Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Iraq: White House wishes Saddam was back and the nightmare would end

Iraq: The politics of threat of "civil war"

First it was "if you pull the troops out" there's going to be a civl war ref

Now, it's "no matter what the troops do," [whether they are there or not], there might well be a civil war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, now we realize where the toads in the CIA actually get their information: From overseas news wires. Here's one from March 2004 that essentially outlines what is in the September 2004 National Intelligence Estimate. Only 6 months later, and blossomed into 56 pages. You want late and too much? Wait for the CIA door-stop to show up.

Not that the September 2004 report is saying anything differently that what the White House was told in 2003 prior to the invasion. ref. Only this time, "what's changed," is that the US can't deploy FBI agents to make the CIA be quiet--for "what was possibly future bad news, is now self-evident": The US made things worse for Iraq. Smiling childrens' salutes and new schools are useless when the road to school is lined with bombs and there's no electricity.

Still waiting for a good reason for there not to be brough war crimes charges as we saw in Nuremburg against these fascists in DoD and the White House. Anyone got a good reason, or you want more excuses to hide the problem before the election?

Great. So if there's "going to likely be a civil war" why is "whether or not the US troops are there" taken as a factor?

Do another Saigon. Pull the troops out and let "what is most likely going to happen anyway" happen and get out of the way.

The White House longs for the days of Saddam, now that all the other excuses have failed.