Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush's Falling Dominoes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 11:31 AM
Original message
Bush's Falling Dominoes
BHUTTO is dead in Pakistan, and there's going to be a flurry of accusations of blame from her supporters and from her detractors as well. But, for Americans who are left to witness the reactions and retaliations, there should be no doubt that the assassination is a direct hit on the Bush administration's blundering attempts to shape their foreign policy around their manufactured aggression in Iraq.

The Bhutto assassination also reflects on the administration's reliance on Pakistan's dictator to manage and suppress the forces of opposition to U.S. expansionism in the region and restrain the forces in his country who have been inspired in their resistance by the example and influence of the 9-11 terror suspects who've been gifted with over six years of safe haven from prosecution by Bush's Iraq diversion.

"Certainly, we condemn the attack on this rally," deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said after the news broke. "It demonstrates that there are still those in Pakistan who want to subvert reconciliation and efforts to advance democracy," he said.

But, that sentiment of Bush's would directly apply to Musharraf's latest assault on his country's democratic process with his suspension of the constitution and the upcoming election, his disbanding and replacement of the Supreme Court justice with one who would not question his dubious appointment as president, and his arrest and jailing of thousands of his political opposition and their leaders.

In the dictatorial fashion in vogue these days with his friends in the White House, Musharraf claimed he was defending against 'extremist' elements in his country as he directed his police and military forces to violently put down the protests which inevitably erupted in the wake of his crackdown. Villages were attacked and scores were killed by government forces and labeled as 'insurgent' or terrorist, to justify the anti-democratic attempt to disrupt Pakistan's political process of free and fair elections.

The arrival of Bhutto, herself, was orchestrated by the U.S. in an attempt to allow their dictator to continue in power through some sort of power-sharing agreement. The assassination attempt which greeted Bhutto's initial arrival back in Pakistan, however, sparked a direct opposition from the former prime minister to Musharraf and his autocratic moves against her campaign and others. The response and attitude from the Bush administration was a predictable, but uncharacteristic, timidity in directly denouncing Musharraf as the enemy to democracy he demonstrated he was with his reliance on his imposed authority to maintain his unpopular position.

'Look, see . . . he's taking off his uniform. Look, he's promised to hold the elections he unilaterally suspended. See, he's released the political prisoners he unilaterally arrested and detained. And, he's still holding on to the nuclear weapons we pay him to maintain . . . Did we say that out loud?

Listening to this administration is like relying on a bad weatherman. They can tell you when it's finally raining, but they can't seem to acknowledge, after the deluge, that they've been predicting sunshine and blue skies all along. They refuse to acknowledge the folly of their mindless militarism in Iraq and the negligence of their abandonment of the hunt for the original 9-11 suspects in Afghanistan while they isolate the consequences of that neglect and blame the ensuing chaos and unrest on the fugitives they refuse (and their Pakistani dictator refuses) to capture.

Now, Bhutto is dead. Al-Qaeda will undoubtedly be blamed. Perhaps they are involved in her killing. The inevitable response from Bush will be his insistence that 'terrorists' are threatening democracy. But, there is no greater example of a threat to democracy than the invader and occupier of sovereign Iraq, Bush, and his unwavering support for the dictator of Pakistan. Certainly, Bush has done nothing to stem the anger toward the U.S. which has flowed freely from opposition to the occupation of Iraq to those abroad who would threaten violence to our interests or allies. The evidence from his own intelligence agencies is that the Iraq occupation is a conduit for resistant violence.

Bush, predictably, condemned the assassination and called for 'justice.'

"The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy," he said, from his ranch in Crawford, Texas. "Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice . . . We urge them to honor Benazir Bhutto's memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life," he said.

Bush's 'war on terror' is a disaster; both for the U.S. and for those abroad he pretends to defend with his reactive, opportunistic militarism he's toying with for political gain at home. His PNAC cronies who backed him in to power used to be fond of pushing their un-democratic 'domino' strategy, where Iraq would be a catalyst for the fall of regimes in Iran, Syria and anywhere else where Israel's interests are remotely threatened. But, as in Pakistan, not all of the falling dominoes are lined up behind the interests of America or Americans. And, as Bush continues to press forward with his disruptive, distracting, anti-democratic aggression in Iraq, we're all left to wonder together where the next dominoes will fall.



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. I Think Offing Bhutto Was the Plan All Along
She was inconvenient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. well,
the killing ensures the narrow choice in Pakistan between their dictator and Bush's 'extremists'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. The plot to bring back Benazir
. . . In early 2007, President Bush made his first public criticism of Musharraf, warning that he had to be more aggressive in hunting down terrorists. Under pressure, Musharraf leaned toward a deal with Bhutto - if he could stay on as president. The talks stalled again, this time because Bhutto's supporters resented her being in cahoots with the general. Then Musharraf's emissaries came up with an even stranger proposal: if Bhutto stayed away from Pakistan during the election, Musharraf would "adjust the vote". A Bhutto aide said, "We could not believe it. He was offering to rig the election."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2130101,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plucketeer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
4.  And really - isn't this the root of ALL of our problems abroad???
"Bush's 'war on terror' is a disaster; both for the U.S. and for those abroad he pretends to defend with his reactive, opportunistic militarism he's toying with for political gain at home."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. absolutely
Bush is the problem. There is no diplomacy at all to be found behind the 'terror' saber he waves around. Nothing but bluster and blunder from this administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Yes and Edwards and Hillary voted to give him that authority!
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 10:05 AM by Dems Will Win
How Hillary was convinced by Condiliar to switch focus to war in Iraq:

Clinton: Rice linked Iraq vote, inspections
Submitted by Monitor Staff on Fri, 2007-12-21 19:47.

Following up on what Ambassador Richard Holbrooke told us earlier this week regarding Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, we asked Sen. Clinton today if it was correct that Colin Powell had persuaded her that the resolution could be a vote to avoid war rather than a vote for war.

She replied: "No, it wasn't Colin Powell. It was Condi Rice. Condi Rice told me specifically when I was still weighing all of the evidence, and I had been to the White House one last time -- I think, if I'm not mistaken, it was Oct. 8 -- and I'd had the whole presentation by the CIA and others and I hadn't asked any questions, I had listened. And I went back to my office, and Condi Rice called me and said, You didn't ask any questions, do you have any questions? I said I only have one: Will you use this authorization to put inspectors back in, so that we can find out whether any of this is true, how much WMD he still has or has reconstituted? She said, Yes, that's what it's intended to do. I think Dick might have gotten confused."

Monitor: And you had no reason to doubt her?

Clinton: "I did not.
Because -- certainly I didn't rely on the Bush administration. I did a lot of my own due diligence, I talked to a lot of people in my husband's administration, I talked to Tony Blair, I talked to a lot of sources, and I had the same question: Do you think he still has these kinds of capacities? And the rationale made sense to me. When we got there after the first Gulf War, he was much further advanced in his nuclear program and we knew he had used chemical weapons. When we discovered his nuclear program in '91, the inspectors went in and for seven years dismantled everything that they could find. In '98, he threw the inspectors out, which at least to me raised the possibility that they were getting close to something, and therefore he wanted them out. The Americans and the British bombed every site that he prevented the inspectors from going to that we had a record of, but we had no good intelligence as to what was or wasn't there. And the idea behind any concern about Saddam Hussein was rooted in his personality and his governing philosophy. He was a megalomaniac.

"Putting inspectors back in -- which the United Nations voted for, the Security Council was all in favor of -- was a way to really put some checks and balances to find out what he really did have. What we know now is that Bush had no intention of letting the inspections run their course. But the argument of putting inspectors back in, backed up by force -- because Saddam never did anything that didn't have at least the backup threat of force -- was not on its face totally illegitimate. So I was willing to give him the authority to do that, and he misused the authority."



So she couldn't figure out that the neo-cons would misuse the authority? Isn't that like being a really, really bad judge of what other people are actually like?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-27-07 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. K and R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
7. "...Bush administration's blundering attempts..."
Is this criticism of the decision to wait until the end of two terms to try their hands at a foreign policy approach that doesn't involve an invasion? Such a cheap and easy shot. Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. actually,
this administration had no discernible foreign policy until they realized they could use the 9-11 killings, politically, to expand the power of the Executive and assume the anti-constitutional authority they insisted Bush could delegate to his minions in the name of 'national security.' Since then, everything they do abroad (and most of what they do at home) is portrayed as a defense of national security and a necessary part of their 'war on terror.'

As Bush demonstrated yesterday in his remarks on the Bhutto assassination, they are still relying on their "extremist" bogeyman to divert blame away from their own complicity in the increased violence and animosity directed against the U.S., our interests, and our allies.

Their 'foreign policy today is nothing more than ass-covering for the consequences of their blundering militarism, promoted as some sort of muscular vigilance. Witness Rice, just last week in Iraq, ahead of the Senate vote on the Defense bill, trying to convince their installed and protected regime to play nice for the politicians back in the U.S..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I wasn't defending them, I was laughing at them.
Every single member of the * administration is so far out of their depth that they've become a sick joke on the worst possible caricature anyone could have conceived of seven years ago. The Peter Principle on steroids, speed, coke, heroin, Viagra and Ambien.

Does anyone listen to Condi speak to issues of diplomacy or foreign policy without tasting bile? Does Dumbya appear to be anything more than a terrified, deer in the headlights, schoolyard bully called out on his bad behavior, ignorance and stupidity? Is there anyone they've ever installed in any position who even approaches a level of competency for the job?

Oh, and I agree with everything you said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC