Article

2004-05-23 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-05-23 12:09:35 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The Telegraph really, really loves Seymour Hersh and his loopy conspiracy theories. This is the same paper that came out with Hersh's garbage about he said was a failed Ranger raid in Afghanistan. They're sound on some things, but there's a lot of that moronic condescension about Americans screwing up where the Brits would have done just fine in the article. And they really hate Rumsfeld, after what he said about the US going in without British participation.

Another conservative (by British standards) publication, the Economist has always hated Bush, but it went a little overboard when it called for Rumsfeld to resign. Let's face it - the Economist's incompetent anti-American political coverage can't have won many fans in the Bush administration. Its calling for Rumsfeld's resignation can only have reinforced GWB's conviction that retaining Rumsfeld is the right thing to do.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-05-23 12:25:42 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-05-23 12:25:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Zhang Fei, what's to bash here? The article really lays it out: Bush is being undermined by State and CIA elements that didn't want the war in the first place and are now fighting it on Saddam's behalf in the media theater. He gambled that we could avoid cleaning house in these Arabist strongholds until the election and may lose everything. (In retrospect, not firing Powell a year ago when the media sharks were circling for the UN flop was a giant mistake.) If he doesn't get down from his "hands off CEO" high horse and lay down the law within his administration soon, we're all screwed.

Posted by someone 2004-05-23 1:39:48 AM|| 2004-05-23 1:39:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 There are the windmills of your mind and the windmills of our war..."like a wheel within a wheel."
There's the *real* war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Culture War/War against the Dimocrats here at home and then there's the Beltway War(Pentagon vs. CIA and State).
I guess State thinks this Chalabi deal is a "win" over the Pentagon.
Who knows? I still don't think we've heard *all* of the story yet.
Chalabi seems like a whore, but what could he have picked up on us that Iran would want to know about?

Posted by Jen 2004-05-23 2:36:13 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-23 2:36:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Zhang Fei,

Do you read the Economist much? I do - every week. It hates Bush so much that it endorsed him for president! It supported the war to remove Saddam and wants us to succeed over there. To say its political coverage of the US is "incompetent anti-American" is a travesty.

I'm sceptical when I occasionally read about the Brits being more capable in running an "occupation" - perhaps, perhaps not. The problem is we don't have the military power or the money. But some things have got so sour recently that people (even supporters) start to question whether the US has the capability of running the show.

After the prison scandal, and perhaps a civil war between government departments, who's in charge? Are various US "agencies" working for the same thing? This is too important to screw up, especially over "turf wars" back home.

Posted by Alastair 2004-05-23 6:44:18 AM|| 2004-05-23 6:44:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Bush needs to tell one or the other to stick with the plan that for sure.

Posted by djohn66 2004-05-23 8:27:30 AM|| 2004-05-23 8:27:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 State has historically been a den of self-hating exoticists, essentially a fifth column seeking to promote foreign over American interests from within.
It was a notorious nest of anti-semites before WW2 and historical inertia is such among its elite families that some of this remains to this day.

As a small example of State anti-Americanism, I happened to be in Scotland at the time of the dreadful Lockerbie air atrocity in 1989.
The behavior of the State Department toward the families of the American victims was deplorable; condescending, inept, and sometimes cruel and thoughtless.
Grieving relatives were stonewalled; told to mind their own business, fend for themselves, and stay out of the way. In one case, a box containing a victim's effects was sent to survivors with no documentation other than a note cheerfully declaring "Compliments of the US Consulate!".

Fortunately, this was Scotland rather than some barbarous hellhole, so the locals stepped into the breech and provided all possible comfort and aid to the grieving visitors.
The Scottish police were very busy and over-stretched, but they still found time and resources to send flowers to all the visiting relatives.
Hundreds of local people volunteered to spend hours cleaning the victims' clothes and possessions and packaging them for return. Every item of clothing was removed from every bag, laundered, and hand-pressed where appropriate.

My experience with the Consular Service is that American citizens are regarded as provincial boors who must be kept from inflicting their ignorance on the locals.
As a former local in that part of the world myself, it is obvious to me that it is the Consular Service, not the regular American visitors, who are the boors.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-05-23 1:34:28 PM|| 2004-05-23 1:34:28 PM|| Front Page Top

12:31 Shipman
12:31 Shipman
12:15 Shipman
12:15 Shipman
12:13 Gentile Shipman
12:13 Gentile Shipman
12:11 Gentile
12:11 Gentile
11:32 Phil B
11:22 ruprecht
11:19 ruprecht
10:57 Phil B
10:55 Robert Crawford
10:22 .com
10:06 Robert Crawford
09:52 CrazyFool
00:26 Atomic Conspiracy
00:19 Atomic Conspiracy
00:19 Mark Espinola
00:02 Mark Espinola
23:52 Mark Espinola
23:37 RWV
23:34 Jen
23:33 scott