Letters to the Editor
-
More Doubts Erased Every Day
When will the minimal percentage (20 - 30%) still supporting Bush get the picture?
Every time Bush is asked to comment on anything but the weather he mumbles these incoherent ramblings full of destroyed syntax and misuse of the language.
Is the world laughing, or crying.
-
The recent violence started ...
... because the Iraqi government realized that the Sadrists would win the regional elections in the south if they didn't do something. So they started arresting Sadrist leaders, despite the cease-fire that lasted seven months or so. They made it plain that the Sadrists were not going to advance their position by democratic means. That left war as the only option. Yes, they are thugs, but so are the people in government, and if anything, the Iranians are closer to the Shiite factions that run the government than they are to the Sadrists.
But that won't stop Bush from claiming that the Iranians are behind the current troubles.
-
add it to the list
another music video in support of, you guessed it, Senator Barack Obama.
-
I'm trying to understand...
...the logic of al-Maliki behind attacking someone (al-Sadr) who has declared a cease-fire, and weakened himself politically to do so.
So you attack him and he gives permission to retaliate, making him stronger.
This is the "right" tactic, instead of waiting until there is internecine fighting?
Even if your goal is to weaken him before elections, an attack seems to be a monumentally stupid strategy.
And this will now bring Iraq into the news again in the US, so the only (admittedly very, very small) hope of continued support (a McCain presidency) is completely destroyed.
I guess even Bush's Iraq puppets are no smarter than he is. They've just handed opponents of our occupation forces a political gift.
And how long does al-Maliki think he'll last without US support? He'll be strung up (by either the Sunnis or the Shi'ites - they both hate him) or beheaded the instant our force levels fall below the level of keeping the Green Zone (nominally) secure. His best-case scenario is exile to the US, where he'll be a permanent guest of the neo-cons.
-
Clinton's negatives go up
Here's a story you won't see on Salon: even after Wright and before the whole Bosnia whooper has sunk in, Hillary's negatives have gone way up: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Time for Hillary and Joan to face reality.
-
Meanwhile, here's who dies for it
A friend of mine:
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=17404
-
LOL
"...it's important to know that the Iraqis are in the lead."
They are up 21-14 late in the 2nd quarter...
-
Positive Moment?
So the civil war has commenced, with Shi'ite internecine fighting in Basra which is rapidly spreading elsewhere. The U.S. forces are providing "support," i.e. we have picked one side and are backing them. We are also acting as referees in this conflict, as well as acting as human targets ourselves.
I see a couple of scenarios: the "Iraqi" forces--i.e. al Maliki's side--win, marginalizing al Sadr and making al Maliki the defacto strongman of Iraq (preparatory to facing off against the Sunnis and/or Kurds, one assumes). This outcome leading to civil war with the Sunnis seems likely.
Or al Maliki's forces lose, further weakening his government and encouraging al Sadr's folks to continue their "resistance" (and giving the high sign that it's okay for the Sunnis and/or Kurds to make a push). This outcome also seems to lead to wider civil war.
(And we've armed all sides in the conflict! Yay, us!)
So that's our choice, it looks like. Can someone remind me why we're there, again? And how this is being spun as a "positive moment" by our Fearless Leader?
-
Uh, Paul
My father was a civil war historian. I am completely aware of Jefferson Davis and the whole traitorous lot, and the 600K lives lost defeating "the cause" and trying to reunite the United States. The job is not yet finished. I only threw in Davis because there are an alarming number of folks, north and south of the Mason Dixon line, that think the wrong side won. I apologize for being flippant, but the reference was meant to show how low this moron has sunk. Grant was drunk and corrupt, but he doesn't hold a candle to Georgie in long term damage to our nation. And he was pretty fair General, I hear, and may have had something to do with routing Lee and the rest of those confederate bastards. Yeah, I'm a Yankee, but an American first. My great great uncle was a Major General for the Minnesota contingent in the Civil War. His truth is marching on, and screw Dixie and the stars and bars. Not the states; not the citizens. just those symbols, and any apologist for them (Barr, Lott, Helms, Bush, et al). My apology again for a red herring dragged across my point, and the thread. tom
-
No Problem, Tom
I was being too 'anal' about it. Understand where you are coming from.