Comments on: Exactly when was George Bush planning to bring stability to the Middle East? http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/11/27/exactly-when-was-george-bush-planning-to-bring-stability-to-the-middle-east/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:47:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: grumpypilgrim http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/11/27/exactly-when-was-george-bush-planning-to-bring-stability-to-the-middle-east/comment-page-1/#comment-8859 grumpypilgrim Wed, 29 Nov 2006 04:30:06 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=773#comment-8859 I saw on the news today that Bush *still* doesn't believe there is a civil war in Iraq. Amazingly (or perhaps not, given his cognitive dissonance), he blames the violence on al Qaeda terrorists, a claim we hear from *no one* outside the White House. Indeed, France, Italy and even Bush's dear ally Britain have all said they will pull their troops out of Iraq next year, so obviously none of them believes Bush's delusion that Iraq is the "front line of the war on terror." With Iraqis daily slaughtering each other by the hundreds, with bombs, rockets, machine guns and other heavy weapons, I wonder what Bush would consider to be a civil war. It's obviously a war, and it obviously involves a lot of dead civilians. I have noticed, however, that we no longer see Bush swaggering around with any "Bring 'em on" rhetoric. Instead, we see him making the circuit of European countries to ask for help, as if any of them are likely to do so. Most experts say the situation is now a diplomatic problem, not a military one, so they say help needs to come from Iraq's neighbors. By soliciting help from Europe, Bush shows that he still sees the situation as a military problem, which isn't good for either our troops or the Iraqis. I saw on the news today that Bush *still* doesn’t believe there is a civil war in Iraq. Amazingly (or perhaps not, given his cognitive dissonance), he blames the violence on al Qaeda terrorists, a claim we hear from *no one* outside the White House. Indeed, France, Italy and even Bush’s dear ally Britain have all said they will pull their troops out of Iraq next year, so obviously none of them believes Bush’s delusion that Iraq is the “front line of the war on terror.” With Iraqis daily slaughtering each other by the hundreds, with bombs, rockets, machine guns and other heavy weapons, I wonder what Bush would consider to be a civil war. It’s obviously a war, and it obviously involves a lot of dead civilians.

I have noticed, however, that we no longer see Bush swaggering around with any “Bring ‘em on” rhetoric. Instead, we see him making the circuit of European countries to ask for help, as if any of them are likely to do so. Most experts say the situation is now a diplomatic problem, not a military one, so they say help needs to come from Iraq’s neighbors. By soliciting help from Europe, Bush shows that he still sees the situation as a military problem, which isn’t good for either our troops or the Iraqis.

]]> By: Erich Vieth http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/11/27/exactly-when-was-george-bush-planning-to-bring-stability-to-the-middle-east/comment-page-1/#comment-8840 Erich Vieth Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:25:01 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=773#comment-8840 There isn't any reason for W to attempt to bring stability to Iraq as long as he continues to believe that there's no instability to remedy. Heck of a job, W! There isn’t any reason for W to attempt to bring stability to Iraq as long as he continues to believe that there’s no instability to remedy. Heck of a job, W!

]]> By: grumpypilgrim http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/11/27/exactly-when-was-george-bush-planning-to-bring-stability-to-the-middle-east/comment-page-1/#comment-8836 grumpypilgrim Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:34:48 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=773#comment-8836 Further to my post, the Bushies are as eager to avoid the words "civil war" as they are to avoid the words "global warming" (<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/ap_on_re_eu/bush/">see here</a>), so Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, has begun saying that the conflict in Iraq "has entered 'a new phase' requiring changes." Don't you just love that ambiguity? "A new phase requiring changes" in Iraq is completely meaningless: it could cover anything from peace to nuclear annihilation. It must have come from the same propaganda writer who gave us Bush's "global climate change" in lieu of "global warming." It lets them talk about the problem without actually acknowledging that it exists. Further to my post, the Bushies are as eager to avoid the words “civil war” as they are to avoid the words “global warming” (see here), so Bush’s National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, has begun saying that the conflict in Iraq “has entered ‘a new phase’ requiring changes.” Don’t you just love that ambiguity? “A new phase requiring changes” in Iraq is completely meaningless: it could cover anything from peace to nuclear annihilation. It must have come from the same propaganda writer who gave us Bush’s “global climate change” in lieu of “global warming.” It lets them talk about the problem without actually acknowledging that it exists.

]]>