« Baker-Kommission: Generalabrechnung mit Bushs Irak-Strategie | Main | The Iraqschadenfreudegruppe »

Comments

I'd just like to know how I can join some of these committees. I can be very objective if I'm well paid to be. I'd like to make big bucks for producing useless pieces of drivel.

I think the ISG report has already been unofficially relegated to the dust heap of history, as they say. I know no one is playing this up (for obvious reasons), but the fact that James Baker is a shill for Saudi Arabia can't be kept "secret" forever (can it?) -- and that basically shoots any credibility the committee might have had to you-know-where.

I once voted for the FDP. But they also use anti-Americanism to appease voters and the media just like the others. Plus, they seem unable to admit the threat that Islamism represents to our nation (again: like the others). Therefore, my vote will of course not go to this party anymore.

PS: Everybody who does not rely on the old media for informations knows that the ISG report is for the most part a useless joke.

blech. I've been fighting some insidious bug that has basically confined me to the sofa and my husband dependent for his sustenance on Subway.

But I've read about half the report.

For non-English readers who do not have direct access to the report, there is no way at my disposal to describe the utter cynicism inherent in its very premises.

Not knowing how old some of the readers here are, you may not have much knowledge of James 'Fuck the Jews' Baker.

As the coalition partners were preparing for the first Gulf War (I was agnostic then, not a Jew) there was a press conference w/George Bush 41, Baker and some others that was just wrapping up when a reporter yelled from the scrum "Is this about oil?"

Baker, who was walking away, yelled over his shoulder "It's about jobs".

I've despised the man ever since.

But let me talk about the report.

It maintains that Iraq and Syria have a vested interested in maintaining stability in Iraq. But it does not describe what that stability might look like. Iraq was stable under Saddam, especially when compared to current day Lebanon.

In subsequent press conferences, which are probably not accessable to non-American readers, Baker and Hamilton have stated that they really don't believe Iran will help the U.S. achieve/maintain stability in Iraq. What they say was their rationale for putting that bit in the report is that once the U.S. called on Iran and Syria for help and they turned us down, THE WHOLE WORLD WILL SEE IT. Ta Da! Then a miracle happens.

And the regional countries and 'contact groups countries' to be brought in to help stablilze Iraq are - well, hell what a laundry list - Iran, Syria, Russia, China - the list goes on.

One country is missing.

Israel. Which, the last time I checked was more 'in the region' and more 'in contact' than, say, Russia.

But Baker/Hamilton seem not to have noticed. If anyone can justly be accused by Israel as treating them as a client state of the U.S. it's these bastards.

Because the quid pro quo offered in the report for Syria's so-called assistance is the Israeli return of the Golan Heights.

Now, I've only read various sections of the report, but I have read other reviews. Some reviewers (e.g., Mark Steyn) are maintaining that the report insists Pali/Israeli conflict must be 'resolved' before any of this gets better.

How does the report suggest that be done?

By the Israeli recoginition of the 'right of return'.

If this is true - and it will take me a few more days to get thru it - I will then consider this entire report as an exercise in the justification for the extermination of Israel.

Speaking of Iraq, you gotta love USA Today's headline this morning; "Poll Finds USA More Pessimistic on Iraq!" Wait! Spare me your catcalls! I think there's really something charming about spin when it gets to the "Poll Finds Sun will Rise in Morning!" level. There's something so disarmingly disingenuous about it that you have to smile.

BTW, does anyone know anything about Spiegel's latest tizzy over the four year old who is, purportedly, being charged with a sex crime in (you guessed it) Texas? I'm not indelicate enough to read such stories myself, so I must depend on others to supply me with the facts second hand. As Spiegel helpfully informs us this morning, the whole world is (surprise, surprise) outraged about the case. Does anyone know if they hang four year old preverts in Texas? (I know, by asking that very question, I've disqualified myself for all time from ever running for the presidency of the US. Well, it's about time you all knew it's just not going to happen.)

Hi Helian,

I've been sick with a cold for the last 3 days and I haven't read any body's comments in DMK. But FYI, here is the article from the local paper in Central Texas that covered original the story.

"BELLMEAD- A four-year-old hugged his teachers aide and was put into in-school suspension, according to the father. But La Vega school administrators have a different story.

Damarcus Blackwell's four-year-old son was lining-up to get on the bus after school last month, when he was accused of rubbing his face in the chest of a female employee.

The prinicipal of La Vega Primary School sent a letter to the Blackwells that said the pre-kindergartener demonstrated "inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment."

Blackwell says it's ridiculous that the aide would misread a hug from a four-year-old. Blackwell wrote to administrators demanding that the whole incident be expunged from his son's academic file because his son is too young to know what it means to act sexually.

David Davis, the executive director of the Advocacy Center in Waco tends to agree with Blackwell. He says assuming the boy has not had sexual encounters, or been inappropriately exposed to pornography, most four-year-olds are sexually innocent.

Blackwell got a response from the La Vega administration. The sexual references on the discipline referral were removed. But the thing that makes Blackwell most upset is they told him "your request for an apology by the aide and removal of all paperwork regarding this incident is denied." Now the young student's file will refer to the incident as "inappropriate physical contact." And Blackwell says he will continue to fight the district.

La Vega I.S.D. administrators told News Channel 25 they couldn't comment on this case because of student privacy issues.

Sounds like a school administrator run amok. It is a story about nothing.

Curious how the Spiegel interprets this as a "sex crime." Sounds like mindless Ami trolling.

Also curious on how the Spiegel is not well informed. After all, who controls the teacher's unions and school administrators? I doubt that it is Pat Robertson's people.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28