You Will Be Bamboozled This Week, America

September 9, 2007 at 3:04 pm | Posted in America, American politics, Bush Administration, conservatives, corruption, Iraq, Military, Republicans, Revising History, secret combinations, United Nations, violence, War, War on Terror, World Events | 14 Comments

Let’s just be clear about all the obfuscation you will be hearing, all the muddying of the waters that you will hear this week from General Petraeus and Ambassador Corker. They are Bush loyalists, and will not tell you the truth.

First off is this little nugget in one report out today:

For two hours, President Bush listened to contrasting visions of the U.S. future in Iraq. Gen. David H. Petraeus dominated the conversation by video link from Baghdad, making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible to cement any security progress. Adm. William J. Fallon, his superior, argued instead for accepting more risks in Iraq, officials said, in order to have enough forces available to confront other potential threats in the region.

The polite discussion in the White House Situation Room a week ago masked a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq, one that has been building since Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. Soon afterward, officials said, Fallon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops.

One of those plans, according to a Centcom officer, involved slashing U.S. combat forces in Iraq by three-quarters by 2010.

They’re not planning at all to withdraw, or even reduce the size of our forces in Iraq before 2010. They’re in this for the long haul, whether you like it or not, America. Will you stand for this? They won’t care if a Democrat is in power in 2009. They’ll press on the lie to ensure more Americans are over in Iraq to die for…well, we’re not quite sure what. Some “victory” whatever the hell that means.

The second comes from this fascinating report about a UN report supposed to come out now. But notice what is going on:

The United Nations has delayed the release of a quarterly report on human rights in Iraq to avoid criticizing Washington and Baghdad while they are seeking to rally congressional and international support for the war effort, according to U.N. officials.

The move follows a request by Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, to Ashraf Qazi, the United Nations’ top envoy in Baghdad, saying Iraq needs “several weeks” to study the report, according to an account by a senior U.N. official. The delay will effectively postpone debate over the United Nations’ view of Iraq’s sectarian violence — and U.S. and Iraqi efforts to combat it — until after Crocker and Gen. David H. Petraeus deliver a crucial assessment of conditions in Iraq to Congress this week.

A draft of the U.N. report, which was completed last month, focuses primarily on violence committed by Iraqi militias and insurgents, according to U.N. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. But it also documents abuses by U.S. and Iraqi forces during more than four months of the U.S.-backed military buildup in Baghdad. It faults Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government, saying it lacks commitment to improving its rights record.

Gee, why would we want to avoid criticizing Washington and Baghdad while they’re trying to build support? Shouldn’t we know the full picture as they are trying to build support? Why hide? Doesn’t the truth set you free?

So just know America. You will be bamboozled.

Oh, and the political positioning by Republicans now is all about 2012. They’re pretty certain to lose 2008 to the Democrats and are trying to position the war so whatever Democratic leader starts in 2009 has a losing war to end, thereby creating the perfect opportunity for Republicans to come back in 2012 as the “saviors” of America from those dastardly liberals.

About these ads

14 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. They are Bush loyalists, and will not tell you the truth.

    Yes, what we really need is an honest and unbiased and non-partisan blogger, such as yourself, to tell us how things really are.

  2. Yep

  3. Hey Daniel,

    According to your “source” Admiral Fallon wants to withdraw troops at such a radical rate that by 2010 there will only be 1/4 the number of combat troops there are now. That means before 2010, the withdraw begins so that when 2010 arrives 1/4 will be all that is left. I might suggest you try to understand your source before you comment on it… “They’re not planning at all to withdraw, or even reduce the size of our forces in Iraq before 2010.”

    Then you go on to say “They’ll press on the lie to ensure more Americans are over in Iraq to die for…well, we’re not quite sure what. Some “victory” whatever the hell that means.”

    I did not get to see the hearings, but I did watch Jim Lerher interview Crocker and Petreus. In the interview Crocker said something like “The one thing I wanted Americans to take away from my report is that this is not a tv program. You cannot just turn it off.” In other words, withdrawing our troops does not end the problem, it only makes it worse. Now this is not going to be a victory in the traditional sense, but we removed a government and Iraq has literally undergone a revolution in the sense that nearly everything from the previous government has been thrown away. An entirely new government must be built for the Iraqis. If we leave now, that government will fail, and we would be responsible for the hell and chaos that would erupt in the region. I realize you do not believe we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, I can see why it was not the best choice, but that does not change the fact that we are in the situation now that we must see this through. Maybe you are too blind to see why we are still in Iraq, but do not pretend that everyone else is throwing our soldiers away to die for nothing.

    About the U.N thing you say “Shouldn’t we know the full picture as they are trying to build support? Why hide?”

    What, are you accusing the U.N of being Bush Loyalists? Come on Daniel.

    Your last paragraph is quite shocking considering you call yourself a Christian. You are calling every republican evil. That is quite a judgement for someone like yourself to make. It is interesting to reflect on your judgement though. You are accusing the Republicans of setting up a losing war. Then your Democrats would withdraw our troops and end the war which will create a living hell for the Iraqis. And by doing so will lose the next election. That means the Democrats are both evil and stupid, whereas the Republicans are just evil :)

  4. knightstemplar,

    “Maybe you are too blind to see why we are still in Iraq…”

    Actually, let’s see what our leaders tell us about why we are still in Iraq to see if they let the real reason slip thru occasionally.

    Pres. Bush said this:

    “The job of the president,” he continued, through an ample wad of bread and sausage, “is to think strategically so that you can accomplish big objectives…Iran’s a destabilizing force. And instability in that part of the world has deeply adverse consequences, like energy falling in the hands of extremist people that would use it to blackmail the West.”

    Representative Christopher Shays said this:

    “Candidly, we would be giving it [Iraq] up to Iran. Iraq has, it’s estimated, 10% of the world’s oil, but in fact it has probably about 20% of the world’s oil. It’s a huge amount to allow a unfriendly country to control.”

    Then there’s the new oil law in Iraq that is the most important thing to Bush in showing progress in Iraq:

    “Hassan Juma’a Awad, president of the oil workers federation, wrote a letter to the U.S. Congress on May 13. “Everyone knows the oil law doesn’t serve the Iraqi people,” he warned. The proposed new statute “serves Bush, his supporters and foreign companies at the expense of the Iraqi people. … The USA claimed that it came here as a liberator, not to control our resources.”

    So, the real reason we are over there is the oil then. Controlling the resources over there has been the goal of the neocons long before they ever wrote the Project for a New American Century.

  5. Ha ha. Right, oil. Ok, you finally uncovered the truth. So we are over there for oil. what is so wrong about that? I don’t pretend to know much about the Mormon faith, but I believe Mormons have this particular notion that the U.S is God’s new nation. Now, consider the strategic situation of the U.S It’s economy will be overtaken very soon by the giant of a country China. The U.S no longer holds the advantages for economic growth it once had. We will continue to have our power diminished. What can we do to help retain our power? Well, what is the most important natural resource these days? Oh yeah, oil. Considering the position of the U.S, attempting to control most of the oil in the world is not a half bad idea. In fact it would give it back some of the power it is losing economically. This would seem like a logical policy for the Mormons who believe the U.S is God’s new nation. Why are Mormons so opposed to a war that strengthens the country that their God has adopted as his new nation? Do you wish for God to have a weak country?

  6. Alan Greenspan says it was always about oil.

    Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been “essential” to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    Greenspan, who was the country’s top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that “the Iraq War is largely about oil.”

  7. Greenspan says a lot of things way too late.

    Knightstemplar,

    We believe the USA is here because the freedom of religion we enjoy here allowed the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We don’t think that going to war to take over other countries and their oil resources will strengthen our country in God’s eyes. Our duty is to preach the Gospel to all who will hear, not to declare war on other nations out of a lust for power or wealth. God teaches us to renounce war and proclaim peace. Jesus taught that we need to love our enemies and do good to those who despitefully use us or harm us. Our gospel is a gospel of peace, not a gospel of war.

    This world and all of creation is God’s. The oil and wealth of the world is in his hands. When we try to grab more of what he has given freely, by force and violence, we are violating his law. God’s strength is not measured by how much oil the USA has.

  8. Daniel,

    Do you enjoy lying through your teeth?

    “In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

    “I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ’Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”

    He does not say it was always about oil. In fact he explicitly says that it was not the administrations motive! You really need to start reading the whole article, before you quote from it.

    Mr. Radical Mormon,

    Thanks for your explanation about the U.S. I am specifically interested in this statement you made, “When we try to grab more of what he has given freely, by force and violence, we are violating his law.” You see this is interesting to me becuase that state called Utah, maybe you know of it, was not exactly taken peacefully from the indians. In fact hardly any of the U.S was taken peacefully. Are you suggesting that we give it all back? Surely God’s strength is not measured by whether or not Utah is a part of the U.S or not.

    “Our duty is to preach the Gospel to all who will hear, not to declare war on other nations out of a lust for power or wealth.” Let me ask this, does a war the U.S fights somehow halt your duty to preach the Gospel? In fact did not the U.S conquest of the rest of our country from the indians greatly improve the spread of the Mormon faith? In which case if the war had not been fought, there would be less mormons in the world if any? You say that God teaches you to renounce war, but you are allowed to reap the benefits of war? That seems very immoral. Maybe you can clarify this for me?

  9. Knightstemplar,

    The Mormons moved to Utah to avoid being killed by the lawless mob in Illinois which had killed Joseph Smith and had burned their farms. They traveled to Utah at the price of many of their lives. At the time, Utah was not governed by the US and there were only about 20,000 native americans in Utah proper. There was no forceful or violent takeover at that time. There was conflict later, but I am not up on the details of who was the bad guys there. I agree with you that much of the US was taken forcefully from the Native Americans. In fact the whole European adventure into the new world apparently took anywhere from 20-50 million native american’s lives.

    I am of the opinion that we should definately make reparations to the native americans as far as can reasonable be done. We’ve treated them pretty rottenly for a long time now.

    As far as US wars opening the doors for preaching the Gospel goes… I don’t believe that the Lord needs the US to fight for Him. If there were no wars to take over unfriendly nations, the Gospel would end up being preached there somehow anyway. I don’t think the US conquest of the native americans did anything to greatly improve the spread of the gospel.

    Saying that we reap the benefits of wars by increasing membership is like saying that having more members is a profitable venture… as if we were a capitalist corporation. We preach the Gospel… not for the beefing up of our membership, but for the benefit of those who will hear the Gospel and accept it. So many have benefitted from drawing closer to God and walking in his paths… after having learned of the Gospel from our missionaries. Seeing the peace and joy brought about in a convert’s life is a great joy and there is nothing immoral about preaching this message of salvation to anyone with ears to hear.

    Anyway, none of this has any relation to the topic at hand. Our church has nothing to do with the war in Iraq and with the conquering of oil resources. The Church is politically neutral as a rule and allows the members to vote their conscience. Our war against Iraq is an incredibly immoral venture in my humble opinion. The killing of 1.2 million people in Iraq (by the latest survey out of the UK) is an act that our leaders will pay for dearly.

    The strength of a nation should not be judged by military might, riches etc, but by how well that nation cares for it’s poor.

  10. Mr. Radical Mormon,

    Our dialogue is not irrelevant, becuase it caused discussion about what justifies a war, and helped me understand your position. You state that “Our war against Iraq is an incredibly immoral venture…The killing of 1.2 million people in Iraq… is an act that our leaders will pay for dearly.”

    That is all I was trying to bring to the surface. You believe the war is immoral because 1.2 million people have died. That is why I believe we MUST stay there. The killing will only escalate if we pull out. At the beginning of this debate you claimed “So, the real reason we are over there is the oil then.” But look at why you believe this war is immoral. Becuase of the number of people killed! You did not say this war was evil because it was fought over oil. You say this war is evil becuase of the number of people killed, Yet you believe we should pull our troops out, which will kill even more Iraqis because of our absence. That means that pulling out is immoral, yet you believe this should be our course of action?

    This talk of the Indians is further relevant because it is a great analogy to this war, “I am of the opinion that we should definately make reparations to the native americans as far as can reasonable be done. We’ve treated them pretty rottenly for a long time now. ”

    Everyone agrees that our invasion of Iraq has treated the Iraqi’s in a pretty rotten way. In the sense that the standard of living in Iraq is horrible, not to mention the casualties. Yet you believe we should make reparations to the Indians, but not to the Iraqis? Pulling out of Iraq would not only create a civil and proxy war in Iraq, but all our reconstruction efforts would have to stop. We are responsible for the current situation in Iraq. Leaving would be anything but making reparations to them.

    We are commited to staying in Iraq, until the job is done. They have to have a functional government that does not resort to civil war to solve disputes. To pretend that our troops are doing nothing there is ridiculous, as is the notion that we can withdraw our troops on a timetable. The troops will be withdrawn as the security in Iraq increases with its own forces. They cannot be withdrawn anything short of that, not because of oil, but becuase we are responsible to the Iraqis for what we did.

  11. Knightstemplar,

    All right amigo. I can see your way of thinking and why you think it is the moral way to go. However, I am not in that camp. I am opposed to almost all war because of the destruction it wreaks upon a nation. Whether this war was fought for oil or broccoli it matters not to me as you point out. There are very few true justifications for war in my mind. This war has been fought in part as a way to control the resources of Iraq, to get a foothold in the middleeast, to extend our full-spectrum dominance… all as outlined in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) as part of the Pax Americana vision.

    You rightly point out that we have created quite an ugly situation in Iraq, but you fail to recognize that we are still part of the problem rather than part of the solution. 60% of Iraqis polled consistently say that attacking and killing US troops is a justifiable thing! They don’t want us over there. Al-Maliki himself stated that the US can leave anytime we want and the Iraqis will handle security over there.

    You also err in saying that if we leave civil war will ensue. In actuality, civil war has been going on for a long time now. When we leave surely things will get ugly, but it will not be that much different from the massive destruction we have wrought upon that country up to this point.

    Our main reason for staying over there now is stated to be humanitarian, but that is unbelievable. The real reason we are there is so that the PNAC vision can continue, so that we can keep control of Iran from becoming a regional power and maintain control of oil. We are not there out of a love for the Iraqi people. Our occupation and invasion of that country was what the Nuremburg people called the supreme crime.

    If you had the chinese military in the US to kick out the Bush regime, and they incidentally killed 10 million Americans at the same time… and then Republicans and Democrats started killing each other… but the Chinese were still killing Americans as they claimed they needed to be here to protect our new democracy and kill the insurgents… every red-blooded American would want China to leave the US and let us figure out our own civil war. This is exactly how the Iraqis express themselves. The longer we stay there, the more Iraqis get killed… the more US soldiers get killed and wounded. The sooner we leave, the sooner the Iraqis can get their quarrels worked out and get on with life.

  12. Templar,

    I know he corrected himself. He had to, because he slipped out the truth and realized it too late. ;)

  13. “I am opposed to almost all war because of the destruction it wreaks upon a nation.”

    It can give birth to a nation, save a nation, and create strong alliances as well…

    Just as anger is a hateful emotion; yet it can inspire great deeds if it is triggered by outrage of injustice or tyranny…

    Your outlook on war is as simplistic as your outlook on Iraq… If there is even a hint of resistance to a just cause, you question its justness, and in doing so miss the chance to attain a greater good…

  14. There isn’t even a hint of a just cause in what we are doing in Iraq. It’s all smoke and mirrors.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com. | The Pool Theme.
Entries and comments feeds.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: