The ability of this administration, as well as the talking (and writing) meatsticks who are of the “pass the buck at all costs” or “blame everyone else” mentality never ceases to amaze me. And now, after an illegal invasion and failed occupation which contained so many unfathomably huge tactical and logistical mistakes as well as monumental lies and dismissals of the harsh reality, here we are with a brand spanking new scapegoat: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The new cover of Newsweek proclaims “The Maliki Problem” and the corresponding article lays the blame for the current mess in Iraq – from the civil war to the political support that he and al-Sadr share to who Maliki chooses as his commander of Iraqi forces. And there are quotes from people close to the administration, opinion by the Newsweek “experts” as well as republican officials in Congress, all bemoaning and blaming Maliki for what has now been nearly four years of a long string of uninterrupted errors.
But this is the same tired finger pointing, regardless of whether Maliki is “doing all that he can” ignores many simple facts. He was put into a situation where there is no “best case scenario”. And his country’s fate is still dictated largely by the decisions made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer and people who had little to no understanding of Iraq’s history or the Middle East in general.
Of course, we have seen this all before. Remember Iyad Allawi? Remember how Bush praised him back in 2004?:
Bush called Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi a strong leader who “has always been an Iraqi patriot.”
And what happened with him? Well, there was the carefully orchestrated high profile visit to the US just over a month before the US election in 2004 where he proclaimed everything A-OK in Iraq, only to return to Iraq and deliver the truth to his own people:
And let’s not forget Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi – who told us here in America, during his recent visit, just how wonderfully ducky everything was turning out in Iraq, only to return home and deliver a speech to his own assembly (when he was reading his OWN script, for a change, rather than that from his White House handlers) about how grim and sobering conditions really are. All of these amped up the volume on just how bad the war is going.
The former Prime Minister painted a bleak picture of Iraq, telling me “we are approaching very fast the point of no return.” He went further to say that “I think martial law is required”…and he candidly told me “I pray to God that we don’t lose, because the other alternative is going to be the prevalence of extremism and terrorism.” He described his country as “moving into [a] more lawless state of affairs.”
—snip—
Allawi agreed with many Americans when he told me, “I think what is needed, really, is a complete reappraisal of the strategy” in Iraq, by the United States, by Iraq, by Iraq’s neighbors and by the international community. He described the region as “boiling really throughout” and “slipping into more chaos” and he emphasized the need for international talks. Allawi thinks that solving the problems in Iraq is going to take “a political settlement…rather than a military settlement.”
I’ll take this time to point out yet again that while Maliki is not in favor of increased US troops in Iraq, he has helped Bush out by not publicly opposing it. I’ll also take this moment to point out that if the Iraq government is legitimate and independent of US control, then the decisions made to elect their leaders, and the decisions made by such elected leaders are matters for the Iraqi people, whether we like it or not.
The things about Maliki and Iraq that none of the so-called experts seem to are, shall we say, quite numerous. When it was warned by so many parties that Iraq could very likely descend into civil war such warnings were ignored. These warnings were well before Maliki took over as Prime Minister. When hundreds of thousands less troops were sent into Iraq initially because Paul Wolfowitz was given more credence than our own Generals, that was before Maliki took over.
When Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army without consulting the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that was before Maliki took over. When the Shia shrine in Samarra was bombed in February 2006 kicking the civil war into high gear, that too was months before Maliki took over. And when the death squads started appearing in Iraq back in 2005, that too was before Maliki took over.
But it isn’t all “before Maliki took over” either. As long as this administration is hell bent on keeping and increasing US troop presence in Iraq, Maliki’s hands are tied. And his fate is tied to the biggest loser of an administration the world has seen in my lifetime. Back in late November, Bush praised Maliki’s strength:
George Bush today praised Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, as a “strong leader” and said the US would be in Iraq “so long as the government wants us there”.
And while there are many instances where Bush or this administration has praised Maliki, at the same time they are stabbing him in the back. Take the Newsweek article cited above:
According to one participant, conservative Sen. Craig Thomas of Wyoming, many of the GOP senators expressed doubts that America could depend on Maliki. They cited the Shiite leader’s failure to quell the sectarian violence that contributed to the deaths of more than 34,000 Iraqis in 2006, according to the United Nations, as well as nearly 600 U.S. soldiers since he took over in May. “The president expressed doubts, too,” says Thomas.
Oh, so the US policy (or lack thereof), the willful ignoring of warnings or advice from the real experts at every step of the way and the responsibility that comes with these decisions are somehow the new Prime Minster’s fault? The same Prime Minister who is politically aligned with (and likely owes his life to) the man who Bush and his fellow backstabbers want Maliki to send the full force of the Iraqi army after? No offense, but are these people on crack?
Yet, this chorus is joined by Senator Voinovich:
“So much of our future in that place is in the hands of Maliki,” says one Republican doubter, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, who doesn’t think the Iraqi prime minister is up to the challenge. He also worries that Maliki wants to turn Iraq into “a Shiite theocracy like they have in Iran.”
It could also be that Maliki isn’t taking kindly to the words of our Secretary of State, and is turning the “your words are emboldening terrorists” line back on this administration:
Al-Maliki, whose relationship with the United States is strained, was especially upset about Rice’s comment last week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when she said that al-Maliki’s government is working on “borrowed time.”
“Such statements give moral boosts to the terrorists and push them towards making an extra effort and making them believe that they have defeated the American administration, but I can tell you that they haven’t defeated the Iraqi government,” he said during a meeting with a handful of reporters.
Of course, the fact that Maliki is as close to al-Sadr as he is would lead you to think that if anyone can negotiate with al-Sadr, bring him more in line politically and try to control the violence of his militia – it would be Maliki. And you would think that this is fairly obvious and that regardless of the long string of errors by this administration which have caused this caustic situation in Iraq, that Maliki would be someone that would be needed to be treated just a wee bit better. Even with his warts, he is the best shot that Iraq currently has to not fall into a situation of complete genocide.
But alas, we are not dealing with people who can see the forest for the trees. Or even see the trees for that matter.
also in orange
General Petraeus is testifying before the Senate Armed Services committee (C-SPAN3). He’s the best we’ve got, but he is being given an impossible task.
Some salvage operations are simply impossible. If Petraeus had 500,000 more combat troops, maybe we could do this. Maybe. But we don’t have the economy to sustain such an effort much less the fully trained troops ready and willing to undertake such a mission.
It’s a fool’s errand he has been sent on.
agreed. I argued that hypothetical a few weeks back.
Of course, I want the troops out. BUT, if we are to stay, then we would need 500,000 (I think that I used the same number as you did) to have a shot in hell….
“If Petraeus had 500,000 more combat troops, maybe we could do this.”
500k troops are never going to change the minds of the vast majority of Iraqis who justed voted for and have been longing for a Shiite fundamentalist government for over the last two decades.
The US is fuct.
It was from the beginning.
Al-Maliki, Al-Hakim, Bayan Jabr, et al have been fighting to transform Iraq into a for a Shiite fundamentalist government for over the last two decades.
By deposing SH, all Al-Maliki, Al-Hakim, and Bayan Jabr et al had to do was change the names on the doors to offices after drilling a few holes and chopping off a few heads.
What is utterly grotesque is that Iraq is basically George W. Bush’s response to the horrific attacks of 9/11.
On 9/11 we get attacked by Sunni extremists.
And what does Bush do?
Bush violently thrusted the reins of power into the hands of Shiite fundamentalists who are loyal to and beholden to Iran (and Syria).
The US is fuct and will be for generations.
Here’s more on Al-Dawa (Al-Maliki) and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Al-Hakim).
Al-Maliki, Al-Hakim, et al have dedicated their adult lives toward trying to transform a `secular’ Iraq under Saddam Hussein into a Shiite fundamentalist republic.
It is utterly grotesque to know that George W. Bush in direct response to the horrific attacks of 9/11 thrust the reins of power into the hands of such Islamic fundamentalists.
(Keywords: Al Dawa, Islamic Fundamentalism, Sharia, Iran and Iraq, terrorism, US Embassy attack)
1) Large Turnout Reported For 1st Iraqi Vote Since `58 The Washington Post, June 21, 1980
In another development today, Al Dawa, a clandestine Iraqi fundamentalist Moslem organization, claimed responsibility for yesterday’s grenade attack on the British Embassy here in which three gunmen reportedly were killed.
An Al Dawa spokesman told Agence France-Presse by phone that the attack was a “punitive operation against a center of British and American plotters.”
2) Iraq Keeps a Tight Rein on Shiites While Bidding to Win Their Loyalty The Washington Post, November 30, 1982
Membership in Dawa, which means “the call,” is punishable by execution. Dawa guerrillas were known for hurling grenades into crowds during religious ceremonies, and attacks claimed by the party were frequent until the middle of 1980.
3) U.S. HAS LIST OF BOMB SUSPECTS, LEBANESE SAYS Detroit Free Press, October 29, 1983
The source said the drivers of the two bomb-laden trucks were blessed before their mission by Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, leader of the Iranian-backed Dawa Party, a Lebanese Shiite Muslim splinter group.
4) SHULTZ SEES LINK BETWEEN BEIRUT, KUWAIT ATTACKS OFFICIALS IDENTIFY MAN WHO DROVE TRUCK BOMB, The Miami Herald, December 14, 1983
Secretary of State George Shultz said Tuesday that there “quite likely” was a link between the U.S. Embassy bombing in Kuwait and attacks on American facilities in Lebanon. He warned of possible retaliation.
(snip)
The sources said the investigators matched the prints on the fingers with those on file with Kuwaiti authorities and
tentatively identified the assailant as Raed Mukbil, an Iraqi automobile mechanic who lived in Kuwait and was a member of Hezb Al Dawa, a fundamentalist Iraqi Shiite Moslem group based in Iran.
5) KUWAIT NABS 10 SHIITES IN BOMBINGS 7 IRAQIS, 3 LEBANESE `ADMIT’ TERROR ATTACKS
The Miami Herald, December 19, 1983
Kuwait Sunday announced the arrests of 10 Shiite Moslems with ties to Iran in the terrorist bombings that killed four people and wounded 66 last week at the U.S. Embassy and other targets.
(snip)
Hussein said fingerprints from the driver who died in the blast at the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait identified him as Raad Akeel al Badran, an Iraqi mechanic who lived in Kuwait and belonged to the Dawa party.
6) 10 Pro-Iranian Shiites Held in Kuwait Bombings, The Washington Post December 19, 1983
Kuwait announced yesterday the arrest of 10 Shiite Moslems with ties to Iran in terrorist bombings that killed four people and wounded 66 last Monday at the U.S. Embassy and other targets.
“All 10 have admitted involvement in the incidents as well as participating in planning the blasts,” Abdul Aziz Hussein, minister of state for Cabinet affairs, told reporters after a Cabinet session, United Press International reported.
Hussein said the seven Iraqis and three Lebanese were members of the Al Dawa party, a radical Iraqi Shiite Moslem group with close ties to Iran.
7) Beirut Bombers Seen Front for Iranian-Supported Shiite Faction, The Washington Post, January 4, 1984
The terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the bombing of the U.S. Marine compound and the French military headquarters here may be a front for an exiled Iraqi Shiite opposition party based in Iran, in the view of a number of Arab and western diplomatic sources.
Authorities in Kuwait say their questioning of suspects in the recent bombing there of the U.S. and French embassies indicates a clear link between Islamic Jihad, a shadowy group that says it carried out the Beirut attacks, and Al Dawa Islamiyah, the main source of resistance to the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Al Dawa (The Call) has been outlawed in Iraq, where it wants to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state to replace the secular Baath Socialist government of Saddam Hussein, who is a Sunni Moslem.
It draws its strength from the large Shiite population in southern Iraq. Thousands of its most militant members were expelled to Iran in 1980 before the outbreak of the Iranian-Iraqi war and joined Al Dawa there. But it also has a large following in Lebanon among Iraqi exiles and sympathetic Lebanese Shiites.
While Al Dawa operates out of Tehran, it is not clear whether its activities abroad are under direct Iranian control or merely have Iran’s tacit acceptance.
8) Baalbek Seen As Staging Area For Terrorism, The Washington Post, January 9, 1984
Al Dawa, according to Arab and western sources, is believed to have had a role in the Oct. 23 suicide bomb attacks on the U.S. Marine and French military compounds in Beirut.
9) Message From Iran Triggered Bombing Spree In Kuwait, The Washington Post, February 3, 1984
Al Dawa, for example, is no household name in the United States.
But it is a name important to this story.
It leads us back to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the ruling figure in Iran; to Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the militant Lebanese Shiite leader who has been implicated-despite his denials-in the Marine and French bombings in Beirut; to Hussein Musawi, Fadlallah’s strong-arm lieutenant; to the Hakim brothers in Iran and their connections to the Middle East terrorism industry.
10) Iraq: Bush’s Islamic Republic
By Peter W. Galbraith
NYRB, Volume 52, Number 13 · August 11, 2005
When President Bush spoke to the nation on June 28, he did not mention Iran’s rising influence with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. He did not point out that the two leading parties in the Shiite coalition are pursuing an Islamic state in which the rights of women and religious minorities will be sharply curtailed, and that this kind of regime is already being put into place in parts of Iraq controlled by these parties.
[snip]
Instead, President Bush depicted the struggle in Iraq as a battle between the freedom-loving Iraqi people and terrorists. Without the sacrifices of the American servicemen and -women, and the largesse of the US taxpayer, the terrorists could win. As Bush put it, “The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11–if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi.”
[snip]
Real power in Shiite Iraq rests, however, with two religious parties: Abdel Aziz al-Hakim’s Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa (“Call,” in English) of Iraq’s Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari. Of the two, SCIRI is the more pro-Iranian. Both parties have military wings, and SCIRI’s Badr Corps has grown significantly from the five thousand fighters that harassed Saddam’s regime from Iran in the decades before the war; it now works closely with Iraq’s Shiite interior minister, until recently the corps’ commander, to provide security and fight Sunni Arab insurgents.
SCIRI and Dawa want Iraq to be an Islamic state. They propose to make Islam the principal source of law, which most immediately would affect the status of women. For Muslim women, religious law–rather than Iraq’s relatively progressive civil code–would govern personal status, including matters relating to marriage, divorce, property, and child custody. A Dawa draft for the Iraqi constitution would limit religious freedom for non-Muslims, and apparently deny such freedom altogether to peoples not “of the book,” such as the Yezidis (a significant minority in Kurdistan), Zoroastrians, and Bahais.
This program is not just theoretical. Since Saddam’s fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq’s southern cities. There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases, the religious authorities govern–and legislate–without authority from Baghdad, and certainly without any reference to the freedoms incorporated in Iraq’s American-written interim constitution–the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).
Dawa and SCIRI are not just promoting an Iranian-style political system –they are also directly promoting Iran- ian interests. Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the SCIRI leader, has advocated paying Iran billions in reparations for damage done in the Iran-Iraq war, even as the Bush administration has been working to win forgiveness for Iraq’s Saddam-era debt. Iraq’s Shiite oil minister is promoting construction of an export pipeline for petroleum from Basra to the Iranian port city of Abadan, creating an economic and strategic link between the two historic adversaries that would have been unthinkable until now. Iraq’s Shiite government has acknowledged Iraq’s responsibility for starting the Iran-Iraq war, and apologized. It is an acknowledgment probably justified by the historical record, but one that has infuriated Iraq’s Sunni Arabs.
Of course Maliki is not “the problem”. He’s simply one more sectarian player amongst many who had the misfortune to rise from virtual “also-ran” obscurity to be placed in a position of (mock)authority as a result of preferred puppets Chalabi & Allawi failing to gain sufficient stature amongst Iraqis.
The problem is the Bush regime first and foremost and always. It is a tribute to their cognitive disconnect that they’ve never acknowledged this simple awareness that Maliki is merely a sectarian player, and that they’ve not incorporated this into their supposed planning in a way that would allow them to create meaningful contingency strategies to deal with this basic reality.
But of course, as I’ve been saying from the very beginning of this Iraq debacle, (in fact I’ve been saying this since long before the invasion), the Bush regime agenda in Iraq has always been about perpetuating war and chaos, not winning war and establishing stability. With this in mind, all arguments centered on the idea that “incompetence” is the proximate cause of the disaster that is Iraq are red herrings, and the “blame Maliki” schtick is just one more in a long line of these diversionary memes. “Success” for the neocons is not about winning, despite the rhetoric designed to trick us, the public, to believe otherwise. The absurdity of this so-called “surge” lunacy is to create the illusion that increased force presence is directly responsible for suppressing the spread of violence for a period of time. This is a trick to help the neocons make the case that their “more war” agenda, and indeed their entire neocon ideology, is perfect and legitimate. But in reality, as Moqtada al-Sadr has already made clear, many of the sectarian killers on all sides will simply melt into the background and wait until the “surge” is over. Then they’ll re-emerge and pick up where they left off. In the meantime, the deaths of US soldiers will rise anyway due to the unsecure conditions of their new deployment tactics, and at the end of all the kicking-in of even more doors and the arrests and humiliations and killings of even more Iraqi civilians, this pathetic strategy will only succeed in turning more people against our presence there.
But creating the conditions to stimulate more violence, and making more enemies; these two goals are at the very center of the neocon insanity. They form the crux around which the entire neocon agenda for more war revolves.
I am quite poor financially these days, but I will donate money to the first politician, (or the first prominent pundit), here in the US who stands up and declares publicly that; “The neocon players running the Bush regime do not seek victory in Iraq; they seek perpetual war!” This idea refutes the first lie around which the neocon scam revolves. Sadly, I won’t be holding my breath for either an elected official or a major pundit to make such a statement. (Keith Olbermann could certaionly do it, but he’d probably have to be prepared to go job hunting soon after since I’m sure MSNBC is under orders to not rock the Bush boat in that way.
Hearing a bit of General Petraeus’ remarks today, and having researched a bit about him, I found myself feeling quite badly for him. My sense is that he’s been and honorable and dedicated soldier and patriot for his entire career, yet now that he’s involved directly with the poisonous neocons I don’t see how he’ll be able to maintain that integrity and honor unless he repudiates their insanity in pretty short order. Failing to do that will likely diminish him, just as it has every other prominent military officer who’s had the misfortune to get in bed with the neocon lunatics. Even his good intentions won’t help him or save his reputation if he remains in their orbit for long.
But of course, as I’ve been saying from the very beginning of this Iraq debacle, (in fact I’ve been saying this since long before the invasion), the Bush regime agenda in Iraq has always been about perpetuating war and chaos, not winning war and establishing stability.
That is pure craziness and devoid of any connection to reality and concrete facts.
Are you saying that the **highly documented** past of a few decades of the Neocon movement were simply a REDHERRING, the greatest headfake ever ?
Are you saying all those papers, books, thinktanks, etc were simply to distract us from their real purpose of perpetuating war and chaos?
You are making the Neocons to be some sort of evil geniuses when in fact they are just history’s most shitty imperialists who never got to know those whom they wished to subjugate at even a cursory level.
Bill Kristol is an asshole, not a visionary genius as you are making him out to be.
Donald Rumsfeld is the world’s worst warmonger, not a brilliant military strategist.
(How so?
Look at how screwed Israel is now?
Israel is in a strategic world of shit.)
Just as Hitler’s deeds and creeds were well-documented and in the public arena, so are the Neoncons (Cheney, Kristol, Kagans, Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) deeds and creeds.
Based on a total lack of knowledge and competence in ME language, politics, religion, etc., these pricks really thought Iraqi would embrace democracy while looking up the the barrel of a gun.
They were wrong and so are you for giving them credit and asserting that there plans are bearing fruit just as the planned.
Again, it is crazy to assert that all those papers, books, speeches, think tanks, etc were nothing more than masterful headfakes which were designed to distract us from their true goal of perpetuating war and chaos.
I think you are flat out wrong if you believe this invasion of Iraq was ever about democracy or stability in the region.
As to your contention that I somehow regard neocon lunatics like Kristol and Rumsfeld and Cheney as brilliant, I think you are misreading the main thrust of my remarks.
Certainly the neocon agenda has not played out exactly the way they wanted it to. If it had, we’d already have attacked Syria and Iran, Lebanon would already be in complete ruins, a puppet government in Iraq would already be functioning in a way that would magically have already privatized the energy resources of the country by turning them over to western multinational oil corporations while simultaneously outraging the Sunni and Shia and Kurd populations. Huge amounts of Sunni Arab money would already be flowing in to Iraq in a torrent in an attempt to counter, (read fuel opposition to), the Shia ascendancy in Iraq which the Bush regome’s neocons themselves have enabled. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict would be ratcheted way up above the levels it stands at now. And obviously there is no chance for the neocon agenda to achieve it’song term goal of complete domination and control of theregion because they are delusional psychopaths infatuated by their own insane ideology.
But, so far, their attempts to destabilize the region are bearing fruit.
I don’t know how familiar you may be with the writings and machinations of these neocon loonies, but I have follwed them quite closely over the years and have certainly read all of their major papers several times over. While there is plenty of high-flown rhetoric in their spiel, in the final analysis it is clear that, practically speaking, they are of an unambiguous authoritarian mindset where all the talk about such noble concepts as freedom and democracy and liberation are but a ruse designed to conceal theirtrue ambition for domination.
And keep in mind too that swindlers and con-men who operate from positions of authority in society all know quite well that one major dynamic that helps them get away with their shit is that people almost always tend to be reluctant to acknowledge that their leaders, the people they supported, are capable of such atrocities of thought and action. (Think of the pedophile priests and how much time they bought to continue perpetrating their crimes simply by knowing that the average parent was so invested in believing in their pious sanctity that they’d never be able to believe what their own children were telling them about being molested by the parish priest.) This is exactly the same sort of mechanism that has helped the neocons get as far as they have, as your comments above have so succintly demonstrated.
I think you are flat out wrong if you believe this invasion of Iraq was ever about democracy or stability in the region.
Ok, with some *real Neocon* literature, show me how `invasion of Iraq was not ever about democracy or stability in the region’.
I do not want secondary sources.
I want primary, from the hand of a true Neocon, and not one of these Neo-neocon wannabees.
A ruse designed to conceal their true ambition for domination?
Perhaps you’ve read way too many comic books?
Are you sensing the silliness to what you are saying?
You are in essence saying that Neocons–like Cheney, Kristol, Kagans, Wolfowitz, Leeden, Perle et al-were from the one side of their mouth talking about spreading democracy militarily AND from the other side saying “Mwahaha, mwahaha, We Shall Rule the World through Perpetual Chaos, Mwahaha, mwahaha, Mwahaha, mwahaha”.
That’s wacky, super nutty.
Again, just as Hitler has a *vast* public record of what his designs were on the world so do the Neocons.
Their public record cannot simply be trumped by your *suspicions*.
These guys are the world’s worst imperialists.
The perpetual chaos we see is not by design.
I don’t know why you feel the need to be snide and rude but it does seem to me that doing so only reveals the shallow and uninformed nature of your perspectives.
Try reading the seminal neocon document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. It’s still available on the PNAC website. Try deepening your understanding of what the functional characteristics of an “Imperialist” might be and then se if perhaps what I’m saying is actually not contradictory to your simple idea that the neocons are the “world’s worst Imperialists”.
I do not feel a need to be snide and rude to you at all, esp. since we are on the same side basically.
I will try to tone it down.
I have to admit, though, I am more than tired of people trying to describe the “perpetual chaos” we now see in the ME as 1intentional’ as a “ruse designed to conceal their true ambition for domination” when in fact it is not.
If I may, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” is not at all about “perpetuating war and chaos” and it is not a `ruse designed to conceal their true ambition for domination’.
That is your interpretation of that *public* document.
You are basically stating that these guys for the last 20+ years have been writing, speaking, and acting a manner that would conceal their `true ambition for domination’.
I say that’s nuts!
Just as Hitler was public, so are/were the Neocons.
What we see is what they were public about–MINUS the success.
I say that their true ambition for domination and for pro-American democracies goaded upright with the barrel of a gun, etc. have been out in the open for all to see.
There is nothing secret about them at all.
They are the world’s most vocal and shittiest imperialists.
The ME is could embark on an internecine battle, i.e. perpetual chaos, which could last for generations.
There’s no way in hell am I ever going to assert that that is the direct handy work of the Neocons.
Those guys are fuc*ing idiots, not geniuses.