negligible, and there were no ties to Al Qaeda, and no involvement in 9-11.
Perhaps it was for the benefit of defense contractors and the oil service industry...but Americans wouldn't ever stand for forking out $200 billion for corporate welfare at huge human expense...so that reason wouldn't ever surface.
Maybe it was for the benefit of the US economy, by taking control of the worlds second largest supply of oil...but would that ever be admitted as a reason to go to war?
Perhaps it was to fulfill the "US Empire" aims of the "neocon's" PNAC scheme, public domain since 1995, of having a powerful US military presence throughout the middle east and elsewhere?
Some have even suggested that Bush is trying to bring on a showdown between the forces of Islam and the (Christian) West, and started the war for that reason.
None of the above reasons, if true, warrant throwing $200 billion of the peoples' money ($5 million an hour), to achieve a bloodbath which at some point in time, will likely be avenged in horrible fashion on US soil: we Americans have short attention spans, but Islamic folk in those mid east nations do not forgive and forget....especially the single-minded fundamentalists. Revenge may come in the next 6 months, or perhaps the next 6 years.
But of all the reasons given, or assumed, for the war, the most unlikely one of all, the big lie, was to give freedom to the Iraqi people and spread democracy to the middle east. Anyone who honestly believes in that kind of crap must either be reading the Weekly World News, or have no clue as to the essence of GWB and the people with which he has surrounded himself.
-
Conservative pundits have started muttering about the "opportunity" we delivered to the Iraqis and how if they choose to squander it then they should feel free to live under the jack boot of Islamo-facism for all time.
The blame is being put on the "average" Iraqi, who apparently isn't doing enough to reign in his terrorist neighbor, or has failed to take up arms to support the American cause. Just lazy, or not sufficiently enthusiastic about freedom.
I've heard comparisons to the Vietnamese, of whom it is said accepted communist tyranny because they didn't join the fight on their own behalf.
As I've said in other posts, our alleged affection for the Iraqi people extends exactly as far as they are willing to be just like us. Anything they strikes us as alien or unintelligible demotes them to the status of Creepy Arabs Who Have No Appreciation For The Universal Values That Happen To Be Ours.
Never mind, enjoy the FUD fest.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Some have even suggested that Bush is trying to bring on a showdown between the forces of Islam and the (Christian) West, and started the war for that reason.
What a stupid, cowardly statement.
Just because the man takes his faith seriously does not mean he's bent on re-starting the Crusades. It's far more plausible than his fixation with Saddam had to do with the planned attack on his family.
And next time, take responsibility for your own crackpot theories instead of hiding behind "Some have even suggested..."
Originally posted by Frank777
It's far more plausible than his fixation with Saddam had to do with the planned attack on his family.
FAR more rational a reason to kill 10,000 civilians!
Thanks for pointing out a much more sensible reason for Bush's 'fixation with Saddam."
Cheers Frank!
Originally posted by Harald
FAR more rational a reason to kill 10,000 civilians!
Thanks for pointing out a much more sensible reason for Bush's 'fixation with Saddam."
Cheers Frank!
Don't be so obtuse Harald.
While I can stand many theories of why Bush went to war, the idea that he wanted to start an all-out Christian vs. Muslim slugfest is silly and totally unsupported by any facts. The only people who even raise the idea are those whose pre-existing bigotry to people of faith compels them to make the argument.
My post was obviously not meant to provide a justification for the entire Iraqi war. Only to suggest a possible reason why Bush may have been personally motivated to "go after Saddam."
I'm neither a Democrat nor Republican. As a Canadian, I can look at US politics from afar. We have our own problems to deal with up here.
Frank777, because Bush and Co. have no historical perspective, and because he openly admits to his religious fervor, I think it's possible that he really does consider this some kind of war between good and evil, a Crusade. Obviously, I have no proof of this. Did he not say something like, "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile..." I know Westerners, particularly Americans(Republican, Democrat, whatever...), have very short historical memories, Islam however, doesn't.
Not one of the educated people involved in the administration had the "snap" to realize that the word "Crusade" still holds loathing for Islam. I'll state for the record that I distrust ALL religious fanatasicm.
Until we(the Western world) remove the yolk of oil dependence there will not be peace in this world. I'm as guilty as everyone else. I've yet to hear a Goverment official address the real source of terrorism, inequality of resource distribution as well as squanderous resource depletion by the west.
Originally posted by Frank777
What a stupid, cowardly statement.
Just because the man takes his faith seriously does not mean he's bent on re-starting the Crusades. It's far more plausible than his fixation with Saddam had to do with the planned attack on his family.
And next time, take responsibility for your own crackpot theories instead of hiding behind "Some have even suggested..."
Frank, some reading material for you:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0417/p14s01-lire.html
Read up about Franklin Graham, a man who is very close to the Bush administration, probably the most influential "Christian" in the USA. He introduced Bush to "Christianity", as well as delivering the invocation during the presidential inauguration in January 2001. He is obsessively anti-Islam to the point of outright hatred, tarring the entire faith as "a very wicked and evil religion".
http://www.beliefnet.com/%5Cstory%5C...y_12365_1.html
There are people like Graham who (like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and many others) who are perverting the teachings of Jesus Christ) and urging a spiritually bereft bunch of governmental hooligans to actions like what we have witnessed over the last horrific 3 years and 3 months.
and from http://www.religioustolerance.org
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) issued a statement on OCT-14 asking that President Bush distance himself from statements by three Fundamentalist Christian leaders: "Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, and Franklin Graham BY NAME." The statement reads in part: "Jerry Fallwell called the founder and revered prophet of Islam, Muhammed, a 'terrorist' on CBS's '60 Minutes' on Sunday, October 6._ In so doing, Fallwell set off a firestorm in the American Muslim community to which MPAC responded._ Fallwell's comments came on the heels of a slew of other vicious_ attacks lodged by the radical sector of the Evangelical Christian denomination...The Reverend Franklin Graham called Islam a 'very evil and wicked religion' and said the Qur'an, Islam's revealed text, 'preaches violence.' Pat Robertson said Islam is a 'monumental scam' and claimed the prophet Muhammad was 'an absolute wild-eyed fanatic...a robber and brigand...a killer.' Robertson's 700-Club regularly features highly inflammatory programming that promotes bigotry against Muslims." [Spelling corrected] MPAC repeatedly challenged Rev. Falwell to a public debate but, as of OCT-14, had not received any response. MPAC urges that Americans write the President at [email protected] 9 Falwell's comments triggered Hindu-Muslim riots in India. At least 10 people died.
Frank...do some reading....there are many out-there rightwing evangelical "Christians", some very close to Bush who have given him "spiritual advice" who would welcome a new crusade....against Islam.
Originally posted by Scott
A handful of crackpots is proof enough for me.
Here's a good one about crackpots Bush, Graham, and their "Crackpot Christianity":
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen04222003.html
Originally posted by Scott
Sorry. I can't read anything from someone named "Cockburn".
ohhh burn!
Originally posted by Frank777
Don't be so obtuse Harald.
While I can stand many theories of why Bush went to war, the idea that he wanted to start an all-out Christian vs. Muslim slugfest is silly and totally unsupported by any facts. The only people who even raise the idea are those whose pre-existing bigotry to people of faith compels them to make the argument.
My post was obviously not meant to provide a justification for the entire Iraqi war. Only to suggest a possible reason why Bush may have been personally motivated to "go after Saddam."
I'm neither a Democrat nor Republican. As a Canadian, I can look at US politics from afar. We have our own problems to deal with up here.
I consider myself a person with faith . . . but not the same faith as Bush . . .and I sometimes worry that the people who share that faith do things for what I find to be extremely stupid reasons . . . sometimes I worry that the unconsciouse desire to facilitate the coming armegeddon takes strange form in idiotic actions such as starting a 'religious war' . . . . after all, it is the will of the 'almighty' behind the movements of history . . . no?!?!
Originally posted by sammi jo
Read up about Franklin Graham, a man who is very close to the Bush administration, probably the most influential "Christian" in the USA. He introduced Bush to "Christianity", as well as delivering the invocation during the presidential inauguration in January 2001. He is obsessively anti-Islam to the point of outright hatred, tarring the entire faith as "a very wicked and evil religion".
I'm very familiar with Franklin Graham. Son of Billy Graham. Probably the only son of an Evangelist to earn the right to take over his father's ministry.
Ran away from church life and partied. When he came back to Christ, he didn't just go work for Daddy. He worked his way up in minstry circles, heading up Samaritan's Purse, which is probably responsible for more good work in the world than everybody on this board combined.
The last I heard of Graham, he was heading up the Prescription for Hope initiative, which was trying to get the church more engaged in fighting the AIDS epidemic.
He did call Islam "a very wicked and evil religion" right after 9-11, after which he apologized. A lot of us said intemperate things after seeing the towers fall. If you want to make a case that someone is "obsessively anti-Islam to the point of outright hatred", more than one quote is probably required.
Originally posted by sammi jo
There are people like Graham who (like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and many others) who are perverting the teachings of Jesus Christ) and urging a spiritually bereft bunch of governmental hooligans to actions like what we have witnessed over the last horrific 3 years and 3 months.
It's sad that you can't tell the difference between a so-con (or social conservative) and a neo-con (or neo-conservative). They are two very different groups within the Conservative tent. All the reporting I've seen says the war was sold and executed by the neo-cons.
Originally posted by sammi jo
....there are many out-there rightwing evangelical "Christians", some very close to Bush who have given him "spiritual advice" who would welcome a new crusade....against Islam.
The conspiracy nuts didn't see any thing wrong over Clinton having "spiritual advisors" and speaking in churches and prayer breakfasts. Bush is committed to his faith. The sheer bigotry your post implies is unfortunately common. A religious politician isn't any more likely to try to start a Christian crusade against Islam than a sports-freak politician would try to tamper with the Superbowl.
And since you're obviously not familiar with the groups you're describing, you should look into the fact that all three ministers you named have affiliates on the ground ministering in the Arab world, and its really not in their interest to start the kind of action you're alleging.
Better Luck Next Time.
Why yes he did.
. . . . I guess he appologized though .. . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
Didn't Bush actually call our actions in the Middle-East a Crusade in a speech?
Why yes he did.
. . . . I guess he appologized though .. . . .
Plenty of Christians use the word Crusade, including me.
When there's a evangelistic meeting, special focus on a mission (like raising funds for a mission trip) or simply referring to the spiritual war on evil.
That's why the word was adopted for the battle against Islam in the Middle Ages. Unchurched folk may equate it with that alone, but that doesn't change the meaning for many of us raised in the church.
Bush was right to apologize because the word inflames Muslim tensions. But that by itself doesn't prove he meant anything sinister by it.