If a Civil War Fits, You Can't Acquit

Maureen Dowd Links Bush to O.J.: If a Civil War Fits, You Can't Acquit

By E&P Staff

Published: November 24, 2006 11:35 PM ET

NEW YORK With a timely reference to the rise and fall of the O.J. Simpson tell-some book (and what she's calls the "Thanksgiving Day Massacre" in Iraq) Maureen Dowd in her Saturday column for The New York Times suggests that President Bush go on Fox News and declare, "IF I did it -- here’s how the civil war in Iraq happened.”

Bush, she writes, "could describe, hypothetically, a series of naïve, arrogant and self-defeating blunders, including his team’s failure to comprehend that in the Arab world, revenge and religious zealotry can be stronger compulsions than democracy and prosperity." Is she suggesting that Bush, like O.J., has gotten away with murder?

Dowd also reveals that her own paper, along with other news outlets, "have been figuring out if it’s time to break with the administration’s use of euphemisms like 'sectarian conflict.' How long can you have an ever-descending descent without actually reaching the civil war?

"Some analysts are calling it genocide or clash of civilizations, arguing that civil war is too genteel a term for the butchery that is destroying a nation before our very eyes....

"It will be harder to sell Congress on the idea that America’s troops should be in the middle of somebody else’s civil war than to convince them that we need to hang tough in the so-called front line of the so-called war on terror against Al Qaeda."

Sen. Chuck Hagel, the Republican from Nebraska, in an op-ed for The Washington Post today, calls for preparing a U.S. pullout in Iraq.

Dowd, meanwhile, hits Bush for his "preposterous" lessons learned in Vietnam, and Tony Snow for "ludicrous" hair-splitting in denying a civil war: "Mr. Snow has said this is not a civil war because the fighting is not taking place in every province and because Iraqis voted in free elections. But that’s like saying that the Battle of Gettysburg only took place in one small corner of the country, so there was no real American Civil War. And there were elections during our civil war too. President Lincoln was re-elected months before the war’s end."

The questions, she concludes, "are no longer whether there’s a civil war or whether we can achieve a military victory. The only question is, who can we turn the country over to?

"At the moment, that would be no one."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003438499

 

Imagine if Dowd had said, "that in the black world, revenge against whites and drug use can be stronger compulsions than democracy and prosperity."

I just LOVE the new Liberal line on Iraq, "how could Bush not know that Muslim's are savages who don't want democracy or peace." Just try applying a broad brush like that to American blacks.......or any other race or religion.

 

You really are one angry white male...

Black skin color is racial and not a choice, deciding to practice radical Islam is a choice...

I don't know of anyone who is rational and who is looking for peace that supports radical Islam's use of violence, and Dowd is not saying all Muslims practice radical Islam, but that a percentage do, and will continue to do so when their homeland is invaded by a western power. (Muslims also resisted the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR, and we funded and supported their efforts of resistance.)

It was well known and predicted accurately by those who understood Iraq and the political dynamics at work in Iraq that once Saddam was removed, that a power vacuum would ensue, and that some factions would resist a forced democracy as they had an opportunity to rise to power in an unstable situation.

Bush had no real exit strategy, no understanding of the culture, no understanding of history, just a neocon pipe dream.

Bush's initial thought of anti-Nation building he expressed in the 2000 election campaign was correct, but he was unduly influenced to ignore that concept and plunge full speed ahead into destabilization of Iraq.

It was downright irresponsible any way you cut it.

Think about it, no president can assure any particular foreign policy for more than 8 years, and the effort in Iraq could take more than 15 to 25 to have any real chance to influence future generations to "our" way of thinking.

To make promises that Bush can't keep, i.e. stay the course indefinitely, etc. when he knows damn well that a new president and congress can come in and make changes, is irresponsible.

The world is catching on to our system of government, and can see that what one leader promises, can't necessarily be fulfilled by future administrations.

Don't make promises you can't keep...

 

The simple FACT is that the American invasion of Iraq has resulted in more Iraqi civilian deaths than under Saddam.

Not only is the death count higher, but the Iraqis who are doing the dying are the innocent Iraqis who are just trying to survive each day, whereas Saddam was killing the Iraqis who are todays shiite "Killers".

The current civil war in Iraq is playing into Russian, Chinese and Iranian hands. All they have to do is play the waiting game and bleed America dry. Russia and Iran control more than 50% of the worlds energy reserves and China controls much of Americas debt. This civil war is exactly what the neocon command center in Zion calculated would happen. My guess is the assasinations in Lebanon are being carried out by Zion to further instigate a breakdown of Middle eastern society.

America is going to get body slammed and finished off with a 1 , 2 scissor kick to the solar plexus. Russia and Iran pledges cheap energy to Americas NATO allies in Europe to stay out and China dumps americas debt in the open market. When the global markets collapse, guess who will be buying the lows and putting your grandchildren in perpetual serfdom.

 

but if u ask hapa there's a huge difference between dyin' in the hands of coalition soldiers and under saddam. families of the dead sure think the same, dont they: "glad my son was tortured and killed in abu graib, instead than be shoot down by the bath party. much more honorable death".

 

MADRID (Reuters) - Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the prison's former U.S. commander said in an interview on Saturday.

Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski told Spain's El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2

 

is he gonna be prosecuted in the end? they are tryin' to establish a tribunal in germany[?] dont they.

 

We can hope that one day the "evil doers" are brought to justice...

 

Who said Pabst is white?

I think he is biracial... his father black and his mama white. Perhaps an unwanted pregnancy due to rape...

He is not angry, he is just frustrated.

 

Sleep deprivation.

Oh, the horror.

US Forces are no better than the SS were, or Saddam's torturers.

Moonbat lunacy....