|
Jan. 18, 2007 The war in According to Yahoo News, the vice president,
in reaffirming George W. Bush’s intention to proceed with the escalation
of the war in Iraq, in spite of any limp-wristed, non-binding resolutions from
Congress, philosophized,
“It is the kind of conflict that's going to drive our policy and our
government for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years. We have to prevail and we have to
have the stomach for the fight long term.” This seems to be in disagreement with what
Cheney was predicting eighteen
months ago when he said, “I think we may well have some kind of
presence there over a period of time.
The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I
think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will,
of the insurgency.” If Cheney
is not an arrant liar, I don’t know what he is. I don’t want to try to put any kind of
political interpretation on this in respect of the election in 2008. I can’t see that at this point
anything Cheney says or does can inluence that election. The point that I am making is that it is not
at all conceivable that the likelihood of decades of conflict in the Middle
East was obvious to me, a lowly mortal who doesn’t even own his own
computer, but not to Cheney, with his huge staff of researchers and
investigators, and that only in the intervening months
was he made aware of it. Of course
there’s going to be conflict in the It may look as if Cheney is dismissing with
uttermost contempt the wishes of the incoming majority party, showing them that
his master is still the boss, but those are only appearances. The powers that are driving the conflict
control both parties, like ventriloquists with an operetta full of little
puppets. Any significant action on
the part of the majority party is just a charade, enacted as a placebo for
those naive voters who thought their vote was going to bring on some
change. The real powers of course
are This talk of fighting terrorism in |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|