Sat Mar 24 2007 3:09 am
Via The Heathlander:
John Bolton explains the Bush Administration’s Freedom Agenda:
A former top American diplomat says the US deliberately resisted calls for a immediate ceasefire during the conflict in Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the BBC that before any ceasefire Washington wanted Israel to eliminate Hezbollah’s military capability.Mr Bolton said an early ceasefire would have been "dangerous and misguided".
He said the US decided to join efforts to end the conflict only when it was clear Israel’s campaign wasn’t working.
…
More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and an unknown number of Hezbollah fighters were killed in the conflict.
Israel lost 116 soldiers in the fighting, while 43 of its civilians were killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks.
To those of us who understand common sense, it was clear from the start that Israel would fail. But it took over 1159 dead bodies before the Bush Administration faced reality in Lebanon.
In Iraq, perhaps over a half million dead bodies has not been enough of a reality check for the Bush Administration.
israel
john bolton lebanon 6 Responses to “A Legacy Of Blood”
Leave a Reply
Preview
March 24th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Indeed it hasn’t. John Bolton was on Question Time in England on Thursday and he basically said that the only problem with the Iraq war was that it wasn’t handed over to the Iraqis sooner.
This trend of blaming the Iraqis for what’s happening is pretty widespread, unfortunately - even the likes of Barack Obama are doing it. It typically consists of either berating them for being so ungrateful or lamenting at their “uncivilised” culture.
Right…
March 24th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Jamie, you are absolutely correct. I had written about this cowardly logic here and here.
The Dems have hung their hat on the logic that Iraqis have “not done enough” to help themselves and so the US should leave. This is, apart from being a classic neo-colonialist argument (and indeed a neo-con argument a la Daniel Pipes), is also incorrect, racist and ultimately a losing argument. Its shameful that the Dems have resorted to such a bankrupt argument.
The Dems should pause and reflect for a moment that the US simply destroyed the civil society of Iraq and introduced the notion that violence is the preferred path to their desired political outcome in Iraq - the policy of violent “regime change” was given the good housekeeping stamp of approval by the US of A in 2002. It should not surprise the Dems or Bush that the warring factions in Iraq should follow the lead of the US in trying to force a political outcome by means of violence - its the classic dynamic of civil wars.
Thanks to the Bush administration for making it all happen - and blaming the Iraqis may be politically expedient but also takes accountability away from the Bush admin. Ultimately it smacks of a “cut and run” policy that seeks to “abandon” the Iraqis - this is an argument the Bush administration has been and will continue to exploit against the Dems. They will say if only the Dems didnt “abandon” the Iraqis before we had a chance to win, this would have ended in “victory”.
So the Bush admin is being incompetent, but the Dems are being idiots and very racist.
March 24th, 2007 at 9:55 am
It is shameful, but it’s not just that. It’s actually quite revealing. What is shows is that the Dems are fundamentally made from the same mould as the GOP. They both believe in the superiority of the U.S. (and perhaps a few of the other “adult” nations) and they both believe that as a consequence of this the U.S. has a right to organise the world as it sees fit. They simply, very occassionaly and very slightly, differ on how to do the organising.
March 24th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Amen Jamie. I always felt that there was not much of a difference between the Dems and the Reps. The individual politician notwithstanding. What it all boils down to at the end of the day is what YOU dear Jamie ought to know so well from (NO DOUBT!!:)) having seen “Yes Minister” and/or “Yes Prime Minister”; will it get us elected?? It is not about saying or doing so much the right thing, it is gauging what will get them their brownie points so they can win elections..
Yep, spoken like a true Independent, ha!!:d
Ingrid
March 24th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
(oops, what a weird yellow thingy, how did that happen? I guess I closed my tag too closely.. hehe)
Ingrid
March 24th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Yeah exactly. It’s ‘Yes Prime Minister’, but with the qualification that it’s not so much the public at large that the parties are trying to convince, but their own bases. Of course, both parties share the same base - big business and fellow members of the ruling class. It is inevitable, therefore, that they are both very similar to each other - they’re playing to the same crowd.