I now have bronchitis. Visited the doctor yesterday and was told the lungs are clear but he doesn't know whether its viral or bacterial. That's perfect because the coughing has made my back worse.
Maybe, all these evil spirits that were supposed to come out during that yoga class and enter the floor through the third eye got caught on the way out and are embedded somewhere in my body. 55 days into my new health program - this is where I've wound up. Things will go as they've got a mind to go.
The reason that I ask for predictions on the political front is that they give us a chance to question our beliefs, and what we think we know. In other words I like to try and bring some little bit of scientific principle to what is often a blank screen that we toss our own prejudices on.
I tried to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt before he went into Iraq by saying that if this didn't turn into a civil war with house to house fighting - then the President understood what was going on better than me.
I try to get a gauge on how political the president is by asking for predictions about whether he will stand up to the congress about the port issue. Would he really risk it all for something he says he believes in. In fact, if he did - I could at least say he really does stick to his principles and core beliefs.
It is tough to know what's going on inside the white house because secrecy is critical to their operations. It becomes clear that President Bush has turned off a lot of conservative republicans with the Iraqi invasion - but now I get the feeling just because the true conservative doesn't want to get involved in this foreign policy nation building business - but also the money involved.
That brings us to what I think is the heart of the matter - is the war good for business? On the one hand - there are chants from the left that the war is enriching the pockets of (fill in the company name here) and that the secret owners of society are getting richer. The cry is that this is all about oil.
On the other hand, prominent conservatives are decrying the fact that the surplus has been squandered and that the combination of tax-cuts and more spending has become dangerous.
Follow the money.
There are other theories floating around that the Bushes are tied in some way to the UAE. So what is their prediction?
Lester has supplied two possible endings: one that Iraq does go into, or perhaps is already, in a civil war and that the President will be forced to withdraw.
Two: that the factions will unite against the U.S. and force the U.S. out.
At the bottom of these predictions is a question about the will of the United States, the purpose of the war, whether Sunnis and Shiites can get together, and even more interesting what will happen when and if the U.S. leaves.
My own hunch is that this is some world domination attempt that was dreamed up when the USSR went kaput. And that the christian fundamentalists also see it as a worthy crusade. The problem is that this "feeling" doesn't lead to a thought experiment or prediction. It doesn't tell you what the world domination powers will do next. They seem to back down if the Americans turn against them? How many times can you fool the people?
Yes, the media did a bad job going in the build-up to Iraq. They were like little kids waving flags and playing inbeds with no idea of what the consequences of all this would be. Now where do they stand? I don't think they know much about what is going on from their bunkers.
Now they're following the next story which is how the emperor has no clothes, how the whole thing is falling apart. That's just as good a story to them as playing soldier was. There two stories they love: the rise of an idol and the toppling of an idol. In that respect they're neutral.
Anyway - predictions. According to my theory president Bush and his companions will never pull out of Iraq. Never. No matter what. This is a part of their religious, moral, and empire-building plan. It cannot be undone.
Now the people may get sick of it all and elect someone who promises to end the war, but that's another story for another time.
12 comments:
Why don't they love us and shower us with flowers?
Some people need super complicated explanations to the reasons that were are
hated by the people of Iraq. Maybe George Will could explain it to you, but it
would come out different, and less to the point. In laymen's terms, they hate us
because we bombed the shit out of them in '91 and the number of dead Iraqi
soldiers & civilians was approx. 175,000...Then for the next 12 years or so, the
embargo of medical supplies and other technology left their children dying from
all sorts of disease, much of that due to the lack of potable water. Even US troops
have said"damn, I'd hate to have to cook and bathe in that sewage!"
Now comes the "Shock & Awe" campaign where Bush actually brags that he
has dropped more high explosives on Baghdad than the US dropped on Dresden
back in '44! So we flattened "their New York" twice in 12 years and Rumsfeld says
we'll be greeted with roses (like Paris after the war) Throw in the Abu Gharib
torture episode where we totally humiliate them for the whole world to see, and
you have taken a people that hated us to begin with and turned them into a people
who's only satisfaction can be attained by killing Americans.
If you're one of those people who says."but Saddam was evil"of course he was,
but who put him in charge in the first place? We can take indirect responsibility
for all his deeds too...
By the way, I don't like these people and don't want to see anymore people killed
because they "hate our freedom" or because we care about their lack of freedom.
Fuck them!
These people are totally insane and will cut your head off if you make a funny
cartoon or say something naughty about their god...Bring the troops home NOW!
Matt, et. al.
The question I have for you is this:
When will the United States pull its troops out and if so when? Or to make it a little easier: will it happen under the current president?
There are a couple of very scary theories as to what is behind the events in the middle east, and some of the events here in the US.
One is that causing wars in the middle east is part of the revelations plan that leads to all of this 'rapture' nonsense that the christian fundamentalists spout coming true. Remember that in addition to the Shiite/Sunni war that they seem to be doing a great job of starting in Iraq, there is also the newly elected government in Palestine causing tension with Israel, tensions between the Lebanon and Syria and the ongoing attempts by Iran to get themselves a real bomb. I wonder whether it was Sunnis who bombed the mosque, or whether that will turn out to be a third party trying to provoke the other two into civil war.
Then there is the project for a new american century, the thing founded by Cheney and Rumsfeld and a few others, that seems to be a plan for the US to take ownership of whatever resources it wants around the world, by whatever means necessary. This one seems to be driven entirely by money and domination.
The reality is probably that the christian right in the US has been conned into believing that the Bush administration believes what they believe so they will vote for them. And those con artists are a group of greedy businessmen plotting to build an american empire that they can control. And where better to start than with oil, something they know about.
Craig - alright! Concrete predictions that we can look back on.
I do not believe that Bush and company will ever leave Iraq. This would be admitting they were wrong. That cannot be done. But I guess I'm repeating myself. It will take the next president to get us *out with honor*.
Oh, one other thing. Several of the insider books by ex-cabinet members agree on one point which is that the v.p. and the president were planning the invasion of Iraq before 9/11. Whether 9/11 was simply used as an extra reason, or whether they really believed their own rhetoric - dunno.
I do tend to believe that people don't see themselves as evil - no matter what they're doing - they are convinced that is for our own good or some elses good.
Actually, just so you know - my own opinion is that the U.S. should leave now. Whatever is going to happen will happen anyway. But realize this, you may be left with a nice big Iranian satellite, and the perfect terrorist state.
Nevertheless, if the civil war does escalate and the government topples - you would think that the US would have the perfect reason to exit.
Since that might be the logical thing to do - my prediction is that forces will be pulled to the perimeter, but not withdrawn completely. Not under Bush.
As you say, they are tremendous at spin, but you just cannot turn incredible failure into victory with a few choice phrases. Or can you?
I agree with you, Dave - In that I think Bush will never pull out during his tenure, and that'll it'll take whoever comes in next to do the nasty clean up job.
A very small part of me though, thinks Bush will take one for the team, the team being Repugnantcans who are already challenging him more and more, seperating themselves with the White House to save their political futures.
And in order for the Repugnantcans to maintain their hold on Washington, there going to do the usual better job of getting their mesasage out than, than.. what were their names again? Oh, yeah - the Democrats, the Moderate Repugnantcans will be better sounding off original Democrat ideals and policies in the next couple years, they'll still be clearly Republicans, but just not the freak neoconservative ones who had their playtime fun at the wheel the past horrific six years (though they will still delicately court them to keep that base, of course), and with the complete, pathetic and utter lack of any kind of voice, agenda, ideas, goals, plans and strategies from the spineless, ballsless, voiceless pukes that is the Democratic Party (Ireally don't know who I really despise more, the Repugnantcans for the evil wrong that they are and do, or Democrats who just let them and never fully ever challenged them these past embarrassing years!), winning over those middle of the road Democrats and Independents to voting Repugnantcan.
But, Bush will still be that albatross around their necks, and in order for the Republicans to be successful in the coming election, either they will have to either completely cut all ties from the Bush Administration, or daddy's boy will be told by his monarchy daddy and his powerful Republican friends, that little Georgey needs to sacrifice himself, and everything he has said and done for the past six years, to his party for the greater cause, and let them do to him what they need to do, so that they keep in Office.
A part of me sees the Repugnantcans themselves, leading the cause to impeach their own President to save themselves, beating the Democrats to the punch, just for the show of it to save their political hides. While in secret, in backrooms and in Repugnantcan history, Bush will be revered as a hero, for taking one for the team, ultimately sacrificing himself for the the winning team. Like, in Godfather II, where Robert DuVall's Tom Hagen goes to visit Frankie Pentangeli before he is to testify against the Corleone Family, telling him about the Romans (or whoever it was) who would sacrifice themselves for the Country, or whatever, if so, it would be made sure that their family was taken care of and stuff.
Okay, so well anyway... that's my predicitions. Not rosey, but the current Administration hasn't made the world a rosey place.
Sidenote: I really enjoy your site and photography. I was introduced to you by Richard Vanek, another person whom I admire for his work, site and who he is.
I wish you better and good health, Mr. Beckerman
Jeffrey, the idea that Bush might be convinced to take "one for the team" is interesting.
My reading of Bush is that he will not do that unless he is convinced that it serves a higher power (and I don't mean his own dad and the old time republicans).
The scene that I like is from Network, where Ned Beatty confronts the mad t.v. newsman Howard Beale.
If there is someone who can walk into a corporate room, dim the lights, and launch into that sort of rhetoric (Am I getting through to you Mr. Beale?) then Bush can take one for the team.
I wonder whether Karl Rove could be that Ned Beatty character. They have a similar look.
You guys have been watching one too many Altman film, one too many rerun of The Godfather. You're succumbing to Bush Derangement Syndrome and jumping off the deep end.
Read Woodward's books, "Bush at War", and then "Plan of Attack" - pretty much everything about the thinking that brought us into the war is out in the open and well-documented in these books.
OK, here are some of my predictions:
-- Things will get worse before they get better (pretty much what Bush said in '02 and '03, but he didn't say it very well, and he didn't say it over and over.)
-- Sunnis and Shias will eventually (soon, I think) realize that they have been reacting to manipulation by the terrorist, who have an agenda quite different from the Iraqi In The Street.
-- the Iraqi Army and police will be carrying the majority of the load by late 2006 or early 2007.
-- Iraq will slowly develop institutions to cement the rule of law, protection of life, liberty and property, protection of minorities, etc.
-- terrorism in Iraq will continue for a number of years, but with dwindling support from Iraqis. Iraqis will go on with their lives the way Israelis have done for years in the face of terror.
-- Some level of US troops will be in Iraq for a number of years.
-- By 2014, Americans will wonder how anyone could have thought it was possible to allow Saddam to continue on the trajectory he was on. It will be the way we thought in 1991, "wow, good thing the Israelis destroyed the Osirik nuclear reactor in 1981" (remember how the Entire World went apesh*t over that action in 1981?)
OK - it's now recorded for posterity - let's see what happens.
Best regards,
SteveR
Steve, just a couple of things: some of your predictions are vague or at least highly nuanced.
"Things will get worse before they get better (pretty much what Bush said in '02 and '03, but he didn't say it very well, and he didn't say it over and over.)"
"Some level of US troops will be in Iraq for a number of years."
How many U.S. troops (within 50,000 high or low) will be in for how many years (within say 5 years).
"Iraq will slowly develop institutions to cement the rule of law, protection of life, liberty and property, protection of minorities, etc."
Or to put it another way is 2014 the "magic year." At what point do we get to check your predictions? 12 years from now?
You are saying, I think, that there will not be a civil war. That the U.S. will not be forced to pull out. How many years to we need to wait to check your predictions?
Best regards.
P.S. Have you read Paul O'Neils book or Richard Clarks book? I don't believe they fit in with your theories - but I will read Woodwards.
Hi Dave,
No, I don't think we'll have to wait until 2014 - I just picked that date because I was looking for a date 10 years after the invasion, because it wasn't until 10 years after Osirik that the world grudgingly admitted Israel was right in 1981 - and I then I used the wrong start date for Iraq - I shoulda said 2013.
I think we will see significant progress during 2006. OK, I'll go out on a limb and predict that in February 2007, things will look significantly better than today. When that happens, it may seem sudden, but that will be because of the "if it bleeds it leads" nature of reporting on Iraq. I think it will in reality be a much more gradual improvement.
"...Have you read Paul O'Neils book or Richard Clarks book?..." - no, I must admit that I haven't. But you have to realize that both of these guys, especially Clark, have their own big axes to grind.
BTW, you may come to different conclusions after reading Woodwards' books than I did - I'd be interested in your take.
A ray of hope this morning in the NYTimes! "
Iraqi Sunni Bloc to Rejoin Talks on Government
By EDWARD WONG
The threat of civil war appears to have helped drive Sunnis back to moderation, after they angrily withdrew from talks...."
Hey, I forgot to mention this in my blog - I ran into Bob Woodward at the Starbucks in Annapolis where my son works. I introduced myself and we chatted for a minute or so - he seems like a very pleasant guy - it was really exciting for me. I don't really follow sports, so I probably wouldn't be able to recognize 99% of sports figures if I were to see them, but I instantly recognized Bob Woodward from C-SPAN, Sunday talk shows, etc. Probably a sign that I need to get a life??
Best regards,
SteveR
Steve,
The reason that I'm a stickler for the prediction bit is because it's the only method I've come up with that is concrete enough so that one can go back and check whether the analysis made sense or not.
I don't believe there's anyway that argument - or discussion - changes anyones (myself included) ideas about how the world works on these core issues.
But we may be able to check our own ideas against what actually does happen.
p.s. O'Neil really doesn't have much of an axe to grind - he was simply not political enough to fit in. Clark - maybe yes, maybe no. You can dismiss anything that leaves the administration by saying they have an axe to grind.
p.s.s. I would definitely recognize Woodward and Bernstein as well. So I need a life.
p.s.s.s. At the time of the Osirik bombing - I was in favor of it. It didn't take me ten years.
Dave,
"... You can dismiss anything that leaves the administration by saying they have an axe to grind...."
You're right - I have to be more careful about that than I have been.
"...p.s.s.s. At the time of the Osirik bombing - I was in favor of it. It didn't take me ten years...."
Me too - that's because we're so smart! ;-) But almost literally the entire rest of the world was against the Israelis on this in 1981 - even Ronald Regan, who was as good a friend to Israel as any President up to that point, was mad at the Israelis (at least, publicly). And it did take a good ten years, that is, until after the 1st Gulf War, for the most of the rest of the world to come around to the realization that the Osirik strike was a Good Thing.
The unanimous UN Security Council Resolution of June 19, 1981, which condemned Israel for the Osirik strike, looks pretty ridiculous in light of what we now know. For example, one of the points:
"Fully recognises the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq... to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation;"
Post a Comment