Goopers Planning To Blame Anti-War Crowd For Ultimate Defeat In Iraq
The Bush administration and their GOP allies, up to their knees in muck in the political stable they have constructed for themselves by their reckless intervention in Iraq, are planning an exit strategy.
A political exit strategy.
Not a plan for departing from that beleaguered Middle-Eastern country. But for escaping from the consequences of being viewed as having lost the war.
They are planning on blaming the critics of the war for both emboldening "our enemies" to fight on in face of superior firepower, and for forcing the administration's hand to eventually withdraw most of our troops when we have to leave without achieving victory.
The fact that any outcome that a reasonable person might regard as "victory" was probably never in the cards from the very beginning does not matter to these tools.
The American people hate nothing more than losing, and the responsibility for having lost a war is something that must be projected upon one's enemy.
The placing of blame for losing Iraq is going to be used to obscure the malfeasance that Bush and his people applied to get us into the quagmire. The onus of failure will be bestowed upon those whose only involvement was to exercise their right to free speech.
If the plan succeeds, the burden of the Iraq albatross will not be upon the Republican party, but by default upon the Democrats.
This is a main reason (aside from sheer cowardice) that we have not seen more energetic opposition to the war from the Democratic politicians in Washington.
Such a cynical strategy is not surprising in the rough world of politics.
It is to be expected coming from those with the moral development of your average GOP wonk.
Any war opponent will naturally have the readily available retort that the administration hasn't listened to anyone but themselves throughout the entire episode. That the blame resides there.
Unfortunately, the average overworked American voter knows little more about current events than he or she can pick up from television news. Ignorance of the issues has never stopped anyone from going to the polls.
They will be easy marks for the con-artists who are equating opposition to a war that has unnecessarily created legions of new enemies to a desire to allow the USA to be attacked by people who hate us for our freedoms.
A political exit strategy.
Not a plan for departing from that beleaguered Middle-Eastern country. But for escaping from the consequences of being viewed as having lost the war.
They are planning on blaming the critics of the war for both emboldening "our enemies" to fight on in face of superior firepower, and for forcing the administration's hand to eventually withdraw most of our troops when we have to leave without achieving victory.
The fact that any outcome that a reasonable person might regard as "victory" was probably never in the cards from the very beginning does not matter to these tools.
The American people hate nothing more than losing, and the responsibility for having lost a war is something that must be projected upon one's enemy.
The placing of blame for losing Iraq is going to be used to obscure the malfeasance that Bush and his people applied to get us into the quagmire. The onus of failure will be bestowed upon those whose only involvement was to exercise their right to free speech.
If the plan succeeds, the burden of the Iraq albatross will not be upon the Republican party, but by default upon the Democrats.
This is a main reason (aside from sheer cowardice) that we have not seen more energetic opposition to the war from the Democratic politicians in Washington.
Such a cynical strategy is not surprising in the rough world of politics.
It is to be expected coming from those with the moral development of your average GOP wonk.
Any war opponent will naturally have the readily available retort that the administration hasn't listened to anyone but themselves throughout the entire episode. That the blame resides there.
Unfortunately, the average overworked American voter knows little more about current events than he or she can pick up from television news. Ignorance of the issues has never stopped anyone from going to the polls.
They will be easy marks for the con-artists who are equating opposition to a war that has unnecessarily created legions of new enemies to a desire to allow the USA to be attacked by people who hate us for our freedoms.
posted by Effwit at 2:03 PM
12 Comments:
Bush Didn't Bungle Iraq, You Fools
THE MISSION WAS INDEED ACCCOMPLISHED
by Greg Palast
for The Guardian
20 March 2006
Get off it. All the carping, belly-aching and complaining about George
Bush's incompetence in Iraq, from both the Left and now the Right, is
just dead wrong.
On the third anniversary of the tanks rolling over Iraq's border, most
of the 59 million Homer Simpsons who voted for Bush are beginning to
doubt if his mission was accomplished.
But don't kid yourself -- Bush and his co-conspirator, Dick Cheney,
accomplished exactly what they set out to do. In case you've forgotten
what their real mission was, let me remind you of White House spokesman
Ari Fleisher's original announcement, three years ago, launching of what
he called,
"Operation
Iraqi
Liberation."
O.I.L. How droll of them, how cute. Then, Karl Rove made the giggling
boys in the White House change it to "OIF" -- Operation Iraqi Freedom.
But the 101st Airborne wasn't sent to Basra to get its hands on Iraq's
OIF.
"It's about oil," Robert Ebel told me. Who is Ebel? Formerly the CIA's
top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month before the
invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam's former oil
minister to finalize the plans for "liberating" Iraq's oil industry. In
London, Bush's emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the man
the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the
correct method of disposing Iraq's crude.
And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq's oil? The answer will
surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and
devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The
answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq's oil secretly drafted
by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn't
matter. The key thing is what's inside this thick Bush diktat: a
directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will "enhance its
relationship with OPEC."
Enhance its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of
the United States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which
is strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude.
Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid
on Iraq's oil production -- limiting Iraq's oil pumping to the tight
quota set by Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel.
There you have it. Yes, Bush went in for the oil -- not to get MORE of
Iraq's oil, but to prevent Iraq producing TOO MUCH of it.
You must keep in mind who paid for George's ranch and Dick's bunker:
Big Oil. And Big Oil -- and their buck-buddies, the Saudis -- don't make
money from pumping more oil, but from pumping LESS of it. The lower the
supply, the higher the price.
It's Economics 101. The oil industry is run by a cartel, OPEC, and what
economists call an "oligopoly" -- a tiny handful of operators who make
more money when there's less oil, not more of it. So, every time the
"insurgents" blow up a pipeline in Basra, every time Mad Mahmoud in
Tehran threatens to cut supply, the price of oil leaps. And Dick and George
just LOVE it.
Dick and George didn't want more oil from Iraq, they wanted less. I
know some of you, no matter what I write, insist that our President and
his Veep are on the hunt for more crude so you can cheaply fill your
family Hummer; that somehow, these two oil-patch babies are concerned that
the price of gas in the USA is bumping up to $3 a gallon.
No so, gentle souls. Three bucks a gallon in the States (and a quid a
litre in Britain) means colossal profits for Big Oil, and that makes
Dick's ticker go pitty-pat with joy. The top oily-gopolists, the five
largest oil companies, pulled in $113 billion in profit in 2005 -- compared
to a piddly $34 billion in 2002 before Operation Iraqi Liberation. In
other words, it's been a good war for Big Oil.
As per Plan Bush, Bahr Al-Ulum became Iraq's occupation oil minister;
the conquered nation "enhanced its relationship with OPEC;" and the
price of oil, from Clinton peace-time to Bush war-time, shot up 317%.
In other words, on the third anniversary of invasion, we can say the
attack and occupation is, indeed, a Mission Accomplished. However, it
wasn't America's mission, nor the Iraqis'. It was an Mission Accomplished
for OPEC and Big Oil.
M1:
There seems to be some truth to the allegation about cutting the flow of oil being a motive.
Remember how pissed we were about Saddam selling shitloads of oil outside the U.N. regime?
On the topic of the oil from Iraq during the occupation, I heard a Brit say that he had spoken to his friend or brother in the British Army in Basra, and this person is saying that there are tankers coming into the port of Basra daily, filling up, and heading out to sea with no paperwork--no payment--no nothing.
The Americans are stealing the oil was this dude's interpretation of what he had been told.
Makes perfect sense to a meatballian like moi. I'd even say Cool
We've all heard of Air America. Someone out there wanna bet me there ain't no Boat America for this generation of conflict? You bet your Mamaz azz we have boyz n girlz movin crude for off-da-bookz opz and private profiteering pocketz.
The spot market for ghostable tanker services is booming - I know respectable folks making killings in it as we chatter.
M1:
I ain't taking that Boat America bet.
The Basra scenario would explain much of the desirability of the ghostable tanker biz.
Speaking of Gulf skullduggery, I used to know unrespectable folks who were making a killing escorting oil tankers through Hormuz and the Gulf.
...that trumps my buttondown weasles by a mile.
But yes, you are on the money. These days feel pregnant with players ready and readied to play the blame game.
Even Dr. Phil, the Bill O'Reilley of shrinkology tried pounding this thesis into some poor mom's head some 18 months ago.
Phil's wife is scary. Almost as scary as his son.
M1:
The administration has already perfected the blame game on every issue. Why stop now?
That Dr. Phil toad is really an odious POS.
Talk about info-ops, that fuckwit's program is to make everyone in America a conservative shitpile.
The whole family is straight from Central Casting, they can't be real people.
I hope.
I don't wanna talk about that real estate agent anymo'
M1:
Cool.
Speaking of loathsome shitpails, Xymph (not the loathsome shitpail) discussed yesterday Michael Gordon (N.Y. Times) who is currently promoting a new book on the Iraq war.
Turns out that Gordon co-wrote a bunch of the Judith Miller propaganda pieces.
Nice.
Oj Oj Oj. And we are but scratching at surface of the whorish webbings, don't ya think?
That's weird btw. I listened to him with Amy a few nights ago as one of a dozen podcast casts to work through and wondered wtf this wimp was doing on her show(I never knew of him, just his jive set off my alarm bells). Anyways, he put me to sleep before I could hear Amy nail him as Xymph said she did. Will have to listen to the rest of that tape now. Fuck. I hate work.
Man that Xymph has a lot of anger - he's hilarious.
M1:
All these agit-prop whores are connected at the roots.
At least the ones on their side. ;-)
I'd love to see Xymph on stage at the Comedy Club.
He'd be a riot.
I thinky so too. LOL
Post a Comment
<< Home