Hardy har har. Okay, touche.

Yeah ... Definitely the last line.

But I was telling willravel the other day ... I agree with some of you on many subjects, I often just don't have much to add. It's these lopsided conspiracies and broad generalizations that bring me from out of the woodwork. I've been trying to avoid flame feuds lately. I probably need to jump in on things I agree with more often to show support.

One does get enveloped into a sea of liberal when they agree with the majority, I know. Still, it's nice to be a part of the big group when you agree with them.

A distillation of my last post:


Witness the president of the United States, just the other day, accusing Iran of "continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups", while the US military in Iraq coddles a US state dept. designated terrorist group, allowing it to buy time while it tries to convince the state dept. not to designate it as a "terrorist" organization, because, even though <h3>the information the terrorist group provides to the US government on Iran's nuclear weapons development clearly contradicts the conclusions in the last two NIEs,</h3> the president and the vice-president clearly agree with the propaganda of the terrorist group it has permitted the US military in Iraq, to coddle, against the express wishes of the Iraqi government.

<h2>People !!! Our troops are dying to maintain this dysfunction !!!</h2>

Regarding the questions: Because of the way host frames his questions, I'm not the guy to ask. I see a much bigger picture than rabidly obsessing about evil GW Bush and the evil neo-cons ... one worn spoke on a giant wheel. If someone is REALLY interested in getting some answers, I say why stop there? There are multifaceted and multidimensional interests at play on every level of the game. In keeping with my ongoing self-rehabilitation on TFP ... and until host is willing to venture beyond tediously litigating his obsession ... I'm not interested.

One giant spoke on a worn wheel? I'd say Bush and the neo-cons make up an entire wheel.

Seriously what have these people accomplished? What have they done to make this country better? What has turned out the way they told us it would? Why would anyone still believe anything they say.

i think that the historical bloc we are looking at here extends back to the formation of the neo-con movement itself, so we are looking at the mid-to-late 1970s with the reagan administration as the surfacing of the Beast. this is the period of the construction of neoliberalism out of thatcherite and reagan-cadre political/ideological materials. what the bush people appear to be the endgame of is the hegemonic period of neoliberalism (noeliberalism being the term used to refer to what you see sometimes called "market fundamentalism" in the states--for some reason, this ideology has gone largely unnamed here, which i think is a HUGE problem because it explains such purchase as this vacant ideology still has on folk--the don't necessarily see it as an ideology, but more as just how the world operates...the problems with the bush administration, had they been more competent, could have been confined to problems for the right--but i think it's much bigger than that now, given the convergence of the financial system crisis and the political fallout from the idiocy of the "war on terror"--this not even to begin really thinking about what it would mean were these asshats to invade or bomb iran...)

i don't see any particular difference ideologically between the reagan, bush 1, clinton and bush 2 administrations--i see differences in tactics within the same basic conceptual world. clinton is a neoliberal who favored multi-lateral arrangements; bush a neo-liberal who favors bilateral agreements. in the difference between the two lay the space of radical nationalism, that lovely neofascist element that the bush people used and used and used in a context of such radical and sustained ineptness that they've managed to shatter much of its appeal...

if you look at the bush people in this longer-term context, much of what's happening makes more sense--and the formation of the neo-con movement and its rise to maxmimized incompetence is a central organizing feature.

that's a frame.

edit ... Tully Mars, sorry for the jab in my original response.

What people? And what do you assume has not been accomplished? The point is, "they" have accomplished much. Try broadening your sense of "they". What's obvious is the tip of the iceberg, I'm not defending anyone here.

"Move ahead, try to detect it" Devo - Whip It

That's a reasonable approach ... however, and we've explored this as well, maintaining the status quo in the media (complicit or unaware), global corporatism, and the like. I see lot's of layers managing perceptions and providing/indulging diversions. We can only guess at the end game ... is there an end game?

It isn't only that they have not gotten anything right....they don't seem to even want to get it right.

The 2005 and 2007 NIEs refute the core claims of their "prime source", and they're pissing off the Iraqi government as they coddle these terrorists who worked closely with Saddam....terrorists who the administration linked to Saddam in 2002 as a reason to justify invading Iraq!
There was no coherence in Bush's statement the other, day, accusing Iran of supporting "militants", as the US supports MEK on the ground, but brands it as a terrorist organization, Bush quotes it's former spokesman's propaganda, and his government permits the man to live here and work for Foxnews, posting new pro-Mek/NCRI "reports" on Fox, several times per month.

Bush talks of reducing Iranian government influence on Iraqi shi'a, even as his policies refuse to recognize the strength of the ties, and deliberately aggravate our own government's relations with the shi'a majority and it's government. MEK has not provided accurate information on Iranian nuclear weapons development, according to two NIEs in a row.....both fiercely challenged by Cheney and his staff....suppressed, delayed, altered....but finally realeased.

So, why not comply with Iraqi demands, and stop supporting MEK?

Bush has come right out and discredited the latest NIE...he has his "own intelligence".....is he fucking nuts?
....and Ottopilot, considering the record of the administration since August, 2001, further aggravated by all of the lies they publicly told about the threat from Iran....right before they knew that the NIE would be released, your attempt in your response to make me look like I'm lowering the level of the discussion here, when you add nothing in your post but vague...."big picture", "higher level", nuances.....is amusing and quite telling.

Actually I read a lot.

I read this:

What people? And what do you assume has not been accomplished? The point is, "they" have accomplished much.


In three sentences you seemingly don't know who "they are" and then proceed to exclaim "they" have accomplished much. And I'm the one making a "non-point."?

As to you're not defending anyone, sometimes the best defense is offense. You attack rather often.

Thanks Ottopilot.....at least you bother to post vague responses. The silence from the rest of what was once a "Mighty Wurlitzer", has lately only been broken to bring us a piece authored by Norman Podheretz to read....
Ahhh...the pesty, but apparently irrelevant new detail that the NIE finds no imminent danger of Iran producing a nuclear weapon! It couldn't be the hopelessly flawed, paranoid, "crimes against humanity be damned", blind ambition and aggression of Podheretz & Co., that is the real problem....it has to be that damned NIE that gets in the way of neocon "reality"!

The US used to believe that preemptive military attack was a war crime....now we have people on this forum. and a US president who seem not even to believe that an NIE defining the imminent threat is a necessary prelude to justify such an attack!

Yet, according to Ottopilot, "the big picture", means that host's posts are the flaw....host asks the wrong questions....too narrow and Bush-centric!

Fair enough, please accept my apology ... I meant for some of my questions to be philosophical questions. The "what people" was asking for a clarification of your question. The "they" I refer to are players on a broader spectrum. My earlier comments to roachboy were:
I was in agreement with not liking what Bush and others have done. However, I see cause and effect in these matters with broader diversity.

Regarding attacks, I believe you'll find that I challenge more than attack. If you felt attacked, again, my apologies.

Still....three posts, and not one single specific from you.....

Wait....there is one:
I share....to a fault in the eyes of some....what are you sharing?

It always amazes me how bent out of shape Americans get about Iran.

Just how many nations has Iran invaded over the last 50 or 60 years?

Considering the hostile neighbourhood? It's surprising.

But, hey, they went through a revolution and were brutalized by Iraq.... they've been kind of busy.

The point being Iran hasn't invaded anyone. They sit there, occasionally rattle a sabre or some students hold a few Americans hostage ... their record says they are a relatively peaceful nation. Not to say they don't agitate but that's a pretty minor crime.

Meanwhile, the US and the UK - how many nations have they invaded in the same time frame?

Well, here's something interesting for you... I'm not sure if the allegations about Iran are true or not, but I can assure you 100% that as of Spring 2007, the US was prepared to send troops into Iran from Afghanistan. In fact, there was a troop mass-up on the western border of Afghanistan for exactly that reason... in areas that are not under US-led forces (but rather other coalition forces). Who knows what happened, but the troops were redisbursed into US-occupied areas about mid-summer.

If you want the next big war, look at Pakistan. With the new government working to appease the "wild west", aka the lawless border region with Afghanistan, they have been putting less pressure on the regional tribes, most of whom are pro-Taliban. A large spike of cross-border snatch and grabs of Afghan citizens known to be working with the US for the sake of execution on the Pakistan side of the border is making things rather uncomfortable in many eastern provinces. An example of this... look up news over the past year or so on Khost province. During the entirety of 2007 and early 2008, it was THE de facto model of the US counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. That status is rapidly falling apart, in great deal due to what I mentioned above. The locals are becoming alarmingly less willing to cooperate with US forces.

At any rate,1) the Iran thing almost escalated heavily and, 2) expect troops on ground in Pakistan before Bush leaves office.

Cynical..... moi?