More Hypocrisy in the House of Bush
04/22/2008
On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice criticized Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of Iraq’s largest Shi’ite militia, the Mahdi Army. Sadr had threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers.
Rice commented, “I know he’s sitting in Iran. I guess it’s all-out war for anybody but him. I guess that’s the message; his followers can go to their deaths and he’s in Iran.” This is astounding hypocrisy from the administration that has, from the comfort of D.C. offices, ordered more than a half-million Americans into combat where 4000+ have died, more than 40,000 have been injured (some completely debilitated), and about one-third of the survivors have returned with some degree of emotional or mental problems. The bald-faced hubris is outrageous. GWB has never put anything on the line more than his father’s name and his own legacy. He has ruined both.
The other instance of hypocrisy is the Bush administration’s criticism of Jimmy Carter’s attempts to find some common ground for dialogue with Hamas. The administration says that Carter’s trip “legitimizes” Hamas. The irony: Hamas was elected by the people; Bush was elected by the Supreme Court. Which has more legitimacy? Hamas is indeed a terrorist organization, but it is also the legitimately- and democratically-elected leading party of a sovereign territory (or at least part of it). The U.S. needs to grow up and realize that talk is indeed cheap, or at least cheaper than bombs, and often more effective.
Only 273 days left.
Traveler said,
April 24, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
The situation with Hamas is interesting. Though I understand the hesitation in wanting to open dialog with them, thus legitimizing a terrorist organization’s activities, there is the point that Hamas is in power due to a democratic process. One must ask which is more important? Personally, I think extremist organizations have the capacity to change, as evidenced recently with the IRA, and become legitimate political powers.
A peace deal between the Palestinians and Israelis cannot be accomplished without including Hamas. They are a player whether the US and Israel like it or not. Besides, having no contact with the elected Palestinian leaders flies in the face of the US goal to further democracy in Middle East. Three cheers for ex-prez Carter.
Centrist said,
April 25, 2008 @ 7:48 am
After Carter’s return, Hamas reiterated its position that they do not recognize Israel or its right to exist. However, a couple of days later Hamas is agreeing to talks about a cease-fire with Israel. This would be a de facto recognition of Israel. It looks like Crazy Carter and his silliness may actually pay off. Whodathunk? Talking can promote progress and solve a problem? I’m not naive enough to think a resolution is anywhere on the horizon, but this is a baby-step that, until now, has been completely unthinkable.
Traveler said,
April 25, 2008 @ 8:34 am
I absolutely agree. Baby steps are better than nothing. There is still the issue that Hamas is commited to the destruction of Israel, though I think that can change. It is really too bad that the Bush Administration was so quick to dismiss Carter.
The US has caused itself a bit of problem in that it won’t talk with terrorists or communist dictators, etc. There is an exception to this…if these entities have nuclear weapons, we then lend them some level of communication and respect, e.g. North Korea and Pakistan. That is scary. After the years of not talking to Cuba with no tangible results, I would think that we would learn something. Isolation of the organizations and states we don’t like doesn’t work and most of time entrenches them in more extremist behavior.
Mike W. said,
April 25, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Traveler mentions a great example of what can happen when terrorist organizations are dealt with on multiple levels, one important one being “talking” to the terrorist, by mentioning the British situation with the IRA.
One huge problem that is developing in the Middle East, not dissimilar to the problems with Hamas, is the situation in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood. Also Islamists, this group is highly respected and appreciated by the people, but the establishment politicians (those who have made their bed with the West) are disenfranchising the voters by systematically eliminating the Muslim Brotherhood members as candidates for elections. This will backfire on the Egyptian government if they persist in pretending democracy…once the food crisis reaches it’s critical level.
Traveler said,
May 20, 2008 @ 9:08 am
I wanted to put in a quick follow up regarding Barak Obama’s foreign policy ideas. Lately, John McCain is attempting to show Obama’s inexperience through highlighting his willingness to talk with Iran. Personally, I think McCain’s comments are showing his inexperience and unwillingness to evolve with the ever-changing international arena. Any student of diplomacy or war knows that tactics and strategies must be changed if current methods are unsuccessful.
Over the past eight years I watched with increasing dismay as the country I love lost credibility and influence abroad. Though I don’t agree with everything Obama stands for (or any politician for that matter) I think he has the right ideas that will help our country’s floundering image regain some of its former prestige and respect. We live in a global community and policies that promote isolationism, imperialism, and hegemony will not bring us back to our former glory days. May God help us if we continue to elect leaders who refuse to recognize this.