US military is the big threat now (BARF)

Boston Globe ^ | February 1, 2005 | Thomas Oliphant

[bitt]

WASHINGTON

THE BIGGEST threat to the new legitimately elected political leadership in Iraq is the very force that did so much to make it possible -- the American military.

The biggest threat is not an Iran-style theocracy ruthlessly imposed by the majority Shi'ites and triggering civil war. US officials who are involved in the grunt work of trying to help a democratic Iraq emerge confided over the weekend that they have had more than enough dealings with people from the majority community to be positive on that score. It will take hard work, but officials note that too many Iraqi Shi'ites have spent too many years in exile in Iran to see that mess as a workable model for progress.

Nor is the biggest threat the continuing violence and havoc wreaked by a dangerous insurgency. If the insurgency -- about which US officials know far less than they are willing to admit publicly -- were a strictly military danger, it would be moribund. It is low-tech, outnumbered, and unable to operate outside Iraq's shadows.

The biggest threat stems from the huge, omnipresent, overwhelming presence of the US military as an occupying force -- assisted by an American embassy with the largest staff of any such mission in the world.

[bitt]

"...Of all the bits of information with which Kerry returned, none is more disturbing than his reports that Egypt and Jordan are prepared to train far more officers and police leaders than they have to date, but that US officials have rebuffed them.

The real point here is whether the election, to use Kerry's word, ends up being "over-hyped." The proper suspicion is that Bush's legitimate joy over the voting is discolored by a need for justification and a continuing adherence to the top-down, US-dominated thinking that made the postinvasion mess possible in the first place...."

Read the whole article - this is the Globe's spin to try and make sense of both Massachusetts' Senator's despicible behaviors...

[bitt]

[Williams]

Nothing is "more disturbing" than giving credence to the "report" of a failed presidential candidate who should have stayed home. The really pathetic thing is that Kerry is actually running again, starting his campaign immediately following the innaugaral.

I am sure Kerry's claim that these other countries are going to produce an Iraqi army overnight are nonsense. To the extent we have turned down any offers, it is because we don't need other, despotic Arab countries infiltrating and destabilizing Iraq.

The left is siding with any policy that can hurt this country and our troops. Such as Madeleine Skunk Albright coming out for "Sunni rights" the other day.

[carlr]

Interesting that for all his assertions he does`nt even make an attempt to cite a supportive source.No "this one in Iraq or Pentagon says" that would back up his claims.

Typical lib mental delusion of living in a world that is created in their minds.
That is why they have been devastated by events following 9/11.They don`t understand that the terrorists attacked us out of pure hatred not something we did.They don`t understand that Americans are turning from their idealistic,unrealistic vision of a socialist world society that they sit at the head of the table of.They don`t understand that their brazen quest for power for its own sake repels more and more Americans.

[anniegetyourgun]

Mass - a ****ty little state.

[bitt]

the fact that this 'journalist', Oliphant, makes THIS statement, without ANY substantiation, no question of his "remarks" as anything but 'facts', makes me want to puke.

"...Of all the bits of information with which Kerry returned, none is more disturbing than his reports that Egypt and Jordan are prepared to train far more officers and police leaders than they have to date, but that US officials have rebuffed them."


I liken Kerry's 'bits of information' to his 'support of foreign leaders' gaffe; why would a JOURNALIST not question
Kerry's statements?

[gridlock]

I trust the US military more than I trust the governments of Egypt, Syria or Jordan to have the long-term interests of Iraq at heart. I believe that the US military is trying to do the right thing in Iraq by setting up a viable democratic state and is a genuinely benevolent force. Egypt, Syria and Jordan, on the other hand, have much to gain by having a failed state in Iraq or by infiltrating the new security apparatus with foreign agents who would not be working in the best interests of the Iraqi people.

Oliphant, however, does not seem to believe that the US military is a benevolent force. Once you accept that the US has evil intent in Iraq, the rest of his conclusions make perfect sense.

Oliphant's opinion on involvement of other Middle Eastern thugocracies in the development of Iraq is like a Rorschach Test that reveals what he thinks of the US military and US foreign policy, deep in his heart-of-hearts. Clearly he thinks that we, as a nation, are so evil that one could hardly do worse depending on the tender mercies of the Syrians

[sgtbono2002]

Why dont we finally place John Kerry under arrest for treason? God knows it is way past time.

[Nuzcruizer]

Maybe they will after we see Kerry's military records, that is after he sit's down with them and makes sure they are "clear" (altered)

[Inwoodian]

It should not be forgotten that Oliphant offered a laudatory article to a liberal Republican Congressman if he would only support Clinton's budget. No bias there.

[bitt]

Hard to imagine anyone takes this guy seriously enough to allow him to print his shite.

[pabianice]

psychosis [sy.KO.sis] (n).

“The inability to distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary. Psychosis is a term used to describe a severe mental illness. Psychotics are characterized by a variety of symptoms that most people consider abnormal. These include experiencing delusions, such as the notion that one is being persecuted or conspired against. Psychotics may see things which don't actually exist and hear Voices (i.e. God) when no one is around. They often exhibit compulsive, irrational, ritualized behavior, esp. when such behavior serves no purpose or is even harmful or disruptive to those around them. They show no concern for others but may exhibit total self-centered behavior. Includes sociopathy, schizophrenia.”

DSM-IV

“…and that’s MISTER Dickhead to you, lieutenant!”

[pabianice]

psychosis [sy.KO.sis] (n).

“The inability to distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary. Psychosis is a term used to describe a severe mental illness. Psychotics are characterized by a variety of symptoms that most people consider abnormal. These include experiencing delusions, such as the notion that one is being persecuted or conspired against. Psychotics may see things which don't actually exist and hear Voices (i.e. God) when no one is around. They often exhibit compulsive, irrational, ritualized behavior, esp. when such behavior serves no purpose or is even harmful or disruptive to those around them. They show no concern for others but may exhibit total self-centered behavior. Includes sociopathy, schizophrenia.”

DSM-IV

“…and that’s MISTER Dickhead to you, lieutenant!”

[massgopguy]

When and where did Colin Powell say that President Bush "broke Iraq"?

[bitt]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/23/1082616326327.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true

april 24, 2004

In the new book by Bob Woodward about the White House and the invasion of Iraq, Plan of Attack, there are many bizarre revelations, but chief among them must be the existence of the Pottery Barn rule.

Woodward says that the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was keen to impress upon President George Bush the long-term dangers of invading Iraq. To make his point clear, he invoked what he and his deputy, Richard Armitage, describe as the rule in the Pottery Barn chain of stores: "If you break it, you own it."

"You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations and problems. You'll own it all," Woodward quotes Powell as telling Bush."

[defenderSD]

The key premise in this editorial is this sentence: "This immense American footprint has already become the major reason for the insurgency's continued existence and recent growth." Oliphant believes the insurgency is a reaction to the presence of the U.S. Military. But notice that he offers no supporting data or opinion from informed sources for this key statement--none whatsoever. He just makes this huge assumption and then goes on writing his editorial as though this assumption is a fact. Well it isn't a fact; it's just his liberally biased assumption. There are other reasonable explanations for the insurgency, with the leading rationale being the desire of the Baathists to regain power. This is classic liberal media writing where they try to present assumptions as facts with no supporting evidence. I think I may email this clown and rattle his dimly lit liberal cage.