September 11, 2012
September 4, 2007
This comment shows why America needs to impeach its President and Vice-President. Aside from the issue of poor war planning, and huge waste of strategic advantage that the Iraq war has been – the wire tapping issue – the hiding behind legislation brought specifically to hide the actions of the Bush Presidency from International law courts – war crimes committed with weapons of inhumane dimensions and extraordinary tactics – are enough to try, without getting into conspiracy theories however plausible.
August 24, 2007
Reading the full Bush commentary rather than just sound bites – makes one appreciate how good his speech writers are to be able to frame American war involvement only against the “end game” risk factors.
It is revealing that the Bush logic is based on a novel. America walked into Iraq and created havoc. Why? The Democrats can not answer for that, but they do expect to be able to take over the end game. How?
The Republicans will blame them for folding early. But the Bush policy to wipe out the insurgency requires killing every insurgent or removing their motivation.
Withdrawal is not the best solution. The current strategy is even worse. Polling public opinion does not inform, but restricts.
July 22, 2007
While George Bush is under general anesthetic – if Cheney had a medical emergency with one of his quadruple bypasses or Lipitor scheduling error, and Bush did not wake up for a while, we would have an America firmly out of the control of Republicans. Would that mean that any change of direction may occur – perhaps a rush to file papers for impeachment could be a good idea, and get in before the anesthetic wears off. It is what they would do.
Seriously, long shots like medical error on the President while Cheney is cleaning his rifle may change the nature of this crop of Democrats but if an election were to be held today how could a Republican win? The advance media for Hilary is replacing good press day for the President. She is seen as articulate where Bush is heard bumbling. Obama is seen as relevant, alive – where Cheney is only kept alive by modern medical miracles.
Bush is faced with the cost of his primary error. Invading Iraq when he did not absolutely have to, he lost the extraordinary morale high ground granted by the obscenity on the American psyche; and yet as Osama bin Laden is walking free, even if only in their thoughts, the bulk of their military muscle is being exposed to a civil war it started by undoing the chain letter of death threats that was Saddam’s rule.
What it such a good idea? Right-minded Americans find rationales to believe it is of course a good thing – but will American democracy sustain the attack long enough to do any good? These are just excuses to keep the war going indefinitely and are no longer ringing true to the electorate.
Bush will run out of time before ending this war. He will leave it to the next President to sort out, because his domestic agenda will take over. He will suddenly be having to make making handsome gestures to maintain his office.
There is no end game in the foreseeable future unless Mr Bush just cuts and runs from Iraq.
May 25, 2007
George Bush finally looks like he has fallen over the edge – the edge when a president no longer wants makeup artists fussing before a camera explores ones frailty. As he predicts a bloody summer of violence in Iraq he does not seem to realise that his actions are not inspiring peace. “Modern war” is still a barbaric excuse for not communicating.
Yes, it is going to be a bloody summer.
Just imagine if George Bush had conceded to Al Gore all those years ago. Al would have been able to do some sums and would have sent 100,000 troops plus into Afghanistan and followed this up with 100,000 civilians to rebuild the country after isolating the Taliban. Iraq was in need of attention, yes, but invasion may be seen as a breach of trust by the citizens.
What gets me is that George Bush has said nothing about how to make things better in Iraq, only how he will wage war on Iraq – and why? To kill terrorists. Where do they keep coming from? They grow up hating those that impose upon their country. It is generally accepted by invading Iraq created more terrorists. Bush is the grand executioner of fools drawn to the battle for reasons of religious zealotry.
What is transpiring is nothing less than a huge waste of humanity and is a great tragedy and a terrible sin, on both sides.
May 6, 2007
The man has his faith to rely upon.
April 23, 2007
Character assasination has taken on a whole new meaning as the “war on terror” progresses. The Dept of Homeland Security has a massive budget for spying upon the activities of potential terrorist threats. That is a reaction to the events of 9/11 and many have conjectured or argued a stance that the Governemnt used or even created 9/11 as a justification for control of the population with monosyallbic concepts and easily digested sound bites.
More civilians have died in the crossfire in this “war on terror” (if you include the events in Iraq since the US invasion) than the war sought to protect from the acts of terrorists. It is hard to accept that the War in Iraq is the same as the war launched to prevent Al Qaeda from establishing, it can be argued that the US invading Iraq was the best thing that could have happened for Al Qaeda.
The war on terror has flipped the tables on the US economy and in conjuction with cynical tax cuts made the poor of America (90%) utterly dependent upon the whim of a cartel of billionaires that rely upon growth in public consumption to continue being powerful. The US has blundered into a new form of slavery. The US now have a war effort in play, so a percentage of your grandchildrens’ income is going to be paying the bill. This is a reduction in the freedom of Americans since Bush came to power.
The first signs of a totalitarian state was the questionable election results that saw the Republicans only begin to enact their agenda after the public were well hypnotised by 9/11. Before 9/11 it was evident that new thinking had pushed aside pursuit of Al Qaeda started under Clinton.
The imprisonment of journalists and academics is the next stage of a new McCarthism. It seems that it now happening and I wonder if the voices of all those Homeland Security agents who are not finding terrorists around every street corner are in fact writing propaganda to “flush out” terrorists? Or, indeed, if it is the activity of “the enemy” – whomever it may be.
It relies upon uncalled for judgement of individuals when looking at Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that almost invites slander but is regulated by its own active editing “community”. But they can not keep up with concerted efforts to commit acts of libel by “concerned citizens” who remain anonymous to the public eye.
Free speech is one thing. Being able to endanger the lives of others is something else.
April 1, 2007
Bush created a budget balancing act based on increased spending, mainly military, of three trillion dollars. A trillion is 1000 billions, using the American system of dealing with numbers that are simply too big. 1,000,000 is our familiar million. 1,000,000,000 (one billion) is becoming a more commonplace concept of the 21st Century – and already we are talking in “trillions” (one of which looks like this: 1,000,000,000,000).
The 3,000,000,000,000 or so America spent on its friutless effort in Iraq has probably been borrowed from Saudi princes who probably are forced to indirectly fund the food chain that disposses far too many and creates al Qaeda. Perhaps that is the underlying rationale behind the Bush invasion. It was not Daddy’s record, but a deal we are not allowed to know about.
The Saudi royal family and its grip on power is funded by the centering of profit from oil extraction from the largest oil fields in the world through just a few hands who then appear to me to pitch America against their own enemies – the Shiite revolution that would render their power obsolete.
America stepped into a breach that appears to be more chaotic for the intervention. It has stepped into the breach of a war brewing on both sides of it. It needs to shore up Sunni support against its new spotlight of threat: Iran.
Whom is fooling whom?
American intervention is an effort to prolong the status quo, history tells us unfathomable power in too few hands is not a stable form of Government. It has resulted in revolution elsewhere, America and France are fine examples of a Republican success that followed revolutions.
February 20, 2007
George Monbiot explains what is wrong with all those conspiracy theories that are convinced the US Government was involved in 9/11 and who pluck convenient “truths” and “proofs” from their own conviction that things must be that way because it is all so unbelievable.
A wrong answer is simply that. Wrong. A right answer is usually the simple answer. That it was just 19 Islamic extremists driven by Jihad and social memory of the Ottoman days of glory and funding of Osama bin Laden is simpler than a requisite grand orchestration for the sake of public opinion. Bush already did that when he rigged his way into Presidency in the first place. Now, that does not mean that the Bush/Cheney cabal are not involved. But to also involve the army, air force, navy and entire government is complex and therefore unlikely.
The problem is that the conspiracy theorists make genuine opposition to the madness of the Iraq war seem unintelligent. Using the X-Files as a basis of political argument is not going to find the truth out there – this is the real world and the Bush cabal and what is driving it to “keep America great” does have strong and real intentions and these do not benefit the majority of Americans, nor is their “New World Order” beneficial to progress or civilization.
Yes, there are elements of the story that could show Government complicity (mainly by inaction and ruthless politicking against President Clinton) – these truths are useful in convincing its audience that something is wrong. But the Cabal behind the Bush Administration is probably more like what the conspiracists breathlessly fear than the Government that they pretend to be, and it is their authoritarian needs that drove them into the irrational war in Iraq. But to accuse them of creating 9/11 is to cloak the entire Left as nutters.
The truth is the truth. There is no need to dress it up.
See COMMENTS…edited paragraph 1 to change ‘complicit’ to ‘involved’ as comments revealed to me that the argument that ‘Bush/Cheney were complicit in 9/11’ seems likely, but shed doubt on ‘US Government involvement’. Wow – did I buy it from those who reject George Monbiot.
February 18, 2007
A good telling off should put Mr Bush back into line with the rest of the world. He has had too much nodding and the deadly smiles of the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney’s rippling grimness. His cabal of approval has been broken. How he has to contend with a Democrat Congress.
Mr Bush has to listen to the people’s elected representatives who are now telling him to pull his horns in. His view is becoming the isolated minority but can the Democrats produce a cohesive plan or do they want the voters to decide what that will be. Here is a range of candidates defined by their Iraq strategy.
This way of ranking candidates is not valid. Remember there is no valid logic behind the war and if one could consider that Bush may have run again anyway in 2004, if Al Gore had served a first term elected President in 2000 – as he was voted to do by a slim margin according to the news media reports of discounted votes and interference with Florida voters. If Bush was a first term president he would only now be considering his Iraqi invasion options. In other words, increasingly, this is Bush’s war and nobody else will want to fight it.
About bloody time someone got Bush to defend his rationale before accepting that this man who has got nearly everything else wrong should be now getting anything right.
February 16, 2007
Pressing Allies, President Warns of Afghan Battle – New York Times – even Bush himself acknowledges that the efforts in Afghanistan may come to nothing if the military success of the American presence there is insufficient.
Compare the American contribution to Afghanistan of 13,000 troops with the 170,000 Bush wants in Iraq and the scale appears out of whack. The Taliban established they were prepared to protect Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, giving America adequate reason to attack militarily and establish a more moderate Government in Afghanistan. But instead of acting forcefully to promote democratic ideals, the US Government has underfunded completion of the military goals, and now with the once avoidable expense of Iraq to contend with, the problem is larger than it was before.
Strategy can not be shot from the hip. This man exposes the singular logic of an all powerful Commander in Chief being in control of these wars. Bush is convinced that he is right. Perhaps he needs to be. But one must wonder if Bush is best man for the job, since it must be done by one man, perhaps Bush should retire. So far his record is a testament of exactly how not to win a war.
Bush will continue to lead America by the nose into conflict. Not that he wants to, but that he has blundered his way into a quagmire and is unlikely to have the smarts to conclude the mess gracefully as the months count down to zero, the same realization will dawn on the American electorate.
The republicans best nominate an anti war candidate. How the winds of politics are turning.
February 5, 2007
Al Jazeera English – Americas reports an ex-US general warning against the US launching an attack on Iran. The consequences for security in the region were severe, the retired army lieutenant general Robert Gard said. He is a former military assistant to US defense secretary, Robert McNamara, and he urged the US government to “engage immediately in direct talks with the government of Iran without preconditions.”