Some of the People Some of the Time
Looks like the American people are wising up. Nearly 6 in 10 think the war was not worth fighting. A majority think it has not made us any safer.
From the Washington Post:
I had family over last week and I tried, ever so gently, to explain my opposition to the war. It was difficult in two ways.
First, I had to explain to one family member already opposed to the war that it was not about oil, but rather about a group of fanatic Israel supporters pushing us into the war to "Secure the Realm". Not an easy task, but I printed out the "Clean Break" and highlighted the relevant sections. I also explained that John Bolton is a member of JINSA and that at least one of the originators of the Clean Break paper was also a member of JINSA. I think I started to connect the dots.
Convincing other pro war relatives was more difficult, but explaining that the war was not in the best interests of the US was the most effective method. I think I started to place the seeds of doubt.
Since the mainstream media won't tackle these issues head on, the use of slow, gentle and persistent pursuastion is a tool you must continue to use.
Washington Post Link.
From the Washington Post:
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.
Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.
I had family over last week and I tried, ever so gently, to explain my opposition to the war. It was difficult in two ways.
First, I had to explain to one family member already opposed to the war that it was not about oil, but rather about a group of fanatic Israel supporters pushing us into the war to "Secure the Realm". Not an easy task, but I printed out the "Clean Break" and highlighted the relevant sections. I also explained that John Bolton is a member of JINSA and that at least one of the originators of the Clean Break paper was also a member of JINSA. I think I started to connect the dots.
Convincing other pro war relatives was more difficult, but explaining that the war was not in the best interests of the US was the most effective method. I think I started to place the seeds of doubt.
Since the mainstream media won't tackle these issues head on, the use of slow, gentle and persistent pursuastion is a tool you must continue to use.
Washington Post Link.
posted by Brian at 6:06 AM
9 Comments:
The American people will really wise up and Bush's support almost entirely disappear when the inevitable happens: when the draft is reintroduced. Why inevitable? Because there is no, nor has there ever been, an exit strategy. We went to Iraq to stay - as evidenced by the planned building of permanent bases. Of course in the good old days when people still believed in the fairy tale of the "cakewalk" it was thought that the number of troops could be reduced, but there was never any intention of leaving altogether. Now, with the wear and tear of the troops there and the fall in recruitment the only way to remain will be by reintroducing the draft. I wonder if all "Americans" with double-allegiance will be the first to be drafted - yeah, that'll be the day. The first to be drafted will be the poor...
"First, I had to explain to one family member already opposed to the war that it was not about oil, but rather about a group of fanatic Israel supporters pushing us into the war to "Secure the Realm". Not an easy task, but I printed out the "Clean Break" and highlighted the relevant sections. I also explained that John Bolton is a member of JINSA and that at least one of the originators of the Clean Break paper was also a member of JINSA. I think I started to connect the dots."
Funny, because the "clean break" paper didn't call for the U.S. to invade Iraq. It actually called on Israel to become LESS dependent on the U.S., and to work with moderate neighbors such as Turkey and Jordan to isolate Baathist facist regimes, specifically Iraq and Syria. Alas, there is nary a peep of Iran in this document.
I have my own qualms with this paper, and think that the authors are incredibly short-sighted and naive. Nevertheless, it can't by any stretch, be seen as a blueprint for Bush's invasion of Iraq. But if you repeat a lie enough, I suppose you begin to believe it, right Brian?
Billmon is on fire today.
Going Down on the Downing Street Memo
Well, that is what media whores do best, isn't it?
Wolfowitz can't stop lying.
http://www.catch.com/comments/39090_0_17_0_C/
"the Clean Break paper didn't call for the U.S. to invade Iraq."
The paper calls for attacking and/or destablizing the governemnts of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq (in addition to abadoning the Oslo Accords). While it's true that Perle, Feith, Wurmser, et al. don't actually call for maneuvering the U.S. into doing this for them, I don't think you could actually expect them to in a public document. What I think was Brian's point is that it is a clear indication of a long-standing goal in the minds of the neocons who, after 9/11, saw a golden opportunity.
"While it's true that Perle, Feith, Wurmser, et al. don't actually call for maneuvering the U.S. into doing this for them, I don't think you could actually expect them to in a public document."
Huh? Plenty of people, "neocons" and otherwise, were quite publicly calling for removal of Saddam Hussein for quite some time. It may not have been a bright idea, but it certainly wasn't hidden.
A Clean Break was written for Netanyahu in 1996, who had just been elected Likud Prime Minister of Israel.
The significance lies in its authors, who included Douglas Feith (#3 at the Pentagon in the lead-up to What is Catchy Title the Iraq Invasion is Called Today? and head of the Office of Special Plans) David Wurmser, who is now on Cheney's staff, and Richard Perle -- what can we say about Richard Perle without our head and or Iran exploding?
BTW: Ken Blackwell, Ohio Sec. of State and the supposed mastermind of the Ohio vote defame, is on JINSA's advisory board.
And Hillary Clinton has a power shot of Sharon and herself prominently displayed on her website, along with streaming video of her traiterous (sp?) speech to AIPAC's 2005 conference.
http://clinton.senate.gov/
And Pelosi's address to AIPAC talked about how the US will protect Israel from Iran. You go first, Nance. Heck, I'll even buy you the body armor...
Fire all the liars, in both parties, before its too late for our own country.
"Huh? Plenty of people, "neocons" and otherwise, were quite publicly calling for removal of Saddam Hussein for quite some time."
Huh? You seem to be under the impression that the Clean Break paper was a policy statement devised by Americans for America. It is an Israeli document--a product of the Israeli Likud party for Israel. What may be confusing you is the strange sight of workers for a foreign government later receiving security clearances to work within our own government. It has always confused me too, but apparently exceptions are sometimes made.
Or is it your recollection that Jewish interests were NOT desperately pushing to get the U.S. involved in a war with Israel's opponents? That's definitely not my recollection. And I don't remember "plenty of people" joining them in the push. For example, the Iraq Liberation Act that Congress (that's U.S. congress, now) passed in 1998 required all of AIPAC's muscle to push through. It was no spontaneous expression of grass-roots American sentiment.
I didn't say the paper said we should invade Iraq. I said that it says we should "Secure the Realm", which we seem to be attempting at great expense to the US.
Guess you are the one repeating the lie.
Post a Comment
<< Home