Remember All The Purple Fingers; Well, Now Bush May Change the Whole Iraqi Government

P

Prakosh

Senior Member
Looks like the whole Iraqi Government is going to be changed for the better if George has his way. This should show those naysaywers who keep claiming that he won't change. He will change; just watch, oh and that Democracy thing, it's still one of the options, in fact it's the reason why we went there and of course splitting up the country is just one of those democratic decisions that Bush will be making. Yes, purple fingers or no; when it comes to Iraq George is calling all the shots, but it's not his fault if anything goes wrong. That blame falls directly on the back of Bill Clinton.


What About All Those Purple Fingers?
By John Amato

David Brooks has incredible access to the White House so when he said this shocker on "The Chris Matthews Show," I believed him. Bush is thinking about replacing the entire Iraq government. I kid you not.

Matthews: "David, do you believe the President is looking for an out from his doctrinaire policy of staying the course?"

Brooks: "Not really, no I don't. I think they're looking at policy options. One of those options is trying to replace the current government which seems to be doing nothing. The second option is some sort of federation which–Joe Biden has suggested as separating Iraq. A third option and by far the least likely is going in with more troops, So there's all different three options…We have much less control over Iraq than we did two or three years ago…"

I guess all those elections didn't really matter after all.

Full Story and Lovely David Brooks Video Clip
 
So, actually doing something differently would be a bad thing? Come on... You have to congratulate a group of people who recognize a problem and seek solutions to it.
 
Damocles said:
So, actually doing something differently would be a bad thing? Come on... You have to congratulate a group of people who recognize a problem and seek solutions to it.
Click to expand...

LOL!!! In the evolving series of reasons for going into Iraq the only thing left was the Democracy thing. Now we are just going to trash that and institute good old imperialism pure and simple.

Here's how the whole neo-con middle east operation was described in 2002:

"Stability wasn't their goal it was their target. They say [stability] as synonymous with stagnation. They wanted radical change in the Mideast. They were determined to drain the swamp--that is, to alter the political climate of the region so that it would no longer be so hospitable to the terrorists inhabiting it."

I guess the first question that pops into my head after reading this quotation is: How's that working for ya? Looks to me like they got what they wanted in spades. What could be more unstable than present day Iraq??? The administration and its minions of neo-cons were in fact, dismissive of the work done formerly by James Baker, Brent Scowcroft etc, and who is Bush now counting on to give him what will no doubt be a new direction in Iraq--none other than James Baker. Why is he going backwards in accepting ideas that he already rejected? He just got done talking about how stupid that was as it concerned North Korea why would it be more appropriate in dealing with Iraq??? Bush has clearly lost his compass.
 
Prakosh said:
LOL!!! In the evolving series of reasons for going into Iraq the only thing left was the Democracy thing. Now we are just going to trash that and institute good old imperialism pure and simple.

Here's how the whole neo-con middle east operation was described in 2002:

"Stability wasn't their goal it was their target. They say [stability] as synonymous with stagnation. They wanted radical change in the Mideast. They were determined to drain the swamp--that is, to alter the political climate of the region so that it would no longer be so hospitable to the terrorists inhabiting it."

I guess the first question that pops into my head after reading this quotation is: How's that working for ya? Looks to me like they got what they wanted in spades. What could be more unstable than present day Iraq??? The administration and its minions of neo-cons were in fact, dismissive of the work done formerly by James Baker, Brent Scowcroft etc, and who is Bush now counting on to give him what will no doubt be a new direction in Iraq--none other than James Baker. Why is he going backwards in accepting ideas that he already rejected? He just got done talking about how stupid that was as it concerned North Korea why would it be more appropriate in dealing with Iraq??? Bush has clearly lost his compass.
Click to expand...
There's nothing in that about "Good ole Imperialism"...

My whole point is, I'd be surprised if they actually do that. It would take actually realizing it isn't working and doing something about it over repeating the same mantra. I've seen no real evidence that this is even close to being reality.
 
Damocles said:
There's nothing in that about "Good ole Imperialism"...

My whole point is, I'd be surprised if they actually do that. It would take actually realizing it isn't working and doing something about it over repeating the same mantra. I've seen no real evidence that this is even close to being reality.
Click to expand...

Someone somewhere realizes that the original model for self-government in Iraq isn't working. Someone sent James Baker to do some investigation and to come up with some new ideas; the result of this is contained in a report that Baker and his men (I don't think there were any women involved) have submitted to the president and which the president has said he will not release until after the election. There is nothing more imperialistic than instituting a new government in a conquered land. It is the British model of imperialism. In fact, some would say that this is the simple definition of imperialism. Conquering a nation and forcing the occupied nation to do things your way. I think that Bush is reconsidering or someone in the administration is. They know they are screwed in the House because of the ways in which things have gone in Iraq. And this may leak over into the Senate as well. They all know they are putting lipstick on a pig.
 
"There is nothing more imperialistic than instituting a new government in a conquered land."

Right, then that was the plan all along. This is inane. Nothing new. The only thing remotely new that you bring up is that somebody high enough to do something about it may actually realize the current form isn't working as it should and is actually planning on doing something about it rather than continuing in the same fashion while "putting lipstick on a pig".
 
Damocles said:
"There is nothing more imperialistic than instituting a new government in a conquered land."

Right, then that was the plan all along. This is inane. Nothing new. The only thing remotely new that you bring up is that somebody high enough to do something about it may actually realize the current form isn't working as it should and is actually planning on doing something about it rather than continuing in the same fashion while "putting lipstick on a pig".
Click to expand...

You do know what "regime change" means don't you???

As near as I can tell, no matter what else Bush and Co. said they were doing "regime change" seems to have been at the top of their agenda. And in fact, it seems to be about all that they have actually accomplished in Iraq. And according to Scott Ritter who will be speaking at a can't miss event in Manhatten tonight on the same bill with Seymour Hersh, that seems to be their stated goal in Iran as well. And remember Bush has claimed that he is the only one who has the opportunity and the political will to carry off such a dramatic operation. And of course, he has such a proven track record. Saddam is no longer the ruler of Iraq. In fact, according to most recent speculation, nobody is...And if that doesn't qualify as change nothing does.
 
Prakosh said:
You do know what "regime change" means don't you???

As near as I can tell, no matter what else Bush and Co. said they were doing "regime change" seems to have been at the top of their agenda. And in fact, it seems to be about all that they have actually accomplished in Iraq. And according to Scott Ritter who will be speaking at a can't miss event in Manhatten tonight on the same bill with Seymour Hersh, that seems to be their stated goal in Iran as well. And remember Bush has claimed that he is the only one who has the opportunity and the political will to carry off such a dramatic operation. And of course, he has such a proven track record. Saddam is no longer the ruler of Iraq. In fact, according to most recent speculation, nobody is...And if that doesn't qualify as change nothing does.
Click to expand...
Which was my point. What? You can't understand "Then that was the plan all along!" ? Really? What part of that sentence didn't clearly point out your definition of "imperialism" was reached long before we ever went there?

It's almost like you can comprehend English when you are posting something. It's just when you are answering that makes it so clear that you cannot...
 
Damocles said:
Which was my point. What? You can't understand "Then that was the plan all along!" ? Really? What part of that sentence didn't clearly point out your definition of "imperialism" was reached long before we ever went there?

It's almost like you can comprehend English when you are posting something. It's just when you are answering that makes it so clear that you cannot...
Click to expand...

What role does the word "then" play in your response? If it serves no useful purpose and evidently it doesn't, then why include it???? Why not just say: "Right, that was the plan all along" or more simply "I agree"! The problem is your answers are worded in ways that are nearly always more ambiguous than you realize or perhaps will admit. I don't know which it is.
 
Well, because you pointed out that this was some imperialistic activity... I pointed out that it was the same as from the beginning, the "then" differentiated the beginning action from the current.... Notice how that works?

I was pointing out that, just as I originally posted, this was nothing new.

And I'll continue to say that even with all that you say here I highly doubt this action will be taken because past record shows that admitting it isn't working isn't part of the current Administration's plans...
 
Damocles said:
Well, because you pointed out that this was some imperialistic activity... I pointed out that it was the same as from the beginning, the "then" differentiated the beginning action from the current.... Notice how that works?

I was pointing out that, just as I originally posted, this was nothing new.

And I'll continue to say that even with all that you say here I highly doubt this action will be taken because past record shows that admitting it isn't working isn't part of the current Administration's plans...
Click to expand...

Bush may no longer be running the show, if he ever was! In which case what you say here may not be relevant. There have been some structural changes instituted by people with money and connections. I have heard that Bush is no longer in charge.
 
Damocles said:
So, actually doing something differently would be a bad thing? Come on... You have to congratulate a group of people who recognize a problem and seek solutions to it.
Click to expand...
if the "something different" one does is to toss out the democratically elected government of Iraq and replace it with a handpicked puppet regime of Bush's - and not the Iraqi people's chosing..then yes..... that is a bad thing.

and it removes all the bullshit gloss we have listened to that says we are establishing a multi-ethnic democracy that will stand like a beacon of freedom in the middle east..... the people in Iraq voted..what fucking RIGHT does anyone in America think they have to summarily overturn that result?
 
once we told them they could vote and that their vote counted, we have to let them have what they voted for and watch it fail, if necessary, rather than impose our imperial will for OUR benefit.
 
Prakosh said:
Bush may no longer be running the show, if he ever was! In which case what you say here may not be relevant. There have been some structural changes instituted by people with money and connections. I have heard that Bush is no longer in charge.
Click to expand...
Even if he isn't the Administration is. Which is what I attributed the current course to...
 
maineman said:
if the "something different" one does is to toss out the democratically elected government of Iraq and replace it with a handpicked puppet regime of Bush's - and not the Iraqi people's chosing..then yes..... that is a bad thing.

and it removes all the bullshit gloss we have listened to that says we are establishing a multi-ethnic democracy that will stand like a beacon of freedom in the middle east..... the people in Iraq voted..what fucking RIGHT does anyone in America think they have to summarily overturn that result?
Click to expand...
This is disingenuous as well. Re-electing a new government is not replacing it with one chosen by Bush!
 
maineman said:
once we told them they could vote and that their vote counted, we have to let them have what they voted for and watch it fail, if necessary, rather than impose our imperial will for OUR benefit.
Click to expand...
They are saying, "We want your vote to count, if this government will not do the work that government should we will help you to select a new one that will!"
 
Damocles said:
They are saying, "We want your vote to count, if this government will not do the work that government should we will help you to select a new one that will!"
Click to expand...

Why don't we have that option to appoint or select a new government when we tire of the old one like that??? You know when going to war isn't working anymore??? I mean we are a democracy too, no???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top