Bush links Hezbollah to Ali-Q

[warch]

Bashing Bush is soooo 2003.

Hey, Did anyone else catch the great Charlie Rose discussion on Iraq, Iran, the cease fire, diplomacy and military options with Richard Holbrook and Bill Kristol last night? It was terribly interesting and a discussion that should be much much more public. Charlie let them debate it out. pushed to clarify the rhetoric.

Both agree: Rumsfeld needs to go, now. Holbrook wants to devise a way out of Iraq civil war and regroup/strategize the enire region ASAP, Keep Afghanistan on the front burner, ramp up diplomacy, turn away from Rumsfeld's errors. Staying will do nothing but result in more US deaths and debt and is worse than the political embarassment of starting to pull out.
Kristol is not ready to give up and shift yet on Iraq, pushing for 30K more troops to stabilize Bagdad. Pulling out is a still worse outcome, embolding the enemy than staying.

http://www.charlierose.com/
they promise an online video soon.

[Hippikos]

Ueber-neocon Kristol from the Weakly Standard wants war with Iran, NOW!

He predicted that US troops would be welcomed by the Iraqi's with flowers and mirre.

Reagan had these neocons blabbering to him also, but he had the guts to negotiate with Gorbachov when the chance was there. If the world was according the neocons there would be still a Cold War around...

Kristol and his gang need to STFU, NOW!

[9th Engineer]

tw, refer back to my post on why I didn't answer your questions. Since then I have been doing more research both Hezbollah and Hamas but the differences were not of the sort that changed my opinions. Most of them involve what group of people they are trying to wipe off the face of the Earth and their area of operation. Both are extemely vocal in their wish to kill all Americans and this has only changed from time to time to keep the U.S. from halting aid. In fact, now more than ever I think that both groups need to be destroyed. Any group that states genocide as its reason for existance should be removed from power no matter where in the world they operate.

[warch]

Kristol and his gang need to STFU, NOW!

The neoconservative agenda needs to be challenged and called out. That was what was refreshing about the program. Even though I do not agree with Kristol, I do feel that both he, Holbrook and Rose are ultimately on my side. (I'm thinking he would frown on my being "honor killed" or acid doused for daring to contradict my husband or father's religion. ) I am more interested in challenging and changing his suggested tactics than shutting him out. (this desire also countering the neocon playbook)

We need to get a lot smarter about this.

[Hippikos]

The neocons have highjacked US foreign policy with all the consequences now being seen in the ME. Cheney, rumsfeld, Feith, Ledeen, Abram, Wolfowitz, Perl are calling the shots with their Pax Americana and turning the ME into a powder keg which will set the world on fire. They are on your side, but at what cost?

Read this Clean Break Document. Strategy for a Greater Israel. Look who wrote the document and all becomes clear.

[9th Engineer]

His vision at this point includes living in a room in the basement, eating his parents food, and playing video games for the rest of his life.

As hard is it might be you probably need to give him an ultimatum and a timeline for either moving into his own apartment or returning to school. The longer he sits around the harder it will be to change later on. I suffer from chronic depression myself and it's nearly impossible to make tough decisions it that state. By taking the burden on yourself and forcing him to confront himself you, in a sense, relieve him of the pressure holding him down and give him a better chance to take control of himself.

[tw]

Originally Posted by warch

The neoconservative agenda needs to be challenged and called out. That was what was refreshing about the program. Even though I do not agree with Kristol, I do feel that both he, Holbrook and Rose are ultimately on my side.

We need to get a lot smarter about this.

Kristol started with what looked like it would be a tirade against liberals, and then eventually backed into a centrist type discussion. Once the Bugs Bunny agenda had been settled, then Kristol returned to a type of Kristol who is more interesting - without his political agenda. Same type of Kristol was an early promoter for the removal of Rumsfeld - because he also provided reasons with his declaration.

Holbrook also made an interesting comment about being on such good terms with Gingrich and with Kristol's father. I don't think it was an idle comment which might be why Kristol started with a touch of venom. But again, the show was an hour. It takes that long to discuss any minor aspect of the Middle East - which is why short posts on this topic are so often nothing more than propaganda tirades. Which is why Nightline is now a flawed program.

[Hippikos]

That Saddam had been doing everything possible to be an American ally – until completely blindsided by his Kuwait mistake. Meanwhile so many Americans knew otherwise; facts be damned.

Which mistake most likely was emphasized by the fact that Saddam talked to the US Ambassador Glaspie a week before the Kuwait invasion and informed her about it. She clearly said that the Kuwait issue was not associated with America.

transcript:

Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles).

As tw says, keep digging and you'll learn that nothing is as it seems...

Irving Kristol's motive in promoting a global American crusade is not to expand America's democratic ideology, since that is now officially defunct, but simply to expand America's power, along with his own power as the chief theorist and architect of this adventure. Indeed, now that they’ve given up even the pretense of the noble beliefs that they have loudly professed for the last several decades, what else is there?

The world did not change on 11 September.

It did for the neocons. Neoconservatism went into something of a slump after the demise of the U.S.S.R. because the U.S. had lost its ideological rival and main reason for international crusading; and that the September 11th attack, by forcing America back into the international arena in a more active and expansive role than ever, is the fulfilment of the neocons' deepest needs, particularly their need for power.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Since then I have been doing more research both Hezbollah and Hamas but the differences were not of the sort that changed my opinions. Most of them involve what group of people they are trying to wipe off the face of the Earth and their area of operation. Both are extemely vocal in their wish to kill all Americans and this has only changed from time to time to keep the U.S. from halting aid.

You have been visiting too many extremist sources. Hamas, in particular, has long had a strong 'hands off Americans' policy. AIPAC will do everything possible to obfuscate that fact. But again, can you see through the fog of propaganda to find a structure?

The Middle East has long been a complicated morass of so many with different agendas. Whereas bin Laden was an American ally, he then became an American enemy sometime after an event that changed the world: 1 Aug 1990.

Appreciate, for example, why the USS New Jersey off the coast of Lebanon did so much damage to American influence and respect in the Middle East. Appreciate why US Marines were attacked in their Beirut barracks. Why would those who talk to Americans then attack those same Americans (and why those Marines were not allowed to load their guns)? Again, nothing ‘black and white’ about it. And yet so many Americans will proclaim with hatred and a political agenda that *they* were always trying to kill Americans in Lebanon.

Who was spying for America in Iraq in the 1990s? Syria. Again, in a world of 'black and white', you might deny this reality. But again, the Middle East is fabulously complex. To simplify it for the cannon fodder, some (ie AIPAC) will proclaim repeatedly that Hezbollah and Hamas want to kill Americans. If they say it enough, it then is confused with facts. Instead, we cut through those lies and propaganda to find reality.

Same reason why Ho Chi Minh, a strong American ally, somehow became the hated enemy. Propaganda again hyping hate to the cannon fodder. Don't be cannon fodder. Keep digging; keep learning. You are now doing what is necessary for a minimal grasp of this fabulously complex region that we stuck our nose into. This quagmire has sucked us in by our nose because too many Americans blindly saw the world only in 'black and white' - exactly like Vietnam. Too many Americans are such cannon fodder as to say, “Rush says what has to be said”. An informed person knows otherwise – can separate propaganda from reality and from their real intentions.

For example, an informed person back in 2002 could obviously see that Saddam was never a threat to America. That Saddam had absolutely no interest in conflict with America. That Saddam had been doing everything possible to be an American ally – until completely blindsided by his Kuwait mistake. Meanwhile so many Americans knew otherwise; facts be damned.

The world did not change on 11 September. The world changed 1 Aug 1990. Understanding the complexity and a complete reversal even in American public attitudes is necessary to appreciate why that date is so important.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tw trying to paint Ho as "a strong American ally" misstates the situation. Is it not so that Ho adopted Communism in 1920 and never left it? America never saw an interest in supporting this Indochinese revolutionary.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I agree that Ho was not "a strong American ally", but it's because the US rebuffed his plea to be one. HE embraced the Communists early because it was the closest to the freedoms he witness in the US.

That said, he was above all a nationalist. He signed a treaty with the french to get the Chinese out, but immediately started driving the french out. When he had a chance he eliminated the other Viet Namese parties including the Russian allied Trotsky followers.

America never saw an interest in supporting anyone before WWII and not much after until Korea. After Korea, McCarthy made it impossible.

Ho only used the Communists as a tool to Nationalism and now capitalism like the Chinese.

[headsplice]

From way back in this thread:
"29. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."
The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates
EDIT: Yes, there are more than seven.