Catching Up

Raed Sticks His Head In
In the commments section of Raed Finally Cracks Up, Raed posted in the Comments section:

nice discussion

thanx bruno...
harry
tammy
and also the piff piff spifff

i like your analysis

Self-Addressing the Comments
Having been gone for a week I'll attempt to take up comments directed at me and subjects into which I wish I'd been around to interject:

Tammy asks

CMAR II
How come you haven't for awhile?

I was busy waiting for my mama underneath the D.H. Holmes clock.

Bruno says:

CMAR2 -- You said : "Every nation of any age (even South Africa) is guilty of some wrong or ommission in its past. That doesn't make any particular subsequent action wrong or cynical."

Alright, your point is valid ... although disputable. Let us agree on it for now, however.

So ...looking at recent US actions against Iraq since 9/11, seeings as everything is going to be dated from there in future ... how have it acted in a manner consistent with a power interested in spreading democracy and freedom? Fact is, it has not. The endless series of measures aimed at controlling Iraq by proxy (amiable dictators, caucuses, councils) are not consistent with this message. Nor was the cancellation of municipal elections. Nor was the flight from Sistani's call for UN supervised national elections.

What prompted this sudden interest in Iraq? Well, you must have heard of PNAC, the neocon stink tank that, amongst other things, advocated the virtual elimination of Iraq, Iran and N Korea, as well as a host of other things that have come to pass. This was when they were not in power. Now that they are in the driving seat, it is odd to see how much Bush's actions conform to their sick agenda. It is essentially a blueprint, that, if fully implemented, puts the US in the position of world ruler.

And, given the US's disregard for the rights of peoples outside its own borders *recently *, I must say that that prospect is not one that is to be relished.

Since you were not here, you probably are not aware that the Clinton Administration (who are not accused of being neo-cons) with it's own party's backing (including that of its current presidential nominee) managed to have Congress pass a resolution making regime change in Iraq official US foreign policy. You also may not be aware that throughout the Clinton Administration, its pundit supporters faulted the Bush 41 Administration for "not finishing the job" in Iraq. This has nothing particularly to do with neo-cons. This is simply the American position on Iraq. It is Al Gore and the rest of the Clintonians who have gone soft on Iraq since Dubya acted on their words. It is the so-called peace advocates who suddenly regained their voice when the Democrats exited the Whitehouse.

Anonymous asks

The big question here is why does CMRII try to make it sound like Riverbend encourages the "insurgents"? I don't see where she ever did. There are people in Iraq who are willing to forge the future through violence and war, but how CMRII figures Riverbend is one of them is a mystery.

It is confusing, I admit, since Riverbend likes to play both sides of the street. She complains about the lack of security and simultaneously complains about the Coalition oppressing the people when it tries to take out the bad guys (who are being shielded by those same oppressed people). She also counts killed insurgents with killed innocent bystanders and presumes ALL bystanders killed in firefights are killed by the murderous Coalition. She complains that oil, electricity, and water are scarce while ignoring that it is the insurgents who are primarily responsible for making it so.

So I can see that you are having trouble putting a finger on Riverbend's allegiances. I don't have that problem. I'm convinced her allegiance is to none other than the ousted Baathists. As to when she has spoken of support for the insurgents, I'll pick a recent one. On May 1st of this year she compared Muqty's militia to the Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings against Saddam. Now this is confusing because Muqty is an Islamist and Riverbend supposedly hates the Islamists. Still, from my perspective, this clearest show of support she has offered for anyone except for the pre-liberation regime. So I've decided to go with that.

Witchy innuends:

CMAR II, it's been asked elsewhere and I think deserves attention here:
Why IS it you chose the FEMALE Iraqi blogger to go after in specific? Not that you don't also criticize the males, but you seem positively possessed where the woman is concerned.
I just think its curious.
And telling

Whisper is correct. I didn't really name this blog. I just picked up the banner. Still, if it seems that Riverbend is my favorite Baathist Blogger, it is because she's by far a more convincing writer than the Jarrars (not that each Jarrar doesn't have compelling attributes of his/her own).