Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

Considering your history of flip flopping on issues (i.e. Japanese products)
how long till you start endorsing Bush? Maybe when you think you can profit
from endorsing a Republican.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.9bec7855b5d82a751b5031b4c71e109b@108 1261375.nulluser.com...
INSIDE IRAQ
GOP loyalists in Baghdad try to keep news good

Critics say office is campaign outpost

By Jim Krane
ASSOCIATED PRESS

April 5, 2004

Inside the marble-floored palace hall that serves as the press office of
the U.S.-led coalition, Republican Party operatives lead a team of
Americans who promote mostly good news about Iraq.

Dan Senor, a former press secretary for Spencer Abraham, the Michigan
Republican who's now energy secretary, heads the office packed with
former Bush campaign workers, political appointees and ex-Capitol Hill
staffers.

One-third of the U.S. civilian workers in the press office have GOP
ties, running an enterprise that critics see as an outpost of Bush's
re-election effort with Iraq a top concern. Senor and others inside the
coalition say they follow strict guidelines that steer clear of politics.

One of the main goals of the Office of Strategic Communications - known
as stratcom - is to ensure Americans see the positive side of the Bush
administration's invasion, occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, where
600 U.S. soldiers have died and a deadly insurgency thrives.

"Beautification Plan for Baghdad Ready to Begin," one press release in
late March said in its headline. Another statement last month cautioned,
"The Reality is Nothing Like What You See on Television."

Senor, spokesman for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, said
his office is guided by ethical "red lines" that prevent it from
crossing into the Bush campaign.

"We have an obligation to communicate with the U.S. Congress and the
American people, given that they're spending almost $20 billion in Iraq
and have committed over 100,000 U.S. troops here," Senor said in an
interview with The Associated Press.

Known as the Green Room, the press office is inside coalition
headquarters in the Republican Palace that used to belong to Saddam
Hussein. The palace is in central Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

The office counts 21 Republicans - 11 of whom have worked inside the
Bush administration before their Iraq posting - among its 58 U.S.
civilian staffers, according to figures Senor provided.

More than half a dozen CPA officials in the press office worked on
Bush's 2000 presidential campaign or are related to Bush campaign
workers, according to payroll records filed with the Federal Elections
Commission.

The U.S. team stands in deep contrast to the British team that works
alongside it, almost all of whom are civil or foreign service employees,
not political appointees. Many of the British in Iraq display regional
knowledge or language skills that most of the Americans lack.

The drive to re-elect Bush is a sensitive topic. Several coalition
officials angered by what they see as CPA politicking - with U.S.
accomplishments in Iraq being trumpeted to help Bush - grumbled
privately, but would not go on record with complaints.

But Gordon Robison, a former CPA contractor who helped build the
Pentagon-funded Al-Iraqiya television station in Baghdad, said
Republicans in the press room intensely followed the Democratic
presidential primaries as John Kerry emerged as the presumed nominee.

"Iraq is in danger of costing George W. Bush his presidency and the
CPA's media staff are determined to see that does not happen," Robison
said.

Robison, a journalist who said his political affiliation is a private
matter, left Baghdad in March after finishing his contract with San
Diego-based defense contractor Science Applications International Corp.

One CPA staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity said the press
office had sent targeted "good news" releases to U.S. television, radio
and newspaper outlets that were timed to deflect criticism of Bush
during the Democratic primaries.

Rich Galen, 57, a well-known Republican strategist, oversees the daily
news releases sent directly to media outlets in the United States.
Before joining the CPA press operation late last year, Galen wrote a GOP
insider column and appeared on Fox News to harpoon liberal critics of
Bush.

Now, he's still writing an Internet column, but he's turned it into what
he calls a travelogue about Iraq. And he still appears on Fox - but
long-distance via satellite and as a CPA spokesman.

Galen has been press secretary for both former House Speaker Newt
Gingrich and former Vice President Dan Quayle.

Were he to get directly involved in the Bush campaign, Galen said, he'd
be far more effective working at an office in Virginia outside of
Washington, D.C., than from the Iraqi capital.

But putting a sharp strategist like him in the press room is a campaign
masterstroke, said Bob Boorstin of the Center for American Progress, a
nonpartisan political think tank in Washington.

"You know they're in trouble if they shipped Rich Galen over there,"
said Boorstin, who worked on four presidential campaigns, all Democratic.

"They're desperate to control the story over there. It's a very smart
thing on their part. He knows what he's doing."

Still, Boorstin said the shaping of the American message out of Iraq
should come as no surprise. The rigors of election year politics demand
the best possible portrayal of key policies, and Bush has staked his
presidency on the notion that he's a war president.

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

By Jim Krane
ASSOCIATED PRESS

One-third of the U.S. civilian workers in the press office have GOP
ties,

So two-thirds are neutral or Democrat. Is this supposed to make us smile,
or worry? Some 70% or more of the mainstream US print and broadcast media
have Democrat ties.


One of the main goals ... is to ensure Americans see the positive side of
the Bush
administration's invasion, occupation and reconstruction of Iraq,

And why not? Combat activities in any war will be more intense or less
intense from day to day or week to week, but there *are* positive things to
be reported, which get little or no mention in the routine coverage here at
home.



The office counts 21 Republicans - 11 of whom have worked inside the
Bush administration before their Iraq posting - among its 58 U.S.
civilian staffers

So what? This is not even worthy of mention unless someone is trying to
grasp at any reason to snipe at the WH. I don't have any figures, but I
wonder what the party affiliation breakdown was in the Clinton Press Office,
or the Carter Press Office. I'm betting it wasn't 65% "opposition". The
fact that two-thirds are NOT Republicans shows that the WH is taking great
pains to present a fair picture.

You, and others on the left, are really grasping lately. Getting nudgy?

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 14:21:03 -0400, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message

By Jim Krane
ASSOCIATED PRESS

One-third of the U.S. civilian workers in the press office have GOP
ties,

So two-thirds are neutral or Democrat. Is this supposed to make us smile,
or worry? Some 70% or more of the mainstream US print and broadcast media
have Democrat ties.


One of the main goals ... is to ensure Americans see the positive side of
the Bush
administration's invasion, occupation and reconstruction of Iraq,

And why not? Combat activities in any war will be more intense or less
intense from day to day or week to week, but there *are* positive things to
be reported, which get little or no mention in the routine coverage here at
home.



The office counts 21 Republicans - 11 of whom have worked inside the
Bush administration before their Iraq posting - among its 58 U.S.
civilian staffers

So what? This is not even worthy of mention unless someone is trying to
grasp at any reason to snipe at the WH. I don't have any figures, but I
wonder what the party affiliation breakdown was in the Clinton Press Office,
or the Carter Press Office. I'm betting it wasn't 65% "opposition". The
fact that two-thirds are NOT Republicans shows that the WH is taking great
pains to present a fair picture.

You, and others on the left, are really grasping lately. Getting nudgy?

The other two-thirds must be pure, 100% liberal, 'cause the good things sure
don't make it to the news. It's a shame the American taxpayers are paying so
much to hear only the liberal agenda, i.e. only the bad stuff.

Of course, I'm sure this pleases the likes of HK, et al.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

And why not? Combat activities in any war will be more intense or less
intense from day to day or week to week, but there *are* positive things
to
be reported, which get little or no mention in the routine coverage here
at
home.


Actually, the hideously left-wing minions at National Public Radio have
reported something positive at least 4-5 times per week for the past few
months. You wouldn't even know where to find them on the radio dial, though,
would you? Matter of fact, the socialists at the NY Times have done the
same. You wouldn't know about that. You just repeat what the central brain
tells you: "The Media" only reports the negative news.s

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

Doug Kanter wrote:
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

And why not? Combat activities in any war will be more intense or less
intense from day to day or week to week, but there *are* positive things

to

be reported, which get little or no mention in the routine coverage here

at

home.



Actually, the hideously left-wing minions at National Public Radio have
reported something positive at least 4-5 times per week for the past few
months. You wouldn't even know where to find them on the radio dial, though,
would you? Matter of fact, the socialists at the NY Times have done the
same. You wouldn't know about that. You just repeat what the central brain
tells you: "The Media" only reports the negative news.s



The so-called "good" news coming out of Iraq reminds me of the "good
news" that came out of Vietnam during teh late 1960s and early 1970s.
None of it amounted to crap. The Bush mis-administration is absolutely
clueless.

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Actually, the hideously left-wing minions at National Public Radio have
reported something positive at least 4-5 times per week

As I am well aware. You'll note I said little or no mention in the normal
news cycle -- I did not say no coverage at all. I would point out that 4 or
5 items a week in a world of 24/7 news cycles doesn't amount to much. Up
until the last couple of weeks or so, most of the news from most of Iraq was
positive. We're in a tough time now, as will always happen in war. I'm
sure that in the week leading up to Christmas of 1944 there were
hand-wringers galore saying "Oh, I told you this invasion was a bad idea --
now the Germans have started a big attack and its going to be a mess." You
have to stay focused on the long term strategic goals, and observe what's
happening. Whether its business or military, short term focus is useless
when applied to long term problems.

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

John Gaquin wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Actually, the hideously left-wing minions at National Public Radio have
reported something positive at least 4-5 times per week


As I am well aware. You'll note I said little or no mention in the normal
news cycle -- I did not say no coverage at all. I would point out that 4 or
5 items a week in a world of 24/7 news cycles doesn't amount to much. Up
until the last couple of weeks or so, most of the news from most of Iraq was
positive. We're in a tough time now, as will always happen in war. I'm
sure that in the week leading up to Christmas of 1944 there were
hand-wringers galore saying "Oh, I told you this invasion was a bad idea --
now the Germans have started a big attack and its going to be a mess." You
have to stay focused on the long term strategic goals, and observe what's
happening. Whether its business or military, short term focus is useless
when applied to long term problems.





you have a lot of damned gall even trying to compare 1944 with any of
Bush's fraudulent war in iraq.

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:14:50 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


You have to stay focused on the long term strategic goals, and observe
what's happening. Whether its business or military, short term focus is
useless when applied to long term problems.

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Actually, the hideously left-wing minions at National Public Radio have
reported something positive at least 4-5 times per week


As I am well aware. You'll note I said little or no mention in the
normal
news cycle -- I did not say no coverage at all. I would point out that
4 or
5 items a week in a world of 24/7 news cycles doesn't amount to much.
Up
until the last couple of weeks or so, most of the news from most of Iraq
was
positive. We're in a tough time now, as will always happen in war. I'm
sure that in the week leading up to Christmas of 1944 there were
hand-wringers galore saying "Oh, I told you this invasion was a bad
idea --
now the Germans have started a big attack and its going to be a mess."
You
have to stay focused on the long term strategic goals, and observe
what's
happening. Whether its business or military, short term focus is
useless
when applied to long term problems.





you have a lot of damned gall even trying to compare 1944 with any of
Bush's fraudulent war in iraq.

Why? There are parallel's.

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

Ya,, Harry doesn't want to see any comparison of this war,,, especially to
something like Vietnam. UNLESS his hero Kennedy makes it. I will have to
repeat what I said then for you harry,, because your not too smart.

Particularly funny when you consider that Vietnam was Kennedy's war.
His brother is the one who started it.

And, of course, all the comparisons between a war that lasted a decade
and a war that lasted 3 months fail miserably.

Kennedy is and always has been a joke.

You need to quote someone who is not 1) a murderer, 2) an accomplish
to a rape, 3) a drunk.

Harry, you need a new puppet master.


And also there Harry,,, Doesn't the Kerry Family own Heinz Ketchup? Do you
know how much offshore labor or non American labor is used for making that
Product? How come when Kerry was asked about this, he only claimed that he
has nothing to do with the managing of the firm? He (or his wife) own the
firm, but have no control over management? He criticizes the president over
his job migration thing, and Kerry himself takes advantage of lower income
earning labor.

Come on Harry,,,, Your not looking too good here, It appears that the
Democrats are banking on the ignorance of the voters again,,,, and you are
falling right into line.,, But I never did think you were too smart there
Harry,,,,







"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:14:50 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


You have to stay focused on the long term strategic goals, and observe
what's happening. Whether its business or military, short term focus is
useless when applied to long term problems.

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Actually, the hideously left-wing minions at National Public Radio have
reported something positive at least 4-5 times per week

As I am well aware. You'll note I said little or no mention in the normal
news cycle -- I did not say no coverage at all. I would point out that 4
or
5 items a week in a world of 24/7 news cycles doesn't amount to much. Up
until the last couple of weeks or so, most of the news from most of Iraq
was
positive. We're in a tough time now, as will always happen in war. I'm
sure that in the week leading up to Christmas of 1944 there were
hand-wringers galore saying "Oh, I told you this invasion was a bad
idea --
now the Germans have started a big attack and its going to be a mess."
You
have to stay focused on the long term strategic goals, and observe what's
happening. Whether its business or military, short term focus is useless
when applied to long term problems.



Depends on what you mean by "normal". The 24x7 cycle is represented by the
shallowest of resources, specifically the cable & network channels. Nobody
interested in depth considers those sources to be "normal".

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

"thunder" wrote in message

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.


1. In Iraq, we have eliminated the most unstable regime in the area. The
circumstance within Iraq will stabilize in due course.

2. In Afghanistan, we have eliminated the Taliban as the dominant force,
and effectively removed the area as a stable operating base for al Qaeda.

3. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have bracketed Iran,
arguably the most powerful terrorist state anywhere.

4. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the generally
pro-western government in Turkey, we have major presence across the entire
northern tier of the mid-east.

5. Our presence in Iraq coupled with the location of Israel puts a
worrisome strategic bracket around Syria.

6. Our demonstrated willingness to fight a war against terrorists has
induced Libya to a level of cooperation unseen in 30 years.

7. Probably for similar reasons, Algeria and Morocco have both communicated
with the US, indicating a preference for a softer, non-militant,
non-fundamentalist stance.

8. After 2+ years of effort, US diplomats have effectively brokered an end
to the 20+ year old (oil based) civil war in Sudan.

9. Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan form a southern tier, effectively
bracketing the entire mid-east.

11. Iraq, Libya, and Sudan all have major oil production capacity, once
reconstituted. This will seriously alter the economic balance of power in
the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional lynchpins of the region,
see their influence jeopardized.

In short, as a result of a demonstrated willingness by the US to take a
stance, militarily when necessary, virtually every Arab or Islamic
government from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush is in flux, with most indicating
a more accommodating stance toward the west.

That's the strategy. It is working. Iraq is not the war. Iraq is just a
battle.

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

" Tuuk" wrote in message news:90Ucc.11734

And also there Harry,,, Doesn't the Kerry Family own Heinz Ketchup? Do you
know how much offshore labor or non American labor is used for making that
Product? How come when Kerry was asked about this, he only claimed that he
has nothing to do with the managing of the firm? He (or his wife) own the
firm, but have no control over management? He criticizes the president
over
his job migration thing, and Kerry himself takes advantage of lower income
earning labor.

Tuuk, you have to be fair when it is due. Neither John Kerry nor the Kerry
family "owns the firm". Kerry had nothing major to do with Heinz before he
married into it. In fact, his wife had nothing to do with it before SHE
married into it. Heinz is a publicly traded company in which Teresa Heinz,
by virtue of her first husband's death, is a very major shareholder.

Heinz is an international concern in the truest sense of the word. Some 60%
of their sales are outside of the US. Its only reasonable to locate
production close to markets when possible. Last figures I saw indicated
about 60% of sales outside of the US, and about 72% of production outside of
the US. So, they're maybe a little unbalanced, but nowhere near a major
offender.

Much as I'd love to cover him in catsup, this one won't work.

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:57:02 -0400, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.


1. In Iraq, we have eliminated the most unstable regime in the area. The
circumstance within Iraq will stabilize in due course.

2. In Afghanistan, we have eliminated the Taliban as the dominant force,
and effectively removed the area as a stable operating base for al Qaeda.

3. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have bracketed Iran,
arguably the most powerful terrorist state anywhere.

4. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the generally
pro-western government in Turkey, we have major presence across the entire
northern tier of the mid-east.

5. Our presence in Iraq coupled with the location of Israel puts a
worrisome strategic bracket around Syria.

6. Our demonstrated willingness to fight a war against terrorists has
induced Libya to a level of cooperation unseen in 30 years.

7. Probably for similar reasons, Algeria and Morocco have both communicated
with the US, indicating a preference for a softer, non-militant,
non-fundamentalist stance.

8. After 2+ years of effort, US diplomats have effectively brokered an end
to the 20+ year old (oil based) civil war in Sudan.

9. Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan form a southern tier, effectively
bracketing the entire mid-east.

11. Iraq, Libya, and Sudan all have major oil production capacity, once
reconstituted. This will seriously alter the economic balance of power in
the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional lynchpins of the region,
see their influence jeopardized.

In short, as a result of a demonstrated willingness by the US to take a
stance, militarily when necessary, virtually every Arab or Islamic
government from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush is in flux, with most indicating
a more accommodating stance toward the west.

That's the strategy. It is working. Iraq is not the war. Iraq is just a
battle.

Very well done, John. Even those who disagree with your political view would
have to credit this post as a good job.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"thunder" wrote in message

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.


1. In Iraq, we have eliminated the most unstable regime in the area. The
circumstance within Iraq will stabilize in due course.

2. In Afghanistan, we have eliminated the Taliban as the dominant force,
and effectively removed the area as a stable operating base for al Qaeda.

3. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have bracketed Iran,
arguably the most powerful terrorist state anywhere.

4. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the generally
pro-western government in Turkey, we have major presence across the entire
northern tier of the mid-east.

5. Our presence in Iraq coupled with the location of Israel puts a
worrisome strategic bracket around Syria.

6. Our demonstrated willingness to fight a war against terrorists has
induced Libya to a level of cooperation unseen in 30 years.

7. Probably for similar reasons, Algeria and Morocco have both communicated
with the US, indicating a preference for a softer, non-militant,
non-fundamentalist stance.

8. After 2+ years of effort, US diplomats have effectively brokered an end
to the 20+ year old (oil based) civil war in Sudan.

9. Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan form a southern tier, effectively
bracketing the entire mid-east.

11. Iraq, Libya, and Sudan all have major oil production capacity, once
reconstituted. This will seriously alter the economic balance of power in
the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional lynchpins of the region,
see their influence jeopardized.

In short, as a result of a demonstrated willingness by the US to take a
stance, militarily when necessary, virtually every Arab or Islamic
government from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush is in flux, with most indicating
a more accommodating stance toward the west.

That's the strategy. It is working. Iraq is not the war. Iraq is just a
battle.

Why didn't BushCo TELL us that, in the beginning, or even NOW? If it
is so very clear to you, then it must be just as clear to Bush and his
cabinet. Why did he say we were going to Iraq to rid the world of
Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction, if he knew we were actually
going there because of the above reasons? Am I to understand that,
because you've listed the above reasons, and those reasons only, that
you AGREE that Bush lied to us?

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

" Tuuk" wrote in message news:90Ucc.11734

And also there Harry,,, Doesn't the Kerry Family own Heinz Ketchup? Do
you
know how much offshore labor or non American labor is used for making
that
Product? How come when Kerry was asked about this, he only claimed that
he
has nothing to do with the managing of the firm? He (or his wife) own
the
firm, but have no control over management? He criticizes the president
over
his job migration thing, and Kerry himself takes advantage of lower
income
earning labor.

Tuuk, you have to be fair when it is due. Neither John Kerry nor the
Kerry
family "owns the firm". Kerry had nothing major to do with Heinz before
he
married into it. In fact, his wife had nothing to do with it before SHE
married into it. Heinz is a publicly traded company in which Teresa
Heinz,
by virtue of her first husband's death, is a very major shareholder.

Heinz is an international concern in the truest sense of the word. Some
60%
of their sales are outside of the US. Its only reasonable to locate
production close to markets when possible.

.....especially for food products whose raw materials are highly perishable,
like tomatoes. This logic probably escaped Tuuk, though. :-)

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:57:02 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.


1. In Iraq, we have eliminated the most unstable regime in the area. The
circumstance within Iraq will stabilize in due course.

Saddam's Iraq was many things, but unstable it was not. Today's Iraq is
unstable. Hopefully this will change, but it is not a certainty.
Unfortunately, at this moment, I would say a civil war is as likely as a
democracy.

2. In Afghanistan, we have eliminated the Taliban as the dominant
force, and effectively removed the area as a stable operating base for
al Qaeda.

We have effectively removed Afghanistan as a stable anything, except
perhaps a stable source of opium. There are some positive signs. Perhaps
if Iraq hadn't put Afghanistan on the back burner, we could have claimed
some real successes.

3. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have
bracketed Iran,
arguably the most powerful terrorist state anywhere.

Maybe, Iran certainly isn't our friend, but neither do they seem to be
exporting problems for us. Iran has domestic problems to deal with,
including a democratic movement that threatens the Islamic regime.


4. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the generally
pro-western government in Turkey, we have major presence across the
entire northern tier of the mid-east.

5. Our presence in Iraq coupled with the location of Israel puts a
worrisome strategic bracket around Syria.

Personally, I'm not much of a fan of Israel's Likud hardliners. Let them
fight their own battles. As an aside, you do know that Syria was a
coalition member in the Gulf War. They are Israel's enemy, not
necessarily ours.


6. Our demonstrated willingness to fight a war against terrorists has
induced Libya to a level of cooperation unseen in 30 years.

Reagan's bombing of Libya changed Qadhafi. Libya's efforts at
normalization predate Bush's War on Terror.


7. Probably for similar reasons, Algeria and Morocco have both
communicated with the US, indicating a preference for a softer,
non-militant, non-fundamentalist stance.

8. After 2+ years of effort, US diplomats have effectively brokered an
end to the 20+ year old (oil based) civil war in Sudan.

Sudan's troubles are mostly ethnic/religious.

9. Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan form a southern tier, effectively
bracketing the entire mid-east.

LOL, normalized relations don't necessarily mean allies.


11. Iraq, Libya, and Sudan all have major oil production capacity, once
reconstituted. This will seriously alter the economic balance of power
in the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional lynchpins of the
region, see their influence jeopardized.

Egypt's influence is not based on oil.

In short, as a result of a demonstrated willingness by the US to take a
stance, militarily when necessary, virtually every Arab or Islamic
government from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush is in flux, with most
indicating a more accommodating stance toward the west.

That's the strategy. It is working. Iraq is not the war. Iraq is just
a battle.

Geopolitical chess is a very dangerous game, especially since no human can
see the end result. Food for thought, Iraq and Iran were once both strong
allies.

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

"basskisser" wrote in message

Why didn't BushCo TELL us that, in the beginning, or even NOW?

Because it takes more than 45 seconds to explain properly, and most
Americans are too damned ignorant of geography and world events to follow
along. Consider the bell curve.


.....Am I to understand that,
because you've listed the above reasons, and those reasons only, that
you AGREE that Bush lied to us?

No, not at all. He posited that portion of the argument that would resonate
in an ADD, sound-bite society. Fact is, he didn't have to explain anything
in detail. Leaders are elected in a Republic to exercise their judgment. A
leader is someone who can and will take you where you need to, but don't
want to go. Make the decision, and do it. Gallup polls and focus groups
are for those trying to evade responsibility. Do you think Roosevelt or
Churchill explained every detail to their respective populations? Asked
permission? Ever read about Coventry? Think anyone in the US Congress
would have the stones to make that kind of decision?

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Why didn't BushCo TELL us that, in the beginning, or even NOW?

Because it takes more than 45 seconds to explain properly, and most
Americans are too damned ignorant of geography and world events to follow
along. Consider the bell curve.


.....Am I to understand that,
because you've listed the above reasons, and those reasons only, that
you AGREE that Bush lied to us?

No, not at all. He posited that portion of the argument that would
resonate
in an ADD, sound-bite society. Fact is, he didn't have to explain
anything
in detail. Leaders are elected in a Republic to exercise their judgment.
A
leader is someone who can and will take you where you need to, but don't
want to go. Make the decision, and do it. Gallup polls and focus groups
are for those trying to evade responsibility. Do you think Roosevelt or
Churchill explained every detail to their respective populations? Asked
permission? Ever read about Coventry? Think anyone in the US Congress
would have the stones to make that kind of decision?



Bull****. There are plenty of real reporters who would've given Bush as much
time as he wanted, to explain his policies in depth to people who would
listen. He never tried, not that he could've done it without a script. But,
there are plenty of citizens who would've listened.

Bushites "Manipulate" News from Iraq
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...

snip

every Arab or Islamic government from Gibraltar ...

NEWS UPDATE: Gibraltar last had an Islamic Government in 1492
===========

We have been British since 1704 which predates the founding of
the American state.

--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com