BUSH DESIRES A REPEAT OF LEBANON
By Schuyler ThorpeAuthor and Political ActivistOddly enough, Admiral Fallon’s departure represented not just a
shift in US foreign policy, but another example of how rational
minds are no longer
wanted within the US government of high-rollers and shakers.
To
disagree with Bush is inviting getting your ass fired in a relatively short order. The President has made it clear to everyone that he doesn’t brook dissidents within his own administration.
Many have questioned his policies and paid the price for it. Many prominent figures within the administration like Colin Powell have left because of such disagreements.
And what was replaced?
Neoconservative war hawks whom belie the administration’s continued beating of the war drums.
In this day and age, this administration has made it their mission to wreck as much havoc and misery on other countries in the name of freedom and democracy;
jingoistic propaganda that would’ve sounded
great during the days of the Cold War–where we actually had an enemy, and adversary, a clearly defined
threat.
But where is the fire now?
Where in the world can the United States still call itself a superpower
by standing up against such evil despotic countries suppressing their people and their rights to such freedoms and Western-style democracies and ideals?
Unfortunately, the world
today is not the same as yesterday. The USSR that I grew up with is
gone–to be replaced by a Russia that no longer has the reach it has.
As such, there are very few countries which could threaten us militarily.
Whatever possessed our President to invade Iraq on fixed intelligence and a distortion of the facts–we may never know for awhile yet. But the end results were
not what the Bush war machine
envisioned: That Iraq would be a Western bastion of democracy and freedom.
Instead, Iraq is not even a shadow of
that. The country is continuously wracked with violence.
The government we helped install doesn’t seem to get the Bush idea that it’s supposed to rule in the traditional
democratic fashion. Since 2005, the Malaki government has shown a severe
disinclination to speed up reform and institute a democratic rule of law. As a result, there has been no democracy, no freedom, no “Hail to the Chief”-type patriotism. Just a lax of
enthusiasm, a sense of urgency, or
anything that would normally instill a recently created government body.
In short, the Bush administration had sold its soul on the idea that–
if–it could remove such despotic regimes by force, democracy would soon follow.
Sadly, history has been against us every step of the way.
And the bonofide mess in Iraq was the result of such grandiose visions. But do you hear Bush harbor regret for dragging one of the world’s most powerful armies in the world through one of the
worst blunders in modern civilization?
Nope.
The way Bush tells it, we should be
glad that we removed Saddam. We should be
glad that we wasted a soon-to-be record $3T dollars, thousands of American troops, and even more innocent Iraqi lives–just so we can have an endless war, and endless occupation of a country that is about the size of California and posed virtually no
threat to this nation.
And have no democracy or resolution in sight.
But it gets
better.
How?–you ask?
With the departure of Admiral Fallon, it pretty much clears a path to Iran’s door.
A war that’s been in the making since 2001.With Iraq under US occupation and both our troops and their equipment wearing out past the breaking point, Bush and Cheney have tried their hardest to paint Iran as a growing and
visible threat to the US.
Last year, they ramped up the “World War III” rhetoric–implying that if we did nothing
now, we could be faced with Iran raining nuclear missiles down the United States.
Would be more
credible; had the Bush administration not
lied about the threat that Iraq posed to the US and the world.
With Fallon out of the way, there is little to stop Bush from launching a
third Middle East war with a crippled military. However–before anyone gets excited over that prospect–maybe we should time-warp ourselves to the summer of 2006; where Israel tried to take out Hamas using only airpower and very little ground support.
As a result of that botched conflict, Israel came away deeply embarrassed and in no better position to do anything about that entrenched terrorist organization then it was when it first attacked.
The word on the grapevine is that Bush wants to launch punishing air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities–in hopes that it would spur the overthrow of Ahmadinejad’s democratically-elected government.
But didn’t Israel try something similar against Hamas in 2006?
Just makes me wish that Bush had been paying more attention to what was going on in 2006 instead of trying to cement his failed war legacy in 2007.
Or 2008.
Then he would’ve
seen how much a fruitless exercise it would be to try and take out Iran with such limited resources at hand.
Given how he's reacted to imaginary or realistic threats to our national security, my guess would be...?
A resounding no
!Schuyler Thorpe is an author, a political activist, and a frequent letter writer to The Everett Herald of Snohomish County. He can be reached at: starchildalpha1 at yahoo.comLabels: Admiral Fallon, Hamas, Iran, Iraq, President Bush, war, World War III
FANTASY BECOMES A NIGHTMARISH REALITY
By Schuyler ThorpeAuthor and Political ActivistForget Iran.
Let’s worry about a nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Yes.A nuclear-
armed Pakistan.
This isn’t just some fantasy spiel concocted by the Bush administration over the case of phantom weapons of mass destruction with Iraq–or the possibility that Iran
might be developing nuclear weapons.
No.
This is reality.
The US’s worse nightmare imaginable.
For years now, we’ve heard the Bush and neocon cabal tell us that their worse Cold War fears is that terrorists somehow get a hold of some nukes and detonate them abroad or on US soil.
The perfect harbinger to and end to our democracy.
They’ve been telling us that we should be vigilant and fear everyone around us whom is not an American citizen. (a.k.a:
Muslims)
They’ve told us that if we didn’t rat out those whom we saw as a threat–we would only play into the terrorists’ hands.
Oddly enough, Pervez Musharraf’s recent actions in Pakistan seems to have born out some of those fears.
But let’s not get a hold of ourselves here and start preaching doom and gloom just yet.
After all, we supported this latest military strongman (for democracy’s sake–
naturally), and we’ll go on supporting him until it’s convenient for us to either cut ties with that country and our former ally–or
invade.
We did it with Iraq. So why not Pakistan?
Of course, with Musharaff cracking down on dissenters, the media, and the opposition–he’s making the terrorists’ job of obtaining nuclear matériel that much easier.
And given the fact that we practically
gave Pakistan the weapons technology and material to make
nukes–that Cold War fantasy of terrorists getting their hands on them…
Makes it all the more real.
And to think…we have
Bush to thank for that?
Who would’ve thought: A US President supposedly upholding freedom and democracy–by giving the terrorists just what they could’ve wanted and more...?
Only because our esteemed President (George W. Bush) thought it would be swell!–to park some nuclear weapons in the middle of a predominantly Muslim
country?I guess it is really true what they say about people and their ambitions these days:
You really don’t need a brain to become President of the United States of America!Schuyler Thorpe is an author, a political activist, and a frequent letter writer to The Everett Herald of Snohomish County. He can be reached at: starchildalpha1 at yahoo.comLabels: Al-Qaeda, fantasy, Iran, Iraq, Musharaff, Muslims, nightmare, nuclear weapons, Pakistan, President Bush, terrorists, US
World War III Is Going To Be Hilarious
Have to post this!Your president giggled and grinned while
discussing World War III today.
"But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding [grinning] World War III [end grinning], it seems like you [begin giggling] ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge [end giggling] necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
Hahahaha! Yeah! Zinger! That's funny shit. For the record, here's his expression while saying the words "World War Three":
To the rest of the known world, however, World War III a scary thing. It's just below abortion and above rape on the list of the all time unfunniest topics.
Let's break it down.
1. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and if they ever developed one, they'd be smart enough to know (despite how we caricaturize Ahmadinejad) that using it would invite their own destruction a thousand times over. Thus, there is no Iranian nuclear threat.
2. Yet the administration is drawing up plans to illegally and preemptively attack anyway, based on the lie that Iran is a nuclear threat.
3. Congress, despite the president's 24-percent approval rating, won't stop the White House because of, 1) The Fear, and 2) because Congress has allowed the president and vice president to seize unprecedented power which almost entirely circumvents Article I of the Constitution (among other things).
4. Meanwhile, if we do attack, it appears as if Pooty-Poot might bring Russia in on the Iranian side.
5. And there you go. Knee slapping boners all around. Milk just came out of my nose.
They're marketing Iran with more psychotic voracity than Michelle Malkin attacking an injured baby -- and no one can stop them.
As near as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be a governing body or citizen group who can stop them from carrying this out. Congress won't and, honestly, they can't. Last night's Frontline episode, "Cheney's Law," underscored what we've all been worried about: Congress has been rendered ineffectual against the current power madness of the executive.
For example, has Congress clamped down on the president's rampant use of torture? Sure. (Torture is number five on the unfunny syllabus.) The Republican controlled Congress did this, but the president rendered the law pointless with a signing statement.
Ah yes. Torture. Not to digress too far into this thing, but you know how the president can look us in the eye and say, "we don't torture," as he did in today's press conference? He can say this with impunity because the administration has authored its own definition of torture which is so narrow that anything else -- anything you and I would consider to be torture -- isn't.
If it don't cause organ failure, it ain't torture, Stretchy McStretch-o-rama-funny-pants. In a sense, the president isn't lying when he says "we don't torture." It depends on what your definition of torture is.
This excuse, of course, is the same excuse future enemies will use when they torture... us.
Republican cowards who demand security at the expense of liberty/honor/law have facilitated the Bush executive branch with extraordinary power. Now we're trapped in the shadow of the White House's unprecedented strength, and there doesn't appear to be any conceivable way to stop these people. If Cheney wrangles the military hardware to attack Iran, the air strikes will commence with lightning zealotry. Bet on it. Congress can try to stop him, but they don't have the power any more. According to the Bush administration, Article II is Article II and the Commander in Chief rules.
It's as simple as that. Just try telling him he's wrong on this. You could be the most conservative wingnut ever and you'd lose that debate -- not for a lack of rational arguments either.
Is it any wonder why we occasionally succumb to outrage fatigue: that deflated, windless sense of numbing futility we feel when confronted with the illogical and the absurd? We've only begun to dig into the upper strata of lawlessness this regime has perpetrated over the last seven years. And now, in this desperate dying twilight of their existence -- now that they're gravely unpopular and on their way out the door -- reckless and without anything to lose -- why shouldn't they do all the crazy shit they've talked about? Bomb Tehran? Yeah, that'll be awesome and hilarious. More war means more war powers. If you thought the administration's war powers were crazy huge, just imagine their World War powers. Score!
The president always says that history will vindicate him. 15 months from now, he'll be done. Pretending to be a cowboy down there -- raising melanomas in the harsh Crawford sunshine, laughing at the third hilarious war he started all by himself.
Once he's done, by his twisted reasoning, it's someone else's problem. By "someone else" he naturally means "everyone else."
Just like so many powerful men, he appears to be able to switch off his conscience (if one exists in the first place). It's the same switch that allows him to say "we don't torture," or to smirk and laugh while discussing Iraq casualties and World War III. "Everyone else" won't include him because he'll always be safe. He'll always have Crawford and the twins; his fake accent and his delusional view of history; his nicknames and his eh-eh-eh laugh.
The rest of us -- unless we can find a way to stop this Iran drumbeat -- won't be laughing so much.
Labels: Bush, drumbeat, Iran, laughing, World War III
DON’T GET TOO OVERLY EXCITED–U.S. HAS ONLY BOUGHT ITSELF TIME IN THIS TWO-FRONT WAR.
By Schuyler ThorpeAuthor and Political ActivistIt comes as no surprise that the security operation in Baghdad has lessened some of the impact and horrors of the raging 4-year-old Sunni-led insurgency.
But before any of you war supporters start popping those champagne corks, you might want to just hold off the celebrating permanently:
All this has done is bought the US-led coalition forces some time and breathing room.
The insurgency has gone to ground and laid low for the time being, calculating new attacks and new approaches to the security operation–and probing the whole thing for weaknesses. But it doesn’t mean that the insurgency has been defeated by any means.
Even the capture of Al-Qaeda of Iraq’s leader (supposedly captured–no one has actually confirmed this publicly), hasn’t lessened the daily car bombings, the violence, and the killing of Iraq’s vulnerable citizens.
Make no mistake about it:
This insurgency hasn’t been crushed. And it won’t be militarily–no matter how many troops Bush sends into Iraq.
And we won’t even be able to hold onto the said areas once things are in place. Because–like before–the insurgency will rise and strike either at will or elsewhere in Iraq; thus drawing away much needed security from other cities and even the capital itself.
While Bush and his cronies are crowing about this latest “success”–they are still dangerously short-sighted in the long term:
We still won’t win this war by force or playing it up as a victory
in the war against terror.What will win this war is one thing which Bush doesn’t have or won’t embrace willingly:
Diplomacy.
And while he thinks that the talks with Iran this month was still a win for the US, it proved that we have lost a lot of ground with the international community as a whole.
Instead of, “Sure, we’ll sign on board,” Iran has simply offered, “We’ll think about it and let you know the results.”
That in itself is a slap in the face for our long-standing foreign policy initiatives.
And it will be awhile before the nations of the world begin to trust the United States openly again.
A long time indeed…Schuyler Thorpe is an author, a political activist, and a frequent letter writer to The Everett Herald of Snohomish County. He can be reached at: starchildalpha1@yahoo.comLabels: Al-Qaeda of Iraq, Bush, civil war, insurgency, Iran, Iraq, time, United States
