Lieberman and the war
by Tom Maertens
So, Sanctimonious Joe is running as an independent, and the White House is trying to recover from the direct hit by a ‘bunker buster.’ Their first reaction was to have Karl Rove call Lieberman and inform him “the Boss” will do everything he can to get Joe re-elected.
People who were wondering just how important the War in Iraq was as an election issue have their answer. Coincident with the election results, a new CNN poll shows that 60% of Americans oppose the war and only 36% support it.
The Republicans will portray the Democrats as out of the mainstream for opposing the Iraq war, but mainstream America is clearly opposed to the war.
Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove are nonetheless planning to run on the war, since they are stuck with it anyway, and it worked in 2004.
They will argue that the world is a dangerous place and that Bush has protected us from another domestic terrorist attack for five years.
Yes, the world is a dangerous place, and Bush’s policies have made it more dangerous. The invasion of Iraq diverted attention and resources away from the real War on Terror – against bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Moreover, the occupation has created more recruits for the Islamic jihadists, and may have led Iran to unleash Hizbollah against Israel.
As for the five years of ‘safety,’ the human and financial costs of Iraq more than offset a 9/11 type terrorist event. And we inflicted it on ourselves.
What has become clear is that a low-grade civil war is underway in Iraq. Deaths are running at 3,000 per month with more injured.
Even some US military leaders are using the term civil war, code for ‘a war we can’t win.’
This increases the likelihood of the country fracturing along ethnic lines, leaving the Sunnis with the area around Baghdad and to the west as a rump state that has no oil (about 80% is in the Shiite areas; the remaining 20% is in the Kurdish area). In fact, the LATimes reported that Shiite leaders are now actively seeking partition of Iraq.
The beneficiaries of this invasion are the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, and Iran.
The big losers are the Sunnis, some 20% per cent of the population, who lost their position of dominance
The great danger is that this (likely) Sunni rump state could become another Afghanistan…a base for terrorists.
Our policy should be to minimize this eventuality while also reducing the costs and casualties to the US.
A plan that might accomplish this is to re-deploy American troops away from the fighting, to the Kurdish area and to Kuwait. They would no longer be daily targets for the insurgents, but would be just over the horizon in case a Taliban-style gov’t took over in Baghdad.
Despite the Bush administration’s claim to be promoting peace and democracy, the Middle East is in flames, and likely to get worse. Even the war in Afghanistan is looking bad, as the Taliban continue their resurgence and narcotraffickers take over the economy.
One of the dangers facing the country is the Neocons’ determination to make the Middle East our crisis. Charles Krauthammer, Jim Woolsey, Bill Kristol, and others have made their views clear on this.
The Neocons’ dirty little secret is that the Iraq invasion they promoted was intended to protect Israel, which had no hope of preempting any future Iraq WMD program as it did with the air strike on the Osirak reactor in 1981.
The Neocons also advocated attacking Syria, Iran, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia — all in the interest of protecting Israel.
Having stirred up a hornet's nest in Iraq, they are now proclaiming a global war against Islam with the US supporting Israel. Their cry now is "on to Teheran," after which they will take up Newt Gringrich's assertion that WWIII has begun. Can rattling nukes be far away?
They are also promoting an Israeli attack on Syria as another ‘opportunity’ to transform the Middle East. Condi Rice has asserted that it’s unfair to criticize the administration’s policies while the transformation is in process. The more attacks, the more transformation, presumably.
The only thing left is for the administration to blame Democrats for their own disastrous schemes.
Logically, George Bush would know that we are overextended already with our engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unfortunately, he seems to have adopted some of the evangelicals’ apocalyptic world view. Recent press reports suggest he underwent some mystical experience while visiting Israel in 1998, and may share some of the end-times theology.
Moreover, he has been quoted on a number of occasions as suggesting that God directed him to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. Any person who thinks he is taking orders from God is completely unpredictable, and could experience more delusions, perhaps siding again with the Neocons, who see “opportunities” in the Middle East, and openly advocate attacking Iran and Syria.
The best hope of forestalling more military adventurism in the ME is for the Democrats to take over one or both houses of Congress.
Democrats, for their part, remember the ‘who lost China’ debate and don’t want to get tarred with failure in Iraq.
The best they can agree on – up till now – is the need for a timetable.
A recent poll shows that more than 80% of Democrats oppose the war. Perhaps the Lamont victory will motivate the Democratic Party to take effective action to respond to their base.
We can’t take much more Bush-style ‘peace and democracy’ in the Middle East.
So, Sanctimonious Joe is running as an independent, and the White House is trying to recover from the direct hit by a ‘bunker buster.’ Their first reaction was to have Karl Rove call Lieberman and inform him “the Boss” will do everything he can to get Joe re-elected.
People who were wondering just how important the War in Iraq was as an election issue have their answer. Coincident with the election results, a new CNN poll shows that 60% of Americans oppose the war and only 36% support it.
The Republicans will portray the Democrats as out of the mainstream for opposing the Iraq war, but mainstream America is clearly opposed to the war.
Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove are nonetheless planning to run on the war, since they are stuck with it anyway, and it worked in 2004.
They will argue that the world is a dangerous place and that Bush has protected us from another domestic terrorist attack for five years.
Yes, the world is a dangerous place, and Bush’s policies have made it more dangerous. The invasion of Iraq diverted attention and resources away from the real War on Terror – against bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Moreover, the occupation has created more recruits for the Islamic jihadists, and may have led Iran to unleash Hizbollah against Israel.
As for the five years of ‘safety,’ the human and financial costs of Iraq more than offset a 9/11 type terrorist event. And we inflicted it on ourselves.
What has become clear is that a low-grade civil war is underway in Iraq. Deaths are running at 3,000 per month with more injured.
Even some US military leaders are using the term civil war, code for ‘a war we can’t win.’
This increases the likelihood of the country fracturing along ethnic lines, leaving the Sunnis with the area around Baghdad and to the west as a rump state that has no oil (about 80% is in the Shiite areas; the remaining 20% is in the Kurdish area). In fact, the LATimes reported that Shiite leaders are now actively seeking partition of Iraq.
The beneficiaries of this invasion are the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, and Iran.
The big losers are the Sunnis, some 20% per cent of the population, who lost their position of dominance
The great danger is that this (likely) Sunni rump state could become another Afghanistan…a base for terrorists.
Our policy should be to minimize this eventuality while also reducing the costs and casualties to the US.
A plan that might accomplish this is to re-deploy American troops away from the fighting, to the Kurdish area and to Kuwait. They would no longer be daily targets for the insurgents, but would be just over the horizon in case a Taliban-style gov’t took over in Baghdad.
Despite the Bush administration’s claim to be promoting peace and democracy, the Middle East is in flames, and likely to get worse. Even the war in Afghanistan is looking bad, as the Taliban continue their resurgence and narcotraffickers take over the economy.
One of the dangers facing the country is the Neocons’ determination to make the Middle East our crisis. Charles Krauthammer, Jim Woolsey, Bill Kristol, and others have made their views clear on this.
The Neocons’ dirty little secret is that the Iraq invasion they promoted was intended to protect Israel, which had no hope of preempting any future Iraq WMD program as it did with the air strike on the Osirak reactor in 1981.
The Neocons also advocated attacking Syria, Iran, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia — all in the interest of protecting Israel.
Having stirred up a hornet's nest in Iraq, they are now proclaiming a global war against Islam with the US supporting Israel. Their cry now is "on to Teheran," after which they will take up Newt Gringrich's assertion that WWIII has begun. Can rattling nukes be far away?
They are also promoting an Israeli attack on Syria as another ‘opportunity’ to transform the Middle East. Condi Rice has asserted that it’s unfair to criticize the administration’s policies while the transformation is in process. The more attacks, the more transformation, presumably.
The only thing left is for the administration to blame Democrats for their own disastrous schemes.
Logically, George Bush would know that we are overextended already with our engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unfortunately, he seems to have adopted some of the evangelicals’ apocalyptic world view. Recent press reports suggest he underwent some mystical experience while visiting Israel in 1998, and may share some of the end-times theology.
Moreover, he has been quoted on a number of occasions as suggesting that God directed him to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. Any person who thinks he is taking orders from God is completely unpredictable, and could experience more delusions, perhaps siding again with the Neocons, who see “opportunities” in the Middle East, and openly advocate attacking Iran and Syria.
The best hope of forestalling more military adventurism in the ME is for the Democrats to take over one or both houses of Congress.
Democrats, for their part, remember the ‘who lost China’ debate and don’t want to get tarred with failure in Iraq.
The best they can agree on – up till now – is the need for a timetable.
A recent poll shows that more than 80% of Democrats oppose the war. Perhaps the Lamont victory will motivate the Democratic Party to take effective action to respond to their base.
We can’t take much more Bush-style ‘peace and democracy’ in the Middle East.
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Understanding the Fatal Flaws in Judeo-Christian-Islamic Prophecy
Hey TM,
As certain world leaders strive to instigate a fabricated "battle of Armageddon," it is vital to understand and spread the truth about these ancient texts to help bring about an end to such abominable evil.
Remember the saying that "the truth will set you (and others) free?" How does "opening one's eyes to the truth" relate to "making the blind see again" or "shining the light" or "illuminating a subject?" Notice the inherent symbolism associated with this supposed New Testament "miracle?"
Pay close attention, profundity knocks at the door, listen for the key. Be Aware! Scoffing causes blindness...
Here's the key to proving that the rapture and related expectations are complete nonsense based on the failure to understand (and the purposeful confounding of) the ancient Hebrew symbology used to construct all of these prophecies. Consequently, Christian timelines and interpretations of these prophecies are verifiably wrong on many key points.
Did you ever consider that Christianity is the False Prophet symbolized in the Apocalypse, that Rome (Vatican/Papacy) is the so-called anti-messiah, and Jesus Christ is the false messiah? I have produced stunning and comprehensive proof that this is the true interpretation of pivotal prophecies long confounded by Christianity's founders and leaders. Recasting the symbolism of earlier Hebrew texts as literal events in the New Testament is one of the central deceptions associated with Christianity.
The symbolism of seven years (tribulation, etc.) refers to seven 360-year cycles on the Hebrew calendar. Ezekiel 39.9 is referring to the 10th to 16th cycles inclusive, while the Apocalypse symbolizes the 11th cycle (second temple period) until now, the beginning of the 17th cycle (seventh angel/star/seal, etc.). Greece (Alexander the Great) conquered the Persian Empire and Judea during the 10th cycle and Rome did so again during the 11th cycle. Both Ezekiel and the Apocalypse are symbolizing an overlapping period of time that starts during ancient Judea and ends now. Gog refers to Greco-Romans (...from the "isles"), which means Magog is Eurasia and the "army" that besets "Israel" for seven "years" refers to the activities of the nations of the Greco-Roman/Vatican Empire over the previous two-plus millennia.
It is completely wrong to interpret any of these prophecies as literal timelines and events. Unlike Christian assertions, they symbolize long periods of time, pivotal situations, and the flow of activities during that period. Remember, they were written by ancient Hebrew sages, not Romans or other Europeans, and Revelation is the most symbolic of all prophecies. Consequently, in this context, "years" and "times" are symbols for 360-year cycles on the Hebrew calendar and days symbolize literal years. Therefore "Judgement Day," "Great Day" and "in that day" all refer to a literal year-long period. Accordingly, the so-called "Seven Years Tribulation" began in ancient Judea and is now nearing its end, not starting. The nations and followers of all three faiths of Abraham have been thoroughly deceived by Rome during the previous age, which ended in year 2000 (5760). A new age began in 2001 (5761) and now the seventh angel has begun to sound!
Read the full article below:
Here is Wisdom
Peace...
Post a Comment
<< Home