The Leveller: A modern day regulator

U.S. troops died in Taliban attempt to storm base

As in Vietnam, we have spokespeople characterizing each battle as a victory. In this case the U.N. spokesperson on tv claimed that the enemy intended to overrun the base and they “failed” and that our forces brought about a victory. First how does he know what the attackers “intended” to do? Even still, what victory is this?

I simply thought it was remarkable that the spokesperson characterized this defensive action as a major achievement in the afghanistan war. Compared to Vietnam it would seem the year is ’67 rather than ’08. It was in 1967 when we saw changes in how the situation was reported and rhetoric from the administration.

With an election later this year we will see such a change and a difference in how the military reports compared to how the administration characterizes the war. Then we will see the same excuses after a major U.S pullout. As in Vietnam, that the military was not permitted to win the war.

reuters

Army study: Iraq occupation was understaffed

Another study stating the obvious. But understaffed for what? To contain or control the population? Where is the study on that? An “if adequately staffed” study.

Also obvious to me would be the conclusion that says this was a failure regardless of staffing. But perhaps the Army or the administration more appropriately could first declare the objective then state more specifically the success or how it may fail.

But of course, Mr. President says failure is not an option. And so does McCain if that ego maniac moron wins.

Just curious but when is something a failure if it clearly is not a success?

Army study: Iraq occupation was understaffed

Inflation, deflation, and Cheney

While watching the local news a brief interview with Cheney by some unknown reporter was interjected into the regular news stream. The question posed to him was how he felt about a recent poll that indicates most Americans think that Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Basically he responded with a so what.

I argued privately at the beginning of this war as most anti-statists and true free marketers already know that this Iraq folly will cost us dearly. It will cost us in economic terms people largely ignored until now.

Now we have higher prices everywhere at a level most Americans cannot ignore. It is here where we can make a stronger link between Iraq and our economy than Cheney did between Iraq and Al-quaeda.

And to those Americans feeling the pinch I ask, how do you like the war now? If this consequence could have been explained in lucid detail to Americans most would have surely rallied against it, I hope. Thats a bit optimistic but nevertheless. The harmful effects of this war will not be explained this way to the Americans.

Instead Cheney’s ugly head will continue to triumph in the so called success of the surge and a new hope for Iraq, hurray. As Iraq experiences its own roller coaster as a nation that will ultimately fail as such (we have explored this one). The American nation will travel down its roller coaster of economic malaise trying to believe otherwise.

Cheney and Bush should go down ignominiously in history. One way or another these fools should pay for leading such a failed policy.

From surge to resurge

The Canadian PM requested more troop support from Bush in order to defend against a resurgent Taliban otherwise he will remove all his troops.

What a mess. Bush invades Iraq for no reason and cannot even support the U.S. interest in Afghanistan.

So as far as timeline goes, the u.s. is about halfway done. The Soviets fought almost 10 years in that country before being humiliated.

In search of monsters...

He said he was forced to declare a state of emergency because Islamic extremists were threatening the government’s authority.

pakistan

Pervez Musharraf — who took power in a 1999 military coup — basically invokes the one sentiment that can give any democratic leader the power to do whatever he/she wants.

It doesn’t take an over active imagination to consider such a move in the U.S. by its president, especially the current one.

So here we go, a dictator in Pakistan is an “indispensable ally” in the war on terror according to Bush. I thought it was freedom we were after. If dictators are acceptable then clearly Saddam Hussein was in the clear because we never worried about a terrorist act occurring within Iraq until he was deposed.

So what are we doing in Iraq, or even Afghanistan anymore I ask. If freedom is what the U.S. supports then clearly its president must speak out against the dictator putting down his country’s own pin-striped revolution. These brave scholars and academics simply want the freedom to vote.

So here the U.S. stands in the eyes of the world: A barrier to freedom in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The U.S. established its beacon in the middle east good enough , a beacon of how to foment unrest and destabilization!

And a nasty little precedent, for any statist leader to go in search of monsters and settle any score they want.