Wednesday, February 06, 2008


This Day in the History of Empty Rhetoric

On this day in 1998, President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair redoubled their pledge to use military force against Iraq, if necessary. The Clinton administration was apparently arguing what the meaning of 'if' was. So 5 years later President Bush continues the Clinton position and he's a lying idiot who has created the worst foreign policy mistake ever. I see.


"If necessary." At first I thought I would cut the president a break and say he wasn't a lying idiot. He was either a liar or an idiot, but those alternatives apply only to the issues of WMDs.

Anyone who thought seriously that democracy could succeed in the short run, and therefore the long long,in Iraq is an idiot.

W/ respect to foreign policy, there are many reasons to act or to refrain. Wishful thinking is not among them.

What form of government do the Iraqis have now?
Basically, none. There are elected officials who do nothing; take long vacations; and figure out how to line the pockets of themselves and their families.

How long has the al Malaki government been in power? The answer is since April 22, 2006, the parlimentary elections having been held in December 2005. How long has the surge been going on? Since January 10, 2007.

One primary purpose of the surge was to increase security and quash violence so as to allow the Iraqi government to move forward w/ necessary legislation like that governing the sharing of oil revenues.

You know what occurs when the government of a country is unable to accomplish anything? You have a failed state.

I keep telling you, Roger, the only similarity between Iowa ans Iraq is that both begin w/ "I" and have four letters.
Your description of the Iraqi officials sounds a lot like our representatives here. I wonder if you recognized that. Things are getting done at the 'state' level, and lower, daily. Even at the 'federal' level, they stumble into agreement occasionally. There was recent progress regarding deBa'athification. Not a failed state (but certainly far, figuratively and literally, from Iowa). No one seriously thought we could create Iowa in Iraq, however. Quit making sweeping, false statements about the Iraqi government and stop also with the strawman argument. You'll sound smarter, if you do.

Earler ths week, I heard an an interview w/ 3 foreign journalists on ATC: one German; one French; and one Polish.

On observed that the overwhelming attitude in his country was that our political system was about as perfect as it gets.

It is somewhere between annoying and discouraging that our congress has failed to address major issues that are confronting our country.

But there is no valid comparison between the Iraqi federal government and our own.

What things are being accomplished on the state level? The quelling of al Qaeda? I will grant you that is occuring although al Qaeda is pernicious and seems to appear elaewhere once it is driven out a particular area.

There are 4 million internal and external refugees in Iraq. Fewer Iraqis are returning than a few months ago. Al Qaeda anbd the militias targeted the professional class.

Upon what progress do you base your optimism? I am perfectly willing to be sold.

During the latter part of Saddam's reign, there were nearly 5 million external refugees. Now there are less. Sounds like progress to me. The production of electricity and oil are up across the board. Water and sanitation have been improved nearl nationwide. There is no federal law for oil revenue sharing but there is oil revenue sharing at the lower level (State? Provincial?) The sectarian violence has dropped off to less than crime in America levels. You're definately seeing the glass half empty to get hung up on the lack of progress in federal legislation.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?