Tom Friedman has a good piece about the peace process and Israel today, or a halfway digestible one anyway. It is influenced by the goodnatured Aaron David Miller. But Friedman persists in offering the lone-gunman theory of Iraq:
The rise of Iran as a threat to Israel today is directly related to Mr. Bush’s failure to succeed in Iraq
Mr. Bush's failure to succeed. In other words, it was a great idea to invade and occupy a country that did not attack us. It is always Bush. But Friedman was an important proponent of the ideas that gave us this war, as were a great number of Washington intellectuals (yes most of them Israel-lovers--including Friedman, who wrote on Slate that it was a good thing to smash Saddam to answer the thinking behind suicide bombers in Tel Aviv pizza parlors). When will the neocons and fellow travelers come down off their grassy knoll and admit their responsibility?
Your question: When will the neocons and fellow travelers come down off their grassy knoll and admit their responsibility?
The answer: Never.
Those 25 neocons say mass American fear and anxiety and moral mission after 9/11 made us attack Iraq. They totally ignore the complictiy of virtually the entire establishment in jumping on the badwagon of lies to the American people, the manipulation of mass America's ignorance and trust in their representatives. I wanna puke. It's like talking to Charlie Manson, talking to these neoncons.
Part of what makes these chickenhawk neocons/ziocons/leocons so wicked and odious is that the Nazis took more moral responsibility for their Evil than Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol, Krauthammer, Friedman and the boys.
Part of what makes these chickenhawk neocons/ziocons/leocons so wicked and odious is that the Nazis took more moral responsibility for their Evil than Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol, Krauthammer, Friedman and the boys.
This is a total about face for TF, but I guess we should accept it even if he will never admit his own culpability in the Iraq fiasco.
Does this mean that an important neocon voice is really supporting a two state solution? Or is just some more delaying for time to build more facts on the ground so the Palestinians will never have their own state?
How can we trust these words? These are the same words that perpetuated the Oslo process and Camp David negotiations. Just smoke that allowed settlement expansion.
It's cinema verite–I can't resist re-posting this url, since it illustrates the level of discussion to which our political process has descended: witness the dean of American foreign policy commentators employ the language of rapists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOF6ZeUvgXs
They're our best and brightest!
"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03
You have a gripping blog.
I just discovered it .
Robert
Look – this is all part of the narrative.
This is so easy to spot that I hesitate to even post this "Captain Obvious" thing here:
IT IS ALL ABOUT IRAN NOW. BOMB, BOMB, BOMB IRAN.
Iraq is so passe, but really, Iran is a danger don't you know and we, America, really REALLY need to, yah know, bomb them.
And once we f**k up Iran, why, Syria will be next on the agenda.
My, it's not like there is a plan that is in motion here, the "Clean Break" policy paper written by American-Jews for good ole Bibi Netanyahu, and then the PNAC organization, to put the Iraq to Iran to Syria war plan in motion…
I mean, that WOULD be preposterous…
And after all, no country, especially as big and democratic as the United States, would allow a small cabal of connected political players to dictate its foreign policy and even its wars…
My, that IS preposterous…