ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Iraqi Speaker, Defended By White House, Claims America Invaded Iraq ‘With A Pure Zionist Agenda’

By Judd Legum on Jul 25, 2006 at 10:41 am

Iraqi speaker Last weekend, the speaker of the Iraqi parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, described the U.S. occupation of Iraq as “butcher’s work.” Confronted with those remarks on Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said he had met with al-Mashhadani privately and believes he has an “appreciation for the sacrifice so many Americans have made.”

If al-Mashhandi appreciates the sacrifices of Americans, he has a funny way of showing it. At a news conference, he said “I personally think whoever kills an American soldier in defense of his country would have a statue built for him in that country.” Also this:

Saying that the U.S. seeks to control oil fields in southern Iraq, Mashadani added, “America didn’t come to the country for our sake. America came with a pure Zionist agenda.“

Remember, the neoconservatives in the Bush administration promised us that invading Iraq and creating a democratic government would stabilize the Middle East. From Newsweek:

Last year’s invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein were supposed to bring prosperity and stability to the Middle East. “The road to Jerusalem,” the mantra went, led through Baghdad. Neoconservatives and other hawks within the Bush administration expected that the United States would win respect in the Arab world through a massive show of force, and that Israel would be more comfortable making peace with the Palestinians once Saddam was gone.

President Bush today will meet with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and present an image of the Iraqi government as a strong ally of the United States. In reality, there are powerful forces in the Iraqi government who are completely at odds with U.S. interests.

It’s a reality that the White House and Josh Bolten prefer to ignore.

Politics

Cliff May: National Review Bloggers Are ‘Fighting a War’ That Is ‘Equally Consequential’ To U.S. Troops in Combat

By Judd Legum on Jul 25, 2006 at 9:41 am

On Friday, the National Review’s Katherine Jean Lopez wrote a rather innocuous review of the new Oliver Stone movie, World Trade Center. Lopez wrote the movie was “about why we fight.”

Someone emailed Lopez, objecting to the line “it’s about why we fight,” and noting that “you do not fight – you never have and, hopefully, never will have to. You are not a member of any of the branches of the armed forces, nor a reservist.” Lopez was fairly contrite, responding, “To anyone reading from Iraq, Afghanistan, or otherwise serve in our military, let me clarify: I don’t fight. Thank you for serving so we may go about our days of blogging.”

But Cliff May, another National Review blogger and prominent right-wing pundit, objected. May insisted that Lopez, by blogging for the National Review was “fighting a war” and this war was “equally consequential” with the wars that are fought by the U.S. military. An excerpt:

There is a war of arms. And there is a war of ideas. They are not just inter-related, they are interdependent. They are equally consequential.

…Let’s take just one example: In the 1930s, Churchill fought a war of ideas. He tried to warn the world about Hitler; tried to warn Europe and America that Hitler’s hatred and ambition had to be checked. But most people did not listen. Churchill’s ideas did not prevail. They called Churchill a “war monger.”

…So yes, Kathryn, you are fighting a war. And your e-mailer is ignorant about how wars are fought, about how wars are won and lost, and about the way the world actually works.

To be fair, there is some truth in what May is saying. Arguments about ideas can have real consequences. But blogging on the National Review (or ThinkProgress, for that matter) is not the equivalent of Churchill warning the world about Hitler. And blogging is not “equally consequential” to the wars fought by members of the United States military, who put their lives at risk every day.

Politics

ThinkFast: July 25, 2006

By ThinkProgress on Jul 25, 2006 at 9:04 am

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said of the Mideast violence that has claimed hundreds of lives, “We’re seeing here is, in a sense, the growing — the birth pangs of a new Middle East.”

“Despite jubilation within conservative ranks” over the renomination of John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador, “it remains unclear” whether conservatives “will be able to muster enough support to break an expected Democratic filibuster, Senate aides on both sides of the aisle said.”

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is readying a bill that would allow Congress to sue President Bush over his use of presidential signing statements “with the view to having the president’s acts declared unconstitutional.”

The House and Senate leadership have decided to put off a vote to lower estates taxes until after the August recess. The delay is considered a “major blow” to the estate tax effort because “the legislative calendar will be crowded with other measures” when Congress returns from its break.

Most Americans blame Hezbollah “a great deal” for initiating the current Mideast crisis, a new USA Today poll shows, though half also say Israel was justified in responding but has now “gone too far.” “Two-thirds say President Bush does not have a clear Mideast policy.” Read more

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up