Dream on...
"This is good for everyone," said Ahmad Chalabi, a council member who saw Mr. Bremer on Friday night. "We will have the U.S. forces here, but they will change from occupiers to a force that is here at the invitation of the Iraqi government." -- NY Times
Right. The US invades Iraq. The US appoints a "governing council," which is not exactly representative or devoted to its work (read Michelle's post about this). A year later, the US will pretend to let governing council govern, and their first act will be to invite the invaders who have been occupying the country for 15 months by then.
Yeah, Chalabi, you giant embezzling fraud. That's going to make both the council AND the US troops instantly popular. Are you on Ambien too?
Anyone remember back in 1974, after Nixon made Gerald Ford his vice president, and then resigned, making Ford the president? A few weeks later, Ford pardoned Nixon, instantly making both of them very popular--NOT. The only way something like this can be pulled off is if you completely control the media and have a docile and ignorant public. (Think 2000, when Bush Sr.-appointed Justice Clarence Thomas casts vote to give election to Bush Jr. I don't think the Iraqi public is as ignorant as ours, and I know they're not as docile.)
The Times article answers my earlier question in a discouraging way:
"And that includes finding those two?" the reporters asked, referring to Mr. Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
"Yes, that's part of it," [Bush] said. "But an even bigger is a free and democratic society. That is the mission."
So capturing Saddam is necessary but not sufficient for leaving Iraq. The nearly impossible is also required. This is very bad news for everyone currently in Iraq, Iraqis and occupiers alike. The only silver lining is that it may well lead to regime change in the US, which will finally offer some hope--a year from now. The truth is, I'm afraid, that aWol has no intention of ever really withdrawing from Iraq.
"This is good for everyone," said Ahmad Chalabi, a council member who saw Mr. Bremer on Friday night. "We will have the U.S. forces here, but they will change from occupiers to a force that is here at the invitation of the Iraqi government." -- NY Times
Right. The US invades Iraq. The US appoints a "governing council," which is not exactly representative or devoted to its work (read Michelle's post about this). A year later, the US will pretend to let governing council govern, and their first act will be to invite the invaders who have been occupying the country for 15 months by then.
Yeah, Chalabi, you giant embezzling fraud. That's going to make both the council AND the US troops instantly popular. Are you on Ambien too?
Anyone remember back in 1974, after Nixon made Gerald Ford his vice president, and then resigned, making Ford the president? A few weeks later, Ford pardoned Nixon, instantly making both of them very popular--NOT. The only way something like this can be pulled off is if you completely control the media and have a docile and ignorant public. (Think 2000, when Bush Sr.-appointed Justice Clarence Thomas casts vote to give election to Bush Jr. I don't think the Iraqi public is as ignorant as ours, and I know they're not as docile.)
The Times article answers my earlier question in a discouraging way:
"And that includes finding those two?" the reporters asked, referring to Mr. Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
"Yes, that's part of it," [Bush] said. "But an even bigger is a free and democratic society. That is the mission."
So capturing Saddam is necessary but not sufficient for leaving Iraq. The nearly impossible is also required. This is very bad news for everyone currently in Iraq, Iraqis and occupiers alike. The only silver lining is that it may well lead to regime change in the US, which will finally offer some hope--a year from now. The truth is, I'm afraid, that aWol has no intention of ever really withdrawing from Iraq.
<< Home