Campaigning for Office vs. Serving in Office

Russ Roberts quotes Bush in a debate with Gore in 2000. Bush, evidently, sounded quite reserved about "nation buildling" at the time.

Some of the comments to the post claim that 9-11 changed everything, so Bush shouldn't be faulted for making such statements. But I'm still waiting for a solid Saddam/9-11 connection.

Liberal Biased Media vs. Bush

Look, I'm no fan of President Bush. But if this is what passes for good journalism at the Associated Press our country is in serious trouble.

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

Sounds scary, right? The truth, however, is that the study didn't look at whether or not Bush and his people were telling lies. It only measured if the evidence they relied upon turned out to be wrong.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

There's a big difference between knowing Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction and believing that he did but turning out to be wrong. The first is an actual lie or false statement. The latter is a mistake. Given that the British, the French, the German and other intelligence agencies thought Hussein had or was close to having weapons of mass destruction I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Did he fuck up? Yes. Is he total douchebag? Yep. Did he lie his way into war? There's no evidence of that and the media should stop reporting this myth as fact.

Iraq Dam Collapse Could Kill 500,000

More bad news from Iraq:

Even in a country gripped by daily bloodshed, the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the Mosul Dam has alarmed American officials, who have concluded that it could lead to as many as 500,000 civilian deaths by drowning Mosul under 65 feet of water and parts of Baghdad under 15 feet, said Abdulkhalik Thanoon Ayoub, the dam manager. "The Mosul dam is judged to have an unacceptable annual failure probability," in the dry wording of an Army Corps of Engineers draft report.

So if that dam collapses, the US looks terrible. Had we never invaded Iraq, it would not be our responsibility, but now it is. Bush, in 2000, campaigned against nation-building, yet he has committed us to the biggest and possibly most fruitless and expensive nation-building campaign in US history.

I am sure that dam in Iraq sucks and needs to be rebuilt. So do the levees in New Orleans and the highways and bridges across America. The fact that our government is paying for the former and skimping on the latter is a betrayal of conservatism.

POWcat?

Call me sentimental (I do live in San Francisco, after all) but I can't seem to get enough of stories about dogs being lost states away from their owners, only to return months later, a bit bony but bursting with love. I think its pretty sweet when hippos become friends with koalas and shit like that. And it makes me feel a little better about existing in such a crappy world when cats figure out how to dial 911 to save their heart-attack suffering owners. In our post-LOLcat age, anthropomorphizing the shit out of everything just seems to feel right, you know?

But even if you hate this stuff, and all of your emotions are repressed under a sports-team jersey, a six pack of cheap beer, and a vernacular that includes the word "gay"as an insult, this New York Times story about cats in Iraq might make you well up on your lunch break.

Excerpt:

"The bloodiest suicide bombings, even miles away, have the sound and feel of the apocalypse, causing humans to freeze, no matter how often they experience it. Cats need to hear it only once. As they skitter to the safety of trees and bushes, they enter the blast and the tremor on the hard drive of their brains. On the next occasion, come the blast, they barely stir."

And yes. I am completely serious.

Congressional Duh!

I don't know what planet the House has been living on but here in the United States we are engaged in an intractable War in Iraq and one of our few local allies is Turkey. So let's enrage Turkey with a meaningless House committee vote that so enraged them that they recalled their ambassador.

The Bush administration has been inept, but this blunder falls on the feet of the Democratic House.

Turkey Considering Invasion of Kurdistan

Turkey has decided to seek parliamentary approval for possible military action against the Kurds in northern Iraq. This would signal a step-up of Turkey’s military actions against Kurdish rebel forces.

Kurdistan has long been considered the one bright spot of Iraq since the U.S. led invasion in 2003. The U.S. wants Turkey to find some sort of political solution. State Department spokes person Sean McCormack said, "If they have a problem, they need to work together to resolve it, and I'm not sure that unilateral incursions are the way to go."

If only the United States followed that advice before the invasion of Iraq….

Story from the LA Times.

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

Mount Obey is about to blow. And not in a good way...

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) warned President Bush on Tuesday that he would bottle up a critical $190 billion war spending bill in his committee unless Bush agrees to a goal of ending combat operations in Iraq by January 2009 and other conditions.
[...]
Obey also announced his backing for a war surtax on income, ranging from 2 percent to 15 percent of every American’s tax bill, to raise about $150 billion a year to pay for the war.

“If you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war,” Obey said.

2% to 15%? Yikes. I know he's just blowing smoke by trying to raise the issue of the cost of the war, but a special tax to help finance the clusterfuck over there isn't something to joke about.

Via Roll Call. Sorry, subscription required.

Ben’s Worthless International Links

I know nobody reads what I post and I am fine with that really, but here is some more nothingness...

World Bank President Robert Zoellick announced today that the bank will slash its loan interest rates to pre-1998 levels. From the Financial Times.

Kenyan Presidential candidate claims to be cousin of Obama, which has been denied by Barack’s people. New York Times.

Ban Ki-Moon is fretting over global economic situation, particularly the volatility of the markets. UN News.

Iraq and Turkey unite against their common enemy, the Kurds. Yahoo! News.

The Crusade against the Jihad

I can't remember the exact date that Muslim terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001 - who can? - but I know it was some time in September. Maybe it happened on 9/10 or 9/12 because today's Washington Post has two great op-eds on the state of the war on terror. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the former chairman and vice chairman of the - oh I guess it happened on 9/11 - 9/11 commission, write about how far away Congress and the President are from implementing the kind of policies that would prevent another terrorist attack.

Progress at home -- in our ability to detect, prevent and respond to terrorist attacks -- has been difficult, incomplete and slow, but it has been real. Outside our borders, however, the threat of failure looms. We face a rising tide of radicalization and rage in the Muslim world -- a trend to which our own actions have contributed. The enduring threat is not Osama bin Laden but young Muslims with no jobs and no hope, who are angry with their own governments and increasingly see the United States as an enemy of Islam.

They go on to recommend closing Guantanamo, finding a solution to Iraq (they stop short of directly saying the U.S. should get out, but it's implied), and taking strong steps to protect civil liberties.

Meanwhile Bruce Hoffman, a professor of securities studies at Georgetown, tells a compelling story of how al-Qaeda went from near extinction after the invasion of Afghanistan to becoming stronger than ever (hint: Iraq has distracted U.S. counterterror resources and given terrorist's their biggest recruiting tool ever).

The WMD is Found! ...At the U.N.

We should have invaded NYC, not Iraq, as the Iraqi WMD that threatened our country was in Manhattan all the time and just discovered Friday.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - United Nations officials found vials of dangerous chemicals, which had been removed from Iraq a decade ago, in a U.N. building in New York, but U.N. officials said on Thursday there was no danger.

The FBI was called in to help remove the substances.

The material was phosgene, a chemical warfare agent, U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe told a news conference.

The inspections unit said in a statement that the chemicals had been found last Friday.

Dick Cheney Was Right

MoveOn.org has dug up a great video clip from 1994 of Dick Cheney explaining why overthrowing Saddam Hussein would be a disaster for both Iraq and the United States.

Hat tip to TtP reader Davey Allday.

If Not Now, Then When?

No, it is not a Smiths song, would that it were. The Wa Post has a story today about the fact that the Bush administration has given up hope that the "benchmarks" will be met. Not just one of them, but all of them.

The Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals or timelines President Bush set for it in January when he announced a major shift in U.S. policy, according to senior administration officials closely involved in the matter. As they prepare an interim report due next week, officials are marshaling alternative evidence of progress to persuade Congress to continue supporting the war.

Don't Give the Nannies Any Ideas

Via Instapundit somes this from Micheal Yon in Iraq:

Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) had tarnished its name here by publicly attacking and murdering children, videotaping beheadings, all while imposing harsh punishments on Iraqi civilians found guilty of violating morality laws prohibiting activities like smoking. The AQI installed Sharia court had sanctioned the amputation of the two “smoking fingers” for those who violated anti-smoking laws. In part because local sentiment was shifting against it, AQI synthesized with other groups and undertook an image makeover, christening itself “The Islamic State of Iraq.” But the new name was just lipstick on a pig here.

On the evening of the 24th I spoke with a local Iraqi official, Colonel Faik, who said the Muftis would order the severance of the two fingers used to hold a cigarette for any Iraqis caught smoking. Other reports, from here in Diyala and also in Anbar, allege that smokers are murdered by AQI. Most Iraqis smoke and this particular prohibition appeared to have earned the ire of many locals.

Whole thing here.

The Neverending Story

AP Special Correspondent Charles Hanley must have woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

In Iraq, after four years and three months of war, the echoes have begun to echo themselves.

American troops are taking Baghdad's streets back from insurgents. The prime minister has a plan for national reconciliation. To the south, in the "triangle of death," two U.S. soldiers are missing, captives in enemy hands.

Those were the headlines a year ago. Now they're being heard again in the newscasts of today, like some grim rewinding of a movie tragedy, of a story that never ends.

At the White House last June, back from a secretive trip to Baghdad, an upbeat President Bush told reporters assembled in the Rose Garden, "I sense something different happening in Iraq." It's June again and those roses are once more in bloom. But in Baghdad the scene looks only bleaker.

To a visitor returning after a year, the something different is the spread of concrete blast barriers across ever more of the city, the accumulation of still more rubble, the sectarian "cleansing" of neighborhoods, the ruin of still more lives — of friends whose loved ones have fled, been kidnapped, been killed. And for those left behind, life is worse.

Ouch! Take that, Bush. More here.

Update on Turkish Forces Invading Iraq

We wondered in the comments section why we hadn't heard more of the Turkish invasion into Northern Iraq. Answer: It now appears as though it hasn't happened. Michael Totten -- who has covered such Middle East hot spots such as Iraqi Kurdistan and Lebanon better than anyone else I've read, has this to say:

My sources in Iraqi Kurdistan told me there has been no Turkish invasion. The Turkish government, the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), and the United States government all agree that there has been no Turkish invasion.

[...]

Here’s what’s actually happening: The Marxist-Leninist Kurdistan Worker’s Party (or PKK) from Eastern Turkey has dug into a remote mountainous area just inside Iraq which they use as a staging ground to launch terrorist and guerilla attacks inside Turkey. The Turkish military is shelling the area from their side of the border and may have chased PKK elements across the border in hot pursuit before returning to Turkey immediately.

[...]

Free advice for the United States government: Help the Kurds of Iraq eject the PKK from the mountains before Turkey does to Iraqi Kurdistan what Israel did to Lebanon. The Turkish government sees this problem through the lens of last year’s war in July, and we don’t need to see that movie again.

Check his blog out.

Turkey Invades Iraq

Yesterday from Reutuers:

Turkey said on Wednesday it had no plans at present to send troops into northern Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels there, but it indicated this remained an option in the future.

The future is now. Today, from Turkey's official Cihan news agency:

Turkish army launches massive offensive in SE Turkey

Turkish army has launched one of the largest military offensives in the past few years against the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) terrorists in the eastern and southeastern parts of the country.

The operation, involving about 50,000 troops and backed by armored vehicles and combat aircrafts, is targeting the PKK terrorists in 11 provinces in southeastern Turkey, namely Mardin, Sirnak, Siirt, Diyarbakir, Tunceli, Bitlis, Bingol, Agri, Hakkari, Van and Mus, and also northern Iraq.

More here.

Blogger's Dilemma: Ridicule a Paper or Bush?

Why not both? This is the headline/link on the Sun's front page:

Bush predicts more deaths in Iraq
Congress passes $120 billion emergency war spending bill with no timetable for Iraq withdrawal

Really? More deaths? Color me naive. I just figured summertime in Iraq was like Brazil in July. They shut down the country for a month and everyone takes their holiday in Disney World. Papers and politicians can really open your eyes.

From the article itself:

President Bush and top military officials predicted yesterday that casualties in Iraq will accelerate between now and September, when a much anticipated deadline arrives for assessing the results of a troop buildup that Congress has finally agreed to pay for.

Iraqi insurgents will try to "kill as many innocent people as they can to try to influence the debate here at home," Bush said. "And so, yeah, it could be a bloody - it could be a very difficult August."

These guys don't inspire much confidence, do they?

And not to be missed:

Despite the president's objections, the legislation included Hurricane Katrina and drought relief, money for children's health insurance and the first federal minimum wage increase since 1997. The bill also includes money for Maryland construction projects related to realignment of military bases. Bush has indicated he will sign the legislation.

Bets on how long we keep funneling money down south for "Hurricane Katrina Relief"? Where's Coolidge when you need him....Better yet, where are American citizens from the 1920's when you need them....(see #5 at the bottom of the Time article)

Edwards: End the War Now.......And Bring Back Conscription

He's not a chickenhawk, but when you advocate conscription for young men, when you yourself wouldn't be forced to serve, there has to be a term for that. Besides populist pig. Which I'll admit, has a nice ring to it for Edwards.

Edwards also called Monday for spreading the burden of serving the country by mandating national service.

"One of the things we ought to be thinking about is some level of mandatory service to our country, so that everybody in America _ not just the poor kids who get sent to war _ are serving this country," he said.

After the event, Edwards said he had not meant to imply that only the poor go to war, only that everyone should serve in some way.

"We have people from all walks of life in America who are serving, including Reservists and National Guard," he said. "What we want to do is to have all Americans to have a chance to serve their country."

Some leaders of local veterans' groups also have deplored Edwards' call for war protests on Memorial Day.

For all the failures that we at home, and troops abroad have had to suffer through during this war, we can all be, and should be grateful to men like Milton Friedman who ensured that only volunteers would be asked to serve in our armed forces. The last thing we need is return to that collosal mistake. Full article here.

Update: I love it when politicians get mixed up in their own rhetoric. Notice how Edwards says

"What we want to do is to have all Americans to have a chance to serve their country."

What does that even mean? Anyone who is physically and mentally able to serve has the chance to serve. That's the magic of choice. What he should have said was, "What we want to do is force everyone who has the chance to be killed in war for our nation to take that chance." That would at least be truthful.

The AgiTRAITOR

Radley Balko's latest column on foxnews.com , which argues that Rep. Ron Paul is right that there is sometimes blowback from America's interventionist foreign policy, has apparently gotten him a few e-mails accusing him of treason. It's a good piece with compelling arguments. My only criticism is that it cites Cato reports and not CIA assessments or the 9/11 Commission Report, which also reached the same conclusions as Ron Paul. Why leave out the fact that America's intelligence community agrees with Paul? That's the most compelling proof that Rudy Giuliani - who takes money from terrorists countries and lobbies for their interests and who allowed New York's emergency command center to be housed in a known terrorist target - is full of crap. But hey, I don't get paid to express my views on Foxnews. And it's a good piece. Even though it doesn't mention that Paula Abdul broke her nose trying to avoid stepping on a Chihuahua. I want what she is on.

War is Not a Video Game

Andrew Cockburn has a fascinating article up at Counterpunch on how allies of Rumsfeld rigged pre-war computer simulations to allow Rumsfeld's war strategies to win. The U.S. is able to beat Iraq and other enemies only if one assumes that we can control what they do and how they react to our war plans. Rumsfeld's strategies fail against thinking people.

CIA bin Laden Expert: Ron Paul "Exactly Correct"

In an interview with Antiwar Radio, Michael Scheuer (former head analyst of the CIA's bin Laden unit) says Ron Paul was "exactly correct" in saying that America's interventionist foreign policy was largely responsible for causing 9/11, and that the war in Iraq is undermining America's long-term security. Listen to it here.

Via LewRockwell.com.

Tony Blair as Stupid as Rudy Giuliani

I guess like Giuliani, Blair doesn't read intelligence reports, history books or newspapers either.

[Blair's] muscular internationalism might best be described as half globalization theory and half Gladstone -- the Victorian-era, Liberal prime minister who symbolizes high-minded, humanitarian intervention. Blair speaks a neon language of right and wrong and sees Britain as a global force for good. And he has little patience for a trendy moral equivalence:

"The reason why the stance of a lot of public opinion is quite defeatist in my view is because we are still saying, 'Well, they've got a point, we understand their grievance, maybe it is our fault.' . . We get rid of two of the most brutal and terrible dictatorships, who've killed hundreds of thousands of their people, we then say you can have a United Nations-backed process of democracy -- and you say that provoked them to terrorism. I mean, explain that one for me."

Yeah, the idea that carpet-bombing Muslim countries, overthrowing their leaders, and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people through economic sanctions and war is going to lead to retaliation of some sort really needs explaining. I can't imagine why a father who loses his wife and children in a bombing raid isn't satisfied knowing that it was a cost of bringing him democracy. Nope, can't imagine why at all.

More on Blair's killing-people-is-humanitarianism-at-its-best philosophy in today's Washington Post.

Republican Chairman to Libertarians: We Don't Want You, Join the Democrats

I bet it was nice for a while being a war-mongering politician, party hack or political pundit. Beating your chest, feeling like a real man's man, acting tough (although not actually doing anything tough, like you know joining the military and putting your life on the line.) But then reality set in. Thousands of dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq. A growing - not shrinking - terrorist movement. And a nagging feeling deep inside that your support for a reckless foreign policy is at least partially responsible for the chaos in Iraq and the global anti-American blowback. So when someone like Rep. Ron Paul comes along and makes you feel uncomfortable by pointing out the obvious, it's only natural to try to literally run him off the stage. Much easier to sleep at night if no one is allowed to suggest that the policies you helped erect are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, the fleecing of American taxpayers, an increased police state, and an America made less safe. What else can one make of all the attacks on Rep. Ron Paul from Republican circles (see here, here, here, and here) and the movement to get him barred from future Republican debates?

Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates....

"I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party,” Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting...

Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to discourage inviting Paul.

I guess if Ron Paul should leave the Republican Party, then so should I. Thanks for the advice, Saul. I'm changing by party registration. After I vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, of course. There is obviously nothing left for libertarians in the Republican Party. Nothing. Let them wallow in their big-government-loving, war-starting, individual-rights-hating, shrinking party alone.

You can sign a petition to keep Ron Paul in the Republican debates here. And sign a petition urging Giuliani to debate Paul on foreign policy here. Both via LewRockwell.com, which has excellent ongoing coverage of the blowback over the blowback.

Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) for President

It's not every day you hear a Congressman speak so much truth. Highlights from David Weigel's interview with him.

if you want to be loyal to the troops in the field, if you're saying you're patriotic, then you'll read a book like Anthony Zinni's The Battle for Peace. You'll read a book like Fiasco. You'll turn the damn television off every night for two hours and read some objective opinions on this thing. Ignorance is pervasive in any culture and ours is not an exception.
[...]
I think the GOP was dissolving. Now it's drying up and the wind's going to blow it away. I just don't think we have the depth of knowledge, intellect, and experience necessary for a viable political party any more.
[...]
I don't worry about a primary challenge. It's inconvenient. My eternal soul will last a lot longer than my short, pathetic political career.

George Tenent Hates America

I'm sure zero of TtP's readers were going to anyways.....but, don't bother buying Tenet's book. I'm not actually giving this review based upon my own reading of the book. God no. You think I can afford $30 for his book? Please. That's a blow job from a decent tranny. Or, if you prefer, two blow jobs from slightly questionable trannys. What's a questionable tranny? To steal the old cliche..."You know one when you see it."

Rich Lowry had a fairly good breakdown of the new book on The Corner yesterday. However, if two National Review links in as many days proves to be too many for you, then check out the Christopher Hitchens review.

From the Slate piece: [emphasis mine]

I only mean to say that it was a very favorably disposed chronicler who wrote this, in describing Tenet's reaction on the terrible morning of Sept. 11, 2001:

"This has bin Laden all over it," Tenet told Boren. "I've got to go." He also had another reaction, one that raised the real possibility that the CIA and the FBI had not done all that could have been done to prevent the terrorist attack. "I wonder," Tenet said, "if it has anything to do with this guy taking pilot training."

[...]

A highly irritating expression in Washington has it that "hindsight is always 20-20." Would that it were so. History is not a matter of hindsight and is not, in fact, always written by the victors. In this case, a bogus history is being offered by a real loser whose hindsight is cockeyed and who had no foresight at all.

The Court Hear By Finds You Guilty of Being a Playa

Who says Iraq is not fun?

A senior U.S. Army officer who ran a military police detachment guarding prisoners in Iraq has been charged with nine offenses, including "aiding the enemy" and having a relationship with the daughter of a detainee, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad....

....Steele was charged with aiding the enemy by "providing an unmonitored cellular phone to detainees," the statement said, but also with fraternizing with the daughter of a detainee, having an "inappropriate relationship with an interpreter, wrongfully and knowingly storing classified information in his living space, failing to obey orders and having pornography," the statement said.

Freedom Really is Just Another Word for Nothing Else to Lose

At least that's the tune Bush's foreign policy is blasting across the Middle East, where freedom and democracy have become synonyms for violence, chaos and corruption. I think this says it all:

BAGHDAD, April 9 (UPI) -- The Iraqi man who helped destroy a statue of Saddam Hussein with a sledgehammer four years ago says the fall of Hussein's regime accomplished nothing.

"We got rid of a tyrant and tyranny. But we were surprised that after one thief had left, another 40 replaced him," Khadim al-Jubouri told the Washington Post. "Now, we regret that Saddam Hussein is gone, no matter how much we hated him."

The image of the muscular Jubouri swinging his sledgehammer at Hussein's statue flashed across the world on April 9, 2003.

"As I hit the statue, I was out of my mind. I was full of hatred," Jubouri told the Post. "When it fell, I was so happy. I thought things were going to improve."

But things have not improved, Jubouri told the Post. He's seen friends and relatives killed, kidnapped or forced to leave their homes. His income is a quarter of what it used to be.

"It's gotten worse," he told the Post. "We can hardly make both ends meet."

Man Responsible for Murdering Tens of Thousands of People Calls Gays Immoral

If I was coordinating the world's leading killing machine, then I would probably not be quick to call other people immoral. Maybe that's just me.

Senior aides to the chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff said Tuesday that Marine Gen. Peter Pace won't apologize for calling homosexuality immoral — an opinion that gay advocacy groups deplored....

....In a newspaper interview Monday, Pace had likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace was quoted as saying in the newspaper interview. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

"As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," he said.

I got a better idea. Instead of prosecuting people for cheating on their wives, how about prosecuting people for killing other people. Flying over a city and dropping a bomb that kills 500 people is soooooooo much more immoral than cheating on your wife.

Ron Paul on Douche Bag Lou Dobbs' Show, Minus the Douche Bag

He's right-on on Iraq, a total dumbass on immigration.

Mission Impossible: Making Sense Out of US Middle East Policy

I have stopped trying to make sense of US Middle East policy, as that is a bridge too far for my intellectual ability. But I can point out the nonsense by looking at the totality of our various stances and how they are contradictory at almost every turn.

The recent Iran IED claims: Bush is claiming that Iran's government is providing Iraqi militants with the deadly armor-piercing IED's that are killing US forces. Yet Iran is Shi'ite, and our forces are mostly being attacked by Sunni former Baathists and al Qaeda. Iran hates the Sunnis and is more likely hoping that with the help of the Shi'ite Iraqi army and police we will help Iran achieve its goal of a Shi'ite Iraq.

Saudi Arabia: The US is closely allied with Saudi Arabia, yet Saudi Arabia vows to invade Iraq to protect the Sunnis should the US leave. SA wants to protect the same Sunnis who include the insurgents who actually are planting IED's to kill our troops, and if they invade they will be fighting the same Iraqi army that we have built and funded.

Israel/Palestine: The US chose not to support the moderate Palestinian Abbas regime in any meaningful way or take the US's traditional leadership role in negotiating peace between the two peoples. Abbas was thus marginalized and, while Condi Rice praised the coming elections, their result, which put Hamas in power, caused the administration to clamp down on the Palestinians further as the US doesn't like Hamas. This proves to the world that the US only likes democracy when it goes its way = major credibility eroder. Hamas is Shi'ite and funded by Iran while most Palestinians are Sunni. The US pull of support to Palestine has opened the way for Iran to have unbridled influence over the territories, another door we opened for them.

[Sometimes I think we are working for Iran, Bush's proclamations aside, more to come.]

Lebanon: This country is a rare example of a democracy in the Middle East with a diverse population of Sunnis, Shi'ites and Christians living together under a common government and secular society. This is Condi Rice's fantasy. Yet when Israel started raining bombs and marching into Lebanon after a Hezbollah (they are funded by Iran) provocation the US turned a blind eye for a month. The result was that the Lebanese democracy is now fragile and Hezbollah looks like heroes to besieged Lebanese, as Hezbollah were able to position themselves as protectors of the people.

I cannot make sense of US policy re: Sunnis versus Shi'ites or the Middle East in general. I welcome you opinionated TtP commenters to chime in and add to the dialogue, and please keep it civil. It is much more useful for all of us if you try to persuade your ideological enemies and not just call them idiots.

For a great article on how the geniuses in the White House have fomented a new Sunni/Shi'ite rift crisis that is reverberating around the globe, Anthony Shadid's excellent story is here.