Bullypulpit
Senior Member
<center><h1><a href=http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv>Dubbyuh in La-La Land</a></h1></center>
<blockquote>According to the Rand think tank study on peacekeeping, we would need 500,000 troops in Iraq just to provide security. Guess what? We don't have 'em. We're stuck big time. It may not be Vietnam, but it's sure a quagmire.
A heavy contender in the Immortal Idiocy category is Paul Wolfowitz's pre-war assertion to Congress, "There is no history of ethnic conflict in Iraq." According to a report in the New York Times, Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds are all arming themselves in anticipation of civil war. (Some superb reporting from Iraq is being done by John Kifner and John Burns in the Times.)
The perpetually peevish pundit George Will has condescended to explain to us all that our problems in Iraq are but the obligations of empire. Yup, Bwana Will-ji says we gotta take up the white man's burden. "Regime change, occupation, nation-building -- in a word, empire --are a bloody business. Now Americans must steel themselves for administering the violence necessary to disarm or defeat Iraq's urban militias." That's us, gotta steel ourselves to administer the necessary violence because THEY are making us do it. One assumes after penning this advice, Bwana Will-ji grabbed the memsahib and headed on down to the Imperialists' Ball.
Meanwhile, the Heathers (as Washington's lightweight pundits are collectively known) are atwitter over the new Bob Woodward book. From reading secondhand accounts of it, the item that stopped me was not when Bush decided to invade Iraq --- as per Clinton's testimony to the 9-11 commission and Paul O'Neill's book, Bush apparently wanted to invade from before he was sworn in. It's the Prince Bandar story that left me whomper-jawed. Do you remember when someone who was connected to someone who was connected to someone who was connected to China was found to have raised money for Bill Clinton? The right wing came completely unglued over it, and all manner of hideous conspiracy theories were advanced. Maybe the Saudis trying to influence our elections shouldn't startle me -- the new book "House of Bush, House of Saud" is all about that connection. Still, the non-denial denials from the White House and the Saudis smell like rotten meat. Just what we need, a prez in hock to the Saudis.
One of the eerie things about Bush's press conference performance was just how divorced from reality he is. Not only is he still claiming we're going to find the WMD and that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9-11, but he actually claimed we went to war to save the credibility of the United Nations. The man is living in Fantasyland.</blockquote>
Yessiree boys and girls, We're seeing a major break with reality in the form of Dubbyuh's dirty little war and the constantly morphing rationales that are being developed in attempt to justify it. Trouble is, none of 'em convince anyone with half a brain.
<blockquote>According to the Rand think tank study on peacekeeping, we would need 500,000 troops in Iraq just to provide security. Guess what? We don't have 'em. We're stuck big time. It may not be Vietnam, but it's sure a quagmire.
A heavy contender in the Immortal Idiocy category is Paul Wolfowitz's pre-war assertion to Congress, "There is no history of ethnic conflict in Iraq." According to a report in the New York Times, Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds are all arming themselves in anticipation of civil war. (Some superb reporting from Iraq is being done by John Kifner and John Burns in the Times.)
The perpetually peevish pundit George Will has condescended to explain to us all that our problems in Iraq are but the obligations of empire. Yup, Bwana Will-ji says we gotta take up the white man's burden. "Regime change, occupation, nation-building -- in a word, empire --are a bloody business. Now Americans must steel themselves for administering the violence necessary to disarm or defeat Iraq's urban militias." That's us, gotta steel ourselves to administer the necessary violence because THEY are making us do it. One assumes after penning this advice, Bwana Will-ji grabbed the memsahib and headed on down to the Imperialists' Ball.
Meanwhile, the Heathers (as Washington's lightweight pundits are collectively known) are atwitter over the new Bob Woodward book. From reading secondhand accounts of it, the item that stopped me was not when Bush decided to invade Iraq --- as per Clinton's testimony to the 9-11 commission and Paul O'Neill's book, Bush apparently wanted to invade from before he was sworn in. It's the Prince Bandar story that left me whomper-jawed. Do you remember when someone who was connected to someone who was connected to someone who was connected to China was found to have raised money for Bill Clinton? The right wing came completely unglued over it, and all manner of hideous conspiracy theories were advanced. Maybe the Saudis trying to influence our elections shouldn't startle me -- the new book "House of Bush, House of Saud" is all about that connection. Still, the non-denial denials from the White House and the Saudis smell like rotten meat. Just what we need, a prez in hock to the Saudis.
One of the eerie things about Bush's press conference performance was just how divorced from reality he is. Not only is he still claiming we're going to find the WMD and that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9-11, but he actually claimed we went to war to save the credibility of the United Nations. The man is living in Fantasyland.</blockquote>
Yessiree boys and girls, We're seeing a major break with reality in the form of Dubbyuh's dirty little war and the constantly morphing rationales that are being developed in attempt to justify it. Trouble is, none of 'em convince anyone with half a brain.
