Another Clark Bar in the Pool
Anyone who cracked up over the Clark Bar floating in the pool in the film “Caddy Shack” knows what the candy represented.
Now George Bush is dumping new Clark Bars into a critically important foreign policy pool in Pakistan… only there's nothing sweet about his dumps, which already have been eaten, digested and eliminated, threatening to foul world events yet again.
WTF, Dubyah???? Did we really need to provoke an already reeling world by sending a drone into Pakistan to launch a missile strike that killed 20 civilians, when Pakistan has nuclear weapons and isn’t sure if we’re friend or foe? Are you just wagging the pachyderm? Or are you defacing the Oval Office desk with your signature, leaving a lingering stench of your ineptitude before you leave?
According to today’s New York Times, the strike was “part of an escalating campaign by the Bush administration to hit the Taliban and their Qaeda backers at their bases in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
“The Bush administration has intensified the drone attacks after backing away from using American commandos for ground raids into the tribal belt. A ground assault on Sept. 3 produced an angry public riposte from the chief of the Pakistani Army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who said he would defend Pakistan’s borders ‘at all costs’ against such intrusions, an unusually strong statement from one ally to another.”
OK, it’s almost Halloween, so there are a lot of scary movie reruns on cable TV right now. But, after a brief period of relative calm in his war games (somebody please teach the Prez how to use a Game Boy), Dubyah has reduced me to that badass Indian spirit in “Amityville Horror” growling, “Get Out.”
Please, Dubyah… just when Oliver Stone’s movie “W” was convincing some of us that you’re human, must you scare the Clark Bar out of us again? Take a nap! Visit a grade school and read the kiddies a story about a goat! Lock yourself in the bathroom and enjoy a moment of personal pleasure! Just please, please, pretty please… don’t make another one of your notoriously critical blunders in our dealings with Pakistan!
Bruce Riedel, formerly one of the CIA’s senior Middle East analysts and later an assistant to the President on the National Security Council, has just published an insightful book: “The Search For Al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, And Future” (Brookings Institution Press. $26.95). Among the many points Riedel makes is that al Qaeda does not, as Dubyah claims, hate the U.S. because of our freedoms and way of life… “As [Osama] bin Ladin has said, ‘if that were the case, Al Qaeda would have attacked Sweden.’ ”
So, what does Riedel recommend for dealing with terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere? Primarily, that we need a more sophisticated approach. Noting that Bin Ladin is an “evil genius” who predicted that the world economic/financial crisis we are undergoing is “exactly what would happen when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began,” and that Bin Ladin actually pointed specifically to the home-mortgage bubble in the United States, Reidel says we must tackle the “fundamental challenge of… Al Queda’s narrative.” That sounds like he thinks we need to talk. (To read the Newsweek interview with Riedel visit http://www.newsweek.com/id/165952/page/1)
After a Pakistani parliamentary resolution last week that encouraged dialogue with willing militants, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, echoed Riedel’s opinion by stating, “There is an increasing realization that the use of force alone cannot yield the desired results.”
Does this mean we should toss chocolate truffles into the pool instead of Clark Bars? I don’t think so. I think we need to stock up on Chateauneuf du Pape and enroll leaders from both political parties in adult education courses on diplomacy.
19 Comments:
Pat writ: So, what does Riedel recommend for dealing with terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere?
I sez: Write 'em up. That's what other employers do when their employees turn rogue.
12:30 PM
Hey, don't look now but Bush is cribbing from Obama! This is EXACTLY ond of the reasons liberals like me have compared Obama's idea of fighting Al Quaeda to George Bush's. REmember everyone, Obama said he would run strikes in Pakistan if it meant "getting our man." It made McCain almost have an embolism explode in his brain. I haven't read statements from either side on this but it will be funny/tragic to see the media pundits spin now.
Naomi Klein predicted it. First, the economic shock. Next, another terrorist shock. Please, everyone. Read The Shock Doctrine. ANd for God's sake demand better from Obama than shooting missiles all over the middle east out of some kind of misplaced Manifest Destiny.
I need a sedative.
1:47 PM
And if you want to argue about this -- argue with the editor of CounterPunch, contributor to The Nation and one of the most respected progressives around. He nails my sentiments exactly here.
http://dakiniland.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/alexander-cockburn-obama-the-first-rate-republican/
Again, this isn't Obama bashing. It's the realistic look at him that ALL liberals should have done, with a real media behind us, in the beginning. INstead, those of us questioning him were ostracized by the popular crowd and told to shut up and get in line behind the party, even though the party was doing things that freaked us the hell out.
Now that Bush already started it up with Pakistan, it pays to look at what Obama will do when HE is in office.
I'm really worried. I can't believe I don't know which guy would be worse -- McCain or Obama -- in a question about military aggression. I'm not excited about Biden, either. He's got weird axes to grind about this region, too.
Shit.
2:11 PM
Laurie: no argument from me... That's why I said BOTH parties should enroll in a diplomacy class. It is sobering to realize that in the blink of an eye, the risk of war can raise its ugly head again.
If you don't have a sedative, try a Clark Bar... or a bottle of Chateaneuf du Pape!
2:38 PM
I'll never look at a Clark bar the same way again. EWWWWW!!!
:-)
3:07 PM
Oh, and I don't think we need diplomacy with terrorists. I've always thought it was a criminal problem left to law enforcement -- NOT a diplomatic problem. Diplomacy with Al QUaeda? That's like diplomacy with the Mafia. Diplomacy with Pakistan, Iran and other countries -- sure. But this bullshit military response to international CRIMINALS is in itself criminal in my opinion.
I'm in a politics free zone for the rest of the day. AGH.
3:10 PM
I believe what Obama said about Pakistan is that IF Bin Laden is in our sights and Pakistan won't or can't take him out...then we should. I back him up on that statement. Osama Bin Laden masterminded with other crazies the needless killings of over 3,000Americans just trying to go to work that horrible day...I'm sorry but once again I will have to agree with Barack on taking Bin Laden out for his horrific crimes against America.
4:14 PM
Nikkis: Thanks for clarifying what Barack actually said about following Bin Laden into Pakistan..
By the way, Riedel doesn't advocate diplomacy with terrorists... he advocates engaging them on an ideological level, i.e., countering THEIR propaganda that Americans hate and disrespect Muslims with better propaganda from our side... although, Palin, McCain et al certainly have been giving terrorists some great ammunition for their hatred guns.
6:50 PM
WRONG.
"If the United States has al Qaeda, (Osama) bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out."
This is the quote. And it's exactly the mentality that Bush uses to go in and start bombing "high level terrorists."
This is MADNESS. We are not kings allowed to piss and kill in any sovereign borders based on our own needs. Madness, madness, madness.
Incidentally, I was infuriated when CLinton bombed that aspirin factory in the Sudan. Madness. Illegal. Wrong.
Only Congress can take us to war. All these little murders that aren't really wars... well it makes me SICK.
7:23 PM
Chris Floyd wraps up the Syria crap pretty succinctly here.
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1636-surging-into-syria-american-incursion-opens-new-front-in-quagmire.html
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Bush didn't do this to keep everyone fully entrenched in Iraq for another decade.
9:33 PM
Huh?
What is the difference between...
IF Bin Laden is in our sights and Pakistan won't or can't take him out...then we should.
and...
"If the United States has al Qaeda, (Osama) bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out."
One is a paraphrase of the other, so why call it "wrong?"
9:48 PM
I don't like Clark Bars. That's sayin sumthing bcuz it's coming from a Dog.
Politicians, media, terrorists...oh my aching tail, really eating away people's lives.
I think I'm gonna go lay in the sun somewhere on green grass under a bodhi or sycamore tree. Roll around a bit. Think about sum of my fav people. Then, think about some funny things.
Get some R & R. Meditate on picturesque pics, things that are positive, true, good, luving, kind, & considerate. Enjoy the times while they're still good. Smell the roses, notice the little things, the bees, butterflies, babies, even some cats.
And, then i'll pray we don't get hit next year with an unexpected new crisis while we're already down.
10:27 PM
Thanks yakpate...I didn't have time to rewind my recording of the debate and quote word for word...
I agree and have said all along since 2001...Why aren't they getting the terrorist? Where is Osama Bin laden? How come the press isn't reporting on him? Why haven't we got him? How come nobody is talking about him? Isn't this "the war on terror"?????
So, either way, I still back Obama up that we should get him, if we can, or if "we have him in our sights"---Bin Laden committed a horrific crime against America...I think we have every right to get him...
5:43 AM
Well, N, we probably could get Obama if we really wanted, but it may be the old political strategy of keeping an issue alive for political advantage.
Wouldn't it be funny if on day 1 of the new presidency, we hear that the USA has finally captured Osama!
I wunder who are de leaders who really care for our nation, for its citizens - beside "we the people."
9:25 AM
WHat's wrong, Yak, is that Nikki said Obama was talking about specifically getting Bin Ladin. What Obama said was EXACTLY what Bush just did with Syria. Go in under the guise of getting "high level terrorist operatives" and killing civilian children.
And you just wrote a blog about how terrible it is that Bush did that. And NIkki said she supported Obama's words.
It's like the "terrorists" we captured in Afghanistan and sent to Gitmo -- taxi drivers, sheep farmers, store keepers -- the US can do anything and say it's in the name of the bloody "war on terror" and I don't support it. Anti-war activists don't support it. Most of the progressive Left who donated to Obama don't support it. And when Obama comes right out and says, in that quote, the basic tenet of the Bush Doctrine -- it's not anything I, as a liberal and believer in the Geneva Convention and the international rules of war, can support.
Obama did NOT say we'd go in to get Bin Laden. That's one guy. That's like sending special ops in to take out Hitler. What he said was that he supported the same, business as usual United States as aggressor into sovereign nations.
I can't believe I have to explain the difference.
And Nikki, we do not have every right to commit terrorist acts on civilians in the name of smoking out an international criminal. If a terrorist bombed a building in Sweden, and killed 3000 people, but the United States didn't have absolute proof that individual was staying in downtown New York, Sweden does NOT have the right to BOMB DOWNTOWN NEW YORK TO GET HIM.
11:47 AM
There is a big difference between following bin Laden into Pakistan and going into Pakistan for the broad term of "al qaeda, bin laden, high level leiutenants." That could be anybody. And that's exactly what we supposedly did in Syria. INcidentally, a family with young children was among those killed. Like Chris Floyd said, that's preemptive alright. Kill the toddlers before they join al-qaeda.
Madness. As is the idea that we have the "right" to ignore sovereign borders because OURS are somehow more important.
11:53 AM
Oh, and my all caps "hysteria" -- gladly claiming a perfectly good womb word -- is because another group of innocents was killed by Bush and Company and the new Democrats show NO signs of breaking with this tradition. I'm heartsick and outraged. I don't mean to come across as yelling at you personally, Nik and Yak. My tolerance for political shenanagins (sp?) from any militaristic administration is almost nil at this point. Meanwhile, nobody has thought to shore up our ports and fix underbelly luggage problems on flights. You know, actually protecting citizens against terrorist acts.
12:16 PM
Cafe: I liked that "capture Bin Laden on day one" story better the first time I heard it, when it was called "Reagan frees the Iranian hostages." And hmmm, don't we currently have an American held in Iran? What the heck? I thought we didn't have to endure re-runs until summer.
3:24 PM
L-I disagree. I think Obama meant exactly what he said, and he said it twice after McCain did exactly what you are doing and taking his words to mean more than they meant...he said if Bin Laden is in our sights and they can't or won't get him...we should...nothing about killing civilians to get him...he said IF he is in our sights...just sayin...
4:23 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home