I read this in the Washington Post yesterday, and I thought that it was one of the most damning commentaries on Dubya I'd read in awhile concerning the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Annapolis, MD next week (sometimes the inadvertent remarks are the ones that say the most)...Dennis Ross, a senior U.S. negotiator through most of this peacemaking period, is skeptical that much will emerge from the Annapolis talks.And by the way, I'm trying to avoid discussing the whole Israeli-Palestinian thing because that's the subject of a long post all by itself; as I've said before, you'll have to work really hard for me to feel sympathetic to the Palestinians, but on the other hand, this is the most Israel-sympathetic presidential administration I've ever seen, and they have a lot to answer for as far as I'm concerned.
Speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Ross doubted Bush would follow Carter and Clinton's precedent for direct involvement in the talks. "This president will never be like Clinton. He will never know the issues. He will not throw himself into it."
Also, it looks like another Bush ally has taken a tumble here (I don't understand how DemFromCT can say that this isn't at least partly a referendum on Iraq, though - sorry you lost, John, even though "the surge" has "been more successful than many of its critics wanted it to be or believe it would be," as you said here).
At least, Condi, if the peace talks don't go well, you can always buy a new pair of shoes.
5 comments:
the palestinians definitely have as much or more blood on their hands as the israelis, but, nevertheless, i can't countenance punishing the entire population of gaza and turning it into a concentration camp... nobody on either side can convince me that state-sponsored terrorism, retaliatory violence, and driving both innocent and guilty to starvation, illness, and death is justified... the failure of the u.s. to condemn israel's actions in gaza is squarely in the same category as our supporting the wahhabist regime in saudi arabia, and turning a blind eye to the rule by decree and martial law in pakistan... by supporting such state-sponsored terrorism, we reveal ourselves to be sponsors as well... how the u.s. can presume to lead a "peace process" for israel and palestine is beyond absurd... and, if that wasn't sufficiently down the rabbit hole, the annapolis summit will be opened by a president who, over his seven years in office, has NEVER visited either israel OR palestine... the fact that this is happening on and is accepted as normal is truly beyond belief...
The Bush way of doing negotiating around the world is to buy people, just like his father bought the Coalition during Desert Storm where billions was spread around, with Egypt getting billions in debt forgivness.
Excellently put - thanks a lot for articulating some of what I'd been thinking but either hadn't researched enough to state myself or thought too obvious (no less important to emphasize, though, concerning our support of middle east dictators while we purport to represent something approximating democracy...as I've said, whatever comes after us will write books about the horrific swindle of Bushco that way too many ignored).
I could probably fill up this blog by correcting corporate media mistakes (including yet another example of New York Times stenography today that I'll try to get to tomorrow or Monday) primarily due to fluffing Dubya, but I have to balance it with other stuff or it would get too infuriating to post about (probably to read about also).
Yep, good point also John - Gulf War I had its share of propaganda also, such as that nonsense about Iraqi troops killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators or some such garbage...what a shame not enough of us saw trouble when The Sainted Ronnie R decided to fly our flag on Kuwaiti tankers - that got us in deeper over there than we should have and it should have been a warning sign that we would see days such as these if we didn't find a way to stop being oil junkies to these people who were all to ready to give us a fix.
Another piece of Bush deviousness connected to Desert Storm happened when Bush Sr visited the Raytheon Plant in Ct. Raytheon built the Patriot and Bush was standing on a high platform, flags in the background and the employees somewhat below the podium. Bush knew the Patriot was practically useless against the Scuds, but he said to the employees: "All I have to say is 'Thank God for the Patriot!"' which of course drove the employees wild and made for great television.
"After a 10-month investigation in 1992 by the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security, the subcommittee concluded there was little evidence to prove the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq.
Another 1992 investigation done by the General Accounting Office found that only 9 percent of the Patriot-Scud engagements "are supported by the strongest evidence that an engagement resulted in a warhead kill." (The GAO defined "the strongest evidence" as instances in which Scud debris or radar data indicated that a Scud was destroyed or disabled after a Patriot detonated near it.) Except in 9 percent of the cases, the GAO report said the Army could prove only that "the Patriots came close to the Scuds, not that they destroyed them.
Both reports, as well as studies by analysts (in particular MIT scientists George N. Lewis and Theodore A. Postol) concluded that Gulf War television pictures showing Patriots chasing Scuds were misleading. The television images didn't fully reflect that a number of the Patriots were just wounding Scuds or pushing them off course; big chunks of both missiles then fell to the ground. In Israel, the amount of damages and casualties increased after the Patriots were deployed there."
The world of politics is like Alice in Wonderland, its best you believe no more than 1% of what you see and hear.
Post a Comment