Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Oh! Those Hidden Agendas and Subtexts!

Yesterday, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, who is the nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US military efforts in Iraq would fail unless Iraqi leaders “did more to bring together the rival factions (Sunni and Shiite) dividing Iraq”. This morning at 6:30 ayem, the Associated Press filed the following short release from Baghdad: “Iraq's largest Sunni Arab political bloc announced its withdrawal from the government Wednesday, undermining Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's efforts to seek reconciliation among the country's rival factions. “Violence continued unabated, with 17 civilians killed in a car bomb in central Baghdad and the U.S. military announcing the deaths of three American soldiers killed by a sophisticated, armor-piercing bomb. “Meanwhile, a fuel tanker exploded near a gas station in western Baghdad, killing at least 15 people and wounding 25, police said. The blast occurred around 2 p.m. in Mansour, a primarily Sunni neighborhood on the western side of the Iraqi capital.” That means the Maliki government is powerless to “do more”, which Mullen knew all the way along. At the same time, we’re hearing mega-hype bullshit about how July was the month with fewest US soldier deaths in Iraq in 2007. But the BIG STORY is that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates hustled themselves to Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt to ratchet up support for Iraq and to foment mischief against Iran with leaders from Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. And get this for a subtext: The New York Times had a report on the statement issued by the Sharm El-Sheikh crew: “On Iran, the group’s statement included only a paragraph supporting ‘international diplomatic efforts’ aimed at reining in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, and “reiterated the rights of all the parties” to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to ‘use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.’” Translation according to the Bush administration definition of “nuclear ambitions” and “peaceful purposes”: No country can use nuclear arms to defend itself against US aggression. On the other hand, the US can nuke the hell out of any Middle East country because the desired result would be a peaceful takeover of the Middle East by the US. And by the way, although we heard that Gates/Rice met with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia “along with his national security deputies”, isn’t it odd that President Bush’s erstwhile close buddy Prince Bandar’s name was not mentioned. Even though, as far as I know, Bandar has been head of Saudi Arabia’s national security since 2005. Who or what is more slippery than who or what in the Middle East? Them or us? My take is that no matter how much the Bush administration covers itself in Middle East oil, it will never outcon or outsmart the lowest flunky born in the Middle East.

1 comment:

Barry Schwartz said...

The idiot 'news' could, if not idiotic, answer every claim of improvement in US-occupier-death-rate by displaying a certain easily obtained graph.

Although their editors would probably say 'Graphics too much money!! Me want COOKIEEEEEE!'