What Bush hath wrought

Next time someone tells you about the intractable Civil War in Iraq, you might take a moment to show them this photo. It’s by no means the factual clincher to an anti-War argument, but it is a wonderful insight in a society that hopes to mend itself, even as the anti-War crowd in America, by demanding the instant withdrawal of troops or, at least, their bankruptcy, and by focusing obsessively on the War’s genesis, rather then its progression and best outcome, hopes to throw it back to the anarchistic Islamic wolves.

14 Responses

  1. “anarchistic Islamic wolves”? Wow. Whoever wrote this surely is a hatefilled, bigoted, and highly irrational person. The narrative described above is as Orwellian as things get.

    We are the very authors of anarchy in the Middle East. We are the ones who bought off Shiite militias and paid them to indiscriminately kill the Sunnis who resisted our illegal occupation of Iraq, thus sparking a civil war.

    Are you even vaguely aware of the size and scope of the demonstrations in Iraq demanding our withdrawal? The fact is most Iraqis want us out and only a cretin would actually buy the line that we are needed there to maintain stability.

  2. Too bad Ophi is not here with us to comment! It’s a beautiful picture, but it just doesn’t fit the Liberal/Left template.

    Does Joey live in an alternate universe? The U.S. paid off the Shia to kill Sunnis, the same Sunnis now allied with us to kill off the Al Qaeda remnants? I was pleased to know that there was no anarchy in the Middle East until we got involved, however. Sigh….Eden Lost. When will the pain end?

    On another note: in a previous post, I charged Ophi with being a prisoner of his own assumptions. In fairness to Ophi and Book’s policy, that demands an explanation.

    With regard to European press freedom, Ophi wrote:

    “C’mon Danny, you’re telling me that Le Figaro, Le Monde and Liberation all parrot the same line?!?!? Give me a break!”

    and..”Danny, it occurred to me that we don’t have to argue about the relative state of press freedom – somebody else has been measuring it for years. I refer to “Reporters without Frontiers”, an international organization that measures press freedom around the world”.

    Yes…they published a report that ranks the European countries very highly in press freedom, and ranks the U.S. very low. Behind Nicaragua, actually.

    Any reasonable person would smell a rat and start digging. I pointed out some flaws in the report, including that they made no adjustment for country size (tiny Iceland would have less incidents that the U.S., for example), they didn’t reveal their methodology, and they did not separate criminal acts from political acts”.

    Well, somebody recently did a much better job of it that I did.

    Here is the link: http://www.worldpotlicsreview.com/article.aspx?id=1350

    Even I didn’t know that all French media international news is filtered by Agence France Press, a French government created and funded news agency. Note the articles references to the French media’s “omerta”.

    So, yes, apparently Le Monde, Figaro and Liberation all DO parrot the same line, at least with respect to international news.

    I guess that for Ophi and his fellow travelers, associating the cachet “international” to an organization or a climate report (IPCC) confers instant credibility.

    When “Goodfacts” are involved – no need to ask questions. Right, YM?

  3. “Americans and Iranians have succeeded in realising their old dream of dividing the Iraqi people into sects”

    NOW look what we’ve started! *sigh*

    Because of the Americans, now even Sunni and Shia don’t get along. See how evil we are? WHY oh WHY must we be this way???? We’ve torn apart the loving Moslems, created sects and you know, stuff like that. Why can’t things just go back to how they were? Wouldn’t they all like that? Expecially the Shia….

    I don’t know how we live with ourselves. Next thing you know, we’ll talk Israeli’s and Palis into fighting with each other.

  4. Joey, were you known as Ophiucius until yesterday?

  5. I deleted a comment that simply reprinted a lengthy newspaper article. My blog is not a forum for other people’s newspaper articles, so this is a reminder that you can feel free to use select quotations or link to other reputable media sites, but you can’t incorporate other media wholesale into my blog.

  6. Not fair, Trigem – Ophi put up a good fight and he was honest (if mistaken) in his views. This is something entirely new and, frankly, pretty ugly.

  7. Thank you, Danny. You’re right. I didn’t agree with Ophi’s views, and thought that they were informed with a lot of naiveté, especially when it came to the Middle East. Still, he never showed the kind of ugliness that Joey B — all of whose comments I’ve deleted — showed here.

    Incidentally, I want to thank all of you again for the high level of discourse you maintained during Ophi’s visits. Sometimes things got a little sharp and sarcastic, but they never developed into the kind of hurtful, damaging stuff that I periodically have to crawl around and delete from my site. I think that’s a testament to the really high quality of my readership, and for that I am most grateful.

  8. I would like to comment on Congress’ recent inaction for the Iraq funding bill. I think it might fit here. Regardless of how we got to this point we are there. The President asked Congress to give him the authority to take the nation to war. One might parse it anway you wish but the law that was duly passed and signed is the law of the land. I am reminded of Senator Byrd’s speech on the floor of the Senate. “I will not give this President a blank check to take the nation to war.” He knew, as I did, it was a Congressional authorization to go to war. Whether you agree with the need or not, that is what Congress did.

    My point. If they wish to stop it then rescind the law they passed initially. Not some craven financial battle.

  9. When “Goodfacts” are involved – no need to ask questions. Right, YM?

    Questions are okay, so long as they are questions that adhere to quality scientific methods and statistics. One must have standards after all.

    I guess that for Ophi and his fellow travelers, associating the cachet “international” to an organization or a climate report (IPCC) confers instant credibility.

    It seems like it. The Soviets understood this natural tendency for people to look towards their own for backup when the Soviets created their espionage and recruiting strategies for Western agents.

  10. Productive work is illegal in the Democrat controlled Senate and House now a days. First they got to deal with that problem.

  11. Doublethink is a very useful and critical tool because once mastered, a user will never have to think once, let alone twice, about forbidden subjects and ideas. They literally will never even consider it. Just as a person may block out unwanted memories, have distorted time perspectives, and use all kinds of mental defensive constructs, so will doublethink automatically use such resources in order to allow a person to live free and without worry.

    The Soviets knew that with the correctly trained lapdogs, aka journalists and Western observers, they could show them what they wanted to believe and therefore acquire instantaneous agents willing and eager to propagate Soviet propaganda in the United States. Because this view will come from Americans themselves, other Americans will be far more likely to believe and adhere to the same kind of programming.

    Good propaganda campaigns always propagate by word of mouth, through the magic of peer pressure and social hierarchy.

  12. More very, very bad BadFacts from Iraq…for JoeyB and his fellow travelers….

    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016021.php

  13. […] [Discuss this post with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room…] Share Article Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL […]

  14. Who appointed these men to their senior positions in the ministry? Moqtada al-Sadr.

    Like I said, this is just what happens when you go soft on evil. I recommended that Bush execute more folks, but he doesn’t want to go that route. And so this is what happens. Thjis is what happens when you try to push the buck unto somebody else, like the Iraqi government mired in political problems post 2005. The United States Executive Branch could execute hundreds of enemies, not just Al Sadr, when we were occupying Iraq in the absence of any government. The Iraqi government was doing well enough just by keeping their politicians Alive. They had neither the power nor the authority to order the executions of political enemies and rivals, like Al Sadr. The US President had both the authority and power though, but not the will. Never the will.

    All this is water under the bridge, but it is still a hard earned lesson in how it is always a mistake to go easy on those that do violence. It is always a mistake. As I said before, Bush’s primary problem is that he just doesn’t kill enough people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: