Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Who Is Hadley Talking About?

Which 'war-time' leader is Stephen J. Hadley, really writing about in this Nov. 8 National Security Council memorandum?
He impressed me as a leader who wanted to be strong but was having difficulty figuring out how to do so. . . . Perhaps because he is frustrated over his limited ability to command _____ forces against terrorists and insurgents, _____ has been trying to show strength by standing up to the _____ . . . .

It is less clear whether _____ is a witting participant. The information he receives is undoubtedly skewed by his small circle of _____ advisers, coloring his actions and interpretation of reality. His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the _____ hierarchy and force positive change. But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests _____ is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.
Give up?
Released today by the New York Times

11 Moderated Comments:

Blogger skip sievert said...

Bush and his cohorts don`t care if the country falls apart further or, how many more people die.
They have accomplished their mission. Mission accomplished , they wrested control of Iraq unto themselves, now they control the resource base there.

Bush has been a ringing success. British Petroleum and Saudi Oil , and others , think he is the greatest guy in the world.
Who else ever made them this much money.?
No one.
Do they want to put the Iraqi oil on the market.?
Ha Ha no, they want to keep it off the market.
MISSION ACOMPLISHED.
They will let some trickle out to so called, fund the rebuilding of Iraq , which of course they have almost utterly destroyed.
We do not have a political system here now really. It is more organized thugs that work for the Big Boys. Corporate control.
Military/Industrial/Congressional, control.
Legalized organized crime.
America runs on war, murder, lying, and cheating.
The American people are mostly clueless.
America is in the top two , of the most hated country`s in the world.
Could there be a reason for that.?
Americans themselves are blissfully ignorant of the schemes and lies of our thug society leaders.
The New York Times , was a part of the interesting disinformation thrust to get us into the war.
Why.?
Money. Lots and lots of money made for their friends.
Americans are an ignorant group of people.
Political cronies and hacks in particular.

11/29/2006 08:20:00 AM  
Blogger Malfrat said...

Vigilante, your post this morning is a cheap shot. But it works for me!

11/29/2006 08:28:00 AM  
Blogger Cyberotter said...

Maliki

11/29/2006 09:32:00 AM  
Blogger Messenger said...

Cybertrotter, I understand. The US invaded their country, abolished their army, gutted their civil service, occupied their cities, and now it is the Iraqis' fault.

11/29/2006 11:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's damn funny

11/29/2006 05:50:00 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

I tell you one thing, Schmog. It occurs to me that the Pope has more courage and more tolerance for hostility than George Bush. I'm not Catholic, but I can recognize courage a mile off. Bush can't go to Baghdad to meet with Maliki, but the Pope can go to Constantinople. I Give the German cone-head his props!

11/29/2006 07:30:00 PM  
Anonymous pekka said...

I am worried that Skip might be more right than anybody else around here. That would make us to be...damn fools.

11/29/2006 07:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

True, Vigilante - I hadn't really thought about it in those terms. And to show just how dangerous such an outreach is to terrorists, note Al-Qaeda's statements denouncing the visit as a danger to Islam. That scares them more than bombs do. I'm not really a fan of Ratzinger -er- Benedict, however -- it's hard to have any empathy for former Hitler Youth. But then again, Robert Byrd was an Exalted Cyclops of the KKK, so perhaps people can change. Perhaps. (And he voted against the Iraq war).

This is why I think we need to talk with our enemies. There's an old rule, keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

11/29/2006 09:20:00 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

In reference to Messenger's comment above:

Thomas Ricks (Fiasco) makes the point that Hadley's complaints about Maliki are tantamount to cutting Iraqis' legs off at the knees, giving them brand new pairs of sneakers and then complaining they can't run fast enough.

12/02/2006 12:10:00 AM  
Blogger Emily said...

We have reached civil war in Iraq, Bush and Cheney can't face it, but the rest of us have to. Tim Rutten, today:

"The White House and those who still support the war in Iraq are desperate to prevent the conflict from being described as a civil war because they understand that certain conclusions are likely to follow from that classification. Perhaps foremost among them is a belief that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his tyranny set in motion a chain of events that have made things worse for the Iraqi people and their country's situation more dangerous for everybody else in the world — including the United States. On the other side of the divide are those whose opposition to the war is rooted in a reflexive hostility toward George W. Bush. To them, the term "civil war" is useful not because it accurately describes the tragedy in Iraq, but because — in their view — it brings the president one step closer to complete humiliation."

12/02/2006 04:44:00 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

Excellent, Emily. I can't swear I won't use this in my next post.

12/03/2006 12:15:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home