July 18. 2008
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s call for a timetable on American troop withdrawals has touched off a dramatic change in the debate over the future U.S. engagement in Iraq – essentially, it marks a falling away of the fig-leaf rationales for the five-plus years of occupation.
As these fig leaves drop to the ground, they are exposing raw geo-strategic objectives that were present in the original calculations of Republican foreign policy experts going back to the early 1990s, a desire for a firm U.S. foothold in the Middle East to protect the West's access to oil and to defend the state of Israel from, then, primarily its Arab enemies.
2 comments:
We still do not know what victory is? The U.S. attacked Iraq due to a campaign of lies perpetrated by the Project of a New American Century, a Zionist/Neocon organization which needed a Pearl Harbor type event (9/11) to begin their remake of the Middle East as desired by Israel. 9/11 happened as planned and Bush invaded Iraq "why"? How can there be victory when Iraq did not attack us and there were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush/Cheney should be on trial for war crimes, and impeached long ago. What this former CIA analyst is talking about is based on ignorance.
Funny thing, writing as an utterly convinced conspiracy devotee regarding Bush and his demonic Skull & Bones New World Order pack of lies and genocidal plans --- if only the idiot Muslim radicals had seen the good which could have come from an American occupation, we wouldn't have this horrid drain on America's economy and lifeblood. Saddam and his sickeningly wicked regime would have been ousted and hope would have been brought to an oppressed people. These things said, I am sick of every criminal President who comes along (beginning with LBJ in my generation, but with FDR in my parents' generation) considering themselv entitled to our minds, finances, and honour. I trust they will all end up in hell, but this does very little to assuage my feelings in this lifetime.
Post a Comment