Terror Regimes (Boileryard Clarke)

Option Four

Even after the elections we maintain a presence in Iraq from which we interject ourselves into the Middle Eastern equation. A modified but active base is established and supported by the 35% reduction of foreign bases elsewhere in the world recently announced.

From this particular base military options are available to us, and there is a local area into which intelligence can be brought. Any actions that need to be taken on al Qaida or regimes that support it would be facilitated by it's proximity to them.

If the war is against al Qaida, as we say it is, doesn't it make sense to have a central location from which to strike at a moment's notice, established within the milieu of the Middle East itself?

The reasoning could go;

Afghanistan was more of a success than it is given credit for being. A constitutional convention was convened and a new constitution and electoral procedure is not only in place but looks to be progessing toward the declared send-off dates. Al Qaida and the Taliban are truly marginalized there and - in fact - the main security concern are the warlords still in place more than anything else.

If nothing else the action in Iraq removed a state that still considered itself at war with the United States and was in the process of training it's own terrorists, whether or not they were officially linked to al Qaida beyond the already documented non-aggression pact they shared. The removal of a government that had previously showed no qualms about using weapons to directly target civilians was a positive factor in the entire region, and the presence of American force and potential in this region can only act as a sobering factor on regimes that have supported terrorists in the past and regimes that have the potential for the Islamic bomb.

That this base may be a target of the anti-American jihadists is actually a benefit, as it actually makes the front line against terror thousands of miles away from American soil, and forces those who would do harm to America to focus on something that is near to them.

Why is this, or is this not, a viable outline?
MORE…

Kurds being sucker-punched again???

As an American, as a Muslim, and as a wife and mother of a Kurd...This war is affecting me more and more each day.

Recently, there were some beheadings that troubled me more than others...not really because of who was beheaded, but rather our media's and our administrations reaction to them...
While the beheading of Americans and of other westerners are top news stories...the beheading of members of one of our greatest allies in that region, the Kurdish Democratic Party, didn't even make the headlines.

I will explain to you why this bothers me so much. We suppossedly are trying to send out the message that we are trying to help establish, and guide the establishment of, a democatic government to that region. Well one of our most key allies in Iraq have been the Kurds, who supported us before, during, and after the Saddam regime. This support, dispite us several times not fulfilling promises to them. Are they suckers?

We have not stood by this ally, in my opinion, as much as we should. Instead, we use their cause and their misfortunes for our political advantage. For example, when the idea of a war with Iraq was first being propogated, our President and its administration had the audacity to use Saddam's gassing of the Kurds as a proof of the threat Saddam was to the world. Well, where was Bush Sr. and his administration when my husband's village was gassed, resulting in the deaths of his parents and his older brother? Sipping tea with Saddam in Baghdad no doubt...

And where is the current Bush administration when members of the KDP are being beheaded for no other reason than their standing up for democracy and their alliance with us? We are heading down a dangerous road right now, where turning back may not be an option. Is it really wise for us to alienate those who have supported us even after we have repeatedly sucker-punched them?

I have no doubt that ridding Iraq of Saddam was a good thing. He was the cause of my kids having no grandparents, so you see it is personal for me. But make no mistake, our administration had better own up to its mistakes in this war: going under false pretenses, not pulling out when we should have, not having a well-thought out and insightful policy on Iraq...If they don't, they will lose all allies, lose more troops, and sooner or later... the people of America will wise up and demand that the administration be held accountable with what history could record as a grave "political" blunder if policies do not change soon.



MORE…

Exiting Iraq

What we do in Iraq SHOULD depend on the real reason(s) we are there.

Did we invade Iraq to eliminate WMD’s? Great. Everyone has admitted there were none and are none. We can safely leave now.

Did we invade Iraq to bring the Iraqi people democracy? Excellent. We have removed Saddam Hussein from office and now the people of Iraq are free to work together and determine their own future. After all, isn’t that what democracy is all about? If we truly care about democracy and freedom for the Iraqi people, then they should have the freedom to determine their own future, be it a democracy or theocracy.

Did we invade Iraq to protect the interests of the U.S., or for that matter to establish a U.S. presence in the Gulf region? If so, then we need to do exactly what Boileryard suggested, which is stop screwing around and eliminate all pockets of resistance. We need to establish a government, rebuild the infrastructure of the country and improve the quality of life for these people as soon as possible.

Interestingly enough, by working backwards through this problem and watching what course of action we are taking in Iraq, it’s very easy to determine why the invasion happened in the first place. If we really invaded because of the WMD’s or for spreading democracy, we would be gone by now.

As hard as it is for me to say this, knowing full well what kind of civil war will take place and the hatred that will be created for the U.S. in this region, the ethical thing to do is to withdraw from Iraq and allow these people to determine for themselves what kind of country and future they want. Anything less than that is cultural snobbery.

But we won’t. Our military presence will remain there for at least one more decade.

MORE…

"I see no exit..." (Trish)

We've been down that road before. It's called Vietnamisation.

Sidney Blumenthal talks with US Military strategists and retired generals about how they see things in Iraq. Their prognosis is bad.

We're talking exits right now here on the Boileryard; the article quotes Jeffrey Record, professor at the Air War College as saying, "I see no exit." Sources quoted say the current situation in Iraq has caused the worst relationship ever seen - even worse than during Viet Nam - between the White House and the Pentagon.

MORE…

I'm mad as hell...

Like Howard Biele I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!! In fact ya’ll might have begun to suspect that I’m just a little on edge as of late. I’m not my usual charming, intelligent and observant self. In fact I’m running on pure adrenaline of late. This might even irritate a couple of you good readers just a bit but damn it all, there comes a time in each of our lives when we look around and admit that there are things worth being angry over, things worth fighting over and, yeah, things worth offending people over. This political season has brought me to this point.

Am I the only one who’s getting tired of being lied to at every turn? Oh, it’s not always BIG lies, sometimes it is, but as often as not it’s the little twists of the truth that aren’t outright lies but still manage to hide reality from us. The BIG lies are easy to catch, just ask Dan Rather. He didn’t think so, he found out differently. But what about the small lies? I don’t see the blogosphere addressing those in any meaningful way. I don’t see FOX News, CNN or the New York Times addressing any of those. In fact, the big players and the blogosphere are responsible for perpetuating many of those myths, distortions and outright lies.

This week I read an New York Times article purporting to reveal the contents of a Top Secret memo saying that the outlook for Iraq is at best tenuous stability and at worst civil war. The article leads us to believe that our government does not believe that democracy and real stability are possible in Iraq. All they had to do is fail to draw your attention to the fact that that assessment is for 2005 nothing more, nothing less. It’s an estimate of what next year is going to look like, that’s all, yet it’s being spun to make people believe that there is no hope for the future of Iraq. We can’t blame it on ignorance; they know what they’re doing.

This past week we watched CBS and Dan Rather implode over the use of forged documents. CBS and Rather knew those documents were forged. They had experts tell them they weren’t real, that they couldn’t be real, and they ignored them. It’s now starting to look as if there was some coordination between the DNC and CBS on this, if not in the actual documents in the dissemination of the information in them. They weren’t duped, but they were trying to dupe us. They had to know, if some blogger who didn’t have 1/10,000th of their resources available to him could figure it out they had to know. Carl Rove isn’t responsible for that; he doesn’t even work for CBS.

We see Fox News showing almost sycophantic loyalty to the Swift boat Vets for Truth. I’ll be honest, I believe the Swift boat Vets and not Kerry for the most part. I would, however, bet that their version of events is not totally honest either. Like anyone making an argument they’re presenting theirs in the best possible light. That said we’ve got two factions in the media, Fox News and Conservative Talk Radio folks who are accepting whatever the Swift boat folks say unquestioningly and the mainstream media who won’t even talk to them and are pretending that their points have all been disproved. They’re all just pushing the agenda that they support, or more accurately the candidate. There is some truth to the Swift boat vets claims, and there’s some truth to Kerry’s. It’s not cut and dried but your choice of news providers will make it seem that it is one way or the other.

It’s been going on for years. I came of age during the Reagan Revolution. I saw what the world was like before Ronald Reagan came to the big stage, it wasn’t pretty. American was in retreat around the world and was becoming dangerously weakened at home. Ronald Reagan changed all that, not with missiles and bombs, not with jokes about bombing Moscow, but with courage and optimism. Reagan made is ok to be proud to be an American again and with the pride came growth and strength. The left likes to demonize Reagan but the simple fact is that he was what America and the world needed in that place and time. He beloved by Americans, not just Republicans, not just Conservatives, by Americans in general. There were those who disliked Reagan but in general they were folks who had a political agenda that he was standing in the way of. Those folks weren’t supposed to like him. I can also remember the horrid things that they used to say about him, and still do. The difference is that the media, for the most part, didn’t take part in the flogging of that son of man, they just reported it. Others had to do the dirty work of slinging mud.

This largely remained true throughout the terms of George H. W. Bush and to a lesser extent William J. Clinton. The media reported on the attacks but did not participate in them. They certainly didn’t use forged documents to try to bring down an American President during an election year. There’s something wrong with our supposedly free and unfettered Press when they become the story, when they manufacture the story. There’s something wrong with our political system when the average man on the street can’t trust the nightly news to give him honest facts on which to base his opinion. There’s something wrong with a society that isn’t pissed off about this.

Howard Biele said it best:

“… I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!!"


MORE…

A Troubled Hybrid (Boileryard Clarke)

Option Three

Iraq was put together from discordant parts, on the fly, without any true rhyme or reason. The Sykes-Pekoh treaty divided the old Ottoman Empire between France and Britain after the First World War, and dashed the hopes of many in the Arab Rebellion despite the best efforts of T.E. Lawrence.

After the colonial powers vacated, Iraq’s borders now contain three major distinct ethno-religious entities. In short, there really isn’t such a thing as an “Iraqi” in the technical sense of the word. Iraq is a country made of whole cloth and leavings by the administrators of Britain’s colonial holdings.

An autonomous, independent Kurdistan in the north would separate the most distinct of Iraq’s brethren from the rest of the country, but both Turkey and Iran - who have sizeable Kurdish populations of their own - are vocally hesitant over the possible inflammation of ethnic Kurds in their borders. The image of a Greater Kurdistan cut from their territory is obviously seen as a threat of significant proportion.

Is an Iraq divided up by the more obvious portions a viable option, or would Iraq’s neighbors view it as a threat in light of their concern in opposition to an independent Kurdistan?

How much influence would Iran have in the new configuration with its co-sectarians?

What would those countries in the region who themselves cast a wary toward Iran feel about that potential?

Would a division that establishes more components to the diplomatic mix constitute a further “Balkanization” of the region and merely add the potential for more conflict than before?

Would a smaller, weaker sub-state be more open to influences of jihadists, or al Qaida itself?

Is this where the UN comes in handy? Or should their past duplicity in and about Iraq be reason to mistrust that body’s motives and capabilities in this area?

Would the resultant sections be economically viable?

Should we be looking at a loose confederation instead of a federal republic?

And how can all this be accomplished in the face of an active opposition that resents any reconfiguration by what it deems a foreign occupier?
MORE…

Just Perfect (Boileryard Clarke)

Option Two

A detailed program involving military intelligence as much as conventional force is put into action to sweep through Iraq in an effort to clear the country of insurgent elements. Remnants of national Ba’athist fighters and foreign jihadists are targeted. Where possible, infiltration is accomplished either to simply gather intelligence or eliminate individuals deemed as dangerous.

Care is taken to re-establish the full components of a functioning society, from courts to running water. A substantial nationwide public works project is undertaken. On the periphery, or wherever there is activity, the American and coalition forces strike against pockets of violence with extreme prejudice.

The message is simple: comprehensively eradicate the opposition to the new government and provide benefits to the average citizen beyond what any past regime has ever offered. Use petro-dollars from the sale of oil and whatever development money that can be put together from the rest of the world to rebuild infrastructure as well as security. Install a legitimate, elected government as soon as possible, and maintain the security of the members of that government to minimize disruption by opponents to the program.

No shortcuts, however, will be accepted. The mission is not accomplished until a wide range of conditions are met and Iraq is a functioning country that can stand on its own. The time frame is not as important as the goal.

Does an open-ended program such as this give way to the possibility of mission-creep? Is it possible to sustain this through more than one Presidential administration?

Is America’s attention span, wallet, and military deep enough to sustain such a program without a date-certain in mind? What became of the “Powell Doctrine” of overwhelming force + national support + defined exit strategy?

What would a long-term commitment such as this mean relative to al Qaida’s claim that America’s goal is to control “our oil, our lands, and our religion.”? Would this plan actually be a long-term aid to recruitment for anti-American groups in the Middle East?

Would a continuous cycle of “build – destroy - rebuild – punish” eventually become more of a burden than Iraq can bear, and be used to demonstrate America’s impotence?

Can an open-ended effort to solidify a new Iraqi regime even be accomplished?
MORE…

Walking Away (Boileryard Clarke)

Option One.

The order comes across to pull in the patrols, establish staging areas, set evacuation points, make schedules for the removal of heavy equipment and the dismantling of depots. American, British and Polish forces are rotated out with contingents of the new Iraqi army. Little by little, the transport planes mass and within 6 to 8 weeks from the order coming down, and the only foreign troops in Iraq are whatever residue has gathered from Arab countries there to fight the “Crusaders and their running dogs.”.


There are probably a few parting shots, mortar shells fired off as the American forces withdraw. Gunfire directed at evacuating helicopters. Scenes of the usual revelers dancing around the usual burning humvee. Al Jezeera reporting from “just outside Baghdad.” Whether it is accurate or not – the appearance of a rout can be manufactured by those who would benefit from that.

Statements from the interim government that their mission now is to bring Iraq to order.

Worries about civil war.

Does Kurdistan split?

Does the evacuation of coalition forces create a power vacuum? If so -what replaces it?

Can the fledgling Iraqi government bring order?

What role does Sistani play?

What becomes of American, European, and Asian businessmen still in country?

Does American credibility suffer, and does that matter?

For those who advocate this method of the quick and immediate exiting of Iraq – what happens next?
MORE…

...and I've got some lovely beachfront property in west Texas to sell you, too... (Brian)

Via Tim Cavanaugh comes this lovely bit of wishful thinking from Robert Novak:

Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.

While we're enumerating possibilities, here, let's throw out what this could possibly mean.

1) Robert Novak has completely lost his mind, or, in the parlance of our times, perhaps "pulled a Rather";

2) This is being floated as a trial balloon, and if it fails to catch on among probable Bush/undecided voters, will be flatly denied and completely forgotten within a week. Any resemblance to actual events or policy in a second Bush term will be purely coincidental.

3) Elements of the Bush administration have come to the same conclusion that I have: that the question Boileryard asked earlier is essentially unanswerable. Might as well get out ASAP.

OK, if I were handicapping this, I'd probably put option #1 at 4:1, #2 at 3:2, and #3 at 3:1. However...I'd say the odds of Bush actually pulling out in the second term--even if his advisors push for it--would be closer to 50:1. Remember, this is the same administration that went from "stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons" to "weapons of mass destruction program-related activities." Admitting fault is not exactly Mr. Bush's forte.

And why the hell would he do such a thing right after being re-elected?

Speaking of handicapping...it's about time I headed to my local watering hole for a little MNF...pleasant evening, all!
MORE…

Blogging Ourselves Out Of Iraq (Boileryard Clarke)

Now that the denizens of the blogosphere have unmasked the pointlessness of "professionals" like Dan Rather and the over-paid, over-accredited pundits of the TV yawnosphere, the time has come to move on another problem "professionals" can't seem to articulate an answer for.

Iraq...

OK bloggers... get us out of there. Speak up now.

Withdraw now and what happens? Stay until everything is perfectly in place? Who do you allow to vote? Does Iraq become three autonomous regions? What about Iran's influence? How do we assure al Qaida doesn't step into a power vacuum our leaving creates? Write a timetable for this. Give me a scenario. Cover the eventualities. Be realistic. No arc-lights and nuke-em nonsense please.

Then tell your friends and get them over here. Let's get it going. Solve Iraq...

You may commence.
MORE…

Rocking the Votes of Idiots (Nick)

Okay, its true: Nadar does speak out against issues that most Democrats won't touch. His campaign speeches criticize NAFTA, WTO, deregulation of the airwaves, and corporate welfare. And yes -- he thinks we should have more than two parties. So, to recap: Nadar talks and has opinions. He is also a shameless egoist who exploits the idealism of young leftists, and old idiots.

Nader claims that its "the Democrat's fault" if they cannot gain support from the left-wing's most naive and stupid voters. Nadar says that Kerry should "end the war in Iraq"," create a system of universal health care", and enforce a "living wage" (which he left undefined). Indeed we would all like to see Nader's dreams bloom into a world without war, pollution, or poverty. Unfortunatly, those dreams are divorced from reality. If Kerry presents a pacificist, socialist, anti-corporate agenda, he will lose. When he says "universal health care"; independents hear, "inefficent big government program that will cost me lots of taxes." Kerry might call it a "living wage", but most people will hear "layoffs and companies moving oversees". Reality sucks, doesn't it? Ralph, I have news for you: a lot of voters are more concerned about their wallets than your expensive adventures in enviromentally friendly socialism.

Nader claims that, "The two parties have rigged the political system to guarantee that, from ballot access barriers to exclusion from debates. The two parties are dominating the political scene." However, I for one am relieved that I don't have to watch Nader drone on about his idealistic and wistful fantasy of a third party. America has been a two party More than 300 years. If your smart, you take over the interests of one of those parties; you don't create your own party. That is -- unless you want to get power the hard and unlikely way.

Nader says, "If the Democrats cannot landslide the worst Republican administration in the 20th century they better look at themselves," Really?

Here is a truth that niether Nader, nor the Democrats will admit. Both Republicans, and Democrats have supporters that are idiots. Just as Perot and Buchannon spoiled Bush Sr.'s re-election by taking rightwing idiot vote, Nadar is stealing Kerry's leftwing idiot vote. For Christ sakes, Nader needs to realize how much we need our idiots at the polls! Otherwise, we might have a one party system, like Mexico's PRI. Unless Nader wakes up, all I can conclude is that he is an idiot himself.
MORE…

Because They Own Your Body; Because They Own Your Life

Its called the "Universal National Service Act of 2003". Its currently pending in both the House and the Senate under the headings, S.89 and H.R.163:

Summery: Universal National Service Act of 2003 - Declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense.

Amends the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the military registration of females.

To anyone who will be between the ages of 18 and 26 during the next 5 years: if you think that College will exempt you from being drafted, think again. If this bill becomes a law, your induction into the military would be delayed no longer than the end of a current semester.

The SSS has already recruited 2000 "Selective Service System Local Board Members", who are -- to put it more succulently-- the people who will decide who goes to war. While they deny that they are moving towards reinstating the draft, the memory hole has recovered the SSS's erased "Defend America" website. You can be the judge.

Why isn't anyone talking about this bill? Charles Pena, senior analyst with the Washington-based Cato Institute said , "I don't think a presidential candidate would seriously propose a draft -- but an incumbent, safely in for a second term — that might be a different story."

Mr Pena continued, "When you crunch the numbers, you understand why you hear talk about a draft. You only have to look at troop levels to realize we don't have the numbers to do the job in Iraq properly."

Of course, the SSS, DOD, and Pentagon all insist that none of this has anything to do with reinstating the draft. But they haven't commented on it for a year. The situation in Iraq has gotten signifigantly worse since November 2003. I think we need to all be thinking very carefully about this.
MORE…

Hayek Smiled: Why Blogging Works

If Nobel Prize winning economist F.A. Hayek had been watching last week as bloggers spontaneously responded to fraudulent documents aired by the program "60 Minutes", he would've grinned in humble satisfaction. Hayek's work centered on the effectiveness of spontaneous, decentralized organization, which is precisely what occurred on PowerlineBlog on September 9th. Regardless of the political consequences of the Killian Memo controversy, Hayek's work has been vindicated and his critics undermined.

Read Full Article
MORE…

Fox hunts and NASCAR

The Brits are in an uproar. It seems Parliament is considering banning fox hunting, and in response to this tragic and unsettling news, thousands have taken to the streets. In fact, according to the press, five of the protestors stormed the House of Commons to disrupt the debates. One lawmaker said, and I quote, “there has not been such an intrusion in Parliament since 1642.”

Wow.

Let’s see. Since 1642 England has waged war against the colonists in America, waged war against God only knows how many other countries, and killed God only knows how many people throughout their history of empire building. Just recently they have joined with the U.S. in the invasion of Iraq which has turned out to be hugely unpopular with the people.

But did they storm the House of Commons over any of these acts against humanity? Nope. But take away their fox hunting and holy shit! You’ve crossed the bloody line there bloke.

But has it been any different in the U.S.? And for that matter, has it ever been any different in any country? The more I think about this, I would have to say no. Governments have implemented a policy of “bread and circus” towards their own population for a good reason.

Can the masses really be trusted to make wise choices? Is democracy really a way to raise our society to a higher level or is it instead a way of lowering our society to the least common denominator?

Madison and several of the other founding fathers expressed doubts as to whether a democracy could work. The thought of America exporting democracy to other countries caused quite a bit of concern among many of the world leaders. The idea of the common man having the vote and any say in government was unheard of.

Let’s not forget that it wasn’t until the mid-1880’s that every state gave men the right to vote without requiring that they be land owners. It wasn’t until 40 years later that women had the right to vote. So not even taking into consideration the freedom for blacks to vote safely in the South, this country has only practiced a true democracy (voting wise) for the last 85 years. ( Digression alert! Our government established its first propaganda ministry at the same time that every man & woman finally got the vote)

These last 4 years have made me ask myself if this is such a good thing. I already understand the slippery-slope of only allowing the ‘enlightened few’ to make decisions for us, and to use the phrase I have used before, we need to be very careful of those who are convinced that they and they alone are in possession of truth with the capital T. But judging by the reactions of people over what I consider to be terrible wrongs perpetrated by my government, I must admit I am not too comfortable having my future and the future of my children determined by the vote of the masses.

I don’t know of any better alternative however. I’ve been thinking about it, and on every road my brain travels there are pitfalls greater than the ones we have with things as they are.

I guess if we really want to stir people up and knock the masses out of their ruts, we could petition the government to ban Monday Night Football and NASCAR.

12,000 dead Iraqi civilians don’t seem to be doing the trick.

Tally-Ho!

MORE…

Johnny Ramone, R.I.P. (Brian)

I'm Against It

by The Ramones

Well I'm against it

I'm against it

Well I'm against it

I'm against it

I don't like politics

I don't like communists

I don't like games and fun

I don't like anyone

And I'm against...

I don't like Jesus freaks

I don't like circus geeks

I don't like summer and spring

I don't like anything

I don't like sex and drugs

I don't like waterbugs

I don't care about poverty

All I care about is me

And I'm against...

I don't like playing ping pong

I don't like the Viet Cong

I don't like Burger King

I don't like anything

And I'm against...

Well I'm against it

I'm against it

Funny how some songs resonate across decades.

Johnny Ramone, dead at 55.

MORE…

If I Were Osama... (Boileryard Clarke)

"The US . . . wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose on us agents to rule us based not on what God has revealed and wants us to agree on all this."

quote: Osama bin Laden.

It is imperative to bin Laden - or his successors - that al Qaida continue to attract new recruits. The argument they give is that Muslims should defend their homelands, and that what is happening in Iraq is proof of the above.

Our theorists believe that installing a democracy in Iraq would be a first step in treating the root causes of terrorism. A democratic Iraq, they say, will be an example to the rest of the region as well as one less supporter of terrorists in the world.

Whether it is true or not, if al Qaida can convince people that our being in Iraq proves their point about us, then being in Iraq feeds their argument.

It may behoove them, therefore, to keep us there as long as possible to help them prove their point.

If that is true, were I Osama bin Laden... i would make my campaign to show that any new Iraqi government cannot exist without American firepower, destabilize it and the country's economy as much as possible, and make it impossible for America to leave.

I would want America there for years. If they make a base there - even better for my purposes. Then i can turn around and say, you see..

"The US . . . wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose on us agents to rule us based not on what God has revealed and wants us to agree on all this."

Join us...
MORE…

Rove's Possible Motive

There is a plausible reason why Karl Rove would have wanted to release fake guard documents. It also happens to be a simple, brilliant, and utterly unpredictable strategy (especially if you have access to military bases):

The Setup: They forged documents that were entirely believable, and sold them to CBS under the pretense that they'd soon be released to rival news organizations.

The accusations against Bush are entirely plausible, and perhaps even true. Any intelligent observer will conclude that he is hiding something, and that he hasn't been forthcoming. But, even had the documents been true, they would have had little effect. The electorate is not paying any attention to Bush's guard service. So, in other words, its the perfect bait -- its news worthy, but not too news worthy.

So why did CBS take it and air it so quickly? All News organizations want to be the first to break stories -- and that desire, coincidently is probably the number one reason for inaccuracy in news broadcasting. It's likely that the scammer threatened to go to other news sources. By putting time pressure on the producers , CBS was esily duped; frankly, the scammers played them like a slut.

The Bait: There were obvious errors on the documents that any -- and I mean ANY -- scam artist would have avoided. This allowed the right-wing "new media" to quickly uncover the false hoods without actually having any knowledge of the plot.

Super script? Times New Roman? A true scammer would have probably used a type writer. Even I, at 22 (the only time I used a typewriter was when I played with one as a tottler) , know to use the Courier font if I'm trying to make it look like a type writer.

So, the right wing bloggers and talk radio hosts now appear to be "truth squads"; and Rove knew that they would figure it out. It was an absolutely safe bet. Hopefully, by now you are beginning to see the strategy.

The End Result- Discrediting News Sources that don't give Bush 100 percent support.

I'm guessing this is the intended message:
News Sources like CBS are sloppy, partisan, and not to be trusted. Fox News, and other organizations of "truth squads" uncover their lies and deceptions. It was good average Americans who uncovered these left-wing lies. As we all know, they'll go to any lengths to discredit Bush (Remember that the claims agains him are anything but wild -- but now they'll have no effect, as they say: the boy has already cried wolf). Don't read NYTimes! Read NY Post! Don't Watch CBS! Watch FOX! The Liberal media are liars, FOX and NRO represent the Truth.

Recap:
Rove decided not to directly attack Kerry, instead he attacked News Sources that were hurting Bush and helping Kerry. At the same time, he managed to frame Bush-loyal news as being "truth hunters". Its suttle, and if anything is to be learned, its that Rove is a lot sneakier than you think. The strategy was not directly related to making Bush or Kerry look better or worse -- its a long term strategy to gain better control of the public forum. Of course, I might just be giving Karl Rove too much credit. However, I'm not willing to take that bet.

Cross posted at Net Politik
MORE…

Lost

Military experts with decades of experiences are saying, Iraq is lost. Who am I to disagree?

MORE…