open Democracy News Analysis - Iraq: US politics in command , Sidney Blumenthal - Comments

hari_1 on "The American politics of Iraqi war "

hari_1 — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:07:44 +0100

I know who Sydney Bluemental is and what his perspectives are on GWB. They're not far from mine - but I don't indulge in name-calling (eg. kerrywin!). Kerrywin - you also made same comments on my piece dealing with Iran! What are you? A mouthpiece of AIPAC or Israeli politics? In Israel itself no one believes in Olmert or his leadership - let alone the mysteries of Syrian adventure? If, in fact, it was ordered by US command/control, the fallout will be devastating for Olmert. In Israel. domestic politics doesn't follow (kerrywin's) right and left propaganda. It is more pugnacious! My friends in Israel say they don't understand why the mystery about the IDF incursion into Syrian territory? SydneyBlumenthal is after all a former adviser to Clinton. We must take his views to reflect his political affiliation also. But the truth of the matter is that he's not lying on the substance of his argument. In my opinion, Iraq is already a lost cause for GWB and his neocons. American power was never so devastated like under GWB; around the planet there is hardly anyone (other than Israel!) supporting GWB. When you put an ignoramous into the WH, it is not surprising that you get a historical low point in US influence in the world. I remember when Eisenhower ordered UK, France and Israel to desist from their invasion of Suez Canal (1956). US politics has reached its bottom now with Israeli influence in mideast politics. There's no US Presidential candidate who is prepared to challenge Israel to settle for Palestinian land-for-peace question. WHY?

sonicdeathmonkey on "The American politics of Iraqi war "

sonicdeathmonkey — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:42:04 +0100

Myopic, indeed? I think Sid's article is a fine, well researched piece of critical journalism. Referring us to a website that states that it is "dedicated to exposing and combating liberal media bias" doesn't add any weight to your position- quite the opposite in fact! Here's a suggestion Kerrywinn- try addressing the substance of the article with arguments and evidence, NOT propaganda. The point here is that the Bush administration's lackeys have NO conclusive evidence of surge success- I invite anyone to link to a non-partisan source quoting statistics supporting the surge success story. The Bush regime's critics have mountains of evidence to the contrary. For example, the mass media bias obscuring the reality of the war in Iraq has been detailed by Media Lens, UK-based collection of journalism academics. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php -SDM

kerrywinn on "The American politics of Iraqi war "

kerrywinn — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:39:46 +0100

Hilariously myopic article. Try reading the numerous positive articles that MSM does not report. Here is just one: http://www.newsbusters.org/node/4225 When you lose your culture, your sense of right and wrong, you lose everything. Know your friends well, keep them close; know your enemies better to defeat them.

dbaker221 on "The American politics of Iraqi war "

dbaker221 — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:53:39 +0100

"In my opinion, all their think-tanks and nefarious "foundation" fundings and all their influence peddling through Rumsfeld, Cheney and JINSA, AIE, etc. add up to only one thing: obtuse unknowing cover for Bush so that he can satisfy the underwriters of his post-presidency: the Saudis." Daniel, you seem a bright young fellow. Surely you have some facts to support your opinion. Would it be too much to ask for a sampling?

deteodoru on "The American politics of Iraqi war "

deteodoru — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:05:20 +0100

So now we have Greenspan-- in no way a neocon, totally a dollarocon-- telling us in his memoir that the Iraq War was all about oil. And, now we have John Bolton slave-toll of the neocons telling us that Israel's weekend air attacks on Syria are practice runs for attack on Iran. But SecDef Gates tells us as recently as today that Iraq is all about WMDs, the ones we never found, neither in Iraq nor in Iran. This raises the question of whether the infamous neocon call for "WW IV" so that Israel can dominate the Mideast is nothing more than, once again, the masters of Zionism coming to the great powers asking that they establish a Jewish state in return for which the Jewish state runs their colonial interests in the region (Zionists allegedly made such offers to the Ottomans, the British, the French, the Soviets and now the Americans). This sounds like a neat explanation-- TOO NEAT-- not for what the Zionists are doing but for why Bush kept the neocons around him despite the great liability in utter lack of political savvy they exhibited. The neocons have always operated as an under the table outfit, so I do not share the view of some on the primacy of ideology as end for the neocons-- rather as means to payoff. I still believe that they are in it for the doe, based on past record, only recently exposed. In my opinion, all their think-tanks and nefarious "foundation" fundings and all their influence peddling through Rumsfeld, Cheney and JINSA, AIE, etc. add up to only one thing: obtuse unknowing cover for Bush so that he can satisfy the underwriters of his post-presidency: the Saudis. I have for some years now heard Israeli friends in the know curse the neocons as cover for Saudi attempts to rule Islam with American assistance through projects such as those that led to the rise of alQaeda. If that is so (Woodward points out that the first person Bush consulted for advice when he decided to run for president-- based on his poppy's urging-- was Prince Bandar, the ambassador of the very nation, some of whose citizens brought us 9/11) then it would be very legitimate for Congress to ask Bush point blank: ARE YOU KEEPING OUR KIDS DYING IN IRAQ SO THAT WE CAN STEAL ITS OIL (per in-the-know Greenspan) AND ASSURE SAUDI DOMINANCE OVER THE MUSLIM WORLD? But Congress doesn't-- not even Murtha, who so weeps for our malled soldiers at Walter Reed! Why? So far, every reason for the Iraq War put forward has been layed to waste as based on nonsense... except for the: "WE HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO OUR ALLY ISRAEL," which frankly does not ring true, given how much Israel suffered at Bush's hands. When Olmert came to the US in March 2006 to beg for an extra $10 billion above what we normally give annually because his economy is in crisis, Bush insisted that Israel destroy Hezbollah en route to attacking Iran as a way to earn his generosity. Israel got malled and had to back-off. So, is Bolton right that in its despair its pilots are rendered Bush's mercenaries once more? This mess of mysteries-- I cannot claim to speak "this is it" irrefutably so I am as puzzled by what I hear and write as anyone else-- only goes to show that whether the worst of our conspiratorial fears are true or not, we have no credence anchor with this president that we can count on so we can say: nah, nobody would be that crazy....But that we continue to claim that Olmert is pushing instead of being pushed by Bush-- who in turn may have been all along pushed by the Saudis-- highlights the disconnect between voters, legislators and the "decider," suggesting that we may no longer be the best model of democracy to export abroad. Daniel E. Teodoru

Iraq: US politics in command , Sidney Blumenthal

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:34:26 +0100

Two years ago the Sunni sheiks leading the insurgency in Iraq's Anbar province approached the United States, offering to end the violence in exchange for a timetable establishing that US forces would withdraw from the country, a senior official at the highest level of the British government told me. Without some sort of negotiated deal that the Sunni leaders could brandish, they explained, they would not have the essential political justification for quelling the conflict. The British believed that the Sunni offer was being made in good faith and urged that it be accepted

Read the rest of this post...