-- Paul Craig Roberts. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Article excerpt, "Iraq: Recent Visitors Question US Tactics" by Jim Lobe While electricity generation now exceeds pre-invasion levels, markets are plentiful, and virtually all school-aged children are back at their desks, the war for Iraqi ''hearts and minds'' remains very much up in the air, say independent analysts who have recently returned from that country. ''This could go either way,'' Kenneth Pollack, a former Middle East analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), told an audience gathered at the Brookings Institution here Tuesday. Like many experts, Pollack, who supported last spring's invasion, is growing increasingly concerned that U.S. military tactics in trying to defeat resistance to the occupation might in fact be creating new enemies among the population. Serious political mistakes have also undermined the prospects for eventual U.S. success, according to these analysts. Charles Duelfer, another Middle East specialist who served as a deputy chief inspector of the United Nations disarmament team in Iraq, said the early dissolution of the Ba'ath Party and of the Iraqi army and security services were potentially fatal mistakes that have permanently alienated a key part of the population and, in their eyes, transformed them into enemies.link to article
basso, who knows? You have an inside scoop? So, you get to use inference, but your political adversaries cannot use inference? And you see "ample evidence" for us having fewer enemies, and no evidence that we have more enemies? It boggles my mind. We have a bunch of dead bodies, a pile that grows every day (though we're not given access to the numbers of Iraqis killed), and we had, for over a year, a number of condemning speeches from foreign dignitaries. If you can find some message in that gory and disturbing set of tea leaves, I salute you. This is all so silly. Will someone please merge this with giddy's "Bush Covered It!" thread? Pretty please? I know that thread got locked, but aren't we all better off for it?
Thanks, gifford. More and more prominent Republicans are "coming out of the closet" and blasting the Bush Administration... in this case, it's decision to invade Iraq. Meanwhile, some Republicans and Bush supporters continue the same, tired defense of the same reckless and un-American foreign policy. Hey, sometimes it makes for entertaining reading, even if it makes little sense. So, what axe does Webb have to grind??
NO wait it gets better. You neo's will love this. Oh wait it's al-jazeera, the pix must be doctored. Clinton urges Syria-Israel peace talks By Amal Hamdan Monday 12 January 2004, 23:40 Makka Time, 20:40 GMT Former US President Bill Clinton says Syrian President Bashar al-Asad is in a good position to move forward with Israel in peace following Israel's call for the Syrian leader to visit Jerusalem for peace talks. Speaking in Qatar's capital Doha to Aljazeera.net, Clinton said on Monday that he had hoped the late Syrian leader Hafez al-Asad could have signed a peace deal with Israel during the 2000 Shepherdstown talks, during which Clinton was president. He said both sides would have had to have made_difficult compromises. Clinton described Israeli President Moshe Katsav's Monday call for al-Asad to visit Jerusalem for peace talks as "wonderful", adding al-Asad would be aware_that moving forward in the Syrian-Israeli peace track would facilitate a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
not sure what your point is here. are you saying assad only called the israelis because clinton suggested it?
Oh no, just another coincidence, like yours... that coupled with the fact that Clinton still garners more respect in the Middle East than W ever will.
well if that's all it takes, why doesn't he just ask his buddy arafat to make nice with sharon and get this whole intifada thing over with?
No kidding. I swear that I could write 99.9% of his responses for him, just based on how predictable he is.
While it doesn't say so in that article implicitely, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to determine that Clinton is more trusted in the middle east than W.
Maybe this is a bit off topic. I find the point of that "article" extremely similar to a common theme in the GARM: What Yao Ming should do to become a dominating player.
I'm unconvinced. What did Clinton ever do WRT the ME? And FWIW, respect <> like. I am no brain surgeon, and I am still at a loss how you can make the claim ... or would it be assumption?
How many times has Bush hosted and/or personally attended peace talks with middle eastern leaders, other than inviting Sharon to the Rose Garden? Has he hosted a summit at Camp David?
Why do I get the feeling that some people think we attacked Iraq because they invaded Kuwait... Oh, wait...that was 1991. So, after 911, we went into Iraq because of humanitarian reasons all along? Yeah right. It was because they Bushes wanted to go in regardless; because they didn't know how to fight the elusive "terrorism" So they come up with a briliant idea, "Well, we can't sit around looking like a clueless Bush Administration, lets do something...Attack Iraq!" So, in order to justify it, they link WMD with Iraq. Oh, and while we were there, they might as well try to find Saddam, pat themselves on the back for the "hard fought war and eliminating terrorism" Like if Iraq had a chance in the first place. I mean, this is not WWII. There was never a question about military might vs military might. Oh, and why not just make Haliburton a little cash/money while were there for Bushes buddies??? Then they can claim that the US is "rebuilding Iraq for honorable reasons" Again, pat themselves on the backs. Heh...it's all about painting a picture of deception.
