I alternate, in the course of what I find in my researching reports on the current, "out of control", Israel/Lebanon/Palestinian/U.S./U.K./Iraq "situation" in the M.E., of trying to surpress, alternately, and sometimes....even simultaneous....an urge to scream, or to laugh uncontrolably.....
Once, upon a time....there was a guy, Wayne White, at the State Dept., where he worked as State's chief inteligence expert on Iraq. I detailed his middle east expertise here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...73&postcount=2
Mr. White has an impressive background; he seems qualified to reliably say:
Quote:
http://harpers.org/sb-six-questions-...308402183.html
Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006. Wayne White, now an Adjunct Scholar with Washington's Middle East Institute, <b>was Deputy Director of the State Department's Office of Middle East and South Asia Analysis until March 2005.....</b>
1. Condoleezza Rice is leaving for the Middle East. Is her trip likely to lead to any favorable diplomatic outcome?
<h3>I don't think so. At least not anytime soon..........
I believe her activities have been tailored to give the impression of action while not designed to make any real progress toward the urgent ceasefire that should be everyone's highest priority.</h3>
|
Now....a challenge to any of you folks who support Mr. Bush. I'm assuming that, if you read Wayne White's answer, above, regarding Sec. of State Rice's efforts at diplomacy....can anyone read the following Q&A, and then watch the 90 second video of it, and tell us your version of what the fuck it was the Mr. Bush had to say....in response to David Gregory's simple question?
Quote:
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=2
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 28, 2006
Remarks by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair of the United Kingdom in Press Availability
......PRESIDENT BUSH: David Gregory.
Q Thank you. Mr. President, both of you, I'd like to ask you about the big picture that you're discussing. Mr. President, three years ago, you argued that an invasion of Iraq would create a new stage of Arab-Israeli peace. And yet today, there is an Iraqi Prime Minister who has been sharply critical of Israel. Arab governments, despite your arguments, who have criticized Hezbollah, have now changed their tune. Now they're sharply critical of Israel. <b>And despite from both of you, warnings to Syria and Iran to back off support from Hezbollah, effectively, Mr. President, your words are being ignored. So what has happened to America's clout in this region that you've committed yourself to transform?</b>
PRESIDENT BUSH: David, it's an interesting period because instead of having foreign policies based upon trying to create a sense of stability, we have a foreign policy that addresses the root causes of violence and instability.
For a while, American foreign policy was just, let's hope everything is calm, kind of managed calm. But beneath the surface brewed a lot of resentment and anger that was manifested in its -- on September the 11th. And so we've taken a foreign policy that says, on the one hand, we will protect ourselves from further attack in the short-run by being aggressive and chasing down the killers and bringing them to justice -- and make no mistake, they're still out there, and they would like to harm our respective peoples because of what we stand for -- in the long-term, to defeat this ideology, and they're bound by an ideology. You defeat it with a more hopeful ideology called freedom.
And, look, I fully understand some people don't believe it's possible for freedom and democracy to overcome this ideology of hatred. I understand that. I just happen to believe it is possible, and I believe it will happen. And so what you're seeing is a clash of governing styles, for example. The notion of democracy beginning to emerge scares the ideologues, the totalitarians, those who want to impose their vision. It just frightens them, and so they respond. They've always been violent.
I hear this amazing kind of editorial thought that says, all of a sudden Hezbollah has become violent because we're promoting democracy. They have been violent for a long period of time. Or Hamas. One reason why the Palestinians still suffer is because there are militants who refuse to accept a Palestinian state based upon democratic principles.
And so what the world is seeing is a desire by this country and our allies to defeat the ideology of hate with an ideology that has worked and that brings hope. And one of the challenges, of course, is to convince people that Muslims would like to be free, that there's other people other than people in Britain and America that would like to be free in the world. There's this kind of almost -- kind of weird kind of elitism, that says, well, maybe certain people in certain parts of the world shouldn't be free; maybe it's best just to let them sit in these tyrannical societies. And our foreign policy rejects that concept. We don't accept it.
And so we're working. And this is -- as I said the other day, when these attacks took place, I said this should be a moment of clarity for people to see the stakes in the 21st century. I mean, there's an unprovoked attack on a democracy. Why? I happen to believe, because progress is being made toward democracies. And I believe that -- I also believe that Iran would like to exert additional influence in the region. A theocracy would like to spread its influence using surrogates.
And so I'm as determined as ever to continue fostering a foreign policy based upon liberty. And I think it's going to work, unless we lose our nerve and quit. And this government isn't going to quit.
<h3>Q I asked you about the loss of American influence in the region......</h3>
|
You can watch the 90 second video of the above "exchange", here:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bus...ir-7-28-06.wmv
IMO, 30 percent of the world's petroleum is supplied by the M.E. region. The region is currently descending into escalating violence/chaos, and the U.S., formerly looked at and listened to as the diplomatic arbiter that could subdue violent exchanges between the regional "players" and get the parties talking to each other, instead of shooting, <b>has lost both the will and the ability to lower tensions, or be respected as a fair and trustworthy arbiter by anyone, except the Israelis.</b>
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072701537.html
3,700 Troops' Stay In Iraq Is Extended
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 28, 2006; Page A21
......President Bush this week said that additional troops were needed to fight the "terrible" violence that has erupted in Iraq...
...The move will temporarily push U.S. troop levels in Iraq above 130,000 for at least the next few months and decreases the chances that the United States will be able to significantly reduce the number of forces in Iraq by the end of the year.....
|
The increased chaos and the loss of U.S. influence in containing it, will support an uncertainty premium on petroleum prices, at minimum, and possibly interrupt supply. <b>In addition to the higher costs of petroleum:</b>
Quote:
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstrac...no=GAO-06-885T
Global War on Terrorism: Observations on Funding, Costs, and Future Commitments, GAO-06-885T, July 18, 2006
The U.S. has reported substantial costs to date for GWOT related activities and can expect to incur significant costs for an unspecified time in the future, requiring decision makers to consider difficult trade-offs as <b>the nation faces increasing long-range fiscal challenges....</b>
.....Since 2001, Congress has appropriated about $430 billion to DOD and other government agencies for military and diplomatic efforts in support of GWOT. This funding has been provided through regular appropriations as well as <b>supplemental appropriations, which are provided outside of the normal budget process........</b>
|
So far, I wonder <b>what</b> the folks who backed the invasion of Iraq, the "reality" of Iraqi WMD, the GWOT, and the Bush encouraged, at least since 2003;total support for anything Israel decides to do, diplomatically and militarily, regarding it's neighbors, <b>have assessed correctly.</b>
None of these policies.....WMD or Democratization "justified" invasion and occupation of Iraq, or the 2002 shift in focus and military presence from Afghanistan to Iraq, or the unequivocal U.S. support for Israel, have been in the national interest of the U.S. Time is beginning to reveal both the costs and the "results" of these M.E./GWOT policies.
<b>IMO, David Gregory asked a simple question to Mr. Bush, on behalf of all of us.......</b>