I need some cheering up
Okay, 3 preliminaries:
I wouldn't be able to say it better.
|
|
Iraq, Then and Now
By BOB HERBERT
Published: February 21, 2005I remember going to Washington in mid-March 2003, nearly two years ago, to cover a demonstration by tens of thousands of protesters who were clinging to the last, tissue-thin strands of hope that they could bring the Bush administration to its senses and prevent the invasion of Iraq.
But it was already clear that nothing would deter President Bush from his war. I filed a column that said, "We're about to watch the tragedy unfold."
Even more clearly than the protests that weekend, I remember the ominous stories in the press about the likelihood that a war in Iraq would embolden Islamic terrorist organizations and strengthen their recruitment efforts. The Times ran a front-page article on Sunday March 16, in which a senior counterintelligence official said: "An American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and other groups. And it is a very effective tool."
On the same day The Washington Post reported that "specialists inside and outside the government question whether a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would deliver a significant blow against international terrorism. Experts warn that war and occupation could also have the opposite effect by emboldening radical Islamic groups and adding to their grievances."
All warnings were given the back of the administration's hand. Mr. Bush launched his invasion and many thousands died. Now fast-forward to last week's testimony of top administration officials before the Senate Intelligence Committee. If the war in Iraq was supposed to stem the terrorist tide, the comments of these officials made it clear that it hasn't worked.
Porter Goss, the C.I.A. director, told the committee, "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists." He added, "These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focus on acts of urban terrorism."
The war, said Mr. Goss, "has become a cause for extremists." In his view, "It may only be a matter of time before Al Qaeda or another group attempts to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons."
Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said: "Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment. Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world."
An article in last Friday's Washington Post said the radical group Ansar al-Islam, which has carried out dozens of suicide bombings in Iraq, is recruiting young Muslims across Europe to join the insurgency.
So tell me again. What was this war about? In terms of the fight against terror, the war in Iraq has been a big loss. We've energized the enemy. We've wasted the talents of the many men and women who have fought bravely and tenaciously in Iraq. Thousands upon thousands of American men and women have lost arms or legs, or been paralyzed or blinded or horribly burned or killed in this ill-advised war. A wiser administration would have avoided that carnage and marshaled instead a more robust effort against Al Qaeda, which remains a deadly threat to America.
What is also dismaying is the way in which the administration has taken every opportunity since Sept. 11, 2001, to utilize the lofty language of freedom, democracy and the rule of law while secretly pursuing policies that are both unjust and profoundly inhumane. It is the policy of the U.S. to deny due process of law to detainees at the scandalous interrogation camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where prisoners, many of whom have turned out to be innocent, are routinely treated in a cruel and degrading manner.
The U.S. is also engaged in the reprehensible practice known as extraordinary rendition, in which terror suspects are abducted and sent off to be interrogated by foreign regimes that are known to practice torture. And the C.I.A. is operating ultrasecret prisons or detention centers overseas for so-called high-value detainees. What goes on in those places is anybody's guess.
It may be that most Americans would prefer not to know about these practices, which are nothing less than malignant cells that are already spreading in the nation's soul. Denial is often the first response to the most painful realities. But most Americans also know what happens when a cancer is ignored.
So yesterday, the editor of the wrestling website I write reviews and columns gave my column some notice in his Friday Update on the site. It was a very proud moment for yours truly. It honestly couldn't have come at a better time, since reader mail responses has been waning. Here's what Editor in Chief of The Pro Wrestling Torch, Wade Keller had to say:
POLITICS IN WWE: Paul Madavi's "Submission Position" column in the Lounge makes a good case that WWE's more sophisticated in its presentation of its political/current events inspired heels. He wrote: "Most recently, WWE has returned to presenting a more conservative tilt on their product. With the introduction of Muhammad Hassan and Khosrow Daivari, WWE has reintroduced the terrorist threat back into primetime television. This, of course, comes on the heels of the Bush re-election." My first thought when reading that was that they aren't necessarily conservative. They elicit a pro-U.S. patriot response that could be interpreted as pro-war with Iraq and thus pro-Bush, but deep down they aren't being sabotaged in the message they communicate. Hassan is able to state a pretty good case against the war and against some of the more criticized elements of U.S. foreign policy. Madavi then covered that base, when he wrote: "Hassan and Daivari are perhaps the most complex of the politically based heels the WWE has ever presented. First and foremost, they are not foreigners. Unlike the Iron Sheik before them, Hassan and Daivari are presented as violently dissenting American citizens. They are traitors, in essence. However, again departing from previous habits, WWE has made sure to state that Hassan and Daivari are not examples of their demographic, but exceptions to them. They made no such efforts with the Iron Sheik, or Nikolai Volkoff. This slight nuance in representation of the political heels shows that WWE is in touch with the current political climate, and how it has advanced since the 1980s." Check out his complete column, with some background on other political characters in WWE, and then send Paul some feedback on your thoughts. His email is included in his column, which can be quickly accessed by clicking on "The Lounge" on the left menu bar listing.
yes, but do you get a a whip, leather jacket, hat, and cool theme music in the background???
man i am loving this flurry of blog posting. paul is being very kind in his post. i don't really work 20 hours a day but it sure feels like it alot.
A road trip from Seattle would almost certainly mean a stop over in Madison, WI, I'm thinking.
Okay, so I know I do this every couple of months, but apparently, I'm really bad at blogging.
why work sucks on monday, even though its tuesday, which is really monday's evil twin.
I know, I know, I'm recycling my website suggestions here, but hey this one is such a good one! And sooooo appropriate for Valentine's Day...
I think ta-da list is back up and running (it is for me at least)
Hey gang--can't get into the Tada list! I enter the password, and the password screen just resets. And to make it worse, I am just full of pop-culture recommendations today! Like, go see A Very Long Engagement, and rent The Station Agent, and pop Willie Nelson's Red Headed Stranger in the CD player. And now the world will never know about all my great suggestions! Any ideas?
An not confidential: I've cleaned out my inbox and now you can again email me. Sorry about the inconvenience.