The extent of this betrayal is too ghastly to comprehend. What it says to me is that Maliki has no intention of seeking a political solution to Iraqâ€™s troubles and has thrown in his lot with the ultra Shia nationalists who want a Sunni-free Iraq. How they get to that point will make Bosnia look like a picnic and Darfur pale in comparison. Tens of thousands of Sunnis killed with millions on the move as refugees. Utter, complete chaos and disaster.
Is there no one in Iraq with the vision and the guts to lead the country to something better?
Tell me again why we should still be in Iraq. This soooooooooo reminds me of Vietnam, when we couldn't get the South Vietnamese Government we wanted--Diem was a Catholic who infuriated the Buddhists, etc. etc., so he had to be "deposed," i.e. assassinated.
I see absolutely no point in our continued participation in an Iraqi civil war. The scandal is that we created the conditions that allowed it to germinate, based on the absurd neocon idea that by waving a purple finger we could create a 21st century Western style democracy in a brutalized country whose three factions have hated each other for centuries.
The previous commenter who said "the Democratic Party will be running against George Bush for a generation" has nailed it exactly.
Yours truly is pretty much the proof. As a long-time conservative, I no longer think that the Democrats have a monopoly on incompetence in foreign affairs. Bush's botching of the "Global War on Terror" will have a lasting effect on U.S. politics.Comment Posted By Redhand On 15.02.2007 @ 08:24
The blind leading the blind is the way I see it.
The first blind one is Rumsfeld, who is congenitially incapable of listening to his military advisors when their opinions conflict with his entrenched, invariably wrong don't-bother-me-with-the-facts opinions.
The second blind one is Bush, who for reasons of pathologically misplaced "loyalty," or sheer dumb-as-nails stupidity, refuses to fire Rumsfeld. He has "confidence" in him, which is to say that Bush has abrogated his duty as Commander-in-Chief because he is clueless what to do.
I can't say that I have a solution, at this late stage, but then again I didn't get us into this mess. Rumsfeld was right about taking Bagdad with minimal forces when the war started, but he has been wrong about virtually everything else in this conflict since then. He should have been fired years ago. Now it may be too late.Comment Posted By Redhand On 7.10.2006 @ 08:37
With no one looking over his shoulder, Rumsfeld has erred stupendously in planning for the occupation, in underestimating the insurgency, in stewardship of the billions in reconstruction funds initially given to the Coalition Provisional Authority, and in not realizing that by authorizing interrogation techniques that sidled up to the line of outright torture, it was inevitable that line would be crossed in a horrific series of disclosures that has stained the honor of America and her military.
Absolutely. The best summary I've seen as to why Rummy should be history. I also think your assessment of Bush's disengagement from the war, and pathetic overdelegation of its conduct to Cheney and Rumsfeld, underscores the central flaw of this President. He's a chief executive who doesn't have the stuff to do it himself, and most frighteningly of all, he doesn't see the big picture himself.
What is the salient characteristic of the Bush Administration after initiation of the Iraq invasion? It reacts to events rather that seeking to shape them.Comment Posted By Redhand On 15.04.2006 @ 04:46
Classic NYT Speak: "their 'rich, complex and politically and culturally divided' lives."
What utter nonsense as a rationale for the likes of "The Drawing Center." THIS is a justification for retreating from the unifying event that they were all slaughtered by single-minded religious fanatics?
It's been said in other places, but can you imagine what the NYT would suggest if given a clean slate to re-do the Arizona Memorial? These people are a joke.Comment Posted By Redhand On 28.06.2005 @ 04:59
Gee, I heard Rumsfeld on Meet the Press this morning and he felt there were no problems with armored vehicles in Iraq.
In fact, he wouldn't admit to a single administration mistake in the war in Iraq. According to Rummy, all mistakes are explained by the fact that "no war plan survives the first encounter with the enemy."
Make no mistake. I'm clearly conservative, and feel we have to support the war to the hilt in order to get the job done. BUT, sophistry in support of administration policies (and mistakes) has its limits.
Consider the breathtakingly broad possibilities present in free use of the "no war plan survives the first encounter with the enemy." As applied by Rummy, it serves as an excuse for no planning at all.
Moreover, it misses the essential point here: the need for adequate armor isn't a "first brush" problem. It's been obvious for months. Rummy's response is really another "you go to war with the army you have" BS excuse.
The lack of proper armor in this war will go down in history as a scandal as great as the non-functioning Mk. 13 torpedo in the Pacific at the beginning of WWII. There, as here, it's the servicemen in the field who are fixing the problem.
But that doesn't make it right.Comment Posted By Redhand On 26.06.2005 @ 13:32
"why are we not different enough from these inhuman monsters?"
The more things change, the more they stay the same. This is actually vintage anti-Vietnam War logic from the Sixties. I remember arguing with some of these true believers way back when. What impressed (and appalled) me was how their puffed-up sense of superior morality trumped everything. Heaven forbid that you try to reason with them or argue the facts. You were immediately told your arguments were "Irrelevant! Irrelevant!", that you were a "fascist" and a supporter of "baby-killers."Comment Posted By Redhand On 20.06.2005 @ 18:26
"We have to turn him over to Chavez." I disagree.Comment Posted By Redhand On 29.05.2005 @ 18:31
This character is a citizen of Cuba, correct? I'm an immigration attorney who does asylum work. If I were the government I would interpose the legal defense that no terrorist is eligible for asylum, or a similar form of relief called "withholding of removal." However, the claimant could still seek deferred departure by applying for relief under the Convention against Torture (CAT), which is also part of US law, though he might be placed in detention during the deferred departure period. So I come out like the prior poster. I would also let the whole matter wend its way through our administrative court and judicial process to keep the heat off the Executive. It's what we should do anyway.Comment Posted By Redhand On 28.05.2005 @ 16:22
Pages (1) :