Speaking at the so-called Annapolis Middle East Conference - well, meeting actually - George Bush said:
"Second, the time is right because the battle is under way for the future of the Middle East, and we must not cede victory to the extremists."
Of course!....the US wants to be in the middle of the action in the Middle East. That's why other news to emerge yesterday is "interesting" and puts things into context:
"In Sunday's New York Times U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker was quoted as saying Iraq is "going to be a long, hard slog." Sound familiar? It should, because here was then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- four years and one month ago: "It will be a long, hard slog." This thing has been going on for so long, the administration is reusing excuses. The Times also reports "the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country." Really? I'd say the "quickly" ship sailed four years ago. At this point, it's no longer about quick or not-so-quick, it's about ever or never, as in: will we ever leave Iraq?"
This from The Huffington Post, here. Meanwhile, no less importantly, the final piece in the puzzle, as it were, falls into place, as this piece on AlterNet makes clear:
"Way back in February 2006, Tom Engelhardt noted that the "debate" over permanent U.S. bases in Iraq was practically non-existent. After a search of the LexisNexis database, he explained, "American reporters adhere to a simple rule: The words 'permanent,' 'bases,' and 'Iraq' should never be placed in the same sentence, not even in the same paragraph; in fact, not even in the same news report."
It wasn't too big a mystery -- talk of permanent bases was considered impolite for the political mainstream. It was a subject best relegated to blogs and talk radio. When congressional Dems started taking the matter seriously, congressional Republicans quickly shut down any policy proposals that might limit a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq.
With that in mind, today's news is not at all encouraging.
"Second, the time is right because the battle is under way for the future of the Middle East, and we must not cede victory to the extremists."
Of course!....the US wants to be in the middle of the action in the Middle East. That's why other news to emerge yesterday is "interesting" and puts things into context:
"In Sunday's New York Times U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker was quoted as saying Iraq is "going to be a long, hard slog." Sound familiar? It should, because here was then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- four years and one month ago: "It will be a long, hard slog." This thing has been going on for so long, the administration is reusing excuses. The Times also reports "the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country." Really? I'd say the "quickly" ship sailed four years ago. At this point, it's no longer about quick or not-so-quick, it's about ever or never, as in: will we ever leave Iraq?"
This from The Huffington Post, here. Meanwhile, no less importantly, the final piece in the puzzle, as it were, falls into place, as this piece on AlterNet makes clear:
"Way back in February 2006, Tom Engelhardt noted that the "debate" over permanent U.S. bases in Iraq was practically non-existent. After a search of the LexisNexis database, he explained, "American reporters adhere to a simple rule: The words 'permanent,' 'bases,' and 'Iraq' should never be placed in the same sentence, not even in the same paragraph; in fact, not even in the same news report."
It wasn't too big a mystery -- talk of permanent bases was considered impolite for the political mainstream. It was a subject best relegated to blogs and talk radio. When congressional Dems started taking the matter seriously, congressional Republicans quickly shut down any policy proposals that might limit a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq.
With that in mind, today's news is not at all encouraging.
'Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.
The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.'"
The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.'"
Comments