Iraq Paradox: Cracking Down While Promoting Freedom

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 — At one of the first meetings of the White House's new Iraq Stabilization Group, days before the series of attacks on Monday that left at least 34 dead, President Bush's aides debated the trade-off between locking down Baghdad and demonstrating to Iraqis that they now live in an open society, where they are free to shop, go to work or even protest the American-led occupation.

"It wasn't much of a discussion," one of Mr. Bush's senior aides reported. "We couldn't turn the place into a police state for long, even if we wanted to. And if we did, it would be a pyrrhic victory."

Now that question is more urgent than ever.

Even with the number and sophistication of the daily attacks accelerating, Mr. Bush's response to questions about how the United States should respond has become almost automatic: The United States is slowly winning hearts and minds, and making Saddam Hussein's loyalists "more desperate" each day.

(snip)

It is a balancing act, one senior administration official said during Mr. Bush's trip to Asia, that is being made all the more difficult by the absence of vocal support from the rest of the Arab world.

There has been no outcry, he noted, from "neighboring states — our allies — as the attacks on Americans have mounted. No outcry at all. Which has got to embolden the terror groups."

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/international/middleeast/28ASSE.html?hp

...would certainly be pyrrhic. Victory would probably be in the eyes of the beholder and not good for anyone. So much for the IQ of bush senior aides.

Some of them are next on the neo-con hit list.

They were not allowed to praise the bush regime under the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein.

Now they have the freedom not only to praise the Regime, but to die to defend Halliburton's freedom to have more money.

The White House strategy, one senior official noted, depends heavily on choking off those funds, guns and explosives so that the Hussein loyalists are gradually starved of resources. "To look at the plan," the senior official said, "the starvation effect should have started a few months ago. It didn't — and that's something to worry about."

Unbelievably stupid. Where do you start with a statement that's so abysmally incompetent?

democracy at gunpoint. The two are mutually exclusive. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric they want us to believe. Thank goodness for people who see through this mentally deranged logic.

Been that way for 2 years. "Protecting our Liberties" by systematically eroding all our freedoms. Might as well start implementing it in our new 52nd State.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Fire Twirling Pictures/Train to hell




http://www.eaglefeatherphotography.com/pages/Train%20to%20hell_jpg.htm

BUSH: WE'LL STAY ON TRACK

The Red Cross may pull out of Baghdad after a series of terror attacks on its headquarters.


Four fatal blasts hit the relief agency's building preceding a wave of suicide bombs across the Iraqi capital.

The bloodiest day in post-war Iraq so far, killed around 40 people and injured 235.

But American president George Bush and his Secretary of State, Colin Powell, have urged the world not to succumb to fears over the ever worsening guerrilla attacks.

The Red Cross headquarters was targeted by a bomb driven in an ambulance and three police stations were also attacked.

The bombs went off within 45 minutes of each other during Monday morning's rush hour.
(snip)
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12886946,00.html

Did you expect the Saudi royal family to support your efforts to install a democracy? How about the Kuwaiti royal family? How about the Jordanian royal family? How about the Baathist dictator of Syria? How about the fundamentalist imams in Iran? Just who the hell were you expecting vocal support from? Turkey, who opposed the war? Egypt, which also opposed it?

(except their own freedom to wield unquestioned power, to loot and lie at will and without challenege...)

The Iraqis should have known this (they probably did and do): The Busheviks are in the process of eradicating freedom in the Amerikan Empire...would they dare to allow Iraq to have anything better than the Imperial Subjects of Amerika (it might make us jealous)?

Of course not.

The Busheviks' repeated use of the word "freedom" is just another in a long line of odious, Orwellian lies.

It's no paradox, because the second half of the proposition is pure bullshit.

I will do whatever my civilian and military commanders tell me to do, without reflection on whether or not what they are ordering is permitted by the Constitution (since I want to get ahead in the military). This mind-set is represented by such people as:


Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Bush senior's presidency (took over when Admiral William Crowe wouldn't agree to Bush senior's illegal invasion of Panama)

General Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the Gulf War against Iraq


General Maxwell Thurman, commander of Operation Just Cause, the military attack on Panama (took over from General Frederick Woerner, when Woerner wouldn't agree to Bush senior's illegal invasion of Panama)

the six U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in the time frame: 8/7/02 (after they'd been coerced into agreement with Bush and Powell)

General Tommy Franks, current U.S. military commander in Afghanistan

US Air Force General Ralph E. Eberhart, head of the newly established Northern Command
(snip)

http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm